such a distinction is correct, but exegetically, there is no ground for this interpretation, and the duplication is only to render the meaning more definite or intensive.

The Socinians, in part also the Arminians, understand by the Divine image the dominion granted to man over the lower creation. That this dominion is closely related to the Divine image, is clear, but the relation is one, not of identity, but of cause and effect. Because man by the image of God is different from all that is merely nature, and toto genere exalted above it, has he also the destination and the power to rule over it.

The argument by which it has been attempted to prove that a condition of holiness is meant by the image of God spoken of in Genesis, is derived from those passages in the New Testament, especially Col. 3:10. Eph. 4: 24, in which it is said, that the new man in Christ Jesus is renewed after the image of him that created him, from which it has been inferred that the same was lost by the fall. But there lies at the basis of such an argument an assumption, that must first be proved, namely, that the new creation by redemption is essentially nothing else than a restoration of the condition in which Adam was before the fall. Undoubtedly the Divine image, which is the result of redemption, stands in close and essential connection with the image, which man bears from his creation; the former is the true realization of the latter; the one is first given to man in order that he may attain unto the other, if not in the straight way of faithful continuance in communion with God, then in the circuitous way of redemption; but from the nature of this connection it follows, that the purport of the two is not the same.1

So far from there being any biblical testimony for the loss of the Divine image of which mention is made, Gen. i, that we find on the contrary decisive evidence of its presence after the sin of our first parents. In Gen. 9: 6, the violent destruction of human life is sentenced with the severest vengeance, and it is given as a reason therefore, that God made man in his own image, which manifestly presupposes that man still bears this image, as the seal of his inviolableness. In a very similar connection, James (3: 9,) gives as a reason why we should not curse our fellow men, that men (τοὺς ἀνθρώπους hot τὸν voшлоv) were made in the image of God.

The loss of the Divine image by the fall is not proved by Gen. 5: 3. In v. 1, we read, God made man in his own likeness, and without mention of any change having intervened, in v. 3, it is said, Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; from which an impartial exegesis would conclude, that also Adam's son bore in himself the image and likeness of God.

1849.]

The timeless State of Man's Being.

265

Consequently out of all which the Holy Scriptures contain respecting the image of God in which man was originally created, the proposition cannot be established, that Adam by his fall introduced into human nature a new principle before foreign to it, which usurped dominion over his descendants, and ensnared them in sin and guilt. What is to be understood by the Divine image, is not expressly stated in Genesis, but may easily be inferred. When after the account, how the different orders of the creation arose into being by the creative word of God, the creation of man is introduced in a peculiar manner by the counsel of God to create a being in his image, after his likeness, it is manifestly implied, that in the aforementioned orders his image is not to be met with. Therefore, the image of God in man is that by which man is different from all beings of nature, and exalted above them. This he is thereby, that he has ideas of moral truth, the idea of God, of eternity, in short, that he is a personal being. The other orders of creation may reveal God and his eternal thoughts; but images of God can they only be, who are a revelation of God, not merely for others, but also for themselves, who not merely are, but are for themselves, who are conscious of themselves, and therefore conscious of God. God has made us in his image. Therefore, we are capable of knowing and loving God.

The problem is, to reconcile the guilt of each individual with the universality of sin in the race, and thus show the falsity of the conclusion drawn from that universality, that sin is an essential constituent of human nature, or a matter of metaphysical necessity. On the one side, there is in all men an innate sinfulness, and on the other side, wherever sin is, there is guilt, i. e. each individual is, by his own selfdetermination, the author of his sin. This would be a manifest contradiction, if there were not preceding our earthly development in time, an existence of our personality as the sphere of that self-determination by which our moral condition from birth is affected. And so, from these undeniable facts of human life, we are led to the same idea to which the examination of human freedom brought us, the idea of a mode of existence of created personalities out of time, and from which their life in time is dependent. Should we, however, ascribe to all personal creatures in the timeless state of their being such a perversion of will as is found in man, we should transfer the same difficult problem to the sphere, in which, we suppose, is found its solution. But here we are met and relieved by a doctrine which finds a place in the religious belief of most nations, that a part of the spiritworld by their self-determination founded a moral state of being in undisturbed harmony with God, and thus elevated the original purity VOL. VI. No. 22. 23

in which they were created, to a free holiness, and that another portion of those beings entirely and decidedly turned away from God, whereby for their existence in time every inclination to good was excluded. In human nature sin has produced a division. The will of man is not so decisively sundered from its eternal law, as to be entirely beyond the reach of its influence, but by the reäction of that law against the dominant principle of selfishness, arises the strangely mingled and wavering condition in which we find the natural man. Not out of total darkness, but out of a night, in which there is left yet some glimmering of day, man's moral development proceeds. Hence that deep seated desire after light, which every moral and religious influence may calculate upon meeting with, provided it begins its work sufficiently early.

If, preceding our development in time, there was an original decision of our self-will, by which it usurped the place of a ruling principle, we may understand why it is, that our earthly life, in its general course as well as its minuter circumstances, is for nothing so well adapted as to check and subdue our self-will. Self-denial it preaches to us wherever we turn; from the first awakening of consciousness this hard lesson is sounded in our ears; our dearest wishes we must bend to the commanding will of others; accustom ourselves to regulations which we did not make, and revere authorities whose grounds we do not see. No plan of life, unless the knowledge of the necessity to be resigned to disappointments had not already deprived it of all definiteness, is really executed; what we would hold fast, is torn from us by the power of circumstances, and something else pressed upon us, of which we did not dream. No individual work remains truly our own, its going out from us is its entrance into incalculable combinations, in which it not only becomes free from our control, but may become a burdensome restraint upon our favorite inclinations. To break the self-will of man is the aim of the discipline of life. For as unbridled self is evil through and through, even when in its outward actions it agrees with the regulations of social morality, so earnest discipline is the soil, in which alone true virtue can flourish, and obedience the sure though bitter root, from which is developed the growth of a genuine freedom.

§ 5. The increasing Power of Sin in the Development of the Individual.

The timeless original act, in which every human will determines itself, generates an inherent quality, a moral condition; it is that in which we all are born. At first present only as a hidden power, it becomes actual with the awakening of moral consciousness.

1849.]

The Bondage of Sin.

267

Of all sinful acts within our life in time, there is none which can possess an equal power of forming a condition, a state; but they all in a less degree share in this determining power. The freedom of the will is not an ability by which the will, after the commission of any sin, can return to its former undetermined state with respect to that sin, but the self-determining of the will becomes immediately a being determined; by an act of sin the will gives itself a tendency to sin. The element of lust becomes a constant factor of the inner life. It is the might of the divinely appointed law of the universe, which is thus active in the rebellious will of man. The will sunders itself from the moral law, and God hinders it not, but it still remains subject to the universal law of development, and thereby necessitated to a continuous course and a certain order of progression in sin. Without this order, it is not conceivable how man could ever become free from sin and attain to an unchangeable holiness. If this element of disorder has once entered into being, it must then unfold its nature with a certain completeness, because only so can it be thoroughly taken away. As the heavy vapors, which, arising from the earth, fill the air, are drawn together by the powerful rays of the sun into clouds, in order that falling as rain they may restore to the atmosphere its purity, so must sin gain a definite form in the life of man, in order that it may be duly striven with, and the strife be carried through to an ever enduring victory, which, indeed, is not possible to man left to himself, but only through redemption, John 8: 36.

The relation which progress in good and progress in evil hold to formal freedom, is directly the opposite, one of the other. The good, having its root in love to God, is the truth of the human will, and the will, uniting with it, is conscious of no restraint of its freedom in so doing, but finds rather the confirmation thereof. The more closely the will cleaves to the good, so much the freer, so much the more the master of himself is the man. Evil on the contrary is foreign to man's being. Although taken up into the will freely, it produces only bondage. Whoso committeth sin, says Christ, John 8: 34, is the servant of sin, cf. 2 Pet. 2: 19. There is but one way from formal freedom to real freedom, the way of sanctification; all development in evil is at the same time a progressive envelopment in its bondage. And if in his growing deterioration by constant yielding to sin, any one should lose the feeling of the foreignness of sin to his being, this would be an indication of its power. As in the sickness of the body, the coming on of an insensibility to pain is a sign of the deadly power of the disease, since organic nature no longer works against it, so man ceases to feel painfully the power of sin when it meets no more restraint

in his moral consciousness; but then it is at its highest point, and man must feel its despotic dominion in being given up a prey to conflicting desires and passions.

However fearful the power of sin in consequence of the law of gradation may be, yet it is not a single decision of the will which is sufficient to give a man wholly up to iniquity. Though the way downwards is beyond all comparison easier to the human race than the upward way, yet it has its definite steps; and if man with one stride would pass over them all, he would be as little able to do it, as one in the fellowship of redeeming grace is able by a single decision, a single act of inner submission, to become a perfect saint. We can imagine the horrible case, and it is in reality not unheard of, that men, who to a certain degree were already affected by holy principles, perhaps driven to despair by frequent relapses, in some dark moment formed the definite decision rather to give themselves over to the devil, or (if their theory would make no account of him) to sin, and from that moment were violently driven in a mad, reckless career. But in spite of this evil will, they will yet for a period experience the after-workings of a better nature within them, until the constant execution of their decision has gradually brought about a complete obduracy.

Nevertheless, progress in evil is not of so simple a nature that it depends solely upon psychological conditions. Not merely his own inner constitution, the outward world also holds man fast in his sinful wanderings; the productions of his freedom become fetters to his freedom; his choice becomes his destiny. For example, a lie obliges the liar to lie yet more daringly; hate enkindles hate, and itself thereby burns the more ardently. How often does a single act, which seems to be one only of weakness and haste, ensnare its author in a labyrinth of sins! The dark thought, scarcely expressed, malicious powers seize upon and weave from it an invisible net which gradually folds itself around the will and drags it, as with irresistible force, to the purposed fulfilment; the enticed falls by sin in the power of the enticer who knows fiendishly how to use it; after the first hesitating step in transgression, the door closes behind the lost one, he finds himself com pelled to cover crime with crime, and by new sins to give new strength to the works that sin has produced. One way of return there always is; but only he can find it, who is ready to forego himself, his entire earthly life.

There is one fact which, perhaps, more than any other illustrates the increasing power of sin, and that is, the hardening influence of divine truth upon the soul that refuses to receive it. No one can withdraw from the revelation of God which comes near to him, and have