God's image in man and its defacement in the light of modern denials

Front matter

God’s image in man and its defacement in the light of

GOD’S IMAGE IN MAN AND

ITS DEFACEMENT

Preface

The lectures in this volume were delivered on the L. P. Stone Foundation before the professors and students of Princeton Theological Seminary, from September 28 to October 3, 1903. They are now published in accordance with the desire of the Faculty. Additional matter, with references to books and articles which have appeared since the delivery of the lectures, are put in footnotes and in the Notes at the end. I have to express my thanks to the Faculty and students of Princeton Seminary for the great courtesy with which they received the lectures.

The lines of doctrine followed in the lectures are the same as those laid down in my volume on The Christian View of God and the World , with parts of which this book may be compared. They run counter, I am well aware, to many currents of modern opinion, even in Christian

VI circles. If any are stumbled on this account, I can only plead that I must speak as I believe. I confess that the newer tendency to wholesale surrender of vital aspects of Christian doctrine at the shrine of what is regarded as ‘ the modern view of the world ’ appears to me graver than it does to many. The modern view of the world — which is in reality not one view, but a congeries of conflicting and often mutually irreconcilable views — must, it is assumed, be accepted in the first place ; the view we take of Christianity must adapt itself to this, and the doctrines of Christianity must take their chance, if they come into collision with its findings. But there is another standpoint possible. It seems to me to be truer to say that, in a multitude of respects, the Christian view of the world is not the so-called modern view ; in principle, in fact, is irreconcilable with it ; and we ought to have the courage to avow this, and take the consequences. I do not say that the Christian view is irrecon¬ cilable with true science or sound philosophy — that it is impossible for a believing man who is

PREFACE

VII at the same time a thinking man to hold ; but it is irreconcilable with many of the theories that profess to be based on science and philosophy, and is not capable of assimilation with these. We all acknowledge this in connection with the Materialisms, the Monisms, the Agnosticisms, the Pantheisms, that seek to supplant the Chris¬ tian conception ; but I would carry the principle a good deal further — into the region of the doctrines dealt with in these lectures. How far I have succeeded— and no one is more conscious of the imperfections of my treatment than myself — the reader must be left to form his own opinion. In the variety of views and reasonings that are presented, some food for reflection, at any rate, may be suggested.

My thanks are due to Ebenezer Russell, Esq., Glasgow, for valuable aid in the revision of the proofs.

JAMES ORR.

October 190$.

Contents

I

THE CONFLICT OF BIBLICAL AND MODERN VIEWS OF MAN AND SIN - THE ISSUES STATED

Aversion to Doctrines of the Gospel founded on altered views of their Presuppositions. The Biblical Views of God, Man, and Sin, met by a Counter-theory of the World and Man. Scientific Monism (Haeckel, etc.). Change on Doctrine of God. On Doctrines of Man and Sin. Effect on Christianity. Lectures to discuss Relations of Doctrines of Man and Sin to Modern Anthropological Theories. Extent of the Antagonism. Evolu¬ tionary View of the Origin of Man (Haeckel, Fiske). Conflict with Biblical Doctrine in respect: i. of the Nature of Man; 2. of the Original Integrity of Man; 3. of the Origin, Nature, and Effects of Sin. Idealistic Evolutionism. Incompatibility with Christian View. Reply that while Ecclesiastical ‘ Dogmas ’ fall, the real Essence of Christianity is untouched. Fallacy of this : 1. Not Ecclesiastical Christianity alone, but the Christianity of the New Testament (Apostolic Gospel) falls; 2. Christ’s own Teaching is Subverted. Essence of Apostolic Christianity in Consciousness of Redemption through Jesus Christ. The Infinite Value of the Soul in Christianity. Humanity as Receptive of the Divine in Christianity. The Cross and Human Sin. The opposing Views Irreconcilable, . 3-30 ix

II Scripture And Science On The Nature Of Man

THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN

Connection of Questions of Origin and Nature. Monistic View of Human Nature (Haeckel). Biblical Doctrine : Man Made in the Image of God. Creation Narrative in Gen. i. Agreement of Bible and Science on Man’s Place in Creation. Man as Link between Natural and Spiritual Worlds. The Second Creation Narrative. Man as ‘ Living Soul.’ Relation of terms: Soul, Spirit, Flesh. Man a Compound Being : Body and Soul. Bearing on Doctrine of Death. Image of God in Man. Not in Bodily Form. Essentially a Mental and Moral Image. Rationality of Man. Moral Nature and Freedom of Man. Religious Capacity of Man. Sovereignty over the Creatures. Opposition of Modem Theories. Denial of Man’s Distinction in Nature from the Animals. This Distinction Qualitative, not simply in Degree. Attack on Man’s Nature of the older Materialism. Change of Standpoint in Monism. The ‘Parallel Series’ Theory. Haeckel’s Denial of the Soul, Freedom and Immortality. Theory practi¬ cally Materialistic. Absurdity of Haeckel’s Eternal ‘ Substance.’ Stronghold of Monistic Theory: Dependence of Mind on Brain. Fallacies in this : i. ‘ Parallel Series ’ untenable. 2. Erroneous to reason from Brain Conditions in Disease to Brain Conditions in Health. 3. Ignoring of Counter-class of Facts : the Influence of Mind on Brain and Body. The Biblical View unharmed, 33-78

III Scripture And Science On The Origin Of Man

THE IMAGE AS A CREATION

Biblical View of Man’s Origin. Counter-theory of Monistic Evolu¬ tion (Haeckel). Present-Day Influence of the Doctrine of

CONTENTS xi

Evolution. Extensions and Ambiguities of the Doctrine. Evolution and Creation. Evolution not necessarily Darwinism. Sketch and Criticism of Darwinian Theory. Fortuity invoked to do the work of Mind. Change of Attitude of Evolutionists. Inadequacy of Natural Selection to explain Evolution. Principal Objections. Revised Evolutionary' Theories. Evolution and Involution. Evolution and Teleology 5 Directive Intelligence. Evolution not necessarily by Insensible Gradations. Creative Cause involved in Founding of New Kingdoms. ‘Enigmas’ of Science (Origin of Life, of Consciousness, of Man). Bearing on the Doctrine of the Origin of Man. Failure of Evolution to account for the mental and moral Differentia of Man. Unbridged Gulf between Man and the Lower Animals in a physical respect. The Missing Links yet Undiscovered. Pithecanthropus Erectus. Result: Higher Cause implied in Man’s Origin, . . 81-136

IV

SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE ON THE PRIMITIVE CONDI¬ TION OF MAN - THE IMAGE AS ACTUAL MORAL

RESEMBLANCE

Evolution in its Bearing on Man’s Mental and Moral Nature. Alleged gradual Development of Man’s Mind from Animal Intelligence (Darwin, Romanes, Fiske). Failure to explain true Rationality in Man. Potentiality of Progress (Language, Educa¬ tion, Science, etc.) in Man. Free-Will and Morality in Man (Haeckel, Fiske, Huxley). Bearing on Origin of Body in Man. Mind and Body necessarily rise together. Creative Cause accord¬ ingly implied in both. Creation of Man ‘ male and female.’ Unity of Race. Question of Man’s Primitive Moral Condition Does Creation in the Divine Image imply actual Moral Resemblance ? Biblical View, and Contradiction of Evolutionary Philosophy.

Xll

Darwinian Picture of Primitive Man. Support sought in Facts of Anthropology, i. Argument from Existing Savage Races ; fallacy of this. 2. Argument from Remote Antiquity of Man. Ussher’s Chronology Untenable. Former Exaggerated Estimates of Man’s Antiquity. Revised Views. Post-Glacial Man. Physical Science on Age of Earth (Kelvin, Tait, etc.). Recent Beginnings of History (Babylonia, Egypt, etc.). Evolution does not establish this View of Man. 1. Evolution is not necessarily by slow Grada¬ tions. 2. Palaeontological Evidence: Cave Men, etc. High Character of Oldest Skulls. 3. High Character of Early Civilisa¬ tion. 4. No Proof that Civilisation has Originated from Bar¬ barism. Subject Viewed in light of true Idea of Man. The Primitive Man of Evolution not simply in a Non-Moral, but in an Immoral and Wrong State. Contradiction of Divine Father¬ hood. Destiny of Man to Divine Sonship and to Immortality. These Ideas Contradictory of Evolutionary Hypothesis, . 139-193

V

SCRIPTURE AND SCIENCE ON THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF SIN — THE DEFACEMENT OF GOd’s IMAGE

Defacement of God’s Image Matter of Experience. If Man Created pure, a ‘Fall’ is presupposed. Idea of Sin as Apostacy from God underlies all Scripture. Counter-theory that Man has not Fallen but Risen . Objections to this View. On Evolutionary Theory Sin loses its 1 Catastrophic ’ Character. Alleged necessity of Sin (Fiske, Sabatier, etc.). Evolutionary theory robs Sin of its Gravity. Effect on Idea of Guilt. Insufficient to speak of Realisa¬ tion of Moral Ideal. Moral Law demands an Upright Nature and Pure Affections from the first. Biblical Doctrine of Sin : that

CONTENTS

Xlll which absolutely Ought not to be. Contrast of Religious and Philosophical Ethics. Sin as violation of Duty to God. Religion recognises Duties to God as well as to Man. Inmost Principle of Sin : Self-Will, Egoism. Sins graded on this Principle. Narra¬ tive of Fall. Connection with Superhuman Evil. Effects of Sin. i. The Spiritual consequence of Sin in Depravation. Bond cut with God. Ascendency of Lower Impulses. Sin as Anarchy and Bondage. 2. The Racial Consequences of Sin. Organic Constitu¬ tion of Race. Relation to Doctrine of Heredity. ‘Ape and Tiger’ Theory of Original Sin. Objection to Doctrine from Non-transmissibility of Acquired Characters (Weismann). Effects of Ethical Volition on Mind and Body are transmissible. Roman Catholic and Protestant Views of the Hereditary Effects of the Fall. Meaning of £ Total Depravity,’ . . . . 197-246