Christian Classics
‹ Systematic Theology - Volume II
Contents
TitlePrefatoryPart II. Anthropology1. Scriptural Doctrine.2. Anti-Scriptural Theories.3. Antiquity of Man.1. Scripture Doctrine2. Trichotomy.3. Realism.4. Another form of the Realistic Theory.1. Theory of Preëxistence.2. Traducianism.3. Creationism.4. Concluding Remarks.Chapter IV. Unity of the Human Race.1. Meaning of the Word, or the Idea of Species.2. Evidence of Identity of Species.3. Application of these Criteria to Man.4. Philological and Moral Evidence1. The Scriptural Doctrine.2. Man Created in the Image of God.3. Original Righteousness.4. Dominion over the Creatures.5. The Doctrine of the Romish Church.6. Pelagian and Rationalistic Doctrine.Chapter VI. Covenant of Works.1. God entered into Covenant with Adam.2. The Promise.3. Condition of the Covenant.4. The Penalty.5. The Parties to the Covenant of Works.6. Perpetuity of the Covenant of WorksChapter VII. The Fall.1. The Nature of the Question to be Considered.2. Philosophical Theories of the Nature of Sin.3. The Doctrine of the Early Church.4. Pelagian Theory.5. Augustinian Doctrine.6. Doctrine of the Church of Rome.7. Protestant Doctrine of Sin.8. The Effects of Adam’s Sin upon his Posterity.9. Immediate Imputation.10. Mediate Imputation.11. Preëxistence.12. Realistic Theory.13. Original Sin. · Part 113. Original Sin. · Part 213. Original Sin. · Part 314. The Seat of Original Sin.15. Inability.Chapter IX. Free Agency.1. Different Theories of the Will.2. Definition of Terms.3. Certainty Consistent with Liberty.1. God has such a Plan.2. Supralapsarianism.3. Infralapsarianism.4. Hypothetical Redemption.5. The Lutheran Doctrine as to the Plan of Salvation.6. The Remonstrant Doctrine.7. Wesleyan Arminianism.8. The Augustinian Scheme.9. Objections to the Augustinian Scheme.1. The Plan of Salvation is a Covenant.2. Different Views of the Nature of this Covenant.3. Parties to the Covenant.4. Covenant of Redemption.5. The Covenant of Grace.6. The Identity of the Covenant of Grace under all Dispensations.7. Different Dispensations.1. Preliminary Remarks.2. The Scriptural Facts concerning the Person of Christ.3. The Hypostatical Union.4. Consequences of the Hypostatical Union.5. Erroneous and Heretical Doctrines on the Person of Christ.6. Doctrine of the Reformed Churches.7. Lutheran Doctrine.8. Later Forms of the Doctrine.9. Modern Forms of the Doctrine.1. Christ the only Mediator.2. Qualifications for the Work.3. The Threefold Office of Christ.1. Nature of the Prophetic Office.2. How Christ executes the Office of a Prophet.1. Christ is truly, not figuratively, a Priest.2. Christ our only Priest.3. Definition of Terms1. Statement of the Doctrine.2. The Intrinsic Worth of Christ’s Satisfaction.3. Doctrine of the Scotists and Remonstrants.4. Satisfaction rendered to Justice.5. The Work of Christ Satisfies the Demands of the Law.6. Proof of the Doctrine. · Part 16. Proof of the Doctrine. · Part 26. Proof of the Doctrine. · Part 37. Objections.1. State of the Question.2. Proof of the Augustinian Doctrine.Chapter IX. Theories of the Atonement.1. The Orthodox View.2. Doctrine of some of the Fathers.3. The Moral Theory.4. The Governmental Theory.5. The Mystical Theory.6. Concluding Remarks.1. Christ our Intercessor.2. Its Nature.3. Its Objects.4. Intercession of Saints.1. The Church God’s Kingdom.2. Christ is truly a King.3. Nature of Christ’s Kingdom.4. The Kingdom of Glory.1. Includes his Incarnation.2. He was made under the Law.3. His Sufferings and Death.4. He endured the Wrath of God.5. His Death and Burial.1. Resurrection of Christ.2. Ascension of Christ.3. Sitting at the Right Hand of God.4. Christ’s coming to judge the World.1. Scriptural Usage of the Word.3. Common Grace.4. Efficacious Grace.5. Proof of the Doctrine.6. Objections.7. History of the Doctrine of Grace.

Charles Hodge · 48 of 128

13. Original Sin. · Part 3

Argument from the Common Consent of Christians.

Finally, it is fair, on this subject, to appeal to the faith of the Church universal. Protestants, in rejecting the doctrine of tradition, and in asserting that the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, do not reject the authority of the Church as a teacher. They do not isolate themselves from the great company of the faithful in all ages, and set up a new faith. They hold that Christ promised the Holy Spirit to lead his people into the knowledge of the truth; that the Spirit does dwell as a teacher in all the children of God, and that those who are born of God are thus led to the knowledge and belief of the truth. There is therefore to the true Church, or the true people of God, but one faith, as there is but one Lord and one God the Father of all. Any doctrine, therefore, which can be proved to be a part of the faith (not of the external and visible Church, but) of the true children of God in all ages of the world, must be true. It is to be received not because it is thus universally believed, but because its being universally believed by true Christians is a proof that it is taught by the Spirit both in his Word and in the hearts of his people. This is a sound principle recognized by all Protestants. This universal faith of the Church is not to be sought so much in the decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as in the formulas of devotion which have prevailed among the people. It is, as often remarked, in the players, in the hymnology, in the devotional writings which true believers make the channel of their communion with God, and the medium through which they express their most intimate religious , that we must look for the universal faith. From the faith of God’s people no man can separate himself without forfeiting the communion of , and placing himself outside of the pale of true believers. If these things be admitted we must admit the doctrine of . That doctrine has indeed been variously explained, and in many cases explained away by theologians and by councils, but it is indelibly impressed on the faith of the true Church. It pervades the prayers, the worship, and the institutions of the Church. All true Christians are convinced of sin; they are convinced not only of individual , but also of the of their heart and nature. They recognize this as innate and controlling. They groan under it as a grievous burden. They know that they are by nature the children of wrath. Parents bring their children to Christ to be washed by his blood and renewed by his Spirit, as anxiously as mothers crowded around our Lord when on earth, with their suffering infants that they might be healed by his and power. Whatever difficulties, therefore, may attend the doctrine of , we must accept it as clearly taught in the Scriptures, confirmed by the testimony of consciousness and history, and sustained by the faith of the Church universal.

Objections.

The objections to this doctrine, it must be admitted, are many and serious. But this is true of all the great doctrines of religion, whether natural or revealed. Nor are such difficulties confined to the sphere of religion. Our knowledge in every department is limited, and in a great measure confined to isolated facts. We know that a stone falls to the ground, that a seed germinates and produces a plant after its own kind; but it is absolutely impossible for us to understand how these familiar effects are accomplished. We know that God is, and that He governs all his creatures, but we do not know how his effectual controlling agency is consistent with the free agency of rational beings. We know that sin and misery exist in the world, and we know that God is infinite in power, , and benevolence. How to the prevalence of sin with the character of God we know not. These are familiar and universally admitted facts as well in philosophy as in religion. A thing may be, and often certainly is true, against which objections may be urged which no man is able to answer. There are two important practical principles which follow from the facts just mentioned. First, that it is not a sufficient or a rational ground for rejecting any well authenticated truth that we are not able to free it from objections or difficulties. And, secondly, any objection against a religious doctrine is to be regarded as sufficiently answered if it can be shown to bear with equal force against an undeniable fact. If the objection is not a rational reason for denying the fact it is not a rational reason for rejecting the doctrine. This is the method which the sacred writers adopt in vindicating truth.

It will be seen that almost all the objections against the doctrine of are in conflict with one or the other of the principles just mentioned. Either they are addressed not to the evidences of the truth of the doctrine whether derived from Scripture or from experience, but to the difficulty of it with other truths; or these objections are insisted upon as fatal to the doctrine when they obviously are as valid against the facts of as they are against the teachings of Scripture.

The Objection that Men are Responsible only for their Voluntary Acts.

1. The most obvious objection to the doctrine of is rounded on the assumption that nothing can have moral character except voluntary acts and the states of mind resulting from or produced by our voluntary agency, and which are subject to the power of the will. This objection rests on a principle which has already been considered. It reaches very far. If it be sound, then there can be no such thing as concreated , or habitual , or innate, inherent, or indwelling sin. But we have already seen, when treating of the nature of sin, that according to the Scriptures, the testimony of consciousness, and the universal judgment of men) the moral character of dispositions depends on their nature and not on their origin. Adam was holy, although so created. are holy, although and by the almighty power of God. And therefore the soul is truly sinful if the subject of sinful dispositions, although those dispositions should be innate and entirely beyond the control of the will. Here it will be seen that the objection is not against the Scriptural evidence of the doctrine that men are born in sin, nor against the testimony of facts to the truth of that doctrine; but it is founded on the difficulty of the doctrine of innate sin with certain assumed principles as to the nature and grounds of moral obligation. Whether we can refute those principles or not, does not affect the truth of the doctrine. We might as well deny all prophecy and all , because we cannot the absolute control of free agents with their liberty. If the assumed moral axiom that a man can be responsible only for his own acts, conflicts with the facts of experience and the teachings of Scriptures, the rational course is to deny the pretended axiom, and not to reject the facts with which it is in conflict. The Bible, the Church, the mass of mankind, and the conscience, hold a man responsible for his character, no matter how that character was formed or it was derived; and, therefore, the doctrine of is not in conflict with intuitive moral truths.

Objection Founded on the Justice of God.

2. It is objected that it is inconsistent with the justice of God that men should come into the world in a state of sin. In answer to this objection it may be remarked, (1.) That whatever God does must be right. If He permits men to be born in sin, that fact must be consistent with his divine perfection. (2.) It is a fact of experience no less than a doctrine of Scripture that men are either, as the Church teaches, born in a state of sin and condemnation, or, as all men must admit, in a state which inevitably leads to their becoming sinful and miserable. The objection, therefore, bears against a fact as much as against a Scriptural doctrine. We must either deny God or admit that the existence and universality of sin among men is compatible with his nature and with his government of the world. (3.) The Bible, as often before remarked, accounts for and vindicates the corruption of our race on the ground that mankind had a full and fair probation in Adam, and that the spiritual death in which they are born is part of the judicial penalty of his . If we reject this solution of the fact, we cannot deny the fact itself, and, being a fact, it must be consistent with the character of God.

The Doctrine represents God as the Author of Sin.

3. A third objection often and confidently urged is, that the Church doctrine on this subject makes God the author of sin. God is the author of our nature, If our nature be sinful, God must be the author of sin. The obvious fallacy of this syllogism is, that the word nature is used in one sense in the major proposition, and in a different sense in the minor. In the one it means substance or essence; in the other, natural disposition. It is true that God is the author of our essence. But our essence is not sinful. God is indeed our Creator. He made us, and not we ourselves. We are the work of his hands. He is the Father of the spirits of all men. But He is not the author of the evil dispositions with which that nature is infected at birth. The doctrine of attributes no efficiency to God in the production of evil. It simply supposes that He judicially abandons our apostate race, and withholds from the descendants of Adam the manifestations of his favour and love, which are the life of the soul. That the inevitable consequence of this judicial abandonment is spiritual death, no more makes God the author of sin, than the immorality and desperate and unchanging wickedness of the reprobate, from whom God withholds his Spirit, are to be referred to the infinitely Holy One as their author. It is moreover a historical fact universally admitted, that character, within certain limits, is transmissible from parents to children. Every nation, separate tribe, and even every extended family of men, has its physical, mental, social, and moral peculiarities which are propagated from generation to generation. No process of discipline or culture can transmute a Tartar into an Englishman, or an Irishman into a Frenchman. The Bourbons, the Hapsburgs, and other historical families, have retained and transmitted their peculiarities for ages. We may be unable to explain thus, but we cannot deny it. No one is born an absolute man, with nothing but generic humanity belonging to him. Everyone is born a man in a definite state, with all those characteristics physical, mental, and moral, which make up his individuality. There is nothing therefore in the doctrine of hereditary out of analogy with facts.

It is said to destroy the Free Agency of Men.

4. It is further objected to this doctrine that it destroys the free agency of man. If we are born with a corrupt nature by which we are inevitably determined to sinful acts, we cease to be free in performing those acts, and consequently are not responsible for them. This objection is founded on a particular theory of liberty, and must stand or fall with it. The same objection is urged against the doctrines of decrees, of efficacious , of the of the , and all other doctrines which assume that a free act can be absolutely certain as to its occurrence. It is enough here to remark that the doctrine of supposes men to have the same kind and degree of liberty in sinning under the influence of a corrupt nature, that and angels have in acting rightly under the influence of a holy nature. To act according to its nature is the only liberty which belongs to any created being.