Читать книгу The Seventy's Course in Theology, Second Year - B. H. Roberts - Страница 25

Table of Contents

[Footnote A: In Lessons VIII and IX, in place of detached notes a brief treatise is given upon The Fall of Adam; and the Purpose of Man's Creation; recounting the various views entertained upon that subject by the great divisions of Christendom, as also the views set forth in the revelations of God. This treatment is rendered necessary by the nature of the subject.]

In the second book of Nephi occurs the following direct, explicit statement: "Adam fell that man might be, and men are that they might have joy."

This assertion concerns two of the mightiest problems of theology:

1st, The reason for Adam's fall;

2nd, The purpose of man's earth-existence.

Silence of the Creeds.

No where in the creeds of men—the creeds of men! those great crystallizations of Christian truths as men have conceived those truths to he; those embodied deductions of the teachings of Holy Scripture—no where in them, I repeat, are these two great theological questions disposed of on scriptural authority.

Presbyterian View.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, which embodies the accepted doctrine of one of the largest bodies of Protestant Christendom, ascribes the purpose of all the creative acts of God to be "The manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom and goodness."^[A] And in an authoritative explanation of this part of the creed it is said, "The design of God in creation was the manifestation of his own glory." And again, "Our confession very explicitly takes the position that the chief end of God in his eternal purposes and in their temporal execution in creation and providence is the manifestation of his own glory. * * * * * The scriptures explicitly assert that this is the chief end of God in creation. * * * * The manifestation of his own glory is intrinsically the highest and worthiest end that God could propose to Himself."^[B]

[Footnote A: Westminster Confession, chap, iv—Of Creation—Section 1.]

[Footnote B: In proof of this last declaration the expounder cites Col. i:16; Prov. xvi:4; Rev. iv:11; Rom. xi:36. See Commentary on the Confession of Faith with questions for theological students and Bible classes by the Rev. A. A. Hodge D. D. chapter iv. The reading of the passages quoted will convince any one that the statement of the creed is but poorly or not at all sustained by them.]

The only business I have here with this declaration of the purpose of God in creation—including the creation of man, of course—is simply to call attention to the fact that it no where has the direct warrant of scripture.

Episcopalian View.

The great Protestant body of Christians known as the "Episcopal Church" whose chief doctrines are embodied in "The Book of Common Prayer," is silent upon the two subjects in question, viz. "why" Adam fell; the "object" of man's existence. Their "Articles of Faith," it is true, speak of the "fall" of Adam, and its effect upon the human race, but nowhere do they attempt to say "why" it was that Adam fell; or give a "reason" for man's existence. Their creeds proclaim their faith in God, "the Maker and Preserver of all things, both visible and invisible;" but no where declare the purpose of that creation, and consequently have no word as to the "object" of man's existence.

Roman Catholic View.

The exposition of the Catholic creed on the same point, as set forth in the Douay Catechism is as follows:

"Ques. What signify the words creation of heaven and earth?

"Ans. They signify that God made heaven and earth and all creatures in them of nothing, by his word only.

"Ques. 'What moved God to make them?

"Ans. His own goodness, so that he may communicate himself to angels and to man for whom he made all other creatures."

Speaking of the creation of the angels, the same work continues:

"Ques. For what end did God create them? [the angels].

"Ans. To be partakers of his glory and to be our guardians."

Referring again to man's creation the following occurs:

"Ques. Do we owe much to God for creation?

"Ans. Very much, because he made us in such a perfect state, creating us for himself, and all things else for us."^[A]

[Footnote A: Douay Catechism chapter iii.]

From all which it may be summarized that the purposes of God in the creation of man and angels, according to Catholic theology, is—

First, that God might communicate himself to them;

Second, that they might be partakers of his glory.

Third, that he created them for himself, and all things else for them.

While this may be in part the truth, and so far excellent, it has no higher warrant of authority than human deduction, based on conjecture, not scripture; and it certainly falls far short of giving to man that "pride of place" in existence to which his higher nature and his dignity as a son of God entitles him.

Mormon View.

"Adam fell that man might be."

I think it cannot be doubted when the whole story of man's fall is taken into account, that in some way—however hidden it may be under allegory—his fall was closely associated with the propagation of the race. Before the fall we are told that Adam and Eve "were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."^[A] But after the fall "The eyes of them both were opened and they knew that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons,"^[B] and also hid from the presence of the Lord.

[Footnote A: Gen. ii:25.]

[Footnote B: Ibid iii:7. also Lehi: "And now, behold, If Adam had not transgressed, he would not have fallen; but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created, must have remained in the same state [in] which they were, after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore, they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things." (II Nephi ii:22-24. See also Book of Moses chap v. 11.)]

In an incidental way Paul gives us to understand that Adam in the matter of the first transgression was not deceived, but that the woman was.^[A] It therefore follows that Adam must have sinned knowingly, and perhaps deliberately; making choice of obedience between two laws pressing upon him. With his spouse, Eve, he had received a commandment from God to be fruitful, to perpetuate his race in the earth. He had also been told not to partake of a certain fruit of the Garden of Eden; but according to the story of Genesis, as also according to the assertion of Paul, Eve, who with Adam received the commandment to multiply in the earth, was deceived, and by the persuasion of Lucifer induced to partake of the forbidden fruit. She, therefore, was in transgression, and subject to the penalty of that law which from the scriptures we learn included banishment from Eden, banishment from the presence of God, and also the death of the body. This meant, if Eve were permitted to stand alone in her transgression, that she must be alone also in suffering the penalty. In that event she would have been separated from Adam, which necessarily would have prevented obedience to the commandment given to them conjointly to multiply in the earth. In the presence of this situation it is therefore to be believed that Adam not deceived either by the cunning of Lucifer or the blandishments of the woman, deliberately, and with full knowledge of his act and its consequences, and in order to carry out the purpose of God, in the creation of man, shared alike the woman's transgression and its effects, and this in order that the first great commandment he had received from God, viz.—"Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it"—might not fail of fulfillment. Thus "Adam fell that man might be."

[Footnote A: Tim. ii:14.]

The effect of this doctrine upon the ideas of men concerning the great Patriarch of our race will be revolutionary. It seems to be the fashion of those who assume to teach the Christian religion to denounce Adam in unmeasured terms: as if the fall of man had surprised, if indeed it did not altogether thwart, the original plan of God, respecting the existence of man in the earth. The creeds of the churches generally fail to consider the 'fall' as part of God's purpose regarding this world; and, in its way, as essential to the accomplishment of that purpose as the "redemption" through Jesus Christ. Certainly there would have been no occasion for the "redemption" had there been no "fall;" and hence no occasion for the display of all that wealth of grace and mercy and justice and love—all that richness of experience involved in the gospel of Jesus Christ, had there been no "fall." It cannot be but that it was part of God's purpose to display these qualities in their true relation, for the benefit and blessing and experience and enlargement of man; and since there would have been no occasion for displaying them but for the "fall," it logically follows that the "fall," no less than the "redemption," must have been part of God's original plan respecting the earth-probation of man. The "fall," undoubtedly was a fact as much present to the foreknowledge of God as was the "redemption;" and the act which encompassed it must be regarded as more praise-worthy than blame-worthy, since it was essential to the accomplishment of the divine purpose. Yet, as I say, those who assume to teach Christianity roundly denounce Adam for his transgression. "The Catholic Church teaches," says Joseph Faa' Di Bruno, D. D., "that Adam by his sin has not only caused harm to himself, but to the whole human race; that by it he lost the supernatural justice and holiness which he received gratuitously from God, and lost it, not only for himself, but also for all of us; and that he, having stained himself with the sin of disobedience, has transmitted not only death and other bodily pains and infirmities to the whole human race, but also sin, which is the death of the soul."^[A]

[Footnote A: Catholic Belief, p. 6.]

And again:

"Unhappily, Adam by his sin of disobedience, which was also a sin of pride, disbelief, and ambition, forfeited, or, more properly speaking, rejected that original justice; and we, as members of the human family, of which he was the head, are also implicated in that guilt of self-spoliation, or rejection and deprivation of those supernatural gifts; not indeed on account of our having willed it with our personal will, but by having willed it with the will of our first parent, to whom we are linked by nature as members to their head."^[A]

[Footnote A: Catholic Belief, p. 330.]

Still again, and this from the Catholic Catechism:

"Q. How did we lose original justice?

"A. By Adam's disobedience to God in eating the forbidden fruit.

"Q. How do you prove that?

"A. Out of Rom. v:12. 'By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and so unto all men death did pass, in whom all have sinned.'

"Q. Had man ever died if he had never sinned?

"A. He would not, but would live in a state of justice and at length would be translated alive to the fellowship of the angels."^[A]

[Footnote A: Douay Catechism, p. 13.]

From a Protestant source I quote the following:

"In the fall of man we may observe, 1. The greatest infidelity. 2. Prodigious pride. 3. Horrid ingratitude. 4. Visible contempt of God's majesty and justice. 5. Unaccountable folly. 6. A cruelty to himself and to all his posterity. Infidels, however, have treated the account of the fall and its effects, with contempt, and considered the whole as absurd; but their objections to the manner have been ably answered by a variety of authors; and as to the effects, one would hardly think any body could deny. For, that man is a fallen creature, is evident, if we consider his misery, as an inhabitant of the natural world; the disorders of the globe we inhabit, and the dreadful scourges with which it is visited; the deplorable and shocking circumstances of our birth; the painful and dangerous travail of women; our natural uncleanliness, helplessness, ignorance, and nakedness, the gross darkness in which we naturally are, both with respect to God and a future state; the general rebellion of the brute creation against us; the various poisons that lurk in the animal, vegetable, and mineral world, ready to destroy us; the heavy curse of toil and sweat to which we are liable; the innumerable calamities of life, and the pangs of death."^[A]

[Footnote A: Buck's Theological Dictionary, p. 335.]

In its article on man the dictionary just quoted also says:

"God, it is said, made man upright, (Eccl. vii:29), without any imperfection, corruption, or principle of corruption in his body or soul; with light in his understanding, holiness in his will, and purity in his affection. This constituted his original righteousness, which was universal, both with respect to the subject of it, the whole man, and the object of it, the whole law. Being thus in a state of holiness, he was necessarily in a state of happiness. He was a very glorious creature, the favorite of heaven, the lord of the world, possessing perfect tranquility in his own breast, and immortal. Yet he was not without law: for the law of nature, which was impressed on his heart, God superadded a positive law, not to eat of the forbidden fruit (Gen. ii:17) under the penalty of death natural, spiritual, and eternal. Had he obeyed this law, he might have had reason to expect that he would not only have had the continuance of the natural and spiritual life, but have been transported to the upper paradise. Man's righteousness, however, though universal, was not immutable, as the event has proved. How long he lived in a state of innocence cannot easily be ascertained, yet most suppose it was but a short time. The [Transcriber's note: break in the text here appears to be a printer's error in the original] tion, or rejection and deprivation of those supernatural gifts; not indeed positive law which God gave him he broke, by eating the forbidden fruit. The consequence of this evil act was, that man lost the chief good; his nature was corrupted; his powers depraved, his body subject to corruption, his soul exposed to misery, his posterity all involved in ruin, subject to eternal condemnation, and for ever incapable to restore themselves to the favor of God, to obey his commands perfectly, and to satisfy his justice."^[A]

[Footnote A: Buck's Theological Dictionary, p. 182.]

Another Protestant authority says:

"The tree of knowledge of good and evil revealed to those who ate its fruit secrets of which they had better have remained ignorant; for the purity of man's happiness consisted in doing and loving good without even knowing evil."^[A]

[Footnote A: Old Testament History William Smith, L. L.D., chap. ii.]

From these several passages as also indeed from the whole tenor of Christian writings upon this subject, the fall of Adam is quite generally deplored and upon him is laid a very heavy burden of responsibility. It was he, they complain, who

"Brought death into the world, and all our woe."

One great division of Christendom in its creed, it is true, in dealing with the fall, concedes that "God was pleased according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit [the fall] having purposed to order it to his own glory."^[A]

[Footnote A: Westminster Confession chapter vi, section 1.]

And in an authoritative explanation of this section they say, "That this sin [the fall] was permissively embraced in the sovereign purpose of God." And still further in explanation: "Its purpose being God's general plan, and one eminently wise and righteous, to introduce all the new created subjects of moral government into a state of probation for a time in which he makes their permanent character and destiny depend upon their own action." Still, this sin described as being permissively embraced in the sovereign purpose of the Deity, God designed "to order it to his own glory;" but it no where appears according to this confession of faith that the results of the fall are to be of any benefit to man. The only thing consulted in the theory of this creed seems to be the manifestation of the glory of God—a thing which represents God as a most selfish being—but just how the glory of God can be manifested by the "fall" which, according to this creed, results in the eternal damnation of the overwhelming majority of his "creatures," is not quite apparent.

Those who made this Westminster Confession, as also the large following which accept it, concede that their theory involves them at least in two difficulties which they confess it is impossible for them to meet. These are, respectively:

First, "How could sinful desires or volitions originate in the soul of moral agents created holy like Adam and Eve;" and, second, "how can sin be permissively embraced in the eternal purpose of God and not involve him as responsible for the sin?" "If it be asked," say they "why God, who abhors sin, and who benevolently desires the excellence and happiness of his creatures, should sovereignly determine to permit such a fountain of pollution, degradation, and misery to be opened, we can only say, with profound reverence, 'Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.'"^[A]

[Footnote A: Commentary on the Confession of Faith, A. D. Hodge, pp. 105-108.]

These difficulties, however, are the creed's and those who accept it, not ours, and do not further concern our discussion at this point.

Infidels—under which general term (and I do not use it offensively) I mean all those who do not accept the Christian creeds, nor believe the Bible to be a revelation—infidels, I say, quite generally deride the fall of man as represented both in the creeds of Christendom and in the Bible. They regard the tremendous consequences attendant upon eating the forbidden fruit as altogether out of proportion with the act itself, and universally hold that a moral economy which would either design or permit such a calamity as the fall is generally supposed to be, as altogether unworthy of an all-merciful and just Deity. Thomas Paine referring to it says:

"Putting aside everything that might excite laughter by its absurdity, or detestation by its profaneness, and confining ourselves merely to an examination of the parts, it is impossible to conceive a story more derogatory to the Almighty, more inconsistent with his wisdom, more contradictory to his power than this story is."

In their contentions against the story of Genesis, no less than iu their war upon "the fall" and "original sin" in the men-made creeds of Christendom, infidels have denounced God in most blasphemous terms as the author of all the evil in this world by permitting, through not preventing, the fall; and they have as soundly ridiculed and abused Adam for the part he took in the affair. He has been held up by them as weak and cowardly, because he referred his partaking of the forbidden fruit to the fact that the woman gave to him and he did eat; a circumstance into which they read an effort on the part of the man to escape censure, perhaps punishment, and to cast the blame for his transgression upon the woman. These scoffers proclaim their preference for the variations of this story of a "fall of man" as found in the mythologies of various peoples, say those of Greece or India.^[A] But all this aside. The truth is that nothing could be more courageous, sympathetic, or nobly honorable than the course of this world's great Patriarch in his relations to his wife Eve and the "fall." The woman by deception is led into transgression, and stands under the penalty of a broken law. Banishment from the presence of God, banishment from the presence of her husband—death, await her. Thereupon the man, not deceived, but knowingly (as we are assured by Paul), also transgresses. Why? In one aspect of the case in order that he might share the woman's banishment from the comfortable presence of God, and with her die—than which ho higher proof of love could be given—no nobler act of chivalry performed. But primarily he transgressed that "Man might be." He transgressed a less important law that he might comply with one more important, if one may so speak of any of God's laws. The facts are, as we have already seen, that the conditions which confronted Adam in his earth-life were afore time known to him; that of his own volition he accepted them, and came to earth to meet them.

[Footnote A: See Ingersoll's Lectures, "Liberty of Man, Woman and Child," where the great orator, contrasts the story of the Pall given in the Bible with that of Brahma in the Hindoo mythology, and extravagantly praises the latter to the disparagement of the former.]