[8] Cf. E. Caird, _Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers_, vol. i. p. 48.
[9] Cf. Caird, idem. Pfleiderer, _Vorbereitung des Christentums in der Griech. Philos._; Wenley, _Preparation for Christianity_.
[10] Exod. xx.; Deut. v.
[11] Ex. xx.-xxiii.
[12] Amos v. 25; Hos. vi. 6; Isa. i. 11-13.
[13] Cf. Wallace, _Lectures and Essays on Natural Theol. and Ethics_, p. 183.
[14] Micah vi. 8.
[15] Isa. i. 13-17; Micah vi. 7.
[16] Hab. ii. 4; cf. Rom. i. 17; Gal. iii. 2.
[17] Though Houston Chamberlain, in his recent work, _The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century_, maintains that they were "a most prosaic, materialistic people, without any real sense of poetry."
[18] Ps. 51.
[19] Ps. 19.
[20] Ps. 51; Isa. 1.
[21] Deut. xxiv. 14, 15; Jer. xxii. 13-17; Matt. iii 5; Deut. xxv. 4.
[22] Lev. xix. 18.
[23] Gen. xviii. xix.
[24] Isa. lxi.; Ps. xxii. 27; xlviii. 2-10; lx.x.xvii.
[25] Isa. liv. 5.
{53}
SECTION B
PERSONALITY
{55}
CHAPTER IV
THE ESTIMATE OF MAN
Having thus far laid the foundations of our study by a discussion of its presuppositions and sources, we are now prepared to consider man as the personal subject of the new life. The spirit of G.o.d which takes hold of man and renews his life must not be conceived as a foreign power breaking the continuity of consciousness. The natural is the basis of the supernatural. It is not a new personality which is created; it is the old that is transformed and completed. If there was not already implicit in man that which predisposed him for the higher life, a consciousness to which the spirit could appeal, then Christianity would be simply a mechanical or magical influence without ethical significance and having no relation to the past history of the individual. But that is not the teaching of our Lord or of His apostles. We are bound, therefore, to a.s.sume a certain substratum of powers, physical, mental and moral, as const.i.tuting the raw material of which the new personality is formed.
The spirit of G.o.d does not quench the natural faculties of man, but works through and upon them, raising them to a higher value.[1]
I. But before proceeding to a consideration of these elements of human consciousness to which Christianity appeals, we must glance at two opposite theories of human nature, either of which, if the complete view of man, would be inimical to Christianity.[2]
{56}
1. The first view is that man _by nature is morally good_. His natural impulses are from birth wholly virtuous, and require only to be left to their own operation to issue in a life of perfection. Those who favour this contention claim the support of Scripture. Not only does the whole tone of the Bible imply the inherent goodness of primitive man, but many texts both in the Old and New Testaments suggest that G.o.d made man upright.[3] Among the Greeks, and especially the Stoics, this view prevailed. All nature was regarded as the creation of perfect reason, and the primitive state as one of uncorrupted innocence. Pelagius espoused this doctrine, and it continued to influence dogmatic theology not only in the form of Semi-Pelagianism, but even as modifying the severer tenets of Augustine. The theory received fresh importance during the revolutionary movement of the eighteenth century, and found a strong exponent in Rousseau. "Let us sweep away all conventions and inst.i.tutions of man"s making and get back to the simplicity of a primitive age." The man of nature is guileless, and his natural instincts would preserve him in uncorrupted purity if they were not perverted by the artificial usages of society. So profoundly did this theory dominate the thoughts of men that its influence may be detected not only in the political fanaticism which found expression in the French Revolution, but also in the practical views of the Protestant Church acting as a deterrent to missionary effort.[4] This view of human nature, though not perhaps formally stated, finds expression in much of the literature of the present day. Professor James cites Theodore Parker and other leaders of the liberal movement in New England of last century as representatives of the tendency.[5] These writers do not wholly ignore moral effect, but they make light of sin, and regard it not as something positive, but merely as a stage in the development of man.
{57}
2. The other theory of human nature goes to the opposite extreme. Man by nature is _utterly depraved_, and his natural instincts are wholly bad. Those who take this view also appeal to Scripture: "Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin." Many pa.s.sages in the New Testament, and especially in the writings of St. Paul, seem to emphasise the utter degradation of man. It was not, however, until the time of Augustine that this idea of innate depravity was formulated into a doctrine. The Augustinean dogma has coloured all later theology. In the Roman Catholic Church, even in such a writer as Pascal, and in Protestantism, under the influence of Calvin, the complete corruption of man"s nature has been depicted in the blackest hues.
These theories of human nature represent aspects of truth, and are false only in their isolation.
The doctrine that man is innocent by nature is not in agreement with history. Nowhere is the n.o.ble savage to be found. The primitive man exhibits the same tendencies as his more civilised neighbour, and his animal pa.s.sions are indulged without control of reason or consideration for others. Indeed, Hobbes"s view of early society as a state of war and rapacity is much truer to fact than Rousseau"s. The n.o.ble savage is simply a fiction of the imagination, an abstraction obtained by withdrawing him from all social environment. But even could we conceive of a human being kept from infancy in isolation, he would not fulfil the true idea of virtue, but would simply develop into a negative creature, a mutilated being bereft of all that const.i.tutes our notion of humanity.
Such experiences as are possible only in society--all forms of goodness as suggested by such words as "love," "sympathy," "service"--would never emerge at all. The native instincts of man are simply potencies or capacities for morality; they must have a life of opportunity for their evolution and exercise. The abstract self prior to and apart from all objective experience is an illusion. It is only in relation to a world of moral beings that the moral life becomes possible for man. The innocence which the advocates of this theory contend for is {58} something not unlike the non-rational existence of the animal. It is true that the brute is not immoral, but neither is it moral. The whole significance of the pa.s.sions as they exist in man lies in the fact that they are not purely animal, but, since they belong to man, are always impregnated with reason. It is reason that gives to them their moral worth, and it is because man must always put his self into every desire or impulse that it becomes the instrument either of virtue or of vice.[6]
But if the theory of primitive purity is untenable, not less so is that of innate depravity. Here, also, its advocates are not consistent with themselves. Even the systems of theology derived from Augustine do not contend that man was created with an evil propensity. His sin was the result of an historical catastrophe. In his paradisiacal condition man is conceived as possessing a n.o.bility and innocence of nature far beyond that even which Rousseau depicted. Milton, in spite of his Calvinistic puritanism, has painted a picture of man"s ideal innocence which for idyllic charm is unequalled in literature.[7] Nor does historical inquiry bear out the theory of the utter depravity of man. The latest anthropological research into the condition of primitive man suggests rather that even the lowest forms of savage life are not without some dim consciousness of a higher power and some latent capacity for good.[8]
Finally, these writers are not more successful when they claim the support of the Bible. Not only are there many examples of virtue in patriarchal times, but, as we have seen, there are not a few texts which imply the natural goodness of man. Our Lord repeatedly a.s.sumes the affinity with goodness of those who had not hitherto come into contact with the Gospel, as in the case of Jairus, the rich young ruler, and the Syrophenician woman. It has been affirmed by Wernle[9] that the Apostle Paul in the interests of salvation grossly {59} exaggerates the condition of the natural man. "He violently extinguished every other light in the world so that Jesus might shine in it alone." But this surely is a misstatement. It is true that no more scathing denunciation of sinful human nature has ever been presented than the account of heathen immorality to be found in the first chapter of Romans. Yet the apostle does not actually affirm, nor even imply, that pagan society was so utterly corrupt that it had lost all knowledge of moral good. Though so bad as to be beyond hope of recovery by natural effort, it was not so bad as to have quenched in utter darkness the light which lighteth every man.
3. Christianity, while acknowledging the partial truth of both of these theories, reconciles them. If, on the one hand, man were innately good and could of himself attain to righteousness, there would be no need of a gospel of renewal. But history and experience alike show that that is not the case. If, on the other hand, man were wholly bad, had no susceptibility for virtue and truth, then there would be nothing in him, as we have seen, which could respond to the Christian appeal.[10]
Christianity alone offers an answer to the question in which Pascal presents the great ant.i.thesis of human nature: "If man was not made for G.o.d, how is it that he can be happy only in G.o.d? And if he is made for G.o.d, how is he so opposite to G.o.d?"[11] However, then, we may account for the presence of evil in human nature, a true view of Christianity involves the conception of a latent spiritual element in man, a capacity for goodness to which his whole being points. Matter itself may be said not merely to exist for spirit, but to have within it already the potency of the higher forms of life; and just as nature is making towards humanity, and in humanity at last finds itself; as
"Striving to be man, the worm Mounts through all the spires of form,"[13]
{60} so man, even in his most primitive state, has within him the promise of higher things. No theory of his origin can interfere with the a.s.sumption that he belongs to a moral Sphere, and is capable of a life which is shaping itself to spiritual ends. Whatever be man"s past history and evolution, he has from the beginning been made in G.o.d"s image, and bears the divine impress in all the lineaments of body and soul. His degradation cannot wholly obliterate his inherent n.o.bility, and indeed his actual corruption bears witness to his possible holiness.
Granting the hypothesis of evolution, matter even in its crudest beginnings contains potentially all the rich variety of the natural and spiritual life. The reality of a growing thing lies in its highest form of being. In the light of the last we explain the first. If the universe is, as science p.r.o.nounces, an organic totality which is ever converting its promise into actuality, then "the ultimate interpretation even of the lowest existence of the world, cannot be given except on principles which are adequate to explain the highest."[13] Christian morality is therefore nothing else than the morality prepared from all eternity, and is but the highest realisation of that which man even at his lowest has ever been, though unconsciously, striving after. All that is best and highest in man, all that he is capable of yet becoming, has really existed within him from the very first, just as the flower and leaf and fruit are contained implicitly in the seedling. This is the Pauline view of human nature. Jesus Christ, according to the apostle, is the End and Consummation of the whole creation. Everywhere in all men there is a capacity for Christ. Whatever be his origin, man comes upon the stage of being bearing within him a great and far-reaching destiny.
There is in him, as Browning says, "a tendency to G.o.d." He is not simply what he is now, but all that he is yet to be.
II. a.s.suming, then, the inherent spirituality of man, we may now proceed to examine his moral consciousness with a view to seeing how its various const.i.tuents form what we have called the substratum of the Christian life.
{61}
1. We must guard against seeming to adopt the old and discredited psychology which divides man into a number of separate and independent faculties. Man is not made like a machine, of a number of adjusted parts. _He is a unity_, a living organism, in which every part has something of all the others; and all together, animated by one spirit, const.i.tute a Living whole which we call personality. While the Bible is rich in terms denoting the different const.i.tuents of man, neither the Old Testament nor the New regards human nature as a plurality of powers. A bind of unity or hierarchy of the natural faculties is a.s.sumed, and amid all the difference of function and variety of operation it is undeniable that the New Testament writers generally, and particularly St. Paul, presuppose a unity of consciousness--a single ego, or Soul. It is unnecessary to discuss the question, much debated by Biblical psychologists, as to whether the apostle recognises a threefold or a twofold division of man.[14] Our view is that he recognised only a twofold division, body and soul, which, however, he always regarded as const.i.tuting a unity, the body itself being psychical or interpenetrated with spirit, and the spirit always acting upon and working through the physical powers.
Man is a unique phenomenon in the world. Even on his physical side he is not a piece of dead matter, but is instinct through and through with spirit. And on his psychical side he is not an unsubstantial wraith, but a being inconceivable apart from outward embodiment. Perhaps the most general term which we may adopt is _psyche_ or Soul--the living self or vital and animating principle which is at once the seat of all bodily sensation and the source of the higher cognitive faculties.
2. The fact of ethical interest from which we must proceed is that man, in virtue of his spiritual nature, is _akin to G.o.d_, and partic.i.p.ates in the three great elements of the divine Personality--thought, love and will.[15] Personality has been called "the culminating fact of the {62} universe." And it is the task of man to realise his true personality--to fulfil the law of his highest self. In this work he has to harmonise and bring to the unity of his personal life, by means of one dominating force, the various elements of his nature--his sensuous, emotional, and rational powers. By the const.i.tution of his being he belongs to a larger world, and when he is true to himself he is ever reaching out towards it.
From the very beginning of life, and even in the lowest phases of his nature he has within him the potency of the divine. He carries the infinite in his soul, and by reason of his very existence shares the life of G.o.d. The value of his soul in this sense is repeatedly emphasised in scripture. In our Lord"s teaching it is perhaps the most distinctive note. The soul, or self-conscious spiritual ego, is spoken of as capable of being "acquired" or "lost."[16] It is acquired or possessed when a man seeks to regain the image in which he was created. It is lost when he refuses to respond to those spiritual influences by which Christ besets him, and by means of which the soul is moulded into the likeness of G.o.d.
3. A full presentation of this subject would involve a reference even to the physical powers which form an integral part of man and witness to his eternal destiny.
(1) The very body is to be redeemed and sanctified, and made an instrument of the new life in Christ. The extremes of asceticism and self-indulgence, both of which found advocates in Greek philosophy and even in the early Church, have no countenance in scripture. Evil does not reside in the flesh, as the Greeks held, but in the will which uses the flesh for its base ends. Not mutilation but transformation, not suppression but consecration is the Christian ideal. The natural is the basis of the spiritual. Man is the Temple of G.o.d, every part of which is sacred. Christ claims to be King of the body as of every other domain of life. The secret of spiritual progress does not consist in the unflinching destruction of the flesh, but in its firm but kindly discipline for loyal service. It is not, therefore, by {63} leaving the body behind but by taking it up into our higher self that we become spiritual. As Browning says,
"Let us cry all good things Are ours, nor soul helps flesh more now Than flesh helps soul."