THE OLD AND THE NEW MAN: OR, SIN AND SALVATION. BY THE REV. ANSON WEST, D.D. Of the North Alabama Conference. NASHVILLE, TENN. : SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE. 1885. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1885, liv THE BOOK AGENTS OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOVTH, in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. PREFACE. THERE is a being called man. Whence is he? What is he? To propose these questions is to indicate somewhat the nature and ca- pacity of the being concerning whom they are propounded. To in- quire is one thing which distinguishes man among the various kinds of beings and sorts of things about him. The trees of the forest never ask questions, never search for the treasures of knowledge. In like manner, the beasts of the field, the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, never institute a search for knowledge. They never distinguish truth, they never review history. They are without ex- perience, scheme, or skill. The heavens declare the glory of God, but have no glory of their own. The firmament shows the handi- work of the omniscient and omnipotent Jehovah, but displays no handiwork of its own. To inquire "is wisdom; to doubt, in the pres- ence of convincing testimony, is foolishness. To be indifferent to error is folly; to accept falsehood is criminal; to distinguish and hold the truth is legitimate and proper. To speak of that which is legiti- mate and that which is criminal is to introduce the moral realm, and present not only the intellectuality of man, but his moral nature and endowments. The subject enlarges, the view expands, and the field of inquiry fills the whole expanse between nonentity and divinity. When the questions, Whence is man? and what is he? recur, they suggest for consideration his relations, capacities, obligations, neces- sities, and destiny. His relations to the source of his being, to the law under which lie exists, apostasy and redemption, life and death, immortality and annihilation, all crowd into view as subjects of pro- found interest. All teachers of religion are called upon to instruct in these things. The author of this book herein contributes what lie can in the scope and space allowed. The contents and purpose of this book are indicated by the title. Confining the discussion to the theme in hand, the subject is thorough- ly and exhaustively presented. This book has not been written in haste, and it has not been written in any spirit of trifling. These pages indulge in no novelties. Truth, like God, is immutable. It never changes. What was true eighteen centuries ago is true now; (3) 4 J'n-face. what was false then is false now. The Bible is complete, and no truth therein contained can be changed, modified, or annulled. All naturalists, geologists, astronomers, and philosophers should con- form their theories to the teachings of the Bible. There is nothing in nature which, in any way, antagonizes the Bible. Profound con- victions of the truth of the gospel, and an earnest desire to suppress the rising tide of heresies, and to contribute to the dissemination and maintenance of sound doctrine, have prompted in the writing of this book. The author claims that in all its doctrines and utterances this book is evangelical, Arminian, Methodistic, and scriptural. The following is the doctrine peculiar to the Calvinistic system: That God, by an absolute decree, elected to salvation a definite num- ber of men, without any regard to their faith and obedience; and by the same decree excluded from saving grace, and reprobated to eternal damnation, all the rest of mankind, and that without regard to their impenitence and unbelief; that Jesus Christ did not make satisfaction for the sins of the whole race, but suffered death for the elect only; that God has, by his eternal and secret decree, foreor- dained whatsoever conies to pass, and put an unavoidable necessity on men to do, or not to do, whatsoever they do or do not, whether it be good or evil; that to the elect God gives grace, and they cannot reject it, and that to the reprobate he offers no grace, and they can- not accept it; that such as have received grace by faith can never fall from it finally or totally, notwithstanding the most enormous sins they can commit. This Calvinistic doctrine is unhesitatingly and most emphatically rejected in these pages as unreasonable, and as unscriptural. To bind a man in eternal fute, and doom him without any reference to his moral character or conduct, is to reduce him to the level of a machine, and punish him without his incurring penalty. To redeem" some and reprobate others, without any reference to moral conduct, is to act without a reason; to force grace upon some and withhold it from others is partiality. God does not act without a reason, and he is no respecter of persons. Pelagians teach that holiness is right action, or the habit acquired by repeated virtuous actions; that holiness cannot be concreated with, or wrought into the nature of, a moral agent; and hence that Adam was not created holy, and that he was, when created, mortal, and would have died, though he had not sinned; that Adam was not the Preface. 5 federal head and legal representative of his race; that his sin was not imputed to his posterity; that all children are born into the world neither righteous nor sinful, without the taint or contagion of sin, without depravity or evil nature, without any bent or incli- nation to evil, and free from guilt and condemnation; that human nature is not to be disparaged ; that the nature of evefy man as it comes into the world is the work and gift of God; that sin does not pass on to all men by natural descent, but by following or imitating Adam ; that death and sufferings are not visited upon men here as penalty for sin, but only for correction and improvement; that re- generation is not a work wrought by God in the heart of the indi- vidual, changing it from a state of depravity to a state of holiness, but that regeneration is the work of the individual, and consists in gaining the habits of virtue by repeated good acts; that the death of Christ is not necessary to the forgiveness of sins, but only fit or expedient in the administration of the divine government; that Christ was only a man, and that his death was not vicarious nor ex- piatory, and that as a model of virtue he died simply as an example of duty and goodness to be imitated ; that as an example his death is reforming, and that this is the only sense in which the word atone- ment can be attributed to his death ; that his suffering is no satisfac- tion to justice or to the divine law; and that there is no divine wrath against sin to be appeased. This whole Pelagian theory, which, crystallized into a complete system, takes in all the heresies of Arianism, Unitarianism, and Socinianism, is rejected, and, as the author fully believes, is com- pletely refuted in this book. Believing that this book contains the truth as it is revealed in the Holy Bible, and hoping that it will contribute to the extension of the kingdom of Christ among men, it is published and given to the reading public. I% ANSON WEST. E, ALABAMA, May 23, 1885. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. THE ORIGIN OF MAN. Being Eternity of being Self-exNiPnoe The origin of things God the Author and Maker of things The days of creation The cosmogony of Moses D.irvin Hugh Miller (ieology 9-23 CHAPTER II. THE ORIGIN OF MAN. Adam and Eve a nair, and the only pair created All men have proceeded from Adam and Eve by propagation Man has a body and a soul Dichotomy The soul Preexisteiit:e Creation and infusion Traduction 24-37 CHAPTER III. THE NATURAL AND MORAL STATE WHEREIN ADAM, THK FIRST MAN, WAS CHEATED. Man created in the image of God Innocence Guilt Knowledge Righteous* ness Holiness Ooedience and holiness Holiness a quality Bellows-- Bledsoe Taylor Immortality of man 38-5:2 CHAPTER IV*. MAN'S FIR.ST TRANSGRESSION. The Garden of Eden The prohibition The tree of knowledge of good and evil The precept given in the prohibition Adam's ability to keep the law, and to violate it Positive and moral precepts The account of the tempta- tion of Adam history not allegory Through what channel Adam and Eve were approached in the temptation The existence of evil spirits 53-64 CHAPTER V. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FIRST TRANSGRESSION OF THE FIRST MAN. Enactment of penalty against sin Death a penalty Definition of death Effect of sin upon the human will, find upon human reason One sin con- stitutes the sum of all guilt Whether Adam suffered a privation of right- eousness or an infusion of evil 65-72 CHAPTER VI. THE CONSEQUENCES OF TIIF. FIRST TRANSGRESSION OF THE FIRST MAN. Did the consequences of Adam's sin terminate on himself, or did they involve his posterity ? The theory of Pelagiu* Dr. John Taylor Dr. Biedsoe Relation of Adam to his posterity Adam's sin transmitted by generation Adam's sin imputed to his posterity iu legal administration 73-81 CHAPTER VII. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FIRST TRANSGRESSION OF THE FIRST MAN. Objections to original sin Objections to the terms used in setting forth the doctrine Adam federal head and legal representative of his race Original sin Imputed sin Individuality and eommunality The distinction of original and personal sin Eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel 82-07 CHAPTER VIII. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FIRST TRANSGRESSION OF THE FIRST MAN. Infant damnation The doctrine peculiarly Calvinistic Infant salvation grow- ing out of original sin Atonement -Justification Regeneration Sinful Adam produces sinful progeny The inability of infunts, idiots, and lu- natics Prostration of the will Relation of acts and dispositions Matthew xviii. :5, and Mark x. 13-15 Sufferings inflicted a penalty for sin No pun- ishment where there is no guilt Suffering and punishment inseparable Romans vi. 0; Ephesians iv. 22; Colossians iii. 9, 10; 1 Corinthians ii. 14 Men sinners naturally and innately 98-121 CHAPTER IX. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FIRST TRANSGRESSION OF THE FIRST MAN. Eternal death Theories of Pelagians, Arians, Unitarians, and Universalists Infinite sin, infinite wrath, infinite and eternal punishment Sin per se Obedience cannot abolish sin Repentance cannot change the character of sin Suffering cannot annul sin The law cannot release from sin God cannot do otherwise than punish sin The wrath of God abides on sinners The provision made for salvation The theory of Universalists Christ, the Son of God, took human nature, died to appease the wrath of God Salvation suspended upon conditions, and involved in contingency Texts bearing upon these points Eternal punishment reasonable and just.. 122-140 (7) 8 Contents. CHAPTER X. GOD, WITHOUT WHOM, AND IN TIIE REJECTION OF WHOM, THERE is No SALVATION. The being and perfections of God All principles, rights, obligations, and gov- ernment depend on the existence of God God not self-created, but self- existent Essence of God Not the universe His essence not imported to any tiling He is in e>sence a Spirit One God overall things He is im mutable In his administration he changes He is ubiquitous He i-< the Almighty He knows all things His omniscience His holiness His justice His goodness Histriunity The relation of the three persons in the <;r Mi- head The Son, God, eternal in essence and person Father, Son, ami Holy Ghost, terms designating and distinguishing the persons in the Trinity, and do not express acts by which the relations of the divine persons originated The Holy Ghost, God, eternal in essence and person The divine essence is not communicable Father, Son. and Holy Ghost, all self-existent Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Son of man, the God-man Creation Eternal generation Eternal procession Self-existence Union of the two nat- ures 141-180 CHAPTER XI. REDEMPTION. Jesus Saviour and Redeemer Jesus died as no man ever died The Lamb of God The word "redeem" Christ's sufferings penal Jesus died not for his own sins, but for sins of others His death expiatory and substitutional Punitive justice, vicarious suffering, and sacrificial expiation of guilt- Taylor Sykes Bledsoe Bellows Administrative and retributive justice Christ a" Redeemer in all ages Dr. Carpenter Nothing like satisfaction and substitution The ca*es of Zileucus and the teacher Alcott Redemp- tion removed from all illustration and comparison The expiation finished Salvation not consummated on the cross The atonement made for all the race The atonement sufficient Christ did not keep the precepts of the law in the place of any one He did not abolish the law Every Chris- tian under obligation to obey the law Salvation offered upon conditions The word of God upon the limit and application of the atonement The results contingent 181-242 CHAPTER XII. JUSTIFICATION. Justification defined God only can forgive sins Sins forgiven for the merit of Jesus The forgiveness of sins the same in all generations The condi- tion upon which justification is attained Repentance Immersion Bap- tism Imputation of Christ's righteousness and obedience Faith Paul and James 24.j-2.~i8 CHAPTER XIII. REGENERATION. Generation and regeneration All men need regeneration Regeneration de- fined and described All men recipients of prevenient grace The Holy Ghost alone can change the heart The testimony of the Holy Spirit 8am:- tification Holiness 250-281 CHAPTER XIV. THE SACKAMENTS or THK CHURCH BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S SUPPER. The Church originated with God in the scheme of redemption Set np in the covenant made with the apostate Adam Baptism The character and pur- pose of baptism The terms used in designating baptism No specific mode prescribed Haptism should be properly estimated Who are entitled to baptism? The baptism of infants The Lord's Supper It is a sacrament Transubstantiation Consubstantiation Who are entitled to the Lord's Supper? 282-317 CHAPTER XV. THE PERSONAL CHRISTIAN LIFK TERMINATING IN THE FINAL REWARDS OF SALVATION. Life a probation Revelatjon The Bible supernatural The divinity of the Bible attested Things pertaining to the Christian within the realm of tho supernatural, the invisible, and the future Faith Hope saves Final sal- vation of the Christian contingent Final glorification ''18-335 THE OLD AND THE NEW MAN, CHAPTER I. THE ORIGIN OF MAN. BEIISTG is a fact, and the first of all facts. There is real existence, absolute being, the doubts and denials thereof to the contrary notwithstanding. There is a tangi- ble and visible world. Being is the basis of being. Exist- ence, or being, has back of it, as great underlying ideas, preexistence from eternity and self-existence. There can be no proper conception of being and the origin of being without these ideas. The eternity of being is one thing, while the eternity of matter is quite another. This dis- tinction should be carefully considered and clearly compre- hended. Eternity of matter does not essentially underlie existence, and utterly fails to account for the origin of be- ing; while eternity of being, or preexistence from eternity, is essentially inseparable from existence. Being necessarily involves the eternity of being, but not the eternity of mere matter. Could the eternity of matter be established be- yond a perad venture, this would account only for the exist- ence of matter, and would in nowise account for the exist- ence of the Avorld as it is with mind and spirit and life and thought. It is unnecessary to elaborate this thought in this connection. It is not within the power of any thing to produce or impart that which it does not possess, and it is, therefore, impossible for nonentity to give birth to some- thing. Matter does not possess life, spirit, mind, thought, (9J 10 The Old and the New Man: action, and therefore does not and cannot impart these. Nonentity cannot produce something. There is something in existence, therefore something has always existed. Self-existence also is involved in being, for it is manifest from the above conclusions that in the absence of a being with inherent existence, independent of any other cause than that in itself, there never could be any substance or ,,auy thing constituting existence. These truths, therefore, may lead us to look for the ori- gin and cause of being, and with the light of revelation shining upon the subject we can at once find the being pos- sessing the characteristics of essential and independent ex- istence the very author of being the cause and originator of all other beings and things. God, Jehovah, are his names. He announces himself, " I AM THAT I AM." It is said of him: ''Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." He is " the high and lofty one that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy." God the self-existent, independent, eternal, and ever- living God is the author of being, the cause of existence. He made all things. He not only formed, combined, and adjusted materials and things, but he created the very ele- ments, or essence, of things. He created the things that are out of nothing. " The worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." "By him were all things created that arc in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him; and lie is before all things, and by him all things consist." There were no chaotic elements out of which the Lord made the worlds, but by his own word he spoke out of nonentity the Or, Sin and Salvation. 11 things that be. The production of the first elements of be- ing, and the framing and forming of the whole into the world as it is, was but one act of creation. The theory of development, either by natural laws or stages of formations, is repugnant to the doctrine of Scripture, and obnoxious to many objections from a philosophical stand-point. The first declaration of Moses is: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." This includes the entire of th^ heavens and the earth, and presents the creation of the whole as one act, and as taking place at one time in the be- ginning. Moses further teaches that the whole work of creation was completed in six literal days of twenty-four hours each. The view that the world came into existence as a divine production, out of nothing, made and completed in six lit- eral days, has been and is rejected by scientists so called. However these scientists who reject this view may differ in the terms they use, and the line of argument they pursue, and whatever the shades of difference in their theories, they all come to the same end, and harmonize in the same gen- eral system. Instead of the above view, these scientists teach that the universe is a growth, the result of a series of changes which have been going on from an incalculable pe- riod in antiquity. The earth, they contend, with its conti- nents and oceans, etc., is the result of numerous deposits and transformations, and under the principles of progress, and in multiplied forms, life has been reproducing creatures for innumerable millions of years, and in each evolution reaching a higher order of life and being. Rejecting the supernatural in the production of things, they claim that through some original force the universe has reached its present form and condition by a gradual growth. This is the theory with which the doctrine of a proper creation by a divine Creator, and the chronology of the Bible which, ] 2 The Old and the New Man : in its literal interpretation, fixes the creation of the world at a definite period, and in the short time of six literal days, are sought to be supplanted. Spencer, Darwin, and Hugh Miller, with other infidels, have expended no little labor in the endeavor to show that the Bible idea of creation, as to nature and time, is false. They have sought to fix an epoch at which certain strata, coals, rocks, minerals, mammals, and other deposits, had no existence an epoch at which there was nothing but neb- ula3 or atoms or vapor; and they have talked learnedly about segregation, disintegration, concentration, condensa- tion, disaggregation, and attraction, until they have evolved and developed the world as it is! Some may object to our classing Hugh Miller with infi- del scientists. It is true he professed to believe the Bible but the theory which he has put forth in the name of the science of geology, and under the title; "Testimony of the Rocks," is as antagonistic to the Bible, and as destructive of its divine teachings, as the theories of Spencer and Dar- win put forth in the name of general science with the titles, "Social Statics," "First Principles," "Principles of Biol- ogy," "Descent of Man," etc. His groupings of rocks and coals, of minerals and mammals, and of shells and bones, for proving development in the production and formation of the world, are just as objectionable and atheistical as Mr. Spencer's and Mr. Darwin's speculations about the " Survival of the Fittest" and " Natural Selection " to prove evolution and development. Mr. Miller teaches that ani- mals and plants existed many thousands of years before man existed, and that the earth existed many thousands of years before animals aad plants. He teaches "that untold ages ere man had sinned or suffered, the animal creation exhibited exactly its present state of war." He leaches that long before " man appeared in creation, and darkened Or, Sin and Salvation. 13 its sympathetic face with the stain of moral guilt, the reign of violence and outrage" began, and " that there was death among the inferior creatures and suffering." Thus he joins other infidels in rejecting the Mosaic account of the crea- tion of the world, and the inti'oduction of death and suffering. But let us look at the theory of these scientists. There are more fictions and assumptions in their theory than facts and science. There is not a fact in science which is in con- flict with the doctrine of a proper creation, nor with the doctrine of the creation of the world in all its parts and as a whole in six literal days of twenty-four hours each. Again, this theory of these infidel scientists is not a thing of yesterday. It is not the discovery of the present cent- ury, as some would boast, brought out under the increased light of recent scientific discovery. Not at all. In its main points and general principles it is as old as philosophy, falsely so called as old as infidelity. In the very first centuries of the Christian era, and even before, there were those who rejected the cosmogony of Moses. Celsus, who, I believe, wrote in the second century of the Christian era, " cast discredit upon the Mosaic ac- count of creation, and intimated his agreement with those who held that the world is uncreated." Again he, "ex- pressing in a single word his opinion regarding the Mosaic cosmogony, finds fault with it, saying: 'Moreover, their cosmogony is extremely silly.'" In another place he says: " By far the most silly thing is the distribution of the crea- tion of the world over certain days, before days existed ; for, as the heaven was not yet created, nor the foundation of the earth yet laid, nor the sun yet revolving, how could there be days?" This we gather from Origen, who, in the third century, wrote against Celsus. These are just such attacks as are still made in the nineteenth century upon the account of creation recorded in the book of Genesis. 14 The Old and the New Man : In the third and fourth centuries there were those who condemned the Mosaic history and chronology which set forth the world as a creation, and fix the time of its crea- tion at four thousand years before Christ. Augustine, speaking of these men, says: "They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not six thousand years have yet passed." Augustine wrote some of his works in the beginning of the fifth century. In these early centuries we find the Christians of sound orthodoxy defending them- selves and the account of creation against the very same attacks that are being made now; they defend a proper creation out of nothing in the beginning in six literal days, four thousand years before Christ. It is, therefore, decep- tious, false, and pernicious to assume that the doctrine that the world did not have its origin in a proper creation in six literal days, but in a growth or development of indefinite periods, reaching back millions of ages into eternity, is the discovery of the present age, made by the light of increased scientific knowledge, the product of an era of advanced thought. Philosophers and scientists, so called, often kiss religion in order to gain an opportunity of more effectually smiting it. Their declarations concerning religion, and their con- cessions to it, are often most wonderful indeed, as a few ex- amples will show. On page 18 of his "Evolution-Philosophy," Gazelles says: "Science is no longer a rival of religion." On page 72 he says: "There are, then, but two methods fun- damentally and essentially opposed the theological and the positive." And yet on another page he declares: " Re- ligion ought to renew its symbols in accordance with the developments of science." From this stand-point he also Or, Sin and Salvation. 15 utters the following: "Religion, then, is legitimate, and science is indispensable." What concessions these to relig- ion! Science is not only legitimate, it is indispensable! Religion is not indispensable in any view! It is legitimate if it will renew its symbols and change its dogmas so as to bring itself into harmony with science! Then, and only then, will it be true, we suppose, that "science is no longer the rival of religion ! " Mr. Hugh Miller makes about the same insulting conces- sions to religion while giving what is his proposed scheme of reconciliation of the Mosaic and geologic records. In his work, "Testimony of the Rocks," at page 194, he writes: "In what light, or on what principle, shall we most cor- rectly read the prophetic drama of creation? In the light, I reply, of scientific discovery on the principle that the clear and certain must be accepted, when attainable, as the proper exponents of the doubtful and obscure." Accord- ing to Mr. Miller, the discoveries of science have made things clear and certain ; the Mosaic record is doubtful and obscure! Surely, with this scheme of reconciliation in force, "science is no longer a rival of religion." The truth is, the theories and speculations of geologists and other sci- entists are most generally in conflict with and in opposition to religion. But it is true also that the religion of the Bi- ble is not and never was in opposition to nature, or in con- flict with it. There is no rivalry between the Bible and nature. The Bible, having, as has been said, " God for its author, truth without any mixture of error for its matter, and the salvation of man for its end," is the clearest and best book given to man, and nothing which it reveals or teaches is in conflict with the laws and facts and truths of nature. With implicit confidence we accept whatever is clear, certain, and true in nature. The true in science we admire and love, but whatever sets itself in conflict with 1C The Old and the Xew Man: the Bible and its plain interpretations, under whatever ti- tles it may claim favor, we scout and condemn as unphilo- sophical and vain. Geologists have indulged in more speculations, vain and delusive, than any class of men, perhaps, known to our age. Most of what is written by them is founded in mere assumptions. Even their facts, many of them, are no facts at all. We should not give place to their delusions for a moment. After all their researches and discoveries, what do we know of the earth ? One of the very best geologists and most trustworthy authors among them says: "The highest mountains do not rise five miles above the level of the sea, and the deepest mines descend only about a third part of a mile, so that even were we perfectly acquainted with the en- tire space between the tops of the highest mountain and the bottom of the deepest mine, it would form but a very in- significant fraction of the distance between the surface and center of the globe, which is nearly four thousand miles." (" Elements of Geology," by Page, p. 1.) Having penetrated the earth no deeper than here indi- cated, and having so little knowledge of even that which we have seen, we have not, from this source, the first ele- ments upon which to build a sound and reliable scheme of doctrine. The whole theory founded by geologists upon what they claim as the indications of this science as to the process of the formation of the globe, and the age of the world, is utterly absurd and absolutely untenable. The re- sort to learned technicalities and labored classifications in naming and arranging the materials and compositions of the globe for indicating the stages of the earth's growth up to its present condition, is so utterly futile it is wonderful that men claiming the study of science as their occupation should be guilty of such. The learned parade made over the relations and positions of strata, minerals, metals, rocks, Or, Sin and Salvation. 17 sands, and soils, so far as any thing to be proved by these is concerned, is the emptiest nonsense engaging human at- tention. The least reflection will lead to the conclusion that the existence and relations and positions of strata, minerals, metals, rocks, sands, and soils, do not reveal any thing pertaining to the growth and age of the world. Is it true that the granite is found under the old red sandstone, and the oolite limestone above it, and the alluvial clay, sand, and gravel still above that? If so, something else than the law of evolution must account for it; something else than age and process of formation had to do with the positions and relations of these. Are rocks found in one position in one section and in another position in another range? Are metals and minerals found in one part of the continent and not in another? in one part of a State and not in another part of it? Something else than the growth of the globe and the age of the world must account for the facts so discovered. When the gneiss was made, so were the alluvial clay, sand, gravel, and the vegetable soils. Gran- ite, lime, clay, coal, vegetables, gold, silver, copper, iron, and all the rest, were made at once, when God laid the foundations of the earth and made the dust of the highest hills. These are elements, and combinations of elements, which composed and constituted in part the earth as it w*as made by God, and not as it grew r of itself. God made and laid the elements in their places originally. Floods and convulsions have torn and upheaved many of them since the creation, but still they are the product of the Divine hand, dating back in their origin to the beginning. Whatever formations may take place in the present state of things, the effect could not be the same in the condition which the evolutionists claim for the world in its first stages of existence, in what they claim as its first deposits in its first atoms. It is said : " The atmosphere, which everywhere 18 The Old tuul the New Man: surrounds the globe, is either of itself the immediate cause of numerous terrestrial changes, or it is the medium through which they are effected." Again, it is said : " The planetary relations of the globe exert a permanent and, it may be, sometimes a temporary and peculiar influence on the changes which have been effected, or are now going forward on its surface." ("Elements of Geology," by Page, pp. 31, 32.) How, then, could there be any idea formed of the process going on when these things, the globe, the atmosphere, and the planets, did not exist, drawn from what goes on, now that they do exist, under their influence? The finding and parading of the foot-prints of birds and animals in coals and sands and rocks, as evidence of evolu- tion, is about equal to a child sitting and imagining the clouds turning into horses and chariots, landscapes and mansions. Even upon the supposition that the earth has developed its strata, and grown from the smallest original deposits or atoms to its present form and size, how did the sun and moon and stars come into being? Is there any thing in what is claimed as the geological manifestations of the earth which can account for the existence of the sun, moon, and stars? What geologists would answer to this question we cannot tell. Mr. Hugh Miller, however, says this much: "Of the period during which the two great lights of the earth, with the other heavenly bodies, became visible from the earth's surface, we need expect to find no record in the rocks." He seems to hold to the idea that the sun and moon and other heavenly bodies existed previous to the fourth day, or what he calls a period, but were concealed, and were simply manifested, not made; on the fourth day. But if the rocks contain no record on the subject, what can he know about it? It is sometimes asked, " How did the light exist before Or, Sin and Salvation. ' 19 the fourth day, when the sun was made?" We ask, How did the world, on the principles of evolution, evolve and develop without light and without the sun? And there is the same difficulty in accounting for the existence of light on the theory of lengthened periods without the sun that there is on the theory of literal days. We know that light was created on the first day and the sun was created on the fourth day. So light did exist, as distinguished from dark- ness, three days before the sun was made. The same meth- od of accounting for the existence of light from the first to the fourth period without the sun, will suffice to account for its existence from the first to the fourth literal day with- out the sun. That Moses means literal days, and not something else, by the six days mentioned in connection with creation, can be established by a sound interpretation and definition of the history he gives and the language he uses. In the first place, he gives a literal history of the creation. It is no panoramic view which he exhibits. It is held by more than one author that the Mosaic account of creation can be reconciled with the facts of science only by regarding it as a record of appearances. Mr. Hugh Miller maintains this, and that the revelation made to Moses concerning the heav- ens and the earth, and by him recorded in the first chapter of Genesis, was not conveyed "as a piece of narrative dic- tated" to him, but that it was "conveyed by a succession of sublime visions." And he calls it, all along, " The Mo- saic vision of creation," " The Mosaic drama of creation." Insanity and suicide are fit endings to such sacrilegious treatment of the divine record. It was no mere drama, no mere vision. God did in reality reveal and dictate by inspiration to Moses the record which he makes of creation. The record has all the elements of a real history, narrating the real fact and occurrence of creation. If the account 20 The Old New Mm : will as certainly come in the absence of the act as with it, from doing an act, it is evident that the death here an- nounced must be something to which Adam was not ex- posed while the prohibited tree was untouched while there was no sin. In the various meanings of the term "to die" we define it, to lose life; to expire; to decay; to pass away from this present world; to cease to be; to lose all the powers and balances of life ; to fall under wrath and condemnation ; to be punished with everlasting punishment. Adam fell un- der the power and liability of death in all the'se ideas of death. His body and soul were under the power and do- minion of death, and liable to eternal death. He did not escape everlasting punishment because it was not included in his sentence of death for sin, but because. he was rescued from the sentence which, but for provisional methods and results, would have consigned him to everlasting punish- ment to eternal death. Adam suffered, in consequence o his sin, the weakening of his powers, the corruption of his nature, and the perversion of his relations. He lost his re- lations to the very fountain of life, and his capacities for life. He suffered damage in all his faculties, particularly his reason and his will. Reason is the faculty of the soul which tests and com- prehends the natures and relations of beings and things, together with the uses of things and the results of actions. Thomas Chubb defines reason: "That faculty or power of the mind by which men discern and judge of right and wrong, of good and evil, of truth and error, and the like." This faculty in Adam was perfect and correct before his fall, but otherwise after his sin. Before his alliance with. Satan, and his apostasy, he apprehended correctly the nat- ure of the things about him, and the nature of the God wi h whom he had to do. After his apostasy, it was far Or, Sin and Salvation. 67 otherwise. He was so perverted and darkened in his rea- son after he had sinned that he essayed to hide himself from the all-seeing eye of God amongst the trees of the 'garden, and attempted also to shield himself from the charge of his offense by transferring it to Eve. It should not be maintained that reason, as a faculty, was annihilated in Adam or his posterity by his sin. The fac- ulty, as such, still remained after his sin, but it was dark- ened, weakened, corrupted all wrong. Sin, nor any thing else, except God, can annihilate the soul or body of man, or any faculties thereof. Therefore we do not mean that reason was annihilated in Adam, but only that it was weak- ened and perverted so that it did not apprehend the truth. Since the fall, reason in man cannot, in and of itself, origi- nate or discover the truth or the law or the rule of action. Reason cannot be a rule of human action. Reason, with- out revelation and some supernatural and extraneous aid, is wholly incompetent to arrive at any correct knowledge, or perform any right thing. With the divine law supplied and made known, and the aid of the light which cometh down from above given, reason may exercise itself in test- ing and judging of the divine law as it is in itself, and in its demands as a rule of life; and reason has a proper func- tion in this behalf, and cannot be ignored without great er- ror and absolute damage. The effort to exalt reason and expel the book of revelation is but the pride originating in the blindness of -perverted reason. In support of the position that reason is a sufficient guide in matters of relig- ion, without any thing superadded, it is argued that Adam's discerning faculty, or reason, was not weakened or impaired, but that it was rather improved, by his transgression. This position, as well as the argument adduced in its support, is untenable and unscriptural. The passages of Scripture re- lied on by the advocates of this theory of reason are Gen, 68 The Old and the New Man : iii. 6, 7, 22: "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to-be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons. . . . And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." In the first place, that the tree was good for food, and possessed properties to make one truly wise, was a false and pernicious view of the case ; for, according to the truth in the premises, the tree was not, under the circumstances, good for food, and had, under the circumstances, no wisdom- imparting properties. In the second place, when their eyes were opened they were opened to the fact that they had sinned and lost their former state and standing. The fact that they were naked was not a discovery first made by Adam and Eve after they had sinned. They knew their nakedness before they sinned, and knew it no better after they had sinned than before. The discovery of their naked- ness required no special exercise or strength of reason, but only the use of the natural eyesight. Perhaps they at- tained a knowledge and view of things after they had sinned which they did not before possess, though this knowledge and view were not attained through the medium of im- proved reason, but only grew out of the existence and re- sults of their sin, which were before wanting. We are not disposed to deny, if any one insists on it, that perhaps they may have recovered from a perverted view which, by the intrigues of Satan, they had been led to entertain, and that then they saw actually what before they might have seen prospectively the evil results of their sin. They might have known beforehand, as they had been told by God, Or, Sin and Salvation. 69 that their sin would be accompanied by guilt and attended by death. They did know it until they were led away from the truth. They now realized this by actual experience, notwithstanding the blindness and weakness under which they had fallen. In the third place, when God said, "The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil," he did not intend to announce that man, by his sin, and since his transgression, had become God, or the equal of God in the strength and clearness of his reason or any other of his faculties. Man had now, by his experience under the facts of the case, an actual knowledge of good and evil. This, and nothing more. The devotees of reason may talk of absurdities and things unreasonable, but what can be more absurd and unreason- able than that by his transgressions a man's understanding is improved and his faculties strengthened? By his natural reason, unassisted, man cannot compre- hend and correctly apprehend things. It was by the aid of supernatural light that Adam, after his sin, apprehended things, so far as he apprehended them at all. After his apostasy Adam was placed anew on trial, and under the requisitions of God's law. The obligations to obedience to this law were not now laid upon hini because he retained a natural capacity sufficiently strong in itself and clear in its perceptions to apprehend and obey the law, but because by God, through grace light, strength, and capacity were con- ferred upon him for these ends. And here is where the ar- gument about the um-easonableness of requiring man to do, and holding him accountable for not doing, if reason is not a sufficent guide, breaks down. If there can be found on all the earth a human being destitute of revelation, and destitute of supernatural light and aid, and thus destitute by no fault of his own or his ancestors, but only by the failure of God to give the revelation and confer the light 70 The Old and the New Man: and aid, then such an individual is not responsible for any thing by him done or left undone. But such a destitution of revelation, light, and aid cannot be found. God has re- vealed his will and made known his law to all men, and if any are without a knowledge thereof it is because they, having eyes to see, see not, and having ears to hear, they hear not. Adam, we have said, suifered damage in his will. Not that his will, any more than his soul, was annihilated. We suppose that even Satan, sinful and lost as he is, has a will ; and so had Adam, even when he had sinned, and before he was recovered from his sin. There is not a moral agent in the universe of God, however sinful, lost, miserable, and doomed, but that has a will. But the will of devils is averse to all good, and so is that of a sinful man aside from the prevenient grace of God. One sin is enough to destroy all inherent goodness and constitute the sum of all guilt, and put in force the full penalty of all sin. This is an avowed and unchangeable principle of the divine government; and all moral agents, so far as they are liable to commit sin, are subject to this principle. Man, in his present condition, is subject to this principle of the divine law; and so was Adam in his primi- tive state and trial, as well as the angels who were on trial in their original condition. He that violates the law in one point is guilty of all. "He that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." In the case of Adam and his one sin this was as true as in any other sin and in any other in- dividual. Adam suffered deterioration in his moral feel- ings and in his intellectual powers. His whole head was sick arid his whole heart was faint. In this sinful state there was on his part no perception of the truth and no love of it. " For every one that doeth evil hateth the light." He had no spiritual life-giving affiliation with God. By Adam Or, Sin and Salvation. 71 both sin and death entered into the world. For this there is specific Scripture declaration. Sin and death entering into the world by Adam, he could not be free from either. He could not sin and still not be sinful. He could not bring death into the world and then not be obnoxious to death himself. He could not be sinful, and at the same time have any good thing dwelling in his flesh. He could not be sinful, and at the same time not be subject to vanity and the bondage of corruption. He could not be sinful without being under the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling the de- sires of the flesh and of the mind, and being a child of wrath. When he gave himself up to sin he gave himself up to vile affections. A rebellious mind, not being subject to the law of God, is a carnal mind. Adam rebelled, and then, possessing a carnal mind, was sold under sin. Hav- ing sinned, and having become thereby sinful, he was "dead in trespasses and in sins." That any should call this in question, is stranger than fiction. As to whether Adam suffered merely a privation of orig- inal righteousness, or an infusion of actual and positive evil upon his apostasy, is to us of little consequence, as we do not propose to state the subject either way. The infu- sion of evil into human nature by God is in no way in- volved in the nature and facts of the case. It is as much allied to any other subject as that of the depravity incident upon man's apostasy. God, of course, iiever infused posi- tive evil into human nature either at the creation or at the apostasy of man. But when Adam sinned original right- eousness ceased, and he became positively corrupt and ab- solutely evil in his nature. Sin and righteousness cannot exist together. A sinner cannot be holy; and where there is not holiness there is corruption. Guilty, corrupt, dead spiritually, under sentence of temporal and eternal death, and the Divine wrath resting upon him, Adam was sent 72 The Old and the New Mn : forth from the garden. He was ushered out of the garden, standing upon the threshold of a redemptive dispensation, in which were involved the issues and contingencies of life and death. Death, which is the antithesis of life, fell upon Adam as certainly as the passages hereunto attached are true: "The wages of sin is death;" "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." If sin produces death temporal in the case of other individuals, it did so in the case of Adam. If sin produces death spiritual in the case of other individuals, it did so in the case of Adam. If sin places other individuals under liability to eternal death, it placed Adam under the same liability. Any logic which would insist on any other conclusion is worse than sophistry. Or, Sin and Salvation. 73 CHAPTER VI, THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FIRST TRANSGRESSION OF THE FIRST MAN. ~\\ 7"~AS Adam's sin in eating of the fruit of the tree of V V the knowledge of good and evil only personal, and did the consequences thereof terminate in himself, or did they reach to and involve his posterity ? Here are points of greatest moment. From the time, at least, of Pelagius to the present, various and antagonistic views have been maintained on these points by different persons ; and there is as much opposition to the true doctrine now as at any day during the controversy. The great body of the Church, however, has been settled all the while on the true founda- tions in the premises. Pelagius, generally reputed a Briton by birth (though of this there is some doubt), who lived a good while at Rome, and who flourished in the early part of the fifth century, believed and taught if he has been correctly represented by St. Augustine, who was his antagonist that "Adam's sin injured only himself, and not the human race, and that in- fants at their birth are in the same state that Adam was be- fore his transgression." Though when he was on trial be- fore the authorities of the Church for heresy, he said : " In- fants are not in the same state in which Adam was before his transgression, because they are not yet able to under- stand the commandment, whereas he was able ; and because they do not yet possess that choice of a rational will which he indeed possessed, for otherwise no commandment would have been given to him." This last pcsitiou is no recanta- 74 The Old and the New Man: tion or denial of the other, though it was so regarded by his antagonists. One is no contradiction of the other. Pelagius constantly and uniformly held that "nothing good and nothing evil, on account of which we are deemed either laudable or blameworthy, is born with us, that we are formed naturally without either virtue or vice, and pre- vious to the action of our own proper will, the only thing in man is what God has formed in him." He constantly said: "Sin is not born with a man, is not the fault of nat- ure, but of the human will." He held that original sin, so far as the descendants of Adam are concerned, consists in sins committed by them in imitation of the example of Adam, the first sinner, and not in an evil nature communi- cated by natural descent. He maintained that Adam was created neither holy nor unholy; that he was naturally mortal, and would have died had he not sinned; that every one when born is in these respects just as Adam was at his creation. Dr. John Taylor, to whom we have referred in a previ- ous chapter, rejects and denounces the doctrine of the im- putation of Adam's sin to his posterity. He also anathe- matizes the doctrine that infants are liable to punishment at all, although he admits that they suffer. The following are some of his utterances, found in his work on "Original Sin:" " The real guilt of our first parents' transgression must be personal, and belong only to themselves." " Imputed guilt is imaginary guilt." "I cannot find in all the Scripture that one man's sin is ever said to be imputed to another, or, in particular, that Adam's sin is ever said to be imputed to his posterity." " Infants coming into the world with sin- ful nature is only imagined and supposed, but neither is nor can possibly be proved." " We are born neither right- eous nor sinful, but capable of being either, as we improve Or, Sin and Salvation. 75 or neglect the goodness of God, who sends every man into the world under his blessing." In fact, he taught, as we have shown in a preceding chapter, that Adam was not created holy, and that his apos- tasy, even so far as he himself was concerned, was not " a falling from a state of perfect holiness, but a falling short of such a state." Strange as it may appear after all this, Dr. Taylor admits" that Adam's posterity are involved in the consequences of his sin so far as they suffer the death of the body. He says: " The true answer to this question, How far are you involved in the consequences of Adam's sin? is this: We are thereby, or thereupon, subject to tem- poral sorrow, labor, and death." Dr. Albert T. Bledsoe, in his writings, following in the track of Taylor, renounces the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. He denies that children are born guilty on account of Adam's sin, and also denies that they are liable to punishment on account thereof. He denies native or inborn depravity. He calls the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity a " dark film," which he says we ought to " wipe out." He insists that the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity is not consistent with the goodness of God, nor with human good- ness. He says: "This scheme of imputation, so far from being an expression of infinite goodness, were indeed an exhibition of the most frightful cruelty and injustice." In another place: "There are few persons whose feelings will allow them to be consistent advocates of the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin." (See " Theodicy," pp. 250, 255, 259.) Again, he writes it out in this style: "A theo- logian may eat and sleep and suffer on higher principles than mere animals do; but we seriously doubt if infants ever eat or sleep or suffer on any higher principles." " Fo : r these reasons, we refuse to justify the sufferings of infants, 76 The Old and the New Man: on the ground that the sin of Adam was imputed to them." ("Theodicy," pp. 267, 272.) Dr. Bledsoe quotes the theo- ry of Arrainius on the imputation of Adam's sin to his pos- terity, and says of it: "That such a theory should ever have obtained in the Christian world is certainly a mo.st impressive and instructive historical fact. It does not de- serve, and, at the present day, it does not demand, a serious refutation." (Southern Review, April, 1871, pp. 253, 254.) In this same article of this Review, p. 288, he sets forth his own hypothesis upon the sinfulness of infants, as follows: "We assume the position that newborn infants have no moral character at all. In so far as the transgression of the moral law is concerned, they are perfectly innocent, never having incurred its penalty by any thing they have thought or done or desired. In the eye of the moral law, infinitely pure as it is, there is no transgression in them." We have already given, in a previous chapter, his utter- ances against the position that Adam was created holy. These authors Pelagius, Taylor, and Bledsoe to whom we have referred, all manifestly agree in the substantial points concerning the consequences of Adam's sin upon his posterity. Their positions are identical, and their argu- ments much alike often the same. The true doctrine is that the race are, through Adam, gone away from original .righteousness that is, the right- eousness in which Adam was created and are now by nat- ure inclined only to evil. All are born in sin born with a corrupt or sinful nature. As the poet expresses it: We are vile, conceived in sin, And born unholy and unclean. Corruption did not and does not originate in bad exam- ple, but is by natural descent; it is innate. Adam's sin in the garden was an individual sin in that lie sinned in his own person, and for himself. But then his Or, Sin and Salvation, 77 sin was the act of one in a representative capacity, and the consequences of his sinful act reached to and involved his posterity. All who have come into actual existence by propagation from Adam have come into existence under the malediction of Adam's sin, arid obnoxious to all its pe- nal consequences. Adam was, under the law of his being, and under the law to which he was amenable, the head and representative of his posterity. Under the law of his being, he was the natural head of his race. This is self-evident. . He is the father of all. In a previous chapter we have no- ticed the fact that all descend from Adam by propagation. There is an essential connection between Adam and his posterity in the entire nature of body and soul. Under the moral law r , to which he was amenable, Adam was the head and representative of his race. He was made to prop- agate his race, and the legal provisions of the covenant un- der which he was placed in the garden embraced his chil- dren ; and thus he was allied to his posterity not only by nature, but in law. In the legal covenants made with him and bound upon him, he was constituted and recognized as the head and representative of those who were seminally in him and were to spring from him. The Scriptures, inci- dentally and otherwise, present this truth in many places. Adam stood at the threshold of time, and at the beginning of a moral dispensation in a natural and legal relation to a race seminally contained in him. In the nature of the case, as this moral dispensation commenced in him, and its legal obligations were laid upon him, and its legal consequences were bound up with his actions in the premises and as this dispensation commenced in the recognition of the poster- ity to proceed from him, and in provision for that posterity he was the contracting head and legal representative of the same. This must be admitted. If God had created Adam as he did the angels, singly and alone, without the capaci- 78 The Old and the New Man: ties and purposes of propagation, and placed him as he did them on trial for himself alone, the consequences of his con- duct could have terminated only on himself. But he made him, and entered upon the government of him, with his pos- terity included and involved. God made them male and female, and said unto them, " Multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over it." It is use- less to think of Adam separate from his posterity. God projected his dispensation for Adam, and established his government over him with his posterity included and in- volved. The very dominion which Adam was commis- sioned to attain over the earth was to be secured and main- tained by and through his posterity, whom he represented. The representative character and relation of Adam is clear- ly presented in 1 Cor. xv. 22, 45: " For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. . . . The first man Adam was made a living soul ; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." Whatever else these passages may teach, and whatever else may be involved in a complete interpretation of these scriptures, they bring out the repre- sentative relations of Adam the first man and of Christ the God-man. There can be no question but that Adam and Christ are presented here in their relations to the whole race. Their relations to the race are such as can be pred- icated of no other man or men. These relations stand con- nected with sin and its consequences in and upon the race. Adam has a representative relation to the race in the ori- igin of sin and death ; and Christ has a representative rela- tion to the race in the provisions for the removal and cure of sin and death. The purpose of the apostle is so pointed and absolute that he presents their representative and legal relations to the race by calling them both Adam. Adam and Christ stand equally related legally and representative- ly to mankind. Adam, the progenitor of the race, is the Or, Sin and Salvation. 70 " one man" by whom " sin entered into the world, and death by sin." Christ, the Messiah, the Second Adam, " is the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Adam is the man by whom " came death." Christ is the man by whom " came also the resurrection of the dead." Adam is the one by whose "offense" "judgment came upon all men to condemnation." Christ is the one by whoso " righteousness " " the free gift came upon all men in order to justification of life." Adam is the one by whose " diso- bedience many were made sinners." Christ is the one by whose "obedience many shall be made righteous." These are plain Scripture truths which no one can reject without a flat denial of the word of God. These are truths which no metaphysical jargon or pretended learned lore should be allowed to mystify. Adam's sin was transmitted to his pos- terity by generation. Corruption is by natural descent; it is inborn, and not acquired by the imitation of bad exam- ple, nor by the formation of evil habits. It is true that the following of bad example, the performance of wicked deeds, and the indulgence of evil habits, will and do corrupt; but what we insist on in this connection is that this corruption of nature exists prior to the imitation of bad example, and is antecedent to the performance of any wicked deeds, and the formation of any evil habits. By virtue of this inborn corruption, Adam's offspring arc sinful at their birth. This inborn corruption is of the nature of sin. Every thing pro- duces its like. The lion produces a lion; the horse, a horse; an oak, an oak ; etc. No one " can bring a clean thing out of an unclean," and so Adam, fallen and corrupt as he was, " begat a son in his own likeness, after his image." And every child of Adam may truly say : " Behold, I was shap- en in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Inspiration records the mournful fact that "the wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray r.s soon as they be 80 The Old and the New Man : born, speaking lies; " while the Son of God declares, " That which is bcrii of the flesh is flesh; " and the apostle teaches that " by one man's disobedience many were made sinners." There is such a thing as a " carnal mind," which is " enmity against God," and a heart in every man born into the world that "is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked;" and it is moreover true that " out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false wit- ness, blasphemies." From age to age this corruption has been transmitted by generation. All being born with wicked and deceitful hearts, out of which proceed evil thoughts, murders, etc., "there is not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not." "There is none right- eous; no, not one." Adam's sin was imputed to his posterity in legal admin- istration. Rom. v. 16, 18, 19 may be adduced as positive authority for this assertion : " The judgment was by one to condemnation. . . . By the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation. . . . By one man's disobedi- ence many were made sinners." Here are judicial terms. They describe judicial proceedings in the administration of government, and in the execution of law. The govern- ment was administered, and the law was executed. The judgment rendered passed sentence of condemnation against the offense and upon the offender. The sentence of con- demnation, for this one offense of this one man Adam, was issued against and imposed upon all men. By this one man's one disobedience, all men, his whole posterity, were constituted sinners. Human language could not be more direct or pointed. No words could more emphatically de- clare that Adam's sin has been charged to his children, and that these children are constituted sinners thereby, and con- demned and punished therefor, than do these words of the apostle. Or, Sin and Salvation. 81 1 The Lord, in the administration of his government over Adam, and the execution of his law against Adam's sin, issued a sentence of condemnation against his posterity, and this judicial sentence places all men from their birth under the full penalty of Adam's offense. 6 82 The Old and the New M>m . CHAPTER VII, THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FIRST TRANSGRESSION OP THE FIRST MAN. RTAIN objections are urged against the doctrines that \ve are maintaining which it is eminently prop- er to consider. These objections we shall investigate, and by the help of the Divine Word, and by the guidance of the Divine Spirit, shall endeavor to refute and cast them away from the temple of truth. Xot only the doctrines are objected to, but the terms in which they are usually expressed. The terms "federal head," "legal representative," "original sin," "imputed sin," "natural corruption," and others, are all animadverted upon by those who oppose the orthodox view of the conse- quences of Adam's first sin. Those who raise these objec- tions insist on a use of Bible terms and Scripture phrase- ology, and also of terms of ancient and primitive date. They insist that these terms objected to are neither Bible terms nor of ancient times. Suppose we should concede that none of them are exact phrases of the Bible, and that they are all of recent date. We are persuaded that this conces- sion would by no means condemn their use as theological terms. It would by no means follow that they should be repudiated. It would by no means follow that they are misleading, or that the doctrines set forth in their use are unscriptural. Perhaps these terms are not absolutely nec- essary to the correct statement and proper defense of the Or, Sin and Salvation. 83 doctrines with which they are connected, and in whose elu- cidation they are employed. As mere terms, perhaps, the theological world could dispense with their use without any great detriment; but as mere terms of language, they are innocent, correct, clear, dignified, and comprehensive. As theological terms, they are perhaps as appropriate and scriptural as any that could be chosen. In truth, there are none better. We have never yet seen a system of theol- ogy which confined itself exclusively to the use of Script- ure terms and words. Those who have insisted most on an exclusive use of the words of Scripture, when they were discussing doctrines, have been farthest from the exclusive use of the words of Scripture when formulating a creed. Arians and Pelagians are as far from an exclusive use of Scripture language as any writers known in the history of the Church. They use such terms as "imitating Adam," "voluntary acts," "habits," " concreated," "etc., Avhich we are sure are not Bible terms. But let us examine those terms objected to separately, together with the doctrines which they embody. FEDERAL HEAD AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. When we investigate the subject we find that the objec- tion urged against this phraseology grows out of opposition to the doctrine taught thereby more than to the phraseology itself. Some authors, while urging what they esteem very serious objections against the term "federal head/' yet ad- mit that Adam was the natural head of the race. The Bi- ble is as devoid of the phrase "natural head" as of the phrase "federal head." The federal headship grows, in part at least, out of the natural headship. The admission of the former is a concession of the latter. Adam being the natural head of the race, and being corrupt and sinful when his children proceeded from him, he transmitted to 84 The Old and the New them, through natural generation, his own corrupt and sin- ful nature, and so they are all born corrupt and sinful. John Taylor, Arian as he was, and denying, as he did throughout his book on " Original "Sin," that Adam was the federal head and legal representative of his race, neverthe- less makes concessions, when expounding the fifth chapter of Romans, which really concede the truth that Adam was the federal head and legal representative of his race. In this exposition he writes the following sentences: "The ju- dicial act which followed Adam's sin took its rise from his one offense alone, and terminated in condemnation." "Men are subject to death, not from their own personal sins, but from the sin of Adam." " Death must be understood to have passed upon all mankind, not for that they all have sinned really, properly, and personally, but they have sinned, are made sinners, are subjected to death, through the one of- fense of one man that is, of Adam." "It is evident that the apostle draws a -comparison between Adam and Christ: something that Adam did, and the consequences of that; and something that Christ did, and the consequences of that." "It is quite undeniable that all, all mankind, die; all are mortal; all lose their life in Adam." ("Original Sin," pp. 25, 38, 53, 59, 61.) In these sentences this' author says that the apostle makes a comparison between Adam and Christ; that by the one sin of Adam all mankind are made sinners; that condemnation resulted by a judicial act following the sin of Adam ; and that all are subjected to death, not for personal sins, but the alone sin of Adam. By death, however, he means only temporal death, and by be- ing made sinners he means only being subjected to temporal death. But he has here said all that we have said, or care to say, when we set forth the federal headship and repre- sentative relation of Adam to his posterity, except that we teach that Adam's sin was visited upon his posterity, not Or, Sin and Salvation. 85 only in temporal death, but in actual spiritual death, and a liability to eternal death ; and that by being made sinners we mean more than being subjected to temporal death. If physical death was visited upon all, and judicially passed and announced upon all for Adam's sin, as Taylor here teaches, why not spiritual death as well? What principle of philosophy or of ethics would be violated or invaded by the falling of spiritual death upon his posterity for his sin that would not be equally violated and invaded by tem- poral death falling upon them for his sin? We hesitate not to answer, None whatever. Bay what we may, descant ever so learnedly, make ever so many pleas for justice, go into ever so many ecstasies in admiration of goodness, and parade ever so many difficul- ties, after all, and in defiance of all, there is a Scripture view of the case which recognizes Adam's posterity as be- ing in him at the time he sinned, and acting in and by him. " Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abra- ham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him." (Heb. vii. 9, 10.) There was a sense in which the apostle could and did say that Levi paid tithes by Abraham while he was yet in the loins of Abra- ham. In the same sense, and in like manner, it may and should be said that Adam's posterity, who were in his loins when he transgressed the law of God, sinned in or by him. It has been said there " is a constituted oneness of the hu- man race," and this we emphasize; but this does not mean that Adam and his posterity are "one person." Adam's posterity sinned in him as their head. This we maintain ; but it does not mean that they "participated individually in the first sin." The mere fact that Adam's posterity were in his loins does not, of course, prove that " their nature contracted a propensity to sin," but being in his loins, they proceed from him with a corrupted or sinful nature, and by The Old and the New Man : virtue of this sinful nature there is in them from their birth a propensity to sin. The posterity being naturally in Adam, and legally considered and provided for as in him at the time he sinned, as \ve have shown they were, it is strictly true that naturally and legally they sinned in and by him. This is manifest and conclusive. ORIGINAL SIN. What reasonable objection can be alleged against this phrase? The word "original," simply as a word, is proper and unexceptionable, and so is the word "sin." The phrase is used in allusion to Adam's first transgression, which was the first human sin, and the origin of moral evil, so far as moral evil pertains to the human race. It is also used to designate the corruption natural to the offspring of Adam. Perhaps there are no other words in the language Avhich could so concisely and forcibly set forth the whole subject as these two words, "original sin." What phrase could be substituted for this? It certainly makes no special differ- ence when or by whom this phrase was first brought into use. If it properly expresses and presents the doctrine it is intended to embody and formulate, even though the doc- trine itself be false, it is frivolous to object to it as a phrase, originate when or by Avhom it may. It has become a stand- ard phrase, having been almost universally adopted by the Christian Church. This is a testimony in its favor. IMPUTED SIN. This is a term against which, together with the term " im- puted guilt," objection is alleged. By imputed sin is meant the sin of Adam imputed to his offspring. " Imputed " is a Bible term, and " imputed sin" is a phrase sufficiently concise and comprehensive to serve admirably the purpose for which it is used. What we have said in advocacy of the term " original sin " may be said also in defense of the Or, Sin and Salvation. 87 term " imputed sin." We would not hesitate to give up this, and all the other terms objected to, if better could be substituted for them. ' We are no sticklers for mere phrase- ology; but the doctrines taught through the use of these phrases are fundamental, and cannot be renounced. Vital and scriptural doctrines must not be expunged from the creeds of Christendom out of regard for a sneer at a phrase. It is much easier to scoff at phraseology than to frame a logical argument or produce a sound reason. Before dismissing the phrases "original sin" and "imput- ed sin," and while connecting with them the phrase "nat- ural corruption," we must discuss the question, AVhat is sin? Does the true nature and proper definition of sin author- ize us to call the inherent corruption of nature sin? Can we properly call the native corruption of the heart sin? Can \ve predicate sin of character? Can we apply the term sin to the depravity of character? or does it apply exclusive- ly to an act by which the law of God is violated? Is sin an act, and not a state? an act, and not a quality? Here are the points involved in the question, What is sin? There are various passages of Scripture which indicate different kinds and degrees of sin, but there are none which say or intimate that nothing is sin but an act, neither any which say sin is nothing but a voluntary act. A sinful act is sin. Some acts of some creatures are sinful. An act to be sin or sinful must be the voluntary act of a moral agent, and it must be an act which violates^, moral law author- ized and in force. An act coerced is subject to no blame, and entitled to no praise, so far as the party coerced is con- cerned. An act done without the consent and choice of the will of the actor, if considered his act, is without moral quality. If this act has any moral quality, it derives it from the part taken in it by the being who forced the non-con- senting actor to its performance. " Sin is the transgression 88 The Old and the New Man: of the law." This is a Scripture definition, and no one can call it in question, but it is never once intimated that trans- gression, or sin, exists exclusively in an act. Any state, or condition, that is repugnant to the law of God is sin. Any thing impinging the law of God, whether it be condition, thought, desire, principle, or act, is sin. "All unrighteous- ness is sin." This is the word of Scripture. "The thought of foolishness is sin." So taught Solomon. "The carnal mind is enmity against God." Surely enmity against God is sin. Surely a carnal mind is not an act, but is a condition, or character, of nature. The apostle Paul calls the inherent nature the corrupt disposition, and the unrighteous propensities belonging to all unregenerate persons, sin. He writes to the Komaus: "But I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do, I allow not: for, what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." (Chapter vii. 14-20.) By such terms as "that I do not" and "that do I," the apostle directly refers to deeds or acts. By such terms as "carnal" and "sin tnat dwelleth in me," he cannot possi- bly make allusion to deeds or acts. In these he alludes to that which pertains to being, nature, character, tempers, dis- positions, that which is in the man. An act cannot dwell in any one: sin does dwell in an unregenerate man; there- fore something else is sin besides an act. The corruption and wickedness natural to the human heart since the apos- Or, Sin and Salvation. 89 tasy of Adam is certainly out of harmony with the law of God, and antagonistic to God himself, and consequently is sin. For whatever is antagonistic to God and his law is sin. The human heart, born corrupt, is sinful. Moral corruption is *in, whether it be inborn or superinduced by a life of prof- ligacy. It is insisted by some that whatever is natural to us, that whatever is born in and with us, cannot be sin. " If we come into the world infected and depraved with sinful dispositions, then sin must be natural to us; and if natural, then necessary ; and if necessary, then no sin." (Taylor.) " Make this inherited disease, or disorder, or de- pravity, as great and as terrible as you please ; make it, if you choose, the inexhaustible source or occasion of all the world's overflowing and frightful wickedness ; but do not call it sin. .... We could not help coming into the world with a fall- en and depraved nature; and hence, however fearful the fall and depravity, this makes us an object of God's com- passion only, and not of his -wrath and indignation." " It is of the very essence of sin that it be an exercise of the will." "We say then that there never can be virtue or vice in the breast of a moral agent prior to his own actings and doings." (Bledsoe.) It is a strange error which makes virtue synonymous with choice or obedience, and vice synonymous with choice and disobedience. It is an equally strange error which makes love and obedience synonymous. Obedience, instead of being love, is the result of love and the evidence of its ex- istence. Men may not be entitled to any praise for any gift be- stowed upon them by the Divine power, and, likewise, they may not be obnoxious to any condemnation for the want of any gift witheld by the Divine hand; but a being is good if it is good, and may be declared good for moral goodness in it, and admired for this, whether the moral goodness was 90 The Old and the New Man: '. ^_____ concreated or otherwise; and a being is wicked if it is wicked, and may be declared vicious for moral degeneracy in it" whether the moral degeneracy was inborn or acquired by acts of profligacy. A necessitated volition is verily impossible, and God can- not impart holiness to an adult sinner, or make a new creat- ure of him without his consent and choice, but a concreated holiness is not an absurdity nor an impossibility. God can- not force sin upon an intelligent moral agent, but then a child descending from fallen and depraved Adam may be born with a corrupt and sinful nature. Necessity has noth- ing to do with innate depravity or indwelling sin, and there is nothing more fallacious than the arguments which join the two together. The scheme of necessity may be based on a false psychology, directed against a false issue, sup- ported by false logic, fortified by false conceptions, recom- mended by falso analogies, rendered plausible by a false phraseology, originate in a false method, and terminate in a false religion ; but this has nothing to do with the doctrine of indwelling sin, and by no means refutes this doctrine. The declaration that depravity, incident upon the fall and natural to us, makes us an object of God's compassion, and not of his Avrath, is in direct conflict with the Scriptures. This depravity may make us the object of God's compassion, as there can be no compassion, as well as no wrath, where there is no sin, but it makes us also an object of God's wrath. The apostle tells us of those who "were by nat- ure the children of wrath." It is by nature, and not by practice, that they are declared to be children of wrath. They may, in fact, have been children of wrath also by practice, but the wrath is declared to be by nature. By nature, corrupted and depraved, they fell under the wrath of God and the curse of the law. Instead of the concupiscence of the heart being the prod- Or, tiin nnd Salvation. 91 net of vicious acts and evil habits, the vicious acts and evil habits of life proceed from the natural lusts, evil desires, and vicious propensities of the heart. "Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and en- ticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it briugeth forth sin." " Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." Wicked deeds, such as are mentioned in this last text, de- file and condemn the man who performs them. This can- not be denied at all; but the heart is wicked antecedent to these and all other acts, and if this were not the case then wickedness would not be universal; among the millions in the various nations and generations of men there would be some who would be innocent and righteous. If, as has been said, newborn infants have no character at all, then they would be just as likely to make good men and women as bad ones; and there would surely, once in awhile, one be found who would be innocent, righteous, and pious without any regeneration and sanctification of the Spirit. There is a real difference between imputed sin and indi- vidual acts, or sin committed in person. There is as wide a difference between imputed sin and the individual acts of responsible agents as between any two things which could be mentioned. Confounding the two, a thing often done, leads to the utmost confusion and the gravest errors. Par- ties ignoring this distinction give us caricature representa- tions of the doctrine of imputed guilt. They represent the doctrine of our sinning in Adam as making us and Adam one moral person, and as making us personally present and personally consenting to and personally participating in Adam's act. Then, having given this caricature representa- tion of the doctrine of imputed sin, these parties will pro- pose to refute the doctrine by the claim of an alibi, and by the impossibilities of naming the sins, as we name personal 92 The Old and the New Man: transgressions, which we committed in Adam. Adam and his posterity do not constitute one person, but they are of one race. His posterity were not personally present, per- sonally consenting to and participating in his sinful act, but as a race he and they are one, and they were in him, and acted by him, he being their head and representative. New- born infants have never, in their own proper persons, com- mitted acts which are sinful. So far as any thing they have done as individuals, they are without sin, and are not sinners. The boast of an alibi, and the boast of having done nothing which like personal sins can be named, is therefore a mere sophistry, and a useless subterfuge. If the apostle includes us in "all" and "many" when he says, "By the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation," and, "By one man's disobedience many vere made sinners," then we did sin in Adam, the boasted alibi to the contrary notwithstanding; and Adam's act in eating of the tree of the kn-owledge of good and evil may be named as the sin charged against us, or imputed to us. There is such a thing as individuality, as well as what we shall name communality. A man, constituted of a body of flesh and of a living soul, is an actual and distinct per- son. Individual existence is the basis of the existence of the body politic. The aggregated existence of human kind is found alone in the persons thereof. The human family is constituted of distinct and actual persons. In connec- tion with this personality is accountability ; and Avhere there are no persons there are no responsibilities whatsoever. But personal existence and personal accountability do not de- stroy the aggregated features of human society, nor the fact that God deals with the human family as a body. Com- munality is as true as personality. There is a community, family, stock, or race, as certainly as there are individuals. The word "man" applies to the race as such, including The Old and the New Man : 93 Adam and his entire posterity as directly and as distinctly as it applies to persons. The Bible refers as plainly to the race as an aggregated body of human beings as it does to any one person. Its references to the race as a body are as manifest as are its references to Abel, Seth, Noah, David, Peter, or Paul. God takes special account of individuals, holds them responsible for their deeds, and punishes them for their transgressions. Likewise he takes account of the body politic, holds the nation responsible for its conduct, and punishes the race for its crimes. In proof of this we need only refer to the history of Israel, Nineveh, Babylon, Egypt, and the rest. God, in his grace and providence, provides for and blesses individuals; but in his grace and providence he also provides for and blesses the race. In proof of this we give these passages: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." " God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The text does not say that God so loved Noah, Job, and Daniel, Peter and John, that he gave his Son, but he so loved the world, and sent him into the world that the world through him might be saved. The atone- ment made by Jesus Christ is a provision made for the world, made for the human family the whole race. In- stead of this atonement being prescribed for and limited to certain persons, it is for the race, so that Christ is really the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. This doctrine of individuality and of communality lays the foundation for the distinction of original sin and of per- sonal sin. This leads us to an investigation of the eighteenth chap- ter of Ezekiel. It is asserted that the doctrine of imputed sin is antagonistic to the express language of this portion of Ezekiel's prophecy. There was a proverb in the land 94 The Old and the New Man: of Israel which said: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." The Lord God took up a dealing with Israel and said unto them, through Ezekiel: "As I live, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel." And in this connection, amongst many other things of similar import, he says: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." A patient investigation of this portion of the word of God will amply repay the toil necessary to a correct under- standing thereof. It is a most edifying portion of the Di- vine revelation. The mind of the Spirit is what we wish to know, and after which we must inquire. This passage cannot be in conflict with the declaration made in the Decalogue : " I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Neither can it be in con- flict with the declaration of the apostle: "By the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation." "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners." Any interpretation which ignores these utterances of the apostle and the Decalogue must be false. It is most em- phatically set forth in the word of God, and most clearly illustrated in the dispensations of the divine procedure, that God does visit "the iniquity of the fathers upon the chil- dren, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation ; " and that he " keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his command- ments to a thousand generations." An illustration of his Or, Sin and Salvation. 95 visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children is found in his dealing with wicked Ahab. For Ahab's wick- edness God threatened to bring evil upon his posterity. Ahab heard the threatening and humbled himself. For this God staid his judgments for the time, but said: "In his son's day will I bring the evil upon his house." And the Lord kept this purpose, and Jehoram, Ahab's son, fell under this curse of his father. (See 1 Kings xxi.; 2 Kings ix.) How true it is, " The seed of evil-doers shall never be renowned." In the interpretation of this chapter of Ezekiel we should not lose sight of the points brought out in it. We must not lose sight of the purport of the proverb,- " The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the. children's teeth are set on edge," and what it is which God intends to rebuke in the use made of this proverb. The proverb was used by the Israelites in that day as an assertion of their own personal innocence, and as a denial of the equity of God in the in- fliction of punishment upon them. The purport of the proverb, as they used it, was that they themselves had com- mitted no sins, that their fathers had sinned, and they were suffering and were being punished for their fathers' sins. They brought charges against God and their fathers, and cleared themselves. God asserted, therefore, in the face of their wicked and unjust charges against him, and their un- founded justification of themselves, that his ways were equal and just; that he did deal with them according to the mer- its of their own conduct, and that their personal sins entered into the account of the crimes for which he Avas punishing them. Not only the iniquities of their fathers deserved the punishments they received, but their own personal wicked- ness merited all they suffered. He asserted that he pun- ished the wicked for their own personal sins, and rewarded the righteous for their own personal obedience. The great 00 The Old and the New Man: principle of personal desert and merit he did not forget nor violate. For proof that this is a correct view and sound interpre- tation of this chapter of Ezekiel, we give a passage from the law of God delivered to Israel. Forewarning the peo- ple of the curses Avhich he would visit upon them for their disobedience, and announcing the principles upon which he would deal with them, he says: "And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies' lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them. If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked con- trary unto me; and that I ^Iso have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their ene- mies; if then their uncircu incised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity, then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my cov- enant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land." (Leviticus xxvi. 39-42.) This is a commentary upon the eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel. A man who does well deserves well, and receives good for so doing, his father's sins to the contrary notwithstand- ing. The man who does evil deserves evil, and receives ill for so doing, his father's righteousness to the contrary notwithstanding. So that it is most true that there is a sense in which the personal sins of ordinary parents are not visited upon their children who for themselves walk in righteousness, and thus disallow or condemn the deeds of their parents. It is also true that God will not damn in eternity the soul of the son for the sin of the father, if the son does not make the sins of the father his own bv walk- Or, Sin and Salvation. 97 ing in the same. But it is moreover true that there is a sense in which the children fall under the malediction of their fathers' sins. In all this there is no contradiction and no conflict. The eighteenth chapter of Ezekiel is not therefore in opposition to the doctrine of imputed sin or orig- inal guilt. The dispensations of God, with all their variety and won- ders, have no greater beauty and excellence than the puri- ty and harmony thereof. The word of God, abounding with poetry, prophecy, miracle, and inspiration, displays no greater perfection than in the consistency of the whole thereof, and the harmony of all its parts. One part of the Bible is consonant to every other part. 7 98 The Old and the New Man : CHAPTER VIII, THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FIRST TRANSGRESSION OF THE FIRST MAN. inURTHERMORE, our opponents, in their objections JLJ to the doctrine of original sin, charge that it involves the doctrine of infant damnation. It is insisted that this doctrine maintains that infants, dying in infancy, are lost in hell. Our opponents insist that the doctrine of original sin first originated with St. Augustine, and is a part and parcel of the theory known as Calvinism. To this we re- spond. St. Augustine was not the author of the doctrine of orig- inal sin. God first taught the doctrine. Apostles, prophets, and patriarchs were all instructed therein. The doctrines which are peculiarly and exclusively Cal- vinistic we do not believe. The five points set forth by the Synod of Dort, and maintained by that Synod against the Remonstrants, we do not accept as true. That it may be seen that they have nothing to do with the true doctrine of original sin, we will set down here these five points. We shall give these points in our own way, and in our own lan- guage, at the same time following in some measure the lan- guage in which they have been authoritatively set forth: 1. God, by an immutable decree, made from all eternity, elected to salvation a certain and definite number of indi- viduals, without any regard to faith, obedience, holiness, or any other good quality in them as a cause or condition of election; and in his good pleasure, for the praise of his glo- rious grace, he excluded all others, the larger number of Or, Sin and Salvation. 99 mankind, from saving grace, and reprobated them to eter- nal punishment, and that without any regard to their unbe- lief and disobedience. 2. Jesus Christ did not die and make satisfaction for the sins of all men, or of the whole world, but he suffered and died for the elect only. 3. By Adam's fall his posterity lost their free-will, and are now under an unavoidable necessity to do or not to do whatever they do or do not, whether it be good or evil, be- ing thereunto predestinated by the eternal arid effectual se- cret decree of God. 4. God, to save the elect, doth, by the application of his own irresistible power, beget faith in them insomuch that those to whom he gives grace cannot reject the grace ; and the rest, being reprobate, cannot accept it. 5. They that have once received this grace can never fall from it, finally or totally, and that notwithstanding they commit the most enormous sins. These, with the perversions naturally growing out of them, are the points peculiar to the Calvinistic theory. These peculiarly Calvinistic points of doctrine Ave could consign to oblivion without in the least affecting the doc- trine of original sin. These points, set forth and defended by the Synod of Dort, may involve the dogma of infant damnation, as it is called, but the Scripture doctrine of im- puted guilt has nothing to do with this dogma or these points. Original sin is not the offspring of Calvinistic ne- cessity and reprobation. The theory of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity -he being their federal head and legal representative, making them obnoxious to the penalty of the law, or to death as a consequence and punishment does not involve the unconditional damnation of infants or adults in hell. Unconditional damnation is rested by those who hold it upon either the decree or foreknowledge of God, 100 The Qld and the New Man: and leaves the non-elect out of the provisions of the atone- ment. If there is no such thing as original sin or imputed guilt, then there is no such thing as infant salvation. If infants have no moral character, and are not sinners by virtue of Adam's sin imputed to them, having no sin through their own personal action, they are not sinners at all; and, there- fore, those of them who die in infancy cannot be saved. None can be saved but sinners. Christ died only for sin- ners. We repeat, if infants who die in infancy are not sinners through Adam's sin imputed to them, then they are not sinners at all, and Christ did not die for them, and does not save them. This is an argument which has been brought forth in substance repeatedly, and has never been refuted, and never can be. Here we rest our cause in re- sponse to the hue and cry about infant damnation. Our theory is the only one upon which we can predicate the sal- vation of infants, or, as for the matter of that, the salvation of adults. In consequence of sin imputed to them, children are sin- ners, and, being sinners, they are under the full penalty of sin ; and were they left where they are thus placed by sin, they would have to endure and suffer the penalty of sin throughout eternity. By the atonement of Jesus Christ made for them, and through the benefits of this atonement applied in the forgiveness of this imputed sin, and in the regeneration of their corrupt and sinful natures, children dying in infancy are relieved from sin and its penalty, and are not damned in hell, but are saved in heaven. Children dying in infancy are not saved because they have not been accounted sinners, and have not been under condemnation, and have not been liable to eternal punishment, but they are saved because they have been retrieved from sin and re- leased from condemnation and punishment. Or, Sin and Salvation. 101 The charge alleged that the doctrine of original sin in- volves and maintains the inconsistencies and absurdities in- volved in and maintained by the doctrines of irresistible grace, absolute necessity, and a partial and limited atone- ment, which are found in the "five points'' of Calvinism, is without the slightest foundation in reason or truth. To the expressions "necessary holiness," "necessary sin," and "created sin," expressions astutely paraded, and often re- peated, by our opponents, no meaning whatever can be at- tached. They are so utterly meaningless that they only indicate how totally absurd are the dogmas of our oppo- nents and the miserable straits to which they are reduced in their endeavors to bolster up their sham conceptions. Original sin has nothing in the world to do with "necessary holiness," "necessary sin," or "created sin," whatever they may be. No responsible Arminian author ever defended the miserable nonsense couched in these expressions so te- diously dwelt on by those who fight against the evangelical doctrine of inherited depravity. In order to a correct view of the condition and character of infants, and to properly appreciate the subject, it is necessary to have a correct view and proper understanding of at least one feature of the atonement of Christ, and of justification and of regener- ation. The atonement is a provision and satisfaction made for the race. Christ made atonement for "the sin of the world." As a provision for the race, the atonement is fin- ished and complete. Justification is not of universal nat- ure, including within its jurisdiction the whole race, but is of the nature of a special act and work, of special applica- tion done for one single and separate individual. In like manner regeneration is a work done in the single individ- ual. Justification and regeneration have respect only to the individual for whom ' and in whom they take place. 102 The Old and the New Man: The atonement made is not justification and is not regener- ation, and not every one atoned for is justified and regen- erated. The atonement made does not justify the individ- ual, but only makes it possible for him to be justified. The atonement having been made, it is now possible for God, as the apostle states it, to be just and the justifier of the un- godly. Not until an act takes place for the individual as an individual, justifying him, is he justified. The atone- ment made and finished, as it is, and standing as a pro- vision, as it does, for the salvation of the race may, never- theless, not eventuate in the salvation of every individual thereof. The atonement is a provision and a satisfaction made for all and every one, and will eventuate in the sal- vation of every person in whom the work provided for by this atonement is accomplished ; but certain things must be done for and in the individual before the atonement, made and completed, as it is, can eventuate in the salvation of any particular individual. This is alike true in its application both to infants and adults. This should not be forgotten, nor slightly considered. Children are born into the world upon the basis of the atonement and within reach of the benefits thereof, the atonement being a universal provision; but as individuals these children, when born, may not yet have received its proposed and proffered blessings of justification and regen- eration. Children are never, in any case nor in any event, justified nor regenerated before they have an actual per- sonal existence. The work of justification and regeneration takes place in the persons of infants, in which it takes place at all, just as in the persons of adults, except that in the case of adults repentance and faith are prerequisites, and in the case of infants these things are impossible, and are not required. The same Spirit that regenerates the adult person regener- Or, Sin and Salvation. 103 iites the infant, and this regeneration is the same work in the one case and in the other. The same God who justifies the adult justifies the infant, and this justification is the same thing in the one case and in the other. There is no more difficulty or mystery accompanying the work of justi- fication and regeneration in the person of an infant than in the person of an adult. There is as little foundation for the belief that the original sin of the infant has been blotted out before it was born as there is for the belief that the personal sins of the adult were blotted out before he was born. God has a method founded on general principles by which he dispenses the blessings of salvation. In every case in which salvation is attained certain general principles are recognized and conformed to, and in every such case cer- tain necessary agents are engaged in the work. Certain works and acts which are requisite to salvation are per- formed in every case and for every individual who attains salvation. Upon the recognized basis of conferring justifi- cation and regeneration upon the one and upon the other, God can, with equal facility, justify and regenerate the in- fant and the adult. The infant is incapable of exercising repentance and faith, and is equally incapable of resisting the will of God and of rejecting the atonement and grace of Christ; and hence it is as much within the principles and methods of the Divine government to justify and re- generate the dying infant without faith and repentance as the adult with them. Ever and anon, in boldest utterance, it is asserted that the imputation of sin to newborn infants and the punish- ment of these children for this sin would be an injustice shocking to the better instincts of mankind; and that it would be horrifying to think of God subjecting the poster- ity of Adam to a liability to eternal death for his one sin, 104 The Old and the New Man : to which they gave no consent, and about which they were never consulted. In holy horror it is exclaimed, " God can- not be such a monster as to do a thing of that kind, and let not such a charge be alleged against his government!" All this may appear plausible to many minds, and may be popular with superficial thinkers, and may afford oppor- tunity for a display of rhetoric and a vain boast of kind- heartedness and sympathetic emotions; but that is all. There is nothing solid or true in any thing herein contained. "Far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity." The Almighty is "a God of truth, and without iniquity; just and right is he." The imputation of Adam's sin to his off- spring, and subjecting them to the punishment due to this sin, which punishment connotes eternal death, in no way impinges equity and truth, mercy and justice. Where can be the injustice of propagating a race under the maledic- tions of sin, under a judicial sentence for sin, when they are also propagated under the provisions of grace potent to release them from all the evils to which they are liable, and bring them to an estate as good and as desirable as any they could have had in the mere absence of an impending pen- alty? As Adam sinned and fell, God must either perpetuate the race as a sinful and fallen race, or not perpetuate it at all. It was absolutely impossible for sinful Adam to produce any other than a sinful progeny. The divine law could not do otherwise than condemn sin and sinners wherever found or however produced. It was, therefore, for the di- vine economy to devise a method for saving sinful and con- demned children propagated as such by Adam, or to cut off the race in and with Adam, and thereby prevent their personal existence. The divine economy did the former, and not the latter; and so the whole dispensation is one of Or, Sin and Salvation. 105 grace and mercy, and not of cruelty and injustice. It is a dispensation which recognizes the existence of sin, and con- demns sin and punishes sin, and yet proposes to release and save from sin just so far as can be done under the eternal principles of the divine government and through the power of a divine expedient. The scheme of redemption is a divine expedient. In the divine scheme of human r% demption is found the equipoise of justice and goodness, than which a profounder mystery does not exist, than which a more radiant glory is not seen. The warmth and strength of love, the inflexibility of justice, the amiability of good- ness, and the equity of truth, all stand forth in the scheme of saving a sinful, fallen, and condemned race. There is an incapacity of will, and there is an inability for responsible action peculiar to infants, idiots, and luna- tics. The existence and effects of sin and the provisions of grace meet in these in recognition of the absence of account- ability. It is impossible for newborn infants and very young children to exercise will upon the basis of account- ability, because they have not a development and strength of the mental and moral faculties sufficient for accountable choice and action. The same is true of idiots, however ad- vanced in years they may be. More than the bare exist- ence of will is essential to responsible choice and action. Reason and a capacity for a knowledge or perception of right and wrong are essential thereto, with whatever else is necessary to a decision of the mind and the action of the soul. Aside from the inability of will and the incapacity for responsible action, here already named, there is a pros- tration of the will and an inherent bondage to sin which incapacitate for choosing and doing right. The will, by the fall, has lost its freedom insomuch that it is inclined only to evil, and is averse to all good. The human soul, in its fallen state, is under bondage to inherent evil, and while 106 The Old and the New Man: it can choose evil and do wrong, it can never choose good or do right unaided by grace. The statement of the Synod of Dort, that "by Adam's fall his posterity lost their free- will," is most surely true, though the other statement con- nected with it, that they "are now under an unavoidable necessity to do or not to do whatever they do or do not, Whether it be good or evil," is most surely unscriptural and false. The logic of the Synod of Dort is defective. The will may be in bondage to sin, and wholly inclined to evil naturally, and yet not under necessity to do whatever it does. Grace may and does put the soul on a basis of freedom, or at least on a basis whence it is attainable. But naturally the will is enfeebled, and is incompetent to choose good, and is uninclined to do so. In the language of our Article of Religion: "The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God ; wherefore we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will." Those who disallow the disability of the human will, and its disinclination to good, assert that if men are disabled in their wills, and ai - e opposed to all good, and are wholly in- clined to evil, then they are incapable of performing duty and of regulating their actions by a law commanding good and prohibiting evil, and they are not moral agents. Though what is here asserted is quite plausible, and is in a measure correct, we cannot accept it in the form it is put as the truth in the case. The Ethiopian cannot change his skin, nor the leopard his spots ; no more can a man change his evil nature. Men are wholly unable to pardon their guilt and to wash out their innate depravity. Without extrane- ous aid men never c. .. break the bondage of sin in which Or, Sin and Salvation. 107 they are held, or escape the corruption which is in them. Men with unregenerated and wicked hearts, are incapable of regulating their lives by the law of God. But the grace of God, as a prevenient endowment, has been given to all men, and this prevenient grace assists the will, and every man is therefore and thereupon a moral agent, and is capa- ble of willing that which is right and choosing that which is good. But, as the apostle teaches in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, there is a law in the mem- bers of the natural and unregenerate man, even when his mind is enlightened and convicted, which brings him into captivity to the law of sin which is in his members. There is in every one born into the world a depraved and sinful nature, and this accounts for the universality of sin. Were the race not inclined to sin and in love with it, and were the race naturally free from sin, then the individ- uals thereof would be, to say the least, just as apt to go right as to go wrong, and under favorable circumstances would go in the right way and do the right thing. There is a beauty and there is a loveliness in virtue and righteous- ness which would attract and allure some of the individuals of our numerous race if they were naturally free to go in the way of virtue and righteousness. It is per se more pleasant to love than to hate, to speak the truth than to speak falsehood, to be honest than to be dishonest, to be be- nevolent than to be penurious. Sin is hideous in itself, and the way thereof destructive. Therefore if men did not by an evil nature love sin, and were they not in bondage to sin, they would not all follow and commit sin. But it is said that indwelling sin is not essential to ac- count for the transgressions of men; "that a virtuous act does not require an antecedent virtuous disposition or prin- ciple to account for its existence, nor does a vicious act re- quire an antecedent vicious principle to account for its ex- 108 The Old and the New Man: istence;" that otherwise Adam must have had a sinful nature before he sinned. Dr. Taylor embodies the position in the following utterances : " If you say that lust proceeds from original sin, I ask, Whence then proceeded the lust of our first parents? . . . Adam's nature, it is allowed, was very far from being sinful, and yet he sinned. And therefore the common doctrine of original sin is no more necessary to account for the sin that hath been, or is in the world, than it is to account for Adam's sin. His sin was not from a depraved nature, but from his own disobedient will; and so must every man's sin, and all the sin in the world, how much soever, be, as well as his." (Pages 129, 243, 244.) We concede at once that a virtuous act does not necessa- rily require an antecedent virtuous disposition or principle to account for its existence, and that a vicious act does not necessarily require an antecedent vicious principle to ac- count for its existence. We concede at once that Adam's first sin did not proceed from a depraved nature, and that Adam was not sinful, but that he was holy before he sinned. We not only concede this last, but insist on its truth. But then virtuous acts proceed from virtuous dispositions, or principles, and vicious acts from vicious dispositions. Acts partake of the character of the dispositions or principles from which they proceed. They are constituted right or wrong by the nature of the principles from which they flow, as well as by what they are in themselves. An act which violates the law of God, and consequently is vicious in itself, is vicious whether it proceeds from an antecedently virtuous disposition or from an antecedently vicious dispo- sition. So the act of Adam in eating the prohibited fruit was vicious, though previously his disposition was virtuous. An act, virtuous in itself, is vicious when it proceeds from a vicious principle and purpose. The act of praying is in Or, Sin and Salvation. 109 itself a good act; but a man moved by a vicious disposi- tion and actuated by an unholy purpose prays to God, and the act is vicious and wicked because it proceeds from and is prompted by this vicious disposition and purpose. A man gives an alms to the poor, which is an act right in it- self; but the gratification of pride and the attainment of worldly advantage move him to the act, and it is therefore vicious. A virtuous heart acts virtuously, and a vicious heart acts viciously. Every one acts in accordance with his nature and the principles within him. This, it appears to us, needs no argument for its establishing, and lies at the very basis of all philosophy and the nature of all things. "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things; for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." The nature and principles of the man produce his acts, and give to them their character. It is morally impossible for a man who has the nature of Satan in him to do right. It is morally impossible, though not absolutely so, for a man who has the nature of God imparted to him, to sin. " Who- soever is born of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed re- maineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." It is true that one may act contrary to his nature, or original principles, as did Adam, and as did the angels fallen before him; but what we insist on, and what the above texts teach, is that the actions of the individual con- form to his principles and flow from them. This is a law well established, and so the innate depravity of the human heart accounts for the universality of sin, and is the source and cause of universal wickedness. Adam, as a man on trial, under the pressure of temptation, sinned once without any innate depravity to induce him. This was only one case of one man. Were the millions of our race without 110 Tlie Old and the Neiv Man: indwelling sin, and as free to do right as to do wrong, some of the vast multitudes would do right and not do wrong. While we can see how one man might fail to do right un- der such circumstances, we cannot see why and how ><> many and every one should fail under such conditions. Men renewed by the grace of God and by the work of the Holy Ghost do right ; why do they fail to do right by nat- ure without being renewed, if by nature they are free to do good? Our opponents cannot meet this point otherwise than by a rejection of the doctrine of grace and the renew- ing work of the Holy Ghost. Hence their position that men do right not by grace, but by nature, and by extrane- ous influences about them, such as the example of others. But on this hypothesis the scripture above given "Who- soever is born of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed re- maineth in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God " is utterly without meaning. No one should be so silly as to say that "born of God" means an "act of the will," and God's "seed" which remaineth in him who is born of God is nothing else than "the habit formed by a repetition of the acts of the will;" and yet this is the only refuge for our opponents from the force of the plain teach- ings of the text. There are two passages of Scripture relied on by our op- ponents which must be considered at this juncture. One is found in Matthew xviii. 3, and the other in Mark x. 13-15. The first is as follows : " Verily I say unto you, Ex- cept ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." It is confidently asserted that this text teaches that children are not nat- urally sinful; that it vindicates the assumption that new- born infants are without guilt, disease, or moral corruption ; that they need nothing done in them or for them, after natural birth, to prepare them for an inheritance in heaven Or, Sin and Salvation. Ill and admittance there. But we feel sure that Christ had no thought of teaching in this text that newborn infants are actually regenerated and justified, or that they are nat- urally good. He is teaching the necessity of humility and freedom from worldly ambition. The little child is with- out worldly ambition, and is an example of humility. Clement, in his " Instructor," quotes this passage of Script- ure, and says that the Lord was " not in that place speak- ing figuratively of regeneration, but setting before us, for our imitation, the simplicity that is in children." Among other things which Mr. Richard Watson writes in his exposition on this passage, he says : " Copious paral- lels have been sometimes formed between the character of little children and true disciples, and as usual in such cases a fertile invention has pushed interpreters beyond the war- rant of the text. Our Lord himself explains his own mean- ing in the next verse: ' Whosoever therefore shall HUMBLE himself as this little child.' In what, then, does the hu- mility of a little child consist but in freedom from ambi- tion and the desire of wealth and honors? The strifes of men for objects of this kind pass unheeded by the child, and kindle in his bosom no corresponding feelings; he is dead to them. This, in a child, arises not from moral prin- ciple, but from immature capacity." Mr. Fletcher, in his " Dialogue Between a Minister and One of his Parishioners," says : " This passage refers no more to the natural state of children than that where Christ says, 'I will come as a thief,' refers to the dishonesty of a thief. If our Lord affirms that we must become as little children, it is not in natural sinfulness and foolishness, but in 'desiring the sincere milk of the word, as newborn babes desire the breast' (1 Peter ii. 11); in being conscious ofj our ignorance and helplessness ; in submitting to the teach- ing of our Heavenly Master without unbelieving reason- 1 1 2 Tie Old and the Aew Man : ings; and in gladly beginning the spiritual life, as children beginning the natural one." See " Fletcher's Works," Vol. IV., p. 419. The other passage reads: "They brought young children to him, that he should touch them; and his disciples re- buked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the lit- tle children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Who- soever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." That children are subjects of redeeming grace, and ob- jects of God's watchful care and tender mercy, cannot be questioned for a moment, for the Scriptures clearly avouch this truth. That they are redeemed by the blood of Christ, and are entitled to the covenant blessings and covenant- making ordinances of the gospel, admits of no doubt. The Scriptures are sufficiently explicit on these points. In ev- ery special covenant which God has ever made with men he included the children of the parties to the covenant. In his covenant with Adam in the garden, when the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the covenant ordinance, God included the seed of Adam. In his covenant made and established with Noah, the bow in the clouds being the sign of the covenant, God said : " I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you." In his covenant with Abraham, in which circumcision was or- dained as the sign and seal, the language of God was: "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting cov- enant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. . . . This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man-child Or, Sin and Salvation. 113 among you shall be -circumcised." When Christ, in the fullness of the gospel dispensation, came to establish a cov- enant with the nations, of which covenant he ordained bap- tism as the sign and seal, he said : " Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me ; for of such is the kingdom of heaven." And the apostles, recognizing the fact that the children are embraced in the gospel covenant, and are entitled to the covenant ordinances of the same, preached that " the promise is unto you, and to your chil- dren." This passage here under review has been appealed to from the apostolic time as authority for infant baptism, and very properly so, though Christ did not baptize these infants which were brought to him. But then the passage in no way teaches that newborn infants are naturally good, and have no need of regeneration and of justification. Its meaning and significance are just the other way. It teaches that they are subjects of redeeming grace, and therefore in need of all the effects and benefits of that grace. They need regeneration and justification. In the "Dialogue Be- tween a Minister and One of his Parishioners," the parish- ioner quotes a part of this text to prove that children are not naturally depraved, and Mr. Fletcher replies: "The portion of Scripture you quote establishes what you want to overthrow ; for if infants must come to Christ, it follows they are lost sinners through the depravity of their nature, though not yet doubly lost through the corruption of their lives; otherwise they would not stand in need of being brought to the Physician of souls, who 'came to seek and to save [only] that which was lost.' And if our Lord added, ' Of such is the kingdom of heaven' i. e., the dispen- sation of the gospel and the Church of Christ it was to show that infants are in as great want of the gospel, of the advan- tages of Church-fellowship, and as welcome to them, as per- sons of riper years." (" Fletcher's Works," Vol. IV., p. 419.) 8 1 14 The Old and the New Man : Do the innocent ever suffer? Are the innocent ever pun- ished under the divine administration? Are all sufferings inflicted as a penalty or as a punishment for sin? Do in- fants suffer without any reference to a moral law? It is said by those who endeavor to refute the doctrine of original sin that the innocent suffer; that there is suffering under the divine administration which is not a punishment for sin, and that infants suffer without any reference to a moral law. In this connection they assert that afflictions, calam- ities, and death are means of producing and improving virtue, and that it is a principle of the divine government to impose natural evil or suffering as a means of promoting moral good. It is quite difficult to avoid confusion when so many points are combined as in the above questions, but with proper attention the truth may be arrived at without any uncertainty or obscurity. Where there is no moral law there is no transgressor. Where there are no moral law and no transgressor, there is no sin. Where there are no moral law and no transgressor and no sin, there is no guilt. Where there are no moral law and no transgressor and no sin and no guilt, there is no punishment. Where there are no moral law and no trans- gressor and no sin and no guilt and no punishment, there is no suffering, never was, never will be, and never can be. It is the purpose of the Lord, in many instances where he visits judgments and calamities, to correct and reform the parties upon whom they are visited, but judgments and calamities are never visited upon any in the absence of sin already existing, and therefore, however the visitation of these may design correction and reformation and the pro- duction of positive virtue, these calamities and afflictions are in every case visited as a punishment, and a righteous visitation upon sin. The very declaration which is made Or, Sin and Salvation. 115 iu the matter, "to correct and reform the parties upon whom they are visited," expresses the fact of sin existing. Were there no sin in the case, there would be no occasion to cor- rect and reform. How could an infant, or any one else, suffer in order to produce virtue and promote moral good, and at the same time suffer without any reference to the moral law? Such a thing is impossible. Is there such a thing as virtue or moral good independent of moral law? Nay, verily. Suffering and punishment, if not identical, are insepara- ble. It is impossible to think of suffering without thinking of punishment; and in the absence of sin, there never was and there never can be suffering. God in his justice never can visit afflictions and chastisements upon the beings of a realm where there is no sin. To account one innocent does him no good if he is still held under suffering. Mercy and pity can have no existence in a world of perfect innocence; no more can the mode of producing virtue by the visitation of afflictions and the imposition of sufferings. God could as soon exercise mercy toward an innocent being as visit afflictions and sufferings upon him. Christians suffer in this life. There is no denying this. " Many are the afflictions of the righteous." " In the world ye shall have tribulation." "Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." Christians have tribulation in the world because the world hates and persecutes, condemns and kills them. Christians endure scourging because God chastises them. But even Christians are under a dispensation in this life which pun- ishes sin. It is a scriptural truth that "to punish the just is not good." It is also said of the Lord : " He doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men." He must have a cause and a provocation for doing so if he does not do it from his heart ; and that cause and provocation is The Old ami the New Man : nothing else than sin. Wherefore a living man has no just ground of complaint and murmuring in his afflictions, for his afflictions are, as they come from God, a visitation or punishment for his sins. "Though affliction cometh not forth of the dust, neither doth trouble spring out of the ground; yet man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly up- ward." Iniquity, affliction, and trouble are inseparable. Afflictions and trouble come not forth out of the ground, and yet they fall upon man as man, and attend all men in general, because men are born to them as they are born in sin. Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but they come of sin either directly or indirectly. To the exposition of a few passages of Scripture, which we here group together, we shall devote a short space: "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." (Romans vi. 6.) "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, Avhich is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts ; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind ; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holi- ness." (Ephesians iv. 22.) "Lie not one to another, see- ing ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Colossians iii. 9, 10.) "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." (Romans viii. 8.) " But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know 7 them, because they are spirit- ually discerned." (1 Corinthians ii. 14.) These portions of Scripture stand at the very basis of the mission and work of Jesus Christ. The nature and purpose of the whole system of Christ depend upon the interpretation given of these passages. It is remarkable to Or, Sin and Salvation. 117 what lengths men have gone in an exegesis of these texts in order to evade their true intent and meaning. We have seen a published exposition of Romans viii. 8 and 1 Co- rinthians ii. 14, in which it is said that the proposition con- tained in the language, "the natural man," and "they that are in the flesh," "is not a proposition as between two classes in society, but it is a proposition that has respect to the double nature that is within all men." It is further said by the same published exposition that by "the natural man" and "the flesh" is meant "the bodily organization in which reside the appetites and passions," and that by "the spiritual man" is meant "the thinking and emotive man." From all this we are compelled to dissent. Human lan- guage could not be put together so as to more clearly and concisely convey the idea of a class of men in society than is done by the term "they that are in the flesh," and by the term "the natural man." The distinction drawn by each of these terms is clearly of some men from others. The idea of two natures in the same man is in neither of the phrases, and can never be put in either of them. " They that are in the flesh" suggests others who are not in the flesh, and "the natural man" suggests that which is not natural. The idea is nowhere presented in the Scriptures that "the natural man" and "the spiritual man" pertain to and constitute distinct parts of the same individual pos- sessed at the same time; but the idea is that one of these, wherever the man has been both, succeeds and supersedes the other. Dr. Taylor says that the term "they that are in the flesh" means just the same as "to mind [to choose, to follow] the things [the gratifications] of the flesh," and may be truly paraphrased, "The minding, choosing, and following fleshly gratifications." In his note on " The natural man receiveth 118 The Old and the Neiv Man: not the things of the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians ii. 14), he says: "The animal man, the man who liveth the animal life, who maketh the sense and appetite the law of his ac- tions, receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." (See ' : Original Sin," pp. 122, 123.) He makes " to be" the same as choosing and acting, and "to be in the flesh" the same as choosing and acting according to the flesh. It is more than incredible that a man of Dr. Taylor's scholastic at- tainments could be so biased by his creed, or by any thing else, as to teach that "to be" and "to act" are one and the same thing. It is quite evident that "to be" is not the same with choosing and acting. We say, " This stone is." According to Taylor's paraphrase this is the same as to say, " This stone chooses and acts." Who does not see that there is a difference in a stone existing in its essence and a stone acting? To "mind the things of the flesh" conveys to us the idea of choosing and acting, but " to be in the flesh " conveys to us the idea of state or condition, and not of action. In expounding the passages in Ephesians and Colossians which refer to and name the old man and the new man, Dr. Taylor says we learn from them "that the 'old man' has reference to the life these Christians had lived while they were heathens. As the 'old man' has reference to a heathenish life, or conversation, so the ' new man ' has refer- ence to the life of truth, righteousness, and holiness which they were taught," etc. (See " Original Sin," pp. 180, 181 .) In his supplement to this work he says : " God created the 'new man' when he created the gospel dispensation. . . . From all this, I apprehend, we may gather that the 'old man ' relates to the Gentile state, and that the ' new man ' is either the Christian state or the Christian Church, body, or society." (Pages 154, 155.) He therefore denies that the "new man" is any thing like a new nature given to the individual, -or that it is "personal internal holiness," Or, Sin and Salvation. 110 and also denies that the "old man" is a corrupt personal internal nature. When Dr. Taylor reaches a passage of Scripture which has a general allusion, he interprets it as of personal mean- ing; when he finds one which alludes to the individual, he insists that its references are national and dispensational. By means of 'this shifting and distorting he keeps always to his creed and athwart the Scriptures. He often contra- dicts himself and perverts the word of God, but never an- tagonizes his Arianism. Perhaps no portion of God's word more specifically and exclusively refers to the personal state and internal princi- ples and nature of the man as he is by natural birth, and as he is by spiritual birth, than do the terms in these texts, the "old man" and the "new man." To tell us that they allude to a Gentile state, a dispensation, or the body politic, is simply to mock us with words, and to seek to blind us with an hypothesis. Such is no better than a vision of the night, the vagaries of a flitting dream. There is in this phrase, the "old man," something more than the mere adumbrations of truth or the mere scintilla- tions of light. It has something as a basis on which to rest something w r hich called it into existence, and of which it is characteristic. It is not the mere phraseology of a sys- tem based upon an abstraction. It is a phrase of the in- spired author which was adopted by him of purpose and not under the influence of fortuitous incidents. It is a phrase of deep and stable significance, and should be re- tained and held as of divine authority, and guarded in its true intent and significance, if we would have the roots of error dried up beneath and the branches thereof cut off above. The old man is the body of corruption belonging to us. The work of grace does not in its directness destroy the life, but the old nature. The old course of life is, upon 120 The Old and the Neiv Man: conversion, abandoned, but it is an after effect growing out of the work of grace in the destruction of the old man, or corrupt nature. " Ye have put off the old man with his deeds." Here the old man and his deeds are named and clearly distinguished from each other. The apostle would not have been guilty of such tautology as naming the two in the same sentence had he intended by them one and the same thing. Here the old man's deeds are mentioned as his, but distinct from himself. His deeds are the acts of his life, but they are not the same with himself. Had the apostle meant by the old man the action or conduct of the life, it is quite manifest that he would not have named in the same sentence with the old man his deeds. "Ye have put off the old man, and have put on the new man." The old man is before the new man, and the new man is after the old man. The old man is without the new man, and the new man is without the old man. The old man is opposed to the new man, and the new man is op- posed to the old man. When the old man is put off, the new man is put on. The old man is bad, the new man is good. The old man is condemned, the new man is ap- proved. The old man is natural, the new man is super- natural. The old man is by natural birth, the new man is by regeneration. The old man is that which is received in birth from natural parents, the new man is that which is received in the birth wrought by the Divine Spirit. The old man is in bondage to sin, loves and commends it, and has no proper discernment and appreciation of holiness and truth. Therefore the old man and the new man, or the natural man and the spiritual man, do not exist as two nat- ures in the same individual, but they mark opposing nat- ures which belong to and distinguish two separate classes of men. Or; Sin and Salvation. 121 As a matter of fact, men are sinners naturally and in- nately. " The heart is deceitful above all things, and des- perately wicked. Who can know it?" It is the heart, not the life, which is here said to be "deceitful and wicked." What is the heart if it is not that which naturally belongs to a man, and is part and parcel of his being? What are "the lusts of the flesh" and "the desires of the flesh and mind " but the lusts and desires which inherently belong to us? Every individual in every nation, tribe, and genera- tion is a sinner. Jews and Gentiles, one and all, are under sin. " The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." "There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh alter God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable;- there is none that doeth good, no, not one." So says the divine record. 1 -22 The 0!?9 tives, can no more cease its controversy with sin, and can no more withhold its strokes of punishment upon sin, than it can become its own antagonist, or than it can terminate its own existence. Justice is vested with immortality and supremacy. Sin is repugnant and execrable. To connive at sin, and to fail to anathematize it, is to fail to vindicate justice. The goodness of God is so clearly manifest, and so exten- sively recognized, that he has been called "The Good One." It is not, however, true that "god" and "good" are words of the same import. These words are not synonymous. The word "good " is applied to the Divine Being as expressive of one of his qualities, or designative of one of his attributes. The word "god" is applied to him as his name, and desigua- tive of his being and nature in the entireness thereof, as the Supreme Being, holding dominion over all things. Goodness is a moral quality as it is ascribed to God, and is descriptive of a benevolent nature, a virtue that moves in conferring benefit and happiness. In the realm of being there is nothing more admirable than that moral quality called goodness. . Against this quality there is no law; it is subject to no condemnation, though perverted views are entertained as to what it is, and with what it is consistent. Selfishness itself is approved and defended by those who would, nevertheless, abstractly commend benevolence. Benevolence and sin collide, and with these there can be no alliance. Benevolence protests against sin, and ever condemns it. Goodness is not an in- discriminating something, blind to the distinctions of right nnd wrong; and while it exists happiness can never accrue to moral delinquency. God is good. He is essentially be- nevolent. It is said, by some, that if God is a benevolent being, and a wise and omnipotent sovereign, he should not, and could not, permit a state of things productive of dis- 160 The Old and the New Man: content and misery. Those holding this view conclude that as there 'is misery God is not good. But the existence of sin and suffering no more justifies the inference that God is not good than it justifies the inference that he is not omnipo- tent ; no more justifies the inference that he is not good than it justifies the inference that he does not exist. It is use- less to urge captious and groundless objections to the char- acter of God. He is not a selfish and malignant being. He gives no sanctions to vice, and renders no assistance to agen- cies which are productive only of misery. God, m his good- ness, cannot approve of the detestable passions which rankle in the natures of moral delinquents, or the dissolute habits in which they indulge. Hence, he punishes sin. Sin and misery are inseparable, and so are pain and punishment. Suffering is inflicted as a retribution. Neither astuteness nor acuteness can refute this truth. Adversity and afflic- tions may be administered as correctives, and, under correct- ive dispensations, may lead to reformation, and may nour- ish virtue, but the demand for reformation and the produc- tion of virtue is found in the existence of sin, and so are these afflictions and sufferings. It is true that justice can demand nothing that is inconsistent with goodness, but sin is inconsistent with goodness as well as with justice, and must be condemned by goodness no less than by justice. Reconciling the goodness of God with existing misery pushes back to another question namely, the origin and ex- istence of sin. How can God be God, and sin exist? This is the question to be answered. When this is properly an- swered, the question of reconciling existing misery with the divine goodness will disappear. God can be God, and at the same time sin exist. This is true; otherwise it must be denied either that God exists or that there is sin. If God exists at all, he is omnipotent, wise, and good. How does sin exist in the dominions of a wise, benevolent, Or, Sin and Salvation. 1G1 and omnipotent Sovereign ? Sin impinges God's being and law, and consequently, can never be essential to him nor any of his purposes. No profit can ever accrue to God, or to others, through, by, or from sin. No good can ever, in any form, come of sin. God may, in the midst of moral waste and wreck, build up good, but the good would have been complete without the waste and wreck. The waste and wreck are not necessary to the completion or manifesta- tion of any thing divine. In formulating a creed on the origin and existence of sin, a field of boundless dimensions has been explored; in the meantime, a variety of theories on the subject have been in- vented. Many minds have imperfectly apprehended the subject, as can be seen by the fallacious arguments they have adduced, and the uncertain speculations which they have indulged. The researches made demonstrate that it is useless to range the fields of science and philosophy for an adequate understanding of the subject and a satisfactory solution of the questions pertaining thereto. The whole so- lution must be made within certain limits. The question, Whence did sin originate ? can be answered only by an ap- peal to the Scriptures. The disputations of sages and phi- losophers are worth nothing in settling this question. A satisfactory dogma and a settled faith may be secured by adhering to the divine record. Philosophy must yield to the Bible, and superstition must yield to faith. All other theories being irreconcilable with each other, and false in themselves, are refuted by the establishment of the following theory the theory taught in the Scriptures, namely, that by the old serpent called the devil, and Satan, and by the first man, Adam, sin entered into the world. These, the devil and Adam moral agents that they were, in the exercise of their own natural endowments trans- gressed God's law, and thus sin entered into the world, and 11 1G2 The Old and the New Man: woe followed. God could make moral agents, and he did. As he made these they were capable of doing whatsoever they might choose. Moral agency is the highest endowment of the noblest and most exalted beings which God has made, and is conducive to the very best. ends of the divine benev- olence, though its existence involved, under certain condi- tions, the liability to sin, and eventuated therein. In making and putting moral beings under law, God did not ordain the existence of sin nor give his sanction to its per- petration. He, in advance, forbade it, and warned against its liabilities and dangers, and was prompt in condemning it, and punishing for it, when it entered. Here distinctions and subtleties serve rather to confuse than adorn the subject, and they serve to strip God of those excellences inherently belonging to him. Sin has never conduced to the happiness of a single being, and has never added any thing to the man- ifestations of God's perfections or glory. The introduction of sin and suffering is accounted for on the basis of moral agency. No theory of fatalism, nor theory of antagonistic decrees on the part of God, nor theory of weakness in the world of matter, nor theory of an origi- nal evil being, can give the proper solution of the subject. God did not allow or permit sin to exist de jure. When it entered he recognized it de facto. Sin exists beyond all question. But, to repeat what has already been said, God never sanctioned sin. He never gave any license to the perpetration of an evil act. He never authorized the trans- gression of his own law. He permitted moral agents, which he made, to be moral agents. A lawful provision to violate law is a contradiction and an absurdity. -God never legis- lates against himself, and never makes a law antagonistic to his will. And as God never sanctioned or approved sin, so he never made the world to suffer and be miserable. He provided in the origin of his works, for life, immortality, Or, Sin and Salvation. 163 and happiness; and when sin entered his dominions, he, still pursuing the purpose for life, immortality, and happi- ness, brought in a dispensation of grace not a license to sin, but a method of rescue from sin. A righteous ruler may provide for the suppression of a rebellion in his dominions, and for relieving his government of the evils existing there- from; and he may do this without in any way approving of the rebellion, and without in any way finding pleasure in the misery ensuing; but no ruler can inaugurate a rebellion against the government he administers and perpetuates, nor provide such as a part of his administration. A good ruler, in all benevolence, may inflict judgment and punishment in the suppression of sin in his dominions, and for the punish- ment of the guilty therein. Sin and misery are everywhere. At best, the present es- tate of man is a mixture of good and evil, of pleasure and pain. If there are salubrious climates and fertile soils, giving delight and producing plenty, there are also dry sands and barren wastes, where desolation reigns. If there are spicy, invigorating breezes, and sweet fountains, there are also simooms, suffocating Avinds, bitter springs, and de- structive cyclones. If there is, here and there, a moral oasis, there are also moral wastes as wide as continents. Sin is the transgression of the law of God, and this trans- gression originated with moral and responsible creatures creatures placed under law and made amenable thereto; and through sin, thus originating, came death and all suf- fering. Sin brought in penalty. This is the sum of the whole matter, and here the revelation concentrates and terminates. " I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I, the Lord, do all these things." (Isa. xlv. 6, 7.) This passage from the Scriptures has been relied on by many to prove 164 The Old and the Neiv Man: that God is the author of sin. Selecting this text from the Bible as the basis of one of his sermons, Dr. Henry AV. Bellows, of New York, proceeds to say: "The prophets and apostles were much bolder in their assertions than their degenerate followers dare to be. The evil that is in the world they ascribe, without hesitation, not to the perversion which the divine order has received from man, but to the position and direct creation of God, whom they represent, in the text, as saying, ' I make peace and create evil.' . . . I know no indignity that can be put upon God greater than the supposition that the first human creature he made had power to thwart and defy his omnipotence, to change the whole plan and history, and to introduce into the world and the universe an element not desired, nor ex- pected, nor controllable by him, called sin; the frightful cause of his eternal displeasure toward millions of his unborn creatures. Sin is, by the foreknowledge and permission in plainer language, by the will of God, a characteristic element in the schooling of human nature." (" Restatements of Christian Doctrine," pp. 241, 247, 248.) This interpretation of the above text, if interpretation it can be called, is given by Dr. Bellows in support of a theory, and is consonant to the theory which rejects the inspiration of the Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity, and every other evangelical doctrine set forth in the Bible and in or- thodox creeds. Dr. Bellows, Unitarian that he is, is not even a degenerate follower of the prophets and apostles, though he is sufficiently bold and rash in asserting that God is the author or creator of sin. The prophets and apostles were not rash men, who uttered bold and rash words suited only to a bold and rash age. They were inspired men, who spoke in God's name and by God's authority. They used sound speech, which cannot be condemned true words, suited to all times. It is a bold and rash act to assume to Or, Sin and Salvation. 1 65 speak now with the authority of inspired prophets and apostles, and it is equally bold to attribute to them that which they never said. Verily, reason "refuses her assent" to the assertion that God, a good and holy being, created sin. The prophets and apostles never said this, nor any thing akin to it. God is the Sovereign of all things, and holds his throne, and asserts his sovereignty, and adminis- ters law in all his dominions. God has not withdrawn his presence from any place, nor resigned his dominion any- where. One God, he is in all places, and he is everywhere the same. He makes and rules the light and the darkness, and his dominion extends alike to all things and to all places. He asserts his authority and enforces his law, even when rebels against his government hold carnival. Here, in the text under consideration, peace and evil are put in antithesis, just as light and darkness are put in antithesis. It is not said that God creates sin, but it is said that he creates evil. He creates evil for the punishment of sin. God maintains his ju- risdiction, and in judicial visitation he instigates wars, sends plague and pestilence, fire and famine. He visits these and other evils upon the wicked inhabitants of the earth as punishments for sin and as demonstrations of his wrath upon sinners. He does not institute sin, but punishes it. This is the thought expressed by the Almighty when he says, " I create evil." Majesty and power, grandeur and glory, are ascribed to God, the exhibition of which might produce in his creatures dismay; and with equal fullness goodness is ascribed to him by the inspired revelation : " The Lord is good." A thousand oracles attest that the infinite " God is true," and that immutable as he is it is impossible for him to lie. As there is no confusion in God, and as in him there is no deviation from rectitude, he must be essential truth itself. " His truth endureth to all generations." " He is the 106 The Old and the New Man: Rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment; a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. xxxii. 4.) Many books on theology and other subjects declare mercy to be one of the attributes of God, calling it " the darling attribute " aud " a distinguishing attribute of the Supreme Being." Mercy is not an inherent and essential element of being, or of character, and is not an attribute of God. It is an emanation from the attributes of a self-acting be- ing, and is called forth by adventitious circumstances. It springs from the benevolence and love of God ; and its rise and exhibition depend on the existence of sin, as there can be no demand or occasion for mercy when and where there is no sin. Sin is prior to mercy. Mercy is a mere exercise, and is simply an exhibition of God's character called forth by sinful condition or state on the part of his creatures, just as grace is called forth by sinful conditions. Mercy is simply an exercise of clemency toward an offender. It would be as correct to say that grace and wrath are attri- butes of the Almighty as to say that mercy is. In the meantime God is merciful and gracious, and his mercy will not be found lacking so long as there is a sinner in condi- tion and under provision to need mercy and be benefited thereby. Creeds now extant assign to God invisibility and incom- prehensibility, but nothing is thereby added to his excel- lences or perfections. God is not invisible nor incompre- hensible absolutely in and of himself. He is invisible and incomprehensible to finite capacities. He is invisible to finite eyes because finite eyes cannot, in the limit of their OAvn imperfections, penetrate the intervenings between them and God. He is incomprehensible to finite minds because finite minds are incapable, from their own weakness, of comprehending him. When a man extols God as invisible Or, Sin and Salvation. 167 and unsearchable, he declares God's greatness and speaks his praise, and he declares the imperfections of his own powers as well. God is a triune being. This is the doctrine of the Bible, and its recognition is essential to a proper Christian theology. An accurate and systematic statement of doctrine is neces- sary to guard and perpetuate the truth. Nothing must be allowed to lead away from sound theoretical definitions. This doctrine of the Trinity must be adequately and con- cisely defined ; this the profoundness of the subject and the intricacies involved therein imperatively demand. In this triunity, as in other respects, God is unlike every being and every thing. There is nothing with which God can be compared, or to which he can be likened. There is nothing in the universe by which this Trinity can be illus- trated. The effort here at illustration is not only futile, it is prolific of error. In the intricate work of setting forth this profound doctrine, the Scriptures alone must be relied on and appealed to, for it is a subject purely of revelation. Whatever revelation teaches concerning the same is to be implicitly believed, and further than the revelation no one can go. To a finite mind the doctrine of the Trinity is mysterious, though it involves no absurdities and ho con- tradictions. The mind, when properly instructed, finds no difficulty in believing that which is mysterious, while no intelligent person can believe a statement which involves a contradiction. These truths must be kept steadily in mind, while the subject now under consideration is further pre- sented. Triunity teaches that there are three in one. The terms three and one are not the same in meaning, and the num- bers three and one are not the same in fact, and these can never be made the same in any sense. If the terms three and one meant the same they would not express the thought 168 The Old and Ike New Man: which is intended to be conveyed in their use in this con- nection. It is because they have a different sense and con- vey a different meaning that they are brought into use on this profound theme. The Bible nowhere says, and the doctrine of the divine Trinity never attempts to maintain, that three are one, and that one is three. This would be such a glaring contradiction that no invention could con- ceal it, and no one could afford to defend or tolerate it. St. John says: "There are three that bear record in heav- en, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one." (1 John v. 7.) St. John here does not say that three are one, and that one is three, but he men- tions Father, Word, and Holy Ghost as three, and says these, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are one. In this there is no contradiction, and no absurdity. There are not gods many, nor lords many. A plurality of gods is a theory, a mere fancy, born of the superstition which fosters mythology. There cannot be more than one God, but there can be three persons in that one God. There is only one living and true God, "and in unity of this god- head there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are one in unity, one in essence, one in Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are three in person. These, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost one in unity, and the same in es- sence, and three in person constitute in their own being the triune God. The Father is a person, the Son is a person, and the Holy Ghost is a person ; these, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, though not separate, are distinct in personality, and so are three persons. " The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God ; these, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are united in the Godhead ; these are the same in .essence; they exist in indissoluble Or, Sin and Salvation. 1(] ( J oneness, and so they are one God ; and thus these three are one. This God of essential essence and trinity of persons is the one true and living God. The Bible teaches that the Father is a person, that the Son is a person, and that the Holy Ghost is a person. To each of these, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, belongs essence, the constituent substance of being; and each of these, in a simple, primi- tive, and true sense, is a person. Attributes and offices in- here in persons, but when the Scriptures present and de- scribe the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost, it is not a per- sonification of attributes nor a designation of offices which is presented and described. Jesus Christ, the Son, is as truly God as is the Father, and the Holy Ghost is as truly and essentially God as are the Father and the Son. Great care must be had not to confound the persons nor divide the substance or essence in and of the triune God. The triune God is not a product in any sense. He is not de- rived in any manner. He has not his being either in essence or person, by emanation, generation, creation, nor procession, but by self-existence. Trinality is of the very nature of God, and is dependent upon no process whatso- ever. It is of the nature of God to be trinal, just as it is of his nature to be holy. It would be as well to discuss the method and manner of God's holiness as it would be to discuss the method and manner of his trinity. There is no more manner of the one than there is of the other. There is no more reason for attempting to show how God is a triune God than there is for attempting to show how he is a holy God or an omniscient God. His trinity is just as independent of emanation, generation, creation, and proces- sion, as is his holiness. No theory can be maintained, in harmony with the truth, which has for its basis the idea that Deity has reached by development a state of being 1 70 The Old and the New Man : which previously did not pertain thereto. God has ever existed just as he is. He has existed one God from eter- nity in the three persons of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The relation to each other of the three persons in the Godhead is a subject demanding thorough investigation. The basis has been laid for it in the preceding paragraphs. As a proper perception of God is conducive to the greatest happiness, a perfect knowledge of him is a most desirable attainment. Streams of light flowing in upon the mind from the divine fountain, whose fullness is inexhaustible, fill the soul with joy ineffable and infinite. Many questions have been attached to this subject of the relation of the divine persons to each other in such a way that they can- not be ignored, though in themselves they are not entitled to any consideration. The points involved in this subject have been thrown into such attitudes, by the controversies which have arisen concerning the same, as to greatly com- plicate them. The theories known as Sabellianism and Arianism have given rise to much of the phraseology used in discussing the origin and relation of the persons in the Godhead. There is no occasion for innovations in the the- ory long held by the evangelical creed concerning the trin- ity in unity, but this theory can and must be relieved of the phraseology which has hitherto embarrassed it, as well as some of the opinions connected with that phraseology. In discussing this abstruse and sublime theme precise and unambiguous terms must be sought rather than the display of rhetorical fancies. Sabellianism, which asserted that there is only one person in the Godhead, that the Son and the Holy Ghost are but different manifestations of the one God the Father, perform- ing different offices of the one God, is most emphatically repudiated here as" both unreasonable and unscriptural. Arianism, which asserted that the Son is not divine, but Or, Sin and Salvation. 171 .only a creature, and denied the divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost, is here repudiated as rank and pernicious heresy. The evangelical doctrine that in the Godhead "there are three persons of one substance, power, and eter- nity the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," is here ac- cepted without any reservation, and shall be defended, as has already been done, with the best ability possessed. How did the Son derive his being? This was the ques- tion before the Council of Nice, which was held in the year A.D. 325. The answer to this question depends upon the view taken of the nature of Jesus, the Son. The celebrated council divided into two parties on this question. The party which contended that Jesus, the Son, was not God, insisted that he was created. The party which contended that he was a divine person adopted the position, which they thought an only alternative, that he derived his being by generation. Hence the doctrine of the eternal gener- ation of the Sou became the theory of the orthodox party in the Nicene Council. It Avas orthodox to maintain the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son, against the position that he was a creature, but it was not necessary to adopt the theory of generation to maintain the truth of his divinity. While it is true that he is the Son, and that he is very God, it is not so clear that he is these by generation. It does not follow that the doctrine of generation is true because the doctrine of creation is false. The orthodox party prob- ably would not have adopted the theory of eternal genera- tion had it not been that, being pressed by their opponents with the argument for creation, they thought as they re- jected creation they must present and defend some other method of the Son's origin. Whereas it is unnecessary to account for the manner of the divine existence. The men of that noted council fell into a grave mistake when they at- tempted to account for the method of the divine relation. 172 The Old and the New Man: The Son is in no sense derived, neither in his essence nor in his person. He always existed, the Son, the second per- son in the Trinity second only in number and relation, not in posteriority. The Son is in no sense from the Father, any more than the Father is from the Son. The divine es- sence is not derived, and it cannot be compounded nor di- minished, divided nor imparted. There is no such thing as emanation in the divine essence. The divine essence is not by generation any more than it is by creation. The exist- ence of the Son is without any thing proceeding from or accruing to the Father. In the essence pertaining to the persons of the Trinity there is no division and no distinc- tion. The divine persons are neither prior nor inferior nor subordinate to each other. There are no grades or degrees distinguishing the persons of the triune God. There is no succession in the personality of the Godhead. The Sou is inferior to the Father in nothing pertaining to his divinity ; he is inferior to the Father only in the human nature which he took upon himself. The three persons in the Trinity differ only in person and in name, and in what each does in their activities and administrations. The Sonship per- taining to the second person in the Trinity is not communi- cated. It is under no such imperfection as belongs to com- munication. Being a Son from eternity, there is no imper- fection pertaining thereto. In any and every sense in which Jesus Christ in his divine personality was a Son, he was a Sou eternally that is, from everlasting to everlasting; and in every sense in which the Father in his divine personality was a Father, he was a Father from eternity. The divine essence and the divine persons were neither created nor generated. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are terms designating per- sons in the Trinity and distinguishing them, and further than this are not expressive of paternity nor filiation nor Or, Sin and Satvafion. 1' procession. Son expresses not official title, but personal re- lation in the Trinity a divine personal relation. Neither Father; Son, nor Holy Ghost, as terms, expresses any acts by which the relation of the divine persons originated. The term "begotten," used in the Scriptures in relation to the second person in the Trinity, is incidental to the name and relation of the Sou, and is simply used in declaring and distinguishing him, and is not intended to express ac- tion by which the Son receives and has his being, either in essence or person. And this is true whether the term re- fers to him in his divine existence as he was from eternity, or to him in the union of his two natures as the God-man. "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." This no more intends to express action by which he had his es- sence or being than it intends to declare the beginning of his existence. This simply declares him, announces him, in his being and mission, in his relations, purposes, and achievements. It has already been stated that in their divine essence and being the persons of the Trinity are neither superior nor inferior to each other. Jesus said: "My Father is greater than I." This is simply a contrast of the divine nature of the Father with the human nature of Jesus, the Son. The Father, in his divine nature, is greater than Je- sus, the Son, in his human nature. At another time, and in another place, Jesus said: "I and my Father are one." This is simply a portraiture of the divine natures of the Father and the Son. The Father and the Son are one in that they are both divine. Jesus did not intend to assert that the Father had a human nature, and that in this lie and the Father were the same, but he intended to assert his own divine nature, and in this the oneness of the two. The Father and the Son are both divine, and in this they are one. The Father is only divine, while the Son is man by 174 The Old and the New Man: the assumption of human nature ; and in this the Father is greater than the Son. Likewise in this the Holy Ghost is greater than the Son. Otherwise the three are equal and one. An effort has been made to account for and tell how the Holy Ghost, one of the persons in the divine Trinity, orig- inated. This effort has given rise to much controversy, and even to division, in the Church. Some have asserted that the Holy Ghost derived his essence and being from the Father, and others have asserted that he derived his essence and being from the Father and from the Son conjointly. This doctrine is that the Holy Ghost received his essence, being, and nature by procession from the Father and from the Son. Hence some confessions of faith avow the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and from the Son. The divine essence is not communicable, and the Holy Ghost is not the result of a communicated essence from the Father and from the Son. The doctrine of Procession, iu the sense of communicating the essence, being, and nature of the Holy Ghost, is without foundation in reason and Scripture. There is no truth in the theory. " Eternal procession " is a phrase contradictory in itself. The Holy Ghost is a divine person is very God. His essence and being are underived. He exists, is self-existent, and is not from any source whatso- ever. The triune God is without origin. He is underived. God existed triune from eternity. There was no source from whence he came, nor process nor action by which he derived his being or received his nature. The Holy Ghost, in the origin and existence of himself, is without creation, proces- sion, or action of any sort. The Holy Ghost, in the origin of his essence, does not proceed from the Son any more than the Son proceeds from the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost, in the origin of his essence, does not proceed from the Father any more than the Father proceeds from the Or, Sin and Sal cat ion. 17 "> Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost, iu the origin of his essence, does not proceed from the Father nor from the Son any more than the Father proceeds from the Son or the Son proceeds from the Father. " But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he will testify of me." This passage of Scripture, found in John xv. 26, has been ad- duced to prove that the Holy Ghost, in his essence, pro- ceeds from the Father and from the Son. The doctrine of Eternal Procession was not found in and brought out of this text, but the doctrine was invented, and then brought to and reclined on this text for support. This is the best scriptural authority that could be adduced in de- fense of the dogma, and, insufficient as it is for that pur- pose, it has been marshaled into service. This text is by no means obscure, and is environed by no great difficulties. The doctrine of the oneness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost lies deeply imbedded in this text, and the divine harmony of these three is authoritatively announced there- in. This, and not the spreading of the Father's essence, is in the text. The term, in the text, "proceedeth from the Father," is the term specially relied on to prove this doc- trine of Procession. But the coming forth of the Holy Ghost from the Father in heaven, to the disciples of Jesus on the earth, is all that is meant by this term, and is all that can possibly be intended thereby. The simple meaning of the word "proceed" is to move forward from one place, person, or thing to another; to issue out from. Jesus, for instance, when he made his advent as Messiah, "proceeded forth and came from God ; " and so of a truth he came do\\ n from God the Father out of heaven. In like manner, and in the same sense, and in no other, the Holy Ghost pro- ceeded from the Father. Jesus sent the Holv Ghost frcm 17C The Old and the New Man: heaven to his disciples who were upon the earth ; the Holy Ghost came, and in this coming to the disciples on the earth he came from, proceeded from, the Father and from the Son. This, and nothing more. "And because ye are sons God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." This text, found in Galatians iv. 6, has been brought forward to prove that the Holy Ghost, in his essence, proceeds from the Son. The Holy Ghost is called, in this text, the Spirit of the Son ; and hence it is claimed that as he is his Spirit he must, in his essence, proceed from the Son. He is not the Spirit of the Son by virtue of the reception of his es- sence and existence from the Son, but from another con- sideration altogether. The Holy Ghost is of the Son and with the Son, just as the Father and the Son are of and with the Holy Ghost, and no otherwise. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Christ because, according to the promise made to the disciples, he was sent forth into the world by Christ, when Christ ascended up on high, and led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men. He is the Spirit of Christ because he testifies of Christ, or bears witness of his divine work as Mediator and Redeemer. Here closes the proof which the advocates of the doc- trine of Procession adduce from the Scriptures. And it is manifest that this doctrine of Procession is without any au- thority from Scripture, and must for that reason be reject- ed. Every phase of doctrine which teaches the produc- tion of one of the divine persons by, or from, the others, or which teaches the subordination of one of the persons of the Trinity to the others, must be rejected as inimical to truth. The Holy Ghost has never been produced, or caused ; and not having been formed from the divine sub- stance, he cannot be absorbed into the substance of the Deity. He cannot be absorbed into his own substance, Or, Sin and Salvation. 177 nor absorbed in any way whatsoever. It requires no acute reasoning to demonstrate this truth. The Holy Ghost is an underived being, and his divinity and personality can- not be denied, and cannot be explained away by rhetor- ical flourishes. As God is approached for worship it is very important that he be apprehended as a triune Qod, and that his trinity be recognized as from everlasting. As the triune God he is from none. The Father is from none; the Son is from none ; the Holy Ghost is from none. Let all the intelligent creatures in the universe join in the doxology: " To Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God in persons three, be everlasting praises given." In the great scheme of salvation from sin stands cen- trally and preeminently Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Son of man, the God-man. Jesus Christ is sui generis. Earth, sun, moon, and stars; seeds, plants, and trees; rep- tiles, beasts, fowls, and fishes; and men and angels, and whatever else is, have their natures; but in all, from the lowest to the highest, there is nothing like Jesus Christ. He unites in himself two whole and perfect natures. He has united in him not blended and mixed, but united two natures, wherein and whereof he is both God and man, wherein and whereof he is one person, the God-man. The Incarnation the assumption of human nature by the Son of God, the second person in the Trinity is the most wonderful event in all the occurrences taking place in the cycles of eternity. Here, in the person of Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of Mary, is a being strangely combining superiority and inferiority. He possessed di- vine power and divine knowledge, and was under the disa- bilities of human weakness and human ignorance. Par- adoxical as it may be, he possessed all things, and yet had nothing. He was the author of all life, had life in 12 178 The Ol