PRIMITIVE HOLINESS AND PROBATION

We have seen, in our previous discussions, what are the essential elements or attributes of a moral being, viz., intellect, sensibility and free will. We must have these to be moral persons, accountable beings, creatures of moral obligation and accountability. In the possession of these faculties consists our likeness to God, as His children.

But we are not holy, save as we have been made so by a special work of grace. This is the moral consciousness of the race. And our present was not our original condition. We were created in the moral image and likeness of God. God looked upon man as He came fresh from His creating hand and pronounced him "very good"-superlative praise for superlative wisdom to bestow. There was nothing abnormal in his moral nature then-no moral derangement, as there is now.

I. What then was the nature of Adamic holiness? We are now discussing the primitive quality of it, prior to any moral action. It must have been void of any ethical element; for that comes by conduct and voluntary choice. It is the result of the exercise of the personal faculties-intellect, sensibility and free will. The question is, what was the state of Adam's nature before he had made any character by the use of his faculties? Wherein did it differ from the nature of man as he is now born? In a true Godly life, such as Paul lived, there is personal holiness, the holiness of character, with the ethical qualities of righteous action. This is, in a way, quite different from a primitive holiness, divinely created and all unused. Adam's holiness, must have consisted simply in a natural disposition in perfect harmony with moral duty. It was, in other words, a subjective state in harmony with his moral relations. It took time for Adam to know all his duties, and to choose the right; but he came into being with a subjective moral tendency to the good. It was "a created moral excellence, perfect in its kind but wholly un-meritorious." And so Adam's nature was holy, that is, correct; but a holy character had yet to be made, by a right use of his will. There was no merit due to Adam for it, he was created so, just as he was created with eyes and ears, and two feet.

Such holiness is clearly possible before moral action. If not it is forever impossible; for holiness is the work of God anyway, and if he can not produce a right trend to the nature by creation, how can He do it by grace? Whatever nature might become by good conduct and redeeming grace, that it might be constituted in original creation. Constantly bear in mind that it is the primitive nature of Adam that we are discussing, not his character. Character is made, and as yet he had no character. But we are saying that his nature was in harmony with the nature of his creator. All his aptitudes and appetences were toward the right, just as we may suppose is the case with all the holy angels. The spontaneous tendencies grow out of the NATURE and Adam's nature was holy, because free from all wayward lawless tendencies. It was natural for him to do right, as it is natural for an apple tree to bear apples. The quality of a tree is shown by the quality of its fruit. Likewise the deeds of men correspond to their nature. The need of regeneration depends on this truth. The transformation of the life that attends regeneration is produced by the renewal of the moral nature. "Thus," says Miley, "it appears that the question of primitive holiness, is not a merely speculative one, but one which vitally concerns the deepest truth and reality of regeneration. If there be no moral quality of our nature, then regeneration loses its meaning for the Christian life. Hence Adam as newly created could be holy in Ms nature" (Vol. I, p. 413).

II. PROOFS OF PRIMITIVE HOLINESS.

1. From the nature of God. Man is a moral being, and was made so at the beginning. That means that he was endowed with moral faculties necessary to moral personality-intellect, sensibility and free will. Without such a moral nature man is not a man.

Now God is holy. We cannot suppose that a holy God would have created an unholy race with natural propensities going out spontaneously to the evil instead of the good. The new Adam was precisely what God made him; consequently his spontaneous tendencies, expressive of his innermost nature, must have been pleasing to God, and in harmony with divine goodness. His moral inclination must naturally have been to the good in preference to the evil, and this is the real nature of holiness.

2. From the Scriptures. "And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1: 31). This is said immediately after the creation of man. It does violence to the text, to say that it has no reference to man's moral nature, as some do, in the interest of their speculations.

"Lo, this have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (Eccl. 7: 29). The only natural meaning of the word "upright" here is rectitude 0} moral nature with its spontaneous tendencies.

"And that ye put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."

"And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him (Eph. 4: 24 and Col. 3: 10). The central truth of these texts is the transformation of man from an evil to a good life. The old man which must be put off is a corrupt nature with vicious practices; and the new man which must be put on is a holy nature and a good life. This purification wrought by the Holy Spirit is a renewal of the soul in the image of God in which man was originally created. Hence in that image there is the truth of a primitive holiness.

3. ERRORS OF AUGUSTINE AND PELAGIUS. Here we quote a very critical worthy passage from Miley-abbreviating somewhat. "In the great contention between Augustine and Pelagius each went to an extreme; the former in the maintenance of original sin in the sense of native demerit; the latter in the denial of native depravity. Both failed to make the proper distinction between moral character from personal conduct, and the subjective moral state (or nature). With an omission of the proper analysis, native depravity was with Augustine native sin and demerit. On the other hand, Pelagius, equally overlooking that distinction, and holding the impossibility of demerit without one's own personal conduct, denied the truth of native depravity. With the proper analysis, Augustine might have maintained the whole truth of native depravity, without the element of sinful demerit; while Pelagius might have held the same truth of depravity and yet have maintained his fundamental principle, that free personal conduct absolutely conditions all sinful demerit. We thus point out the opposite extremes and the opposite errors of the two parties.

Other errors logically followed. If all men might be sinners with the desert of punishment by virtue of an inherited depravity, Adam could have the moral worth and rewardableness of an eminent saint simply by virtue of an original creation. This is the tendency of Augustine's Anthropology. On the other hand, the denial of primitive holiness on the part of Pelagius was logically consequent to his denial of Augustine's doctrine of original sin. His denial of native sin carried with it the denial of native depravity. On such a principle there can be no moral quality of a nature, and therefore, no primitive holiness" (Vol. I, pp. 416, 417).

The thoughtful student will notice that both these combatants were partly right and partly wrong. Neither had the full truth Augustine fathered Calvinism; Pelagius helped to produce modern liberalism. The truth lies between the two, as held by the best Methodism. Pelagius denied all change in the moral state or nature of the race, as the result of Adam's fall.

It will be seen, then, that the denial of primitive holiness is not a merely speculative error, but one that carries with it momentous consequences. It carries with it the denial of the Adamic fall, and the depravity of the race, and therefore leaves no place for an evangelical, Scriptural theology. There is no longer any need of an atonement, or regeneration, or justification by faith, or sanctification, or a new life in Christ. The tap-root of all sound theology is the sin question, and goes back to the garden of Eden and the fall of man from primitive holiness. A theology that is weak here is weak everywhere, and worse than worthless.

III. ELEMENTS OF PRIMITIVE HOLINESS. 1. The Romish Church teaches that "original righteousness is not a natural, but a supernatural endowment." "As to his material body he was immortal and impossible, not by the force of nature itself, but by a divine favor." "As to his soul, He formed him after His own image and likeness, endowed him with free will, and so tempered within him all the emotions of his mind and his appetites that they would never disobey the rule of reason. Then He added the admirable gift of original righteousness." "Thus in the Papal Anthropology the likeness and image of God in primitive man carried the sense of a similarity in the nature and personality of mind, but not the sense of holiness. Place was thus left for primitive holiness as a supernatural endowment." "There is no ground for the exclusively supernatural character of primitive holiness. Further, the doctrine implies that the fall of man was simply a lapse into his primitive state. The fall in its effect upon man, apart from personal demerit, was simply a deprivation of the supernatural endowment of righteousness. His own nature was the same after the fall as before it. This is a very superficial and false view of the actual state of man in consequence of the Adamic fall" (Miley, p. 419).

2. The elements of the true doctrine.

The first element of primitive holiness was the moral rectitude of the Adamic nature as newly created. The nature was so constituted as to be responsive to the claims of God in the sense of a SPONTANEOUS INCLINATION or DISPOSITION toward fulfillment. This is all that we can properly mean by primitive holiness.

There was a second element, or addition to it, viz., the presence and help of the Holy Spirit. The Adamic nature was holy in itself, yet needed the help of the Spirit. Man was made for the society of God, and Adam had it freely. The life-energizing presence and power of the Spirit is what Jesus promised to His children, as the supreme grace this side of heaven. We may well-believe that this was lost by the fall. So the peculiarly precious constant presence and keeping influence of the Holy Spirit was lost. Depravation of nature and deprivation of the Spirit consummated man's ruin.

We might represent this to the eye somewhat as follows:

Before the Fall. man had 23% Conscience 25% Reason 25% Sensibility 25% Will-power + The Holy Spirit After the Fall. man has 15% Conscience 15% Reason 15% Will-power 55% Sensibility - The Holy Spirit - Before the fall there was a keen conscience, a clear-eyed reason, a dominant will power, and correct, submissive sensibilities- a harmonious balance of faculties, aided and guided by the Holy Spirit. After the fall, conscience was less keen; the vision of reason to see duty was not so clear; the power of will was less kingly and supreme; the sensibilities were abnormally developed, unsubmissive to reason and will, and clamoring for self-indulgence. And, saddest of all, the blessed communion and intimate companionship of the Holy Spirit was lost.

IV. THE PRIMITIVE PROBATION.

Probation is a state of trial under a law of duty. The law tests the spirit of obedience. The duty imposed is enforced by the sanctions of rewards and penalties. These sanctions determine for the subjects of probation permanent states of good or evil; so that probation is a temporary trial. The central fact of probation is personal responsibility for conduct under a law of duty.

1. The probation of Adam was natural and reasonable. While he was holy and had a perfect balance of faculties and powers, yet he was possessed of sensibilities which might be at any time the inlet of temptation. In temptation there is an impulse of the sensibilities adverse to the law of duty as perceived by the reason. Such a trial therefore, was natural, may we not say, inevitable to Adam. In such a state he began his moral life, with natural solicitations to evil which he was well able to resist. He was able to stand yet free to fall. The only way to the permanent blessedness of a confirmed moral character was by the temporary endurance of temptation and a persistent obedience. But obedience requires a law of duty; and probation means the natural incident of trial with the possibility of failure, under a testing law.

2. There was complete ability for obedience. It consisted in the rectitude of a fully endowed moral nature. Adam's sons with their deranged moral nature countless myriads of times have endured fiercer temptations than came to him in his holy state. With susceptibility to temptation through his sensibility, his spontaneous disposition was yet entirely favorable to good rather than evil. If his moral constitution was what Scripture teaches us it was, the fulfillment of his duty was easily within reach of his power. The heir of such a rich endowment of faculties, in communion with his Maker, and with the prize of eternal blessedness before him, our first parent owed it to himself and to the gracious Author of his being to do his duty and to refrain from sin.

3. Some ask, why was sin permitted?

We might ask with far more propriety, why were moral beings created at all? God might have filled the universe with stones; but what significance would there be in an infinity of dirt? The Heavenly Father wanted moral beings like Himself that could enjoy Him, and whom He could enjoy. But moral beings must have moral faculties with susceptibility to temptation and with the power of choice between good and evil. So the necessity of temptation and the possibility of sin and woe and death is an essential condition of the blessedness of moral being. We cannot have the privilege of sonship with God without paying the price.

V. The Probationary Law.

God as Moral Ruler, had, as one of his prerogatives, a perfect right to select such a form of trial as He pleased, so that the test of obedience was not unjust. From the very nature of man, the temptation must come through the sensibility, by some appeal to a natural propensity, innocent in itself, but whose gratification was forbidden by divine command. The test was such as commended itself to infinite wisdom, and we are not to question its propriety. Presumably Adam had had a limited experience; but he had such moral intuitions as furnished him with ample reasons to trust and obey his Maker. We all have occasion to trust God when we cannot understand the purpose He has in view, or the wisdom of His ways. In the goodness of God there is infinite warrant for our confidence even when the meaning of His purpose is hidden from our view.

Adam, doubtless, had the common duties of us all, those pertaining to love, reverence and worship. Such moral laws must exist for all moral beings. But one commandment was peculiarly adapted to test his loyalty. Commandments are of two kinds-moral commandments, and positive commandments. The moral commandments are those, the reason of which you know, being revealed by your own moral intuitions. The obligation to obey the moral law is plain and absolute.

Positive commandments 'are those whose full reasons you do not know. The obligation to obey rests entirely on the sacred authority of the divine command. There is, however, a just presumption that there is a worthy reason for every positive command of God, even though we may not know what it is. It is fair to suppose that an infinitely wise God has good reasons for all He does, and that any positive command is no arbitrary mandate of an absolute will, indifferent to morality and piety. But such a command certainly was the best suited for a moral trial, and the event proved it to be so.

VI. THE PROBATION WAS PERFECTLY FAIR.

1. The command was perfectly plain. There was nothing difficult to understand in the duty enjoined. It was simply the duty of abstinence from the fruit of one particular tree, definitely pointed out.

2. Adam was not unduly pressed to disobedience by any vicious appetite, or fierce tyrannical habit. His nature was perfectly healthy and free from any inordinate passion.

3. He was not pressed by the dire cravings of an innocent but long denied appetite. The garden in which he dwelt was rich in beauty and plenty. There was in it "every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food." He was not a famished man, driven to eat by the insanity of hunger. His needs were supplied, and all his lawful appetites were sated with plenty.

4. He was blessed with communion with God, and he knew that the command was directly from Him. He was aware of the divine goodness and greatness and glory. The test Was as simple as it could well have been made. There was, .therefore, no possible excuse for disobedience, as there never is any real and valid excuse for sin.