HAMARTIOLOGY

Hamartiology, or the Doctrine of Sin, is frequently treated as a branch of Anthropology. In such cases the doctrine of man is usually considered under two main heads - the status integritas, or man before the fall; and the status corruptionis, or man after the fall. Because of the importance of this doctrine, we prefer to treat it under a separate head. The word Hamartiology is derived from one of the several terms used to express the idea of sin - that of hamartia (amartia), which signifies a deviation from the way or end appointed by God. The term is applicable to sin, both as an act and as a state or condition. As a doctrine it is closely interwoven with all the subsequent stages of theology, and therefore of fundamental importance to the whole system of Christian truth. ""In every religion," said the saintly Fletcher, there is "a principle truth or error which, like the first link of a chain, necessarily draws after it all the parts with which it is essentially connected." In Christian theology this first link is the fact of sin. Since Christianity is a religion of redemption, it is greatly influenced by the various views concerning the nature of sin. Any tendency to minimize sin has its consequences in a less exalted view of the person and work of the Redeemer. The

[In every religion there is a principal truth or error which, like the first link of a chain, necessarily draws after it all the parts with which it is essentially connected. This leading principle, in Christianity, distinguished from deism, is the doctrine of our corrupt and lost estate; for if man is not at variance with his Creator, what need of a Mediator between God and him? If he is not a depraved, undone creature, what necessity of so wonderful a Restorer and Saviour as the Son of God? If he be not enslaved to sin, why is he redeemed by Jesus Christ? If he is not polluted, why must he be washed in the blood of the immaculate Lamb? If his soul is not disordered, what occasion is there for such a divine Physician? If he is not helpless and miserable, why is he perpetually invited to secure the assistance and consolations of the Holy Spirit? And, in a word, if he is not born in sin, why is the new birth so absolutely necessary that Christ declares with the most solemn asseverations, without it no man can see the kingdom of God? - Fletcher of Madeley.]

three great central themes - God, sin and redemption are so interrelated that the views held concerning any one of them profoundly affect the other two.

In this chapter we shall consider the following subjects: (I) The Temptation and Fall of Man; (II) The Origin of Sin; (III) The Doctrine of Satan; and (IV) The Nature and Penalty of Sin.

THE TEMPTATION AND FALL OF MAN

The Historical Character of the Genesis Account. We regard the account of the probation and fall of man found in Genesis 3: 1-24, as an inspired record of historical facts, bound up with a deep and rich symbolism. All attempts to prove the account a collection of myths without divine authority; or to consider it an allegory in the sense of a divinely given illustration of truth apart from historical fact, must fail before the evidence which insists that the account is an integral portion of a continuous historical narrative. To lift this portion from the entire account and treat it as allegory, when the balance of the narrative is admittedly historical, is a procedure contrary to all accepted rules of interpretation. Furthermore the account is assumed as historical throughout both the Old and New Testaments. It is true that our Lord did

[A large proportion of the church fathers, (for example, Justin, Irenæus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Augustine and Theodoret) and also most of the older theologians even in the Protestant church, were united in the opinion that this passage should not be explained as an allegory, although they differed among themselves in the interpretation of particular expressions. They agreed, however, for the most part, in considering the serpent as something else than a mere natural serpent, as it was regarded by Josephus and other Jewish interpreters. Some affirmed that the serpent was simply the devil - an opinion justly controverted by Vitringa, on account of the great difficulties by which it is encompassed. Others, and the greater part of the older Jewish interpreters, supposed that the serpent here spoken of was the instrument which was employed by the evil spirit to seduce mankind. So it is explained by Augustine, who was followed in this by Luther and Calvin; and this, from their time, was the prevailing opinion of Protestant theologians until the middle of the eighteenth century. - Knapp, Chr. Th., p.267.

We would not insist so strongly upon a literal exegesis as to say it is impossible that the account should be figurative, but on the other hand, we do insist that there is no necessity that we should consider it, and no advantage in doing so if we did. The Book of Genesis is historical in all its characteristics; it does not claim to be, nor does it appear to be, anything else than a literal record of actually occurring events. - Raymond, Syst. Th., H, pp.52, 53).]

not directly refer to it; but if His words on divorce be weighed well, it will be seen that in sanctioning the Genesis account as historical, He must have indirectly included also, the account of the fall (cf. Matt. 19: 4, 5; John 8: 44). St. Paul in his epistles frequently refers to the Genesis account as historical (cf. II Cor. 11: 3; I Tim. 2: 13, 14). There are also undeniable allusions to the fall in the Old Testament (cf. Job 31: 33; Hosea 6: 7).

The Spiritual Meaning of the Paradisaical History. Both Bishop Martensen and Dr. Pope call attention to one of the aspects of the Paradisaical history which is overlooked by theologians in general, that is, ""That the scene of Paradise though introduced into human history, belongs to an order of events very different from anything that human experience knows or can rightly appreciate. While the narrative is true, and every circumstance in it real, there is not a feature of the Paradisaical history of man that is purely natural, as we now understand the term. The process of human probation, whether longer or shorter, was supernaturally conducted by symbols, the deep meaning of which we know now only in part, though our first parents perhaps understood them by express teaching. The garden enclosed; the sacramental Tree of Life, the nourishment of conditional immortality; the mystical Tree of Knowledge, the fruit of which would reveal the profound secret of freedom; the one positive precept, representing the whole law;

[It is precisely because Paradise lies outside the conditions of our present experience, that it is so easy a task for criticism to prove the impossibility of our forming for ourselves a picture of the first Adam. There is a certain analogy between the representation of Paradise, of the first conditions of human life; and the representation of the last conditions of human life, that is to say, of a future life. Both lie alike beyond the conditions of present experience; which is the reason why there are so many persons who esteem them as mere pictures of the fancy. But because we are not able to have any empirical intuition of the Paradise of our past or of our future, we are not on that account the less obliged to think of it, as we also see it in faith, as in a glass darkly. Although, therefore, the first Adam stands like a figure in the background of the human race, shrouded in a cloud, and with an undefined outline, a dim memory, as distinct as the recollection of the first awakening to self-consciousness in each individual; yet does the consciousness of the species, when directed upon itself, necessarily return to this dim memory; because without it the consciousness of the species would be entirely wanting in unity and connection. - Martensen, Chr. Dogm., pp.153, 154.]

the symbolical serpent form of the Tempter; the character of the threatenings and their fulfillment on all the parties; the exclusion from the garden and the flaming defenses of the forfeited Eden; all were emblems as well as facts, which almost without exception recur at the close of revelation in their new and higher meaning. Both in Genesis and in Revelation they are symbols or signs with a deep spiritual significance." Thus "the purely historical character of the narrative may be maintained in perfect consistency with a full acknowledgment of the large element of symbolism in it" (Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, pp.10, 11).

Some of the more orthodox theologians of the last century in their efforts to defend the historical character of the Mosaic account, failed to do justice to its rich symbolism. This not only narrowed the range of spiritual truth presented, but the method itself was out of harmony with the general trend of the Scriptures. Thus St. Paul did not deny the historical character of Sarah and Hagar when he said, "Which things are an allegory (Gal. 4: 24); neither did the author of Hebrews deny the historical facts concerning the giving of the law when he drew the parallel between Mount Sinai and Mount Sion (Heb. 12: 18-24). The earlier Arminian and Wesleyan theologians were not under the necessity of combating destructive criticism, and hence took a truer and more scriptural position. Wakefield says that "though the literal sense of the history is thus established, yet that it has in its several parts, but in perfect accordance with the literal interpretation; a mystical sense, is equally to be proved by the Scriptures." Earlier than this Richard

[Dr. Pope says concerning the two trees in the garden, that they are symbols or signs with a deep spiritual significance. "The remembrance of this serves two purposes. It suggests our first parents were bound to their Creator by a religion which made all things around them sacramental, and some things more especially such. And it protects the simple details of the garden from the contempt of unbelievers, who see in them nothing bat what appears on the surface of the narrative. The water of baptism and the eucharistic bread and wine are slight and common things in relation to the amazing realities they signify. But the infidel spirit finds nothing in these symbols to object against as such. Then why should it be thought a thing incredible that the two trees of Paradise should have borne sacramental fruit?" - Pope, Comp. Chr. Th., II p.11.]

Watson reckons himself among those, "Who, while they contend earnestly for the literal interpretation of every part of the history, consider some of the terms used, and some of the persons introduced, as conveying a meaning more extensive than the letter, and as constituting several symbols of spiritual things and spiritual beings" (WATSON, Dictionary, Art. "The Fall of Man"). Only as the historical account is given its spiritual interpretation are we able to approach the depth of meaning which it holds for mankind.

Before taking up the study of the various events in the Paradisaical history, it may be well to mention the fact that the interpretation of these events has been the source of much controversy in the church. It is impossible, therefore, to give any thorough review of the literature on this subject. We shall note only the following:

(1) The Garden in Eden. We are told that the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed" (Gen. 2:8). It is evident from this that God provided a special environment for the first pair, as a proper setting for their probationary trial. Dr. Shedd says that "the first sin was unique, in respect to the statute broken by it. The Eden commandment was confined to Eden. It was never given before or since. Hence the first Adamic transgression cannot be repeated. It remains a single, solitary transgression; the 'one' sin spoken of in Romans 5: 12, 15-19" (Shedd, Dogm. Th., II, p. 154). (2) The Tree of Life. This not only represents the communication of divine life to man, but symbolizes, also, man's constant dependence up9n God. If man but eat of the Tree of Life which is in the midst of the garden, then he is free also to eat of the other trees; for this act in itself, is a recognition of the divine sovereignty. It bears, therefore, a relation to the other trees in the garden, much as the bread of communion bears to bread as the staff of life. It is sacramental in that it gives meaning to the whole of life. Dr. Adam Clarke with others, held that the tree of life was intended as an emblem of that life which man should ever live, provided he continued in obedience to his Maker. And probably the use of this tree was intended as a means of preserving the body of man in a state of continual vital energy, and an antidote against death." (3) The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Here a distinction must be made between a knowledge about evil, and a knowledge of evil as a reality in personal experience. "Man therefore ought to know evil," says Martensen, ""only as a possibility that he has overcome; he ought only to see the forbidden fruit; but if he eats it, his death is in the act. If he attains the knowledge of evil as a reality in his own life, he has fallen away from his vocation, and frustrates the very object of his creation" (Martensen, Chr. Dogm., p.156). (4) The Serpent. This mystical figure has been the occasion of much speculation in theology, and the views have varied from the strictest literalism to the purest symbolism. Perhaps the most widely accepted view is that which holds that the serpent was one of the higher created animals which Satan used as an instrumentality in securing the attention and making possible the conversation with Eve. Whatever else this figure may teach, two things are clearly evident - first, man was tempted by a spiritual being external to himself

[Different opinions are held as to the agency of the temptation. Wakefield says, "The visible agent in man's seduction was the serpent, but the real tempter was that evil spirit called the devil and Satan. It is evident from the attributes and properties ascribed to the serpent, that some superior being was identified with it in the transaction....Here, then, without giving up the literal sense of the history, we must look beyond the letter, and regard the serpent as only the instrument of a superhuman tempter. In like manner and sentence pronounced upon the serpent, while it is to be understood literally as to that animal, must be considered as teaching more than is expressed by the letter, and the terms of it are therefore regarded as symbolical. The cursing of the serpent was a symbol of the malediction which fell upon the devil - the real agent in the temptation; while the prediction respecting the bruising of the serpent's head by the seed of the woman was indicative of man's redemption from the malice and power of Satan by our Lord Jesus Christ. The symbolical interpretation of the passage is confirmed by two considerations: (1) If the serpent was only a mere instrument employed by Satan, as was obviously the case, justice required that the curse should fall with its greatest weight upon the real seducer. But to interpret the history in a merely literal sense would confine the punishment entirely to the serpent, and leave the prime mover of the offense without any share in the malediction. (2) It would be ridiculous to suppose, under the circumstances, that the prediction respecting the bruising of the serpent's head was to be understood in no other than a literal sense.-Wakefield, Chr. Th., pp.285, 286.]

self; and second, this mystical figure furnished the instrumentality through which the Tempter gained access to our foreparents.

[The extreme literalness of the account of the temptation by the serpent is best seen in the position of Dr. Knapp of Halle. He says, "The propriety and consistency of the account of the temptation by means of the serpent may be illustrated by the following remarks. The serpent was used by almost all the ancient nations as the symbol of prudence, adroitness, and cunning. Eve sees a serpent upon this forbidden tree, and probably eating of its fruits, which to a serpent might not be harmful. And it is very natural that this should be first observed by the woman....As to what follows, we very naturally understand that Eve reflected upon what she had seen, and expressed her thoughts in words. 'The serpent is a very lively and knowing animal, and yet it eats of the fruit which is forbidden us. This fruit cannot, therefore, be so hurtful, and the prohibition may not have been meant in earnest.' The same fallacies with which men still deceive themselves when the objects of sense entice and draw them away. The fact which she observed, that the serpent ate the fruit of the forbidden tree without harm, excited the thought which in verses 4 and 5 are represented as the words of the serpent, that it was worth while to eat this fruit. It did not seem to occasion death; and on the other hand, appeared rather to impart health, vigor and intelligence, as was proved from the example of the serpent, which remained after eating it, well and wise." "Consider me," the serpent might have seemed to say to her, "how brisk, sound and cunning I am." Now as she knows of no being who surpasses man in wisdom, excepting God only, she supposes in her simplicity, that if she became wiser than she then was, she would be like God. Meanwhile, the desire after that which was forbidden became continually more irresistible. She took of the fruit and ate. The man, who, as is common, was weak and pliable enough to yield to the solicitation of his wife, received the fruit from her and ate with her. - Knapp, Christian Theology, p. 269.

Dr. Adam Clarke says, "We have here one of the most difficult as well as the most important narratives in the whole book of God." He calls attention to the word "nachash" which following the Septuagint is translated serpent. Through a labored argument he advances the theory that instead of the word "nachash" being translated serpent, it should have been translated ape. He comes to this conclusion on the ground that the Arabic word "chanas" or "khanasa" signifies, "he departed, drew off, lay hid, seduced, slunk away"; while the same root word "akhnas", "khanasa" or "khanoos" all signify an ape, or satyrus, or any creature of the simia or ape genus. "Is it not strange," he asks, "that the devil and the ape should have the same name, derived from the same root, and that root so very similar to the word in the text?" Hence he argues that the nachash whatever it was had the following characteristics: (1) It was the head of all the inferior animals; (2) it walked erect; (3) it was endued with the gift of speech; (4) it was also endued with the gift of reason; and (5) these things were common to the creature, so that Eve evinced no surprise.

Richard Watson also argues along the same line. He says, "We have no reason to suppose, as is strangely done almost uniformly by commentators, that this animal had the serpentine form in any mode or degree at all, before his transformation."

Dr. Miley, and most Arminian theologians take the position that the serpent as an animal was merely the instrument in the temptation, and that the fact of intelligence connected with it evinces the presence of a higher agency.]

The Probation of Man Necessary. If God was to be glorified by free creaturely service, man must be placed on probation, subjected to temptation, and this at the inevitable cost of the possibility of sin. Temptation, therefore, was permitted, because in no other way could human obedience be tested and perfected. The question immediately arises, How could a holy being sin? We must view this question as growing out of a misapprehension concerning the original nature of man. It implies that either man's will was not created free. or that it was created free in the Edwardean sense of being under the control of dominant motives. This latter, however, is after all only a necessitarian theory under the guise of freedom. Adam was indeed created holy, but not indefectibly so; that is, his will though conformed to the moral law was mutable because it was not omnipotent. Thus in God, as an infinite Being, voluntary self-determination could not be so reversed as to be considered a fall; while in finite beings such as men or angels, such a fall is possible. We may say with Dr. Shedd, that ""A will determined to good with an omnipotent energy is not subject to change; but a will determined to good with a finite and limited force is so subject. By reason of the restricted power of his created will, Adam might lose the righteousness with which he was created, though he was under no necessity of losing it. His will had sufficient power to continue in holiness, but not so much additional power as to make a lapse into sin impossible" (cf. Shedd, Dogm. Th., II, p.149). The Protestant position is ably stated in the Westminster Confession as follows: "God created man male and female, with righteousness and true holiness, having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject to change."

The schoolmen arranged the possible views concerning the will of Adam in its relation to sin as follows: First, if Adam's will was to move at all, it must of necessity result in sin. This is the non posse non pecare (not possible not to sin) view of the fall, and is held by those who find sin in the metaphysical imperfection of man, as did Leibnitz; or those who hold that sin, is necessarily connected with the law of progress. Thus Kant and Schiller interpret the first transgression as a necessary transition of the reason from a state of nature to a state of culture; while Schleiermacher, Ritter and others, make sin the consequence of the superiority which the sensuous life had acquired over the spiritual. Second, Adam's will was neither holy nor unholy. It had no bias toward either the right or the wrong, and hence being in a state of equilibrium was free to move in either direction according to its own determination. This is the posse pecare (possible to sin) view which was held by the Pelagians, and which must be given much attention later. Third, Adam's will was holy, and therefore created with a tendency in the right direction, but not indefectibly so; that is, it had the power of reversing its course and moving in the opposite direction, and this solely through its own self-determination. This is the posse non pecare (possible not to sin) view and is generally accepted as the orthodox position. Fourth, it is conceivable that man might have been created holy, and free to forever advance in holiness, but not free to determine to the contrary. This is the non posse pecare (not possible to sin) view of the will but has never been held as an accepted doctrine in Christian theology.

We may now examine the account of the temptation in the light of the above statements, and in doing so, attempt to answer the question, "How can a holy being sin?"

1. Man by his very constitution is a self-conscious, self-determining being. He is a free moral agent, and hence has a capacity for performing moral action. Moral action in turn demands a law by which character is determined - a law which may be either obeyed or disobeyed by the subject. Otherwise there would be no moral quality, for neither praise nor blame could be attached to either obedience or disobedience. This would destroy the character of the moral agent. It is evident, therefore, that the power to obey or disobey is an essential element in a moral agent, and hence God could have prevented the fall only by the destruction of man's free agency.

2. Man was created holy, with spontaneous tendencies toward the right. But he was not created indefectibly so - that is, his holiness was not a fixed state. His will was not omnipotent, and therefore liable to change; his knowledge was not omniscient, and therefore deception was possible. We may say, then, that while man was created holy, nevertheless there existed in him certain susceptibilities to sin.

3. These susceptibilities lay in two directions - a lower and a higher. Man as composed of soul and body, becomes susceptible to the gratification of physical desires, which though lawful in themselves become the occasion of sin. From the higher or spiritual side of his being man may become impatient with the slow process of divine Providence, and become susceptible to suggestions which would seem to hasten the accomplishment of God's purpose. The use of false means in the attempt to attain good ends is a part of the deceptiveness of sin.

[The probationary statute was a positive precept and not a moral command. The difference between the two lies chiefly in this, that In a positive command, the reason for it is hidden, while the very nature of a moral command embraces something of its propriety. Dr. Shedd in a reference to Anselm calls attention to this fact and points out that the Eden statute was thus a better test of implicit faith and obedience than a moral statute would have been, because it required obedience for no reason but the sovereign will of God. At the same time, this disobedience also involved a violation of the moral law, in that it was a contempt of authority, a disbelief of God and a belief of Satan, discontent with the existing state, impatient curiosity to know; pride and ambition. - cf. Shedd, Dogm. Th., II, pp. 153, 154.

The one absolute law had a negative and a positive form, as connected with the two symbolical trees of the garden: the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. The eating of the one was a positive condition of continued life and every benefit of creation; abstinence from the other was the negative condition. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p. 14.

Concerning the prohibition against eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Dr. Adam Clarke says, "The prohibition was intended to exercise this faculty in man, that it should constantly teach him this moral lesson, that there were some things fit and others unfit to be done; and that, in reference to this point, the tree itself should be a constant teacher and monitor. The eating of this would not have increased this moral faculty, but the prohibition was intended to exercise the faculty already possessed. There is certainly nothing unreasonable in this explanation: and, viewed in this light, the passage loses much of its obscurity. Vitringa strongly contends for this interpretation." - ADAM CLARKE, Comm., Gen. 1:9.]

4. The occasion of the temptation was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which the Lord God placed in the midst of the garden. The fruit of this tree was prohibited, doubtless as a positive instead of a moral commandment. However, if the opinion of Vitringa be allowed, the tree was intended to serve as a constant reminder that some things were fit and others unfit to be done, and that man is under the necessity of constantly exercising wise choices.

5. The agent in the temptation was the serpent, who as a deceptive spirit, presented God's good gifts in a false and illusory light. This was possible as an overemphasis, an underemphasis, or an otherwise perverting of the truth so as to place it in a setting of unrighteousness. Satan has nothing of his own to offer, and hence must tempt man solely through a deceptive use of God's gifts. It is for this reason that Bishop Martensen says that "The two moments here described occur in every act of sin. No sin is committed without the presence of both fruit and serpent, an alluring phenomenon which attracts the sense, and an invisible tempter who holds up before man an illusory image of his freedom."

6. The deceitfulness of sin immediately appears. Presented in an illusive coloring, the temptation appeared good for food, pleasant to the eyes and a tree to be desired to make one wise. Led by the desire to think of its possible gratification, the good appeared to be that which God would wish to bestow; and since wisdom was desirable in intelligent beings, its increase would make man more like God. Hence a susceptibility was created for a false conclusion, into which Satan immediately

[It must not be supposed that the trees had any inherent virtue: the one to sustain life forever; the other to poison and corrupt the nature of man. The solemn eating of the fruit of the tree of life was only a sacrament of immortality; it was to the eating of every tree of the garden what the Christian Supper is to all other food. The fatal eating of the tree of knowledge was only the outward and visible sign of a sin which, by the divine law inwrought in human nature, would have been followed by shame and guilt and fear had no such tree existed. 'Through eating its fruit man came to the actual knowledge of good and evil, to the knowledge of his misery: a knowledge which made him acquainted with his own power over his destiny - as if he were his own god - and at the same time taught him that this power, independent of God, was his ruin. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p.14.]

injected the doubt, "Yea, hath God said." In the false glamor of the glittering fruit the truth was obscured - did God really mean to forbid its use; would He fulfill His threats, or could He even have intended them to be effective in prohibiting its use? The consequence is told in one brief sentence, She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat (Gen. 3: 6).

The Fall of the Race. The external stages in the temptation we have endeavored to outline, but the internal reactions of the human spirit must forever remain a secret. There are two questions upon which Revelation gives us no special light - the mysterious point where temptation finds, because it creates, something to lay hold on, and thereby passes over into actual sin; and the manner in which the pure desire for knowledge passes into a desire for evil knowledge, or the sensibilities of the soul merge into evil concupiscence. Any knowledge of these matters must be gained indirectly from the scriptural account. However, there is considerable unanimity of opinion concerning the following points: (1) Sin began in the self-separation of the will of man from the will of God. Consequently the first formal sin is to be found in the entertainment of the question, ""Yea, hath God said?" (2) Up to this point, the appetencies awakened were purely spontaneous, and the sensibilities innocent and entirely consistent with primitive holiness. (3) The only subjective susceptibility which Satan could address was the natural and innocent desire for the fruit of the tree of knowledge considered as good for food and pleasant to the eyes.

(4) With the injection of the doubt, the desire for legitimate knowledge passed into a desire for illegitimate knowledge - of being wise like the gods. Such forbidden desire is sin (Rom. 7: 7). This desire was originated by Adam himself, as something not previously existing in his submissive heart and obedient will. (5) With the severance of the self from God, the outward act was the look of concupiscence toward the tree, which had in itself the guilt of partaking, and was followed by the partaking as an act. These are the stages in the decline and fall of man as generally held by Protestant theologians.

One of the most frequent and outspoken questions concerning the fall is this, ""Why did God permit man to sin?" Stated in the form of the earlier objection to Christian theism, we have the familiar dilemma, ""If God was good and failed to prevent sin, He must have been lacking in power. If He possessed the power and refused to prevent it, He was lacking in goodness." There are two factors which enter into a consideration of the permissibility of the fall. First, the divine permission can in no wise be considered as a consent to the fall, or a license

[The above paragraph is compiled from references to Pope, Shedd and Miley, but other theologians could also be cited as holding the same views. The positions mentioned are substantiated by the following references.

Separation from the supreme Will was consummated within before it was exhibited in act. The inmost principle of sin is the severance of the self from God: the entertainment, therefore, of the question "Yea, bath God said?" was the beginning of human evil. This was the first formal sin, though not alluded to in the Scripture as such. The outward act was the look of concupiscence toward the tree, which had in itself the guilt of partaking, and was followed by the partaking itself. Hence in all New Testament references to the original sin its principle of disobedience is made prominent. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p.15.

The only subjective susceptibility in Adam which Satan could address was the natural and innocent desire for the fruit of the tree of knowledge considered as "good for food, and pleasant to the eyes" (Gen. 3:6). The other desire for the fruit as "making wise like the gods" was forbidden desire, and forbidden desire is sin....Adam was not created with a desire for that knowledge of good and evil which would make him like the "gods"; that is, like Satan and his angels. Such a kind of knowledge as this is falsehood, not truth, and to desire it is wrong and sinful This kind of rebellious, disobedient desire required to be originated by Adam himself, as something not previously existing in his submissive heart and obedient will. God had not implanted any such wrong desire as this. This proud and selfish lust for a false and forbidden knowledge had to be started by Adam himself, as something entirely new and original.Shedd, Dogm. Th., II, p. 155.

In the sensibilities of primitive man there was a ground of temptability. Through these sensibilities there could be solicitations, awakened appetencies, not directly toward sinful action as such, but toward forms of action which might be sinful, and even if known to be such. We have an illustration in the case of Eve. Appetencies are awakened for the forbidden fruit as it is set forth in the false light of the temptation. So far as purely spontaneous, these active sensibilities were innocent and entirely consistent with the primitive holiness. Sin could arise only as their solicitations were unduly entertained or followed into some voluntary infraction of the law of probation. But as purely spontaneous, and while yet within the limit of innocence, they could act as an impulse toward a voluntary infraction. - Miley, Syst. Th., I, p.435.]

to sin. The only sense in which it can be allowed is that God did not by His sovereign power effectually intervene to prevent it. This brings us immediately to the scriptural position that man fell solely because of his own free determination to sin. Temptation was permitted because in no other way could the moral life be developed and perfected. Man sinned against the holiness of his own nature and in an environment which made it easier not to sin. The heinousness of the first sin is thus summed up by Dr. Fisher in his Catechism. "This sin was aggravated in being committed when man had full light in his understanding; a clear copy of the law in his heart; when he had no vicious bias in his will, but enjoyed perfect liberty; and when he had a sufficient stock of grace in his hand to withstand the tempting enemy; in being committed after God had made a covenant of life with him, and given him express warning of eating the forbidden fruit." Sin belongs solely to man, and thus the goodness of God is vindicated. Second, if God had not placed the tree of knowledge in the garden, man would have been under the necessity of choosing in other ways. A personal being cannot escape the necessity of making decisions, either right or wrong. The placing of the tree in the garden was in reality an act of kindness, intended to warn man against wrong choices and to serve as a constant reminder of his obligation to choose wisely. Consequently any question as to the propriety of man's probationary trial must grow, either out of ignorance concerning the nature of Adam's sin, or out of a rebellious heart of unbelief.

There is another aspect of the fall which needs only brief mention at this time - the so-called passive aspect, which is concerned with its nature and extent. The immediate consequences of man's sin may be summed up in two general propositions; externally, it was an alienation from God and an enslavement to Satan; internally,

[In my folly often I wondered why by the great foreseeing wisdom of God the beginning of sin was not letted: for then methought, all should have been well....But Jesus answered by this word and said, "Sin is behovable, but all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well." - Julian of Norwich.]

it was the loss of divine grace by which man became subject to physical and moral corruption. If now we examine the fall in its external relations, we shall find that man no longer bears the glory of his moral likeness to God. The natural image in the sense of his personality he retained, but the glory was gone. From his high destination in communion with God, he fell into the depths of deprivation and sin. Having lost the Holy Spirit, he began a life of external discord and internal misery. In his domestic relations there was a deprivation of their intended perfection. No longer in the truer and best sense was the woman the glory of the man. In his relations with the external world of nature he found the earth cursed for his sake. No longer was he graciously provided with the abundance of the garden, but compelled to earn his bread by the sweat of his face. If we examine the fall from its internal aspect, we discover the birth of an evil conscience and a sense of shame and degradation. Having lost the Holy Spirit as the organizing principle of his being, there could be no harmonious ordering of his faculties, and hence the powers of his being became disordered. From this disordered state there followed as a consequence, blindness of heart, or a loss of spiritual discernment; evil concupiscence, or unregulated carnal craving; and moral inability, or weakness in the presence of sin. But even the heinousness of his sin and the shame of his fall did not result in the utter destruction of his being. The unseen hand of the promised Redeemer prevented it. Thus the mystery of sin and the mystery of grace met at the gate of Eden.

Having considered the origin of sin in the human race, we must now pursue the subject still further in a brief review of the philosophical theories concerning the origin of sin in the universe.

[The effect of the sin or lapse of Adam was to bring him under the wrath of God; to render him liable to pain, disease and death; to deprive him of primeval holiness; to separate him from communion with God, and that spiritual life which was before imparted by God, and on which his holiness alone depended, from the loss of which a total moral disorder and depravation of his soul resulted; and finally to render him liable to everlasting misery. - Watson, Dictionary, Art. The Fall.]

THE ORIGIN OF SIN

Christian Theology, as rooted in the Scriptures and the dominant thought of the Church, maintains that neither in a positive nor a negative sense is God the author of evil. The historical commencement of sin in our race was not due to an evil state, but to a sinful act, which in turn became inherent as both an evil and a sinful state. Evil existed previous to the fall of man, and in the person of Satan tempted man to sin. Thus in Protestantism the Confessio Augustana declares that "The cause of evil is to be found in the will of the devil and the godless who, immediately they were abandoned by God, turn from God to the Wicked One." So also the Formula Concordio and the Variata further confirm this position in the statement that ""sin comes from the devil and the evil will of man." Philosophy, however, cannot rest content short of an attempt to explain the universality of sin by seeking for a common cause of its ultimate existence. These theories are commonly classified under two main heads - first, the Necessitarian Theories which either deny sin, or regard it as in some sense involved in the progress of the race; and second, the Libertarian Theories which find the origin of sin in the abuse of human freedom. To these there is sometimes added a third, or the Mediating Theories, which attempt a reconciliation of the above principles. These, however, are not of sufficient importance to demand attention. Since the question of the origin of sin is vitally connected with the next subject, that of Original Sin or Inherited Depravity, we shall give only a brief review

[The Confessio Augustana mentioned above has sometimes been interpreted to mean that God is negatively the author of sin by the withdrawal of His hand, or the withholding of the "donum perseverantiæ." This as will be readily seen, is closely related to the donum superadditum previously discussed. If righteousness is a supernatural gift, then it is dependent upon the continuance or perseverance of that gift. If God withdraws it, then man falls into sin. But this is not a true interpretation as is shown by the later creeds mentioned above. The withdrawal of God's presence must be regarded, not as a cause but an effect of sin.

Melanchthon's first edition of the Augsburg Confession is known as the Invariata and his three subsequent editions of 1531, 1535-1540, and 1540-42 are called the Variata.]

of the philosophical explanations here, and reserve our theological treatment for the later discussion.

The Necessitarian Theories. The necessitarian theories either deny sin by obliterating the distinction between good and evil, as in the various forms of pantheism; by some form of finite limitation which admits the fact of sin but denies its reality; by maintaining an antagonism between the lower sensuous nature of man and his higher spiritual being, as in the evolutionary theories; or by a dualism which insists upon a necessary antagonism between the principles of good and evil, either temporary as in some of the dualistic forms of philosophy; or eternal, as in the case of ancient Persian dualism.

1. The pantheistic theories with their various modifications must either deny sin altogether, or make God its author. God is the absolute, and what seems to be the finite creature is only the Infinite in phenomenal exhibition. In the process of development there is either less or more of the element of Being. If less, then there is what men call evil; if more, it is correspondingly nearer perfection. Thus the transitory appearance is subject to metaphysical limitation, and this is considered sin. This, it will be readily seen, is simply the denial of sin as a reality.

2. The theories of Finite Limitation are closely related to the foregoing. (1) There is the theory that the finite or limited is as such, evil. Hence sin springs from the limitation of knowledge and power. The finite can approach the good only by passing into the infinite. This it will be seen is closely related to pantheism. (2) Another theory holds that sin is a mere negation. It is the simple absence of good, a deficiency rather than a matter of positive content. This theory is commonly attributed to Augustine, who held that if sin be regarded as a nonentity, theology would be under no necessity of seeking an efficient cause for it. Dr. Dickie points out that although this theory was in a measure accepted by Augustine, it was " "the Neo-Platonist in him, and not the Christian that did so." It was this error which formed the philosophy underlying the theodicy of Leibnitz, in the early modern period. In more modern times it was advocated by Dr. C. C. Everett of Harvard, in his Essays Theological and Literary. In every case, however, it may be said to be merely an expedient adopted by philosophy, in an attempt to defend the divine character for permitting evil in the world. (3) Still another theory, of even a more superficial character is held by those who view sin as appearing to be such, only because of our limited intelligences. We see only the fragments of the universe, it is said, never the whole. Seen at too close a range, it is like the daubs of paint on a canvas, which with perspective becomes a beautiful landscape. While this theory has been advanced with no little attractiveness in poetic disguise, it nevertheless fails to do justice to the fact of sin.

In reply to the above theories of sin we may say, (1) that sin cannot be defined as ignorance, because, it involves by its very nature the conscious choice of evil instead of good. It is further evident to all, that growth in knowledge is not necessarily a cure for sin. (2) Sin cannot be regarded as mere negation. Sin is a fact in the world and has phenomenal reality. Furthermore, sin must be regarded as a positive force which is both malignant and aggressive. For this reason the Scriptures use leaven as an emblem of its permeating power. (3) These facts also answer the theory that sin is merely a lack of perspective, due to limited finite intelligence. The philosophical answer, however, to all the above theories, is that they are forms of idealistic pantheism, which, traced to their logical conclusion, would find all finite forms of experience swallowed up in the experience of an Absolute. This philosophical Absolute is self-contradictory because it becomes at once holy and sinful,

[Dr. Everett in the work mentioned above, says that "the most profound theologians have insisted that sin is a lack rather than a presence. Nothing is sinful in itself. The sinful act is such because it fills the place of a higher and better act. No tendency is wrong; it becomes so only when it is left alone by the failure of other tendencies which should complement it, and on occasion overpower it. Sin, then, is negative and not positive." It is evident that this fails to do justice to the scriptural ideas of sin. Sin, as Dr. James Orr views it, is "a power, a tyranny, which defies all man's efforts in his natural strength to get rid of it."]

omniscient and ignorant. The answer to these theories, therefore, is to be found in the answer to all pantheism.

3. The evolutionary theories, or those which find the origin of sin in the sensuous nature of man, depend upon the error that there is an essential antagonism between spirit and matter. In its earliest forms evil was regarded as an essential property of matter; in the modern evolutionary theories this antagonism is regarded as merely a stage in the genetic development of man. We may note the following positions: (1) In the earlier forms of Gnosticism evil was regarded as an essential property of matter, but later came to be regarded as merely accidental. Sin, therefore, was due to man's possession of a material body. The theory is untenable, for the Scriptures nowhere attach a moral quality to matter. Besides, some of the worst sins are not of the flesh but of the spirit - idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, and envyings (Gal. 6: 20). This error persists to the present in the belief held by many, that man cannot be delivered from sin while he dwells in a mortal body. (2) During the medieval period, this sensuous theory took shape in the form of the Tridentine Decrees of the Roman Catholic Church. Here the lower nature was regarded as being under the restraint of the supernatural gift of grace. With the fall of man this restraint was withdrawn, and hence there was set in motion what came to be known as concupiscence. (3) At the beginning of the modern period Schleiermacher presented a most elaborate exposition of this theory, in which he made the antagonism to consist in the opposition between the God-consciousness in man, and his self-consciousness as related to the world. This conflict was explained by asserting that the higher powers of spiritual apprehension develop more rapidly than the powers of the will, and therefore we see the ideal before we are capable of realizing it. There is, he says, an ever richer and fuller communication coming to man, and the antagonism consists in a refusal to receive it. In Christ, however, there is given to the world a revelation of what human nature did not and could not reach apart from Him, in whom the God-consciousness was always perfectly ascendant and through whom it may become so to us. (4) The modern evolutionary theory is merely another application of the principle of antagonism between spirit and matter. It holds that the higher spiritual elements are developed out of the lower or sensuous part of man: but this sensuous part having been created first, the higher or spiritual part of man can never quite overtake it. As it concerns the origin of sin, the theory holds that moral evil is to be explained by a survival of those propensities which man's human ancestors, whatever they were, shared with the rest of the brute creation. Since the good is presented to man as a whole, and this can be only gradually realized in actual life; there is a disparity between the consciousness of his attainments and his goal. To this disparity guilt attaches. Since there can be no growth without the consciousness of imperfection, the weakness of this system lies in the fact that a consciousness of imperfection becomes a consciousness of sin. This subject is vitally related to the question of original sin and will be given further consideration under that head.

[Dr. N. P. Williams in his Bampton Lectures for 1929 entitled, "The Ideas of the Fall and Original Sin," attempts an explanation of the fall constructed on the basis of modern evolutionary philosophy. He finds three complexes in human personality, the "herd complex," the "ego complex" and the "sex complex." In ideal personality, he holds that the herd complex would form an adequate counterweight to the other two, so that the soul would enjoy a condition of perfect equilibrium or poise on which conscious free will could play, reinforcing now one and now the other, of the dominant psychical structures and controlling, modifying, or inhibiting the flow of vital energy into them. The weakness of human nature, or what is essentially original sin, lies in this, that owing to the weakness of the herd instinct which feeds it, the herd complex does not possess anything like the vital energy necessary to place it on equal terms with the other two primary complexes, so as to preserve the equilibrium of the empirical self, or "me," which the transcendental self, or "I," needs in order to function with freedom (cf. pp. 491, 492). This appears to be a statement in psychological terms, and in so far as it contains truth, might be more simply expressed in the theological statement of prevenient grace, given to all men by virtue of the universal atonement in Christ. But the evolutionary phase of the above statement appears in the idea of a "herd instinct" or "herd complex" carried over from an animal ancestry of man. All such theories fail before the fact that sin consists in a self-severance of man's will from the will of God. This position only makes an adequate place for sin and the guilt which should attach to it.]

4. The dualistic theories are perhaps the most ancient of all the attempts to explain the origin of sin. They hold that evil is a necessary and eternal principle in the universe. The earliest expression of this is found in the religion of Parseeism (c. 1500 B.C.) and commonly known as Persian dualism. Zoroaster who is regarded as the real or imaginary founder of Parseeism, represented Ormuzd as the author of all good, and Ahriman as the author of all evil. The former dwelt in perfect light and the latter in the densest of darkness. These persons, later regarded as principles, were necessary and eternal. Each was independent of the other and ruled absolutely in his own dominion. Upon these fundamental principles, it was held, the whole visible world depended as to its origin, history and ultimate end. But the Persians could not rest ultimately in this dualism, hence there was a struggle upward to a belief in an eternal essence in which both would find their unity, and in the process of the ages their reconciliation. (2) Persian dualism reappeared in the Gnostic systems of the early church, which have been previously mentioned. (3) Manes (or Mani, 215-276 A.D.), a Persian, revived the ancient dualistic error, in what came to be known as Manichieism. However, he softened the antagonism by making it consist in the opposition of principles rather than persons. (4) Still later the Paulician heresy appeared in the seventh century and was revived again in the twelfth, but little is known of their teachings except that they held to a dualism in which evil appeared as the god of this world, and good as the god of the world to come. The error of all these systems lies in the belief that evil is an essential property of matter. (5) In modern philosophy Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Hartmann (1842-1906) advocated a form of dualism based upon a distinction between the will and presentation, or the volitional and the

[The manner in which the rationalistic systems of philosophy account for sin, is scarcely less Christian than the theories of the ancient pagan religions. Thus Hegel regards sin as representing merely another stage in human development; Schleiermacher, Ritter, Lipsius and others represent it as a consequence of man's weakness of spirit and will; Ritschl regards sin as ignorance; while the modern evolutionary theory looks upon it as merely a stage of biological or moral development.]

logical, which they regarded as two mutually opposing powers in the Absolute. An equally futile theory is that of Schelling (1775-1854), who following Jacob Boehme (1575-1624), assumed that there was in God a dark, fiery principle, side by side with a light principle. By means of struggle and effort, the light principle breaks like lightning through the fire spirit, which although constantly overcome, yet remains as basic in the inner divine life. The self-working of this dark principle is the source of evil in the world. This theory is mentioned only because it has a tendency to reappear in the guise of a finite element in God. The heart of the dualistic theories lies in the fact that life does not exist without opposites; and the only solution of the problem is to be found in Christ - in whom all the contradictions of life are met and fully solved.

The Libertarian Theories. This class of theories is based upon the fact of freedom and its abuse. The erroneous theories need only brief mention. (1) Pelagianism holds that all sin originates in the abuse of freedom; that man is born without any bias to evil, and therefore character is due wholly to the nature of his choices. The only medium by which the sin of one person may be passed on to another is through the harm done by perverse influences. The philosophy of John Locke maintained a similar position as to the origin and transmission of sin. This theory fails to take into consideration all the facts of sin, especially that of original sin or human depravity. (2) The premoral theory holds that this abuse of freedom takes place in each individual, at the very beginning of personal life and antecedent to the memory. (3) The pre-existence theory of Origen was drawn from his Platonism. He held that each individual soul fell into sin in a pre-existent state. This theory was revived in modern times by Julius Mueller of Halle, one of the mediating theologians who followed Schleiermacher. To him this was the only solution of a dilemma which he stated as follows: ""If it is impossible to escape sin, what place is there for freedom, the necessary presupposition of the sense of guilt? If freedom is a reality, how is it that there is no escape from sin?" Dr. Dickie points out, that aside from other defects, it falls into the serious error of too closely identifying sin and guilt; and that failure here leads to the denial of the guilty character of all sin. ""This position," he says, ""like every other which makes sin in any way necessary, is fundamentally unchristian" (cf. Dickie, Organism of Chr. Truth, p.146).

It is under this head, also, that we find what is known as the orthodox or ecclesiastical theory of sin, which in a more scriptural manner than the above, likewise finds the source of all evil in the abuse of freedom. To this we must now give attention.

The Biblical Teaching Concerning the Origin of Sin. The ultimate origin of evil can never be known by philosophy, nor can its purpose be discovered. We are here shut up to the disclosures which God has given us in His holy Word. We have a ray of light in the words of our Lord Jesus concerning the man born blind. His reply to the Jews was, "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him (John 9: 3). Sin is called "the mystery of iniquity" (2 Thess. 2: 7; Rev. 17: 5), and has excited the interest of speculative minds in every age, only to baffle them. But the Scriptures do give us a clue to the ultimate origin of sin, and this, even from the philosophical viewpoint is the most satisfactory answer which has ever been given to this perplexing question. The Bible connects the origin of sin with the abuse of freedom in free and intelligent creatures. We have already considered the account of man's temptation and fall, and found that the origin of sin in the human race was due to the voluntary self-separation of man from God. We took into account, also, that man was influenced by some superhuman power, and consequently are led to believe that sin existed in the universe before its origin in man. We may well suppose, also, that sin in the universe originated in the same manner as it did in the human race, the free choice of an intelligent being. This leads us immediately to a consideration of the doctrine of Satan or superhuman evil.

THE DOCTRINE OF SATAN

Man was tempted by a superhuman being, called in the Scriptures, the devil or Satan. Evil then must have had an existence previous to the Origin of the human race and external to it. The conflict between good and evil is in the Scriptures represented as essentially a conflict between superhuman powers, into which man is drawn by way of temptation. Hence we read that the church is called upon to wrestle against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Eph. 6: 12). Satan is usually regarded as one of the fallen angels and consequently treated under this head. This it seems to us, does not do justice to the importance of the subject. Satan is not merely one among the many representatives of evil. He is evil in persona. He is not merely evil in this or that relation, but evil in and for itself. In order to present the scriptural teaching on this subject, we shall present it under four heads as follows: (1) Satan in Relation to Creation; (2) Satan in Opposition to Christ; (3) Satan and the Redemptive Work of Christ; and (4) The Kingdom of Satan.

[Attempts have been made to show that the doctrine of Satan in the Old Testament cannot be traced prior to the time of the Babylonian Captivity. If this be understood to mean that the Jews did not know of evil angels previous to that time, the position can be easily refuted from the Scriptures. Aside from the one reference in Zech. 3:1, 2, there is perhaps no reference to Satan in the post-Babylonian Scriptures, while there are numerous passages in the earlier books. (Cf. Job 1:6; I Chron. 21:1; Psalms 109:6 and 106:37.) There are also numerous references to evil angels under the name of "evil spirits" as in Judges 9:23; I Sam. 16:14 and others. The doctrine is more fully developed in the New Testament. Including the singular and plural forms of the word "diabolus" it is used forty times in the New Testament, the word Satan twenty-three times, evil spirit eight times, dumb spirit three times, and spirit of divination once.

Bishop Martensen in his Christian Dogmatics, pp.186-203, gives us an attractive and interesting presentation of this subject. He has been accused of holding to a merely impersonal view of Satan as the "cosmical principle" limited to a creation and having no existence otherwise. This it seems to us is not a true statement of his position. Some of his statements, however, do not seem to be carefully guarded, and if lifted out of the whole discussion and interpreted by themselves, would seem to indicate that Satan is nothing more than this impersonal principle, which in this case would become the ultimate evil. Bishop Martensen's tendency is toward the cosmological, rather than the soteriological view of theology.]

Satan in Relation to Creation. We have seen in our study of creation, that the Christian position maintains that there is an essential difference between God and the world. Both have reality or substantial existence - the one Absolute and Infinite, the other dependent and finite. In this way Christian thought preserves itself from the error of dualism on the one hand, and pantheism on the other. But because created things have reality in themselves, even though this be finite and dependent, there is the possibility of this created substance being set up in opposition to the Infinite, the creature against the Creator. This Bishop Martensen called the "cosmic principle" of the universe. In the realm of material things, this cosmic principle exists solely as a possibility. Hence the First and Second Commandments of the Mosaic law prohibited idolatry and the making of graven images as objects of worship. In man as a finite being endowed with self-consciousness and self-determination, there not only exists the possibility, but also the power of setting himself up in opposition to his Creator. This power of self-separation we have seen, marks the origin of sin in man. The account of the fall also reveals the presence of a superhuman power as the tempter of mankind. As to the nature of this power, the Scriptures teach us that in the purely spiritual realm there were angels which kept not their beginning, or first estate; and hence there appears to have been a fall in the spiritual realm previous to that of the human race. Nor are we to suppose that the angels simultaneously and voluntarily

[Temptation from without was more than symbolized by the instrument - fallen now like the real tempter himself from his first estate - of that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world. The distinctness of this record is of great importance It establishes a difference between the original sin of earth and the original sin of the universe. We need not, indeed, assume that the angels who fell were only tempted from within: there is every reason to think that as through envy of the devil came death into the world, so through 'the same envy, excited by another Object in heaven death entered among the angels. It cannot be that sin should have its origin within the spirit of a creature of God independently of solicitation from without But in the case of man, the agency of Satan is made prominent from the' beginning of Scripture to the end: not as reducing the guilt of the first transgression but as mitigating its punishment, and suggesting at least a difference put between sinful angels and the human race. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p.14.]

fell, merely by temptation from within. There must have been among them a tempter who led them astray. Thus the Christian view of evil, in so far as it is set forth in the Scriptures, terminates in the idea of Satan, who as a superhuman, yet created spirit, originally good, fell from his high estate and became the enemy of God. Evil is personal in its origin. Beyond this reason cannot go and revelation is silent.

Satan in Opposition to Christ. St. John makes it clear that Satan is that spirit of antichrist which should come, and even now is in the world. The essential antagonism if this spirit to Christ finds its expression in the fact that he does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4:1-3). Furthermore sin, in the New Testament use of the term, is to be interpreted by the attitude which men take toward Christ. Thus the Holy Spirit convinces men of sin, because He goes to the Father; and of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged (John 16:8-11). But if we would understand it rightly, we must trace this opposition back to its source. Referring again to our discussion of Creation and the Logos, we are now in a position to comprehend more clearly the deep significance of this truth. God created the world through the Logos or Word as the intermediary between Himself and the created universe. This Logos and Word was the Eternal Son, the second person of the Trinity. In Him as the express image of the Father were comprehended all the principles of truth, order, beauty, goodness and perfection. Hence as long as the relation between the finite

[Dr. A. H Strong points out some of the contrasts between the Holy Spirit and spirit of evil as follows: (1) The dove and the serpent; (2) the father of lies and Spirit of Truth; (3) men possessed by dumb spirits and men given wonderful utterance in diverse tongues; (4) the murderer from the beginning and the life-giving spirit, who regenerates the soul and quickens our mortal bodies; (5) the adversary and the Helper; (6) the slanderer and the Advocate; (7) Satan's sifting and the Master's and the Master's winnowing; (8) the organizing intelligence and malignity of the Evil One and the Holy Spirit's combination of all the forces of matter and mind to build up the kingdom of God; (9) the strong man fully armed and stronger than he; (10) the Evil One who works only evil and the holy One who is the author of holiness in the hearts of men. The opposition of evil angels, at first and ever since their fall, may be a reason why they are incapable of redemption. - Strong, Syst. Th., II, p. 454.

and the Infinite was mediated through the Logos, it retained its true relationship to God. But as we have indicated in the previous paragraph, finite reality has in it the possibility of being set up in false relation of independency; or in the case of creatures endowed with self-consciousness and self-determination, the power of setting themselves up in this false relation through a voluntary self-separation from God. It is evident, therefore, that between God and the created universe two forms of mediation are possible, the one of truth and righteousness, the other of falsehood and sin.

We begin now to see something of the magnitude of Satan and sin. If we place over against the Logos a created being, of such glory and power as would be worthy of God's created spirit-a true "son of the morning"; and if with the mystics we hold that this being contemplated his own beauty as self-contained, and becoming envious of the Son, sought to sit upon His throne, then they may begin to understand the Scripture which indicated that being lifted up with pride, he fell into condemnation. To this doubtless Jesus referred when He said, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven (Luke 10:18). Its magnitude will be seen in this, that both Christ and Satan appear as mediators between God and the world, the one a true mediatorship of righteousness and holiness; the other a false mediatorship of unrighteousness and sin. Hence St. Paul speaks of Satan as "the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4), and again as "the prince of the power of the air"-the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience (Eph. 2:2). St. John writes with discrimination when he says, "the whole world lieth in wickedness," or in the wicked one; not that the world is inherently evil, but lying in the wicked one, is perverted from the trur purpose of its existence. This evil spirit as Satan (SatanaV ) is the "adversary,) the "accuser" and the "deceiver"; as the devil (diaboloV ) he is the "slanderer," the calumiator" and the "destroyer of peace"; as Belial (Belial) he is the "low," the "unworthy" and the "abject"; while as Apollyon (Apolluwn) he is the "destroyer." We may contemplate the fact of sin, also, in a new light, as the perversion of God's good gifts to false uses; the holding of the truth in unrighteousness; the false glamor of the things of God presented in a deceitful manner, the works of the flesh and the hollowness of insincerity. Sin is like leaven, in that it must feed upon another substance than itself, and in so doing corrupts and sours the whole.

Satan and the Redemptive Work of Christ. For the sake of clarity, we may now be permitted to place this whole subject over against the redemptive work of Christ, and thus set forth with greater clearness the nature of Satan and sin. We have seen that in creation, there is the possibility of the creature exalting itself against the Creator, and by a voluntary self-separation from God setting itself up in a false independency. Thus Satan in opposition to Christ as the true Logos, set himself up as a mediator of the "cosmical principle" of independency or self-sufficiency. Working in creation as the principle of perversion and sin, he thus hypostasizes evil in and for itself. Not having the power of creation himself, he is limited in his scope of activity to the perversion

[St. Peter tells us that the apostate angels were cast down to hell. Here the word "Tartarus" is used, the only place in the New Testament where it occurs. "By Tartarus," says Dr. Dick, "they understood the lowest of the infernal regions, the place of darkness and of punishment, in which those who had been guilty of impiety toward the gods, and of great crimes against men, were confined and tormented. The word as adopted by the apostle conveys the same general idea."

Here the question may be proposed, "Why was not provision made for the recovery of fallen angels, as well as for that of man?" but to this no decisive answer can be returned. Still there are some circumstances connected with their history, as also with the history of our race, which may reflect some light upon this mysterious subject, and which are therefore worthy of our consideration. (1) They were doubtless superior to man in intellectual endowments, and therefore less liable to be deceived. (2) As man was partly material and subject to the influence of the senses, his attention might have been diverted and his judgment biased by allurements addressed to them. But angels were purely spiritual beings and therefore could not have been liable to any such temptation. (3) The progenitor of the human race sustained a federal relation to all his posterity. In him they either stood or fell. But among the angels no such relation existed as they were individually responsible. (4) Man sinned in the earthly paradise through the subtilty of a tempter; but angels sinned in the heavenly paradise without a tempter. For though we do not possess a history of their apostasy yet we know that they were not solicited, as man was, by some being of superior artifice, because they were the sole inhabitants of heaven. - Wakefield, Chr. Th., p. 260. While not tempted by one outside their number, it seems clear from the preceding that they nevertheless fell through one of their own number.]

of those things which have the substantiality of God's creation. Hence he becomes diabolos (diaboloV ) the deceiver and calumniator of whom Jesus said, He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it (John 8: 44). We may believe that his first sphere of operation was in his own realm of the angels. Thus St. Peter says that God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment (II Peter 2: 4).

God then in His wisdom extended creation beyond the purely spiritual realm and created man as a being in whom were conjoined both spiritual and material substances. Furthermore He created man, not as an aggregate of individuals, but as a race of beings interrelated and dependent, and with the power of propagating their own kind. In creation man was so constituted that subjectively he was a creature dependent upon his Creator, and consequently a servant of God. In the physical realm man was the highest of all the creatures and therefore, in a true sense, the lord of creation. When man in this intermediary position looked up to God he saw himself as a servant; when he looked out upon creation he saw himself as its lord. In the temptation Satan made the lordship to appear more attractive than the servantship. He said, Ye shall be as gods (Gen. 3: 5). But what Satan did not tell him was that this lordship was a delegated power, and that he held it by virtue of a faithful stewardship. When man fell, therefore, he ceased to be the servant of God and became the servant of Satan. Hence our Lord said of the unbelieving Jews, Ye are of our father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do (John 8: 44). God is the Father of all men, because He always acts as a Father, but men are not always the sons of God because they do not act as sons. Losing his servantship, man lost his true lordship, and now makes all things minister to himself. He views the world from a false slant. He sees everything from a biased standpoint. The things of God committed to his care he holds as his own. Like his father, Satan, he has become a usurper of the throne, untrue to his trust, a servant of sin and a child of Satan.

But God will forever triumph. He will make even the wrath of man to praise Him. He projects creation still farther, if we may thus guardedly use the term. He creates a new man - not merely a living soul, but a quickening spirit. As in the first man the spiritual rested in the material; so in this new man, the divine rests in the human. This new creation is an incarnation. The Son of God, who was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, took upon Him the form of a servant and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Phil. 2: 6-8). By virtue of this true servantship, Christ brought man in His own Person back into his original relationship with God. He re-established spiritual fellowship and communion. As the Captain of our salvation He met the cross currents of the world and suffered at every step. But He never faltered and consequently overcame even the last enemy which is death. As a servant, He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give His life a ransom for many. And having met the demands of a perfect servantship, He became the Lord of His people - not this time by creation, for that He never lost, but as their Redeemer, their Saviour and Lord. Having thus triumphed, He received the promise of the Holy Spirit, which now as the Lord of the Church, He gives freely to all who believe. Thus we may say with all the

[To the argument frequently advanced that Jesus and the apostles merely accommodated themselves to the language and beliefs that were current in their day, Dr. Whately says, "Nor can it be said that Jesus and His apostles merely left man in their belief, not thinking it worth while to undeceive them, and trusting that in time they of themselves would discover their mistakes. On the contrary, our Lord and His followers very decidedly and strongly confirm the doctrine by numerous express declarations. For instance, our Lord in His explanation of the Parable of the Tares and Wheat, says expressly that the enemy who sows the tares is the devil. And again, in explaining that portion of the Parable of the Sower in which it is said that the birds devoured the seed that fell on the trodden wayside, he says, 'Then cometh the evil one, and snatcheth away that which hath been sown in his heart.' If, therefore, the belief in evil spirits is altogether a vulgar error, it certainly is not an error which Jesus and His apostles merely neglected to correct, or which they merely connived at, but which they decidedly inculcated."]

redeemed, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever (Rev. 5: 13).

The Kingdom of Satan. Since the work of Satan is to pervert the things of God, this perversion must extend also to the conception of the kingdom. As there is a kingdom of God and of heaven, so also there is a kingdom of Satan and of evil. Hence we have a reference to principalities, powers and rulers of darkness, which can indicate no other than an organization of evil forces. These are under the leadership of " 'the prince of this world" which Jesus mentions as being ""cast out" (John 12: 31), as having nothing in Him (John 14:30) and as being judged (John 16: 11). St. Paul speaks of Satan as ""the prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2: 2) and of "the spiritual hosts of wickedness" (Eph. 6: 12, R.V.). That there are a great number of evil spirits under the leadership of Satan is indicated by a number of scriptures, as "My name is Legion" (Mark 5: 9), and the lake of fire prepared for "the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25: 41). This kingdom shall not stand, for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony (Rev.12:10,11).

["The Scriptures clearly and emphatically teach the separate, distinct and personal existence of a devil, and of an innumerable host of evil spirits commonly called devils. While, in the strict propriety of scripture language, there is but one devil - the prince of the power of the air - one Belial - one adversary - he is joined by a host of evil spirits, partaking of the same nature and engaged in the same work with the father of lies....Those who deny the personal existence of a devil have strangely different methods of interpreting the Scriptures. One says the devil personifies some evil principle; another says it is the evil propensity of the heart; while others say the devil means disease, madness, or insanity. A few plain passages of scripture will show the absurdity of this method of interpreting God's Holy word. The sacred writers were not so careless as to use language vaguely. If there is no personal devil, how are we to understand the case of the man that dwelt among the tombs, as recorded in Mark 5:2-16 and Luke 8:27-38? This man was possessed of many devils. These devils 'besought him.' They came out from the man.' They 'entered into the swine.' These devils had a personal existence separate and apart from the man out of whom they were cast. They entered into the man and went out of him. They existed before they entered into him and they existed after they went out. The actions ascribed to these devils are such as belong only to real personal beings." - Bishop Weaver, Christian Theology, pp.106, 107.]

THE NATURE AND PENALTY OF SIN

Having considered the philosophical theories as to the origin of sin, we may now turn our attention to the historical aspects of the subject. Here we shall consider the nature and development of sin as an actual experience in the history of the race. Our best approach will be by means of a brief survey of the terms used in the Scriptures to express the idea of sin. These words are hamartia (amartia), parabasis (parabasiV ), adikia (adikia), and asebeia (asebeia), with their many derivatives.

1. The word hamartia (amartia) signifies a falling away from, a missing of the right way, or a missing of the mark. The word for sin is sometimes connected with the word iniquity, both of which signify a deflection from the right. In this sense the word for sin indicates a missing of the mark, while the word for iniquity signifies a wrong aim. In the Old Testament there are a number of words used to express the idea of sin, such as ""falling away," ""going astray," ""vanity" and ""guilt." This indicates that the subject was more fully developed among the Hebrews than among the Greeks, due, doubtless, to the emphasis placed upon the holiness of God. None of these designations of sin, however, in either Hebrew or Greek, limit the idea to a mere act. In fact they more naturally suggest the thought of sin as a disposition or a state. Thus hamartia conveys the idea that a man does not find in sin what he seeks therein; hence as Julius Mueller points out, he finds it a state of delusion and deception.

2. The second word is parabasis (parabasiV ) which signifies sin as an act of transgression. This indicates that the idea of sin is limited by the idea of law, For where no law is, there is no transgression (Rom. 4: 15). In the broadest sense, this law must be interpreted as the existence of an eternal moral order, with its distinctions of good and evil. This finds its earliest manifestation in the claims made by the conscience. In a more specific sense law is not advice or exhortation, but a positive demand. Consequently the relation to it must be either subjection or transgression. But sin as thus indicated, is possible only to moral and rational beings. Hence brutes and infants may do wrong, but in this sense of the term they cannot sin. Man knows himself unconditionally under law by both reason and conscience. When that claim is disowned, in that instant sin is born.

3. But law cannot be regarded as impersonal. It is of necessity immediately connected with the Law-giver. Hence to transgress the law is positive disobedience regarded as a personal affront. Thus St. Paul says, the law worketh wrath (Rom. 4: 15). Here the word is parabasis as previously indicated, but the point of emphasis now is, that voluntary disobedience subjects the offender to the wrath of the personal Law-giver. Virtue is therefore of the nature of obedience, and sin is disobedience to God, even when the wrong committed is against one's neighbor. In the Christian system morality is always included in the law of God. The sinner, therefore, who violates the law of God becomes a rebel in the moral realm. For this reason sin is frequently regarded as a breaking of a covenant through unfaithfulness as the word parapiptein (Parapiptein) denotes.

4. The next step in the progress of our thought is, that the character of the law and the character of the

[Dr. Bruce says, "to understand Paulinism, we must carefully note the distinction between amaptia and parabasiV . Amartia is objective and common; parabasiV , is subjective and personal. 'Amartia entails some evil effects, but parabasiV ' is necessary to guilt and condemnation" (cf.

MACPHERSON, Chr. Dogm., p.247).

Dr. Olive M. Winchester calls attention to the fact that the above words for sin having the abstract ending ia denote "state" or "quality." Thus amartia in the singular denotes sin as a state or quality, and in the plural "sins." There is also another noun from this verb amapthma, a concrete noun instead of an abstract, and therefore denoting a thing or an act.

"Sin and lawlessness are convertible terms: Sin is not an arbitrary conception. It is the assertion of the selfish will against a paramount authority. He who sins breaks not only by accident or in an isolated detail, but essentially the 'law' which he was created to fulfill. This 'law' which expresses the divine ideal of man's constitution and growth has three chief applications. There is the 'law' of each man's personal being: there is the 'law' of his relation to things without him: there is the 'law' of his relation to God. To violate any part of this threefold law is sin, for all parts are divine" (James 2:10) . - Westcott, Comm. I John 3:4.

Dr. Westcott also points out that St. James regards sin as selfishness (1: 14ff), and also the neglect of duty, or the violation of the law of growth (Jas. 4:17). St. John holds that "unrighteousness," or the failure to fulfill our obligations to others is also sin (I John 3:4).]

Law-giver are indissolubly one. Hence the substance of the commandment is comprehended in the one word "love." This we have on the authority of our Lord, who when asked which is the great Commandment of the law replied, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (Matt. 22:37-40). Here it will be seen that sin, flowing from a lack of love, is both an act and a quality of being. It is for this reason that St. John uses the word adikia in connection with hamartia. He says, If we confess our sins, [amaptiaV ], he is faithiul and just to forgive us our sins [amartiaV ], and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness [adikia"] (I John 1: 9). Following this he gives us the first of his profound and far-reaching definitions of sin. All unrighteousness [adikia] is sin [amartia] (I John 5: 17). The word adikia signifies the absence of righteousness and consequently is generally translated as unrighteousness, injustice and sometimes as iniquity, although the latter is generally derived from another Greek word. The term means ""crookedness" or a bending or perverting of what is right. Hence like the words hamartia and anomia, it signifies not only perverted actions, but also a state of unrighteousness or disorder, arising from such perversion. Sin, then, is self-separation from God in the sense of decentralization, the place which should be occupied by God being assumed by the self. The love of self which characterizes this state must not be thought to possess the true quality of love. As disobedience to the law of God is not a mark of strength but of weakness, so the love of self is not merely misplaced or exaggerated love, but manifests the very opposite character. Everything either flows from the self or is directed to it. The perfection of love as manifested in Christ, was found in the fact that He did not seek to please Himself (Matt. 22: 37-40); and that He did not seek His own (I Cor. 13: 5). On the other hand, St. Paul declares that the acme of sin in the last days would be found in this, that "they were lovers of themselves" (II Tim. 3: 1, 2). Thus adikia signifies a state or condition, wherein the center around which his thoughts, affections and volitions should revolve is displaced, and hence has become one of unrighteousness. For this reason St. John speaks of sins being forgiven, but unrighteousness as being cleansed.

5. The next word is anomia (anonia) and is found in St. John's second definition of sin, although the text appears earlier in the epistle. It is placed second because it involves the use of a stronger term. The definition is found in the following text, Whosoever committeth sin [amartian] transgresseth also the law [anomian]: for sin [amartia] is the transgression of the law [anomia] (I John 3: 4). Here the word anomia does not signify transgression in the sense of an overt act, but as ""a lack of conformity to law," or "lawlessness." It is a stronger term than adikia, in that it does not signify merely a disordered state, but as added to this, the thought of hostility or rebellion. Thus Jesus said, If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father (John 15: 24). In this connection Van Oosterzee says, "Even the tenderest love is not free from a hidden selfishness, and love changes into hate, where the self-denial which it demands is rejected by flesh and blood. It even rises sometimes to the desire that there were neither law nor law-giver and, where a man can withdraw himself from the supremacy of the former at any cost, to powerless rage and spite, as seen in the Cain of Lord Byron.... and where a man dethrones God in order to deify self, he becomes at last destitute of natural

[St. John's definition is important, as showing the difference between the act of transgression and the state of transgression. The words mean that the act is the result of the state, and the state also the result of the act. Sin is only the act of a primitive transgressing will, but that will forms the character behind the future will and shapes its ends. This final statement of St. John may be divided into its two branches, each of which will shed light upon the general terminology of Scripture. Sin is the voluntary separation of the soul from God: this implies the setting up of the law of self activity, and passively the surrender to internal confusion. - Pope, Comp. Chr. Th., II, p.30.]

affection" (Rom. 1: 31) (cf. Von Oosterze, Chr. Dogm., II, p.395).

6. The last word which we shall mention is asebeia (asebeia), or ungodliness. This not only marks the separation of the soul from God, but carries with it the thought of a character unlike God and a state or condition characterized by the absence of God. It is a strong term. St. Paul uses it in his condemnation of sin in connection with adikia. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness [asebeian] and unrighteousness [adikian] of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness [adikia] (Rom. 1: 18; cf. Eph. 2: 12). The term also carries with it the thought of a verging toward doom. Thus St. Jude says, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly [asebeiV ] among them of all their ungodly [asebeiaV ] deeds which they have ungodly [hsebhsan] committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly [asebeiV ] sinners have spoken against him (Jude 14, 15).

Definitions of Sin. Theologians have defined sin in different ways, but rarely is the fact overlooked that sin exists both as an act and as a state or condition. This is important in any system of theology where the evangelical principle of salvation by faith is given prominence. We have already cited Dr. Pope's definition that "Sin is the voluntary separation of the soul from God." This we have seen implies, first, a setting up of the law of self-activity, or actual sin; and second, the surrender, to internal confusion, or original sin. James Arminius defines sin as "something thought, spoken, or done against the law of God, or the omission of something which has been commanded by that law to be thought, spoken or done." Mr. Wesley's definition of sin as a voluntary transgression of a known law" is familiar in Arminian theology. According to Dr. Miley, "Sin is disobedience to a law of God, conditional on free moral agency and Opportunity for knowing the law." Dr. Raymond emphasizes the twofold nature of sin. He says, "The primary idea designated by the term sin in the Scriptures is want of conformity to law, a transgression of law, a doing of that which is forbidden or a neglecting to do that which is required. In a secondary sense the term applies to character; not to what one does, but to what he is" (Raymond, Syst. Th., II, pp.54, 55). Van Oosterzee defines sin as a positive negation of God and His will, in so far as it puts something entirely different in the place of that will. In the sinner there is not only a want (defectus) of that which must be found in him; but also an inclination, a tendency, a striving (affectus) which ought not to be in him" (Von Oosterzee, Chr. Dogm., II, p.395). Dr. William Newton Clarke thinks that theology can give no a priori definition of sin, but must derive its definition from experience in the light of the Christian revelation. He presents the subject under five aspects which may be summed up as follows: (1) Sin may be viewed in the light of its own character - then it is badness; (2) it may be viewed in relation to the nature of man - then it is the abnormal; (3) it may be viewed in relation to the standard of duty - then it is a departure from duty; (4) it may be viewed in reference to its motive and inner quality - then it is the placing of self-will or selfishness above the claims of love and duty; and (5) it may be viewed in relation to the moral government of God - then it is opposition to the spirit and working of God's moral government (Clarke, Outline of Chr. Th., pp.231-237). One of the clearest and most comprehensive definitions of sin is from Dr. A. H. Strong. He says, "Sin is lack of conformity to the moral law of God, either in act, disposition, or state" (Strong, Syst. Th., II, p.549). The definition of sin as given in the Westminster Shorter Catechism is one of the most condensed and yet comprehensive definitions found in theology. According to this Confession, "Sin is any want of conformity to, or transgression of, the law of God."

The Consequences of Sin. It may be expedient at this time to call attention to the fact that the terms applied to sin and redemption are drawn from three universes of discourse - the home, the law court and the temple service. Stated in other words, there are three aspects of sin and redemption, the natural, the legal and the religious. Much confusion has arisen from a failure to distinguish these uses and to apply to sin or redemption a term which is properly applicable only in another universe of discourse. This will be brought out more clearly later. It is sufficient here to note the natural consequences of sin as an estrangement between the creature and the Creator; the legal consequences as guilt and penalty; and the religious as depravity and defilement. Since man is at once an individual and a social being, the consequences of sin apply to both the person and the race. Sin, whether actual or original, assumes two forms, guilt and corruption. Guilt in turn has a twofold aspect, first, it is personal blameworthiness as regards the commission of sin, commonly known as reatus culpo; and second, it is the liability to penalty, known as reatus poeno. Actual sin includes both of these forms of guilt, while the second attaches only to original sin. Corruption or depravity likewise attaches to both the individual and the race. As it attaches to the sins committed by the individual, corruption is known as acquired depravity; as it attaches to the race it is called inherited depravity or original sin.

The Nature of Guilt and Penalty. The consequences of sin are to be found in guilt and penalty, which should be carefully distinguished in thought. Guilt is the personal blameworthiness which follows the act of sin, and involves the twofold idea of responsibility for the act, and a liability to punishment because of it. Penalty carries with it the thought of punishment which follows sin, whether as a natural consequence or a positive decree.

1. Guilt was originally a legal term, which in the course of history took on also, a moral significance. From debt as the primary meaning of the word, it came to mean liability for debt, then in the wider significance of a violation

[William Adams Brown points out that the consequences of sin must be described according to the point of view from which sin is regarded. Thus, looked at from the moral point of view sin issues in guilt; from the religious point of view in estrangement; from the point of view of man's own character and habits in depravity; from that of the divine government in penalty. - cf. Chr. Th. in Outline, p.277.]

of law, and finally as the state or condition of one who had transgressed the law. The law as here understood may mean in some instances objective law, but it cannot be limited to this. Nor can it be limited solely to a transgression against the attributes of divine justice. It must be regarded as a personal opposition to a personal God, in that degree and to that extent that He has been revealed to the offender. Guilt in this sense takes the form of condemnation based upon God's disapproval. Thus in conscience guilt is not a sense of transgression against divine justice or absolute law, but against the divine will. Guilt as personal blameworthiness must be distinguished from the consciousness of that guilt. The fact that a person has committed sin carries with it a sense of guilt, but varying circumstances may increase or diminish the consciousness of that guilt. Sin not only deceives but hardens the heart. Frequently a man feels less compunction of conscience the farther he goes into sin. But the guilt nevertheless remains, even though it is not fully realized in consciousness. Guilt must not only be viewed from the standpoint of personal responsibility for the act, but also as personal liability to punishment. In this sense guilt and penalty are correlative terms. However, a distinction must be made between liability to punishment on the part of the offender and the fact of punishment itself.

[The conscience in man bears its own clear testimony. This faculty of our nature, or representative of the Judge in our personality, is simply in relation to sin the registrar of its guilt. It is the moral consciousness, rather of instinct than of reflection, though also of both, faithfully assuming the personal responsibility of the sin and anticipating its consequences. Such is the scriptural meaning of the word. It is not the standard of right and wrong set up in the moral nature. St. Paul speaks of that written in the heart of universal man: the Gentiles show the work of the law written in their hearts (Rom. 2:15). He goes on to speak of "their conscience also bearing witness," by "accusing or else excusing," undoubtedly looking upward to a Judge and forward t? a judgment. What St. Paul calls suneidhsiV St. John calls kerdia, meaning, however, not the heart, in which St. Paul seats the law, but the consciousness of the inner man. The conscience is the self of the personality, in universal humanity never excusing, but always accusing, and is the conscience of sins (Heb. 10:2). It is enough to establish this distinction between the standard of right and wrong which may be defective and is not conscience proper, and that moral consciousness which infallibly unites the fault and its consequences in the consciousness of the sinner. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p. 34.]

Penalty as related to guilt on the one hand, and the principles of God's moral government on the other, involves two questions, (1) What is the nature of penalty, that is, what part of the consequences of sin may be justly regarded as punishment for sin? (2) What is the function of penalty, that is, what is punishment intended to accomplish in the realm of God's moral government? As to the nature of penalty, it must be limited to those consequences which are adjudged to be evil, and which in God's moral government follow as inevitable and necessary consequences. Here again the word for penalty carries with it a legal significance and implies judicial and forensic relations. But we have seen that guilt implies something more than the violation of objective law; so also penalty must be regarded as broader in its significance. It must be made to include the consequences of all the various evils included in sin. Every form of sin has its own penalty. There are sins against law, against light and against love, and each has its own peculiar penalty. There are secret sins and sins against society, sins of ignorance and sins of presumption. Thus there may be degrees of both guilt and penalty as in the case of sins of ignorance or infirmity as over against sins of knowledge (cf. Matt. 10: 15: 12: 31; Mark 3: 29; Luke 12:47; John 19:11; Rom. 2:12). Penalty, therefore, is the punishment which follows sin, whether it be through the operation of natural, moral and spiritual laws, or by direct decree. God is not limited to His ordinary laws as a means of administration. He is a free Person, and may

[The connection between sin and misery is universally felt, and not seriously disputed by any one....This connection is direct, since sin separates us from Him, in whom alone is our happiness, and on this account can but make us most miserable; reciprocal, because as misery springs from sin, so again does now sin spring continually from misery. Sin is the seed, misery the harvest, but this constantly brings with it new grains of seed; indeed, sin not merely produces, but itself is, the greatest misery. Every other sorrow is partly caused, partly increased, partly at length still more infinitely exceeded in wretchedness by it. Not only the suffering which comes direct from God, but the pain which men inflict on one another, even the calamity which we make for ourselves, must be regarded as its bitter fruit. The consciousness of sin increases on the one hand each load of life, and diminishes on the other the power to bear these with calmness. Just because sin is a much more general, shameful and pernicious evil than any other plague, ought it to be called the greatest cause of complaint. - Von Oosterzee, Chr. Dogm., II, p.434.]

by direct action employ various means to vindicate Himself and His government. Penalty, however, in all its forms is God's reaction against sin, and is based ultimately on His holiness. As to the function of penalty, there are two general theories - the retributive and the reformative. These may be stated in the form of questions as follows: Does God punish sin solely to vindicate His justice? or, Does He seek the reformation of the sinner and the good of society? Where the dominant thought of theology has been the glory of God, the retributive theory is held as best displaying His justice, or mercy in relation to justice. Where the dominant thought has been the good of man, as in the idea of the kingdom of God, the disciplinary theory is the more prominent. But heredity and solidarity are both facts, and God has so created man that he cannot act apart from his social relations. The two theories, therefore, are not mutually exclusive and should not be set in too great contrast. Dr. William Adams Brown says the retributive theory of punishment may make a place incidentally for discipline, while the disciplinary theory clearly recognizes retribution as a necessary element in moral training (cf. William Adams Brown, Chr. Th. in Outline, p. 289). Penalty, therefore, must be considered in both relation to the individual and to the social structure, and consequently as it attaches to both actual and original sin. The chief penalty of sin is death. But since God loves all men, and seeks their salvation, the penalty of sin and the redemptive work of Christ are intimately bound up together and cannot be understood apart from each other.

Death as the Penalty of Sin. The Scriptures teach that the penalty of sin is death (Gen. 2: 17), but the nature of this penalty has been interpreted in different ways. Arminian theologians have generally interpreted it to mean what is commonly known as the "fullness of death," that is, death physical, temporal and eternal. Four leading errors have appeared, (1) that death as a penalty for sin applies only to physical or bodily death. This is the position taken by the Pelagians and Socinians; (2) that the penalty is to be limited to spiritual death only, bodily death being regarded as merely a consequence of this; (3) that death is a natural law, and was given a penal significance when sin entered. Death, therefore, becomes a penal affliction and the fear and suffering which man endures become the penalties for his sin; (4) that death is to be regarded as the total annihilation of both soul and body. The first two are more speculative and theological, the last two more diffused and popular.

1. Physical death is included in the penalty of sin. Some writers such as Vaughan, Godet, and Meyer seem to make physical death the chief factor in the penalty. Thus Vaughan on Romans says, "Natural death, primarily, and as the punishment specially denounced; spiritual and eternal death, incidentally and secondarily, as the necessary consequence of the severance of the creature from the service and love of the Creator." Dr. Olin A. Curtis emphasizes the same view, regarding bodily death as neither a friendly nor useful event, but as abnormal, hostile and terrible. This position seems to be a reaction against the current scientific teaching that death is simply the expression of a biological law, and a beneficent arrangement to prevent the overpopulation of the earth. The fact that physical death is a

[Guilt has another meaning. It is the sure obligation to punishment; or what is sometimes called the reatus poenæ. We must remember that it is here regarded as absolute, without reference to any atoning provision; that it is the penalty of a living soul and not annihilation: and that it is the penalty of the human spirit informing a human body. The soul that sinneth is guilty of death, or of being sundered from the Holy Spirit of life: the death of the spirit separated from God, involving the separation of soul and body, and in its issue eternal. This is a hard saying, taken alone: but its mitigation will come in due time - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p.36.

Holy Scripture sums up all the disturbances of human life which are the result and punishment of sin in the designation "Death." "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23 and James 1:15; Rom. 5:12). There are various kinds of death; and Revelation means by the term not only the death which concerns the inward life - the spiritual semblance of life, the mock being which the sinner leads apart from God, not only the divided state of the inner man, the breaking up and dismemberment of the spiritual powers, which is the result of sin; but also the death which embraces the outward life, the whole array of sicknesses and plagues, which visit the human race, and "all the various ills that flesh is heir to," which are consummated in death, in the separation of the body and the soul. - Martensen, Chr. Dogm., p.209.]

penalty needs fresh emphasis, but that spiritual death is the chief factor needs to be kept constantly in view. Physical death is the consequence of the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit, and is therefore immediately connected with spiritual death. The branch separated from the vine is dead, in that it is no longer connected with its source of life. The moment of man's separation from God brought in the reign of death. That man's earthly existence did not end immediately was due to God's counsel for redemption. The "free gift" of divine grace began before the transgression took place. The virtue of the atonement issued forth from the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Hence the full strength of the condemnation was suspended and the consequences of the fall mitigated. The Scriptures lead us to believe, also, that not only man's nature, but also the nature which surrounds him, bears witness to the disorganizing principle of sin. Thus the creation (h ktisiV ) itself, according to St. Paul, will be emancipated from the slavery of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (cf. Rom. 8: 19-22).

[Though a full and satisfactory explanation of the dark sayings of nature may be impossible in the present limits of our experience, yet a spiritual, a moral view of nature will always be led back to the words of the apostle that the creature is subject to vanity and sighs for redemption. - Martensen, Chr. Dogm., p. 214.

Physical death is the penalty of human sin: not, however, in itself, but as connected with death spiritual: connected with it in some sense as resulting from the same deprivation of the Holy Ghost, whose indwelling in regenerate man is the pledge of the physical resurrection, even as it is the principle of the spirit's resurrection to life. But it is declared to be expressly the penalty of sin in man; who was on its account subjected to the vanity that was the lot of the lower creatures, denied access to the Tree of Life, and surrendered to the dissolution that had already been the natural termination of the existence of the inferior orders of the inhabitants of the earth Moreover, physical death in the sense of the annihilation of man's whole physical nature, as he is soul and spirit, is never once alluded to throughout the Scriptures. To die never in the Bible means extinction. - Pope, Compend. Chr. Th., II, p.39.

Weismann says that the organism must not be looked upon as a heap of combustible material, which is completely reduced to ashes in a certain time, the length of which is determined by its size and the rate at which it burns; but it should be compared to a fire, to which fresh fuel can be added, and which, whether it burns quickly or slowly, can be kept burning as long as necessity demands....Death is not a primary necessity, but it has been acquired secondarily, as an adaptation. - WEISMANN, Heredity, pp. 5, 24.]

2. Spiritual death is due to the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit as the bond of union between the soul and God. By this withdrawal man lost immediately his fellowship with God. Negatively, this was the loss of original righteousness or primitive holiness; positively, it meant a depravation of those powers which in their united action we call man's moral nature. Thus fallen human nature is known as the flesh or sarx, a term which is used to indicate that the whole being of man, body, soul and spirit, have been separated from God and subjected to the creature. Evil consequences follow immediately, among which we may mention the following: (1) Idolatry. The loss of the Holy Spirit leaves the heart of man an abandoned temple. Nothing remains but for the sell to become enthroned as its own god. Hence the world becomes ""a vast pantheon" of lesser gods, all of which are made to minister to the enthroned self. (2) The Self as the Ruling Principle of Life. With the enthronement of the self, there begins the slavery of sin. I am carnal, said the apostle, sold under sin (Rom. 7: 14); and again, I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members (Rom. 7:23). Thus the flesh becomes the opposing principle of the Spirit. When, therefore, St. Paul refers to the carnal mind as sarkinos (sarkinoV ), and the spiritual man as pneumaticos (pneumatikoV ), he portrays one whose whole nature is under the sway of the flesh, and the other as equally under the influence of the Spirit. (3) The Concupiscence of the Flesh. The self being in a false position, and still retaining its essentially active character,

[The second consequence is, therefore, death spiritual, that moral state which arises from the withdrawment of that intercourse of God with the human soul, in consequence of its becoming polluted, and of that influence upon it which is the only source and spring of the right and vigorous direction and employment of its powers in which its rectitude consists; a deprivation, from which depravation consequently and necessarily follows. This, we have before seen, was included in the original threatening, and if Adam was a public person, a representative, it has passed on to his descendants, who in their natural state are therefore said to be "dead in trespasses and sins." Thus it is that the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; and that all evils "proceed from it," as corrupt streams from a corrupt fountain. - Watson, Institutes, II, p.55.]

there arises what is known as concupiscence or inordinate desire. St. Paul in speaking of the carnal mind uses the term phronama (fponhma) or mind. St. James uses a cruder but stronger term, that of epithumia (epiqumia) which is generally translated lust (James 1:14, 15). St. John confirms this by referring to the sin of the world as being "the lust (epiqumia) of the flesh, "the lust (epiqumia) of the eyes, and the pridealaxoneia) of life (I John 2: 16). (4) Ungodliness. The self is not only essentially active, but was created for unlimited progress. Under grace this becomes an ever increasing advancement in the divine likeness - a change from glory unto glory (II Cor. 3: 18). In sin the increase is ""unto more ungodliness" and hence a descent from shame to shame. It must be remembered, however, that sin is but an accident of man's nature and not an essential element of his original being. He retains his personality with all of its powers, but these are exercised apart from God as the true center of his being, and are therefore perverted and sinful. Sin is not some new faculty or power infused into man's being as the special organ of sin. It is rather the bias of all his powers - a darkening of the intellect, an alienation of the affections, and a perverseness of the will.

Eternal death is the final judgment of God upon sin. It is the separation of the soul from God made permanent. It is the punishment of sin apart from the mitigating influences of divine grace From the standpoint of the individual sinner, it is the willful separation from God made final, the attitude of the soul's unbelief and sin made permanent. ""But the highest sense of the term "death,' in Scripture," says Mr. Watson, ""is the punishment of the soul in a future state, by both a loss of happiness and separation from God, and also by a positive infliction of divine wrath. Now this is stated not as peculiar to any dispensation of religion, but as common to all - as the penalty of the transgression of the law of God in every degree. "Sin is the transgression of the law'; this is its definition. "The wages of sin is death'; this is its penalty" (Watson, Institutes, II, p. 50).