?The individual could never have developed into a personality but for his training through society and under law.? Imagine a theory that the family originated in a compact! We must not define the state by its first crude beginnings any more than we define the oak by the acorn. On the theory of a social-compact, see Lowell, Essays on Government, 136-188.
(c) That, after accounting men to be sinners who are not sinners, God makes them sinners by immediately creating each human soul with a corrupt nature such as will correspond to his decree. This is not only to assume a false view of the origin of the soul, but also to make God directly the author of sin. Imputation of sin cannot precede and account for corruption. On the contrary, corruption must precede and account for imputation.
By God?s act we became depraved, as a penal consequence of Adam?s act imputed to us solely as peccatum alienum. Dabney, Theology, 342 says the theory regards the soul as originally pure until imputation. See Hodge on <450513>Romans 5:13; Systematic Theology, 2:203, 210; Thornwell, Theology, 1:346-349; Chalmers, Institutes, 1:485, 487. The Federal theory ?makes sin in us to be the penalty of another?s sin instead of being the penalty of our own sin, as on the Augustinian scheme, which regards depravity in us as the punishment of our own sin in Adam. It holds to a sin which does not bring eternal punishment but for which we are legally responsible as truly as Adam.? It only remains to say that Dr. Hodge always persistently refused to admit the one added element which might have made his view less arbitrary and mechanical, namely, the Traducian theory of the origin of the soul. He was a creationist and to the end maintained that God immediately created the soul and created it depraved. Acceptance of the Traducian theory would have compelled him to exchange his Federalism for Augustinianism. Creationism was the one remaining element of Pelagian atomism in an otherwise Scriptural theory. Yet Dr. Hodge regarded this as an essential part of Biblical teaching. His unwavering confidence was like that of Fichte, whom Caroline Schelling represented as saying: ?Zweifle an der Sonne Klarheit, Zweifle an der Sterne Licht, Leser, nur an meiner Wahrheit Und an deiner Dummheit nicht.?
As a corrective to the atomistic spirit of Federalism we may quote a view, which seems to us far more tenable, though it perhaps goes to the opposite extreme. Dr. H. H. Bawden writes: ?The self is the product of a social environment. An ascetic self is so far forth not a self. Selfhood and consciousness are essentially social. We are members one of another. The
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?