The singular exception referred to is the eccentric theory that the evil nature with which all men are born into this world has been self-originated, by a free, per- sonal self-determination to evil in a pre-existent state. As thus generally stated, this theory was first introduced into the Christian Church by Origen, and revived in the modern Church by Dr. Edward Beecher in his Conflict of Ages, and by Julius Miller in his great work on the Christian Doctrine of Sin. Beecher and Miller agree in holding that (a) every child is born with a nature morally corrupt; (6) that this innate corruption is guelt—
CHA PTER Vil.
Attempt- ed solu- tions which admit antenatal forfeit- ure.
The Pre- existence \ theory.
CHAPTER Vil.
90 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
that is, that every new-born soul is from the first morally responsible and justly punishable for that corruption ; (c) but since a moral agent can be morally responsible for a moral character only when it has been self-origi- nated by a previous unbiased act of will, it follows that each human person must have had an existence in which
responsible self-determination was possible previous to his birth in this life.
Beecher’s conception of the matter is as follows: In —
the beginning, all human souls were created like the angels, free, responsible, moral agents, fully developed. Kach stood alone, and enjoyed a fair probation in his own person, Some of the angels stood the trial, and were confirmed in holy character for ever. Some of the an- gels, and all of those spirits subsequently born into this world as men, fell and became morally depraved, and were righteously condemned because of their own personal apostasy. or the purpose of bringing this last class of lost souls under a remedial system of grace, God created the physical universe for their habitation, and caused them to be born into material bodies, and propagated by generation. They all come into the world, consequently, with their natures depraved, and their natural rights forfeited by their own personal action in their pre- existent state.
The conception of Muller, though philosophically very different from the above, in a theological point of view amounts to the same. He adopts from the Idealism of Schelling the principle of a transcendental freedom as an attribute of all personal spirits. ‘“ Man in his origin is a morally undetermined not yet decided essence, and by virtue of his personality can only be such an one.”* “Only personal essences have a ground in their own act; itis the possession of freedom in this their now
* Christian Doctrine of Sin, vel. ii., p. 157.
FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 91
temporal root which distinguishes the spirit absolutely cxarter from nature.’* “In the kingdom of the intelligible, °~ | this silent, timeless, shadowy kingdom is, as it were, the | / maternal womb in which the embryos of all personal essences lie enclosed. Here we find the simple, undeter- _ mined beginnings of our being, which precede its concrete | contents ; therefore, one is not in this kingdom to look for the fulness of the Godlike life, but only the power of deciding either in favour of voluntary union with God _by subordination to his will, or for the persistency of | self-hood in itself. Whichever way this primitive deci- sion may take place, it forms for these intelligible exist- ences the transition into space and time, into corporiety and development,” &¢.+ This theory, in all its forms, is inadmissible, because— Refuta- ow 1. It is absolutely destitute of any assignable evidence, “™ either in Scripture or in the sum total of human experi- ence. It is confessedly a pure creation of the human brain to reconcile the fact that all men are born respon- sible, guilty sinners, with the speculative assumption that a moral agent cannot be responsible for its moral character, unless that moral character be self-determined by a previous unbiased self-decision of the moral agent himself. 2. This doctrine is plainly inconsistent with all the Scriptures teach us, either as to the origin and original state of man, or as to the origin of sin. As to the origin of man, it is said, “ And the Lorp God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 1. 7). As to his original state, it is said, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him” (Gen. 1. 27, v. 1, ix. 6); which image Paul declares consists in ‘‘ knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness” (Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii, 10). At the * Christian Doctrine of Sin, vol. ii., p. 171. fT Ibid., p. 167.
re en OO
92 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
cnarrer close of his six days of work, God saw everything he a) had made, man included, ‘‘and, behold, it was very good” (Gen. i. 31). ‘Lo, this only have I found, that |
God hath made man upright; but they have sought
out many inventions” (Eccles. vu. 29). As to the origin