Million Book Collection - The Fishers of Men Ministries

Million Book Collection - The Fishers of Men Ministries Million Book Collection - The Fishers of Men Ministries

thefishersofmenministries.com
from thefishersofmenministries.com More from this publisher
11.07.2015 Views

66 THE FIRST AND THE SECOND MAN.of transmitting his quality of divine sonship to hi srace by propagation, and the dependence of thatquality, in them as well as in himself, on his personalfidelity to God.But the First Man, the Father and Head of therace, did not stand in his inheritance. He brokethe divine command, and lost the gift of sonship,and with it all the prerogatives attendant on thatgift, which were above nature and rooted in grace,and which the eminent goodness of God had be-stowed upon him: and by the terms of the originalcharter lost the gift, not only for himself, but forhis race. But he did not, therefore, destroy thatrelation between the Head and the Race, whichwas part of the original foundation of God. Thiscontinued; but whereas it had been intended tocommunicate the blessing of adoption, it nowserved to communicate the demerit of adoptionlost, the guilt, and with it the punishment incurredby that loss. This is the original sin, thesin of the nature, not of the person, inherited bythe members of Adam's body; and as there canbe no sin without free-will, the sin of the wholenature included in Adam as its Root and Head,which sinned by Adam's abuse of his free-will.Let us try to determine as accurately as wecan the position into which Adam and his racefell.Did, then, Adam simply lose with the forfeitureof sanctifying grace the gift of sonship, the super-

THE FIRST AND THE SECOND MAN.67tural inheritance, all which God had bestowedon him beyond that ideal state of pure naturewhich we described in the first instance ? God,we said, might have created man originally in thiscondition, and man so created, that is, in virtueof this creation, would not have been under anysin, nor exposed to the anger of God. Did man,by Adam's sin, fall back into it ? Not so. Hisstate after his fall differed from such a state ofpure nature in that he had upon him the guilt oflost adoption, of adoption lost by the first Adam'sfault, and in proportion to the greatness of theloss, and the gratuitousness of the gift originallybestowed, was the anger with which, on the donor'spart, the loss was regarded. How would a king,a man like ourselves, regard one whom he hadraised out of the dust to be his adopted child,and who had been unfaithful to the parent whohad so chosen him with more than natural affection? Such an anger we can indeed understandwhen felt against the person sinning ; but we failto enter into it as resting on the race, because thesecret tie which binds the head and the race intoone is not discerned by us ; because too the greatnessof the divine majesty, the awfulness of Hissovereignty, and the wrath of that majesty slighted,3ebly appreciated by us. But this image mayt least give us some notionof the nature of thatdivine anger which pressed upon Adam and hisrace after the fall. Not only, therefore, was the gift

66 THE FIRST AND THE SECOND MAN.<strong>of</strong> transmitting his quality <strong>of</strong> divine sonship to hi srace by propagation, and the dependence <strong>of</strong> thatquality, in them as well as in himself, on his personalfidelity to God.But the First Man, the Father and Head <strong>of</strong> therace, did not stand in his inheritance. He brokethe divine command, and lost the gift <strong>of</strong> sonship,and with it all the prerogatives attendant on thatgift, which were above nature and rooted in grace,and which the eminent goodness <strong>of</strong> God had be-stowed upon him: and by the terms <strong>of</strong> the originalcharter lost the gift, not only for himself, but forhis race. But he did not, therefore, destroy thatrelation between the Head and the Race, whichwas part <strong>of</strong> the original foundation <strong>of</strong> God. Thiscontinued; but whereas it had been intended tocommunicate the blessing <strong>of</strong> adoption, it nowserved to communicate the demerit <strong>of</strong> adoptionlost, the guilt, and with it the punishment incurredby that loss. This is the original sin, thesin <strong>of</strong> the nature, not <strong>of</strong> the person, inherited bythe members <strong>of</strong> Adam's body; and as there canbe no sin without free-will, the sin <strong>of</strong> the wholenature included in Adam as its Root and Head,which sinned by Adam's abuse <strong>of</strong> his free-will.Let us try to determine as accurately as wecan the position into which Adam and his racefell.Did, then, Adam simply lose with the forfeiture<strong>of</strong> sanctifying grace the gift <strong>of</strong> sonship, the super-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!