ePub 版

to its close, the capacity for good becomes totally extinct, and the condition of eternal death is entered upon, to which Paul refers in the words savour of death unto death. This is the perfected form of the spiritual death already begun, and is the second element in the Apostle's conception. The third element is physical death, the violent separation of soul and body. That Paul regarded this as the immediate consequence of sin may be seen from the reference of Rom. v. 12 to the representations of Genesis, and from 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, Rom. viii. 10. It is the feeling of guilt which gives death its terror (2 Cor. v. 4), but it does not follow that Paul regarded only the peculiar manner of death as the consequence of sin. Man is not necessarily mortal ; but the fact of death is due to sin. There may be translation without death (2 Cor. v. 4); there will be at the last trump' (1 Cor. xv. 52).

Mortality, as the consequence of sin, is mirrored also in nature (Rom. viii. 19). “Creature' alone cannot designate unredeemed humanity, nor can the apostle ascribe to this a longing from the beginning of the world for the consummation of God's kingdom ; nor can be describe the fall as involuntary (v. 20), or the redemption of the heathen as taking place at the same time with the glorification of the sons of God (v. 21) without mentioning the conditions. It is certainly the teaching of Paul that nature needs a purification as well as man ; for such a present condition of nature is alone suitable for sinful man as reflects his own internal dissension.

Paul regards the universal dominion of death (and sin) as the consequence of the sin of the first man, (Rom. v. 12-21); 1 Cor. xv. 21). The transgressions of individuals cannot be regarded as the primary cause of death in man, since death takes place in those whose moral consciousness has never been awakened. Paul traces not only actual sin, but the habitus from which sin proceeds to the sin of Adam, and in the seventh chapter of Romans he describes this predisposition as sin.

Paul does not expressly state the nature of the connection between the first man and his posterity; but it is evident that, as sin is predisposition, it could not have spread from the force of example, but from the natural increase of the human race, and is therefore hereditary.

According to Paul, then, the first original cause of the death of all men is the sin of Adam; the secondary cause, the sinning of the men themselves. All men having strengthened their sinful bias by the concurrence of their will, they may account death as the legitimate punishment of their own transgressions.

When the apostle speaks of the insufficiency of the law to produce a new life, he refers primarily to the Mosaic law, and to this in its whole circumference. For he makes no sharp distinction between the ritual and ethical parts of the law. He sometimes refers more particularly to one than the other ; but it is not to be supposed that in denying a justifying efficacy to the law he means simply the ritual. He places by the side of the Mosaic law the moral law, written in the heart as essentially of the same import. It is owing to the obscuration of this that the Mosaic legislation confers so great an advantage on the Jews over the heathen.

In denying justifying efficacy to the works of the law, Paul underderstands not those works which the law requires, but those which it is able to produce in man in his state of sin. The Gospel is not a new law, but a new power. •From our Christian standpoint we are accustomed to distinguish between the moral and the ritual portion of the Old Testament, and to declare the one to be explicitly confirmed by the Gospel and of permanent obligation on the Church ; the other to be as explicitly abrogated by Christ. We have not here to inquire to what extent and in what sense such a distinction is legitimate and sustained; we merely assert that Paul does not make it, and that it has no place in his system. All that is written in the book of the law is declared to be equally necessary and placed under the same punitive sanction, and the relation of the law to righteousness and saivation, as pointed out by the apostle, extends to the whole law. The incapacity of the law to justify is due to the evil disposition of the soul. In the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans the apostle defines and describes two stages in the moral development of the unregenerate life-a state of comparative innocence, in which man, being ignorant of the higher moral norm, is not conscious of the slumbering evil within him ; and a state in which the latent depravity is roused and strengthened by the application of the law.

The first object for which the law was given is the knowledge of sin. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.' • The strength of sin is the law. With the law ignorance ceases, and responsibility begins. The second object is regarded by Paul as the multiplication of particular transgressions of the law. This is the actual results of its prohibitions, and the disease of sin is more easily cured when brought to outward manifestation.

Thus, then, in the theology of Paul, the law possesses a condemning power. It reveals sin and condemns sin. So far from imparting life, it is the cause of death. Hence the apostle calls it the law of sin and

of death' (Rom. viii. 2), as it is the occasion of transgression, and, consequently, of death. So, also, he uses various strong expressions as if he depreciated the law, and regarded it as antagonistic to the Gospel ; whilst at other times he praises it as the rule of perfect righteousness. In short, the law may be regarded in two aspects,-as the expression of the righteousness of God, and as the cause of condemnation to the sinner ; and according as it is regarded in the one point of view or in the other, different and apparently opposite qualities are assigned to it. Let us not, however, forget that Paul's theology does not contradict the law, that it is not hostile to it, nor tends to overthrow it; on the contrary, it maintains, as no other system can, its spirit and intention, since the law itself, rightly understood, wills and predicts the new economy of grace.'

Such are the main points in what we may call the negative or polemical part of the Pauline theology. The Apostle clearly explains and illustrates the hereditary and universal corruption of human nature, the utter insufficiency of the law to render man righteous, and the fact of man's secret desire for deliverance from his state of misery.




It is many years since the name at the head of this


settled down as one of the abiding forces of our literature. His writings constitute a distinct addition to the intellectual wealth of our country, and his place has long been ratified among the immortals. He has given a stimulus to all those capable of generous infection, and awakened a corresponding affection and sympathy. Morality and conduct have been nobler and purer for the invigorating and solemn influence and meaning of his works. He has not restricted his teaching to any school of speculation or philosophy; he viewed life as a whole; he had the almost sacred gift of inspiring men to grave and honest diligence in reaching on to high and noble things. That he clothed his judgments in extraordinary, glowing, and often in exaggerated phrase, we may have occasion to point out. He has drawn persons of all grades and opinions around him, none of whom call him Master, but all confessing that he has done much to clear their mental vision, to rouse them to loftier endeavours, to warn them against trusting in mere appearances, and strengthen their love of righteousness and truth. It is, therefore, of no small concern that,

We, who speak the tongue
That Shakespere spake, the faith and manners hold

Which Milton held, should know, as fully as we can, what manner of man this was who for nearly half-a-century influenced the best minds in this country, and permanently enriched our literature and intellectual force. The reminiscences, which we have read with deepest interest, dashed with some regrets, must be reserved for notice at the close of the article.

Carlyle's birthplace was Ecclefechan, a hamlet in the south-west of Scotland. This name, which, by the way, is a puzzle for the ordinary Englishman to pronounce, is a contraction of Ecclesia Fechani, and goes back to the Monkish times of the seventh century, when an Abbot St. Fechan had a church in the district. Travellers going to Scotland from Carlisle by the Caledonian Railway pass, about eight miles over

* Reminiscences. By THOMAS CARLYLE. Edited by James Anthony Froude. Two vols. London: Longman and Co., 1881,

the border, this quiet village. In pre-railway times the place was the busy scene of cattle-fairs and the frequent calling of the London and Glasgow stage-coach. In this now dull, sleepy place Thomas Carlyle was born December 5, 1795. He was the eldest of a family of eight children. His parents were of the stock of people from whom have come many of the most successful Scotchmen-theologians like Chalmers, aud poets like Burns. His father in early life had been a stonemason, but had taken to farming, and was tenant of Scotsberg, a farm of two or three hundred acres, which is now occupied by Carlyle's youngest and only surviving brother. The father, as we shall see, had great shrewdness, dry humour, high moral worth, indomitable energy, and strong will. He was given to the saying of sharp, pungent things, giving by-names to people which often stuck to them, and had in no small degree his illustrious son's picturesque and vivid powers of speech, a3 well as his fondness for old-fashioned and uncommon expressions. Above all, and especially as his life drew on, he was truly devout and religious; as his son used to say, he was like Enoch of old—he walked with God.' His mother, like Burns's, was deeply religious, with an intellectual outlook beyond the people of her class, and had considerable claims to personal attraction. Mr. Froude, the historian, who was for years Carlyle's most intimate companion and trusted friend, says:

There is good reason to believe that his mother first suggested to her son that new estimate of the character of Cromwell which he was the first to lay before the world. He was fond of dwelling on the virtues of his mother, and said that she was entirely too peaceable and pious for this planet. She lived till 1853. Though most of the subjects he wrote were new to her, she read his works with great care ; particularly she read and re-read his History of the French Revolution. She was at first startled and disturbed by the new religious views she met with in her son's books; but when she found that he was in earnest and steadfast, she cared no more. The plain stone house, common enough in the farming districts of Scotland, in which James Carlyle lived and in which his family were born, still remains; for this old house at home' Carlyle cherished an unchanging affection, which he evidenced by his frequent visits to his birthplace. Of the family we have only to say that a younger brother became a medical man, a person of culture, and is known as an excellent translator of Dante's Inferno; his sister married Mr. Aitkin, an artist of some eminence at Dumfries; it was her daughter who, upon his wife's death, became Mr. Carlyle's housekeeper and assistant in literary work.

As school age came on school life began, and Thomas Carlyle became in time so apt and diligent a scholar in the Hoddam parish school that

« 上一頁繼續 »