//,  <C  ,  U-2^ 
 
 Sfrum  the  Stihrarg  of 
 
 Prufpaaor  iSpttjamtn  Imktttrtitgp  MarMk 
 
 iBequeatlteb  l>n  him  tn 
 %  ICihrarn  nf 
 
 Pnttrrtott  QHjpologiral  ^rntnarg 
 
 BR  45  . H36  v. 13  N 
 
 Candlish ,  James  Stuart,  1835 
 -1897. 
 
 Christian  doctrine  of  God 
 
With 
 
 THE  PUBLISHERS' 
 
 w...  FITMENTS. 
 
Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
 in  2019  with  funding  from 
 Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/biblicaldoctrineOOcand 
 
antiijriflks  for  Bible  Classes 
 anti  $)ribatc  ^tntrenfs. 
 
 EDITED  BY 
 
 REV.  PROFESSOR  MARCUS  DODS,  D.D., 
 
 AND 
 
 REV  ALEXANDER  WHYTE,  D  D. 
 
 - -*e»-»‘=r  ='>+-■ s»- - 
 
 NOW  READY. 
 
 THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS.  By  James  Macgregor,  D.D., 
 late  of  New  College,  Edinburgh.  Price  is.  6 d. 
 
 THE  POST-EXILIAN  PROPHETS.  With  Introductions  and  Notes.  By 
 Rev.  Prof.  Marcus  Dods,  D.D.  Price  2 s. 
 
 A  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  By  Rev.  James  Stalker,  D.D.  Price  is.  6d. 
 
 THE  SACRAMENTS.  By  Rev.  Professor  Candlish,  D.D.  Price  is.  6d. 
 
 THE  BOOKS  OF  CHRONICLES  By  Rev.  Professor  Murphy,  LLTd.  , 
 
 Belfast.  Price  is.  6d. 
 
 THE  CONFESSION  OF  FAITH.  By  Rev.  John  Macpherson,  M.A., 
 Findhorn.  Price  2 s. 
 
 THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES.  By  Rev.  Principal  Douglas,  D.D.  Price  is.  3 d. 
 
 THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA.  By  Rev.  Principal  Douglas,  D.D.  Price  is.  6d. 
 
 THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  HEBREWS.  By  Rev.  Professor  Davidson, 
 D.D.,  Edinburgh.  Price  2s.  6 d. 
 
 SCOTTISH  CHURCH  HISTORY.  By  Rev.  N.  L.  Walker,  D.D.  Price is.6d. 
 
 THE  CHURCH.  By  Rev.  Prof.  Binnie,  D.D.,  Aberdeen.  Price  is.  6d. 
 
 THE  REFORMATION.  By  Rev.  Professor  Lindsay,  D.D.  Price  2 s. 
 
 THE  BOOK  OF  GENESIS.  By  Rev.  Prof.  Marcus  Dods,  D.D.  Price  2 s. 
 
 THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.  By  Rev.  Principal  Brown,  D.D., 
 Aberdeen.  Price  2 s. 
 
 PRESBYTERIANISM.  By  Rev.  John  Macpherson,  M.  A.  Price  is.  6d. 
 
 LESSONS  ON  THE  LIFE  OF  CHRIST.  By  Rev.  Wm.  Scrymgeour, 
 Glasgow.  Price  2 s.  6d. 
 
 THE  SHORTER  CATECHISM.  By  Rev.  Alexander  Whyte,  D.D., 
 Edinburgh.  Price  2 s.  6 d. 
 
 THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST.  MARK  By  Rev.  Professor 
 Lindsay,  D.D. ,  Glasgow.  Price  2s.  6 d. 
 
 A  SHORT  HISTORY  OF  CHRISTIAN  MISSIONS.  By  George  Smith, 
 LL.D.,  F.  R.G.  S.  Price  2 s.  6d. 
 
 A  LIFE  OF  ST.  PAUL.  By  Rev.  James  Stalker,  D.D.  Price  I*.  6d. 
 
 PALESTINE.  With  Maps.  By  Rev.  Arch.  Henderson,  D.D., 
 Crieff.  Price  2 s.  6d. 
 
 [ Continued  on  next  page. 
 
HANDBOOKS  FOR  BIBLE  CLASSES. 
 
 THE  BOOK  OF  ACTS.  By  Rev.  Professor  Lindsay,  D.D.  Two  Parts. 
 Price  lx.  6 d,  each, _ _ _ _ 
 
 THE  WORK  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  By  Rev.  Professor  Candlish, 
 
 D.D.  Price  ij.  6d. _ _ 
 
 THE  SUM  OF  SAVING  KNOWLEDGE.  By  Rev.  John  Macpherson, 
 M.A.,  Findhorn.  Price  is.  6cL _ 
 
 HISTORY  OF  THE  IRISH  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  By  Rev. 
 
 Thomas  Hamilton,  D.D.,  Belfast.  Price  2 s. _ 
 
 THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST.  LUKE.  By  Rev.  Professor  Lindsay, 
 M.A.,  D.D.  Part  I.,  price  2s.  Part  II.,  price  is.  3 d. _ 
 
 THE  CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES  AND  THE  CONCLUSIONS  OF  SCIENCE. 
 
 By  Rev.  W.  D.  Thomson,  M.A.,  Lochend.  Price  2 s. 
 
 BUTLER’S  THREE  SERMONS  ON  HUMAN  NATURE.  With  Intro- 
 duction  and  Notes.  By  Rev.  T.  B.  Kilpatrick,  B.D.  Price  is.  6 d. 
 
 THE  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD.  By  Professor  Candlish,  D.D. 
 Price  is.  6 d. _ 
 
 THE  BOOK  OF  EXODUS.  By  James  Macgregor,  D.  D.,  late  of  New 
 College,  Edinburgh.  Two  Parts.  Price  2 s.  each. 
 
 THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST.  JOHN.  By  Rev.  George  Reith, 
 M.A.,  Glasgow.  Two  Parts.  Price  2s.  each. 
 
 CHURCH  AND  STATE.  A  Historical  Handbook.  By  A.  Taylor 
 Innes,  Esq.,  Advocate,  Edinburgh.  Pricers. 
 
 THE  MINOR  PROPHETS.  By  Rev.  Principal  Douglas,  D.D.  Price  is.  (id. 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN.  By  Rev.  Professor  Candlish,  D.D. 
 
 IN  PREPARATION. 
 
 THE  SABBATH.  By  Rev.  Professor  Salmond,  D.D.,  Aberdeen. 
 
 THE  FIRST  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS.  By  Rev.  Prof.  Marcus 
 Dods,  D.D. 
 
 THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  TO  THE  CORINTHIANS.  By  Rev.  Principal 
 
 David  Brown,  D.D.,  Aberdeen. 
 
 THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS.  By  Rev.  James  Mellis, 
 
 M.A.,  Southport. 
 
 THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  OOLOSSIANS.  By  Rev.  Simeon  R.  Macphail, 
 M.A.,  Liverpool. 
 
 CHRISTIAN  ETHICS.  By  Rev.  Professor  Lindsay,  D.D.,  Glasgow. 
 APOLOGETICS.  By  Rev.  Professor  Iverach,  M.A.,  Aberdeen. 
 
 1.  and  II.  PETER,  and  JUDE.  By  Rev.  Wm.  Patrick,  B.D.,  Kirkin- 
 
 tilloch, _ 
 
 THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST.  By  Rev.  James  Macgregor,  D.D, _ 
 
 CHURCH  HISTORY.  By  Rev.  Professor  Lindsay,  D.D. 
 
HANDBOOKS 
 
 FOR 
 
 BIBLE  CLASSES 
 
 AND  PRIVATE  STUDENTS. 
 
 EDITED  BY 
 
 PROFESSOR  MARCUS  DODS,  D.D., 
 
 AND 
 
 REV.  ALEXANDER  WHYTE,  D.D. 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN 
 BY  PROFESSOR  /.  S.  CANDLISH,  D.D. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 T.  CLARK,  38  GEORGE  STREET. 
 
LONDON  : 
 
 PRINTED  BY  MORRISON  AND  GIBB, 
 
 FOR 
 
 T.  &  T.  CLARK,  EDINBURGH. 
 
 SIMPICIN,  MARSHALL,  HAMILTON,  KENT,  AND  CO.  LIMITED. 
 NEW  YORK  :  CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS. 
 
 TORONTO  :  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  NEWS  CO. 
 
THE 
 
 BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 BY 
 
 v/ 
 
 JAMES  S.  CANDLISH,  D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR  OF  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY  IN  THE  FREE  CHURCH  COLLEGE,  GLASGOW. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 R  &  T.  CLARK,  38  GEORGE  STREET. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAP.  l’AGE 
 
 I.  THE  BIBLICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  SIN,  ....  9 
 
 II.  COMPARISON  OF  VIEWS  OF  OTHER  RELIGIONS,  .  .  .18 
 
 III.  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  BIBLICAL  VIEW,  .  .  31 
 
 IV.  THE  NOTION  OF  GUILT  CONNECTED  WITH  SIN,  .  .  38 
 
 V.  THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  SIN,  .....  45 
 
 VI.  THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN  IN  MANKIND,  .  .  -55 
 
 VII.  VARIOUS  EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN,  .  69 
 
 VIII.  THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  FALL  OF  MAN,  .  .  82 
 
 IX.  THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  NATIVE  DEPRAVITY,  .  .  90 
 
 X.  INABILITY  OF  MAN  TO  DELIVER  HIMSELF,  .  .  .99 
 
 XI.  THE  INHERITANCE  AND  IMPUTATION  OF  STN,  .  .  .Ill 
 
 XII.  ELEMENTS  OF  HOPE  IN  MAN’S  SINFUL  STATE,  .  .  .123 
 
 7 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 - ❖ - 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  SIN. 
 
 Christianity  is  in  its  essential  nature  remedial ;  it  is  not  a 
 mere  benefit  bestowed  to  increase  the  wellbeing  of  men  ;  it 
 is  a  deliverance,  and  indeed  the  only  deliverance,  from  a  most 
 terrible  and  deadly  evil ;  and  that  evil  is,  throughout  the  pages 
 of  Revelation,  described  as  having  its  root  and  chief  part  in  sin. 
 The  founder  of  Christianity  was  called  Jesus,  because  He  should 
 save  His  people  from  their  sin  ;  He  was  hailed  as  “the  Lamb  of 
 God,  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world55;  He  declared  that 
 He  came  to  call  sinners  to  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  it  is  pro¬ 
 claimed  as  a  faithful  saying  among  His  disciples  “that  Jesus 
 Christ  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners.55  Entirely  consistent 
 with  this  are  the  anticipations  and  promises  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
 ment.  In  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  sin  is  recog¬ 
 nised  as  the  radical  and  greatest  evil  from  which  man  needs  to 
 be  saved. 
 
 Yet  the  Bible  gives  no  didactic  explanation  of  what  sin  is, 
 
 but  from  the  very  outset  of  its  teaching  assumes  that  to  be 
 
 known.  Just  as  the  inspired  writers  do  not  think  it  needful 
 
 to  begin  with  a  definition  of  God  or  a  proof  of  His  existence,  as 
 
 little  do  they  count  this  necessary  in  regard  to  sin.  For  the 
 
 practical  purpose,  which  is  the  immediate  object  of  revelation, 
 
 9 
 
IO 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 neither  was  required ;  and  the  Word  of  God  has  met  with  a 
 response  in  the  consciences  and  hearts  of  men,  when  it  addresses 
 them  as  sinners,  and  calls  them  to  return  to  God.  Sin  is  a 
 reality,  and  is  felt  as  such,  even  though  its  nature  be  not  ex¬ 
 plained  to  the  intellect. 
 
 But  in  a  systematic  study  of  Bible  teaching  we  need  to  have 
 a  clear  and  definite  view  of  what  sin  is  ;  and  for  that  purpose  we 
 must  inquire,  How  do  we  get  that  knowledge  of  it  which  the  Bible 
 assumes  that  we  have?  In  seeking  an  answer  to  this  question, 
 we  may  begin  with  its  most  general  conception,  and  advance 
 from  that  to  its  specific  character. 
 
 In  its  most  general  conception,  sin  is  unquestionably  an  evil, 
 and  we  get  the  notion  of  evil  in  general  from  our  feeling.  As 
 capable  of  enjoyment  and  suffering,  of  happiness  and  misery,  of 
 desire  and  aversion,  we  have  the  notion  of  evil,  including  all  that 
 we  dislike  and  fear,  all  that  affects  disagreeably  our  bodily, 
 mental,  or  spiritual  feelings  ;  and  as  our  experience  enlarges,  we 
 include  in  the  notion  of  evil  all  that  leads,  or  may  lead,  to  such 
 disagreeable  feelings.  This  general  conception  we  have,  simply 
 as  sentient  beings. 
 
 But  more  specifically,  as  possessing  conscience,  or  moral  judg¬ 
 ment,  we  have  the  notion  of  moral  evil ;  and  sin  undoubtedly 
 comes  under  this  more  specific  conception.  We  know  and  judge 
 our  own  actions,  desires,  and  emotions,  as  right  or  wrong  ;  we 
 have  an  apprehension  of  what  we  ought  to  do  and  to  be,  and  what¬ 
 ever  deviates  from  that  we  pronounce  to  be  morally  evil  and 
 blameworthy.  This  constitutes  a  distinct  kind  of  evil,  different 
 from  other  things  that  come  under  the  general  notion.  Its 
 difference,  or  special  characteristic,  lies  in  its  being  what  ought 
 not  to  be,  what  is  wrong,  what  deserves  blame  and  condemnation. 
 What  is  the  ground  and  origin  of  this  moral  judgment  is  a 
 question  disputed  by  philosophers  ;  but  it  suffices  us  in  the 
 meantime  to  know  that  it  is  a  real  fact,  and  that  it  serves  to 
 define  more  precisely  the  notion  of  sin. 
 
 Man  has,  however,  also  a  religious  faculty,  by  which  he  comes 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  SIN.  1  I 
 
 into  conscious  relation  to  God  ;  and  this  gives  to  moral  evil  the 
 distinctive  character  of  sin,  under  which  it  is  always  viewed 
 in  the  Bible.  Sin  is  moral  evil  viewed  as  an^oifenee— against 
 Gck3L 
 
 That  the  Bible  uniformly  recognises  the  notion  of  moral  evil 
 as  sin  against  God  hardly  needs  to  be  proved  by  citation  of 
 particular  passages  ;  but  for  the  sake  of  distinctness  reference 
 may  be  made  to  some  outstanding  points  in  the  evidence  by 
 which  this  is  made  plain.  In  the  narratives  of  the  times  before 
 Moses,  the  wickedness  of  man  is  represented  as  grieving  God, 
 and  calling  down  His  judgment  (Gen.  vi.  5-7) ;  blood  murderously 
 shed  cries  to  God  (zb.  iv.  10)  ;  the  fear  of  God  is  thought  by 
 Abraham  to  be  the  only  restraint  upon  injustice  (zb.  xxii.  11)  ; 
 and  Joseph  resists  temptation  to  vice  by  the  thought  that  it  is  a 
 sin  against  God  (zb.  xxxix.  9).  In  the  earliest  part  of  the  laws 
 of  Israel,  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xxi.-xxiii.),  oppression 
 and  wrong  are  denounced  as  offences  against  God  (zb.  xxii.  23, 
 24),  and  the  whole  code  is  sanctioned  by  His  authority.  In  the 
 Levitical  legislation,  the  prescriptions  about  sin  and  guilt  offer¬ 
 ings  (Lev.  iv.,  v.)  imply  the  same  idea  ;  and  especially  in  the  laws 
 of  holiness,  vice  and  crime  are  described  as  provoking  God’s 
 wrath  (Lev.  xviii.,  xix.).  The  great  work  of  the  prophets  was  to 
 proclaim  that  moral  evil  estranged  men  from  God,  and  pro¬ 
 voked  His  anger,  in  spite  of  the  most  costly  and  careful  outward 
 service  (see  e.g.  Amos  v.,  Hos.  vi.,  Micah  vi.,  Isa.  i.  etc.) ;  and 
 we  have  the  response  to  that  teaching  in  the  utterances  of 
 penitent  devotion  in  Ps.  xxxii.,  1.,  li.,  cxxx.,  cxliii.  With  all  this 
 teaching  before  Christ’s  advent,  the  notion  of  moral  evil  as  an 
 offence  against  God  was  indelibly  impressed  on  the  Jewish  mind  ; 
 and  our  Lord  and  His  apostles  did  not  need  to  enforce  it,  but 
 assumed  it  as  an  admitted  and  certain  truth,  and  based  on  it  the 
 proclamation  of  forgiveness,  peace  with  God,  the  enjoyment  of 
 His  favour,  and  the  hope  of  His  glory,  as  a  message  of  glad 
 tidings  to  men  who  had  all  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory 
 of  God. 
 
12  THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 We  generally  define  this  aspect  of  moral  evil  by  distinguishing 
 it  from  others  ;  and  as  when  we  view  it  as  injuring  a  man’s  own 
 nature  we  call  it  vice ,  in  which  view  the  moralist  has  to  do  with 
 it;  and  when  it  injures  a  fellow-man  or  human  society,  we 
 designate  it  as  crime ,  which  is  dealt  with  by  the  legislator  ;  so 
 when  viewed  as  an  offence  against  God  we  describe  it  as  sin , 
 in  which  aspect  it  is  considered  by  the  theologian.  But  this 
 distinction  of  the  terms  vice,  crime,  and  sin,  though  convenient 
 and  common,  is  only  of  modern  date.  In  ancient  times  we  do 
 not  find  the  several  ideas  expressed  by  different  words  in  each 
 language,  but  rather  one  aspect  of  evil  is  almost  exclusively  pre¬ 
 dominant  in  the  heathen  world,  and  another  where  the  light  of 
 revelation  shone.  In  classical  Greek  and  Latin,  <zluapria  and 
 peccatum  had  not  that  deep  religious  meaning  that  sin  has  for  us  ; 
 while  the  notion  of  yccyJot,  vitium ,  was  largely  employed  by  the 
 philosophic  and  moral  writers. 
 
 In  the  Bible,  sin  much  more  commonly  denotes  an  offence 
 against  God ;  but  it  is  also  used,  often  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
 sometimes  in  the  New  Testament,  for  an  offence  against  a  fellow- 
 man.  The  distinction  that  we  make  between  sin  and  crime  is 
 expressed,  not  by  different  words,  but  by  the  mention  of  the 
 persons  offended,  as  in  i  Sam.  ii.  25  ;  Acts  xxv.  8,  10,  n.  The 
 Greek  words,  dhytHu,  dlixYipoi,  properly  denote  crime,  but  are 
 sometimes  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  a  religious  sense.  The 
 notion  of  vice  very  rarely  occurs  in  the  Bible,  but  it  is  expressed 
 by  sin  (Prov.  vi.  32  ;  1  Cor.  vi.  18).  The  word  vice  never  occurs 
 in  the  English  Bible,  but  once  in  the  Apocrypha  (Wisd.  vii.  30) 
 for  kkkicl.  But  in  the  New  Testament  kcukU c  denotes,  not  vice  in 
 the  modern  sense,  but  generally  malice.  Crime  in  the  Authorised 
 Version  is  used  in  the  sense  of  crimen ,  accusation  (Acts  xxv.  16, 
 27),  where  the  Revisers  have  altered  it  to  “  matters,”  “  charges.” 
 
 The  primary  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  words  for  sin, 
 though  not  shedding  very  much  light  on  the  subject,  bears  out 
 the  view  just  given,  so  far  as  it  goes.  riNDH  in  Hebrew,  and 
 dfixoTi'ci  in  Greek,  seem  both  to  have  meant  originally  a  missing 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  SIN. 
 
 T3 
 
 of  the  mark  ;  \)y  means  literally  crooked,  as  opposed  to  “itfh, 
 straight  or  upright,  like  our  wrong  (i.e.  wrung),  opposed  to  right 
 {rectus).  like  the  Greek  •jeu.pu.x.o^  is  properly  rebellion, 
 
 disobedience  ;  tt xpufixais  is  a  stepping  aside  or  across,  trans- 
 gressio;  'Kapcczraga,  a  falling  aside.  The  etymology  of  the  Latin 
 ; teccatum ,  the  English  sin,  and  the  German  Siinde  is  obscure, 
 and  does  not  throw  any  light  on  the  subject ;  but  it  may  be 
 noticed  that  Cicero  says,  “  peccare  est  tanquam  transilire  lineas  ” 
 {Paradox,  iii.),  and  distinguishes  peccatum ,  as  the  act,  from 
 vitium ,  the  pravitas  animi,  from  which  it  proceeds.  (See  on 
 vitium,  Tusc.  Qucest.  iv.  13.) 
 
 The  general  idea  in  all  these  words,  where  a  derivation  can  be 
 traced,  is  that  of  deviation  from  a  line  that  ought  to  be  followed, 
 or  disobedience  to  a  command  that  ought  to  be  obeyed.  In 
 many  nations,  indeed,  men’s  thoughts  did  not  rise  above  the  idea 
 of  human  law,  or  abstract  moral  principle  as  the  rule,  from  which 
 sin  is  a  deviation  ;  but  when  God  revealed  Himself  as  a  living 
 and  holy  Being,  as  He  did  to  Israel,  there  could  not  fail  to  arise 
 a  deeper  and  truer  idea  of  sin,  and  of  the  nature  and  sanctions  of 
 the  moral  law  from  which  it  is  a  deviation. 
 
 In  fact,  the  specific  notion  of  sin  arises  directly  from  that  of  the 
 moral  government  of  God,  or  the  special  way  in  which  the  Creator 
 of  the  universe  deals  with  His  rational  and  free  creatures.  He 
 governs  them  in  a  manner  suited  to  their  nature,  not  merely  by 
 what  are  called  laws  of  nature,  which  are  uniform  sequences  of 
 changes,  mechanical,  chemical,  or  vital.  In  so  far  as  we  have  a 
 physical  organism  we  are  really  subject  to  these  laws,  and  God 
 acts  upon  us  through  them,  whether  we  know  them  and  are 
 willing  to  submit  to  them  or  not.  But  in  so  far  as  we  are  rational 
 and  moral  agents,  and  can  determine  our  actions,  God  governs 
 us  by  making  known  to  us  through  our  conscience  what  is  right, 
 and  givingus  a  feeling  of  obligation,  and  of  His  will  and  command 
 that  we  should  do  it.  He  has  made  us  rational  and  free  just  in 
 order  that  His  will  may  be  done  by  us,  not  through  blind  con¬ 
 straint,  as  it  is  in  the  operation  of  natural  laws,  but  intelligently 
 
14  the  biblical  doctrine  of  sin. 
 
 and  willingly.  He  would  have  our  conduct  determined,  not  by 
 laws  acting  directly  upon  us,  but  by  the  representation  of  laws  to 
 our  intellect  and  conscience,  and  the  free  response  to  them  of  our 
 will.  Such  laws  are  what  we  call  moral  laws,  and  they  have  two 
 characteristics  distinguishing  them  from  mere  natural  laws.  One 
 is  that  they  involve  the  idea  of  duty  or  obligation,  so  that  under 
 moral  law  we  have  the  feeling  that  we  ought ;  and  the  other  is 
 that  they  are  fulfilled  through  the  intervention  of  will,  and  leave 
 open  the  possibility  of  disobedience.  God,  however,  maintains 
 His  authority  even  when  men  disobey  His  law,  both  by  the 
 inward  agency  of  conscience,  which  accuses,  condemns,  and 
 torments  the  transgressor,  so  that  he  cannot  be  said  to  have 
 escaped  God’s  government  even  when  he  has  disobeyed  God’s 
 law;1  and  also  by  the  outward  agency  of  Divine  Providence,  which 
 controls  all  things,  and  secures  that  ultimately  sin  leads  to  inevit¬ 
 able  suffering  and  destruction. 
 
 It  is  when  we  view  morality  as  the  command  of  God,  and  as 
 the  rule  by  which  He  governs  His  rational  creatures,  that  we  get 
 a  distinct  idea  of  what  is  meant  by  sin.  When  morality  is  con¬ 
 ceived  merely  as  an  ideal,  an  end,  or  the  end,  at  which  man  may 
 wisely  aim,  the  perfection  of  his  nature  ;  then  the  want  or  oppo¬ 
 site  of  it  can  be  regarded  only  as  moral  evil,  vice,  failure  of 
 the  highest  good,  but  not  as  an  offence  against  Deity.  If,  on 
 the  other  hand,  the  will  of  God  is  conceived  as  separate  from 
 morality,  requiring  certain  acts  of  obedience  as  expressions  of 
 homage  or  tributes  of  praise,  the  refusal  of  these  would  be  a 
 personal  offence,  or  rebellion  against  our  Sovereign  Lord,  but 
 would  not  necessarily  have  in  itself  the  character  of  moral  evil. 
 It  is  when  these  two  views  are  combined,  and  it  is  recognised 
 that  morality,  or  the  highest  ideal  of  human  character,  is  the  will 
 
 1  “  Cur  tamen  hos  tu 
 Evasisse  putes,  quos  diri  conscia  facti 
 Mens  habet  attonitos,  et  surdo  verbere  caedit, 
 
 Invisum  quatiente  animo  tortore  flagellum?” 
 
 Juvenal,  Sat.  xiii.  192. 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  SIN. 
 
 15 
 
 and  command  of  God,  that  we  have  the  full  conception  of  sin, 
 which  is  moral  evil  viewed  as  an  offence  against  God  because 
 contrary  to  His  moral  law. 
 
 Since  God’s  law  is  coextensive  with  the  moral  ideal  of  man, 
 it  appears  that  the  notion  of  sin  cannot  be  limited,  as  it  is  by 
 certain  theological  schools,  to  voluntary  disobedience  to  that  law, 
 but  must  include  everything  that  is  at  variance  with  it,  habits, 
 inclinations,  and  impulses,  as  well  as  deliberate  desires,  words, 
 and  deeds.  The  Bible  distinguishes  between  transgression, 
 which  is  a  narrower  idea,  and  sin,  which  is  more  general ;  for 
 while  all  transgression  is  doubtless  sin,  there  may  be  sin  that  has 
 not  that  special  form  ;  as  the  Psalmist  speaks  of  having  been 
 shapen  in  iniquity  and  conceived  in  sin,  and  Paul  describes 
 indwelling  sin  as  a  tendency,  or  law,  in  his  members,  to  which 
 he  did  not  consent,  but  made  most  earnest  resistance.  The 
 problems  presented  by  this  form  of  sin  will  require  more  particular 
 consideration  further  on,  but  it  is  well  to  notice  at  the  outset  the 
 full  extent  of  the  subject  with  which  we  have  to  do. 
 
 The  fact  that  God  marks  as  sin  every  deviation  from  perfect 
 morality,  though  at  first  sight  it  has  a  severe  aspect,  yet  in  reality 
 shows  the  great  regard  that  He  has  for  the  creatures  whom  He 
 has  made  in  His  own  image,  the  care  He  exercises  over  them, 
 and  His  desire  of  the  highest  good  for  each  one  of  them.  For 
 the  true  good  is  the  highest  happiness  for  man  ;  and  when  God 
 reveals  to  us  the  good  in  the  form  of  a  command  addressed  to 
 each  one  of  us,  and  is  displeased  when  we  come  short  of  it ;  this 
 means  that  He  cares  for  each  one,  that  He  would  have  us  to 
 attain  our  highest  end,  and  will  not  let  us  alone,  if  by  any  means 
 we  may  be  moved  and  encouraged  to  reach  up  to  it.  The 
 moral  law  which  God  has  given  to  man,  and  by  means  of 
 which  He  exercises  moral  government,  is,  in  its  very  unchanging 
 severity  of  requirement,  an  expression  of  God’s  love  to  us,  and 
 desire  for  our  highest  good.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  teaching  and  educa¬ 
 tion,  by  which  He  would  show  us  the  ideal  for  which  we  were 
 created,  and  point  us  the  way  to  attain  it.  It  is  not  indeed  the 
 
l6  THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 highest  revelation  of  God’s  love,  but  it  prepares  the  way  for  that ; 
 for  if  the  law,  even  when  broken,  was  a  pedagogue  to  lead  us  to 
 Christ,  may  it  not  much  more  have  been  such  if  it  had  been  kept  ? 
 It  is  a  form  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  according  to  our  Lord’s 
 teaching  is  our  highest  good,  that  fellowship  in  which  God’s  will 
 is  done  out  of  love,  and  His  favour  enjoyed  by  men.  The  dis¬ 
 pensation  of  law  or  moral  government  is  not  indeed  the  highest 
 and  ultimate  form  of  the  kingdom  of  God — that  is  only  attained 
 through  the  redemption  of  Christ ;  but  it  is  a  preparatory  stage 
 towards  it,  and,  had  man  obeyed,  would  have  been  a  rudimentary 
 form  of  it.  Sin,  however,  comes  in  as  a  disturbing  element,  and, 
 as  we  shall  see  afterwards,  may  be  described  as  an  offence  against 
 God,  because  it  really  opposes  and  injures  the  kingdom  of  God, 
 which  is  the  chief  end  both  of  God  and  man. 
 
 The  educative  function  of  the  moral  law,  as  preparing  for  the 
 kingdom  of  God,  implies  that  it  has  been  revealed  to  man  in 
 different  ways  and  in  different  parts  from  time  to  time.  The 
 fullest  and  clearest  exhibition  of  it  is  that  given  by  Jesus  Christ, 
 not  only  in  His  teaching,  but  in  His  life  as  our  example  ;  but  He 
 solemnly  declared  His  precepts  to  be  meant  not  to  subvert,  but  to 
 confirm  and  complete  those  of  the  law  and  the  prophets  given  to 
 Israel,  the  fundamental  principles  of  which  were  embodied  in  the 
 ten  words  given  at  Sinai.  These  were  summed  up  by  our  Lord  in 
 the  two  great  commandments,  also  given  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 and  in  the  golden  rule  (Matt.  vii.  12)  ;  and  as  these  brief  sum¬ 
 maries  show  us  how  all  moral  duty  flows  from  one  principle,  so 
 the  detailed  exhortations  and  instructions  of  the  prophets,  wise 
 men,  and  apostles,  who  spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
 Spirit,  show  us  how  the  principle  is  to  be  applied  to  the  endlessly 
 varied  circumstances  and  relations  of  human  life.  All  these  are 
 different  kinds  and  degrees  of  revelation  of  moral  law  from 
 without,  God  speaking  to  us  by  His  servants,  and  in  the  last  days 
 by  His  Son.  But  the  moral  law  is  also  revealed  within  ;  since 
 even  the  Gentiles,  who  have  not  the  law  outwardly  given,  show 
 the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  and  their  consciences 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  CONCEPTION  OF  SIN. 
 
 17 
 
 testify  to  its  authority  as  a  command,  by  accusing  and  even  by 
 excusing  themselves  (Rom.  ii.  14,  15).  This  inward  revelation  of 
 duty  has  also  its  various  forms,  being  more  or  less  complete, 
 sometimes  crude  and  undeveloped,  and  sometimes  reasoned  out 
 into  full  and  detailed  systems  of  morals,  as  by  Confucius, 
 Buddha,  Aristotle.  While  some  sense  of  duty  seems  inseparable 
 from  man’s  nature,  and  so  it  may  be  truly  said  that  the  moral 
 law  was  given  to  him  at  his  creat-ion  ;  it  is  not  necessary  to 
 suppose  that  he  possessed  at  first,  either  by  external  revelation 
 or  by  conscious  moral  sentiments,  a  complete  code  of  ethics  ;  it 
 is  enough  if  he  had  a  knowledge  and  conviction  of  duty  in  those 
 relations  in  which  he  had  practically  to  act. 
 
 The  moral  law,  in  whatever  way  made  known  to  men,  is  to  be 
 regarded,  according  to  the  scriptural  view,  as  the  command  of 
 God ;  and  deviation  from  it,  as  thus  regarded,  is  what  we 
 recognise  as  the  essential  meaning  of  sin. 
 
 B 
 
CHAPTER  II. 
 
 COMPARISON  OF  VIEWS  OF  OTHER  RELIGIONS. 
 
 The  relation  recognised  between  religion  and  morality  is  a  thing 
 that  goes  far  to  determine  the  entire  character  of  the  different 
 faiths  of  mankind.  The  Christian  view,  which  connects  them 
 inseparably,  and  marks  this  by  judging  all  moral  evil  to  be  an 
 offence  against  God,  seems  to  those  who  have  been  brought  up 
 in  it  very  simple  and  self-evident ;  yet  there  are  great  and  widely 
 received  forms  of  thought  to  which  it  is  strange  ;  on  the  one 
 hand,  those  in  which  religion  is  made  to  supersede  or  exclude 
 morality ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  those  in  which  morality  is  sought 
 to  be  enforced  without  religion.  The  former  recognise,  indeed, 
 offences  against  Heaven,  but  do  not  attach  to  them — nay,  some¬ 
 times  exclude  from  them— the  notion  of  moral  evil ;  the  latter 
 acknowledge  moral  evil,  but  deny  that  it  can  truly  be  called  an 
 offence  against  God. 
 
 In  the  most  ancient  religions,  moral  and  religious  duties  are 
 not  clearly  distinguished,  for  violations  of  merely  positive  and 
 ceremonial  laws  were  generally  placed  on  a  level  with  moral 
 offences,  and  often  were  even  more  dreaded  as  provoking  the 
 wrath  of  the  Deity.  This  appears,  for  example,  in  the  Homeric 
 poems,  in  which,  when  the  question  arises  why  a  god  is  angry,  it 
 is  suggested  that  it  may  be  most  likely  for  the  neglect  of  vows  or 
 sacrifices.1  Such,  too,  was  the  notion  of  the  Eastern  tribes  whom 
 the  king  of  Assyria  brought  to  Samaria  (2  Kings  xvii.  24-26) ; 
 and  the  popular  religion  of  Israel  itself  was  considerably  affected 
 by  similar  ideas,  though  the  prophets  contended  strenuously 
 
 1  See  e.g.  Iliad ,  i.  65. 
 
 IS 
 
COMPARISON  OF  VIEWS  OF  OTHER  RELIGIONS. 
 
 !9 
 
 against  them.  Such  ideas  always  tend  to  make  the  conception 
 of  sin  indistinct,  and  to  allow  an  undue  predominance  to  the 
 positive  and  ritual  element  over  the  moral  and  spiritual. 
 Religious  duties  come  to  be  regarded  as  mere  arbitrary  observ¬ 
 ances,  and  morality  is  either  ignored,  or,  when  studied  and 
 enforced,  is  dissociated  from  religion,  as  it  came  to  be  by  the 
 Greek  philosophers. 
 
 But,  while  very  generally  among  rude  peoples  there  is  a 
 confusion  of  the  moral  and  the  positive  elements  in  religion, 
 leading,  where  not  corrected,  to  the  excessive  preponderance  of 
 the  latter  ;  in  some  systems  of  belief  we  find,  what  is  still  worse, 
 such  ideas  and  principles  as  altogether  exclude  the  moral  element, 
 especially  the  moral  aspect  of  sin,  preventing  it  from  ever  being 
 recognised. 
 
 Such  is  the  case  in  all  the  various  forms  of  the  Brahmanical 
 religion  and  philosophy,  which  proceed  upon  the  fundamental 
 assumption  of  the  emanation  of  the  universe  from  Deity,  or  of 
 all  sensible  existence  being  a  mere  illusion,  having  no  reality. 
 These  conceptions  make  the  notion  of  moral  evil  an  impossibility  ; 
 because  if  all  that  exists  is  but  a  form  or  emanation  of  the  one 
 real  Being  and  source  of  all  existence,  nothing  that  is  can  be 
 truly  regarded  as  what  ought  not  to  be  ;  evil  of  any  kind  can  be 
 only  relative,  an  imperfection  or  fault  in  this  or  that  thing  con¬ 
 sidered  separately,  but  when  viewed  in  relation  to  the  whole  of 
 things,  only  a  part  of  the  necessary  evolution  or  manifestation  of 
 the  Divine. 
 
 Hence,  while  in  some  of  the  Vedic  hymns  there  is  a  certain 
 partial  recognition  of  moral  evil,  along  with  ceremonial  defile¬ 
 ment,  in  the  later  forms  of  Brahmanism,  and  in  the  popular 
 religions  of  modern  India,  there  is  no  room  for  the  moral  notion 
 of  sin  at  all.  Thus  these  forms  of  belief  not  only  dissociate 
 morality  from  religion,  as  has  been  done  in  almost  every  primitive 
 and  pagan  religion,  but  exclude  the  possibility  of  moral  distinc¬ 
 tions  at  all,  and  teach  that  they  are  entirely  illusory.  The 
 disciple  of  these  creeds  conceives  himself  to  be  united  to  the 
 
20 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 Deity,  not  by  any  moral  or  religious  bond,  but  by  such  as  are 
 physical  or  metaphysical.  In  the  more  popular  forms  of  this 
 Pantheistic  system,  it  is  believed  that,  since  all  are  materially 
 derived  from  the  gods,  their  union  is  maintained,  and  benefits 
 secured,  by  observing  the  proper  forms  of  ritual  observance,  as 
 inculcated  by  the  authorised  priests.  Whatever  men’s  moral 
 character  or  conduct  may  be,  if  they  duly  perform  all  the  rites 
 required  in  the  worship  of  the  Deity  to  whom  they  belong,  they 
 are  safe  ;  these  rites  work  by  a  magical  power,  and  are  of  the 
 nature  of  charms  or  spells.  But,  for  the  educated  and  inquiring, 
 Brahmanism  has  another  form,  esoteric  and  philosophical.  The 
 connection  of  the  disciple  with  the  Deity  is  metaphysical,  and  is 
 to  be  realised  by  getting  rid,  as  soon  as  possible,  of  all  things 
 material  or  earthly,  avoiding  merit  as  much  as  demerit ;  because 
 as  often  as  any  one  ends  this  life  with  either,  he  must  enter 
 another  finite  life,  to  be  rewarded  or  punished,  and  both  alike 
 prevent  that  absorption  in  the  Deity,  which  is  the  only  perfect 
 happiness. 
 
 Thus  Brahmanism  recognises  evil  as  that  which  separates  man 
 from  the  Deity  ;  but  since  the  Deity  is  viewed,  not  as  a  Being  of 
 moral  attributes,  but  either,  in  the  popular  mythology,  as  a 
 multitude  of  mere  nature-powers,  or,  in  the  esoteric  philosophy, 
 as  the  essence  of  all  true  being,  what  separates  man  from  the 
 Deity  is,  not  immorality  of  any  kind,  but  either  neglect  of  magical 
 rites  of  worship,  or  want  of  insight  into  the  illusion  of  all  finite 
 existence.  In  either  case,  moral  evil  as  such  is  not  regarded  as 
 having  any  religious  bearing  at  all ;  and  since  in  Brahmanism 
 religion  is  held  the  paramount  matter,  morality  has  come  to  be 
 practically  disregarded. 
 
 While  the  Pantheistic  religions  and  philosophies  exclude  the 
 notion  of  moral  evil  altogether,  there  are  others  which  recognise  it 
 very  energetically,  but  in  a  too  material  and  therefore  misleading 
 way.  Such  are  those  of  the  dualistic  kind.  The  great  historical 
 religion  of  this  character  is  Mazdeism,  the  faith  of  the  Avesta 
 held  by  the  ancient  Persians  and  the  modern  Parsees.  This 
 
COMPARISON  OF  VIEWS  OF  OTHER  RELIGIONS.  2  1 
 
 would  seem  to  have  been  derived  from  the  ancient,  pre-Vedic 
 religion  of  the  Aryans,  who  were  the  common  ancestors  of  the 
 tribes  that  peopled  Media  and  Persia,  and  of  those  that  descended 
 into  India.  Both  in  language  and  in  the  form  of  many  of  their 
 religious  and  mythological  expressions,  there  is  recognised  by  all 
 scholars  an  affinity  between  the  Hindoo  Vedas  and  the  Avesta. 
 But  a  comparison  of  these  sacred  books  shows  an  entire  differ¬ 
 ence,  and  even  opposition,  in  religious  beliefs,  the  Hindoo  so 
 merging  God  in  nature  as  to  obliterate  the  distinction  between 
 good  and  evil,  the  Persian  so  emphasising  the  conflict  between 
 them  as  to  run  into  Dualism. 
 
 This  latter  faith  is  associated  with  the  name  of  Zoroaster  ( Zara - 
 thustra ),  who  is  mentioned,  in  what  are  acknowledged  to  be  the 
 earliest  parts  of  the  Avesta  (the  Gathas ),  in  a  way  that  makes  it 
 highly  probable  that  he  was  an  actual  person,  who  introduced  a 
 reform  in  the  ancient  religion  of  his  country.  These  hymns  or 
 sacred  poems  describe  a  conflict  going  on  between  the  worshippers 
 of  the  good  Deity  (. Ahura  Mazda)  and  those  of  the  false  gods 
 (, daevas 1).  No  supernatural  events  are  told  in  these  poems,  but 
 Zoroaster  is  described  as  praying  to  Ahura  Mazda  for  teaching, 
 help,  and  blessing  ;  receiving  these  from  him,  and  imparting  them 
 to  his  disciples.  The  feelings  ascribed  to  him  vary  from  con¬ 
 fidence  to  despondency,  and  again  to  hope,  as  would  be  the  case 
 in  an  actual  religious  conflict.  There  is  in  these  songs  a  character 
 of  originality  and  truth. 
 
 Hence  most  scholars  regard  them  as  genuine  records  of  a  very 
 old  religious  conflict ; 2  but  as  to  where  and  when  it  took  place 
 there  is  much  uncertainty  and  difference  of  opinion.  Zoroaster’s 
 name  is  connected  with  Ragha  in  Eastern  Iran  or  Bactria,  though 
 some  authorities  think  the  place  of  his  teaching  was  farther  west, 
 
 1  This  word  is  radically  the  same  as  deva,  which  denotes  the  gods  of  Indian 
 religion,  and  indicates  their  being  regarded  as  evil  beings  by  the  reforming 
 party,  just  as  the  Greek  ia.i  soviet,  became  the  demons  or  devils  of  Christendom. 
 
 2  See  “  Translation  of  the  Gathas”  (Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  vol.  xxxi.), 
 by  L.  S.  Mills,  Introduction,  p.  xxiii. 
 
22 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 in  Media.  Since  the  Gathas  describe  the  country  as  under  a 
 king  Vistaspa,  and  since  Bactria  was  no  longer  an  independent 
 kingdom  after  1200  B.C.,  when  it  was  conquered  by  Assyria  ;  if 
 Zoroaster  lived  there  it  must  have  been  before  that  date  ;  and  an 
 antiquity  to  that  extent  seems  also  necessary  to  account  for  the 
 later  development  of  the  religion  in  the  less  ancient  parts  of  the 
 Avesta.1  On  the  other  hand,  the  Gathas  seem  to  be,  according 
 to  the  best  scholars,  later  than  the  Vedas  ;  but  their  date  also  is 
 extremely  uncertain,  though  apparently  some  time  between  1500 
 and  900  B.C.2  Zoroaster,  then,  may  have  lived  somewhere  about 
 the  time  of  Moses. 
 
 In  what  is  considered  by  competent  scholars  the  oldest  part  of 
 the  Avesta,  there  is  a  very  remarkable  account  of  a  call  of  Zoro¬ 
 aster,  very  similar  to  that  of  the  Hebrew  prophets.  The  soul  of 
 the  kine,  or  herds  of  the  Iranian  people,  is  introduced  as  lament¬ 
 ing  to  Ahura  their  sufferings  from  injustice  and  rapine.  Ahura 
 asks  Asha  (his  righteous  order  personified)  who  has  been  ap¬ 
 pointed  to  take  charge  of  them  ?  the  answer  is,  that  no  one  has 
 been  found  himself  free  from  injustice.  Then  Zarathustra  offers 
 a  plea  for  the  suffering  land  and  people,  whereupon  Ahura  declares 
 that  he  is  appointed  to  be  their  deliverer.  The  soul  of  the  kine 
 laments  that  she  has  obtained  but  a  feeble  lord  ;  but  Zarathustra 
 accepts  the  charge,  and  prays  Ahura  for  help  and  strength  to 
 carry  out  his  great  work.3  Then  follows  a  series  of  discourses 
 and  arguments,  setting  forth  the  principles  and  precepts  of  this 
 religion,  mingled  with  prayers  and  appeals  to  the  Deity,  and  also 
 with  denunciations  of  a  party  opposing  the  doctrines  thus  taught. 
 
 These  ancient  records  give  us  the  idea  of  a  preacher  of  right¬ 
 eousness  and  religion  contending  against  worldly  and  ungodly 
 men,  somewhat  after  the  manner  of  the  prophets  in  Israel.  So 
 
 1  See  Freeman  Clarke,  Ten  Great  Religions,  i.  pp.  180,  181  ;  L.  S.  Mills,  l.c. 
 
 2  See  Monier  Williams,  Hinduism ,  p.  16  ;  Freeman  Clarke,  l.c. ;  De  la 
 Saussaye,  Lehrbuch  der  Religionsgeschichte ,  ii.  15. 
 
 3  Yasiia,  xxix.  ;  Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  vol.  xxxi.  p.  6.  Compare  Ragozin, 
 Media,  p.  100  (Story  of  the  Nations  Series). 
 
COMPARISON  OF  VIEWS  OF  OTHER  RELIGIONS. 
 
 23 
 
 far  from  following  the  Pantheistic  tendency  of  Hindoo  religion, 
 this  system  was  so  intent  on  separating  all  evil  from  the  good 
 Lord  ( Ahura  Mazda),  that  it  ascribed  it  to  a  distinct  and  opposing 
 principle.  This  implies  a  very  energetic  conception  of  the  con¬ 
 trast  between  good  and  evil ;  but  unhappily  the  contrast  was  not 
 regarded  as  a  purely  ethical  one,  but  as  also  to  a  large  extent 
 physical, 1  certain  natural  things  and  agents  being  considered  to 
 be  in  themselves  evil.  The  Vendidad  consists  largely  of  laws 
 of  purification  ;  and  these  have  reference,  not  only  to  moral  defile¬ 
 ment,  but  to  physical  pollution.  Whatever  is  connected  with 
 death,  leads  to  death,  or  comes  from  death,  is  regarded  as  evil ; 
 while,  on  the  other  hand,  fire,  water,  and  earth  are  regarded  as 
 pure.  Hence  it  is  that  the  Parsees  reckon  it  wrong  either  to 
 bury  or  to  burn  the  dead,  because  it  is  polluting  the  pure  elements 
 of  earth  or  fire  with  evil. 
 
 This  view  of  certain  existing  things  as  essentially  evil  made 
 it  necessary  to  assume  an  independent  principle  of  evil,  and 
 from  this  necessity  probably  arose  the  mythological  fables  which 
 are  found  to  some  extent  in  the  Vendidad,  but  more  largely  in 
 the  Bundahis.  This  element  in  the  Zoroastrian  sacred  books 
 has  been  compared  to  the  Biblical  Genesis,  and  the  other 
 element  to  Leviticus.2  The  evil  power  in  the  Zend  religion  is 
 not,  indeed,  represented  as  equal  to  Ahuramazda,  but  as  limited 
 in  knowledge  and  wisdom,  and  so  inferior  in  power,  as  to  be 
 destined  to  be  finally  overcome.  In  these  respects,  it  has  been 
 truly  pointed  out,  his  attributes  do  not  exceed  what  has  been 
 ascribed  to  Satan  in  Christian  theology.  But  in  one  important 
 respect  the  notion  of  Ahriman  transcends  any  that  the  Bible  per¬ 
 mits,  since  he  is  regarded  as  having  the  power  to  create,  and 
 actually  creating  some  real  existences  ;  and  this  seems  to  imply 
 that  he  is  not  himself  a  creature.  This  is  what  is  properly  meant 
 
 1  It  has  been  called  “  the  religion  of  the  confused  mixture  of  the  spiritual 
 and  the  natural,”  De  la  Saussaye,  l.c.  ii.  16. 
 
 2  Pahlais  Texts,  translated  by  E.  H.  West  {Sacred  Books  of  the  East ,  v.), 
 Introduction,  p.  lxvii. 
 
24 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 by  Dualism,  not  that  the  power  of  evil  is  equal  to  that  of  good, 
 but  that  there  are  two  independent  orgins  to  which  the  universe  is 
 to  be  traced,  that  which  is  good  in  it  to  one,  and  that  which  is 
 evil  to  another.  This  necessarily  implies  that  moral  evil  is  the 
 result,  not  of  the  will  of  beings  created  good  though  unstable,  but 
 of  the  nature  of  certain  things  created  by  an  evil  power  ;  and 
 consequently  in  the  Parsee  religion,  while  many  moral  duties  are 
 inculcated  and  vices  condemned,  yet  some  things  that  are  quite 
 involuntary  and  merely  physical  or  technical  defilements  are 
 treated  as  sins  of  the  gravest  kind.  Thus  the  notion  of  sin,  or 
 that  which  offends  God,  is  not  distinguished  as  moral  evil. 
 
 Another  form  of  Dualism,  which  has  exerted  great  and  wide¬ 
 spread  influence  over  men’s  notions  of  sin,  is  the  theory  that 
 matter  has  an  eternal  existence  independent  of  the  Deity,  and  is 
 essentially  evil,  and  the  source  of  all  the  wrong  and  misery  that 
 are  in  the  world.  Since  few  of  the  ancient  religions  were  able  to 
 rise  to  the  idea  of  Creation  in  the  proper  sense  of  production  out 
 of  nothing  ;  the  highest  conception  possible,  for  those  who  did 
 not  adopt  the  theory  of  emanation,  was  that  of  an  intelligent 
 power  moulding  and  framing  an  independently  existing  matter. 
 Such  was  the  view  held  by  many  of  the  Greek  philosophers. 
 Now,  since  this  matter  was  conceived  as  much  as  possible  to  be 
 destitute  of  good  qualities,  which  were  all  traced  up  to  the 
 Framer  of  the  Universe,  it  was  a  natural  suggestion  that  to  the 
 independently  existing  matter  might  be  traced  back  all  the  evil 
 that  appears  in  the  world  as  it  now  is.  This  would  seem  a  way 
 to  solve  the  ever-perplexing  problem  of  the  origin  of  evil,  and  to 
 vindicate  the  goodness  of  the  maker  of  the  world  ;  though  it  can 
 do  this  only  at  the  cost  of  a  materialising  of  the  notion  of  sin,  in 
 a  way  that  makes  havoc  of  sound  moral  principles. 
 
 This  tendency  was  checked  in  the  better  philosophers  of  Greece, 
 such  as  Socrates,  Plato,  and  Aristotle,  by  their  strong  ethical 
 convictions,  but  it  appeared  when  the  notion  of  the  essential  evil 
 of  matter  was  combined  with  Oriental  speculations,  such  as  were 
 rife  about  the  time  of  the  rise  of  Christianity.  This  combination 
 
COMPARISON  OF  VIEWS  OF  OTHER  RELIGIONS. 
 
 25 
 
 was  the  germ  of  the  various  systems  of  Gnosticism,  and  the 
 notion  of  an  inherent  evil  in  matter,  with  the  ascetic  morality 
 that  results  from  that,  is  what  the  apostles  single  out  for  con¬ 
 demnation  in  these  incipient  theories.  The  various  modifications 
 of  this  central  idea  in  these  Gnostic  systems  brought  the 
 austerities  of  the  Hindoo  fakirs,  the  discipline  of  the  Buddhist 
 monks,  and  the  dualism  of  the  Zoroastrians  over  to  the  Western 
 world  ;  and  though  the  Christian  teachers  controverted,  with  zeal 
 and  success,  the  grosser  forms  of  these  theories,  the  subtle  in¬ 
 fluences  of  their  radical  view  of  evil,  to  a  large  extent,  tainted  the 
 life  and  thought  of  the  Church,  and  led  to  misconceptions  and 
 distortions  of  the  scriptural  doctrines  of  sin. 
 
 But  while  the  religious  aspect  of  sin  has  not  generally  been 
 denied  or  ignored  in  the  oldest  forms  of  religion,  which  has 
 rather,  as  we  have  seen,  tended  to  exalt  the  religious  at  the 
 expense  of  the  moral  element ;  in  various  nations  the  moral  sense 
 in  time  led  to  a  reaction  against  that,  and  moral  and  philo¬ 
 sophical  systems  were  formed,  denying  or  ignoring  the  relation 
 of  moral  evil  to  God,  and  viewing  it  solely  as  an  offence  against 
 morality. 
 
 The  earliest  and  most  remarkable  of  these  systems  is  Buddhism, 
 which  was  a  reaction  against  the  Brahman  religion,  with  its 
 Pantheistic  philosophy  virtually  annihilating  all  morality.  Like 
 Brahmanism,  Buddhism  sought  deliverance  from  the  evils  of 
 existence  ;  but  unlike  the  former  system,  it  sought  this,  not  by 
 absorption  in  the  divine  being,  to  be  attained  either  by  the  per¬ 
 formance  of  religious  duties  and  ceremonies,  or  by  metaphysical 
 and  mystic  speculation,  but  by  the  cessation  of  existence  itself  in 
 Nirvana ,  or  entire  extinction.  This  is  not  to  be  attained  in  this 
 life  ;  but  preparation  may  be  made  for  it,  and  an  inferior  degree 
 of  deliverance  reached,  by  the  knowledge  that  existence  is  the 
 cause  of  evil,  and  by  ceasing  from  all  desire  and  care  for  it. 
 This  knowledge  was  first  attained  by  Buddha,  and  by  it  he 
 became  more  powerful  than  all  the  gods  of  the  Brahmans,  even 
 the,  greatest ;  for  the  existence  of  these  is  not  denied,  only  they 
 
26 
 
 THE  BIELICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 are  reduced  to  mere  finite  spirits,  and  the  system  at  bottom  is 
 atheistic.  The  discipline  by  which  Nirvana  is  to  be  attained 
 consists  largely  in  the  observance  of  moral  precepts  ;  and  the 
 morality  embodied  in  them  is  of  a  singularly  high  character, 
 inculcating  self-sacrifice  and  universal  love,  even  to  enemies.  It 
 is,  however,  entirely  severed  from  religious  sanctions,  and  con¬ 
 sequently  virtue  is  to  be  followed,  according  to  this  system,  not 
 because  man  is  under  an  obligation  of  duty  to  do  so,  but  because 
 by  so  doing  he  will  escape  from  the  delusion  of  self  and  the  love 
 of  life,  which  are  the  sources  of  all  misery  in  the  world. 
 
 The  obligation  of  the  moral  precepts  in  the  Buddhist  system 
 rests,  I  think,  on  their  being  according  to  truth  ;  and  the  reward 
 connected  with  them  is,  that  those  who  do  them  shall  ultimately 
 be  freed  from  all  ignorance,  and  enter  the  state  of  Nirvana. 
 Here  we  have  a  body  of  ethical  teaching,  as  pure  and  elevated 
 as  any  outside  the  pale  of  revelation,  with  absolutely  no  recogni¬ 
 tion  of  a  Deity  or  moral  Governor  of  the  Universe  at  all. 
 Gautama’s  last  charge  to  his  disciples,  just  before  his  death,  is 
 said  to  have  been:  “O  mendicants,  thoroughly  learn,  and  practise, 
 and  perfect,  and  spread  abroad  the  law  thought  out  and  revealed 
 by  me,  in  order  that  this  morality  (purity)  of  mine  may  last  long, 
 and  be  perpetuated,  for  the  good  and  happiness  of  the  great 
 multitudes,  out  of  pity  to  the  world,  to  the  advantage  and 
 prosperity  of  gods  and  man”  (Rhys  David’s  Buddhism ,  p.  172). 
 This  purely  disinterested  end  of  practising  virtue  for  the  good 
 and  happiness  of  others  may  have  been  in  the  mind  of  the 
 founder  of  the  order,  and  the  more  elevated  of  its  members  ;  but 
 with  many,  doubtless,  the  motive  was  simply  the  attainment  of 
 their  own  deliverance  from  suffering,  in  the  way  Buddhism  offered 
 to  them.  The  form  in  which  a  novice  applies  for  admission  to 
 the  order  is,  “  Have  pity  on  me  and  let  me  be  initiated,  that  I 
 may  escape  from  sorrow,  and  experience  Nirvana ”  ( l.c .  p.  159). 
 The  higher  aspects  of  this  system  can  only  be  seen  through  an 
 abstruse  metaphysical  theory  of  the  universe  ;  and  as  that  can  be 
 understood  by  none  but  the  thoughtful  and  wise,  it  could  only 
 
COMPARISON  OF  VIEWS  OF  OTHER  RELIGIONS. 
 
 27 
 
 succeed  with  the  multitudes  by  transforming  its  original  atheistic 
 and  purely  ethical  character  into  one  of  gross  superstition  and 
 formality.  In  Brahmanism  there  was  a  religion  divorced  from 
 morality  ;  and  Buddhism,  by  a  reaction  from  that,  went  to  the 
 opposite  extreme,  and  endeavoured  to  give  men  morality  without 
 religion. 
 
 A  similar  recoil  from  the  polytheism  of  the  Western  nations, 
 which  was  also  disjoined  from  morality,  may  be  found  in  the 
 Greek  and  Roman  philosophy,  especially  of  the  Stoic  school. 
 Without  denying  the  deities  worshipped  by  the  people,  the 
 philosophers,  in  their  dissertations  on  the  chief  good,  and  the 
 way  to  attain  it,  ignored  them,  and  discussed  virtue  and  its 
 relation  to  happiness,  without  taking  into  account  any  religious 
 relations.  Practically  they  viewed  moral  evil  simply  as  against 
 human  nature,  or  against  right  reason  and  the  fitness  of  things, 
 but  not  as  an  offence  against  God  ;  since  their  notion  of  Deity 
 was  either  the  immoral  demons  of  the  popular  mythology,  or  the 
 mere  absolute  First  Cause  of  all,  not  the  moral  Governor  of  the 
 Universe.  Hence  their  morality  was  practically  powerless. 
 This  is  well  brought  out  by  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo  (Preface 
 to  5th  ed.  p.  xi.) :  “  Let  us  compare  a  disciple  of  Christ  with  a 
 Stoic  and  reader  of  Seneca.  They  existed  side  by  side  at  the  end 
 of  the  first  century.  Was  their  view  of  the  obligations  resting 
 on  them  similar  ?  It  was  totally  different.  The  Stoic  rules  were 
 without  sanctions.  If  they  were  violated,  what  could  be  said  to 
 the  offender?  All  that  could  be  said  was,  ‘  Nempe  hoc  indocti or 
 ‘  Chrysippus  non  dicet  idem?  To  which  how  easy  to  reply,  ‘I 
 esteem  Chrysippus,  but  on  this  point  I  differ  from  him.’  To 
 Christian  laftsi  it  was  said,  ‘You  have  renounced  your  baptism ; 
 you  have  denied  your  Master  ;  you  are  cut  off  from  the  Church  ; 
 the  Judge  will  condemn  you.’”  Only  I  would  remark,  that  this 
 writer  gives  an  inadequate  explanation  of  the  difference  he  so 
 well  signalises,  when  he  ascribes  it  merely  to  the  fact  that  Jesus 
 founded  a  society,  and  that  this  is  the  secret  of  His  power.  But 
 Gautama  Buddha  also  founded  a  society, — the  sangha ,  or  order, 
 
28 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 is  the  most  essential  part  of  Buddhism, — but  it  has  not  given  his 
 morality  the  power  over  the  hearts  of  men  that  Christianity  has. 
 No,  the  power  of  Christ  does  not  lie  merely  in  His  founding 
 a  kingdom,  but  in  this,  that  it  is  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  in  His 
 revealing  God  as  re-establishing,  by  the  mission  and  sacrifice  of 
 His  Son,  His  reign  in  and  over  men  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  He 
 makes  pure  ethics  truly  religious,  and  religion  truly  ethical. 
 
 Another  modern  view  on  this  subject  deserves  to  be  noticed. 
 
 Mr.  John  Fiske  states  the  relation  of  his  notion  of  sin  to  the 
 Biblical  one  thus  :  “  On  the  anthropomorphic  hypothesis  sin  is 
 an  offence  against  a  personal  Deity,  consisting  in  the  disobedient 
 transgression  of  some  one  of  his  revealed  edicts,  and  calling  for 
 punishment  either  in  the  present  or  in  a  future  life,  unless  repara¬ 
 tion  be  made  by  repentance  or  sacrifice.  Now  the  theory  of  the 
 Cosmist  is  in  substance  quite  identical  with  this,  though  ex- 
 pressd  by  means  of  very  different  verbal  symbols.  From  the 
 scientific  point  of  view,  sin  is  a  wilful  violation  of  a  law  of  nature, 
 or — to  speak  in  terms  of  the  theory  of  evolution — it  is  a  course 
 of  thought  or  action  wilfully  pursued,  which  tends  to  throw  the 
 individual  out  of  balance  with  his  environment,  and  thus  to  detract 
 from  his  physical  or  moral  completeness  of  life.”1  This,  however, 
 is  not  the  same,  but  essentially  distinct  from  the  Christian  view  ; 
 and  even  if  it  maintains  a  really  moral  view  of  sin,  it  is  fatally 
 defective  by  excluding  the  religious  aspect  of  it.  But  it  may  be 
 asked  on  what  ground,  “  from  the  scientific  point  of  view,”  does 
 Mr.  Fiske  introduce  the  qualification  “wilful”  into  his  definition 
 of  sin  ?  The  consequences  of  a  “  violation  of  a  law  of  nature”  are 
 not  affected  by  the  circumstance  that  it  is  voluntary  ;  but  follow, 
 with  equal  certainty  and  effect,  when  it  has  happened  through 
 ignorance  or  inadvertence.  If  a  man  injures  his  health  by  over¬ 
 work  or  sensual  indulgence,  disease  or  decrepitude  follows,  as 
 surely  if  he  has  done  so  ignorantly  or  under  compulsion  as  if 
 he  had  acted  wilfully.  The  only  consequences  of  such  actions 
 that  are  affected  by  the  difference  of  its  being  wilful  or  not,  are 
 
 1  Cosmic  Philosophy ,  ii.  p.  455. 
 
COMPARISON  OF  VIEWS  OF  OTHER  RELIGIONS. 
 
 29 
 
 the  subjective  ones.  The  effect  on  one’s  own  feelings  of  a  dis¬ 
 regard  of  natural  law  is  indeed  very  different,  when  it  has  been 
 voluntary,  from  what  it  is  when  it  has  been  unconscious  or 
 unintentional.  In  the  latter  case  it  is  felt  only  as  a  misfortune, 
 like  a  fall  caused  by  a  stumble  in  the  dark  ;  in  the  former  case 
 there  is  the  feeling  that  it  is  one’s  own  doing,  and  there  is  a  sense 
 of  guilt,  or  folly,  or  self-sacrifice,  according  to  what  has  been  the 
 motive  of  the  action.  Mr.  Fiske  was  probably  led  to  introduce 
 into  his  definition  the  element  of  wilfulness,  which  has  no  influence 
 on  the  physical  consequences  of  disregarding  a  law  of  nature, 
 because,  without  that  element,  the  definition  would  have  no 
 moral  character  at  all ;  but  even  the  introduction  of  that  qualifi¬ 
 cation  does  not  give  it  a  truly  moral  character.  F or  there  may 
 be,  and  often  have  been,  cases  in  which  a  rhost  deliberate  disregard 
 of  a  law  of  nature  is  not  wrong,  but  in  the  highest  degree  moral 
 and  praiseworthy  ;  as  when  Milton  deliberately  incurred  blind¬ 
 ness  by  the  labour  and  study  he  gave  to  his  defence  of  the  liberty 
 of  the  English  people. 
 
 The  fact  is  that  the  laws  of  nature,  in  terms  of  which  this 
 definition  of  sin  is  framed,  are  but  declarations  of  facts,  of  what  is  ; 
 not  of  duty,  or  of  what  ought  to  be  ;  and  therefore  they  can  only 
 be  the  ground  of  a  hypothetical  imperative,  not  of  a  categorical 
 one.  They  can  only  say,  “If  thou  wouldest  be  healthy,  and  live 
 long,  and  be  happy,  then  observe  the  laws  of  health,  and  prudence, 
 and  social  order  ; 55  but  they  cannot  say  absolutely,  “  Whatever 
 thou  wouldest  or  wouldest  not,  thou  oughtest  to  live  soberly,  and 
 righteously,  and  godly.’’  This  law,  of  which  sin  is  the  transgres¬ 
 sion,  is  of  a  totally  different  kind  from  the  laws  of  nature,  and  any 
 conception  of  sin  that  does  not  recognise  this  must  be  radically 
 defective.  Mr.  Fiske  recognises  moral  as  well  as  physical  com¬ 
 pleteness  of  life  as  secured  by  the  individual  man  being  in  balance 
 with  his  environment.  If  this  is  proved  by  the  Cosmic  philo¬ 
 sophy,  it  implies  that  the  power  that  is  manifested  in  the  universe 
 tends  towards  the  moral  perfection  of  man  ;  or,  in  the  language 
 of  Matthew  Arnold,  is  a  power  that  makes  for  righteousness. 
 
30  THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 But  we  find  it  impossible  to  conceive  of  such  a  power  being 
 otherwise  than  personal  and  moral,  that  is,  a  mind  analogous  to 
 our  minds,  that  desires  and  seeks  moral  goodness  in  man,  and 
 makes  the  course  of  nature  tend  to  encourage  it ;  and  we  believe 
 that  the  same  power  has  also  made  man’s  nature  such  as  to  favour 
 virtue,  and  impressed  him  with  a  sense  of  moral  obligation  to 
 practise  it.  This  power  we  believe  to  be  God,  and  this  sense 
 of  duty  to  be  God’s  law  written  in  the  conscience  or  heart  of 
 
 man. 
 
CHAPTER  III. 
 
 EVIDENCE  OF  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  BIBLICAL  VIEW. 
 
 Indirectly,  the  Christian  view  of  moral  evil  as  sin  against  God 
 is  supported  by  the  fact  that  it  is  capable  of  being  clearly  and 
 consistently  explained,  and  that  the  objections  that  have  been 
 made  against  it  can  be  refuted  ;  but  the  direct  and  positive  proof 
 of  it  lies  in  an  appeal  to  every  man’s  own  conscience  as  in  the 
 sight  of  God ;  on  which  his  moral  and  religious  nature  will 
 spontaneously  recognise  it  as  true.  It  may  clear  the  way  for 
 such  an  appeal  to  exhibit  the  notion  of  sin  as  distinctly  as 
 possible,  and  to  free  it  from  misunderstandings  and  objections. 
 
 When  we  speak,  then,  of  sin  as  an  offence  against  God,  we  are 
 not  to  suppose  that  it  injures  Him  in  the  same  sense  as  crime 
 really  hurts  a  man’s  neighbour,  or  the  society  in  which  he  lives, 
 and  as  vice  really  deteriorates  and  destroys  his  own  nature.  The 
 almighty  and  ever-blessed  Creator  cannot  be  thus  affected  by  any 
 wrong-doing  of  ours.  “If  thou  sinnest,”  says  Elihu  to  Job  (xxxv.  6), 
 “what  doest  thou  against  Him?  or  if  thy  transgressions  be  multi¬ 
 plied,  what  doest  thou  unto  Him?”  For  this  reason,  perhaps, 
 Paul,  when  describing  (Rom.  i.  18-25)  ^ie  impiety  and  ingratitude 
 of  men  to  God,  adds,  “who  is  blessed  for  ever.”1  Neither  is  it 
 to  be  supposed  that  God  asks  for  some  homage  or  tribute  from 
 us,  as  due  to  Himself,  and  resents  the  withholding  of  it  as  a 
 personal  offence.  That  is  contrary  to  the  whole  representations 
 of  Scripture.  “I  desired  mercy  and  not  sacrifice”  (Hos.  vi.  6). 
 “He  is  not  worshipped  with  men’s  hands,  as  though  He  needed 
 any  thing,  seeing  He  giveth  to  all  life,  and  breath,  and  all  things” 
 
 1  So  Chrysostom  in  loc. 
 
 ,31 
 
32 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 (Acts  xvii.  25).  The  duty  we  owe  to  God  is  not  a  personal 
 service  over  and  above  the  fulfilment  of  the  eternal  law  of 
 morality,  which  is  written  in  our  consciences  ;  nor  is  our  failure 
 in  duty  any  personal  loss  or  harm  to  Him.  We  must  always  take 
 care,  in  all  our  statements  about  sin  as  an  offence  against  God, 
 to  avoid  any  such  ideas,  for  they  inevitably  lead  to  low  and 
 unworthy  thoughts  of  God. 
 
 In  what  sense,  then,  can  sin  be  regarded  as  an  offence  against 
 God,  since  it  does  not  and  cannot  lessen  His  perfect  blessedness, 
 or  tarnish  His  unchangeable  glory  ?  The  answer  to  this  question 
 is  given  by  the  notion  of  moral  government,  as  the  relation  in 
 which  man  stands  to  God.  Sin  is  moral  evil  considered  as  a 
 violation  of  the  law  of  duty,  which  is  not  only  made  known  to 
 man  by  his  own  conscience  as  an  abstract  principle  of  right,  but 
 imposed  upon  him  by  God  as  a  rule,  enforced  by  His  authority, 
 and  sanctioned  by  His  government.  As  such  it  defeats  and 
 injures  that  kingdom  of  God,  which  is  the  end  and  aim  of  His 
 moral  government ;  it  tends  to  prevent  the  realisation  of  that 
 fellowship  between  God  and  His  intelligent  creatures,  in  which 
 His  will  should  be  done  and  His  favour  enjoyed  by  them,  so  that 
 they  should  be  holy  as  conformed  to  His  character,  and  happy  as 
 the  objects  of  His  complacency  and  approval.  God  earnestly 
 desires  this,  and  has  expressed  that  desire  in  the  most  touching- 
 appeals,  “  Oh  that  thou  hadst  hearkened  to  my  commandments  ! 
 then  had  thy  peace  been  as  a  river,  and  thy  righteousness  as  the 
 waves  of  the  sea”  (Isa.  xlviii.  18;  cf.  Ps.  lxxxi.  13).  Sin  is  an 
 offence  against  God,  as  the  Representative  and  Guardian  of  the 
 moral  order  of  the  universe  ;  and  hence  it  is  defined  by  theo¬ 
 logians  as  moral  evil,  viewed  as  a  violation  of  the  law  of  God. 
 This  is  in  accordance  with  the  Scripture  utterances,  “  Sin  is 
 deviation  from  the  law”  (tj  u^ecpn'ot  imiv  sj  cUvo^iu,  1  John  iii.  6)  ; 
 “By  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin”  (Rom.  iii.  20);  “Where 
 there  is  no  law  neither  is  there  transgression”  (zb.  iv.  15);  “Sin 
 is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law”  (zb.  v.  13).  These  state¬ 
 ments  make  it  plain  that  the  notions  of  law  and  sin  are  correlative, 
 
EVIDENCE  OF  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  BIBLICAL  VIEW.  33 
 
 and  that  it  is  in  the  light  of  God’s  moral  law  that  evil  is  recognised 
 as  sin.  In  this  light  it  is  seen  to  be,  not  merely  an  injury  to  our 
 own  nature,  as  vice  ;  not  merely,  it  may  be  not  at  all,  an  offence 
 against  our  fellows,  or  human  society,  as  crime  :  it  is  an  offence 
 against  God’s  moral  government,  and  in  all  our  explanations  of 
 its  origin,  and  of  the  provision  that  is  made  for  its  removal,  this 
 aspect  of  it  must  be  borne  in  mind. 
 
 Of  the  objections  against  the  theological  view  of  moral  evil,  as 
 sin  against  God,  many  vanish  at  once  on  a  clear  and  correct 
 apprehension  of  what  it  really  means  ;  and  of  the  rest  none  is 
 more  ingenious  and  plausible  than  that  of  Kant,  founded  on  his 
 doctrine  of  the  autonomy  of  the  will,  which  asserts  that  in  truly 
 virtuous  action  the  will  must  be  determined  purely  by  reverence 
 for  the  abstract  form  of  law,  as  the  categorical  imperative,  and 
 not  by  any  extraneous  considerations  whatever.  But  it  has  been 
 generally  thought  that  in  this  doctrine  Kant  was  led,  by  his  desire 
 to  exclude  utilitarianism,  to  an  extreme  position,  when  he  put 
 regard  to  the  will  of  God  on  the  same  level  as  regard  to  happi¬ 
 ness  :  and  the  extreme  rigour  of  his  moral  system  in  this  respect 
 has  been  felt  as  a  blemish  by  such  an  earnest  adherent  of  his 
 philosophy  as  the  poet  Schiller,  who  endeavoured  to  remedy  it  by 
 the  introduction  of  the  element  of  beauty,  though  Julius  Muller 
 has  shown  that  it  is  in  religion  rather  than  in  aesthetics  that  the 
 true  corrective  is  to  be  found.1 
 
 But  while  such  explanations  and  arguments  afford  indirect  and 
 negative  support  to  the  theological  view  of  sin  by  freeing  it  from 
 obscurity  or  contradiction,  the  proper  and  positive  evidence  of  its 
 truth  is  to  be  found  in  the  experimental  conviction  of  the  soul  that 
 deals  honestly  and  frankly  with  its  own  state  and  feelings.  This 
 has  seldom  been  described  more  truly  and  beautifully  than  by  F. 
 D.  Maurice,  in  a  passage  of  his  Theological  Essaj/s,  which  Dr. 
 Candlish,  his  theological  opponent,  thoroughly  accepts  and 
 
 1  See  Kant,  Metaphysics  of  Ethics ;  Schiller,  Ueber  An muth  und  Wiirde; 
 J.  Muller,  Christliche  Lehre  von  der  Siinde ,  i.  92-99  ;  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre , 
 ii.  78. 
 
 C 
 
34 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 approves.  The  summary  and  comment  of  the  latter  in  his 
 Examination  of  Maurice's  Theological  Essays  will  indicate  the 
 agreement  so  far  of  these  exponents  of  opposite  theologies  :  “  The 
 passage  in  which  the  entrance  of  this  other  conviction  into  the 
 soul  is  described  is  one  of  rare  eloquence — the  eloquence  of  deep 
 and  true  feeling.  I  am  first  confronted,  face  to  face,  with  my  own 
 ‘dark  self.’  Here  am  I,  doing  a  wrong  act,  thinking  a  wrong 
 thought,  the  wrong  thought  is  mine  ;  ‘  evil  lies,  not  in  some  acci¬ 
 dents,  but  in  me.’  Then  ‘  comes  a  sense  of  eternity,  dark, 
 unfathomable,  hopeless.’  ‘  That  eternity  stands  face  to  face  with 
 me  ;  it  looks  like  anything  but  a  picture  ;  it  presents  itself  to  me 
 as  the  hardest,  driest  reality.  There  are  no  images  of  torture  and 
 death.  What  matter  where ,  if  I  be  still  the  same  ?  this  question 
 will  be  the  torture,  all  death  lies  in  that.’  ‘  When  once  a  man 
 arrives  at  this  conviction,’  the  author  goes  on  to  say,  ‘  he  is  no 
 more  in  the  circle  of  outward  acts,  outward  rules,  outward  punish¬ 
 ments  ;  he  is  no  more  in  the  circle  of  tendencies,  inclinations, 
 habits,  and  the  discipline  which  is  appropriate  to  them.  He  has 
 come  unawares  into  a  more  inward  circle,  a  very  close,  narrow, 
 dismal  one,  in  which  he  cannot  rest,  out  of  which  he  must  emerge. 
 This  he  can  only  do  when  he  begins  to  say,  I  have  sinned  against 
 some  Being,  not  against  society  merely,  not  against  my  own 
 nature  merely,  but  against  another  to  whom  I  was  bound.  And 
 the  emancipation  will  not  be  complete  till  he  is  able  to  say,  giving 
 the  words  their  full  and  natural  meaning,  Father,  I  have  sinned 
 against  Thee.’”  1 
 
 It  is,  however,  as  Dr.  Candlish  goes  on  to  show,  the  theology 
 that  recognises  a  real  moral  government  of  God  by  law  and  judg¬ 
 ment,  rather  than  the  subjective  and  universalistic  theology  of  the 
 school  of  Maurice,  that  can  best  explain  and  deal  with  the  con¬ 
 viction  of  sin.  For,  as  already  indicated,  the  notion  of  sin  as  an 
 offence  against  God  is  clear  and  distinct  only  when  God  is  viewed 
 
 1  Maurice,  Theological  Essays,  pp.  22,  23  ;  Candlish,  Examination  of 
 Maurice's  Theological  Essays,  pp.  80,  81.  The  whole  passage  in  Maurice 
 should  be  read,  and  also  the  following  paragraphs  in  the  Examinalioji. 
 
EVIDENCE  OF  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  BIBLICAL  VIEW.  35 
 
 as  the  moral  Governor  of  the  universe,  ruling  by  laws  which  His 
 intelligent  creatures  may  disobey,  in  such  a  sense  that  they 
 thereby  grieve  the  heart  of  the  God  who  is  love,  and  frustrate  that 
 kingdom  of  God  that  is  the  end  and  aim  of  His  counsels. 
 
 As  a  violation  of  the  law  of  God,  and  tending  to  frustrate  that 
 kingdom  which  is  the  last  end  of  God’s  works,  moral  evil  is  most 
 really  an  offence  against  God,  and  as  such  it  is  represented  to  us 
 in  Scripture  in  various  ways.  It  is  often  described  as  the  object 
 of  God’s  hatred — it  is  that  abominable  thing  which  He  hates,  for 
 He  is  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  evil,  and  cannot  look  on 
 iniquity  ;  it  offends  the  eyes  of  His  glory.  This  is  the  aspect  in 
 which  evil  appears  in  the  light  of  the  holiness  of  God.  Again,  it 
 is  frequently  represented  as  displeasing,  paining,  grieving  His 
 spirit,  and  breaking  His  heart ;  and  that  in  proportion  to  the 
 degree  in  which  His  love  is  wilfully  rejected,  abused,  or  requited 
 with  ingratitude.  This  is  the  aspect  in  which  it  appears  in  the 
 light  of  God’s  love. 
 
 These  representations  are  scriptural,  and  are  not  to  be  ex¬ 
 plained  away  as  mere  figures  of  speech.  God  is  indeed  ever  and 
 perfectly  blessed,  and  no  action  of  the  creature  can  ever  really 
 hurt  Him  in  the  way  of  diminishing  any  of  His  perfections.  Yet 
 as  every  evil  action  is  a  violation  of  that  eternal  law  of  goodness 
 which  God  loves,  and  which  is  the  transcript  of  His  moral  attri¬ 
 butes,  it  is  not  only  a  wrong  done  against  that  law,  but  a 
 hindrance  or  check  to  what  God  earnestly  desires.  And  as 
 among  creatures  it  implies  greater  perfection  to  perceive  and  feel 
 what  is  really  wrong  and  evil  than  to  be  insensible  and  apathetic 
 towards  it,  so  it  is  consistent  with,  nay,  required  by,  the  infinite 
 perfection  of  the  Divine  Being  to  feel  real  displeasure  and  sorrow 
 at  the  sins  of  His  rational  creatures,  made  in  His  own  imaged 
 
 In  this  view  we  can  see  the  exceeding  sinfulness,  and  truly 
 infinite  evil  of  sin,  of  sin  as  such,  and  therefore  of  all  and  every 
 sin,  as  causing  real  displeasure  and  grief  to  the  infinitely  holy  and 
 loving  God,  and  tending  to  frustrate  the  greatest,  most  worthy, 
 1  See  John  Howe,  Living  Temple,  Part  II.  ch.  ii.  §  6. 
 
36 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 and  most  beneficent  design  conceivable,  the  kingdom  of  God. 
 The  endurance  of  the  greatest  amount  of  suffering  is  to  be  pre¬ 
 ferred  to  the  commission  of  the  least  sin,  so  far  does  moral  evil 
 exceed  what  is  only  physical  ;  and  though  offences  against  men, 
 or  against  society,  when  viewed  only  in  these  lights,  are  of  limited 
 and  measurable  gravity,  yet  wrong-doing,  considered  in  rela¬ 
 tion  to  God,  has  no  bounds  to  its  hatefulness.  For,  as  Dr.  John 
 Duncan  said,1  “all  sin  aims  at  deicide,  and  tends  to  the  extinction 
 of  all  being.” 
 
 This  view  of  sin  as  an  infinite  evil,  because  committed  against 
 God,  is  not  a  metaphysical  subtlety,  but  a  genuine  moral  judg¬ 
 ment,  and  it  enters  deeply  into  the  Christian  view  of  religion. 
 The  absence  of  it  is,  in  many  cases,  the  reason  why  men  do  not 
 see  the  need  of  the  redemptive  mission  of  Christ,  or  of  anything 
 more  than  natural  religion.  So  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury,  the 
 first  of  the  English  Deists,  holding  that  a  virtuous  man  may  go 
 securely  through  all  the  religions,  says  : 2  “  This  virtue,  there¬ 
 fore,  I  shall  recommend  to  my  posterity  as  the  greatest  perfection 
 he  can  attain  unto  in  this  life,  and  the  pledge  of  eternal  happiness 
 hereafter  ;  there  being  none  that  can  justly  hope  of  an  union  with 
 the  supreme  God,  that  doth  not  come  as  near  to  Him  in  this  life 
 in  virtue  and  goodness  as  he  can  ;  so  that  if  human  frailty  do  in¬ 
 terrupt  this  union  by  committing  faults  that  make  him  incapable 
 of  his  everlasting  happiness,  it  will  be  fit  by  a  serious  repentance 
 to  expiate  and  emaculate  these  faults,  and  for  the  rest  trust  to  the 
 mercy  of  God,  his  Creator,  Redeemer,  and  Preserver,  who,  being 
 our  F ather,  and  knowing  well  in  what  a  weak  condition  through 
 infirmities  we  are,  will,  I  doubt  not,  commiserate  these  trans¬ 
 gressions  we  commit,  when  they  are  done  without  desire  to  offend 
 His  Divine  Majesty,  and  together  rectify  our  understanding 
 through  His  grace  ;  since  we  commonly  sin  through  no  other 
 cause  but  that  we  mistook  a  true  good  for  that  which  was  only 
 
 1  Colloquia  Peripatetica,  p.  14. 
 
 2  Life  of  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury ,  by  himself,  p.  49  (Cassell’s  National 
 Library). 
 
EVIDENCE  OF  THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  BIBLICAL  VIEW.  37 
 
 apparent,  and  so  were  deceived  by  making  an  undue  election  in 
 the  objects  proposed  to  us,  wherein,  though  it  will  be  fit  for  every 
 man  to  confess  that  he  hath  offended  an  infinite  Majesty  and 
 Power,  yet  as  upon  better  consideration  he  finds  he  did  not  mean 
 infinitely  to  offend,  there  will  be  just  reason  to  believe  that  God 
 will  not  inflict  an  infinite  punishment  upon  him  if  he  be  truly 
 penitent,  so  that  His  justice  may  be  satisfied,  if  not  with  man’s 
 repentance,  yet  at  least  with  some  temporal  punishment  here  or 
 hereafter,  such  as  may  be  proportionable  to  the  offence.”  Little 
 wonder  that  with  such  an  inadequate  sense  of  the  evil  of  sin,  he 
 did  not  see  the  need  of  Christianity  as  a  redemption  from  it. 
 Very  different  were  the  sentiments  of  his  saintly  brother,  George 
 Herbert,  in  his  poem  on  the  Agony — 
 
 “  Philosophers  have  measured  mountains, 
 
 Fathomed  the  depth  of  seas,  of  states,  and  kings, 
 
 Walked  with  a  staff  to  heaven,  and  traced  fountains : 
 
 But  there  are  two  vast,  spacious  things, 
 
 The  which  to  measure  it  doth  more  behove  ; 
 
 Yet  few  there  be  that  sound  them:  Sin  and  Love.” 
 
 The  Temple. 
 
CHAPTER  IV. 
 
 THE  NOTION  OF  GUILT  CONNECTED  WITH  SIN. 
 
 The  Biblical  view  of  moral  evil  explains  and  accounts  for  the 
 guilt  that  is  recognised  and  felt  to  follow  it  where  the  con¬ 
 science  is  in  a  right  state,  and  this  affords  a  confirmation  of  the 
 conception  of  sin  as  a  deviation  from  the  law  of  God’s  moral 
 government. 
 
 The  English  word  guilt  is  used  by  theologians  in  two  senses, 
 to  represent  two  different  Latin  words,  culpa  and  reatus.  In  its 
 ordinary  meaning,  in  general  English  literature,  it  denotes  only 
 the  former,  blameworthiness,  culpability,  criminality  ;  but  as  the 
 Latin  word  reatus  expresses  an  idea  closely  akin  to  this,  liability 
 or  obligation  to  suffer  punishment,  an  idea  for  which  there  is  no 
 single  word  in  English,  and  as  this  is  an  idea  found  in  Scripture, 
 which  we  have  often  occasion  to  use  in  theology,  the  word  guilt 
 has  been  employed  for  it  as  well  as  for  the  other.  This  use  of 
 the  word  may  have  been  unwise,  and  it  certainly  has  led  some¬ 
 times  to  confusion  and  misunderstanding;  but  it  can  hardly  be 
 helped  now,  and  we  must  endeavour  to  avoid  mistakes  by  keeping 
 the  two  meanings  of  the  term  distinct,  as  denoting  two  different 
 though  connected  things  that  follow  sin  :  guilt  in  the  moral  sense, 
 i.e.  blameworthiness  or  ill  desert,  culpa  j  and  guilt  in  the  legal 
 sense,  i.e .  liability  or  obligation  to  punishment,  reatus. 
 
 The  former  is  inseparable  from  sin,  and  follows  it  as  a  devia¬ 
 tion  from  the  moral  law  simply  as  preceptive,  apart  altogether 
 from  its  sanctions  of  reward  or  punishment.  The  sinner  is  to  be 
 blamed,  as  doing,  or  being,  what  he  ought  not.  This  implies 
 
 that  not  only  is  the  act  or  state  morally  wrong,  and  what  ought 
 
 38 
 
THE  NOTION  OF  GUILT  CONNECTED  WITH  SIN.  39 
 
 not  to  be,  but  also  that  it  truly  belongs  to  the  guilty  person,  as 
 the  expression  of  his  will  or  desire.  If  the  wrong  can  be  traced 
 entirely  away  from  the  apparent  doer  of  it ;  for  example,  if  his 
 limbs  have  been  moved  by  a  superior  force  constraining  them,  or 
 if  he  intended  to  do,  and  believed  he  was  doing,  something  quite 
 different  from  what,  under  a  mistake,  he  really  did, — in  all  such 
 cases  there  is  no  moral  blameworthiness,  because  the  evil  in  the 
 action  cannot  be  ascribed  to  the  actual  doer  of  it  as  its  cause. 
 This  element  in  the  notion  of  guilt  in  the  moral  sense  is  indi¬ 
 cated  by  the  terms  ochix,  ui'uog,  used  in  Greek  to  designate  it, 
 meaning  originally  causality,  causing,  and  derivatively  from  that, 
 guilt,  guilty. 
 
 Shall  we  then  infer  from  this  that  no  blame  or  guilt  attaches  to 
 anything  but  acts  of  will,  or  what  is  produced  by  such  acts  ?  Such 
 is  the  opinion  of  many  theologians,  Pelagians,  Socinians,  and 
 Roman  Catholics,  who  hold  that  nothing  but  what  is  in  the 
 fullest  sense  voluntary  is  properly  sinful  or  involves  guilt.  By 
 Roman  Catholics  sin  is  generally  defined  as  factum ,  dictum ,  con- 
 cupitum  contra  legem-  ccternam  (Peter  Dens) ;  and  Smalcius,  a 
 Socinian  divine,  defines  it  as  legis  divince  voluntaria  trans- 
 gressio  (see  Jamieson,  Roma  Racoviana ,  etc.,  p.  97)  ;  this  being 
 one  of  the  points  on  which  these  opposing  systems  agree. 
 According  to  this  view,  an  evil  act,  or  word,  or  even  desire,  to 
 which  the  will  consents,  is  truly  sinful ;  but  the  habit  or  inclina¬ 
 tion  from  which  such  acts  proceed  is  not  so,  except  in  so  far  as 
 it  has  been  contracted  by  voluntary  acts,  or  is  yielded  to  by  the 
 will,  and  so  is  indirectly  due  to  volition.  If  inborn  or  inherited, 
 it  may  be  called  vice  ( vitium ),  and  is  admitted  to  be  the  material 
 or  fuel  of  sin  ( fomes  peccati ),  but  it  is  not  regarded  as  properly 
 sin,  or  blameworthy. 
 
 This  theory  has  considerable  plausibility,  but  it  leads  to  con¬ 
 sequences  that  are  subversive  of  the  moral  judgments  of  con¬ 
 science,  as  well  as  contrary  to  Scripture.  We  instinctively  feel 
 that  we  are  to  blame  for  things  not  done  by  an  act  of  will,  eg. 
 for  the  omission  of  some  duty,  even  though  it  may  be  not  de- 
 
40 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 liberate  and  of  purpose,  but  through  negligence  or  forgetfulness. 
 Conscience  blames  us  for  a  disposition  that  is  selfish,  passionate, 
 indolent,  or  evil  in  any  way,  even  though  such  disposition  may 
 not  have  been  acquired  by  our  own  voluntary  action.  If  we  were 
 to  regard  inadvertent  omission  of  duty  and  abiding  dispositions 
 to  evil  as  free  from  blame,  we  would  sanction  a  very  lax  and 
 variable  standard  of  duty. 
 
 The  teaching  of  Scripture  confirms  this.  The  inclinations  and 
 dispositions  of  men,  that  lead  them  to  sinful  actions,  are  always 
 represented  as  objects,  not  merely  of  pity,  but  of  blame  and  con¬ 
 demnation.  See,  for  instance,  Jer.  xiii.  23  ;  Isa.  xlviii.  4-8  ;  John 
 v.  42-44  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  14 ;  Matt.  xii.  34,  36.  When  the  Psalmist 
 confesses  that  he  was  shapen  in  iniquity  and  conceived  in  sin 
 (li.  5),  and  when  Paul  speaks  of  the  sin  that  dwelt  in  him  (Rom. 
 vii.  13-25),  it  is  not  to  excuse  or  lessen  their  sin  and  blame¬ 
 worthiness,  but  rather  to  enhance  it.  The  law  of  God  condemns 
 and  forbids  all  impure  and  covetous  desires,  not  merely  those 
 that  are  voluntarily  indulged ;  and  requires  not  merely  holy  actions 
 but  a  holy  character.  “  Be  ye  holy  ;  ”  “  Be  ye  perfect ;  ”  “  Be  ye 
 merciful”  (Lev.  xix.  2  ;  Matt.  v.  48  ;  Luke  vi.  36  ;  1  Pet.  i.  15). 
 
 The  Scripture  warrants  a  more  comprehensive  definition  of 
 sin  than  those  of  Socinians  and  Romanists,  who  limit  it  to 
 voluntary  transgressions  of  law.  John  says,  ij  xpcxprix  imiv  q 
 xvogix  (1  Ep.  iii.  4) ;  and  so  Melanchthon  defines  it,  Dejictus , 
 vel  inclinatio  vel  actio,  pugnans  cum  legi  Dei  {Loci  Communis , 
 p.  109) ;  and  Turrettin,  Inclinatio ,  actio ,  vel  omissio  pugnans,  etc. 
 So,  too,  our  Catechism,  “  any  want  of  conformity  to,  or  trans¬ 
 gression  of,  the  law  of  God.”  Paul  distinguishes  transgression 
 {Trxpxfixoi;),  such  as  the  sin  of  Adam,  from  sin  ( xgxpn'x ),  which 
 is  a  wider  term,  and  may  be  ascribed  to  those  who  did  not  sin 
 after  the  similitude  of  Adam’s  transgression  (Rom.  v.  14). 
 
 If  it  be  asked,  How  it  is  consistent  with  the  principle  just  stated 
 — that  blameworthiness  implies  that  a  person  be  the  author  of 
 the  evil  for  which  he  is  blamed — to  hold  men  blameworthy  for 
 inclinations  that  are  antecedent  to,  and  not  produced  by,  any  act 
 
THE  NOTION  OF  GUILT  CONNECTED  WITH  SIN. 
 
 41 
 
 of  their  will  ?  the  best  way  to  answer  seems  to  me  to  be  to  admit 
 that  if,  in  any  case,  an  inclination  to  evil  be  such  and  so  great  as 
 to  overpower  the  reason  and  will,  and  impel  a  man  irresistibly  to 
 acts  that  he  absolutely  hates,  as  is  the  case  sometimes  with 
 physical  cravings,  or  insane  frenzy  ;  then  our  moral  sense  would 
 regard  him  as  an  object  of  pity  only,  and  not  of  blame,  for  such 
 acts ;  but  that  where  there  is  no  such  physical  or  mental 
 derangement,  but  the  inclination  is  simply  an  inordinate  desire 
 for  some  gratification,  the  will  is  always  active  in  it,  and  as  it  is 
 on  that  very  account  an  evil  will,  it  cannot  be  exempt  from  blame. 
 If  the  evil  will  has  been  stimulated  by  temptation,  the  tempter 
 has  a  certain  share  in  producing  the  result,  and  therefore  a  share 
 of  the  blame  ;  if  a  bias  to  evil  has  been  inherited,  and  caused  by 
 the  evil  life  of  parents  or  ancestors,  they  in  like  manner  have  a 
 share  in  the  blame,  and  the  moral  guilt  of  the  offender  is  judged 
 to  be  less  on  these  accounts.  But  it  is  not  entirely  removed  as 
 long  as  he  is  a  rational  and  voluntary  agent,  for  the  inclination 
 itself  is  a  movement  of  the  will  ;  he  has  it  not  unwillingly.  If  a 
 man  has  inherited  a  sensual,  or  a  proud,  or  a  passionate  temper, 
 we  make  some  allowance  for  the  greater  difficulty  he  will  have 
 than  others  in  conforming  to  the  divine  law  ;  but  still  it  is  not 
 against  his  will  that  he  has  it,  and  we  must  regard  it  as  morally 
 wrong  and  blamable. 
 
 Guilt,  in  this  moral  sense  of  the  term,  is  inseparable  from  sin. 
 As  an  act  once  done  cannot  be  undone,  so  if  it  be  morally  evil, 
 it  can  never  cease  to  be  true  that  it  is  to  be  condemned,  and  the 
 doer  of  it  is  blameworthy.  An  inclination  to  evil  may  indeed 
 be  overcome  or  altered,  and  so  the  blame  of  it  may  cease 
 for  the  future  ;  but  it  will  always  be  true  that  it  has  existed, 
 and  that  it  deserved  blame.  The  ill-desert  never  can  be 
 transferred  to  any  other  than  the  person  by  whom  an  evil 
 deed  has  been  done,  or  to  whom  an  evil  inclination  belongs. 
 Others  may  suffer  in  consequence  of  our  sin  or  sinful  character, 
 or  may  voluntarily  undertake  to  relieve  us  of  the  outward  conse¬ 
 quences  of  them,  but  the  moral  guilt  in  the  sight  of  God  must  ever 
 
42 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 be  our  own,  none  can  separate  that  from  sin  in  the  eyes  of  the 
 righteous  Judge. 
 
 When  theologians  speak  of  a  transference  of  guilt,  or  of  an 
 imputation  of  it  to  others  than  the  sinner  himself,  they  use  the 
 word  guilt,  not  in  this  its  proper  moral  sense  (culpa),  but  in  a 
 legal  sense  expressed  by  the  Latin  reatus.  Reus  (from  res ) 
 originally  meant  a  party  in  a  cause  (reos  appello  quorum  res  est, 
 Cicero,  de  Oratore ,  ii.  79),  then  the  defendant,  or  accused  party ; 
 then  later,  one  condemned,  and  so  liable  to  suffer  the  penalty  of 
 the  law.  Reatus  accordingly  means  liability  to  punishment  on 
 account  of  sin. 
 
 This  idea  is  frequently  presented  in  Scripture.  In  our  Lord’s 
 teaching  we  find  the  phrase  Utui  (Matt.  v.  21,  22,  etc.; 
 
 Mark  iii.  29),  where  it  is  rightly  rendered  in  Vulg.  reus  erit,  in 
 Authorised  Version,  “  shall  be  in  danger,” — an  expression  which 
 meant  then,  not  merely  exposed  to  risk,  but  legally  liable,  as  used, 
 e.g.,  by  Shakespeare  in  “  Merchant  of  Venice,”  “You  stand  within 
 his  danger,  do  you  not  ?  ”  in  reference  to  the  bond  to  Shylock. 
 The  word  guilty  is  used  for  ho^oc;  in  Authorised  Version  (Matt, 
 xxvi.  66  ;  Mark  xiv.  64  j1  1  Cor.  xi.  27  ;  Jas.  ii.  10).  In  all  places 
 it  would  be  better  “liable.”  Jesus  also  uses  the  word  debtor 
 (p$iikzTY\s,  Luke  xiii.  4),  and  debts  (otyiikYipm  a,  Matt.  vi.  12),  for 
 sinners  and  sins,  viewed  as  liable  to  God’s  judgment ;  and  He 
 illustrates  this  by  the  parables  of  the  debtors  (Luke  vii.  and 
 Matt,  xviii.).  What  is  remitted  or  taken  away  by  God’s  mercy  is 
 not  the  culpability  or  moral  guilt,  but  the  liability  to  God’s  wrath 
 and  judgment,  consequent  on  sin.  See  also  Matt,  xxiii.  16,  18, 
 where  he  is  a  debtor  (ptytihu)  means  he  is  bound.  Besides  these 
 phrases,  Paul  uses  vnohixov  yuseadcu  (Rom.  iii.  19),  to  become 
 guilty,  i.e.  under  judgment  or  condemnation. 
 
 1  In  the  report  by  Matthew  and  Mark  of  the  Sanhedrin’s  sentence  on  Jesus, 
 the  Revisers  have  not  been  happy  in  changing  the  Authorised  Version  “  guilty 
 of  death,”  to  “worthy  of  death.”  The  correct  translation  is  that  in  the 
 margin,  ‘ ‘liable  to  death. ”  It  would  seem  that  the  Sanhedrin  shrank  from 
 any  expression  of  moral  blame,  and  merely  declared  Him  to  have  incurred  the 
 legal  penalty  of  death. 
 
THE  NOTION  OF  GUILT  CONNECTED  WITH  SIN. 
 
 43 
 
 In  the  Old  Testament  the  idea  is  expressed  by  the  verb 
 
 ••  T  * 
 
 which  means  “to  be  desolate,”  “to  be  condemned,”  and  is  of 
 frequent  occurrence  in  the  laws  of  sacrifices  (Lev.  iv.,  v.).  As 
 there  used,  it  plainly  denotes  something  different  from  having 
 sinned ;  for  not  only  do  the  two  distinct  words  sometimes  occur 
 in  the  same  clause,  “  he  has  sinned  and  is  guilty,”  but  there  was 
 a  special  kind  of  sacrifice  provided  to  deal  with  the  guilt  of  sin, 
 the  trespass-offering,  denoted  in  Hebrew  by  the  very  name  of 
 guilt  and  in  the  Revised  Version  more  literally  rendered 
 
 “guilt-offering.”  The  precise  difference  between  the  sin-  and  the 
 guilt-offering  is  not  very  clear,  but  probably  the  former  embodied 
 mainly  the  idea  of  expiation,  and  the  latter  that  of  compensation. 
 Anyhow,  the  distinct  use  of  the  words  shows  that  in  the  Old,  as 
 well  as  in  the  New  Testament,  the  idea  of  guilt,  as  implying 
 an  obligation  or  liability  to  punishment,  is  fully  and  clearly 
 recognised. 
 
 Guilt,  in  this  sense,  is  not  inseparable  from  sin ;  since,  if  pardon 
 is  possible,  the  sinner,  though  he  cannot  cease  to  be  blame¬ 
 worthy,  may  be  forgiven,  and  thereby  not  merely  exempted  from 
 punishment,  perhaps  indeed  not  exempted  at  all  from  the  out¬ 
 ward  evils  of  punishment,  yet  freed  from  that  displeasure  and 
 condemnation  of  God  that  forms  the  real  curse  of  any  punishment. 
 This,  indeed,  cannot  be  done  by  God  causelessly  or  lightly ;  it  is 
 effected  only  through  the  manifestation  of  God’s  righteousness  in 
 the  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  the  sinner’s  becoming 
 spiritually  one  with  Christ  by  humble  and  penitent  faith.  The 
 guilt  that  is  thus  removed  from  believers  in  Jesus  by  forgiveness 
 is  not  moral  blameworthiness,  it  has  been  expressed  by  theo¬ 
 logians  by  the  legal  term  reatus ,  i.e.  condemnation  or  liability  to 
 punishment.  This  has  been  conceived  by  some  too  much  in  a 
 legal  way  ;  but  in  the  Bible,  and  by  the  best  divines,  the  legal 
 idea  is  transfigured  into  a  truly  religious  one,  which  involves  an 
 element  of  mystery,  but  yet  is  most  real.  It  is  that  which  Paul 
 describes  when  he  says,  “  There  is  now  no  condemnation  to  them 
 that  are  in  Christ  Jesus”  (Rom.  viii.  i).  But  this,  according  to 
 
44 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 Paul’s  teaching,  has  been  secured  for  us  by  Christ  having 
 redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  becoming  a  curse  for  us 
 (Gal.  iii.  13),  i.e.  becoming  liable  to  the  condemnation  that  our 
 sin  deserved.  “  Him  who  knew  no  sin  God  made  to  be  sin  for 
 us,  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  Him 
 (2  Cor.  v.  21).  This  cannot  mean  that  He  was  made  sinful,  or 
 that  moral  blameworthiness  was  ascribed  to  Him ;  and  it  has  been 
 explained  by  theologians  by  the  idea  of  the  legal  guilt,  or  liability 
 to  suffer  for  the  sins  of  men,  being  laid  upon  Him  by  God,  and 
 willingly  accepted  by  the  Saviour  Himself.  This,  therefore,  is 
 another  instance  of  reatus  being  separated  from  sin  ;  but  the  full 
 consideration  of  these  belong  to  another  head  of  Christian 
 doctrine. 
 
CHAPTER  V. 
 
 THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  SIN. 
 
 It  may  be  convenient  and  proper  to  consider,  in  connection  with 
 the  guilt  of  sin,  what  is  the  punishment  to  which  that  guilt  makes 
 it  liable.  For  punishment  is  a  notion  correlative  to  those  of 
 guilt,  sin,  and  law  :  it  is  suffering  inflicted  on  account  of  sin  for 
 the  vindication  of  law.  What  then  is  the  punishment  of  sin  in 
 the  moral  government  of  God  ?  Scripture  speaks  very  often  of 
 this,  and  sets  it  before  us  mainly  in  two  aspects,  on  the  side  of  God 
 and  of  man.  On  the  side  of  God  it  speaks  of  His  wrath  (Rom. 
 i.  1 8,  etc.)  and  of  His  curse  (Matt.  xxv.  41  ;  Gal.  iii.  10) ;  and  on 
 the  side  of  man,  of  death.  Let  us  examine  the  Biblical  meaning 
 of  each  of  these. 
 
 The  most  positive  expressions  that  we  have  as  to  what  God 
 does  in  vindication  of  His  law  and  justice  against  transgressors 
 are,  that  His  wrath  is  kindled,  burns,  is  revealed,  against  them  ; 
 and  that  He  pronounces  a  curse  upon  them.  What  are  we  to 
 understand  by  these  expressions  ?  The  words  and  phrases  used 
 in  Scripture  for  the  wrath  of  God  are  the  same  as  those  used  of 
 men,  with  this  difference,  that  while  in  Old  Testament  this  holds 
 good  without  exception,  and  all  the  various  words  used  of  human 
 wrath,  even  the  most  violent,  are  some  time  or  other  applied  to 
 the  divine  anger  ;  in  New  Testament  there  are  several  words 
 employed  to  describe  human  anger,  and  sometimes  in  Old  Testa¬ 
 ment  that  of  God,  which  are  never  ascribed  to  God  by  the  New 
 Testament  writers.1 
 
 1  Such  are  irctpofro-pos  used  for  PjVp>  Deut.  xxix.  28,  LXX.  ;  r xpopy^u  used 
 for  Djn>  Deut.  xxx.  2,  LXX. 
 
 45 
 
46 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 In  the  New  Testament  there  are  just  two  words  used  indiffer¬ 
 ently  of  divine  and  human  anger,  dvpos  and  opyy,  corresponding 
 in  general  to  the  usual  Hebrew  words;  though  not  used  uniformly 
 to  translate  these  words  respectively.  The  words  are  not  precisely 
 the  same  in  meaning ;  but  it  can  hardly  be  said  that  the  difference 
 is  clearly  marked  or  of  importance  in  any  Biblical  passage  ;  Qvpcog 
 denotes  properly  the  inward  feeling,  or  a  passionate  outburst  of 
 anger;  opyi j,  the  settled  determination  to  avenge  wrong;  but  these 
 shades  of  meaning  are  not  always  intended. 
 
 The  general  result  of  an  examination  of  the  language  of  Scrip¬ 
 ture  on  this  subject  seems  to  be,  that  the  inspired  writers  do  not 
 hesitate  to  use  the  words  that  describe  anger  in  men  when 
 describing  God’s  attitude  towards  sin,  though  in  the  New 
 Testament  at  least  they  indicate  that  there  are  some  forms  and 
 expressions  of  anger  that  are  absolutely  condemned  in  man,  and 
 not  to  be  ascribed  to  God.  Yet  from  the  sense  of  the  difference 
 that  must  be  recognised  between  the  infinite  and  all-perfect  God 
 and  frail  and  sinful  human  beings,  theologians  have  found  it 
 difficult  to  form  a  worthy  and  adequate  conception  of  the  wrath 
 of  God,  and  have  differed  in  their  ways  of  explaining  it.  There 
 have  been  three  principal  views. 
 
 I.  That  which  arose  from  a  great  fear  of  ascribing  human 
 passions  to  God ;  and  in  order  to  maintain  His  absolute  perfection, 
 held  that  wrath  in  God  means  simply  the  infliction  of  punishment 
 ( iTrirctaig  rt/uapi'ocg,  Chrysostom  ;  vindictce  effectus ,  non  illius  tur- 
 bulenius  affectas ,  Augustine,  de  Civ.  Dei ,  ix.  5,  cf.  xv.  25).  This 
 view  may  be  traced  back  to  Origen  {de  Princ.  ii.  4.  4  ;  Contra 
 Cels.  iv.  71.  2);  but  it  prevailed  throughout  the  patristic  period 
 with  few  exceptions,  and  has  been  countenanced  in  some  degree 
 by  medieval  and  modern  theologians.  It  rests  upon  the  abstract 
 conception  of  God  merely  as  the  Infinite,  which  would  exclude  all 
 affections  from  His  being,  as  inconsistent  with  absolute  per¬ 
 fection  ;  but  it  forgets  the  other  truth,  that  man  is  made  in  the 
 image  of  God,  and  so  fails  to  do  justice  to  the  representations 
 of  Scripture,  especially  to  those  in  which  the  wrath  of  God  is 
 
THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  SIN. 
 
 47 
 
 spoken  of  along  with,  and  as  distinct  from,  the  infliction  of 
 punishment. 
 
 It  is  not  fair,  however,  to  ascribe  the  view,  undoubtedly  held  by 
 Origen  and  Augustine,  to  all  those  who  have  said  that  anger  is 
 ascribed  to  God  by  the  figure  of  anthropopathy  ;  for  that  only 
 means  that  anger  in  God  is  not  the  same  as  in  man,  but  does  not 
 necessarily  imply  that  there  is  no  emotion  in  God  at  all,  as  the 
 Fathers  just  named  hold.1  Another  thing  that  has  led  to  the 
 views  of  some  being  misunderstood  is,  that  philosophers  and 
 theologians  before  Kant,  by  a  defective  psychology,  recognised 
 only  two  kinds  of  mental  phenomena,  knowing  and  willing,  and 
 included  under  the  latter  emotions  as  well  as  will  and  desire,  so 
 that  when  they  describe  God’s  wrath  as  voluntas ,  they  do  not 
 mean  to  exclude  feeling. 
 
 II.  The  view  expressed  by  Turrettin  is  substantially  that  held 
 by  Tertullian  and  Lactantius  in  the  ancient  Church,  by  Melanch- 
 thon  among  the  Reformers,  and  by  many  of  the  Protestant 
 theologians.  It  is  that  anger  in  God  is  not  a  mere  form  of 
 speech,  but  a  reality,  analogous  to  anger  in  man,  though  not 
 identical  with  it,  and,  in  particular,  free  from  the  sinful  element 
 that  almost  always  mingles  with  human  anger.  Now,  as  anger  in 
 man,  so  far  as  it  is  right  and  justifiable,  arises  against  wrong  and 
 injustice,  and  is  an  expression  of  righteous  indignation  ;  so  the 
 wrath  of  God  has  been  explained  as  flowing  from  His  attribute  of 
 justice,  and  by  some,  indeed,  has  been  identified  with  it.  Most  of 
 the  seventeenth  century  theologians,  indeed,  have  been  over  afraid 
 of  anthropopathy,  and  have  approximated  to  the  patristic  view  ; 
 but  they  have  pointed  out  a  way  in  which  anger  may  be  ascribed 
 to  God  not  as  a  mere  figure  of  speech,  yet  without  implying  any¬ 
 thing  unworthy  of  God.2 
 
 1  So  Turrettin  maintains,  that  anger  is  ascribed  to  God  anthropopathically ; 
 but  explains  that  by:  ‘‘notat  non  aegritudinem  aut  conturbationem  sed 
 sumraan  rei  alicujus  displicentiam  et  detestationem,  cum  certa  et  constanti 
 voluntate  earn  puniendi”  (de  Satisfaction  is  Christi  Necessitate ,  I.  xx),  thus 
 recognising  an  inward  feeling  along  with  the  purpose  of  punishment. 
 
 2  See  Tertullian,  Against  Marcion  ;  Lactantius,  de  Ira  Dei  ;  Melanchthon, 
 
48 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 III.  A  third  view  is  that  which  regards  anger  in  God  as  a  form 
 or  modification  of  love.  This  has  arisen  in  modern  times  among 
 those  who  hold  that  God’s  character  is  pure  benevolence,  and  the 
 only  purpose  of  punishment  is  the  amendment  of  the  offender. 
 This  view  was  adopted  by  Dippel  in  Germany,1  and  by  Belsham 
 and  other  Unitarians  in  England2  in  the  latter  half  of  last  century ; 
 and  similar  opinions  were  held  by  Maurice,  T.  Erskine,  Robert¬ 
 son,  and  others.  A  similar  notion  of  the  divine  anger  has, 
 however,  also  been  held  by  Martensen,  a  genuine  Lutheran  theo¬ 
 logian  far  removed  from  the  negative  opinions  of  these  schools. 
 According  to  him,  God’s  “  anger  is  holy  love  itself  when  it  feels 
 itself  stopped  by  the  turning  away  of  the  being  with  whom  it  was 
 minded  to  enter  into  fellowship.”  This,  however,  does  not  seem 
 so  worthy  an  explanation  as  that  which  traces  it  to  justice,  for  it 
 represents  the  divine  anger  under  the  analogy  of  a  personal  and 
 even  selfish  emotion.  And  if  we  look  to  Scripture  we  find  that 
 the  chastisement  which  God  inflicts  in  love  is  not  identified  or 
 associated  with  anger,  but  expressly  opposed  to  it.  “  O  Lord, 
 correct  me,  but  with  judgment ;  not  in  Thine  anger,  lest  Thou  bring 
 me  to  nothing”  (Jer.  x.  24  ;  cf.  Ps.  vi.  1,  xxxvii.  1).  On  the  other 
 hand,  God’s  wrath  is  positively  connected  with  His  righteous 
 judgment  (Rom.  ii.  5,  iii.  5). 
 
 The  second  of  these  views  of  the  anger  of  God  seems  therefore 
 to  be  decidedly  the  most  scriptural,  and  is  open  to  no  consider¬ 
 able'-  objection.  It  is  acknowledged  by  all  judicious  moralists, 
 especially  since  Butler  clearly  showed  it ;  indeed  it  was  recognised 
 long  before  by  Plato  when  he  made  the  irascible  (Qvposth&g)  an 
 essential  part  of  human  nature,  that  there  is  a  kind  of  anger 
 which  is  not  a  mere  instinctive  and  almost  animal  passion,  but  a 
 deliberate  sentiment,  that  has  for  its  proper  object,  not  mere  pain, 
 
 Loc.  Com.  ;  Amesius,  Theol.  Med.  I.  xii.  20  ;  Turrettin,  l.c.  Others,  as  Owen 
 (On  Divine  Justice,  I.  v.),  De  Moor,  and  Mastricht  more  nearly  approach 
 the  former  view. 
 
 1  See  Ritschl,  Rcchtf.  i.  357. 
 
 2  See  Magee,  Discourses  on  the  Atonement. 
 
THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  SIN. 
 
 49 
 
 but  injustice  and  wrong,  considered  as  morally  evil,  whether  they 
 affect  us  personally  or  not.  This  sentiment  is  one  of  the  great 
 supports  of  social  order  and  morality  among  men  ;  and  when  it  is 
 turned  against  one’s  own  self  it  is  the  very  scourge  with  which 
 conscience  lashes  the  guilty  soul.  It  is  therefore  most  natural 
 to  ascribe  to  God  a  sentiment  analogous  to  this,  and  to  under¬ 
 stand  it  to  be  meant  where  the  Bible  speaks  of  His  anger,  wrath, 
 indignation,  etc. 
 
 As  the  sentiment  of  deliberate  and  righteous  indignation  is  a 
 main  support  of  law  and  justice  among  men,  and  as  the  applica¬ 
 tion  of  it  by  a  man’s  own  conscience  to  himself  is  the  inward 
 means  by  which  the  moral  law  is  vindicated  against  transgressors, 
 so  it  is  an  exceedingly  natural  conclusion,  that  the  manifestation 
 of  this  sentiment,  in  infinite  perfection  and  absolute  purity,  in  God 
 Himself,  forms  the  outward  means  by  which  the  law  is  vindicated. 
 “  The  wrath  of  God,”  says  Paul,  “  is  revealed  from  heaven  against 
 all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men”  (Rom.  i.  18).  God’s 
 holy  and  righteous  indignation  is  aroused  by  these  moral  evils, 
 and  goes  forth  against  them.  How  then  is  it  manifested  ?  Paul 
 indicates  this  in  the  succeeding  context,  when  he  says,  thrice  over, 
 of  the  wicked,  “  God  gave  them  up”  (vroipeZuKe,  vers.  24,  26,  28). 
 He  showed  His  wrath  simply  by  leaving  sinners  to  eat  the  fruit  of 
 their  own  sins.  The  necessary  consequence  of  their  ungodliness 
 was,  ever  deeper,  more  shameful,  and  loathsome  corruption  ;  and 
 this  was  the  revelation  of  God’s  wrath  against  their  sin.  It  needs 
 nothing  more  to  bring  a  just  punishment  on  the  head  of  sinners, 
 but  only  that  God  should  let  them  alone,  and  leave  them  to  the 
 consequences  of  their  sin. 
 
 It  is  to  be  noticed,  however,  that  punishment  is  not  precisely 
 the  same  as  the  natural  consequence  of  sin.  That  may  in  point 
 of  fact  be  the  punishment ;  but  it  is  not  simply  in  virtue  of  its 
 following  sin  that  it  is  so.  There  must  be  some  act  on  the  part 
 of  God,  for  punishment  is  suffering,  not  merely  following  sin,  but 
 inflicted  on  account  of  sin,  for  the  vindication  of  justice.  The 
 
 act  on  the  part  of  God  may  be  merely  a  negative  one,  not  a  direct 
 
 D 
 
5o 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 sending  of  evil,  but  simply  a  withdrawal  of  good,  of  Himself,  who 
 is  the  chief  good,  a  leaving  men  to  themselves,  and  to  the  con¬ 
 sequences  of  their  sin  ;  still  these  consequences  must  have  been 
 appointed  and  intended  by  God  to  vindicate  His  law  and  justice, 
 else  they  are  not  properly  of  the  nature  of  punishment.  Accord¬ 
 ingly  we  find  that  in  addition  to  the  statements  about  the  wrath 
 of  God,  Jesus  and  His  apostles  use  in  regard  to  sinners  various 
 words  implying  an  act  of  judgment ;  e.g.  to  suffer  penalty 
 (^npiovoQou),  Matt.  xvi.  26  ;  accursed  {KaTypoLfthoi),  Matt.  xxv.  41  ; 
 chastisement  {koT^ugu :),  Matt.  xxv.  46  ;  retribution  (Zikyi,  tKbixYKug), 
 2  Thess.  i.  8,  9  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  14  ;  punishment  (Tipiaplct),  Heb.  x.  29  ; 
 condemnation  (xccrxxptvsaOxi,  xxrxxpipia),  Matt.  xii.  57 ;  Mark 
 xvi.  16;  Rom.  v.  16,  18,  etc. 
 
 Of  these  terms,  the  Westminster  Standards  have  used  especially 
 one,  curse ,  not  perhaps  the  most  happy  choice,  yet  undoubtedly 
 a  scriptural  expression.  To  curse  is  to  pray  against,  or  invoke 
 the  divine  judgment,  and  it  is  used  by  the  disciples  of  our  Lord’s 
 sentence  upon  the  barren  fig-tree  (Mark  xi.  21).  The  noun 
 “curse”  is  connected  by  Paul  with  the  law  (Gal.  iii.  13,  Kxrxpx 
 tov  vopcov),  and,  as  illustrated  by  the  other  parallel  expressions, 
 may  be  taken  to  mean  condemnation,  the  divine  sentence  de¬ 
 nouncing  evil  against  transgressors.  It  thus  indicates  something 
 additional  to  the  wrath  of  God.  That  is  His  righteous  indigna¬ 
 tion,  as  a  holy  Being,  against  moral  evil:  this  is  the  solemn  sen¬ 
 tence  which  He  pronounces  against  it  as  the  King  and  Judge  of 
 all  the  earth.  The  punishment  of  sin,  then,  viewed  on  the  side 
 of  God,  is  His  wrath  and  curse,  the  revelation  of  His  righteous 
 judgment  (Rom.  ii.  5),  the  manifestation  of  His  awful  displeasure 
 as  the  Holy  One,  and  the  infliction  of  Plis  solemn  sentence  of 
 condemnation  as  the  righteous  Judge.  All  the  evils  that  men 
 suffer  in  consequence  of  sin  are  of  the  nature  of  punishment,  just 
 in  so  far  as  in  them  God  shows  His  wrath  and  inflicts  His  curse. 
 
 According  to  the  representations  of  Scripture,  this  includes  all 
 kinds  of  evil  and  suffering.  If  we  look  through  the  word  of  God, 
 we  shall  find  almost  every  possible  kind  of  ill,  in  one  place  or 
 
THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  SIN. 
 
 51 
 
 another,  traced  up  to  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God.  The  sentences 
 pronounced  on  our  first  parents  (Gen.  iii.  16-19)  declare  bodily 
 pain,  the  exhaustion  of  toil,  and  bodily  death,  to  be  so  ;  the 
 punishments  threatened  as  curses  on  Israel  in  the  event  of  their 
 disobedience  (Lev.  xxvi.  14-38;  Deut.  xxviii.  15-68),  include 
 poverty,  sickness,  famine,  war,  slavery,  with  all  their  attendant 
 sufferings  ;  and  in  the  historical  and  prophetic  books,  all  manner 
 of  evil,  in  body,  mind,  and  outward  estate,  are  represented  as 
 flowing  from  the  wrath  and  curse  of  God.  These  evils  are  to  a 
 large  extent  the  natural  consequences  of  moral  evil ;  and  it  may 
 well  be  supposed  that  had  there  been  no  sin  in  the  world,  they 
 would  not  have  existed.  Very  many  certainly,  and  possibly  all, 
 of  the  ills  of  life  would  have  had  no  existence  but  for  sin.  This 
 is  a  fact  that  observation  and  reflection  can  teach  us  ;  for  we  can 
 trace  most  of  the  ills  that  flesh  is  heir  to  back  to  the  evil  passions, 
 or  depraved  appetites,  or  ignorant  folly  of  men. 
 
 But  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  it  is  not  the  mere  existence  of 
 such  ills,  nor  yet  their  being  the  natural  consequences  of  sin,  that 
 gives  them  the  character  of  punishment,  but  their  being  ordained 
 by  God  as  an  expression  of  His  wrath,  and  inflicted  in  execution 
 of  His  sentence  of  condemnation  against  sin.  Apart  from  that, 
 they  might  be  calamities,  or  trials,  or  chastenings,  but  they  would 
 have  no  properly  penal  character,  for  the  essence  of  punishment 
 is,  not  that  it  be  suffering  of  any  particular  kind  or  amount,  but 
 that  it  be  inflicted  on  account  of  sin  and  for  the  vindication  of 
 justice.  Any  suffering  that  is  appointed  by  God  for  that  purpose 
 is  really  and  truly  punishment  ;  while  the  very  same  suffering,  if 
 not  directed  to  that  end,  would  not  have  that  character.  Hence 
 it  is  that  even  after  we  are  reconciled  to  God  through  Jesus 
 Christ,  and  are  no  longer  under  His  wrath  and  curse,  we  may 
 still  have  to  suffer  many  of  the  consequences  of  our  sins.  These 
 painful  consequences  are  penal  as  they  fall  on  the  ungodly ; 
 but  to  the  child  of  God  their  aspect  and  effect  is  changed  ; 
 for  there  is  no  longer  to  be  seen  in  them  the  hand  of  an  angry 
 God,  but  that  of  a  loving  Father,  chastening  His  children  for 
 
52 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 their  moral  improvement,  that  they  may  be  partakers  of  His 
 holiness. 
 
 On  the  side  of  man,  the  punishment  of  sin  is  most  frequently 
 called  death.  This  was  the  threatening  to  Adam  in  Paradise 
 (Gen.  ii.  17),  this  was  the  sanction  of  the  law  of  Sinai  (Deut.  xxx. 
 15,  19),  it  is  repeated  in  the  prophet’s  assertion  of  God’s  righteous 
 government  (Ex.  xviii.  4,  etc.).  Jesus  speaks  of  death  as  that 
 from  which  He  came  to  save  men  (Matt.  xvi.  25-27  ;  John  v.  25, 
 etc.).  Paul  declares  it  to  be  the  desert  and  wages  of  sin  (Rom.  i. 
 32,  vi.  25). 
 
 That  death  in  this  connection  means  something  else  than  the 
 loss  of  bodily  life,  and  worse  than  it,  seems  clear  from  the  fact 
 that  in  many  places  it  is  asserted  of  those  who  still  have  bodily 
 life.  This  is  done  by  Jesus  (Matt.  viii.  22  ;  John  v.  25,  vi.  53); 
 by  Paul  (Eph.  ii.  1  ;  1  Tim.  v.  6),  and  by  John  (Rev.  iii.  1 ;  1  John 
 iii.  13,  etc.) ;  and  it  is  implied  in  the  original  threatening  to  Adam, 
 compared  with  the  account  of  what  happened  after  his  sin  ;  for 
 we  can  hardly  doubt  that  what  did  take  place  then  was  the  begin¬ 
 ning,  at  least,  of  the  death  that  had  been  threatened,  since  other¬ 
 wise  God’s  word  would  be  falsified.  Adam  did  not  lose  his  bodily 
 life  in  the  day  he  ate  the  forbidden  fruit,  but  lived  for  many  years 
 after  ;  but  he  is  described  as  no  longer  willing  to  meet  with  God, 
 but  afraid  of  His  presence,  with  a  guilty  shame,  and  seeking  to 
 hide  from  Him.  He  still  possessed  animal  life,  for  his  organism 
 was  in  correspondence  with  the  physical  environment,  air,  light, 
 heat,  food,  etc.  ;  but  his  soul  was  no  longer  in  correspondence 
 with  the  spiritual  environment,  God  ;  he  had  become  dead  to  God. 
 In  this  state  he  had  lost  some  of  the  highest  and  most  precious 
 powers  of  his  soul,  those  of  adoration,  faith,  prayer,  and  the  like. 
 Death  therefore,  in  this  point  of  view,  is  a  negative  evil,  the  loss 
 of  certain  powers  and  faculties  which  should  belong  to  man  as 
 God  designed  him  to  be. 
 
 In  regard  to  the  death  of  the  body,  the  Biblical  account  of 
 the  creation  of  man  does  not  represent  him  as  endowed  with 
 physical  immortality.  The  command  in  Gen.  i.  28  to  be  fruitful, 
 
THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  SIN. 
 
 53 
 
 and  multiply,  and  replenish  the  earth,  implies  that  the  individuals 
 of  the  races  were  not  to  live  for  ever  on  this  earth  ;  and  when 
 the  first  man  is  described  by  Paul  as  being  “  of  the  earth  earthy,” 
 and  therefore  corruptible  and  mortal  (i  Cor.  xv.  47),  the  reference 
 is  not  to  what  Adam  became  by  his  sin,  but  to  what  he  was  as 
 made  by  God  of  the  dust  of  the  earth.  Scripture,  therefore,  as 
 well  as  science,  teaches  that  the  human  frame  is  in  itself  mortal, 
 and  not  designed  for  eternal  life  in  this  world.  How  then  are  we 
 to  explain  the  statements  which  Paul  also  makes,  that  by  man 
 came  death  (1  Cor.  xv.  21),  and  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
 world,  and  death  by  sin  (Rom.  v.  12)?  Possibly  the  meaning  is, 
 that  had  there  been  no  sin,  men  would  have  been  translated,  as 
 Enoch  is  said  to  have  been  (Heb.  xi.  5),  so  that,  without  passing- 
 through  any  disembodied  state,  they  should  at  once  have  been 
 clothed  with  spiritual  and  incorruptible  bodies,  such  as  we  are 
 taught  to  believe  the  glorified  saints  shall  have.  But  a  simpler 
 explanation  is  also  possible,  that  as  Jesus  and  His  apostles  speak 
 of  believers  as  not  really  dying,  but  only  falling  asleep,  when 
 their  earthly  life  ends,  because  they  pass  away,  not  in  terror  and 
 despair,  but  in  peace  and  hope  ;  so  but  for  sin,  the  inevitable  end 
 of  man’s  bodily  life  would  not  have  deserved  to  be  called  death. 
 Sin  may  not  have  caused  the  mere  physical  fact  of  death  to  the 
 body  ;  but  that  horror  and  dismay  with  which  it  is  so  often 
 accompanied,  and  which  makes  death  seem  the  king  of  terrors, 
 just  as  sin  did  not  impose  on  man  the  necessity  of  labour  and 
 fatigue,  but  made  these  a  curse. 
 
 The  term  death  is  also  used  in  Scripture  for  the  final  doom  to 
 be  inflicted  on  the  impenitent  at  the  day  of  judgment ;  and  this 
 is  solemnly  called  in  the  Apocalypse  (ii.  11,  xx.  6,  14)  “the 
 second  death.”  This  is  what  theologians  have  called  eternal 
 death,  though  that  phrase  is  not  used  in  the  Bible,  and  can  only 
 have  been  inferred  from  the  fact  that  Jesus  uses  to  express  this 
 awful  doom  the  words  “  eternal  fire  ”  and  “  eternal  punishment  ” 
 (Matt.  xxv.  41,  46).  In  that  passage  the  substance  of  the  con¬ 
 demning  sentence  seems  to  be,  entire  separation  from  God  ;  and 
 
54 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 as  God  is  the  source  and  giver  of  all  life,  this  may  very  appro¬ 
 priately  be  called  death  in  the  fullest  and  most  absolute  sense. 
 
 The  passages  in  which  this  awful  doom  is  spoken  of  by  Christ 
 and  His  apostles  are  very  many  and  very  solemn  ;  and  they  are 
 of  two  different  kinds.  In  some,  various  images  of  suffering  are 
 presented,  such  as  outer  darkness,  weeping  and  gnashing  of 
 teeth,  the  fire  of  Gehenna  ;  while  in  others  perdition,  destruction, 
 death,  are  spoken  of.  The  former  class  of  passages  have  led 
 very  many  Christians  to  the  conviction  that  everlasting  penal 
 suffering  is  the  doom  of  the  lost ;  but  the  latter  have  been 
 thought,  by  not  a  few,  to  show  rather  that  that  doom  issues  at 
 last  in  the  extinction  of  conscious  being.  Clearly  one  or  other  of 
 these  two  classes  of  passages  must  be  understood  figuratively  ; 
 and  the  question  just  is,  which  ?  It  is  not  possible  to  decide  with 
 confidence,  and  neither  Jesus  nor  the  apostles  intended  to  satisfy 
 our  curiosity  on  this  point.  Even  if  the  second  death,  which  is 
 the  doom  of  the  finally  impenitent,  entire  cessation  of  life  or 
 conscious  existence  ;  this  might  properly  be  called  an  eternal 
 punishment,  since  it  is  final,  and  its  effects  endure  for  ever. 
 But  although  the  doctrine  of  the  everlasting  conscious  suffering 
 of  those  who  constantly  persist  in  sin  may  not  be  so  certain  as 
 it  has  appeared  to  most,  the  idea  of  the  ultimate  restoration  of 
 all  intelligent  creatures  seems  contrary  to  the  most  essential 
 doctrines  of  Christianity. 
 
CHAPTER  VI. 
 
 THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN  IN  MANKIND. 
 
 Hitherto  we  have  been  considering  the  idea  of  sin,  and  have 
 seen  that  the  religion  of  the  Bible  gives  a  view  of  moral  evil  as 
 an  offence  against  God,  which  other  religions  present  only  in  an 
 imperfect  or  distorted  manner,  but  which  is  recognised  by  the 
 conscience  and  heart  of  man  as  true  and  all-important ;  and  we 
 have  seen  how  this  aspect  of  moral  evil  is  based  on  the  recogni¬ 
 tion  of  the  moral  law  and  moral  government  of  God,  and  shows 
 the  infinite  evil  of  sin,  as  involving  guilt  and  deserving  God’s 
 wrath  and  judgment  as  its  punishment.  But,  unhappily,  sin  is 
 not  merely  an  idea,  but  a  sad  and  awful  reality  ;  and  we  must 
 now  consider  the  fact  of  the  sin  of  mankind,  which  is  but  too 
 plainly  made  known  to  us  by  observation  and  experience,  as  well 
 as  by  revelation.  The  Biblical  doctrine  in  regard  to  the  sin  of 
 the  world,  though  it  contains  some  things  which  unaided  reason 
 could  not  ascertain,  yet,  like  all  the  great  doctrines  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity,  rests  on  a  basis  of  facts,  which  can  be  proved  and  verified 
 as  most  unquestionably  true.  The  simplest  and  most  obvious  of 
 these  is,  that  all  men  without  exception  commit  moral  transgres¬ 
 sions  and  failures,  which  the  Bible  and  an  enlightened  conscience, 
 as  we  have  seen,  judge  as  sins  against  God. 
 
 We  cannot  read  the  history  of  our  race  in  the  past,  nor  observe 
 its  character  and  conduct  in  the  present,  nor  examine  the  state  of 
 our  hearts  and  lives,  without  being  convinced  that  mankind  in 
 general,  and  ourselves  in  particular,  do  habitually  and  constantly 
 come  very  far  short  of  the  standard  of  moral  excellence  that  con¬ 
 science  sets  before  us,  and  do  at  times  very  flagrantly  transgress 
 
 55 
 
56  THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 it.  At  least,  no  one  who  has  any  earnestness  of  moral  conviction 
 and  feeling  can  avoid  this  conclusion.  There  are,  indeed,  many 
 who  have  a  very  low  standard  of  morality,  or  who  do  not  think 
 very  seriously  on  the  subject  at  all,  who  may  fancy  that  such 
 statements  are  the  dark  and  exaggerated  ideas  of  some  extreme 
 or  ascetic  moralists,  and  that  the  human  race  is  not  so  universally 
 culpable.  Looking  at  the  more  open  and  offensive  manifesta¬ 
 tions  of  evil,  they  conceive  that  these  are  comparatively  few  and 
 exceptional,  and  that  they  are  counterbalanced  by  a  great  num¬ 
 ber  of  good,  kind,  and  generous  actions.  But  every  one  who 
 examines  attentively  the  dictates  of  conscience,  and  the  principles 
 to  which  these  may  be  reduced,  and  who  has  in  any  degree  a 
 worthy  idea  of  what  man’s  character  ought  to  be,  must  feel  that 
 the  doctrine  of  the  universality  of  moral  evil  among  men  is  true  ; 
 and  that,  however  it  may  be  explained  or  accounted  for,  it  is  an 
 undoubted  fact,  that,  as  far  as  we  know,  every  ordinary  member  of 
 the  human  race  has,  in  some  way  or  other,  in  greater  or  less  degree, 
 come  short  of  the  standard  of  moral  character  that  reason  and 
 conscience  compel  us  to  set  up  as  the  rule  of  ethical  judgment. 
 There  are,  indeed,  some  details  as  to  the  origin,  nature,  and 
 consequences  of  moral  evil  that  Scripture  alone  can  furnish  ; 
 but  the  great  general  outline  of  the  fact  is  plain  enough, 
 even  in  the  twilight  of  nature’s  testimony  ;  and  the  light  that 
 comes  from  heaven  but  makes  more  distinctly  and  particularly 
 known  what  presents  itself  only  as  a  less  definite  impression 
 without  it. 
 
 If  we  look  (1)  into  our  own  hearts  we  shall  find  that  conscience, 
 which  speaks  with  a  voice  of  authority,  and  is  sovereign  in  the 
 soul  de  jure ,  never  is  completely  so  de  facto.  We  fall  short  of 
 our  own  ideal,  and  of  what  we  know  we  ought  to  be.  This  is 
 true  of  every  seriously-minded  man.  There  has  never  lived  any 
 member  of  our  race,  save  only  Jesus  Christ,  who  has  given  evidence 
 of  moral  sensibility  and  sincerity,  and  yet  has  professed  himself 
 to  be  morally,  perfect,  or  to  come  up  to  the  ethical  standard  of 
 duty.  Any  who,  like  the  Pharisees,  have  made  such  professions, 
 
THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN  IN  MANKIND. 
 
 57 
 
 have  been  men  who  deemed  morality  to  consist  merely  in  out¬ 
 ward  behaviour,  and  observance  of  forms  and  ceremonies. 
 
 This  judgment  of  conscience  is  confirmed  by  observation. 
 For  if  we  look  (2)  at  the  conduct  of  men,  we  meet  with  the 
 same  phenomenon.  We  know  no  man  who  is  perfect,  or  free 
 from  moral  shortcoming  and  blame.  Even  in  the  best  and  most 
 admired  of  our  race  we  observe  defects  and  faults,  while  in  many 
 there  are  to  be  noted  numerous  and  grave  errors,  vices,  and  crimes. 
 The  prevailing  evil  of  human  nature  is  proved  by  the  very  institu¬ 
 tions  and  arrangements  of  society.  The  penal  laws  that  have  been 
 found  necessary  in  every  state  and  society  of  men,  for  repressing 
 the  outbursts  of  passion  and  violence  and  the  injustice  of  selfish¬ 
 ness  and  fraud,  bear  witness  to  this  ;  and  the  fact  that  notwith¬ 
 standing  the  terrors  of  law  and  justice,  crime  is  so  frequent  even 
 in  the  most  enlightened  and  best  governed  countries ;  the  failure 
 also,  to  so  large  an  extent,  of  education  and  science,  art  and 
 literature,  philosophy  and  religion,  to  extirpate  vice  from  among 
 men,  prove  the  same  thing.  Then  consider  the  testimony  of 
 history.  Are  not  its  records  just  a  continuous  narrative  of  out¬ 
 rages  and  wrongs,  of  grasping  ambition  and  insatiable  avarice,  of 
 oppressive  cruelty  and  fierce  revenge,  of  bold  injustice  and  secret 
 fraud?  How  many  pages  does  it  unroll,  in  reading  which  we 
 cannot  sympathise  with  any  of  the  actors  in  the  scenes  described  ! 
 how  few  that  we  can  peruse  with  unmingled  satisfaction  !  Surely 
 nature  cries  to  us,  from  without  and  from  within,  from  behind 
 and  from  around  us,  that  moral  evil  pervades  mankind.  This 
 cannot  be  doubted  by  any  earnest  inquirer. 
 
 Consider,  further,  the  moral  shortcomings  and  faults  of  men, 
 not  only  in  their  relation  one  towards  another,  but  towards 
 God.  The  light  of  nature  not  only  shows  the  duties  that  we 
 owe  to  our  fellows,  but  reveals  the  great  First  Cause  and 
 Moral  Governor  of  the  world,  and  inculcates  worship,  reverence, 
 and  gratitude  as  due  to  Him  above  all.  But  how  have  men 
 acquitted  themselves  of  those  duties  to  God?  Instead  of 
 worshipping  the  one  Infinite  Lord  of  all,  as  a  spirit,  in  a 
 
58 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 spiritual  way,  how  widely  and  perpetually  have  they  forgotten 
 and  dishonoured  Him  !  How  generally  has  religion  been  cor¬ 
 rupted  in  all  parts  and  ages  of  the  world,  when  men  have 
 forgotten  and  neglected  the  one  true  God,  of  whom  the  whole 
 frame  of  the  universe  bears  witness,  and  deemed  a  multitude  of 
 inferior  beings  to  be  gods,  the  stars  of  the  sky,  or  the  forces  of 
 nature,  or  their  own  fellow-men,  or  the  work  of  their  own  hands, 
 even  the  rudest  stocks  and  stones  ;  and  have  worshipped  them 
 with  foul  and  cruel  rites,  and  ascribed  to  them  attributes  most 
 dishonouring  to  God  !  Then,  again,  how  much  practical  ungodli¬ 
 ness  has  there  always  been  in  the  world  ;  and  how  many  men, 
 who  have  been  just  and  good  in  their  dealings  with  their  fellow- 
 men,  have  been  utterly  negligent  of  their  duties  to  God  ! 
 
 The  human  race,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  one  that  is  without  God, 
 or  against  God.  In  a  religious,  even  more  than  in  a  moral  view, 
 the  existence  of  evil  is  undeniable.  The  facts  which  I  have 
 briefly  indicated  might  be  drawn  out  at  more  length.  But  this 
 is  needless.  They  will  not  be  denied  by  any. 
 
 Having  considered  the  general  fact  of  the  universal  prevalence 
 of  sin  or  moral  evil  among  mankind,  it  may  be  well  to  examine  a 
 little  more  particularly  its  various  kinds  and  forms,  so  as  both  to 
 have  a  more  distinct  apprehension  of  its  real  nature,  and  to  see 
 that  the  assertion  of  its  universality  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
 fact  that  there  are  many  and  great  differences  of  moral  character 
 among  men.  The  universal  sinfulness  of  the  race  does  not  at  all 
 imply  that  all  men  are  alike  in  the  nature  and  degree  of  their  sin ; 
 and  Scripture,  as  well  as  history  and  experience,  shows  that  there 
 are  many  different  forms  in  which  evil  appears  in  mankind. 
 
 These  may  be  distinguished  by  observing  the  various  im¬ 
 pulses  in  our  nature  from  which  sins  proceed,  and  the  modes 
 in  which  they  do  so.  Beginning  with  those  that  seem  most 
 simply  and  directly  traceable  to  a  single  source,  we  find, 
 first,  a  large  number  of  sins  resulting  from  inordinate  appetites 
 or  desires.  Many  immoral  acts  (such  as  those  of  gluttony, 
 drunkenness,  unchastity)  are  just  the  inordinate  indulgence  of 
 
THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN  IN  MANKIND. 
 
 59 
 
 the  sensuous  appetites  of  our  nature,  and  others  are  the  result  of 
 excess  in  desires  that  are  in  themselves  natural  and  innocent: 
 the  desire  of  pleasure  leading  to  idleness  and  sloth,  that  of  power 
 to  ambition,  that  of  knowledge  to  curiosity,  that  of  approbation 
 and  love  to  pride  and  vanity.  All  these  desires,  though  differing 
 in  their  positive  moral  value,  are  included  in  the  term 
 or  concupiscence,  as  used  by  the  Greek  philosophers  and  in  the 
 New  Testament,  and  all  may  lead  to  immoral  acts  if  indulged  in 
 excess  or  in  a  perverse  and  improper  way.  This  form  of  sin  is 
 the  simplest,  and  the  first  sin  of  mankind  is  represented  in  Scrip¬ 
 ture  as  of  this  kind  ;  it  is  that  in  which  sin  usually  appears 
 in  childhood,  and  which  prevails  in  uncivilised  simple  races,  such 
 as  the  natives  of  Africa  and  the  South  Sea  Islands. 
 
 A  second  class  of  sins,  very  analogous  to  the  former,  spring 
 from  inordinate  passions  or  affections,  ill-will,  revenge,  hatred, 
 springing  from  the  excessive  or  wrongly  directed  exercise  of  the 
 feelings  of  anger  and  indignation,  that  are  essential  and  important 
 parts  of  man’s  nature  ;  envy  from  perverted  emulation,  jealousy 
 from  wounded  love.  These  impulses  are  connected  with  what 
 Plato  called  Qvpoc,  and  distinguished  as  a  part  of  the  soul,  superior 
 indeed  to  the  desires  ( ’Iwidvpia. but,  equally  with  them,  needing 
 to  be  directed  and  governed  by  the  reason  (vovg).  This  is  the 
 nobler  and  more  heavenly  of  the  two  wild  steeds  that  the 
 charioteer  reason  has  to  guide  and  hold  in.  This  class  of  sins 
 is  especially  characteristic  of  youth.  The  second  great  sin 
 described  in  the  Bible,  Cain’s  murder  of  Abel,  is  a  sin  of  passion 
 and  violence  ;  and  such  sins,  along  with  those  of  sensual  desire, 
 are  characteristic  of  savage  tribes. 
 
 In  both  these  forms  of  sin  the  evil  lies,  not  in  the  desires  or 
 passions  themselves  that  are  the  impulses  to  action,  but  in  their 
 disorder  or  excess  ;  hence  we  must  inquire  further  how  it  comes 
 that  they  go  to  excess.  Where  there  is  moral  blameworthiness, 
 there  must  be  possible  a  knowledge  of  the  rule  by  which  the 
 desires  and  affections  should  be  directed,  and  a  power  to  regulate 
 them  according  to  it.  Entire  ignorance  of  the  law  of  duty,  or 
 
6o 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 entire  impotence  to  restrain  desire  or  passion,  would  either  of 
 them  exclude  responsibility ;  but  there  is  a  conscience  in  man  that 
 tells  him  that  excess  is  morally  wrong,  and  he  has  the  power,  if 
 he  will  use  it,  not  only  of  controlling  his  outward  acts  by  volition, 
 but  of  restraining  desires  and  passions  by  directing  his  attention 
 to  the  moral  law  which  condemns  them.  Sin  emerges  when 
 such  regulation  of  the  desires  and  affections  is  not  exercised,  and 
 the  simplest  form  in  which  this  takes  place  is  through  thought¬ 
 lessness  or  heedlessness.  The  mind  which  knows,  or  might 
 know,  the  law  of  duty,  does  not  remember  it,  consider  it,  and 
 attend  to  it.  See  Isa.  i.  3  ;  Jer.  viii.  7. 
 
 Such  heedlessness  will  naturally  lead  to  the  indulgence  both  of 
 inordinate  desires  and  affections,  according  as  either  tendency 
 may  be  stronger  or  weaker  in  particular  persons,  or  as  their 
 circumstances  may  tend  to  draw  forth  one  or  other.  These  may 
 therefore  be  regarded  as  subordinate  varieties  of  the  general  class 
 of  sins  of  heedlessness,  differing  in  the  degree  of  their  moral 
 evil  in  proportion  to  the  extent  of  the  excess  in  each  case,  but  all 
 coming  under  the  description  of  evil  wrought  by  want  of  thought 
 rather  than  by  want  of  heart. 
 
 By  such  indulgence  of  desires  and  passions  the  power  of  self- 
 control  is  lessened,  and  by  the  neglect  to  use  the  faculty  of 
 attention,  so  as  to  restrain  the  blind  impulses  of  feeling,  that 
 faculty  becomes  less  able  to  do  so,  even  when  it  is  wished  that 
 it  should  ;  and  thus  arises  the  moral  condition  of  weakness  of 
 will,  when,  even  though  the  mind  may  be  cognisant  of  the  law  of 
 duty,  yet  some  desire  or  affection  may  be  so  strong  that  the 
 excessive  indulgence  of  it  cannot  be  resisted.  These  are  dis¬ 
 tinctively  sins  of  weakness,  and  they  are  specially  apparent  in  the 
 case  of  men  who  have  been  led  by  God’s  grace  to  strive  earnestly 
 after  holiness  in  heart  as  well  as  in  outward  conduct,  but  who  find 
 that  they  cannot  overcome  tendencies  to  evil  that  are  inherent  in 
 them.  Such  was  the  state  of  the  disciples  when  Jesus  said  of 
 them,  “  The  spirit  indeed  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak ; 55 
 and  of  those  in  regard  to  whom  Paul  so  vividly  describes  the 
 
THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN  IN  MANKIND.  6 1 
 
 conflict  of  the  flesh  and  the  spirit.  It  makes  no  substantial 
 difference  whether  the  flesh  is  described  as  too  weak  to  obey  the 
 behest  of  the  spirit,  or  too  strong  to  be  controlled  by  it  ;  these 
 but  express  the  same  thing  from  different  points  of  view.  The 
 accurate  statement  would  be  that  the  power  to  control  the  desires 
 and  affections  by  means  of  the  direction  of  the  attention  is  not 
 strong  enough  to  prevent  their  excessive  or  wrongly  directed  action. 
 
 But,  besides  sins  that  can  be  traced  back  to  desires  or  affections 
 heedlessly  or  weakly  indulged,  there  are  many  that  are  quite 
 deliberately  committed,  either  without  the  knowledge  or  belief 
 that  they  are  sins,  or  in  spite  of  that  knowledge.  Those  of  the 
 former  kind  are  cases  of  perverted  moral  judgment,  when  men 
 consider  something  to  be  allowable,  or  even  right,  which  is  really 
 wrong.  An  error  of  this  kind,  if  honest,  does  indeed  lessen  the 
 guilt  of  sin,  affording  an  extenuation  that  ought  ever  to  be  borne 
 in  mind,  and  that  distinguishes  broadly  sins  of  this  kind  from 
 those  committed  against  knowledge  and  light.  Jesus  recognises 
 this  in  several  emphatic  sayings  (John  ix.  41,  xv.  22,  24),  which 
 might  even  seem  to  deny  any  sin  where  there  was  blindness  or 
 lack  of  knowledge.  But  these  are  hypothetical  statements,  and 
 may  naturally  be  understood  in  a  comparative  sense.  In  His 
 prayer  on  the  cross  for  His  murderers,  our  Lord  states  their 
 ignorance  in  the  strongest  terms,  not  as  showing  that  they  were 
 guiltless,  for  then  they  would  not  need  forgiveness,  but  as  a 
 reason  why  they  should  be  forgiven  (Luke  xxiii.  34).  In  like 
 manner,  Paul  speaks  of  his  persecution  of  the  Christians  as  a 
 thing  done  ignorantly  in  unbelief,  but  yet  as  making  him  the  very 
 chief  of  sinners  (1  Tim.  i.  13-15).  The  explanation  is,  that 
 ignorance  or  error  as  to  duty  never  can  be  entirely  free  from 
 blame.  There  may  be  difficult  questions  as  to  the  application  of 
 moral  principles  or  precepts  to  complicated  or  obscure  circum¬ 
 stances,  but  the  essential  difference  between  good  and  evil  is 
 plain  to  an  honest,  unsophisticated  mind.  When  a  man  does 
 what  is  morally  wrong,  believing  it  to  be  right,  his  error  cannot 
 be  entirely  innocent.  It  must  arise  from  a  want  of  careful 
 
62 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 attention  to  the  nature  of  the  action,  or  from  allowing  prejudice  or 
 self-interest  to  bias  his  judgment.  Frequently  when  it  is  foreseen 
 that  a  certain  belief  would  make  obligatory  a  course  of  action  that 
 is  distasteful,  there  is  an  unwillingness  to  enter  on  or  carry  out 
 an  inquiry  that  would  probably  lead  to  that  belief,  or  even  an 
 attempt  by  forcing  attention  on  other  considerations  to  prevent  it. 
 
 Many  sins,  however,  are  committed  with  the  full  knowledge 
 that  they  are  morally  wrong,  and  with  more  or  less  deliberate 
 purpose.  In  this  respect  their  guilt  is  greater  than  that 
 of  sins  due  either  to  heedlessness  or  deception,  which  is  at 
 bottom  self-deception.  But  deliberate  wrong-doing  may  spring 
 from  a  greater  variety  of  impulses  than  sins  due  to  want  of 
 thought.  It  may  be  simply  the  wilful  indulgence  of  those 
 excessive  desires  or  affections  that  so  often  prevail  through 
 heedlessness.  Men  may  so  far  yield  themselves  to  inordinate 
 appetites,  or  desires,  or  passions,  as  to  seek  for,  and  deliberately 
 embrace,  occasions  for  their  gratification  ;  they  may  live  for 
 sensual  pleasures,  or  for  the  pursuit  of  power,  esteem,  and 
 applause,  or  for  the  satisfaction  of  envy,  jealousy,  revenge.  This 
 kind  of  conduct  is  described  in  Scripture  as  fulfilling  the  desires 
 of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind,  walking  in  sin  (Eph.  ii.  i,  2),  giving 
 themselves  over  to  lasciviousness  (ib.  iv.  10),  running  to  excess 
 of  riot  (1  Pet.  iv.  3,  4),  etc.  This  is  the  immorality  of  an  age  of 
 enlightenment  and  civilisation,  as  sins  of  carelessness  are  those  of 
 a  primitive  savage  state;  hence  there  are  more  frequent  references 
 to  it  in  the  New  Testament,  written  in  the  brilliant  Augustan  age 
 of  pagan  culture  and  corruption,  than  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 which  for  the  most  part  describes  a  society  of  comparatively  rude 
 simplicity.  This  form  of  sin  is  characteristic  of  full  manhood, 
 rather  than  of  childhood  or  youth  ;  it  is  most  distinctively  world¬ 
 liness,  the  love  of  the  world,  against  which  John  warns  us,  in  the 
 threefold  form  of  the  lust  of  the  flesh,  the  lust  of  the  eyes,  and 
 the  pride  of  life. 
 
 But  deliberate  sins  arise  also  from  the  selfish  pursuit  of  the 
 means  of  such  indulgences  as  have  just  been  described.  The 
 
THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN  IN  MANKIND.  63 
 
 motive  that  leads  to  wrong-doing  is  very  frequently,  not  the  direct 
 gratification  of  desire  or  passion  and  the  enjoyment  connected 
 with  that,  but  the  procuring  of  the  means  by  which  such  gratifica¬ 
 tion  can  be  obtained.  Of  these  means  the  most  universally 
 applicable  is  money,  and  so,  as  Paul  says,  the  love  of  money  is  a 
 root  of  all  evil ;  there  is  no  form  of  indulgence  for  which  wealth 
 may  not  be  made  serviceable,  and  thus  the  pursuit  of  wealth 
 lends  itself  to  any  one  of  those  desires  that  are  not  of  God,  but 
 of  the  world.  In  many  cases,  too,  wealth,  which  is  originally 
 sought  as  a  means  of  enjoyment  of  some  kind  or  other,  comes  to 
 be  desired  for  its  own  sake,  and  even  at  the  cost  of  all  the  enjoy¬ 
 ments  that  could  be  purchased  with  it.  Hence  arises  the  un¬ 
 natural  vice  of  avarice,  as  seen  in  the  miser  who  hoards  money 
 for  the  mere  fancied  pleasure  of  gloating  over  treasures  that  he 
 never  means  to  use.  But  short  of  this,  and  when  money  is  still 
 regarded  as  a  means,  the  desire  of  it,  even  apart  from  the  con¬ 
 sideration  of  its  ulterior  ends,  often  tempts  to  injustice,  fraud,  and 
 crime.  In  the  class  of  means  are  also  to  be  reckoned  rank, 
 knowledge,  power,  and  reputation,  though  in  the  case  of  the  two 
 latter  the  desire  of  them  for  their  own  sakes  is  not  unnatural,  yet 
 they  are  often  pursued  for  the  sake  of  the  gratification  of  desires 
 or  affections.  Sometimes,  too,  there  may  be  several  links  in  the 
 chain  of  means  that  are  sought  with  a  view  to  ulterior  ends  ;  as 
 a  man  may  desire  knowledge  with  a  view  to  power,  and  that 
 again  in  order  to  obtain  wealth,  in  order  to  enjoyment ;  or 
 another  may  seek  wealth  in  order  to  knowledge,  and  that  again 
 in  order  to  reputation. 
 
 Sins  committed  from  such  motives  are  those  most  properly 
 to  be  designated  sins  of  selfishness,  because  they  arise  from  a 
 deliberate  desire  of  one’s  own  enjoyment  or  aggrandisement,  an 
 excess  or  perversion  of  that  prudent  self-regard  which,  in  itself, 
 and  in  due  form  and  measure,  is  allowable  and  innocent.  In  a 
 wider  sense,  no  doubt,  all  desires  that  lead  to  one’s  own  gratifica¬ 
 tion  may  be  called  selfish  or  self-regarding,  but  in  the  case  of  the 
 direct  indulgence  of  desires  and  appetites,  it  is  the  enjoyment  as 
 
6  4 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 such,  and  not  the  circumstance  that  it  is  our  own,  that  forms  the 
 motive  to  action  ;  and  even  in  the  case  of  consciously  indulged 
 desires,  it  is  more  correct  to  say  that  men  are  lovers  of  pleasure, 
 or  of  excitement,  or  of  revenge,  as  the  case  may  be,  than  lovers 
 of  themselves.  When  they  are  deliberately  seeking  the  means 
 of  gratifying  such  desires,  then  the  element  of  self-regard  is  the 
 principal  one,  and  they  are  properly  said  to  be  selfish. 
 
 Still  another  source  of  sins  deliberately  committed  is  the  desire 
 to  avoid  inconveniences  and  evils  to  which  the  course  of  right  may 
 seem  to  lead.  To  this  must  be  reckoned  guilty  acts  proceeding 
 from  fear  or  want  of  fortitude,  the  yielding  when  suffering  is 
 threatened  in  case  of  refusal,  acts  like  those  of  Peter  denying  his 
 Lord  in  the  hour  of  danger.  These  undoubtedly  are  due  in  a 
 sense  to  self-regarding  feelings,  yet  not  in  the  same  way  as  a 
 positive  desire  of  ease  and  pleasure ;  and  since  they  are  committed 
 under  strong  temptation,  they  must  always  be  regarded  as  having 
 a  much  less  degree  of  moral  evil  than  most  other  kinds  of  sin. 
 They  are  frequently  done  reluctantly,  against  conscience  indeed, 
 but  also  against  a  real  and  earnest  desire  to  do  right,  and  in  ex¬ 
 treme  cases  they  come  very  near  to  involuntary  acts,  though  in 
 other  cases,  no  doubt,  the  fear  that  leads  to  sin  may  be  but  a  base 
 and  selfish  cowardice. 
 
 But  the  same  motive  of  a  desire  to  avoid  unpleasant  con¬ 
 sequences  may  lead  to  sin  in  a  much  less  excusable  form,  in 
 cases  where  the  consequences  dreaded  are  the  results  of  former 
 sins.  A  man  may  be  led  to  do  a  thing  that  gratifies  no  desire, 
 immediate  or  prospective,  that  he  has  no  pleasure  in,  but  rather 
 cordially  dislikes,  because  it  seems  necessary  to  save  him  from 
 certain  dangers  or  evils  that  will  otherwise  come  upon  him.  The 
 typical  instance  of  this  kind  of  sin,  is  the  conduct  of  Pilate  in  the 
 trial  and  condemnation  of  Jesus,  when  he  acted  weakly,  allowing 
 his  conscience  and  better  impulses  to  be  overborne  by  the  clamours 
 of  the  priests  and  people  ;  but  that  weakness  was  due  to  the  fear 
 that  they  would  accuse  him  to  Caesar,  and  that  he  would  not  be 
 able  to  justify  himself  for  former  misdeeds  ;  he  was  unwilling  to 
 
THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN  IN  MANKIND. 
 
 65 
 
 run  the  risk  of  exposure  and  punishment  for  past  crimes  by  acting 
 justly  now.  To  the  same  class  belongs  David’s  treachery  to 
 Uriah,  and  all  the  too  common  cases  in  which  deceit  is  resorted 
 to  in  order  to  hide  faults. 
 
 But  here  it  must  be  noted  that  moral  wrong  may  often  be  done, 
 not  out  of  a  regard  to  our  own  interests,  but  to  those  of  others 
 whom  we  are  led  to  favour  out  of  benevolent  affection.  To  say 
 that  these,  too,  are  due  to  selfishness,  because  we  are  seeking  the 
 indulgence  of  our  own  affections  and  find  pleasure  in  this,  seems 
 an  abuse  of  language  ;  for  there  is  no  conceivable  action  that 
 could  not,  in  the  same  way,  be  resolved  into  selfishness  ;  since 
 even  when  we  act  out  of  a  pure  sense  of  duty,  it  may  be  said,  and 
 is  said  by  moralists  of  the  selfish  school,  that  we  do  so  for  the 
 sake  of  the  satisfaction  of  having  a  good  conscience.  If  there  is 
 any  disinterested  conduct  at  all,  it  must  be  maintained  that  when 
 a  man  acts  falsely,  or  dishonestly,  or  cruelly,  out  of  partiality  to  a 
 friend  or  relative,  or  from  love  of  his  country  and  desire  for  its 
 welfare,  he  is  not  acting  from  selfish  motives.  He  is  impelled  by 
 affections  that  are  benevolent,  and  therefore  not  wrong  in  them¬ 
 selves  ;  but  the  evil  is  that  in  such  cases  the  benevolence  is  unduly 
 limited,  and  leads  him  to  do  wrong  to  others,  which  he  should  be 
 kept  from  doing  by  benevolent  affection  for  them  also.  No  doubt 
 there  are  cases  in  which  love,  or  family  affection,  or  party  spirit, 
 or  patriotism,  are  largely  of  a  selfish  character  ;  but  undoubtedly 
 crimes  have  been  committed  for  the  interests  of  a  man’s  friends 
 or  country  out  of  purely  disinterested  motives,  and  where  this 
 has  not  been  due  to  mistaken  notions  of  duty,  it  can  only  be  ex¬ 
 plained  as  arising  from  a  defective  regard  to  the  interests  of  those 
 who  are  wronged — that  is,  from  a  want  of  benevolent  affections  to 
 any  outside  a  circle  more  or  less  contracted. 
 
 These  varieties  in  the  form  of  sin  serve  to  show  that  it  cannot 
 be  reduced  to  any  one  psychological  principle,  such  as  sensuality, 
 as  held  by  Schleiermacher  and  Rothe  ;  or  selfishness,  as  held 
 by  Muller  and  others.  These  theories  require  either  that  the 
 application  of  sensuality  or  of  selfishness  be  unnaturally  extended 
 
66 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 till  they  lose  their  definite  meaning,  or  that  a  far-fetched  and 
 strained  explanation  be  given  of  some  ethical  phenomena. 
 Sensuality,  selfishness,  and  ignorance  are  real  causes  of  certain 
 kinds  of  sin,  and,  as  such,  they  have  a  distinct  meaning,  because 
 they  indicate  real  impulses,  leading  to  particular  acts  of  immor¬ 
 ality  ;  but  to  say  that  Paul’s  persecution  of  the  Christians  was 
 due  to  sensuality,  or  Judas’  suicide  to  selfishness,  is  to  give  these 
 terms  so  wide  a  generality  as  to  lose  all  specific  meaning. 
 
 Further,  the  sensuous  appetites,  and  the  regard  for  self,  are 
 natural,  and  not  necessarily  wrong  motives  ;  it  is  their  excess  or 
 perversion  that  is  immoral ;  the  essence  of  sin  therefore  lies,  not 
 in  either  of  them  by  itself  and  as  such,  but  in  its  not  being 
 regulated  by  conscience  ;  and  as  the  power  of  conscience  lies  in 
 the  divine  authority  speaking  through  it,  sin  would  ultimately  be 
 traceable  to  ungodliness,  want  of  regard  to  God  and  His  law.  So 
 Paul  describes  it  (Rom.  i.  19),  and  the  temptation  narrative  in 
 Gen.  iii.  seems  to  point  to  the  same  thing. 
 
 That  theory,  therefore,  seems  best  supported  which  regards  the 
 essence  of  sin  as  negative  or  privative,  the  defect  or  absence  of 
 the  fear  and  love  of  God,  which  is  enjoined  in  the  first  great 
 commandment  of  the  law.  Such  godliness,  in  a  simple  child-like 
 form,  was  natural  to  man  as  a  rational  creature  ;  it  would  have 
 given  power  to  conscience  to  restrain  the  natural  impulses  of 
 appetite  and  passion,  but  it  could  only  be  preserved  by  the 
 attention  being  directed  to  God  and  His  will  as  made  known  to 
 man. 
 
 The  view  that  moral  evil,  is  simply  privative  in  its  nature  is  not 
 properly  a  doctrine  of  theology,  but  a  philosophical  theory. 
 Even  its  most  strenuous  supporters  have  not  asserted  that  it  is 
 expressly  or  directly  taught  in  Scripture,  and  it  has  never  been 
 introduced  into  any  Creed  or  Confession  of  Faith,  and  indeed 
 only  rarely  even  into  systems  of  theology.  Those  who  have 
 maintained  it  have  held  it  to  be  implied  in  other  truths,  and 
 necessary  in  order  to  avoid  regarding  God  as  the  author  of  sin. 
 This  was  because  they  held  a  very  high  doctrine  of  Providence, 
 
THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN  IN  MANKIND. 
 
 67 
 
 asserting  all  things  and  events  to  be  due  directly  to  the  divine 
 working.  With  this  conception  of  Providence,  Samuel  Ruther¬ 
 ford  said  :  “Allow  sin  to  be  an  entity,  and  you  destroy  the  notion 
 of  Deity.”  This  is  true,  unless  we  lay  more  stress  on  the  essential 
 freedom  of  the  will  than  the  older  divines  did,  or  else  modify  the 
 notion  of  Providence.  So  Dr.  Hodge,  who  holds  by  the  theory 
 of  determinism  and  yet  rejects  the  privative  view  of  sin,  is  not 
 able  to  give  any  distinct  account  of  Providence  at  all. 
 
 The  theory  is  not  free  from  difficulties  and  dangers,  and  is  at 
 best  only  a  philosophical  speculation  ;  but  as  such  it  is  not 
 destitute  of  plausibility  and  interest.  Most  modern  theologians 
 regard  it  with  disfavour  ;  but  they  generally  assert  a  freedom  of 
 man’s  will  that  the  old  Calvinists  would  not  have  allowed,  and 
 they  have  sometimes  confused  the  Augustinian  theory,  that  all 
 sin  is  privation,  with  the  position  of  Spinoza  and  others,  that  all 
 privation  or  limitation  of  being  is  sin,  which  logically  makes  sin 
 a  necessity  for  every  finite  being,  and  tends  to  Pantheism. 
 This  is  the  danger  to  which  both  this  theory  of  sin  and  the 
 high  doctrine  of  Providence,  along  with  which  it  has  been 
 generally  held,  are  exposed,  though  I  believe  the  danger  can  be 
 avoided.1 
 
 But  whether  the  privative  theory  of  sin  can  be  maintained  in 
 all  its  extent  or  not,  the  analysis  of  the  ways  in  which  moral  evil 
 actually  appears  in  human  history  and  experience  serves  to  show 
 that  they  can  all  be  accounted  for  by  the  absence  of  the  fear  and 
 love  of  God,  along  with  the  desires  and  affections  that  belong  to 
 human  nature.  Now  these  are  the  very  elements  of  which, 
 according  to  Protestant  theology,  original  sin  consists.  So,  in 
 the  Augsburg  Confession,  Art.  ii.,  it  is  defined  as  “the  want  of 
 trust  and  fear  of  God,  and  concupiscence,  ’  including  in  the  latter 
 term,  not  only  lust  or  desire  in  the  more  limited  sense,  but  all 
 inordinate  affections,  and  explaining  that  these  are  evil  and  sinful 
 because  of  the  absence  of  the  love  of  God,  without  which  the  soul, 
 
 1  See  Dr.  John  Duncan’s  Colloquia  Peripatetica ,  pp.  12-16  ;  also  Dr. 
 James  Walker’s  Theology  and  Theologians  op  Scotland,  Lect.  iii. 
 
68 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 having  no  adequate  object  of  desire,  burns  with  inordinate  love  of 
 earthly  objects.1 
 
 Thus,  not  merely  by  considering  the  quantity  of  vices  and 
 crimes,  but  also  by  an  examination  of  the  various  motives  and 
 impulses  from  which  these  spring,  we  may  see  that  the  actual 
 moral  history  and  state  of  mankind  leads  to  the  conclusion  that 
 human  nature  is  somehow  disordered. 
 
 But  it  may  be  asked,  Does  this  necessarily  point  to  any  such 
 moral  catastrophe  as  the  Fall  of  man,  which  Christian  theologians 
 have  found  in  the  Bible,  or  may  it  not  be  better  explained  in 
 some  other  way  ?  This  question  deserves  careful  consideration. 
 
 1  See  also  Apologia  Conf,  Aug, 
 
CHAPTER  VII. 
 
 VARIOUS  EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN. 
 
 The  universality  of  sin  among  mankind  is  a  fact  which  calls  for 
 explanation,  and  most  Christian  theologians  have  explained  it  by 
 the  doctrine  that  human  nature  has  been  deranged,  or,  as  it  is 
 generally  expressed,  depraved,  by  a  transgression  of  the  first 
 parents  of  the  race.  Besides  this,  however,  there  are  two  other 
 kinds  of  explanations  which  have  been  proposed  as  alternatives. 
 One  of  these  is  that  in  some  way  or  other  sin  is  necessary, 
 which  implies  that  human  nature,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  is 
 essentially  evil ;  and  the  other  is  that  sin  is  due  merely  to  the 
 choice  of  men’s  will  under  the  influence  of  example,  custom,  or 
 temptation.  Neither  of  those  forms  of  opinion  recognises  any 
 proper  derangement  in  man,  nor,  consequently,  any  need  of 
 redemption  ;  moral  evil  is  to  be  got  rid  of,  if  at  all,  only  by  the 
 necessary  progress  or  evolution  of  mankind,  according  to  the 
 first  class  of  theories,  or  by  men’s  own  efforts,  aided  by  teaching 
 and  training,  according  to  the  second.  Of  the  former  class  of 
 theories  there  have  been  many  different  from  one  another,  the 
 most  plausible  and  widely  accepted  being  that  which  ascribes  sin 
 to  the  bodily  nature  of  man,  as  constituting  him  a  sensuous,  and 
 not  a  purely  rational  or  spiritual  being.  This  theory,  however, 
 shades  off,  on  the  one  side,  into  purely  dualistic  ideas,  such  as 
 those  of  the  Zoroastrian  religion,  and  of  the  Manicheans,  and,  on 
 the  other  side,  into  metaphysical  speculations,  such  as  those  of 
 Spinoza  and  Hegel,  that  sin  arises  necessarily  from  the  limitation 
 of  finite  being,  or  the  contrasts  of  individual  life,  as  an  inevitable 
 stage  in  the  development  of  man.  We  may  consider  more 
 
 69 
 
7° 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 particularly  the  sensuous  theory,  because  it  appears  to  have  some 
 support  from  the  statements  of  Scripture  and  the  facts  of  the  case. 
 
 The  passages  that  seem  to  represent  a  part  of  human  nature  as 
 inherently  evil  and  the  source  of  all  sin,  are  those  in  which  the 
 flesh  is  spoken  of  as  the  principle  and  root  of  sin,  and  the 
 carnal  (aocpKiKof),  or  those  who  are  in  the  flesh  (ku  aocpKi)  or 
 after  the  flesh  (kmtoc  aupKct),  are  contrasted  with  the  spiritual 
 ( Tn/evfioiTtKot),  who  are  in  the  Spirit,  or  in  whom  the  Spirit  is. 
 This  contrast  has  been  understood  by  many  to  be  simply  that 
 between  the  body  and  the  soul,  the  animal  and  the  rational  parts 
 of  human  nature  ;  and  hence  it  has  been  inferred  that  the  New 
 Testament  writers,  especially  Paul,  who  presents  this  contrast 
 most  frequently,  traced  sin  ultimately  to  the  animal  or  sensuous 
 element  in  man,  as  its  cause.  This  explanation  of  the  origin  and 
 prevalence  of  sin,  the  sensuous  theory  as  it  is  called,  has  been  very 
 widely  accepted  on  general  grounds.  We  may  consider  briefly, 
 first  the  question  of  Biblical  interpretation,  and  then  the  more 
 general  aspects  of  the  theory. 
 
 The  word  “flesh”  in  Scripture  undoubtedly  has  a  variety  of 
 meanings,  though  these  are  all  connected  and  derived  from  a 
 common  root.  Most  literally  it  denotes  the  fleshy  parts  of  the 
 body,  as  distinct  from  bones,  blood,  etc.  (so  Luke  xxiv.  39  ;  Jas. 
 v.  3).  From  that  it  comes  to  mean  the  body  as  a  whole,  as 
 distinct  from  the  soul  (so  Col.  ii.  5).  It  differs  from  the  word 
 “  body  ”  {a apex)  in  this,  that  it  denotes  the  substance  of  which  the 
 body  is  composed,  whereas  “body”  denotes  the  organised  form  ; 
 and,  on  the  other  hand,  it  differs  from  the  term  “matter,”  as 
 opposed  to  mind,  because  it  denotes  matter  as  living  and  con¬ 
 stituting  an  integral  part  of  human  nature.  But  by  a  further 
 extension  of  its  meaning  it  is  used  in  the  Bible  for  man  as  a 
 whole,  including  the  soul  as  well  as  the  body.  This  usage  is  not 
 found  in  classical  Greek,  but  is  a  Hebraism  derived  from  the  Old 
 Testament.  There  the  idea  generally  is  the  weakness  and  frailty 
 of  man  as  contrasted  with  the  eternal  and  almighty  power  of  God 
 (so  Isa.  xxxi.  3,  xl.  5,  6). 
 
VARIOUS  EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN.  7  I 
 
 Now  it  has  been  generally  thought  that  in  the  New  Testament 
 this  meaning  of  flesh  has  been  so  far  developed  as  to  denote 
 human  nature  as  sinful,  and  opposed  to  the  holiness  of  God  ;  and 
 this  meaning,  corrupt  human  nature,  or  the  corruption  of  our 
 nature,  has  been  held  to  be  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  when 
 the  flesh  is  described  as  the  source  of  sin.  This  was  the  view 
 current  in  the  Protestant  theology  of  the  sixteenth  and  seven¬ 
 teenth  centuries,  and  in  substance  it  was  correct.  But  its 
 application  was  pushed  by  many  too  far.  This  interpretation  of 
 flesh  was  adopted  in  places  where  it  is  not  natural,  and  the  con¬ 
 text  rather  points  to  the  more  literal  significance ;  and  even  in 
 places  where  there  is  good  reason  to  take  it  in  the  widest  sense, 
 that  was  stretched  to  such  a  vagueness  as  broke  all  connection 
 with  the  original  meaning.  But  it  is  a  much  greater  error  to  go 
 to  the  opposite  extreme,  and  maintain  that  flesh  always  denotes 
 the  sensuous  or  animal  nature,  and  that  Paul  regarded  this  as  the 
 principle  and  root  of  sin.  Apart  from  minute  exegetical  dis¬ 
 cussions,  there  are  certain  broad  features  of  the  apostle’s  teaching 
 that  cannot  fairly  be  reconciled  with  that  theory.  One  is  that 
 among  the  works  and  characteristics  of  the  flesh  he  mentions 
 things  that  have  no  connection  with  sensuality,  such  as  enmities, 
 strife,  factions,  party  spirit  (Gal.  v.  20,  21),  self-righteousness, 
 spiritual  pride  (Phil.  iii.  4-6).  Another  is  Paul’s  emphatic  teach¬ 
 ing  as  to  the  sacredness  of  the  body,  and  of  all  its  natural 
 functions  and  appetites  (1  Cor.  vi.,  vii.,  and  elsewhere),  so 
 opposite  to  the  ascetic  morality  that  everywhere  necessarily  flows 
 from  the  theory  of  the  animal  nature  being  essentially  evil. 
 Further,  the  apostle’s  statements  in  Rom.  v.  of  sin  having  come 
 into  the  world  by  the  transgression  of  Adam,  are  directly  contrary 
 to  the  theory  that  it  arises  from  the  sensuous  element  in  man  ; 
 so  that  Pfleiderer,  who  holds  this  latter  to  be  taught  by  Paul,  is 
 obliged  to  suppose  that  there  is  an  unresolved  contradiction  in 
 his  different  utterances  on  this  subject,  which  is  in  the  highest 
 degree  improbable  in  such  a  logical  mind  as  that  of  Paul.1 
 
 1  See  Jonathan  Edwards,  On  Original  Sin ;  Julius  Muller,  Christian 
 
72 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 The  sensuous  theory  of  the  origination  of  sin  from  the  bodily 
 nature  of  man,  if  held  absolutely,  plainly  implies  a  dualistic 
 theory  of  the  universe.  For  if  the  body  be  essentially  evil  it 
 cannot  have  been  created  by  the  perfectly  holy  God,  but  must 
 either  be  the  creation  of  an  evil  being,  like  the  Ahriman  of  the 
 Parsee  system,  or  consist  of  matter  independent  of  and  eternally 
 coexisting  with  God,  such  as  most  of  the  Greek  philosophers 
 assumed.  Both  of  these  alternatives  are  inconsistent  with  the 
 fundamental  principles  of  Christianity  and  of  Theism ;  the 
 elaborate  attempts  of  the  Gnostics  in  the  early  ages  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity  to  bridge  over  by  imaginary  series  of  aeons  the  distance 
 between  the  First  Cause  and  matter  assumed  to  be  evil,  failed  to 
 satisfy  the  Christian  conscience,  and  nothing  of  that  sort  is 
 believable  now.  The  crude  and  bare  form  of  the  sensuous  theory 
 may  therefore  be  considered  as  obsolete,  but  views  are  still 
 prevalent  which  trace  sin  to  sensuality  in  connection  with  other 
 speculations. 
 
 Although  the  animal  nature  may  not  be  regarded  as  inherently 
 evil,  yet  all  sin  may  be  ascribed  to  the  preponderance  of  the 
 animal  over  the  rational ;  and  a  very  plausible  way  of  accounting 
 for  this  preponderance  is  the  fact  that  the  animal  nature  is  earlier 
 developed.  Schleiermacher  held  that  in  this  way  it  gets  the  start 
 of  the  rational  powers,  and  that  this  accounts  for  the  prevalence 
 of  sin  in  mankind.  Similarly,  evolutionist  philosophers,  carrying 
 that  theory  to  its  fullest  extent,  and  applying  it  to  the  mind  as 
 well  as  the  body,  hold  that  a  state  of  savage  rudeness  in  which 
 moral  evil  prevails  is  a  necessary  stage  in  the  development  of  the 
 irrational  animal  into  the  moral  and  civilised  man,  and  that  what 
 theologians  call  original  sin  is,  from  a  scientific  point  of  view, 
 “the  remains  of  the  brute  in  man,”  as  Mr.  John  Fiske  calls  it. 
 This  language,  however,  does  injustice  to  the  brutes  ;  for  they, 
 though  guided  only  by  appetites,  are  not  immoral,  and  do  not  act 
 contrary  to  their  nature  ;  whereas  men,  indulging  in  gluttony, 
 
 Doctrine  of  Sin  ;  Professor  W.  P.  Dickson,  Baird  Lectures,  On  the  use  of  the 
 terms  Jlesh  and  spirit. 
 
VARIOUS  EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  STN.  73 
 
 drunkenness,  and  debauchery,  and  living  a  sensual  life,  give  an 
 unnatural  predominance  to  the  sensuous  appetites,  and  sink  below 
 the  level  of  the  brutes. 
 
 But  let  us  look  at  the  facts,  and  see  whether  the  earlier 
 development  of  the  animal  appetites  does  really  give  them  an 
 undue  proportion,  and  so  in  any  degree  account  for  the  want  of 
 moral  rectitude  in  man.  In  themselves,  mere  natural  appetites 
 do  not  tend  to  excess  ;  because,  as  they  arise  from  real  wants  (as 
 hunger  from  the  want  of  food,  etc.),  they  cease  when  these  wants 
 are  satisfied.  This  is  the  natural  check  provided  against  their 
 becoming  excessive  ;  and  this  operates  in  animals,  among  whom 
 there  is  no  gluttony  or  drunkenness.  In  the  early  stage  of 
 human  life,  before  self-consciousness  has  awakened,  these  animal 
 appetites,  as  they  are  needful  for  the  preservation  of  life,  may  in 
 a  normal  condition  be  regulated  in  this  way.  What  first  tends  to 
 excess  is  not  the  animal  appetite  itself,  but  the  desire  of  pleasure 
 in  the  gratification  of  it.  For  a  beneficent  purpose,  pleasure  has 
 been  connected  with  the  satisfaction  of  our  natural  appetites ;  but 
 when  this  pleasure  comes  to  be  desired  for  its  own  sake,  then  the 
 danger  of  excess  comes  in,  for  the  desire  of  pleasure  has  no 
 natural  limit,  but  stretches  out  indefinitely,  and  can  never  be 
 perfectly  satisfied.  It  is  from  this,  and  not  from  the  natural 
 appetite  itself,  that  excess  arises.  But  such  desire  of  pleasure,  as 
 distinct  from  the  desire  of  what  will  satisfy  the  appetite,  does  not 
 find  place  in  the  brute,  nor  in  the  infant  as  long  as  he  has  no 
 more  consciousness  than  a  brute  ;  and  by  the  natural  provision, 
 that  makes  every  infant  the  object  of  parental  love,  as  soon  as  the 
 child  is  conscious  of  pleasure  as  a  thing  to  be  desired,  he  is  also 
 conscious  of  being  the  object  of  the  most  tender,  self-sacrificing 
 love,  the  love  that  of  all  human  things  is  most  like  the  love  of 
 God,  a  mother’s  love  for  her  child.  This,  naturally  evoking  trust 
 and  obedience,  should  be  a  counterpoise  to  the  selfish  love  of 
 pleasure  ;  and  thus  the  tendency  that  leads  to  excess  in  the 
 indulgence  of  animal  appetites  has  not  really  the  start  in  point 
 of  time  of  a  tendency  to  give  heed  to  a  loving  training  that 
 
74 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 would,  restrain  that  indulgence  within  the  bounds  of  nature  and 
 right. 
 
 “The  whole  doctrine  of  evolution,”  says  Leslie  Stephen,  “seems 
 to  imply  that  absolutely  pernicious  instincts  are  eliminated  in 
 the  struggle  for  existence,  and  to  fall  in  with  the  other  assumption 
 that  virtue  implies  a  certain  organisation  of  the  instincts,  and  not 
 the  extirpation  of  any  existing  instincts.”  1  Yet  he  goes  on  to 
 say  that  while  every  new  sensibility  or  faculty  is  so  far  an 
 advantage  to  the  agent,  yet  it  also  exposes  its  possessor  to  fresh 
 temptations,  as  well  as  gives  him  fresh  capacities  for  virtue.  This 
 is  proved  by  undoubted  facts  to  which  he  refers.  Hence  he 
 infers  that  in  one  sense  effort  is  essential  to  merit. 
 
 This  seems  to  show  that  free  will  must  be  recognised,  and  also 
 that  all  the  causes  of  men’s  immoral  actions  cannot  be  resolved 
 into  the  remains  of  the  brute,  since  most  of  them  must  be  ex¬ 
 plained  as  due  to  the  failure  to  regulate  sensibilities  that  have 
 been  acquired  later. 
 
 Observation  and  history  bear  out  this  view  of  the  matter.  In 
 the  childhood  and  youth  of  the  individual,  there  are  not  such 
 great  vices  as  are  often  seen  in  later  years  ;  but  neither  do  we  see 
 or  expect  such  exercises  of  benevolence,  self-control,  or  self- 
 sacrifice  as  the  mature  man  or  woman  often  attains.  There  is  not 
 so  great  a  distance  between  the  goodness  and  the  badness  that 
 can  be  exhibited  by  children  as  by  grown  men  ;  both  wickedness 
 and  virtue  are  on  a  smaller  scale ;  their  sins  are  not  so  heinous,  nor 
 are  their  virtues  so  heroic,  as  they  may  be  later.  The  same  thing 
 has  been  noticed  in  comparing  the  characters  of  people  in  humble 
 and  obscure  life  with  those  called  to  take  part  in  public  affairs — 
 
 "The  threats  of  pain  and  ruin  to  despise, 
 
 To  scatter  plenty  o’er  a  smiling  land, 
 
 And  read  their  history  in  a  nation’s  eyes, 
 
 Their  lot  forbade  :  nor  circumscribed  alone 
 
 Their  growing  virtues,  but  their  crimes  confined  ; 
 
 Forbade  to  wade  through  slaughter  to  a  throne, 
 
 And  shut  the  gates  of  mercy  on  mankind.” 
 
 1  Science  of  Ethics,  p.  302. 
 
VARIOUS  EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN.  75 
 
 The  same  thing  may  be  noticed  in  the  history  of  the  race.  In 
 its  earlier  stages,  the  extremes  of  good  and  eviljn  human  char¬ 
 acter  are  not  so  far  apart ;  there  are  neither  such  admirable  virtues 
 nor  such  atrocious  crimes  as  we  see  in  more  advanced  conditions 
 of  society.  Look  at  the  state  of  the  Hellenic  race  as  described 
 in  the  Homeric  poems  ;  the  contrasts  of  character  between 
 Achilles  and  Paris,  Andromache  and  Helen,  are  comparatively 
 slight.  Not  much  greater  are  the  moral  differences  in  the  age 
 of  the  Persian  wars  that  separate  Leonidas  from  Ephialtes,  or 
 Croesus  from  Solon  ;  but  when  we  come  further  on  we  find  a 
 wider  interval  between  Socrates  and  Alcibiades,  and  in  a  later 
 age  still  we  see  men  like  Cato  and  Cicero  contrasted  with 
 Catiline  and  Clodius;  and  then  we  may  set  a  Tiberius  or  a  Nero 
 over  against  Epictetus  and  Marcus  Aurelius.  As  time  goes  on 
 the  contrast  still  increases  ;  in  the  Italy  of  the  Renaissance  we 
 find  Savonarola  in  the  age  of  the  Borgias  and  Medici;  in  France, 
 Fenelon  and  Pascal  under  Louis  XIV.  ;  and  in  modern  times  we 
 may  compare  such  men  as  Howard  and  Wilberforce  with  Robes¬ 
 pierre  and  Barere.  The  same  thing  appears  in  the  literature  of 
 different  ages ;  in  the  Greek  tragedians  and  in  Virgil  the  extremes 
 of  good  and  evil  are  greater  than  in  Homer,  but  less  than  in 
 Dante,  with  whom  again  they  are  less  than  in  Shakespeare.  It 
 would  seem,  that  as  mankind  has  advanced  from  a  rude  and 
 simple  state  of  society  to  one  that  is  more  civilised  and  refined, 
 while  higher  and  nobler  virtues  have  been  exhibited  by  some, 
 the  vices  of  others  have  become  more  degrading  and  base,  and 
 their  crimes  more  atrocious  and  detestable.  The  records  of 
 Scripture  also  bear  this  out ;  as  the  contrast,  for  example, 
 between  Saul  and  David  is  not  so  great  as  that  between  Ahab 
 and  Elijah,  nor  that  again  equal  to  that  which  separates  Paul 
 from  Judas. 
 
 These  facts,  which  are  acknowledged  by  the  most  candid  and 
 judicious  of  the  evolutionists,  show  that  moral  evil  cannot  be 
 explained  as  a  necessary  incident  in  the  transition  from  the  brute 
 to  the  civilised  man  ;  for  in  that  case  we  should  see  that  it  tends 
 
76 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 to  disappear  as  civilisation  advances.  But  whether  or  not  the 
 whole  or  the  average  morality  of  mankind  has  been  increasing  as 
 society  has  made  progress  in  organisation,  in  mutual  sympathy 
 and  regard ;  it  is  an  undeniable  fact,  that  this  progress  has 
 opened  possibilities  of  evil  unknown  in  simpler  ages,  and  that  in 
 a  vast  number  of  cases  these  possibilities  have  become  actual 
 immoralities,  of  increasingly  darker  hue,  as  the  social  progress 
 has  gone  on.  If  it  be  held,  as  it  is  by  Mr.  John  Fiske,  that  the 
 advance  of  the  race,  under  the  law  of  evolution,  is  gradually 
 working  out  a  higher  and  more  perfect  morality,  it  must  also  be 
 admitted,  that  while  this  may  be  so  in  general,  or  even  possibly 
 with  the  majority,  the  same  process  is  also  developing  new  and 
 worse  forms  of  immorality.  And  the  appearance  of  these  new 
 forms  of  immorality  is  not  due  to  the  influence  of  the  low  state 
 from  which  the  process  of  moral  evolution  began,  but  must  be 
 ascribed  to  something  that  is  equally  operative  at  all  stages 
 of  the  process  ;  and  what  would  most  easily  explain  it  is  what  the 
 old  divines  used  to  call  the  inherent  vertibility  of  the  will  or 
 choice  of  man. 
 
 This,  at  least,  seems  necessary  to  account  for  any  deviation 
 from  the  gradual  progress  of  mankind  from  the  rudeness  of  mere 
 savage  life  to  morality  and  virtue,  which  the  theory  of  evolution 
 would  lead  us  to  expect  ;  but  in  order  to  explain  the  facts  of 
 human  life  and  history  as  they  actually  are,  even  this  is  not 
 enough.  Moral  evil  has  so  universally  a  preponderance  over 
 good,  that  if  we  hold,  as  evolutionists  do,  that  good  is  what  is  in 
 accordance  with  the  health  and  welfare  of  society,  and  as  such 
 should  be  gradually  evolved  by  the  survival  of  the  fittest ;  we  can 
 hardly  avoid  the  conclusion,  that  somehow  or  other  the  develop¬ 
 ment  has  taken  an  abnormal  course. 
 
 There  seems  to  be,  in  the  facts  which  all  profound  Ethics  must 
 recognise,  reason  to  think,  that  there  is  something  abnormal  in 
 human  nature  as  it  exists  at  present ;  its  workings  and  tendencies 
 are  not  in  accordance  with  reason  and  prudence,  and  there  is  no 
 certainty,  on  grounds  of  mere  science,  that  the  progress  of  a  race 
 
VARIOUS  EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN.  77 
 
 as  a  whole  will  be  towards  moral  harmony  and  goodness.  Hear 
 how  Mr.  Leslie  Stephen  speaks:  “The  savage  deviates  less 
 frequently  than  the  civilised  man  from  the  code  recognised  in 
 each  case.  The  savage  law  is  lower,  but  it  is  more  regularly 
 observed.  So  if  we  go  back  to  the  animals,  in  whom  morality 
 proper  does  not  exist,  the  obedience  to  instinct  is  more  regular 
 still.  Sin  comes  through  the  law,  as  it  is  only  when  the  agent  is 
 capable  of  laying  down  general  rules  that  he  begins  to  be 
 sensible  of  deviations  from  them.  .  .  .  From  the  scientific  point 
 of  view  we  may  hold  that  evolution  implies  progress — at  any  rate, 
 to  a  point  beyond  our  present  achievements,  and,  further,  pro¬ 
 gress  implies  a  solution  of  many  discords,  and  an  extirpation  of 
 many  evils  ;  but  I  can  at  least  see  no  reason  for  supposing  that 
 it  implies  the  extirpation  of  evil  in  general,  or  the  definitive 
 substitution  of  harmony  for  discord.”  1 
 
 To  most  of  those  who  believe  in  God  as  the  personal  and  moral 
 First  Cause  of  the  universe,  such  a  view  of  the  state  and  prospects 
 of  mankind  has  seemed  to  imply  some  moral  disorder  of  human 
 nature ;  and  in  order  to  avoid  this  some  have  taken  on  very  scanty 
 grounds  a  far  more  optimistic  view  of  humanity  ;  but  even  if  the 
 actual  prevalence  of  evil  could  be  explained  consistently  with 
 Theism  as  inevitable  on  account  of  the  freedom  of  man,  this  would 
 make  it  very  credible  that  a  God  of  infinite  pity  and  mercy  would, 
 if  it  were  possible,  interpose  in  some  way  over  and  above  the 
 ordinary  processes  of  nature  to  raise  mankind  out  of  such  a  state. 
 
 But  while  we  cannot  accept  any  view  that  makes  sin  a  neces¬ 
 sity,  on  the  other  hand  no  theory  that  regards  man’s  nature  as 
 perfectly  pure  and  uncorrupted  can  be  considered  as  a  satis¬ 
 factory  explanation  of  the  fact  of  the  universal  prevalence  of  sin. 
 Such  a  view  was  held  by  Pelagius  and  his  followers  in  the 
 ancient  Church,  and  by  Socinians  and  Rationalists  in  modern 
 times.  According  to  their  opinion,  all  men  are  born  free  from  any 
 bias  to  sin,  in  a  state  of  indifference  or  equilibrium  between  good 
 and  evil,  and  their  character  is  determined  entirely  by  the  choice 
 
 1  Science  of  Ethics,  pp.  445,  446. 
 
7« 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 of  their  own  will,  under  the  motives  presented  to  them  from  with¬ 
 out.  The  keeping  of  God’s  law  is  possible  to  all,  and  indeed, 
 Pelagius  held,  has  been  attained  by  some  ;  but  the  prevalence  of 
 sin  is  due  to  the  freedom  of  will  in  each  individual,  and  the 
 influence  of  the  bad  example  early  set  by  the  parents  of  the  race, 
 and  imitated  age  after  age  by  their  descendants.  Undoubtedly, 
 these  are  real  causes  of  sin,  so  far  as  they  go.  Many  evil  actions 
 and  even  dispositions  can  be  traced  to  wrong  choices  of  the  will ; 
 and  the  tendency  in  children  to  imitate  the  faults  of  their  parents 
 is  real  and  strong,  and,  having  been  in  constant  exercise  for 
 countless  ages,  must  have  produced  a  great  amount  of  evil. 
 
 But  can  these  things  account  for  the  whole  of  the  facts  presented 
 by  observation  and  testified  by  Scripture  ?  The  great  majority 
 of  Christians  have  thought  that  they  cannot.  Evil  dispositions 
 are  too  universal  to  be  explained  in  any  such  way.  If  that  theory 
 were  true,  we  should  expect  to  find  that  a  certain  number  of  men 
 would  have  chosen  good,  and,  giving  on  the  whole  a  good  example 
 and  education  to  their  children,  would  have  caused  considerable 
 exceptions  to  the  prevalence  of  sin.  But  there  are  no  such 
 exceptions.  Godly  men,  indeed,  there  have  ever  been,  but  they 
 have  never  been  sinless  ;  and  the  more  earnest  and  godly  they 
 have  been,  the  more  distinctly  have  they  acknowledged  that  they 
 are  sinful,  and  that  their  goodness  is  due,  not  to  their  own  nature, 
 but  to  the  grace  of  God.  Even  those  who  have  been  brought  up 
 most  carefully  by  godly  parents,  and  surrounded  from  their 
 infancy  with  good  examples,  all  without  exception  turn  out  to  be 
 sinners,  and  do  not  start  in  the  moral  race  from  the  point  of 
 attainment  which  their  parents  had  reached  by  a  life  of  Christian 
 faith  and  self-denial,  but  have  to  begin,  like  all  others,  by 
 repentance,  reconciliation  to  God,  and  denial  of  selfish  and 
 worldly  lusts. 
 
 Again,  sin  begins  too  early  in  human  life  to  be  the  result  merely 
 of  education  or  example.  Long  before  children  can  perceive 
 or  understand  the  example  of  their  parents,  they  show  the 
 beginnings  of  evil  passions,  such  as  greed,  selfishness,  anger, 
 
VARIOUS  EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN.  79 
 
 vanity,  pride,  and  the  like.  These  faults  appear  in  childish  forms 
 very  early  indeed,  and  need  to  be  corrected,  that  they  may  not 
 grow  to  more  serious  vices.  The  ease  with  which  a  child  may 
 be  spoiled,  even  in  the  very  tenderest  age,  simply  by  being  let 
 alone,  and  the  need  of  correction  from  the  very  first  in  order  to 
 form  a  good  character,  show  that  sin  exists  in  every  one  of  us 
 too  early  to  be  accounted  for  by  imitation. 
 
 Besides,  it  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  parents  do  affect  the 
 character  of  their  children,  not  only  by  example  and  training,  but 
 by  the  transmission  of  hereditary  qualities.  In  regard  to  physical 
 features  and  peculiarities  this  is  undoubted  ;  and  the  general  law, 
 that  like  begets  like,  is  not  limited  to  qualities  of  body,  but 
 extends  to  those  of  mind  and  soul  as  well.  Mental  power,  and 
 the  particular  kind  of  that  power,  whether  a  retentive  memory,  or 
 a  keen  intellect,  or  a  lively  fancy,  are  frequently  observed  to  be 
 inherited  by  children  from  their  parents  ;  and  so  also  are  moral 
 qualities,  such  as  openness  or  reserve,  firmness  or  pliability, 
 coolness  or  warmth  of  passion.  So  it  happens  that  different 
 races  have  moral  characters  not  less  distinctive  than  their 
 physical  features.  These  phenomena  are  indeed  among  the 
 most  difficult  problems  that  science  has  to  explain,  yet  they  are 
 among  the  most  familiar  objects  that  experience  presents  to  our 
 view.  In  the  face  of  them,  it  is  impossible  to  limit  the  influences, 
 by  which  man’s  moral  character  is  formed,  to  example  alone ;  and 
 to  account  for  the  prevailing  sinfulness  of  the  race  simply  by  men 
 having  been  led  by  the  tendency  to  imitation  to  follow  the  steps  of 
 their  first  parents  in  apostasy  from  God. 
 
 This  view  of  human  nature  pervades  the  whole  thought  and 
 literature  of  the  great  Chinese  race,  and  has  done  so  for  ages, 
 being  embodied  in  the  teaching  of  Confucius,  and  other  sages  of 
 that  country.  The  primitive  religion  of  China  in  some  respects 
 seems  to  deviate  less  from  the  true  idea  of  God  and  His  relation 
 to  the  world  than  that  of  most  heathen  nations.  It  was 
 not  pantheistic  like  Brahmanism  in  India,  nor  an  unethical 
 polytheism  like  those  of  the  Western  nations,  nor  sensuous  nature- 
 
8o 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 worship  like  that  of  the  Semitic  tribes,  nor  yet  dualistic  like  that 
 of  the  Persians,  but  seems  to  have  recognised  a  personal  Deity  as 
 moral  governor  of  men.  In  the  earliest  of  their  books,  which  go 
 back  to  about  2000  B.C.,  there  is  frequent  reference  to  a  Supreme 
 Being,  generally  called  Heaven,  sometimes  God,  represented  as 
 protecting  the  righteous  and  punishing  the  wicked  in  this  life  ; 
 prayers  and  sacrifices  were  offered  to  him,  but  also  to  spirits  of 
 heaven  and  earth,  to  ancestors,  and  other  objects  of  worship. 
 The  will  of  Heaven  was  thought  to  be  learned  from  providence, 
 from  the  teaching  of  sages,  and  also  in  some  cases  from  divina¬ 
 tion.  Morality  was  considered  mainly  as  consisting  in  conduct, 
 and  human  nature  was  viewed  as  entirely  good. 
 
 Confucius  turned  aside  the  mind  of  China  from  religious 
 thought  and  inquiry  to  morality.  Feeling  that  he  had  no  certain 
 knowledge  about  God  and  a  future  life,  he  frankly  confessed  this, 
 and  did  not  profess  to  be  able  to  teach  men  on  these  subjects  ; 
 but  he  did  teach  men’s  duty  one  to  another,  and  sought  by 
 instruction  in  this  to  reform  prevailing  abuses  and  elevate  the 
 people.  He  thought  that  men’s  character  would  be  reformed  by 
 cultivating  carefully  the  principles  of  their  nature,  and  exercising 
 them  on  the  rule  of  reciprocity,  i.e.  “  What  you  do  not  like  when 
 done  to  yourself,  do  not  do  to  others.” 
 
 Like  the  Greek  philosophers,  especially  of  the  Peripatetic  and 
 Stoic  schools,  Confucius  and  Mencius,  who  came  after  him,  showed 
 that  virtue  consists  in  following  right  reason,  and  acting  accord¬ 
 ing  to  nature  ;  and  their  arguments  on  that  point  are  not  to  be 
 despised.  But  they  went  on  from  this  to  the  assumption,  that  if 
 only  men  were  enlightened  and  rightly  instructed,  and  had  good 
 examples  set  before  them,  they  would  be  made  good,  especially 
 if  kings  and  magistrates  showed  a  good  example  to  those  under 
 them.  It  is  noteworthy  that  Confucius  did  not  profess  to  have 
 himself  attained  perfection  ;  and  even  his  ideal  of  “  the  superior 
 man  ”  does  not  include  absolute  sinlessness,  but  only  sincerity  in 
 striving  after  it,  acknowledging  shortcomings  when  they  occur, 
 and  endeavouring  to  amend  them.  In  this  we  may  observe  a 
 
VARIOUS  EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  UNIVERSALITY  OF  SIN.  8 1 
 
 curious  parallel  to  the  rationalist  notion,  that  a  sincere  though 
 imperfect  morality  is  all  that  can  be  required  of  men.  The 
 tendency  of  this  teaching  was  to  substitute  a  superficial  code  of 
 external  observances  for  real  heart  morality  ;  and  the  whole 
 history  of  China  has  shown  that,  though  education  and  instruc¬ 
 tion  are  powers  for  good  in  their  own  place,  they  cannot  over¬ 
 come  the  tendency  to  evil  in  the  soul  of  man,  or  produce  real 
 virtue. 
 
CHAPTER  VIII. 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  FALL  OF  MAN. 
 
 The  scriptural  doctrine  of  human  nature  is  the  mean  between 
 the  two  extreme  views  we  have  been  considering.  It  is,  that 
 human  nature  is  essentially  good,  but  totally  corrupted.  This 
 view  is  implied  in  what  the  Bible  teaches  about  the  Fall ;  which 
 is,  that  God  made  man  upright,  free,  and  able  by  obedience  to 
 retain  his  innocence  and  happiness  ;  but  that  man,  by  disobedi¬ 
 ence,  forfeited  these  blessings,  and  became  sinful  and  prone  to 
 evil.  This  is  the  essential  meaning  of  the  narrative  in  Gen.  iii., 
 which  is  presupposed  in  the  whole  course  of  revelation,  and  dis¬ 
 tinctly  referred  to  by  our  Lord  and  His  apostles.  That  narrative 
 is  not,  indeed,  so  often  alluded  to  in  the  Old  Testament  as  might 
 have  been  expected  ;  and  the  reason  of  this  probably  is  that, 
 under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  men’s  thoughts  did  not  habitually 
 go  further  back  than  to  Abraham,  the  father  of  the  chosen  seed  ; 1 
 but  there  are,  at  least,  possible  references  to  it  in  Hos.  vi.  7  ;  Job 
 xxxi.  33  ;  Ezek.  xxxiii.  13-16  ;  and  the  general  truth  implied  in 
 it  is  asserted  in  Eccles.  vii.  29.  There  can  therefore  be  no  doubt 
 that  when  the  Old  Testament  writers  speak  of  the  universal 
 and  inborn  sinfulness  of  men,  they  ascribed  this,  so  far  as  they 
 thought  on  the  problem  at  all,  not  to  God  having  made  them  so, 
 but  to  the  parents  of  the  race  having  transgressed  God’s  com¬ 
 mand.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  facts  that  Jesus  calls  the  devil  a 
 liar  and  a  murderer  from  the  beginning  (John  viii.  44),  in  refer¬ 
 ence  to  the  tempter  enticing  our  first  parents  to  sin,  and  so 
 bringing  on  death  ;  and  that  Paul  (Rom.  v.  12-19  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  3  ; 
 
 1  See  Dorner,  Glaubenslehre,  sec.  78. 
 
 82 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  FALL  OF  MAN.  83 
 
 i  Tim.  ii.  14)  and  John  (Rev.  xii.  9,  xx.  2  ;  1  John  iii.  8-12)  make 
 repeated  reference  to  the  narrative  in  Genesis. 
 
 In  view  of  the  use  thus  made  of  it,  that  narrative  cannot  be 
 regarded  as  a  mere  myth,  or  as  a  moral  apologue  designed 
 simply  to  show  how  men  in  general  are  tempted  and  fall  into 
 sin  ;  it  was  evidently  intended,  and  was  understood  by  Christ 
 and  His  apostles,  to  relate  one  momentous  occurrence  that  took 
 place  at  the  beginning  of  human  history,  and  has  affected  all  its 
 subsequent  course.  This  does  not,  however,  imply  that  it  was 
 meant  to  be  understood  as,  in  all  its  parts,  a  literal  narrative ;  nor 
 is  this  probable.  The  anthropomorphic  representation  of  God 
 walking  in  the  garden  in  the  cool  of  the  day,  must  be  regarded 
 as  figurative  ;  and  several  other  things  in  the  story,  such  as  the 
 garden  of  God,  the  tree  of  life,  the  serpent,  are  used  as  symbols 
 in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  and  may  be  so  meant  here.  How  far 
 precisely  a  figurative  element  enters  into  the  passage,  it  is  neither 
 possible  nor  needful  to  determine. 
 
 The  main  point  is,  that  our  first  parents,  though  created 
 innocent  and  upright,  were  inexperienced  and  unstable,  and 
 had  to  learn  obedience,  as  even  the  Son  of  God  did  (Heb.  v.  8), 
 if  not  by  suffering,  at  least  by  self-denial.  They  were  commanded 
 to  abstain  from  a  particular  gratification,  and  thus  were  exposed 
 to  trial,  and  to  temptation  to  disobey.  Bufcthis  very  trial,  had  it 
 been  withstood,  would  have  raised  their  mere  negative  innocence 
 to  positive  and  deliberate  choice  of  good,  and  given  them,  instead 
 of  their  original  unstable  uprightness,  a  tried  and  confirmed 
 character  of  holiness.  So  far  as  we  can  see,  if  man  was  to  be 
 dealt  with  as  a  free  agent,  by  means  of  moral  government,  a 
 trial  just  such  as  this  must  form  part  of  his  moral  education,  and 
 was  the  appropriate  means  of  his  rising  to  a  higher  degree  of 
 goodness. 
 
 But  it  necessarily  involved  also  the  possibility  of  his  falling  by 
 disobedience  ;  and  this,  alas  !  is  what  has  actually  taken  place. 
 The  way  in  which  this  happened  is  described  in  a  manner  very 
 true  to  the  universal  principles  of  human  nature.  The  first  sin  is 
 
84 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 ascribed  to  a  threefold  motive,  the  desire  of  sensuous  pleasure,  of 
 knowledge,  and  of  elevation  to  likeness  to  God,  corresponding 
 very  nearly  to  John’s  description  of  the  evil  in  the  world,  “the 
 lust  of  the  flesh,  the  lust  of  the  eyes,  and  the  vainglory  of  life  ” 
 (i  John  ii.  16).  But  the  essence  of  the  sin  was,  that  these  desires 
 were  not  kept  in  check  by  regard  to  the  word  of  God  ;  and  thus 
 the  real  cause  of  the  Fall  was  unbelief  and  insubordination  ; 
 unbelief,  in  not  giving  credit  to  God’s  testimony  warning  them  of 
 death  ;  and  insubordination,  in  not  submitting  to  the  will  of  God. 
 To  this  they  are  described  as  having  been  led  by  the  deceit 
 and  temptation  of  the  serpent ;  and  this  tempter  is  afterwards 
 identified  with  the  devil  or  Satan. 
 
 The  Biblical  teaching  about  the  evil  from  which  Christ  came 
 to  redeem  us,  has  been  believed  by  most  Christians  to  include  the 
 assertion  of  a  personal  evil  spirit  or  tempter,  called  Satan,  i.e.  the 
 adversary,  the  devil,  i.e.  the  accuser  or  slanderer,1  the  evil  one, 
 the  prince  of  this  world.  This  belief  seems  to  be  well  founded, 
 because  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself  there  are  numerous  and 
 explicit  statements  that  point  to  the  existence  of  such  a  being. 
 To  the  allegation  that  He  cast  out  demons  by  Beelzebub,  the 
 prince  of  the  demons,  He  replied  in  such  a  way  as  to  imply  that 
 Satan  really  had  a  kingdom,  and  that  He  had  conquered  him, 
 and  was  therefore  al^e  to  deliver  his  captives  (Matt.  xii.  25-29  ; 
 Mark  iii.  23-27).  In  the  explanation  of  the  parable  of  the  Sower, 
 given  to  His  disciples  apart,  He  said  that  Satan  took  away  the 
 word  from  those  represented  by  the  wayside  (Matt.  xiii.  19  ; 
 Mark  iv.  15  ;  Luke  viii.  12) ;  and  in  explaining  the  parable  of  the 
 Tares,  He  said  that  they  are  the  children  of  the  wicked  one, 
 and  that  the  enemy  that  sowed  them  is  the  devil  (Matt.  xiii.  .39). 
 In  the  solemn  description  of  the  great  judgment,  He  speaks  of 
 
 1  It  must  be  observed  that  wherever  “  devils”  are  spoken  of  in  the  plural, 
 the  word  is  a  different  one,  having  no  connection  with  the  devil  (0  SicipoXos). 
 The  evil  spirits  that  are  described  as  possessing  men  are  demons  ; 
 
 and  though  Satan  is  apparently  identified  with  the  prince  of  the  demons,  that 
 seems  only  to  mean  that  all  that  is  hostile  and  hurtful  to  men  is  under  him  as 
 its  head. 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  FALL  OF  MAN.  85 
 
 the  eternal  fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels  (Matt.  xxv. 
 41) ;  and  there  is  strong  reason  to  believe  that  the  last  petition 
 in  the  Lord’s  Prayer  should  be,  “  deliver  us  from  the  evil  one.” 
 Luke  records  two  other  instances  of  His  speaking  to  His  dis¬ 
 ciples  of  Satan  as  the  adversary  and  tempter  (Luke  x.  18,  19, 
 xxii.  31) ;  and  John  reports  Him  as  speaking  to  the  Jews  of  the 
 devil  as  the  father  of  lies  (John  viii.  38-44),  and  twice  over,  in 
 His  last  discourse  with  the  apostles,  calling  him  the  prince  of 
 this  world  (xiv.  31,  xvi.  11). 
 
 These  statements  cannot  naturally  be  interpreted  as  merely 
 figurative  descriptions  of  the  power  of  evil  or  temptation  ;  for 
 although  some  particulars  in  them  are  not  meant  to  be  taken 
 literally,  the  idea  of  personality  is  so  distinct  and  uniform  in 
 them  all,  that  it  would  be  putting  a  violent  strain  on  the  language 
 to  take  it  as  a  figure  of  speech.  As  little  can  we  suppose  that 
 Jesus  employed  such  language  merely  in  accommodation  to  the 
 popular  ideas  of  the  time.  He  is  not,  indeed,  to  be  held  to  have 
 sanctioned  all  the  current  beliefs  to  which  He  refers,  as,  that  the 
 prince  of  the  demons  is  Beelzebub,  or  that  the  Jewish  exorcists 
 cast  out  demons  ;  but  when  we  find  Him  speaking  of  Satan 
 privately  to  His  disciples,  and  in  the  explanation  of  parables, 
 when  no  condescension  to  popular  notions  was  at  all  necessary, 
 we  cannot  suppose  that  He  did  not  express  His  own  belief.  The 
 occasions,  too,  on  which  such  sayings  are  ascribed  to  Him  are 
 so  many,  and  the  sayings  themselves  so  various,  given  by  all  the 
 four  evangelists,  that  there  is  no  possibility  of  supposing  that  He 
 was  misunderstood  by  His  hearers,  or  by  those  who  reported  His 
 teaching.  If  our  accounts  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  are  reliable  at 
 all,  we  seem  shut  up  to  the  conclusion,  that  He  did  speak,  with 
 great  solemnity,  of  a  personal  evil  spirit  as  the  great  enemy  of 
 God  and  man. 
 
 Now  this  is  not  a  matter  of  mere  science  or  history,  on  which 
 we  might  possibly  suppose  Jesus  to  have  shared  the  imperfect 
 knowledge  of  the  time,  without  derogating  from  His  authority  as 
 a  teacher  of  religion.  It  is  presented  by  Him  as  a  moral  and 
 
86 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 religious  truth,  having  important  practical  bearings  on  our  life  and 
 conduct.  If,  therefore,  we  take  Jesus  as  our  supreme  religious 
 guide,  we  must,  I  think,  accept  this  as  part  of  His  teaching. 
 
 There  is  no  reason  to  reject  the  New  Testament  teaching  about 
 Satan  as  inconsistent  with  science  or  philosophy.  Plainly  it 
 relates  to  a  region  that  lies  beyond  the  range  of  scientific  know¬ 
 ledge  altogether,  for  that  is  limited  to  the  world  of  sense  and 
 experience  ;  and  whether  or  not  there  are  living  creatures  outside 
 of  our  world,  and  if  so,  what  are  their  characters  and  powers,  are 
 questions  that  no  science  can  answer,  and  on  which  one  view  is 
 just  as  possible  as  another,  so  far  as  science  is  concerned.  It 
 may,  indeed,  be  objected  that  many  of  the  things  that  were 
 formerly  ascribed  to  evil  spirits  have  been  proved  by  science  to 
 be  the  effect  of  natural  causes,  and  that  no  room  is  left  by  modern 
 discoveries  for  the  operation  of  superhuman  spirits  on  human 
 affairs.  But  this  only  proves  that  some  of  the  notions  connected 
 with  the  belief  of  a  great  spiritual  enemy  were  baseless  supersti¬ 
 tions  ;  and  it  would  be  rash  to  say  that,  on  the  mind  of  man  at 
 least,  no  superhuman  agency  is  possible. 
 
 Any  solid  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  a  personal  spirit  of  evil 
 must  rest  on  the  ground  that  the  conception  is  impossible,  because 
 involving  incompatible  elements  or  contradicting  some  certain 
 truth.  Such  objections  have  been  made,  and  they  are  valid 
 against  some  exaggerated  forms  of  the  doctrine,  but  not  against 
 its  substantial  import.  Schleiermacher  alleged  that  the  current 
 conception  of  Satan  is  composed  of  several  incompatible  ideas, 
 those  of  the  divine  agent  for  detecting  evil,  of  the  Zoroastrian 
 evil  principle,  and  of  the  angel  of  death  ;  also  that  persistent 
 wickedness  is  not  consistent  with  profound  insight,  and  that  an 
 organised  kingdom  of  evil  is  not  possible,  since  evil  is  essentially 
 dividing  and  disorganising.  Now,  certainly,  any  view  that  regards 
 Satan  as  an  essentially  evil  being,  or  invests  him  with  the  divine 
 attributes  of  ubiquity  or  omniscience,  is  impossible,  and  incon¬ 
 sistent  with  pure  Theism.  It  is  only  in  a  qualified  sense  that  we 
 can  speak  of  Satan  as  embodying  an  evil  principle  ;  and  if  we 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  FALL  OF  MAN.  87 
 
 regard  him,  not  as  absolutely  and  essentially  evil,  but  simply  as 
 a  being  created  good,  but  fallen  and  depraved,  his  existence  and 
 character  involve  nothing  more  mysterious  than  that  of  many 
 human  monsters  of  cruelty  and  wickedness,  many  of  whom  have 
 also  had  high  intellectual  powers.  That  he  is  sometimes  repre¬ 
 sented  as  employed  by  God  to  detect  or  chastise  the  sins  of  men, 
 is  not  substantially  different  from  what  is  said  of  Sennacherib 
 and  Nebuchadnezzar.  In  what  sense  Satan  is  the  prince  of  a 
 kingdom  of  evil,  and  in  what  ways  he  tempts  and  assails  men,  is 
 not  clearly  explained  in  Scripture  ;  but  though  we  may  not  be 
 able  to  explain  these  things  completely,  there  is  nothing  in  them 
 that  can  be  shown  to  be  impossible.  The  general  conclusion  of 
 modern  theologians,  even  of  the  school  of  Schleiennacher,  such 
 as  Nitzsch,  Martensen,  and  Dorner,  seems  a  cautious  and  sound 
 one,  that  the  conception  of  Satan  is  one  which,  with  our  present 
 knowledge,  we  cannot  logically  complete,  and  which  the  teaching 
 of  Scripture  does  not  enable  us  to  complete,  but  that  there  is 
 nothing  contradictory  to  reason  or  to  facts  in  what  is  revealed  on 
 the  subject. 
 
 The  existence  and  agency  of  Satan,  though  taught  in  the  Bible, 
 is  not  properly  a  theological  doctrine.  It  is  nowhere  used  in 
 Scripture  to  solve  the  problem  of  evil,  or  to  afford  a  ground  or 
 principle  for  any  part  of  God’s  dealings  with  men.  The  use  that 
 Christ  and  His  disciples  make  of  it  is  a  practical  one,  chiefly  to 
 inculcate  the  need  of  vigilance,  earnestness,  and  prayer  in  striving 
 against  evil.  Against  an  unseen  spiritual  foe  we  need  help  from 
 above  ;  and  we  require  not  merely  to  watch  our  particular  actions, 
 but  to  acquire  habits  of  Christian  virtue,  that  will  make  us  proof 
 against  subtle  unconscious  influences,  as  well  as  sudden  tempta¬ 
 tion.  This  is  that  panoply  of  God,  the  necessity  of  which  Paul 
 enforces  by  a  vivid  description  of  our  spiritual  adversaries  (Eph. 
 vi.  10-18).  At  the  same  time,  the  work  of  Christ,  by  which  we 
 are  saved  from  sin,  is  represented  as  the  more  glorious  and 
 wonderful,  because  it  is  a  conquest  of  sin,  not  in  man  only,  but 
 in  the  whole  universe. 
 
88 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 In  regard  to  the  Fall  of  man,  the  fact  that  it  was  occasioned  by 
 the  temptation  of  the  serpent  obviously  affords  no  solution  of  the 
 difficulty  as  to  the  origin  of  evil,  nor  is  it  presented  in  Scripture 
 as  doing  so.  Whatever  partial  explanation  it  may  be  held  to  give 
 only  removes  the  mystery  a  step  farther  back,  since  in  any  case 
 there  must  have  been  a  first  sin  to  which  there  was  no  tempter. 
 Even  in  the  case  of  man,  too,  the  temptation  of  the  serpent  was 
 not  really  the  cause  of  his  sin,  and  does  not  excuse  his  guilt. 
 Our  first  parents  were  created  upright,  but  mutable  ;  they  were 
 permitted  by  God’s  wise  and  holy  providence  to  act  for  themselves 
 in  the  exercise  of  their  own  free  will ;  the  possibility  of  sin  and  its 
 apparent  advantages  were  brought  before  them  by  a  wicked 
 creature  in  the  form  of  temptation  ;  but  none  of  these  things 
 explain  more  than  the  possibility  of  their  sin,  the  fact  of  it  was  due 
 entirely  to  themselves,  as  they  were  brought  to  confess  when 
 dealt  with  by  God  for  it. 
 
 But  such  an  act  of  disobedience  could  not  have  been  done 
 without  having  an  effect  for  evil  on  the  character  of  the  agents 
 themselves.  It  would  at  once  and  entirely  destroy  their  inno¬ 
 cence,  and  interrupt  their  communion  with  God  ;  and  the  narrative 
 in  Genesis  depicts,  in  a  simple  and  child-like  form,  but  in  a  way 
 most  true  to  human  nature,  how  their  sin  led  to  guilty  shame  and 
 fear,  shrinking  from  God’s  presence,  insincere  and  ungenerous 
 attempts  to  excuse  themselves  and  throw  the  blame  on  others, 
 or  even  on  God  Himself.  The  tendency  of  one  sin  is  ever  to  lead 
 on  to  others,  and  by  degrees  to  form  a  habit  of  sinning  that  may 
 strengthen  till  it  grows  into  a  second  nature.  This  has  been 
 very  clearly  and  convincingly  shown  by  Bishop  Butler,1  where 
 he  explains  how  upright  creatures  may  fall,  and  says:  “It  is 
 impossible  to  say  how  much  even  the  first  full  overt  act  of 
 irregularity  might  disorder  the  inward  constitution,  unsettle  the 
 adjustments  and  alter  the  proportions  which  formed  it,  and  in 
 which  the  uprightness  of  its  make  consisted  ;  but  repetition  of 
 irregularities  would  produce  habits.  And  thus  the  constitution 
 
 1  Analogy t  Part  I.  ch.  v. 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  FALL  OF  MAN.  89 
 
 would  be  spoiled,  and  creatures  made  upright  become  corrupt 
 and  depraved  in  their  settled  character,  proportionably  to  their 
 repeated  irregularities  in  occasional  acts.”  Along  with  this, 
 however,  ought  to  be  considered  Dr.  Chalmers’  remarks  on  it,1 
 in  which  he  criticises  it  as  making  the  Fall  more  gradual  than 
 Scripture  represents  it  to  have  been,  and  supplements  Butler’s 
 statements  by  emphasising  the  peculiar  effect  of  a  first  trans¬ 
 gression  in  its  religious  aspect,  as  at  once  destroying  the  harmony 
 between  God  and  man.  In  the  language  of  Scripture,  man  being 
 alienated  from  the  favour  and  fellowship  of  God,  passed  at  once 
 into  that  state  which  is  described  as  death  in  sin. 
 
 1  Prelections  on  Butler’s  Ana/ogy,  etc. 
 
CHAPTER  IX. 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  NATIVE  DEPRAVITY. 
 
 Since  the  universality  of  sin  among  men  is  explained  in  the 
 Bible  by  the  doctrine  that  human  nature  is  in  a  state  of  disorder, 
 which  is  more  consistent  with  the  facts  of  the  case  than  any  other 
 explanation,  theologians  have  endeavoured  to  draw  from  Scrip¬ 
 ture  and  experience  a  more  precise  conception  of  the  character, 
 extent,  and  origin  of  that  disorder.  These  inquiries  now  claim 
 our  attention  in  their  order. 
 
 The  character  that  Christian  thinkers  have  generally  assigned 
 to  the  moral  disorder  of  human  nature  is  indicated  by  the  names 
 they  have  given  to  it — Native  Depravity,  Corruption  of  Nature, 
 and  Original  Sin.  These  terms  all  describe  the  same  things ;  for 
 though  the  last  of  them,  “  original  sin,”  has  been  sometimes  used 
 in  a  wider  sense,  as  including  two  things,  viz.  (i)  original  sin 
 imputed,  i.e.  the  guilt  of  Adam’s  first  sin  ;  and  (2)  original  sin 
 inherent,  i.e.  the  corruption  of  man’s  nature, — it  has  been  more 
 generally  restricted  to  the  latter ;  and  this  usage  is  much  to  be 
 preferred,  since  it  conduces  to  clearness  to  avoid  classing  together 
 two  so  different  things  under  one  name.1 
 
 In  these  terms  it  is  to  be  observed,  first,  that  the  evil  denoted 
 by  them  is  described  as  something  abnormal ;  it  is  depravity, 
 
 1  It  is  in  the  narrower  and  more  correct  sense  that  the  term  is  used  in  the 
 Westminster  Standards  ;  for  though  in  the  Shorter  Catechism  (18)  the  clause, 
 •  “which  is  commonly  called  original  sin,”  might  be  construed  as  referring 
 to  the  whole  of  what  precedes,  the  singular  “  is  ”  makes  it  more  natural  to 
 refer  it  to  the  last  mentioned  only  ;  and  the  Confession  of  Faith  (ch.  vi.  §  4,  5, 
 6)  clearly  defines  original  sin  as  “corruption  of  nature.”  So  also  does  the 
 Church  of  England,  Art.  IX. 
 
 90 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  9 1 
 
 corruption,  sin.  This  is  warranted  by  the  way  in  which  Christ 
 and  His  apostles  speak  of  men  in  their  unrenewed  state  as 
 corrupt,  comparing  them  to  rotten  trees  (Matt.  vii.  17,  18),  and 
 describing  the  old  man  which  Christians  put  off  as  being  cor¬ 
 rupted  (Eph.  iv.  22,  etc.). 
 
 The  same  thing  appears  from  the  facts  of  the  case.  There  is 
 no  natural  tendency  in  man  that  is  in  itself  evil,  but  evil  arises 
 from  their  disorderly  working.  The  various  appetites,  desires, 
 and  affections  are  in  themselves  good,  and  necessary  for  the 
 existence  and  welfare  of  the  race  ;  but  when  they  act  in  improper 
 directions,  or  with  excessive  force,  they  lead  instead  to  destruction 
 and  misery.  But  there  is  no  immoral  act  or  habit  that  cannot 
 be  traced  back  to  some  impulse  or  principle  that  might  have  been 
 so  guided  as  to  lead  to  good  and  useful  acts,  and  that  could  not 
 have  been  wanting  in  our  nature  without  serious  loss.  Of  all 
 sins  of  sensual  indulgence  it  is  plain  that,  without  the  appetites 
 from  the  abuse  of  which  they  spring,  the  human  race  could  not 
 exist  and  be  propagated  ;  sins  of  anger,  revenge,  violence,  are 
 perversions  of  the  righteous  indignation  against  wrong,  which  is 
 a  mainstay  of  human  society ;  sins  of  selfishness,  ambition, 
 avarice,  are  misdirected  and  excessive  applications  of  that 
 prudent  self-regard,  without  which  the  balance  of  human  nature 
 would  be  lost ;  and  so  it  is  in  regard  to  all  other  sins.  Now,  if 
 this  be  so,  we  must  clearly  consider  the  evil  in  man  as  something 
 contrary  to  his  true  nature,  a  corruption  of  his  constitution.  Just 
 as  we  can  tell  the  difference  between  a  machine  that  has  been 
 rudely  and  imperfectly  made,  and  one  that  has  been  marred  and 
 disordered  ;  so  we  can  see  by  examining  the  moral  nature  and 
 character  of  man,  that  his  prevailing  tendency  to  evil  is  not  due 
 to  an  imperfection,  but  to  a  corruption  of  his  nature.  This 
 has  seldom  been  more  clearly  or  beautifully  brought  out  than 
 by  Pascal  in  his  Pensees ,  where  he  dwells  on  the  greatness  and 
 misery  of  man  as  indicating  a  corrupt  state,  and  thus  shows, 
 against  the  theory  most  current  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  the 
 sinful  state  of  man  implies  something  more  than  the  loss  of  a 
 
92 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 supernatural  gift,  such  as  original  righteousness  is  conceived  by 
 most  Roman  Catholics  to  be.  If  we  would  be  true  to  conscience 
 and  Scripture,  we  must  recognise  a  corruption  of  a  nature 
 essentially  good,  and  hence  we  speak,  not  of  pravity,  but  of 
 depravity.  The  recognition  of  this  is  an  element  of  hope  in  our 
 sinful  state.  As  Westcott  well  puts  it,  “  Such  an  idea  is,  I  will 
 venture  to  say,  a  necessary  condition  of  human  hope.  No  view 
 of  life  can  be  so  inexpressibly  sad  as  that  which  denies  the  Fall. 
 If  evil  belongs  to  man  as  man,  there  appears  to  be  no  prospect 
 of  relief,  here  or  hereafter  ”  ( The  Historic  Faith ,  pp.  66,  67). 
 
 But  this  disorder  of  our  moral  state  is  further  described  by 
 theologians  as  native  depravity,  original  or  birth  sin.1  By  this  is 
 meant  that  it  is  not  acquired  at  any  later  period  of  life,  but  exists 
 in  every  man  from  his  birth.  Some  particular  bad  habits  are 
 contracted  by  acts  of  sin  in  the  course  of  a  man’s  life,  so  that  it 
 may  be  detected  when  and  how  he  became  avaricious,  or 
 ambitious,  or  a  slave  to  any  other  vice.  But  there  is  no  trace  in 
 any  man’s  life  of  a  time  when  he  was  free  from  all  moral  evil,  or 
 of  any  act  to  which  a  first  beginning  of  his  sin  can  be  attributed. 
 The  men  who  have  had  the  deepest  sense  of  sin,  and  the  most 
 earnest  desire  to  escape  from  it,  have  been  the  readiest  to  express 
 their  conviction  that  it  has  its  roots  in  their  being  from  the  very- 
 beginning  of  their  life  as  the  Psalmist  cries,  “  Behold,  I  was 
 shapen  in  iniquity  ;  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me  ” 
 (Ps.  li.  5),  and  Paul  says,  “We  all  were  by  nature  children  of 
 wrath,  even  as  others  ”  (Eph.  ii.  3). 
 
 This  depravity  is  called  by  Paul  “the  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me” 
 (Rom.  vii.  17),  and  “the  law  of  sin  in  my  members”  (ib.  23,  25), 
 and  described  as  a  power  opposing  and  obstructing  his  desires 
 and  efforts  to  obey  the  law  of  God.  Now,  a  power  of  this  kind 
 
 1  The  term  “  natural  ”  is  sometimes  used  in  this  sense  ;  but  since  in  a  true 
 and  important  sense  sin  is  unnatural,  or  against  nature,  and  since,  in  con¬ 
 nection  with  man’s  inability  to  save  himself,  natural  is  used  with  a  different 
 meaning,  it  is  better  to  avoid  applying  it  to  depravity  at  all,  and  to  employ 
 instead  the  unambiguous  “native”  or  “connate.” 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  93 
 
 can  only  consist  of  passions  or  desires  which  the  will  cannot 
 control  or  resist,  and  so  Paul  describes  it  in  Rom.  vii.  5  ;  Eph. 
 ii.  3  ;  or  else  in  habits  which  have  been  originally  formed  by  the 
 indulgence  of  such  desires.  Both  would  seem  to  be  included, 
 and,  indeed,  they  cannot  be  separated  ;  for  habits  are  just  desires 
 or  impulses  become  fixed,  and  working  automatically.  Such 
 desires  are  also  described  as  leading  to  sin  by  James  (i.  14,  15, 
 iv.  1,  2),  Peter  (1  Pet.  ii.  n,  iv.  2,  3  ;  2  Pet.  i.  4),  and  John 
 (1  John  ii.  15-17). 
 
 But  such  desires  are  sinful  only  because  they  are  excessive  and 
 unrestrained,  and  they  are  so  when  the  power  that  should  restrain 
 them  is  absent  or  in  abeyance.  What  is  that  power  ?  Prudence, 
 conscience — these  have  some  effect,  but  only  so  far  as  they  are 
 felt  to  be  the  voice  of  God  ;  it  is  the  fear  and  love  of  God  alone 
 that  can  completely  moderate  and  rightly  guide  human  passions. 
 If  God,  as  the  holy  and  righteous  governor,  still  more  as  the 
 loving  Father  of  men,  were  present  to  the  mind,  and  regarded 
 with  due  reverence  and  love  by  the  heart,  those  excesses  of 
 desires  and  passions  that  violate  His  law  and  grieve  His  heart 
 would  not  be  indulged ;  and  were  God’s  love  and  fellowship 
 enjoyed  as  the  true  and  satisfying  portion  of  the  soul,  those  in¬ 
 satiable  desires  that  run  destructive  riot  because  they  can  find  no 
 adequate  object  in  all  earthly  things,  would  be  at  rest  and  peace. 
 This  may  be  illustrated  by  the  way  in  which  Paul,  bidding  the 
 Colossians  (iii.  5)  mortify  their  members  on  the  earth,  traces  the 
 prevalent  sin  of  fornication  to  its  root.  Its  immediate  antecedent 
 is  “  uncleanness,”  impure  conduct  of  a  less  extreme  form  ;  behind 
 that  is  “  passion  ”  ;  behind  that  again  “  evil  desire  ” ;  and  then 
 “covetousness,”  the  desire  of  more,  in  the  way  of  enjoyment  as 
 well  as  of  possession,  and  of  that  he  says  emphatically,  “  which  is 
 idolatry,”  the  setting  up  of  another  and  earthly  object  of  worship 
 besides  the  true  God,  who  would  really  satisfy  the  endless 
 cravings  of  the  soul.  When  God  is  absent,  some  idol  must  come 
 into  the  place — if  not  sensual  pleasure,  as  in  this  case,  then 
 knowledge,  power,  fame,  wealth,  or  what  not ;  and  any  of  them 
 
94 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 will  lead,  by  a  similar  course,  to  sins  of  various  kinds.  Thus 
 the  radical  disorder  of  man’s  moral  state  is  ungodliness  ;  and 
 the  Reformers  well  defined  original  sin  when  they  said  that  it 
 consisted  of  want  of  fear  and  trust  in  God,  and  evil  desire  flowing 
 from  that. 
 
 The  extent  of  this  corruption  of  our  nature  is  next  to  be  con¬ 
 sidered,  more  particularly  with  reference  to  the  practical  question 
 whether  we  can  by  any  means  free  ourselves  from  it.  The  state¬ 
 ments  of  Scripture  have  led  the  most  of  those  who  take  it  for  their 
 guide  to  believe  that  the  degree  of  corruption  is  such  that  we 
 cannot  free  ourselves  from  it,  but  must  be  delivered  by  the  power 
 of  God  graciously  exerted  by  His  Holy  Spirit  working  in  our 
 hearts.  This  belief  has  been  generally  expressed  by  the  state¬ 
 ment  that  the  native  depravity  of  man  is  total,  and  that  he 
 is  unable  of  himself  to  turn  from  sin  to  God,  or  to  prepare 
 himself  for  so  doing.  These  statements,  however,  require  to  be 
 explained  before  we  can  rightly  appreciate  the  grounds  of  them  ; 
 and  we  must  consider  the  two  points  separately. 
 
 When  it  is  said  that  man’s  native  depravity  is  total,  it  is  not 
 meant  that  there  is  nothing  in  any  sense  good  in  him.  This 
 would  be  to  assert  what  is  not  true  ;  for  there  are  undeniably  in 
 ungodly  men  affections  and  actions  that  are,  so  far  as  they  go, 
 kind,  upright,  and  beneficent.  Jesus  says,  for  example,  that 
 men,  though  they  are  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  to  their 
 children  ;  and  the  Lord  says  by  Malachi,  “  A  son  honoureth  his 
 father,  and  a  servant  his  master  :  if  then  I  be  a  father,  where  is 
 my  honour  ?  and  if  I  be  a  master,  where  is  my  fear  ?  ”  The  good 
 affections  and  acts  of  men  towards  their  fellow-men  but  show 
 more  glaringly  their  undutifulness  to  God. 
 
 That  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity  as  taught  by  the  Protestant 
 Churches  does  not  exclude  or  deny  such  natural  goodness  or,  as 
 it  was  frequently  called,  “  civil  righteousness 55  (justitia  civilis ), 
 appears  plainly  from  the  statements  of  their  Confessions  of  Faith. 
 The  Augsburg  Confession,  the  most  generally  received  of  them 
 all,  and  especially  representing  the  Lutheran  Church,  says  : 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  95 
 
 “Art.  18.  Concerning  freewill,  they  teach  that  man’s  will  hath 
 some  power  to  perform  a  civil  justice,  and  to  make  choice  of 
 things  that  are  within  the  reach  of  reason.”  The  Synod  of  Dort, 
 representing  all  the  Reformed  Churches,  says  :  “  There  are  still 
 in  lapsed  man  some  remains  of  the  light  of  nature ;  by  virtue 
 whereof  he  retaineth  some  principles  concerning  God  and  things 
 natural,  and  of  the  difference  between  good  and  evil ;  as  also  he* 
 showeth  some  care  of  virtue,  and  of  outward  discipline  ”  (chs.  iii. 
 and  iv.  art.  4).  And  the  Westminster  Confession,  which  in 
 ch.  vi.  makes  an  extreme  and  unqualified  statement  of  the 
 corruption  of  man’s  whole  nature,  elsewhere  declares  that  even 
 in  his  fallen  state  he  has  a  natural  knowledge  of  God  and  duty 
 (ch.  i.  §  1,  and  xxi.  §  1),  “that  his  will  is  endowed  with  that 
 natural  liberty,  that  it  is  neither  forced  nor  by  any  absolute 
 necessity  of  nature  determined  to  good  or  evil”  (ch.  ix.  §  1 ) ;  and 
 that  “  works  done  by  unregenerate  men  for  the  matter  of  them 
 may  be  things  which  God  commands,  and  of  good  use  both  to 
 themselves  and  others  ”  (ch.  xvi.  §  7).  The  same  thing  is  recog¬ 
 nised  by  the  best  Calvinistic  theologians,  such  as  Dr.  Chalmers 
 and  Dr.  Hodge.1 
 
 It  follows  from  this,  and  it  is  also  the  plain  teaching  of  Scripture, 
 that  there  are  many  different  degrees  of  sin  and  guilt  among  un¬ 
 regenerated  men.  Some  are  not  far  from  the  kingdom  of  God, 
 while  others  may  be  on  the  verge  of  that  blasphemy  against  the 
 Holy  Spirit  for  which  there  is  no  forgiveness.  Evil  men  wax 
 worse  and  worse  ;  some  sin  in  ignorance,  others  are  described  as 
 hardening  themselves,  and  giving  themselves  over  to  work  all 
 uncleanness  with  greediness. 
 
 But  depravity  may  be  called  total,  in  the  sense  of  affecting  all 
 the  parts  of  our  being,  producing  an  entire  alienation  from  God, 
 and  leaving  in  us  no  recuperative  power  or  tendency,  if  left  to 
 ourselves,  to  return  to  God.  This  is  what  theologians  mean  to 
 
 1  A  very  striking  representation  of  it  is  given  by  the  Puritan  John  Howe 
 in  his  beautiful  description  of  fallen  man  as  the  deserted  and  ruined  temple 
 of  God  [The  Living  Temple ,  Part  II.  ch.  4). 
 
96 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 assert  when  they  speak  of  total  depravity  ;  it  is  the  corruption  of 
 our  whole  nature  ;  and  this  we  think  is  borne  out  both  by  experi¬ 
 ence  and  by  Scripture. 
 
 The  phenomena  that  lead  us  to  recognise  depravity  in  general, 
 point  also  to  its  not  being  limited  to  any  one  part  of  our  nature. 
 Abnormal  and  evil  tendencies  appear  in  them  all ;  we  observe 
 not  only  violence  and  excess  in  the  appetites  and  passions,  but 
 blindness  or  perversity  in  the  intellect,  dulness  or  obliquity  in 
 the  conscience,  weakness  or  obstinacy  in  the  will.  In  fact,  it  is 
 hard  to  conceive  of  any  moral  injury  to  human  nature  in  one  part 
 that  would  not  somehow  affect  the  whole.  The  more  complex 
 that  nature  may  be  supposed  to  be,  the  more  probable  does  it 
 become  that  any  defect  or  excess  in  one  part  of  it  would  injure 
 the  whole.  The  moral  uprightness  of  man  consists  in  this,  that 
 all  the  various  propensities  of  his  nature  are  kept  in  due  balance 
 and  control.  If  any  one  of  them  is  habitually  excessive,  those 
 that  should  balance  it  must  be  in  the  same  degree  weakened,  and 
 the  reason  and  conscience,  which  should  discern  truth  and  right, 
 must  be  blinded,  and  the  will,  which  should  enforce  the  dictates 
 of  reason  and  conscience,  weakened  and  perverted. 
 
 Scripture  describes  all  the  parts  of  human  nature  as  affected  by 
 moral  depravity  in  regard  to  God  and  the  things  of  God  ;  and  a 
 consideration  of  some  of  the  passages  in  which  different  faculties 
 are  spoken  of  may  throw  light  on  the  subject. 
 
 In  regard  to  the  intellect,  the  fullest  statement  is  by  Paul  (i  Cor. 
 i.  1 8— ii.  1 6),  where  he  declares  that  the  word  of  the  cross  is  foolish¬ 
 ness  to  the  wise  of  this  world  ;  that  the  world  by  wisdom  knew 
 not  God,  nor  the  things  that  are  revealed  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
 The  natural  man  (-^/vxix-og,  under  the  guidance  of  the  soul  as 
 distinct  from  the  spirit)  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
 God,  neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually  dis¬ 
 cerned.  This  clearly  implies  that  worldly  men  cannot  discern 
 divine  truth,  either  because  what  Paul  here  calls  spirit  is  absent, 
 or  because  it  is  so  weakened  and  overpowered  by  the  soul  that 
 the  entire  man  may  be  called  animal  and  not  spiritual.  The 
 
THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  97 
 
 latter  is  certainly  Paul’s  meaning,  for  he  nowhere  speaks  of  the 
 unregenerate  as  destitute  of  any  part  or  faculty  of  human  nature, 
 but  positively  speaks  of  them  as  possessing  mind  (vovg,  Tit.  i.  15), 
 which  he  seems  here  (1  Cor.  ii.  18)  to  identify  with  spirit. 
 If,  now,  we  inquire  further  how  we  are  to  conceive  of  the  intellect 
 as  disabled  in  reference  to  divine  things,  we  may  refer  to  our 
 Lord’s  words  to  Peter,  when  he  was  offended  at  the  cross  in  the 
 same  way  as  those  of  whom  Paul  is  speaking,  “  Thou  mindest 
 not  the  things  of  God,  but  the  things  of  men”  (Matt.  xvi.  23); 
 thou  art  under  the  influence  of  sense  (^19^),  not  °f  a  divinely- 
 enlightened  mind  that  knows  what  is  worthy  of  the  Son  of  God. 
 Compare  also  John’s  words,  “He  that  loveth  not,  knoweth  not 
 God  ;  for  God  is  love”  (1  John  iv.  8) ;  and  James’  description  of 
 the  earthly  and  the  heavenly  wisdom  (Jas.  iii.  13-18). 
 
 From  this  it  appears  that  the  mind  of  man  is  darkened  in 
 regard  to  God  and  divine  things  by  the  absence  of  that  pure  and 
 holy  love  through  which  God  is  known,  and  the  prevalence  of 
 those  notions  that  come  through  the  senses  and  are  worldly  or 
 selfish. 
 
 Another  passage  in  Paul’s  writings,  where  the  effects  of  sin  on 
 different  parts  of  man’s  being  are  described,  is  Eph.  iv.  17-19. 
 “  That  ye  no  long'er  walk  as  the  Gentiles  also  walk,  in  the  vanity 
 of  their  mind  ”  ( tov  uoog).  The  mind  here  is  the  higher  part  of  our 
 intellectual  nature,  the  reason  or  power  of  intuition  by  which  we 
 apprehend  first  principles  or  necessary  truths  of  faith  and  duty  : 
 to  this  is  ascribed  vanity,  i.e.  emptiness,  unprofitableness,  so  that 
 it  does  not  apprehend  what  is  real  and  truly  good.  Then 
 he  proceeds,  “  being  darkened  in  their  understanding,”  i.e.  the 
 reasoning  faculty,  “  alienated  from  the  life  of  God  because  of  the 
 ignorance  that  is  in  them,  because  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts.” 
 The  last  two  clauses  are  clearly  parallel,  and  it  makes  practically 
 no  difference  whether  both  together  are  the  reasons  of  the  two 
 preceding  ones,  or  more  specifically  the  ignorance  is  the  cause  of 
 the  darkness  of  the  understanding  and  the  hardness  is  the  cause 
 
 of  the  alienation  from  the  life  of  God,  i.e.  the  life  which  God  lives 
 
 G 
 
98 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 in  Himself  and  communicates  to  those  who  are  born  of  the  spirit, 
 the  life  of  love.  Further,  Paul  goes  on  to  describe  the  practical 
 result  of  this  state  of  darkness  and  callousness,  “  who,  being  past 
 feeling,  have  given  themselves  over  to  wantonness,  to  work  all 
 uncleanness  with  greediness.’’  This  is  no  doubt  a  description 
 of  an  extreme  degree  of  depravity,  and  of  the  gross  forms  of  evil 
 in  which  it  showed  itself.  But  we  see  from  it  how  all  the  various 
 parts  of  human  nature  in  its  corrupt  state  act  and  react  on  each 
 other  ;  and  Paul  goes  on  to  describe  as  the  only  remedy  for  it,  not 
 merely  an  enlightened  mind,  or  a  sensitive  conscience,  or  a 
 tender  heart,  but  what  includes  all  these,  “a  new  man  created 
 after  God  in  righteousness  and  holiness  of  truth”  (ver.  24) ;  truth 
 enlightening  the  understanding  and  satisfying  the  mind;  holiness 
 or  piety  awakening  the  affections  and  elevating  them  to  God,  and 
 righteousness  showing  itself  in  that  love  which  is  the  fulfilling  of 
 the  law. 
 
CHAPTER  X. 
 
 INABILITY  OF  MAN  TO  DELIVER  HIMSELF. 
 
 The  chief  practical  stress  of  the  question  as  to  total  depravity 
 turns  on  the  second  point  before  noted  as  involved  in  it,  the 
 absence  of  any  recuperative  tendency  or  power ;  for  it  is  at  this 
 point  that  the  question  raised  by  this  doctrine  touches  upon 
 another,  that  of  the  possibility  or  impossibility  of  men  raising 
 themselves,  or  doing  anything  to  raise  themselves,  from  this  state 
 of  moral  depravity.  If  this  be  possible,  it  would  seem  that  it 
 is  so,  because  some  part  or  faculty  of  our  nature  is  only  par¬ 
 tially  or  not  at  all  affected  by  moral  depravity,  and  so  that  is  not 
 total  but  only  partial.  Such,  in  fact,  has  generally  been  the  view 
 of  those  who  have  held  that  man  can  do  something  to  recover 
 himself.  The  Greek  Fathers  of  the  Alexandrian  and  Antiochian 
 schools,  Clemens  Alex.,  Origen,  Athanasius,  Chrysostom,  etc.,1 
 held  that  the  corruption  of  human  nature  resided  in  the  body 
 and  the  animal  soul  but  that  the  spirit  (yrvivpcc),  in  which 
 
 they  included  reason,  conscience,  and  will,  was  not  corrupted  ;  the 
 two  former  of  these  above  named  going  so  far  as  to  say  that  it  is 
 not  at  all  affected  ;  the  two  latter,  and  the  later  Greek  Fathers 
 generally,  holding  that  it  is  affected,  but  only  indirectly.  Their 
 doctrine  was  very  nearly  what  was  called  in  the  West  Semi- 
 Pelagianism.  In  modern  times  it  is  chiefly  the  will  that  has  been 
 held  to  be  exempt  from  depravity. 
 
 There  is  some  plausibility  in  this  view,  because  the  will  of  man 
 has  a  certain  freedom  that  is  inalienable  from  it,  and  without 
 which  there  would  be  no  responsibility.  If  the  mere  faculty  of 
 
 1  See  Shedd,  History  of  Christian  Doctrine ,  vol.  ii. 
 
 99 
 
f  oo 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 volition  be  viewed  by  itself,  apart  from  all  the  other  faculties  of 
 the  soul,  it  may  be  said  to  remain  intact.  Philosophers  are 
 divided  in  opinion  as  to  what  the  essential  freedom  of  the  will 
 is,  some  holding  it  to  imply  a  power  of  determining  either  to  act 
 or  not,  or  to  act  in  one  way  or  another,  in  presence  of  various 
 desires,  affections,  and  judgments  moving  to  action ;  while 
 others  hold  it  to  imply  only  the  absence  of  constraint,  and  the 
 exercise  of  rational  liking,  but  to  be  quite  consistent  with  the 
 will  being  invariably  determined  by  the  desires,  affections,  and 
 judgments. 
 
 It  is  admitted  on  both  sides  that  the  will  can  control  all 
 the  external  actions,  but  that  it  has  no  power  to  originate 
 desires,  affections,  or  judgments ;  but  those  who  maintain 
 the  liberty  of  self-determination  hold  that  it  can  and  should 
 decide  whether  to  act  upon  them  or  not,  and  in  the  case  of  desires 
 and  affections,  that  it  is  able  either  to  check  or  to  indulge  them. 
 This  it  can  do  by  means  of  the  power  of  directing  the  attention 
 to  one  object  or  another.  In  this  way  also  men  can  by  degrees 
 either  strengthen  or  weaken  the  power  of  desires,  affections,  and 
 judgments  of  the  mind  over  their  conduct,  and  so,  to  a  consider¬ 
 able  extent,  mould  and  modify  their  character.  If  we  accept  this 
 view  of  free  will,  as  I  think  we  should,  then  we  shall  acknowledge 
 that  the  will  of  man,  even  now  in  the  state  of  sin,  has  power  to 
 modify  the  character,  and  strengthen  or  weaken  the  effect  of 
 desires,  affections,  and  judgments,  by  means  of  the  direction  of 
 the  attention. 
 
 This  power,  however,  admits  of  degrees,  and  requires  exercise 
 in  order  to  be  maintained  and  strengthened.  If  a  man  does  not 
 exert  the  power  of  attention,  but  allows  his  action  to  be  swayed  by 
 desire,  emotion,  or  affection,  he  will  find  it  increasingly  difficult 
 to  check  such  impulses  by  reflection  ;  whereas,  if  he  directs  his 
 mind  habitually  to  objects  of  thought  that  are  opposed  to  them, 
 he  will  gain  self-command,  and  have  ever  more  and  more  control 
 over  his  passions. 
 
 When  this  power  of  the  will  diminishes  by  disuse  so  as  to 
 
INABILITY  OF  MAN  TO  DELIVER  HIMSELF. 
 
 101 
 
 become  practically  ineffective,  the  will  may  properly  be  said  to 
 be  enslaved  ( servum  arbitrium ),  as  it  is  frequently  described  in 
 Scripture  (John  viii.  34  ;  Rom.  vi.  16,  17  ;  Titus  iii.  3  ;  2  Pet. 
 ii.  19). 
 
 The  mere  diminution  of  the  power  of  the  will  implies  of 
 necessity  a  preponderance  of  evil,  because  the  judgments  of  the 
 intellect  do  not  directly  impel  to  action,  as  the  desires  and  affec¬ 
 tions  do  ;  though  the  will  may  be  guided  by  them,  it  needs  an 
 interposition  of  volition  that  they  may  lead  to  action.  Hence 
 when  the  will  is  simply  inactive,  the  conduct  is  determined  merely 
 by  whatever  desire  or  affection  may  be  strongest,  and  the  dictates 
 of  reason  and  conscience  are  disregarded.  Still  more  if  the  will 
 positively  decides  for  what  is  evil,  it  may  by  turning  the  attention 
 to  objects  of  temptation  give  a  more  positive  evil  bias  to  the 
 character,  which  may  become  strengthened  by  habit  into  a  second 
 nature.  But  in  such  a  case  the  power  of  the  will  is  not  really 
 strengthening,  though  it  may  seem  to  be  so.  For  by  deliberately 
 exciting  the  passions,  as  well  as  indulging  them,  a  man  is  allow¬ 
 ing  them  to  gain  more  strength,  and  so  making  it  more  difficult 
 to  control  them,  even  when  from  motives  of  prudence  or  a  sense 
 of  duty  he  may  wish  to  do  so.  Thus  confirmed  habits  of  sin  are 
 properly  called  bondage  or  slavery,  while  those  of  virtue  are  not 
 so.  A  man  is  the  slave  of  his  vices,  but  not  of  his  virtues  ; 
 because  in  doing  good  he  exercises  a  rational  choice,  and  controls 
 his  passions  and  the  allurements  of  temptation. 
 
 It  is  quite  clear  that  the  power  of  the  will  to  control  by  its 
 volitions  all  the  outward  actions,  does  not  imply  an  ability  to  do 
 what  is  in  any  true  sense  spiritually  good  or  acceptable  to  God. 
 For  nothing  is  more  emphatically  taught  in  Scripture  than  this, 
 that  God  looks  not  merely  on  the  outward  conduct,  but  on  the 
 heart,  and  is  not  pleased  with  any  obedience  in  deeds  that  does 
 not  proceed  from  love  in  the  heart.  Granted,  therefore,  that  men 
 can  reform  their  external  conduct  by  the  exercise  of  their  own 
 will,  that  does  not  prove  that  they  can  convert  themselves  ;  the 
 question  is,  Can  they  change  their  hearts  ?  and  if  this  is  possible 
 
102 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 at  all,  it  can  only  be,  not  by  a  direct  exercise  of  will,  but  only  by 
 that  indirect  power,  which  the  will  has,  to  control  and  modify  the 
 affections  and  desires  by  the  direction  of  the  attention  to  objects 
 fitted  to  check  or  direct  them  aright.  In  point  of  fact,  however, 
 we  believe  that,  even  in  this  way,  men  in  their  fallen  state  are 
 not  able  so  to  mould  their  character  as  to  produce  real  repentance, 
 faith,  and  love  to  God. 
 
 The  inability  that  Augustinian  theologians  ascribe  to  the  will 
 of  man  to  any  spiritual  good,  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  the 
 general  power  of  the  will  to  control  by  attention  the  desires  and 
 affections,  is  less  than  it  would  have  been  had  man  not  fallen.  That 
 may  be  so,  but  we  have  no  conclusive  evidence  of  it,  since  the  facts 
 may  be  explained  without  that  assumption.  The  fact  to  be  ex¬ 
 plained  is,  that  men  by  nature  are  so  averse  to  God,  that  they 
 cannot,  without  the  gracious  influence  of  His  Spirit,  make  them¬ 
 selves  godly.  This  is  the  testimony  of  Scripture  (John  iii.  3,  5,  v. 
 44,  vi.  44,  65,  xii.  39  ;  Rom.  viii.  7,  8;  Eph.  ii.  1-3,  iv.  17,  19;  Matt, 
 xii.  34  ;  2  Pet.  ii.  10-14,  18-20) ;  it  has  been  the  conviction  of 
 many  of  the  holiest  and  wisest  of  men,  and  it  seems  to  be  borne 
 out  by  experience.  A  certain  amount  of  reformation  of  char¬ 
 acter  may  be  effected  by  men’s  own  will,  with  no  more  aid  than 
 teaching.  If,  for  instance,  a  selfish  and  self-indulgent  man  be 
 thoroughly  convinced  that  it  is  right  and  proper  to  deny  himself 
 for  the  sake  of  his  family,  or  to  devote  himself  to  the  service  of 
 his  country,  he  may  by  degrees  so  act  that  the  selfish  desires 
 shall  be  checked,  and  the  family  or  patriotic  affections  come  to 
 rule  his  conduct  ;  and  thus  he  may,  in  course  of  time,  change 
 his  character  from  a  selfish  to  a  benevolent  one.  The  will  can 
 do  this,  because  the  natural  affections  towards  his  family  and 
 country  are  in  the  soul,  though  they  had  been  overborne  by  the 
 selfish  desires  and  habits.  If  they  had  been  entirely  lost,  the 
 will  could  not  have  produced  them  ;  it  can  only  decide  between 
 motives  to  action,  not  create  any  new  one.  So,  if  love  to  God 
 and  to  goodness  were  as  natural  to  man  as  family  affections  are, 
 even  in  very  depraved  men,  it  would  be  possible  for  the  will,  by 
 
INABILITY  OF  MAN  TO  DELIVER  HIMSELF. 
 
 I03 
 
 the  indirect  exercise  of  its  power  of  directing  the  attention,  to 
 acquire  by  degrees  a  truly  godly  character.  But  this  would  seem 
 not  to  be  possible  for  man  left  to  himself.  At  least,  those  who 
 have  been  most  undoubtedly  godly,  have  always  ascribed  their 
 piety,  not  to  their  own  efforts,  but  to  the  gracious  influence  of 
 God’s  Spirit.  On  the  other  hand,  those  who  have  thought  that 
 men  can  reform  themselves  by  their  own  will,  if  only  they  are 
 rightly  taught,  have  either  limited  that  reformation  to  man’s 
 duties  to  his  fellows,  confessing  that  they  know  not  how  to  serve 
 God,  as  Confucius  and  the  Chinese  sages  did  ;  or  when  they 
 have,  like  the  Jewish  Pharisees  and  rationalists  among  Christians, 
 sought  to  produce  piety  by  teaching,  it  has  been  of  an  outward  and 
 formal,  or  of  a  low  and  cold  kind.  A  love  to  God  for  His  own 
 sake  cannot  be  created  by  mere  adventitious  considerations  ;  it 
 is,  according  to  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  awakened  by  God’s 
 love  to  us,  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Spirit  given 
 to  us. 
 
 There  is  therefore  good  ground  for  maintaining  the  doctrine  of 
 man’s  inability  by  nature  to  anything  spiritually  good  and  well¬ 
 pleasing  to  God.  This  just  means  that  he  cannot  of  himself 
 change  his  heart,  or  turn  the  bias  of  his  inclinations  from  sin  to 
 God. 
 
 To  this  doctrine,  however,  there  has  always  been  made  an 
 objection,  which  is  very  natural  and  plausible,  and  deserves  to  be 
 met  and  answered.  It  is,  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  responsi¬ 
 bility,  inasmuch  as  a  man  cannot  be  justly  blamed,  or  held 
 accountable,  for  not  doing  what  he  has  no  power  to  do.  Now, 
 it  must  be  admitted  that  it  would  be  a  fatal  objection  to  the 
 doctrine,  if  it  really  were  incompatible  with  man’s  responsibility. 
 For  moral  guilt  is  inseparably  connected  with  sin,  and  it  is 
 uniformly  assumed  and  taught  in  Scripture,  that  the  depravity  of 
 sinners  is  not  merely  their  misfortune,  but  their  fault ;  and  that 
 they  are  accountable  and  blameworthy,  both  for  it  and  for  all  that 
 they  do  under  its  influence.  We  must  therefore  accept  the 
 principle,  or  major  premiss  of  the  objection,  which  is,  that  no 
 
io4 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 doctrine  that  subverts  man’s  responsibility  can  be  true  ;  and  the 
 only  way  in  which  we  can  answer  it  is,  by  showing  that  the 
 doctrine  of  the  sinner’s  inability  to  convert  himself  and  serve 
 God  aright  does  not  subvert  his  responsibility. 
 
 Now,  there  is  a  kind  of  inability  that  is  inconsistent  with 
 responsibility,  that  which  arises  from  the  want  of  faculties  for 
 doing  anything,  or  from  a  restraint  put  upon  us  from  without.  A 
 blind  man  is  not  responsible  for  not  reading  the  word  of  God, 
 nor  an  ignorant,  unintellectual  peasant  for  not  understanding  all 
 the  deep  things  contained  in  it.  Paul,  when  in  prison,  was  not 
 to  blame  for  not  going  about  to  preach  the  gospel.  These  are 
 
 things  for  which,  in  the  cases  supposed,  the  power  or  the  liberty 
 
 is  denied,  and  the  obligation  in  duty  ceases  along  with  them. 
 For  in  all  such  cases  there  may  be  a  most  sincere  willingness,  nay, 
 an  eager  desire,  to  do  the  things  in  question  ;  and  as  God  looks, 
 not  to  the  outward  act,  but  to  the  heart,  and  regards  the  state  of 
 that  as  the  chief,  and  indeed  only  valuable  thing,  He  does  not 
 
 hold  men  guilty  for  not  doing  what  they  are  really  anxious  to  do, 
 
 but  are  prevented,  against  their  own  will,  from  actually  doing. 
 “  If  there  be  first  a  willing  mind,  it  is  accepted  according  to  that 
 a  man  hath,  not  according  to  that  he  hath  not.”  If  the  inability 
 of  sinners  were  of  this  kind,  it  would  indeed  subvert  their 
 responsibility. 
 
 But  there  is  another  kind  of  inability  of  which  this  cannot  be 
 said,  one  that  arises,  not  from  want  of  faculties  nor  from  external 
 constraint,  but  from  the  state  of  the  heart  ;  when  a  person,  for 
 example,  is  so  selfish,  or  so  avaricious,  or  so  ambitious,  that  no 
 amount  of  persuasion  would  induce  him  to  do  a  generous  or  self- 
 sacrificing  act,  we  say,  he  cannot  exercise  self-denial,  he  is  incap¬ 
 able  of  disinterested  goodness  ;  but  we  do  not  for  a  moment 
 imagine  that  this  excuses  him,  it  rather  makes  him  guiltier,  and 
 deserving  of  greater  blame.  This  inability  has  its  seat  in  the 
 heart ;  and  since  it  is  the  heart  that  gives  value  to  moral  conduct, 
 the  wickedness  of  heart  that  absolutely  prevents  a  good  action  is 
 itself  the  greatest  degree  of  vice. 
 
INABILITY  OP'  MAN  TO  DELIVER  HIMSELF. 
 
 io5 
 
 This  has  generally  been  called  “  moral  inability,”  as  dis¬ 
 tinguished  from  “  natural  inability,”  which  is  that  which  results 
 from  constraint  or  want  of  faculties  ;  and  in  this  sense  it  is  right 
 to  say,  that  man’s  inability  to  do  what  is  spiritually  good  is  not 
 natural,  but  moral ;  though  in  another  sense  of  the  term  it  is 
 properly  called  natural  by  Dr.  Hodge,  as  belonging  to  us  from 
 birth,  and  not  acquired  by  habit.  It  seems  better,  however,  in 
 order  to  avoid  confusion,  to  express  this  by  calling  it  “native  or 
 innate,”  reserving  the  term  “  natural  ”  for  the  other  meaning. 
 
 Now  the  inability  of  the  sinner  to  turn  to  God  is  of  the  latter 
 kind  ;  it  does  not  arise  from  the  limitation  of  our  faculties,  or 
 from  external  restraint,  but  from  the  ungodliness  of  the  heart  It 
 is  because  the  mind  of  the  flesh  is  enmity  against  God  that  it 
 is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be  (Rom. 
 viii.  7).  This  is  not  an  inability  that  is  consistent  with  an  earnest 
 desire  to  do  the  thing  required  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  arises  from 
 an  intense  aversion  to  it.  It  is  not  therefore  inconsistent  with 
 responsibility  ;  it  does  not  lessen  the  blame  due  to  sin,  for  it  just 
 indicates  the  great  depth  and  strength  of  man’s  depravity. 
 
 It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  what  we  ascribe  to  sinners 
 in  regard  to  spiritual  good,  is  a  real  inability,  and  not  a  mere 
 unwillingness  or  disinclination,  though  it  has  its  seat  in  the  heart, 
 and  may  be  regarded  as  an  extreme  degree  of  disinclination.  It 
 is  one  thing  for  a  man  to  be  merely  unwilling  to  perform  an  act 
 of  self-denial,  though  he  might  easily  be  induced  to  do  it ;  and 
 quite  a  different  thing  to  have  such  a  habit  of  selfish  indulgence, 
 that  no  persuasion  would  move  him  to  self-denial.  The  latter, 
 and  not  merely  the  former,  is  the  state  of  man,  as  described  in 
 Scripture,  in  relation  to  holiness  and  repentance  towards  God. 
 It  seems,  therefore,  necessary  to  speak  of  inability  as  well  as  of 
 unwillingness,  and  our  Lord  and  the  sacred  writers  use  both 
 expressions,  “ye  will  not,”  “ye  cannot”  (John  v.  39,44).  It  is 
 not  true  or  right  to  say  to  men,  as  some  do,  that  they  can 
 repent  and  obey  God’s  law  if  they  will ;  at  least  that  is  an 
 ambiguous  and  misleading  expression.  In  a  sense  it  may  be 
 
io6 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 true  ;  for  if  only  men  were  willing,  there  is  no  other  obstacle  in  the 
 way  of  their  turning  to  God.  But  it  is  apt  to  be  understood  as 
 meaning  that  by  a  mere  act  of  volition  they  can  turn  their 
 hearts  to  God  ;  and  this  is  a  dangerous  error.  If  men  are  led 
 to  think  that  they  can  do  so,  they  will  be  led  to  rely  on  their  own 
 efforts  and  resolutions,  and  omit  to  pray  for  help  from  God  ;  and 
 also  may  be  tempted  to  delay  repentance,  under  the  idea  that 
 they  can  repent  and  save  themselves  at  any  time  they  please  ; 
 whereas,  if  they  are  shown  that  the  inclination  of  their  hearts  to 
 evil  is  such  that  they  cannot  by  their  own  power  overcome  or 
 change  it,  they  will  be  more  ready  at  once  and  without  delay  to 
 ask  in  prayer  the  aid  of  God’s  grace. 
 
 It  is  also  to  be  remembered,  that  though  men  cannot  convert 
 themselves,  there  is  nothing  in  this  doctrine  to  prevent  them,  but 
 everything  to  induce  them,  to  pray  to  God  to  convert  them,  to 
 take  away  their  evil  and  hard  heart,  and  give  them  a  good  and 
 tender  one  ;  nay,  this  is  the  very  thing  that  the  doctrine  should 
 lead  them  to  do.  God  is  ever  ready  to  answer  such  prayers. 
 He  has  promised  to  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  Him. 
 He  exercises  indeed  a  sovereignty  in  this  matter,  but  it  is  a 
 sovereignty  of  grace.  He  often  sends  His  Holy  Spirit  to  awaken 
 and  convert  those  who  are  not  asking  or  seeking  for  it ;  but  He 
 never  refuses  the  gift  of  that  blessed  agent  to  any  who  ask  it. 
 This  should  be  borne  in  mind  in  considering  man’s  responsibility 
 for  not  turning  to  God,  though  he  is  under  a  moral  inability  of 
 doing  so  ;  that  not  only  does  this  inability  consist  of  extreme 
 disinclination,  but  it  would  be  overcome  and  removed  by  the 
 Spirit  of  God,  if  the  sinner  only  prayed  to  God  for  that.  He 
 must,  indeed,  pray  to  God  with  a  humble  confession  that  he  has 
 no  right  to  His  help  ;  he  must  confess  the  sin  and  guilt  of  his  evil 
 life  and  evil  heart,  and  cast  himself  entirely  on  the  mercy  of  God, 
 which  is  sovereign  and  free  ;  he  should  acknowledge  that  his 
 prayer  is  no  more  free  from  defect  and  sin  than  his  heart,  but  we 
 know  that  God  is  the  hearer  of  prayer,  to  whom  all  flesh  may 
 come ;  and  while  we  have  to  confess  that  iniquities  prevail  against 
 
INABILITY  OF  MAN  TO  DELIVER  HIMSELF.  107 
 
 us,  we  are  encouraged  to  add  in  faith,  “  as  for  our  transgressions, 
 Thou  shalt  purge  them  away”  (Ps.  lxv.  2,  3). 
 
 The  difference  of  natural  and  moral  inability  has  also  been 
 expressed  in  modern  times  by  the  distinction  of  formal  and  real 
 freedom.  The  inability  of  the  natural  man  to  spiritual  good  has 
 frequently  been  described  by  theologians  as  the  bondage  of  the 
 will  to  sin  ( servitus  voluntatis ,  servum  arbitrium ),  or  the  want 
 of  freedom  to  good.  This  phraseology  has,  indeed,  often  led  to 
 confusion  and  misunderstanding,  but  it  is  founded  on  Scripture  ; 
 for  our  Lord  says,  “  Every  one  that  committeth  sin  is  the  bond- 
 servant  of  sin”  (John  viii.  34) ;  and  Paul  uses  similar  language  in 
 Rom.  vi.  16-22.  So  also  2  Pet.  ii.  19.  According  to  this  view, 
 Christ  alone  gives  true  freedom,  and  they  only  have  it  who  trust  in 
 Him  and  follow  Him.  This  freedom  consists  in  deliverance  from 
 the  power  of  corruption,  which  is  contrary  to  our  true  nature  and 
 destiny,  as  made  by  God  for  Himself,  and  in  being  enabled  to 
 obey  God’s  law  from  the  heart,  not  out  of  constraint  or  fear,  but 
 as  the  law  of  our  mind,  in  which  we  delight.  This  is  what  is 
 called  “real  freedom”  ;  and  it  is  so  far  from  excluding  certainty, 
 or  implying  the  possibility  of  acting  otherwise,  that  in  its  highest 
 v  degree  it  implies  the  certainty  of  right  actions,  and  the  impossi¬ 
 bility  of  any  others  ( 71011  posse  peccare).  Such  is  the  freedom  of 
 God  Himself,  who  is  essentially  holy,  so  that  He  cannot  lie,  He 
 cannot  deny  Himself. 
 
 This  state  is  truly  called  freedom  ;  because  the  good,  even 
 though  invariably  chosen,  is  willingly  chosen,  by  no  constraint 
 from  without ;  and  because  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  nature  of 
 God,  and  the  truest  nature  of  man,  as  made  in  the  image  of  God. 
 When  a  man  is  under  the  power  of  sin,  even  though  he  may  be 
 so  willingly,  he  does  not  possess  real  freedom  ;  because  sin  is 
 contrary  to  his  true  nature,  and  there  is  always  something  in  him 
 that  protests  against  it,  however  weakly  and  ineffectually. 
 
 But  there  is  a  sense  in  which  man  must  be  regarded  as  free, 
 even  when  he  has  not  that  real  freedom  which  Christ  alone  can 
 give.  This  is  not  only  a  dictate  of  reason  and  consciousness,  but 
 
io8 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 is  recognised  in  Scripture  as  well,  since  men  are  described  as 
 doing  what  they  listed  (Matt.  xvii.  12),  as  they  will  (Mark  xiv.  7), 
 having  power  as  touching  his  own  will  (1  Cor.  vii.  57),  etc. 
 Modern  writers  call  this  “formal  freedom”;  the  Westminster 
 divines  describe  it  under  the  name  of  “natural  liberty”  (Conf. 
 ix.  1).  By  whatever  name  it  is  known,  it  forms  the  indispensable 
 basis  of  responsibility.  But  there  have  been  great  disputes 
 among  philosophers  as  to  what  it  is  and  how  it  is  related  to 
 real  freedom. 
 
 Some  hold  that  formal  freedom  always  implies  the  power  of 
 contrary  choice,  so  that  in  every  case  where  one  acts  or  wills 
 freely,  it  must  be  possible  that  he  should  have  acted  ^r  willed 
 otherwise.  Those  who  hold  this  generally  mean,  not  only  that 
 subjectively  the  agent  has  the  power  to  will  a  certain  thing  or  not, 
 but  also  that  objectively  it  must  be  possible  he  should  do  either, 
 so  that  there  can  be  no  certainty  of  the  issue.  Hence  liberty  so 
 conceived  has  often  been  called  liberty  of  indifference  or  of 
 contingency.1  If  this  view  be  adopted,  then  formal  freedom  is 
 made  to  be  absolutely  inconsistent,  not  only  with  any  bondage  of 
 the  will  to  sin,  but  even  with  perfect  real  freedom,  as  before 
 described,  for  that  implies  a  certainty  of  choosing  good.  Accord¬ 
 ingly,  with  this  conception  of  formal  freedom  there  are  only  two 
 alternatives. 
 
 One  is  to  deny  real  freedom  entirely,  and  to  hold  that  as  the 
 possibility  of  a  contrary  choice  is  essential  to  freedom  and 
 responsibility,  man  never  can  be  in  a  state  in  which  good  is 
 impossible  for  him,  and  equally  not  in  one  in  which  evil  is  im¬ 
 possible.  This  was  the  view  of  the  Pelagians  in  the  ancient 
 Church,  of  Duns  Scotus  and  others  of  the  schoolmen,  of  the  Jesuits 
 in  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  of  Socinians  and  Arminians  among 
 
 1  In  every  volition,  it  may  be  said  with  truth,  that  we  are  conscious  of,  and 
 therefore  have,  the  power  of  willing  otherwise.  But  we  are  also  conscious 
 that  there  are  some  things  that  we  certainly  shall  not  will  ;  and  therefore  our 
 consciousness  of  the  power  of  contrary  choice  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
 certainty  of  our  choosing  in  one  way  and  not  another,  and  does  not  imply  the 
 objective  possibility,  all  things  considered,  of  either  choice. 
 
INABILITY  OF  MAN  TO  DELIVER  HIMSELF.  109 
 
 Protestants.  It  is,  however,  opposed  to  the  facts  of  man’s  moral 
 state  by  nature,  as  well  as  to  the  representations  of  Scripture. 
 
 The  other  alternative  is  that  adopted  by  Julius  Muller.  He 
 holds  that  formal  freedom  is,  indeed,  inconsistent  with  real  free¬ 
 dom,  but  that  it  was  only  a  preliminary  stage  to  it.  The  possi¬ 
 bility  of  a  contrary  choice  is,  indeed,  implied  in  formal  freedom, 
 but  this  is  lost  when  man  becomes  a  slave  to  sin  ;  and  when  he 
 is  restored  from  that  state,  and  brought  to  have  real  freedom  in 
 such  a  degree  that  he  cannot  sin  (1  John  iii.  9),  formal  freedom  is 
 excluded.  But  what  of  man’s  responsibility,  for  is  not  formal 
 freedom  necessary  for  that  ?  Muller  admits  and  maintains  that  it 
 is  necessary  to  trace  the  origin  of  sin  to  a  free  act,  in  order  to 
 exclude  it  from  the  divine  causality  ;  but  with  his  definition  of 
 formal  freedom  he  can  find  in  the  empirical  life  of  man  no  such 
 freedom,  hence  he  is  obliged  to  trace  back  the  original  fall  of 
 each  man  to  a  pre-existent  state.1  That  is  a  hypothesis  destitute 
 of  all  positive  evidence  either  from  nature  or  revelation,  and 
 accordingly  it  has  been  adopted  by  very  few. 
 
 Thus  on  either  alternative  this  conception  of  formal  freedom 
 seems  to  lead  to  untenable  conclusions.  Philosophically  also  it 
 is  an  extreme  position,  very  difficult  to  reconcile  with  facts,  and 
 not  accepted  by  many  who  are  far  from  holding  the  opinion  that 
 the  will  is  invariably  determined  by  motives.2 
 
 But  there  is  another  view  of  the  freedom  that  is  essential  to 
 responsibility,  taken  by  Augustine  and  most  Augustinian  theolo¬ 
 gians,  who  have  so  defined  it  that  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  real 
 freedom,  but  may  coexist  either  with  it  or  with  the  absence  of  it. 
 It  is  conceived  as  being  spontaneity  or  rational  liking  ( lubentia 
 ratioiialis).  This  implies  the  absence  of  force  or  coercion  from 
 without,  and  some  have  spoken  as  if  this  were  all  that  is  neces¬ 
 sary  for  responsibility.  But  the  wisest  defenders  of  this  view 
 hold  another  element  to  be  implied  in  formal  freedom,  the  absence 
 
 1  See  his  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,  Book  III.  Division  i,  where  the  whole 
 subject  is  very  fully  and  ably  discussed. 
 
 2  See  Calderwood’s  Handbook  of  Moral  Philosophy,  Part  III. 
 
1  I  o 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 of  any  natural  necessity  from  within,  or,  in  the  language  of  Kant, 
 that  the  volition  may  be  determined,  not  merely  by  laws,  but 
 by  the  presentation  of  laws  to  the  intellect.  That  a  man  is 
 not  constrained  from  without,  does  not  prove  him  to  be  free  ; 
 that  may  be  said  of  a  tree  growing,  or  of  an  animal  following  its 
 instincts.  It  is  also  true  of  man,  that  in  his  moral  acts  he  is  not 
 determined  by  any  such  natural  necessity.  Whatever  influences 
 act  upon  him  to  hinder  him  from  doing  good  or  evil,  are  not 
 either  outward  constraint  or  physical  impulse,  but  such  as  act 
 through  his  intellectual  and  moral  nature  by  conceptions,  emo¬ 
 tions,  affections,  and  the  like.  These  two  elements  of  natural 
 liberty  are  indicated  in  the  Westminster  Confession  (ix.  i),  that 
 the  will  of  man  is  “  neither  forced,  nor  by  any  absolute  necessity 
 of  nature  determined,  to  good  or  evil.”  This  freedom  belongs 
 essentially  to  the  will  in  all  the  different  states,  of  innocence,  of 
 sin,  of  grace,  and  of  glory,  which  are  described  in  the  following 
 sections  of  the  chapter. 
 
 It  is  of  vital  importance  for  the  understanding  of  Augustinian 
 and  Calvinistic  theology  to  remember  that  its  advocates  main¬ 
 tain  the  possibility  of  men  being  certainly  determined  either  to 
 good  or  evil  without  being  either  forced,  or  necessitated  by  any 
 physical  law.  This  is  constantly  forgotten  by  opponents ;  and 
 so  the  doctrines  of  the  bondage  of  the  will,  of  efficacious  grace, 
 and  certain  perseverance,  are  supposed  to  imply  compulsion, 
 and  to  exclude  freedom  of  any  kind.  Hence  it  is  that  so  many 
 representations  of  Calvinism  are  mere  caricatures.  If  our  dis¬ 
 tinctions  are  unreal,  let  that  be  proved  ;  but  unless  they  are 
 understood  and  attended  to,  no  correct  understanding  of  our 
 doctrine  is  possible. 
 
CHAPTER  XL 
 
 THE  INHERITANCE  AND  IMPUTATION  OF  SIN. 
 
 The  distinction  between  natural  and  moral  inability,  and  between 
 formal  and  real  freedom,  serves  to  a  certain  degree  to  meet  the 
 difficulty  raised  by  the  fact  that  man  is  unable  to  deliver  himself 
 from  the  bondage  of  sin,  while  yet  he  feels  himself  to  blame,  and  is 
 blamed  and  judged  by  God  for  his  sin.  It  removes  the  difficulty 
 so  far  as  it  is  a  moral  one,  affecting  the  dictates  of  our  own  con¬ 
 science  ;  for  it  shows  that  we  are  not  in  bondage  against  our  will, 
 and  are  under  no  constraint  or  natural  incapacity  hindering  us 
 from  doing  what  is  right.  No  one  who  clearly  understands,  that 
 by  moral  inability  or  bondage  is  meant  simply  an  overmastering 
 love  of  what  is  sinful,  can  really  think  that  this  is  an  excuse  for 
 doing  what  we  know  to  be  wrong  ;  and  the  general  judgment  of 
 mankind,  that  bad  temper,  or  ill-nature,  or  wrong  habits,  do  not 
 remove  responsibility,  confirms  that  conclusion.  So  far  as  our 
 own  conscience  is  concerned,  the  objection  is  completely  silenced. 
 
 But  this  consideration  does  not  remove  the  difficulty  which 
 presents  itself  from  a  wider,  more  objective,  and  theological  view 
 of  the  facts.  We  are  conscious  of  a  moral  disease,  which  is  ante¬ 
 cedent  to  and  independent  of  any  deliberate  choice  of  our  own 
 will,  with  which,  therefore,  we  must  have  come  into  being.  Now 
 is  it  consistent  with  the  holiness  and  justice  of  God  to  suppose 
 that  this  disorder  is  due  to  Him  who  is  our  Maker?  Does  it  not 
 seem  to  make  Him  the  author  of  moral  evil,  and  so  infringe  on 
 His  perfect  holiness  ?  Does  it  not  also  imply  that  He  has  brought 
 us  into  being  inadequately  furnished  with  moral  powers,  and 
 incapable  of  that  virtue  which  He  requires  of  us  ;  and  would  not 
 
 ill 
 
I  I  2 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 this  be  inconsistent  with  fair  and  equitable  dealing  towards  His 
 creatures  ?  These  questions  point  to  the  most  perplexing  problem 
 in  theology, — a  problem  of  which  no  completely  satisfactory  solu¬ 
 tion  has  ever  been  given,  but  on  which  some  light  is  thrown  by 
 the  scriptural  representations  of  the  solidarity  of  the  human  race. 
 
 The  explanation  which  the  Bible  suggests  of  the  facts  of  human 
 sin  and  depravity  consists,  in  general,  in  the  representation,  that 
 mankind  is  an  organic  unity,  and  that  as  such  it  is  an  apostate 
 race,  fallen  and  estranged  from  God. 
 
 The  various  races  of  men  are  all  represented  as  sprung  from 
 one  stock.  Eve  is  so  called  because  she  was  the  mother  of  all 
 living  (Gen.  iii.  20),  and  by  the  sons  of  Noah  the  whole  earth  was 
 overspread  (ix.  19).  Such  is  the  record  of  the  early  ages  ;  and  to 
 it  Jesus  referred  when  He  traced  the  divine  law  of  marriage  for 
 all  men  to  the  fact  that  God  made  man  at  the  beginning  male 
 and  female  (Matt.  xix.  4-6  ;  Mark  x.  6-9).  So  Paul  declared  to 
 the  Athenians  that  God  “  made  of  one  all  nations  of  men,  to  dwell 
 on  all  the  face  of  the  earth  ”  (Acts  xvii.  26).  The  unity  of  the 
 human  race  is  the  notion  underlying  that  humanity,  recognition 
 of  the  rights  and  dignity  of  all  men,  however  degraded,  and  feel¬ 
 ing  of  brotherhood  to  all,  which  is  a  special  mark  of  Christianity 
 compared  with  most  of  the  ethnic  religions  ;  and  this  notion,  as 
 far  at  least  as  regards  the  specific  unity  of  the  race,  is  fully  borne 
 out  by  science  and  philosophy.  Whatever  view  be  taken  of  the 
 origin  of  mankind,  all  men  have  undoubtedly  the  same  physical, 
 intellectual,  and  moral  nature  ;  and  this  implies  that  they  may 
 have  been  all  descended  from  one  ancestral  pair. 
 
 Whether  they  actually  were  so  descended  or  not,  science  and 
 history  cannot  with  any  certainty  determine.  The  affinities  and 
 the  genealogical  relations  of  the  languages,  myths,  and  customs 
 of  the  most  widely  distant  nations,  make  it  highly  probable  that 
 they  have  been  ;  and  the  principle  of  parsimony  is  adverse  to  the 
 assumption  of  a  plurality  of  causes  for  what  could  be  explained  by 
 one  ;  but  in  the  absence  of  positive  proof,  these  presumptions  are 
 not  conclusive,  and  they  might  be  overcome.  Nor  does  Scripture 
 
THE  INHERITANCE  AND  IMPUTATION  OF  SIN.  113 
 
 lay  any  great  stress  on  the  assertion  of  the  actual  physical  descent 
 of  all  men  from  one  pair ;  what  it  chiefly  insists  on  is,  that  the 
 first  man  represented  all  mankind,  and  by  his  fall  brought  sin  and 
 death  on  all.1 
 
 The  facts  of  human  nature  and  history  point  to  the  conclusion 
 that  God  has  made  the  whole  of  mankind  a  unity,  in  such  a  way 
 that  the  characters  and  experiences  of  every  member  of  it  are 
 inseparably  connected  with  those  of  his  brethren  and  of  the  entire 
 race.  No  man  can  stand  aloof  by  and  for  himself  alone  ;  whether 
 he  will  or  no,  he  is  influenced  by  the  others,  and  in  turn  influences 
 them.  We  do  so  in  many  different  ways  ;  but  probably  the  most 
 powerful,  though  the  most  mysterious,  is  that  of  heredity.  The 
 characters  of  parents  are  reproduced  in  their  children  generation 
 after  generation,  and  these  often  reap  the  fruit  of  what  their 
 fathers  have  sown. 
 
 Nature  and  history  show  us  this  as  a  fact,  but  revelation 
 teaches  us  to  see  in  it  an  appointment  of  God,  who  “visits  the 
 iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,  upon  the  third  and  upon 
 the  fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate  Him  ;  and  shows  mercy 
 unto  a  thousand  generations  of  them  that  love  Him,  and  keep 
 His  commandments”  (Ex.  xx.  6;  Deut.  vii.  9);  yet  so  that  a 
 repentant  and  reforming  son  shall  not  die  for  the  sin  of  his 
 parents,  nor  a  backsliding  son  be  saved  because  of  their 
 obedience,  and  in  the  ultimate  judgment  the  principle  is  “the 
 soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die  ”  (Ezek.  xviii.).  This  implies  that 
 the  law  of  heredity  is  recognised  by  God  in  His  dealing  with 
 mankind  in  the  course  of  their  history  on  the  earth  ;  though  in 
 the  decision  of  the  final  destiny  of  men,  individual  responsibility 
 comes  to  the  front.  All  men  inherit  from  our  first  parents,  not 
 only  a  bad  example,  but  a  nature  prone  to  sin,  and  radically 
 
 1  It  has  been  said  that  only  on  tire  supposition  of  “  first  parents”  can  the 
 universality  of  sin  be  explained  ;  but  this  is  not  absolutely  true,  for  Bushnell, 
 in  his  Nature  and  the  Supernatural,  has  given  a  view  which  is  independent 
 of  that,  and  yet  does  not  really  make  sin  a  necessity.  Still  the  descent  of  all 
 men  from  -qne  pair  is  more  probable. 
 
 II 
 
ii4 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 disordered ;  and  all  our  moral  and  spiritual  history,  and  the 
 circumstances  of  our  conflict  with  temptation  and  sin,  are 
 affected  by  the  first  sin  of  the  race. 
 
 In  virtue  of  this  unity  of  mankind,  God  deals  with  the  race  in 
 its  entirety  as  an  apostate  and  sinful  race,  since  the  sin  of  its  first 
 progenitors  has  infected  all  their  descendants.  Hence  all  the 
 calamities  and  sufferings,  which  the  Bible  teaches  us  to  regard  as 
 visitations  of  God’s  holy  anger  against  sin,  come  upon  young 
 children  who  have  no  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  and  therefore 
 no  personal  responsibility,  as  well  as  on  those  who  are  actually 
 guilty.  They  suffer  for  the  sins  of  their  parents,  and  ultimately 
 of  the  first  man,  Adam,  without  any  actual  sin  of  their  own  ; 
 and  we  all  suffer  for  that  first  transgression,  in  addition  to  our 
 own  sins. 
 
 This  fact  is  referred  to  by  Paul  in  Rom.  v.  12-21  as  affording 
 an  analogy  to  the  great  truth  of  the  gospel,  that  all  believers  are 
 forgiven  and  accepted  as  righteous  on  account  of  the  obedience 
 and  sacrifice  of  the  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  called  from 
 this  very  analogy  “  the  last  Adam,”  “the  second  Man  ”(1  Cor. 
 xv.  45,  47  ;  comp.  21,  22),  i.e.  the  only  other  man  who  has  been  a 
 representative  of  the  whole  race,  and  whose  actions  have  affected 
 all  men.  Because  of  the  parallel  thus  plainly  drawn,  it  has  been 
 inferred,  that,  as  Paul  says  of  those  who  are  forgiven  for  Christ’s 
 sake,  that  God  imputes  to  them  righteousness  apart  from  works 
 (Rom.  iv.  6),  we  may  say  of  all  men,  since  they  suffer  for  the 
 transgression  of  the  first  man,  that  God  imputes  to  them  sin. 
 Hence  the  imputation  of  Adam’s  sin  to  all  mankind  has  been 
 generally  asserted  as  a  doctrine  of  theology,  and  has  been 
 thought  by  many  to  throw  some  light  on  the  perplexing  problem 
 of  the  universality  of  sin  and  of  suffering,  although  to  others  it 
 has  seemed  rather  to  increase  its  difficulty. 
 
 It  should  be  remembered  that  the  term  imputation,  as  applied 
 to  the  relation  of  Adam’s  sin  to  mankind,  is  only  an  inference 
 from,  and  not  an  express  statement  of,  Scripture  ;  and,  therefore, 
 the  authority  of  God’s  word  can  only  be  pleaded  for  the  general 
 
THE  INHERITANCE  AND  IMPUTATION  OF  SIN.  I  T 5 
 
 statement  that  by  the  offence  of  the  one  the  many  were  made 
 sinners,  and  not  for  the  particular  notions  that  may  be  conceived 
 to  be  implied  in  imputation.  Also,  while  Paul  teaches  that  there 
 is  a  general  analogy  between  our  ruin  through  Adam  and  our 
 salvation  through  Christ,  he  also  states  that  there  are  several 
 very  important  differences  between  the  two  cases  (Rom.  v.  15-17) ; 
 and  his  whole  statement  about  the  effects  of  the  sin  of  the  first 
 man  is  incidental,  and  subordinate  to  his  declarations  about  the 
 salvation  of  Christ,  which  it  is  his  main' object  to  illustrate. 
 
 It  is  very  important  here  to  draw  a  broad  and  plain  distinction 
 between  what  the  Bible  really  teaches  on  this  subject  and  the 
 doctrines  or  theories  that  have  been  drawn  from  it  by  inference 
 and  logical  reasoning,  frequently  with  the  aid  of  the  principles  or 
 results  of  some  philosophical  system  or  other.  Such  doctrines 
 have  their  value  as  intellectual  efforts  to  understand  God’s  ways  ; 
 but  they  are  only  theories  based  on  Scripture,  and  it  is  wrong 
 and  dangerous  to  hold  Scripture  itself  as  committed  to  anything 
 beyond  what  it  really  teaches.  What  it  teaches  is,  that  there  is 
 a  unity  or  solidarity  in  the  human  race,  in  virtue  of  which  the 
 transgression  of  its  first  parents  has  entailed  on  all  its  members 
 manifold  sufferings  and  a  tendency  to  sin,  from  which  none  is 
 free.  Mankind  is  treated  by  God  as  an  apostate  or  sinful  race, 
 which  indeed  it  is.  The  race  as  a  whole  is  out  of  communion 
 with  God,  having  lost  that  precious  blessing  by  the  sin  of  its  first 
 parents.  God  regards  men  as  a  seed  of  evil-doers,  and  deals 
 with  them  accordingly  ;  not,  indeed,  in  strict  justice  or  unmixed 
 wrath,  but  with  mercy  and  with  judgment.  This  fact,  which  is 
 borne  out  by  the  moral  state  of  the  world  and  the  course  of 
 Divine  Providence,  as  well  as  by  the  representations  of  Scripture, 
 has  generally  been  described  by  theologians  by  the  doctrine  of 
 the  imputation  to  the  whole  race  of  the  sin  of  its  first  parents. 
 The  doctrine  seems  a  legitimate  inference  from  the  statements 
 of  Paul,  that  “  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death 
 by  sin  ;  and  so  death  passed  unto  all  men,  for  that  all  sinned  ;  ” 
 that  “  by  the  trespass  of  the  one  the  many  died ;  ”  that  “  the 
 
I  1 6  THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 judgment  came  of  one  unto  condemnation;55  and  that  “by  one 
 man’s  disobedience  the  many  were  made  sinners55  (Rom.  v.  12, 
 15,  16,  19),  though  it  should  be  remembered  that  all  these  occur 
 in  one  paragraph,  and,  therefore,  they  have  not  the  force  of 
 separate  and  independent  testimonies,  and  also  that  they  are  not 
 the  proper  subject  of  Paul’s  teaching  in  this  place,  but  incidental 
 statements  by  way  of  illustration.  However,  they  declare  what 
 is  a  great  reality  in  regard  to  God’s  dealing  with  the  human  race, 
 that  He  treats  it  as  having  a  unity  and  solidarity,  so  that  each  man 
 does  not  bear  merely  his  own  sin,  but  a  share  of  that  of  the  race ; 
 and  this  may  be  expressed  by  saying  that  the  guilt  of  the  first 
 sin  is  imputed  to  all  mankind,  as  well  as  the  corruption  of  nature 
 caused  by  it  transmitted  to  them  all.  By  guilt  in  this  connection 
 must  be  understood,  not  moral  culpability  ( culpa\  but  legal 
 responsibility  ( 'reatus ),  or  liability  to  punishment. 
 
 This  general  statement  is  all  that  can  be  said  to  have  the 
 positive  authority  of  Scripture  ;  but  since  it  goes  only  a  little  way 
 to  explain  the  perplexing  facts  of  the  case,  theologians,  for  many 
 ages  past,  have  attempted,  by  means  of  inferential  reasoning  and 
 speculation,  to  attain  a  more  complete  explanation,  and  to 
 construct  a  more  systematic  theory  about  original  sin  and 
 imputed  guilt.  Their  explanations  have  taken  different  forms, 
 and  there  have  sometimes  been  keen  disputes  between  the 
 advocates  of  different  theories.  The  differences  have  turned 
 chiefly  on  the  nature  of  the  union  or  unity  of  the  human  race,  in 
 virtue  of  which  sin  and  death  have  passed  through  to  all  men. 
 
 One  theory  holds  that  there  is  a  real  unity  of  substance  in 
 humanity,  so  that  what  God  made  at  first  was  the  whole  mass  of 
 mankind,  contained  really  or  seminally  in  the  progenitors  of  the 
 race.  Adam  was  the  universal  man,  and  all  the  individuals  of 
 the  race  are  just  that  one  generic  substance  that  was  in  him, 
 unfolded  and  divided  out.  This  is  the  theory  of  Realism, 
 dominant  in  the  Middle  Ages  and  held  by  some  able  men  still ; 1 
 
 1  As  Dr.  Wm.  G.  T.  Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology  and  Ernest  Naville,  The 
 Problem  of  Evil. 
 
THE  INHERITANCE  AND  IMPUTATION  OF  SIN.  1  I  7 
 
 and,  according  to  it,  God  simply  allowed  the  whole  human  nature 
 to  sin  and  become  corrupt  in  the  person  of  Adam,  from  which  it 
 necessarily  followed  that  all  his  descendants  were  born  in  sin. 
 This  could  not  have  been  otherwise  unless  God  had  annihilated 
 humanity  after  Adam’s  sin. 
 
 Another  theory,  without  maintaining*  a  unity  of  real  substance 
 in  the  race,  and  admitting  that  the  individuals  are  truly  distinct 
 from  Adam,  yet  supposes  that  the  soul  as  well  as  the  body  of 
 each  one  is  derived  by  propagation  from  the  parents.  This  is 
 known  as  Traducianism,  and  has  also  been  very  largely  held  as 
 an  explanation  of  original  sin.1  According  to  this  view,  God 
 does  not  immediately  create  the  sinful  soul,  but  brings  it  into 
 being  mediately,  like  the  body ;  and  the  soul  is  sinful,  not 
 because  God  makes  it  so,  but  because  it  is  made  sinful  through 
 the  souls  of  ancestors  who  have  freely  sinned. 
 
 A  third  theory  is  that  the  body  only  is  generated  by  the 
 parents,  but  the  soul  is  created  directly  by  God  in  each  indi¬ 
 vidual.2  This  is  known  as  Creationism  ;  and  it  is  certainly  more 
 difficult  to  explain  the  fact  of  original  sin  on  this  view  than  on 
 either  of  the  former,  since  it  regards  the  soul,  which  is  the 
 proper  seat  of  sin,  as  a  new  creation  of  God  in  every  case. 
 Hence  those  who  have  taken  this  view  have  generally  held  also 
 that  there  is  a  federal  or  covenant  oneness  of  the  race,  in  virtue 
 of  which  Adam  was  constituted  by  God  the  representative  of  all 
 his  posterity,  in  what  is  called  the  Covenant  of  Works,  a  doctrine 
 which  has  been  maintained  also  by  many  who  have  held  the 
 other  theories  along  with  it. 
 
 Now  all  these  different  views  are  philosophical  theories,  rather 
 than  expressions  of  religious  faith.  If  any  of  them  can  be 
 established  as  true,  this  must  be  done  by  means  of  metaphysical 
 or  psychological  reasoning.  The  advocates  of  each  do  indeed 
 assert  that  they  are  founded  on  the  revelation  of  Scripture,  but 
 they  do  not  and  cannot  maintain  that  they  are  expressly  taught 
 
 1  So  Luther  and  most  of  the  Lutheran  theologians. 
 
 2  So  Calvin  and  most  of  the  theologians  of  the  Reformed  Church. 
 
I  1 8  THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 there.  Each  class  of  theologians  appeals  to  certain  statements 
 of  Scripture,  and  argues  that  the  necessary  inference  from  them 
 is  the  theory  he  supports.  Thus  the  Realist  points  to  the  places 
 where  it  is  said  that  Levi  paid  tithes  in  Abraham  because  he  was 
 in  the  loins  of  his  father  (Heb.  vii.  9,  10) ;  and  infers  that  in  the 
 same  way,  since  it  is  said  that  in  Adam  all  die,  they  must  have 
 been  in  his  loins  ;  and  again  he  refers  to  the  place  where  Paul 
 says  that,  as  the  potter  with  the  clay,  God  makes  of  one  lump 
 vessels  to  honour  and  to  dishonour  (Rom.  ix.  21,  22),  and  infers 
 that  human  nature  must  be  a  lump  ( massa  corrufttci ),  from  which 
 individuals  are  formed. 
 
 The  Traducianist,  on  his  part,  rests  on  the  passage  where  God 
 is  said  to  have  rested  from  His  work  of  creation  (Gen.  ii.  2,  3), 
 and  holds  that  this  implies  that  He  does  not  create  the  soul  of 
 each  man  at  his  birth  ;  also,  since  the  soul  inherits  sinfulness 
 from  the  parents  of  the  race,  it  must  itself  be  derived  from  them, 
 else  God  would  be  the  creator  of  a  sinful  soul. 
 
 The  Creationist,  in  turn,  infers  his  doctrine  from  God  being 
 called  the  Father  of  spirits  (Heb.  xii.  9),  the  God  of  the  spirits  of 
 all  flesh  (Num.  xvi.  22),  and  being  said  to  form  the  spirit  of  man 
 within  him  (Zech.  xii.  1),  and  give  spirit  to  them  that  dwell  on  the 
 earth  (Isa.  xlii.  5). 
 
 Similarly,  the  doctrine  that  Adam  was  the  federal  representa¬ 
 tive  of  all  his  natural  posterity,  is  based  on  the  parallel  drawn 
 by  Paul  between  Adam  and  Christ,  taken  together  with  the  fact 
 that  the  divine  constitution  by  which  believers  receive  blessings 
 through  Christ  is  called  a  covenant.  Hence  it  is  inferred  that 
 the  relation  of  Adam  to  the  race  was  also  that  of  a  covenant. 
 
 But  all  these  are  large  inferences  from  particular  statements 
 and  forms  of  expression  in  various  parts  of  the  Bible,  inferences 
 which  the  inspired  writers  cannot  reasonably  be  supposed  to 
 have  had  in  view  when  they  made  the  statements  in  question  ; 
 and  they  are  inferences,  not  of  a  properly  religious,  but  of  a 
 philosophical  nature.  It  is,  indeed,  our  right  and  duty  to  draw 
 inferences  from  the  Scriptures,  and  not  to  be  content  with  their 
 
THE  INHERITANCE  AND  IMPUTATION  OF  SIN. 
 
 119 
 
 mere  literal  meaning.  We  may  and  should  allow  its  teaching 
 to  convey  to  us  all  its  natural  and  necessary  consequences  in 
 the  directions  in  which  it  really  points  ;  and  we  may  also  infer 
 from  a  series  of  statements  some  general  religious  principle  that 
 they  imply  as  underlying  them  all.  What  is  fairly  reached  by 
 such  processes  may  properly  claim  the  authority  of  the  Christian 
 revelation.  But  it  is  a  very  different  thing  to  press  incidental 
 utterances  to  logical  implications  in  directions  entirely  away  from 
 the  scope  of  the  writer,  and  to  gather  from  them,  not  merely 
 religious  conceptions,  but  metaphysical  systems.  Who  can 
 imagine,  for  instance,  that  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
 Hebrews,  in  expounding  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  or  exhorting 
 to  patience  in  suffering,  intended  to  express  any  opinion  about 
 the  origin  of  human  souls?  To  treat  his  words  as  if  he  did  is  a 
 Rabbinical  mode  of  exegesis,  not  a  true  grammatical  and  his¬ 
 torical  one. 
 
 The  inference  on  which  the  federal  or  representative  theory 
 rests  is  more  legitimate  than  these,  because,  although  the  name 
 covenant  is  nowhere  in  Scripture  directly  given  to  God’s  dealings 
 with  our  first  parents,  yet  Paul  clearly  believed  and  taught  that 
 Adam’s  transgression  brought  sin  and  death  on  all  mankind  ; 
 and  though,  in  Rom.  v.  and  1  Cor.  xv.,  he  introduces  this  as  an 
 illustration  of  our  redemption  by  Christ,  yet  he  is  so  careful  to 
 prove  it,  in  Rom.  v.  13,  14,  that  it  seems  to  be  a  substantial  part 
 of  his  doctrine  ;  and  since  it  is  not  a  philosophical  but  a  properly 
 religious  doctrine,  we  may  accept  it  on  his  authority.  It 
 is  not  proved  by  this  that  there  was  an  express  and  formal 
 covenant  of  God  with  our  first  parents,  in  a  way  at  all  similar 
 to  that  in  which  we  read  of  His  making  a  covenant  with  Abraham 
 or  with  Israel.  All  that  is  said  in  the  Biblical  narrative  is  that 
 God  gave  Adam  a  command  not  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  the  know¬ 
 ledge  of  good  and  evil,  because  in  the  day  he  did  so  he  should 
 surely  die  ;  thereby  giving  implicitly  an  assurance  that  so  long 
 as  he  obeyed  he  should  not  die.  Thus  we  can  only  speak  of  a 
 tacit  covenant.  Further,  it  is  not  said  or  implied  that  Adam 
 
I  20 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 voluntarily  accepted  the  command  of  God,  still  less  that  he  had 
 any  knowledge  that  his  posterity  were  to  be  affected  by  his 
 conduct  ;  and  he  was  constituted  their  representative,  not  by  any 
 choice  or  will  on  their  part,  but  by  the  sovereign  appointment  of 
 God.  Thus  the  transaction  is  not  perfectly  analogous  to  those 
 in  which  communities  or  nations  have  to  bear  the  penalty  of 
 actions  done  by  representatives  chosen  or  commissioned  by 
 themselves.  The  notion  of  a  covenant  unity  and  representation 
 of  all  mankind  by  the  first  man  does  not  by  itself  remove  the 
 difficulty  arising  from  their  having  to  suffer  the  consequences  of 
 his  sin  ;  and  to  rely  upon  it  for  that  purpose  is  unwise.  But  it  may 
 fairly  be  used  to  illustrate  the  method  of  the  divine  government, 
 and  to  throw  some  light  on  what  is  dark  and  mysterious  in  it. 
 
 After  all,  the  root  of  the  difficulty  lies  in  the  constitution  of 
 mankind  in  families  and  successive  generations.  If  the  human 
 race  was  to  be  propagated  in  that  way,  it  was  inevitable  that 
 children,  and  children’s  children,  must  be  affected,  to  some 
 degree,  by  the  conduct  of  their  ancestors,  and  ultimately  by  that 
 of  the  first  parents  of  the  race.  Even  were  it  only  by  example 
 and  imitation,  such  an  influence  there  must  have  been,  and  on  the 
 whole  this  arrangement  has  been  highly  favourable  to  human 
 progress.  The  only  conceivable  difference  that  there  could  have 
 been  is  merely  one  of  degree  ;  and  we  may  well  believe  that  the 
 degree  m  which  the  destinies  of  the  race  have  been  affected  by 
 the  conduct  of  our  first  parents,  according  to  the  Covenant  of 
 Works,  is  that  which,  all  things  considered,  was  the  most  proper 
 in  the  view  of  God’s  infinite  wisdom.  This  method  of  federal 
 representation  formed  the  type  and  preparation  for  that  greater 
 and  more  perfect  covenant,  in  which  an  innumerable  multitude  of 
 sinners  are  saved  and  blessed  through  the  righteousness  of  the 
 one  man  Jesus  Christ,  the  last  Adam,  their  Covenant  Head. 
 
 In  this  broad  and  comprehensive  aspect,  the  federal  unity  of 
 the  race  with  its  first  parents  is  presented  to  us  in  Scripture  ; 
 and  viewed  thus,  though  it  cannot  solve  the  mysterious  enigma 
 of  human  history,  it  gives  us  large  and  elevating  ideas  of  the  all- 
 
THE  INHERITANCE  AND  IMPUTATION  OF  SIN. 
 
 I  2  I 
 
 embracing  plan  of  God,  who  “  hath  shut  up  all  unto  disobedience, 
 that  He  might  have  mercy  on  all  ”  (Rom.  xi.  32). 
 
 The  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam’s  sin  occupies,  in  the 
 Protestant  theology  of  the  seventeenth  century,  proportionately 
 much  more  space  and  importance  than  it  has  in  the  Bible  ;  and 
 the  reason  is,  that  it  was  believed  that  whatever  view  was  taken 
 of  it  must  be  applied  also  to  the  parallel  doctrine  of  the  imputa¬ 
 tion  of  Christ’s  righteousness  to  believers.  Hence,  also,  the 
 importance  attached  to  the  difference  between  what  was  called 
 mediate  and  immediate  imputation.  Some  held  that  we  ought  to 
 conceive  of  the  corruption  which  men  inherit  from  Adam  as 
 forming  the  ground  or  reason  of  the  imputation  of  his  sin  ;  which 
 is  accordingly  consequent  upon,  or  mediated  by,  that  corruption. 
 This  theory  was  introduced  by  Placaeus  of  Saumur,  and  was 
 called  Mediate  or  Consequent  Imputation.  But  the  majority  of 
 Protestant  theologians  held  that  the  imputation  of  guilt  was 
 directly  grounded  on  Adam’s  sin,  and  antecedent,  in  the  order 
 of  nature,  to  the  inheritance  of  corruption. 
 
 This  seems  a  difference  on  a  very  obscure  point,  and  of  no 
 great  moment ;  but  since,  in  the  doctrine  of  salvation,  it  is  of 
 vital  importance  to  maintain  that  believers  are  justified  directly 
 on  account  of  Christ,  to  whom  they  are  united  by  faith,  and  not 
 on  the  ground  of  their  own  renewed  character,  it  appeared  neces¬ 
 sary  to  hold  a  similar  direct  relation  between  the  condemnation 
 of  the  race  and  the  sin  of  its  first  covenant  head.  It  was  for 
 this  reason  that  Dr.  Chalmers,  in  his  later  years,  abandoned 
 the  theory  of  mediate  imputation,  which  he  had  previously 
 adopted  from  Edwards.1  On  the  other  hand,  those  who  studied 
 the  doctrine  of  sin  by  itself,  especially  if  they  could  not  accept 
 the  theory  either  of  a  realistic  or  of  a  federal  oneness  with  Adam, 
 felt  that  the  imputation  of  his  sin  needed  some  ground  to  justify 
 it ;  and  some  statements  of  Scripture,  especially  in  Ezek.  xviii., 
 seemed  to  make  the  inheritance  of  a  sinful  character  such  a 
 ground. 
 
 1  See  1 nstitutes  of  Theology,  Part  T.  eh.  vi. 
 
122 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 But  these  inferences  on  both  sides  assume  that  Scripture 
 analogies  are  exact  and  perfect  in  every  point  not  expressly 
 excepted.  If  Paul  meant  to  say,  that  the  parallel  between 
 Adam  and  Christ  holds  in  every  respect  except  those  in 
 which  he  says  they  differ,  then  the  argument  for  immediate 
 imputation  is  good ;  and  if  the  imputation  of  Adam’s  sin  is 
 exactly  analogous  to  the  cases  spoken  of  by  Ezekiel,  the  infer¬ 
 ence  in  favour  of  mediate  imputation  would  be  valid.  But 
 neither  of  these  assumptions  is  certain  ;  and  as  both  cannot  be 
 true,  the  probability  is  that  neither  is  so.  It  would  seem,  there¬ 
 fore,  that  this  is  a  question  which,  like  those  of  Realism,  Creation¬ 
 ism,  Traducianism,  and  the  like,  cannot  be  decided  by  Scripture, 
 but  must  be  left  open. 
 
 One  effect  of  the  exaggerated  importance  and  over  minute 
 definition  given  to  this  doctrine  has  been,  that  many  theologians, 
 believing  that  all  men  inherit  depravity  from  our  first  parents, 
 have  denied  entirely  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam’s 
 sin.  Since  that  doctrine  has  come  to  be  understood  in  different 
 senses,  which  are  sometimes  very  confusing,  and  has  been  made 
 the  ground  of  so  much  extra-scriptural  dogmatising,  one  cannot 
 wonder  that  they  have  thought  it  better  to  discard  it  entirely, 
 and  to  keep  to  what  is  much  more  prominent  in  the  Bible, 
 and  much  more  important  for  practical  and  religious  purposes. 
 Oosterzee  1  is  a  very  good  representative  of  this  form  of  thought. 
 
 1  See  Christian  Dogmatics ,  section  lxxv. 
 
CHAPTER  XII. 
 
 ELEMENTS  OF  HOPE  IN  MAN’S  SINFUL  STATE. 
 
 While  the  Christian  revelation  testifies  the  state  of  mankind  to 
 be  a  very  sad  and  deplorable  one,  and  gives  a  clearer  view  and  a 
 deeper  sense  of  the  awfulness  of  moral  evil,  as  sin  against  God, 
 and  of  the  strong  hold  that  it  has  on  all  men  by  nature,  it  does 
 not  represent  man’s  condition  as  at  all  hopeless.  The  purpose  of 
 its  teaching  on  this  subject  is,  not  to  drive  men  to  despair,  but  to 
 lead  them  to  hope  and  faith  in  God.  Indeed,  even  some  of  the 
 dark  features  in  its  picture  of  human  sin  afford,  when  rightly 
 viewed,  elements  of  hopefulness. 
 
 Thus  for  one  thing,  the  doctrine  that  man’s  sinfulness  has 
 come  by  a  fall,  and  is  not  a  necessary  and  inevitable  evil,  inherent 
 in  his  very  nature,  as  a  finite  or  as  a  corporeal  being,  affords  ground 
 of  hope.  If  the  sinfulness  of  man  had  been  due  to  the  essential 
 evil  of  matter,  or  to  the  unavoidable  limitations  of  a  finite  being, 
 or  to  the  necessary  contrasts  of  individual  life  ;  then  deliverance 
 from  it  would  be  absolutely  impossible  as  long  as  men  remain 
 finite,  corporeal  individuals.  But  since,  according  to  the  Bible, 
 it  is  due  to  no  such  cause  ;  but  has  proceeded  from  the  free  will 
 of  a  being  created  upright,  and  is  the  corruption  of  a  nature  that 
 is  in  its  essence  good ;  deliverance  from  it  is  not  impossible. 
 The  corruption  is,  indeed,  so  deep  and  inveterate,  that  man  can¬ 
 not  deliver  himself  from  it ;  his  salvation  must  come  from  God. 
 But  his  nature  is  still  capable  of  redemption  ;  the  divine  image 
 in  which  he  was  created,  though  sadly  defaced,  may  be  restored 
 to  even  more  than  its  original  brightness.  Even  the  lowest 
 savage  has  some  idea  of  God ;  he  has  a  conscience  which, 
 
 123 
 
124  THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 though  it  may  be  perverted  and  blunted,  gives  a  knowledge  of 
 moral  good  and  evil,  and  a  heart  whose  affections  may  be 
 touched  by  the  revelation  of  the  love  of  God,  as  seen  in  the  life 
 and  death  of  Christ. 
 
 Again,  the  doctrine  of  man’s  entire  inability  to  deliver  himself 
 from  the  bondage  of  sin,  while  it  gives  a  humbling  view  of  his  con¬ 
 dition,  and  one  that  has  ever  been  distasteful  to  human  pride  and 
 self-conceit,  has  yet,  as  presented  in  the  gospel,  a  hopeful  side. 
 For  it  is  taught  in  connection  with  the  announcement,  that 
 though  we  have  destroyed  ourselves,  in  God  is  our  help  found  ; 
 that  He  has  sent  His  Son  to  seek  and  to  save  the  lost,  and  sends 
 forth  His  Holy  Spirit  to  convince  us  of  sin  and  lead  us  to  Christ, 
 in  whom  we  have  forgiveness  and  renewal.  Since  we  are  wholly 
 unable  to  save  ourselves,  God  in  His  grace  takes  this  work  upon 
 Himself ;  and  if  we  but  trust  to  Christ  as  our  Saviour,  and  follow 
 Him  as  our  Lord  and  Leader,  we  have  an  assurance  of  being 
 delivered  from  our  wretched  captivity  under  sin.  If  we  had 
 power  left  to  save  ourselves,  it  must  have  depended  on  our  own 
 efforts,  and  on  our  success  in  a  hard  and  unequal  conflict,  of 
 which  the  issue  could  not  be  certain.  But  now,  since  we  are 
 helpless,  the  power  that  saves  us  must  be  God’s  ;  and  if  wre  have 
 God’s  power  with  us,  the  struggle,  though  hard,  is  not  uncertain. 
 Victory  over  sin  is  within  the  reach  of  the  most  guilty,  the  most 
 degraded,  the  veriest  slave  of  vice,  if  only  he  will  lay  hold  of 
 God’s  mercy  in  Christ,  and  by  His  grace  turn  from  sin  to 
 God. 
 
 This  is  not  merely  a  doctrine  to  be  received  on  authority,  even 
 that  of  Christ,  it  is  an  actual  fact.  Salvation  is  a  reality  in 
 human  experience,  as  truly  as  sin.  It  is  a  sad  and  terrible  fact 
 that  sin  reigns  ;  that  men  and  women  all  around  us  are  under  the 
 dominion  of  evil  passions,  desires,  and  habits,  worldly,  selfish, 
 avaricious,  ungodly.  But  it  is  no  less  true  and  certain,  that 
 many  men  and  women  all  around  us  have  been  delivered  from 
 this  bondage,  and  have  been  enabled  to  deny  ungodliness  and 
 worldly  lusts,  and  to  live  soberly,  and  righteously,  and  godly. 
 
ELEMENTS  OF  HOPE  IN  MAN’S  SINFUL  STATE.  1 25 
 
 No  candid  man  can  deny  that  there  are,  beside  all  the  formalists 
 and  hypocrites  who  disgrace  religion,  truly  sincere,  good,  pious, 
 loving  people,  striving  against  indwelling  sin,  and,  amid  many 
 failings,  gradually  conquering  it.  These  facts  are  undeniable. 
 But  the  question  is,  How  have  these  become  more  godly  and  less 
 sinful  than  others?  Is  it  because  they  have  not  been  so  deeply 
 corrupted  ;  because  they  have  had  finer  natures,  or  more  genial 
 circumstances  ;  or  because  human  nature  not  being  totally  de¬ 
 praved,  they  have  been  able,  by  efforts  of  will,  by  heroic  self- 
 denial  or  self-discipline,  to  make  themselves  better  than  others  ? 
 Oh,  if  this  were  so,  what  hope  would  there  be  for  those  who  are 
 of  coarser  nature,  or  in  less  favourable  circumstances,  or  who 
 have  not  the  strength  of  will  or  power  of  endurance  to  attain 
 such  heights  of  virtue?  But  since  it  is  not  so,  but  the  godly 
 have  been  saved  from  sin,  as  they  all  thankfully  acknowledge, 
 not  by  their  own  efforts,  but  by  the  grace  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ ; 
 then  there  is  hope  for  every  one  ;  for  where  sin  abounded,  grace 
 did  much  more  abound.  The  existence  of  any  true  Christians  in 
 the  world  at  all  is  a  practical  proof  to  every  sinner  that  he  may 
 be  saved  from  sin,  and  that  he  certainly  shall  be  saved  if  he  will 
 but  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  He  is  freely  offered  in 
 the  gospel.  True,  he  will  not  be  entirely  delivered  at  once  ;  but 
 he  will  be  entirely  forgiven  and  received  into  God’s  favour  for 
 Christ’s  sake  as  soon  as  he  accepts  Him  as  his  Saviour,  and  he 
 will  receive  in  his  soul,  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  new  affection 
 of  love  to  God  and  Christ  which  will  have  an  expulsive  power  to 
 banish  the  love  of  self  and  the  world.  Thus  the  old  man,  or 
 indwelling  sin,  will  receive  its  death-blow.  But  it  will  not  be 
 destroyed  magically,  without  an  effort  and  struggle  of  his  own 
 will.  Corruption  remains  in  the  regenerate,  and  is  still  sinful  and 
 hateful  to  God,  as  it  now  is  also  to  themselves.  But  it  shall  not 
 have  dominion  over  them ;  it  may  struggle  long  and  be  hard  to 
 overcome,  but  the  earnest  Christian  will  work  out  his  own  salva¬ 
 tion  with  fear  and  trembling,  since  it  is  God  that  worketh  in  him 
 both  to  will  and  to  do  of  His  good  pleasure. 
 
126 
 
 THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 Further,  the  Christian  doctrine  of  man’s  sinful  state  is  hopeful, 
 because  of  the  high  ideal  which  it  implies.  Any  theory  that 
 takes  a  less  severe  view  of  human  guilt  and  depravity  must  lower 
 the  standard  by  which  men  are  to  be  judged.  Absolute  sinless¬ 
 ness  is  not  to  be  required  or  expected  ;  some  sins  are  venial,  and 
 the  commission  of  them  is  not  inconsistent  with  moral  perfection ; 
 or  sins  that  are  involuntary,  that  proceed  from  the  natural  con¬ 
 stitution  of  a  man,  he  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  ;  or  desires 
 that  are  not  yielded  to  by  the  will,  cannot  be  held  sinful ;  or 
 earnestness  and  sincerity  are  all  that  is  needful  for  Christian 
 perfection  :  such  are  some  of  the  ideas  adopted  by  those  who 
 shrink  from  the  recognition  of  man’s  utter  sinfulness.  But  all 
 these  lower  the  ideal  of  human  character,  and  in  so  doing 
 degrade  man,  and  deprive  him  of  the  high  hope  of  moral  perfec¬ 
 tion.  The  teaching  that  insists  on  the  unbending  authority  of 
 the  law  of  absolute  holiness — “Be  ye  perfect,  as  your  Father  in 
 heaven  is  perfect ;  ”  “  Be  ye  holy,  for  I  am  holy  ;  ”  “  Except  your 
 righteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the  scribes  and 
 Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ” — ■ 
 while  it  stamps  man’s  actual  character  with  more  and  deeper 
 sinfulness,  also  honours  him,  even  as  he  now  is,  by  the  very 
 loftiness  of  the  standard  it  sets  before  him.  The  greatness  and 
 the  blessedness  of  Christianity  are  seen,  as  much  in  the  greatness 
 of  its  commands  as  of  its  promises.  For  in  Christ  the  commands 
 are  promises,  since  God  gives  what  He  commands.  That  high 
 ideal  of  holiness  need  not  be  despaired  of  by  any.  It  is,  indeed, 
 beyond  the  power  of  any,  even  the  best,  to  attain  by  his  own  will 
 or  efforts  ;  but,  by  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus,  it  may  be 
 attained  even  by  the  worst ;  and  whosoever  will  trust  to  Christ  as 
 his  Saviour  shall  assuredly  attain  it. 
 
 Further,  the  circumstance  that  all  men  have  been  involved  in 
 sin  and  suffering  through  the  fall  of  our  first  parents,  and  that 
 God  deals  with  the  human  race  as  one  whole,  has  also  a  hopeful 
 as  well  as  a  dark  side.  It  makes  the  ruin  that  has  come  through 
 the  first  sin  of  man  most  terrible  and  widespread,  but  it  also 
 
ELEMENTS  OF  HOPE  IN  MAN’S  SINFUL  STATE.  127 
 
 shows  us  how  a  salvation  as  far-reaching  is  possible.  For,  as 
 Paul  teaches,  it  is  in  the  same  way  as  we  suffer  for  the  dis¬ 
 obedience  of  the  first  Adam  that  we  are  saved  by  the  obedience 
 of  the  last  Adam.  If  there  had  been  no  room  in  the  divine 
 government  for  the  principle  of  solidarity,  and  the  representation 
 of  many  by  one  ;  if  God  dealt  with  His  creatures  purely  and  only 
 as  individuals,  so  that  no  one  should  suffer  in  consequence  of  the 
 wrong-doing  of  any  other  :  then  it  would  be  equally  impossible 
 that  any  one  could  benefit  by  another’s  good  deeds.  Had  that 
 been  so,  not  only  would  a  great  source  of  sympathy,  and  kindli¬ 
 ness,  and  love  among  men  have  been  closed  up,  but  that  gracious 
 covenant  would  have  been  excluded,  by  which  God,  for  the 
 sake  of  the  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  Christ,  freely  forgives 
 and  receives  into  His  favour  those  who  believe  in  Him,  and 
 also  extends  a  gracious  forbearance  and  a  free  offer  of  mercy 
 to  all  men. 
 
 But  now  we  are  involved  in  a  common  ruin,  the  more  sad 
 and  awful  because  it  is  as  universal  as  humanity  ;  but  by  its 
 very  universality  we  learn  to  feel  with  and  for  our  fellow-men, 
 to  take  heed  not  only  to  what  we  receive  from  our  ancestors, 
 but  to  what  we  transmit  to  those  who  come  after  us,  and  to 
 believe  that  as  sin  has  reigned  unto  death,  so  grace  shall 
 reign  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life  by  Jesus  Christ 
 our  Lord. 
 
 Here,  too,  they  are  actual  facts  with  which  we  have  to  do. 
 The  miseries  of  human  life  are  realities,  and  the  Christian 
 doctrine  that  traces  them  back  to  sin  as  their  cause,  and  that  to 
 an  inherited  inclination  to  evil,  is  borne  out  by  facts.  In  sober 
 truth,  the  world  is  manifestly  under  the  displeasure  of  God ;  and 
 that  justly,  for  it  is  an  evil  world.  But  it  is  equally  plain  that  it 
 has  not  been  cast  off  by  God,  nay,  that  it  receives  very  remark¬ 
 able  tokens  of  His  mercy  and  grace.  It  is  a  world  lying  in  the 
 wicked  one,  a  world  of  which  Satan  is  prince  ;  yet  it  is  declared 
 at  the  same  time  that  God  loves  it,  and  has  given  His  only- 
 begotten  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world.  The  true  humanity 
 
128  THE  BIBLICAL  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN. 
 
 does  not  consist  of  those  who  yield  to  Satan  and  obey  him  as 
 their  prince,  but  of  those  who  are  in  Christ ;  they  are  the  true 
 seed  of  the  woman.  Christ,  and  not  Adam,  is  the  true  Head  of 
 humanity,  and  all  that  was  lost  by  Adam’s  sin  is  restored,  and  far 
 more  than  restored,  by  the  life  and  death  of  Christ. 
 
 MORRISON  AND  GIBB,  PRINTERS,  EDINBURGH. 
 
Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer  Library 
 
 01 
 
 2  01145  4602 
 
 Date  Due 
 
 je  1  0  ■» 
 
 ■S  n  , 
 
 MARI  3T? 
 
 ,-•£«  _ _ 
 
 ^***111  id  I .  ■