« 이전계속 »
osophic people, and their language is not adapted to the uses of exact science. Not a metaphysical turn of thought occurs throughout the Bible. The outward, physical world, and the inward intellectual, are alike spoken of in the language of common life, in words borrowed from the observation of the senses. Their knowledge of nature and of mind being phenomenal rather than scientific, their language was hence simple, and better adapted to general moral instruction than to philosophic discourse, their meaning being apparent from the connection and drift of discourse, if not from the precision of words. The ethical use of the terms “heart” and “flesh” in Scripture cannot be doubtful.
The sensational theory of depravity has found a semblance of proof in such phrases as “sin in the flesh,” Rom. viii, 3; “Vile body,” Phil. iii, 21; and especially the statement, “vóuq rīs d’aprias . . . ¿v Tois péheoi, the law of sin in my members,” Rom. vii, 23, (compare also chap. vi, 19 :) and also in chap. vii, 5, “ for when we were in the flesh, (év gapkí,) the passions of sin or sinful affections (παθήματα αμαρτιών) did work (εν τοϊς μέλεσιν nuov) in our members, [our organism,] to bring forth fruit unto death.” But these may be explained in harmony with the foregoing views. The “law of sin" may have been located “in the members ” of the physical nature by the apostle, because the greatest force of sinful habit and temptation seemed to lodge and to develop there, and the soul to feel her greatest impotency and servitude from hence. “The soul,” says Bengel, "is, as it were, the king; the members are its citizens; sin is, as an enemy, admitted through the fault of the king, who is doomed to be punished by the oppression of the citizens." But in any wise such phrases cannot be construed against the clear and overwhelming light of the analogy of Scripture as already given. The early Christian Church unhappily mistook the Scriptural antithesis of flesh and spirit for the dualistic antagonism of spirit and matter, as taught by the heathen, and as the Jews had done before them when they had become infected with the pagan philosophy, became enamored of a false asceticism in piety, which, in the language of Hundeshagen,“ virtually turns the body into a creature of the devil,” while the soul is commiserated for its unfortunate companionship therewith. But as Meyer well observes, “ There is nothing in the biblical use of the term to justify the opinion that the flesh [the literal body] (oapg) is in itself evil, or necessarily productive of sin.” It is the body in its living animate state, hence as including the soul, and as the instrument of the soul, that has this deadly power. “The physical-corporeal life of man, with its center, I, (says the author last quoted,) departed from the life of God and isolated itself, and being no longer sustained and attracted by the powers of the world above, is drawn downward, its tendency becomes earthly, worldly, and all its functions partake of this character.” But united to God it is controlled by the Divine Spirit.
The Church of England in her ninth Article of Religion defines original sin, or natural depravity, to be “the fault or corruption of the nature of every man," which he has by natural birth, “ whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil.” Now, here are four points in the definition: the "fault,” (defect, or infirmity ;) the “ corruption,” (which is, says Jeremy Taylor, “exegetical of the other;'') the loss of “ original righteousness," and hence of all supernatural aids, leaving man to "pure naturals;" and the “inclination to evil.” The whole definition is then resolved into an “infection of nature," and the sum and essence of depravity declared to be the same as Paul calls φρόνημα σαρκός, which, says the Article, “some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh.” It is simply transalated in our English Bible, “ carnal mind.” All this cautious avoidance of philosophic terms shows how the framers of the Articles felt themselves pressed upon either hand with human speculations, and with the importance, in giving adequate definitions, of keeping within scriptural phraseology, and not erecting into dogma subjects which lose themselves in obscure depths of psychology and metaphysics. “That the first ages taught the doctrine of original sin,” says Jeremy Taylor, “I do no wise doubt, but affirm it all the way; but that it is a sin improperly, that is, a stain and a reproach rather than a sin; that is, the effect of one sin and the cause of many; that it bronght in sickness and death, mortality and passions; that it made us naked of those supernatural aids that Adam had, and so more liable to the temptations of the devil: this is all I find in antiquity, and sufficient for the explication of
ho and the jis dpózolom, sot it
this question, which,” he adds, “the more simply it is handled the more true and reasonable it is.”
What, then, is the sum of orthodox teaching as to the nature and extent of original sin, or hereditary depravity? We cannot agree with those who make it to consist merely in the inordinateness of bodily desires. This is one condition of our nature, but does not comprehend the evil. Nor can we agree with those who make the connection of mind and matter, and the consequent impressions of the latter upon the former, through the senses, the cause of universal aberration and alienation from God. This also has its influence, but falls short of the real and adequate cause of the disordered action of the moral ego. Nor can we make out an adequate account of human depravity by adding to these the frailty, disease, disabilities, and mortality of the body. Above all these there is an evil affecting the higher nature, the soul. The soul has lost its original righteousness, its supernatural helps, its holy sympathies, affections, and aspirations. This righteousness was not a development of constitutional powers, but the gift of God superadded to existence. This the sin of Adam forfeited, not merely for himself, but for the race, for universal humanity. Whether the effect of Adam's personal sin on universal human nature was according to a law of natural connection, or of federal relation between him and his posterity, we stop not now to inquire. The fact only we affirm, without speculating upon the modus of its accomplishment. But this absence or loss of “ righteousness and true holiness,” which is the moral image of God, in which man was created, is not merely a negative loss, but implies also the presence of opposite qualities of character. The loss of good implies the presence of evil; the loss of humility is the presence of pride; the loss of love, the dominion of the malevolent affections; the loss of holy desires from the soul, the indwelling of their opposites.
President Edwards lays down the case thus : When God created man he implanted in him two kinds of principles : the one inferior, comprehending all that is simply natural to man; and the other superior, comprehending all that is supernatural, spiritual, holy. These superior principles were given to possess the throne and maintain dominion. Sin forfeited this divine, spiritual, holy nature, and this supernatural aid, and
left man to the dominion of the lower, or simply natural principles. “As light ceases in the room when the candle is withdrawn, so man is left in a state of darkness, woful corruption and ruin, nothing but flesh without spirit, when the Holy Ghost, that heavenly inhabitant, forsakes the house.” “It were easy to show," he adds, “how every depraved disposition would naturally arise from this privative original."
It is human nature thus left alone by the withdrawment of divine and spiritual influence, that is denoted by the figurative use of capš, flesh, in the New Testament, a term which constantly stands opposed to hveVua, spirit, which in this ethical or figurative sense as constantly either signifies the Holy Spirit, or the intellectual nature of man as under the renewing, sanctifying, and controlling influence of the Holy Spirit.
Such, then, is man's natural state. Such is the Arminian doctrine upon the subject. Herein we agree with Augustine and Calvin, however we may differ in certain corollaries arising from this doctrine, or on the principle by which the atonement is applied as a remedy according to the divine plan of grace, not to go back of this to speak of foreordination and particular election.
ART. VI.—THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
The English Language in its Elements and Forms. With a History of its Origin and Development. Designed for use in Colleges and Schools. Revised and enlarged by WILLIAM C. FowLER, late Professor of Rhetoric in Amherst College. The English Language in its Elements and Forms. Abridged
from the octavo edition. By WILLIAM C. FOWLER. Elementary Grammar, Etymology and Syntax. Designed for General Use in Common Schools. By WILLIAM C. FOWLER. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1859.
A LANGUAGE has a history and a life, which, if we can but trace, we shall find to be of wonderful interest. “ There are cases,” says Coleridge, “ in which more knowledge of more value may be conveyed by the history of a word than by the history of a campaign.”
It is of especial importance and interest to trace the history of our own tongue, for the English language is marked in its character as composite, its two chief elements being the AngloSaxon and the Latin, though it has taken many words in its vocabulary from other sources.
In the earliest historic times Britain was inhabited by a Celtic race. Of them but little is known, though we infer they had made some advancement in the arts, for they had acquired skill in working metals. It is also evident that they had some political organization, and carried on considerable commerce with the Continent. Comparatively little of our language comes from the early Britons, yet the Celtic element has at different times furnished words for our vocabulary.
After Britain was conquered by Rome, though her literature and arts were cultivated, * but little trace of her language was left. Only a few words relating to military affairs are ascribed to this period.
The Saxons invaded Britain A. D. 449, and in less than a century they acquired possession of all the island they ever conquered.
But little is known of the literature of the Saxons before the introduction of Christianity among them. On their first invasion they destroyed the monasteries and religious houses of the Britons, and the conquered race relapsed into heathenism. It is said that the nation was again brought back to Christianity through the efforts set on foot by Gregory the Great before he became pope. Passing through the slavemarket at Rome, as the story is told, he was struck with the beauty of some youth exposed for sale. He asked of what nation they were, and was told they were Angli. Playing upon the word he replied they ought rather to be angeli. Gregory sent the monk Augustine to Britain in the year 597, and so great success attended his efforts that in a few years the nation became nominally Christian. From the introduction of Christianity may be dated the rise of their literature. About seventy years after the arrival of Augustine among a people whom he dreaded to visit, because he looked upon them as a race of bar
an brought back to
Great before hugh the efforts set c
* Tacitus says: "Jam vero principum filios liberalibus artibus erudire et ingenia Britannorum studiis Gallorum anteferre ut qui modo linguam Romanam abnuebant eloquentiam concupiscerent.” Agricola c. 21.