Orthodoxy: Its Truths And Errors Part 12

We commence with the subject of human sinfulness; in other words, with the character of man in relation to Orthodoxy. The theology of the East asked, "What is G.o.d?" and entered on its course from the specially theological side. It began with ontology, and proceeded to psychology. In this, Oriental theology followed in the path of Oriental philosophy. But Occidental theology, originating strictly with Augustine, followed the practical and experimental method of European thought, and, instead of asking, "What is G.o.d?" asked, instead, "What is man?"

We begin, therefore, with the great question, "What is man?" This is the radical question in practical, experimental theology, as the question, "What is G.o.d?" is the radical question in speculative theology. But we are now concerned in the theology of experience and of life. We are seeking for human wants. Knowing what man is, we can next ask what he needs.

-- 2. The four Moments or Characters of Evil. The Fall, Natural Depravity, Total Depravity, Inability.

Orthodoxy answers the question, "What is man?" by saying, "Man is a sinner;" and this answer has these four moments:-

1. Man was created at first righteous and good.

2. Man fell, in and with Adam, and became a sinner.

3. All now born are born totally corrupt and evil;-

4. And are utterly disabled to all good, so as not to have the power of repenting, or even of wis.h.i.+ng to repent.

These four ideas are,-

First, that of THE FALL, or INHERITED EVIL.

Second, of NATURAL DEPRAVITY.

Third, of TOTAL DEPRAVITY.

Fourth, of INABILITY.

These points are fully stated in the following pa.s.sage from the "a.s.sembly's Confession of Faith," chap. 6:-

"1. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin G.o.d was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit; having purposed to order it to his own glory.

"2. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness, and communion with G.o.d; and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.

"3. They being the root of all mankind, the _guilt_ of this sin was IMPUTED, and the same _death in sin, and corrupted nature_, CONVEYED, to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.

"4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

"5. This corruption of nature during this life doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be, through Christ, pardoned and mortified, yet both itself and all the motions thereof are truly and properly sin.

"6. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of G.o.d, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of G.o.d and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal."(13)

We a.s.sume the "a.s.sembly's Catechism" as almost _the_ standard of Orthodoxy. It was prepared with the concurrence of the best minds in England, in an age when theological discussion had sharpened all wits in that direction. Thoroughly Calvinistic, it is also a wonderfully clear and precise statement of Calvinism. Framed after long controversies, it had the advantage of all the distinctions which are made only during controversy. It is a fortress made defensible at all points, because it has been attacked so often that all its weak places have been seen and marked. It is a masterpiece of statement.

Now, it is very easy, and what has often been done, _to stand on the outside_ and show the actual error and logical absurdity of this creed; to show that men are not by nature totally depraved, and that, if they were, this would not be guilt; that, if they have no power to repent, they are not to blame for not repenting; and that G.o.d, as a G.o.d of justice even (to say nothing of mercy, of love, of a heavenly Father), cannot condemn and punish us for a depraved nature inherited from Adam.

It is easy to say all this. But it has often been said; and with what result? Unitarians have been, by such arguments, confirmed in their Unitarianism; but the Orthodox have not, by such arguments, been convinced of the falsity of their creed. Let us see, then, if we cannot find some truth in this system,-some vital, experimental truth,-for the sake of which the Orthodox cling to these immense and incredible inconsistencies.

Let us take an _inside_ view of Orthodoxy, and see why, being unreasonable, it yet commends itself to so many minds of the highest order of reason.

-- 3. Orthodox and Liberal View of Man, as morally diseased or otherwise.

Let us begin with the substance of Orthodoxy (neglecting, at present, its form), and say, in general, that it regards human nature as being in an abnormal or diseased condition. The first thing to be done with man, according to Calvinism, is to cure him. Many systems, differing from each other in name, agree in this-that they do not believe in any such diseased condition of man. According to them, he is not to be cured, but to be educated. The Church is not a hospital, but an academy. Man needs, mainly, instruction. His purposes, in the main, are right; but he errs as to what he has to do. What he requires is precept and example.

As Orthodoxy believes man to be diseased, its object is twofold, and the truths which it employs are of two kinds. First, it seeks to convince man that he really has a dangerous disease; and then to convince him, that, by using the right means, he can be cured. It therefore constantly dwells upon two cla.s.ses of truths: first, those which reveal man's sinfulness and his ruined condition; and, secondly, those which reveal the plan of saving him from this condition-a plan which has been devised by the Almighty, and which is accomplished in Christianity. Orthodoxy dwells upon sin and salvation: these are its two pivotal doctrines.

On the other hand, all the systems which may be a.s.sociated under the term "Liberal Christianity" regard man, not as in a state of disease, and needing medicine, but as in a state of health, needing diet, exercise, and favorable circ.u.mstances, in order that he may grow up a well-developed individual. It regards sin, not as a radical disease with which all are born, but as a temporary malady to which all are liable. It does not, therefore, mainly dwell on sin and salvation, but on duty and improvement.

Man's nature it regards, not as radically evil, but as radically good; and even as divine, because made by G.o.d.

Here, then, in the doctrine of evil, lies the essential distinction between the two great schools of thought which have divided the Church.

What is evil? and how is it to be regarded? This is, perhaps, the most radical question in Christian theology. Is evil positive, or only negative? Is it a reality, or only a form? What is it? Whence comes it?

Until these questions are exhaustively discussed, there is little hope of union in theology.

-- 4. Sin as Disease.

We regard Orthodoxy as substantially right in its views of sin as being a deep and radical disease. Our Saviour says, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." "The Son of man came to seek and to save that which is lost."

But the question recurs, Is there only one kind of sin,-namely, voluntary and conscious transgression of G.o.d's law, originating with the individual himself, and in the moment of committing it, by means of his free will, which is its only seat? or is there sin which is a tendency in man's nature, something permanent, involuntary, of which he is not conscious, and which has its seat not merely in the will, but in the desires and affections. To this question Liberal Christianity has commonly said, "No,"

and Orthodoxy has said, "Yes."

And on this point I concur with Orthodoxy. Besides the sin which consists in free choice, and which is essentially transient, there is also the sin which consists in wrong desire, and which is essentially permanent, because it is a habit of the mind. If it were not so, there could be no such thing as a bad character, and no such thing as a vicious habit.

If we attempt to a.n.a.lyze evil, we shall find that it may be conveniently distributed into these divisions:-

1. PHYSICAL EVIL.

(_a._) Pain.

(_b._) Weakness.

(_c._) Physical disease.

2. INTELLECTUAL OR MENTAL EVIL.

(_a._) Ignorance.

(_b._) Error, or mistake.

(_c._) Sophism, or falsehood.

3. MORAL EVIL. DISOBEDIENCE TO THE MORAL LAW.

(_a._) Ignorant and accidental, or transgression.