« PreviousContinue »
demands it. Instead of being opposed to Creation, all theories of Evolution begin by assuming it. If Science does not formally posit it, it “never posits anything else.” Now, whilst not prepared to grant that “the only theory of the method of Creation in the field is Evolution," yet we cannot but welcome the strong and unhesitating declaration of the Professor that "instead of being opposed to Creation, all theories of Evolution begin by assuming it.”
But this also we must grant, that the Infinite and Eternal One, being Invisible, could never as a cognizable Being be known unto men. No man hath seen God at any time, nor can see Him. In this matter, the Bible and the agnostic evolutionist perfectly agree.
But it is also true, that an invisible God could never satisfy man. This is a notable fact, and worthy of the most careful consideration. 'Shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us,' has ever been the cry of the human heart-as the idol-worship of many peoples and ages abundantly testifies—and before the cry could be uttered the Divine response was given. 'Before they call, I will answer,' is God's method with His children. But we have here a great
truth which men generally do not yet apprehend, in relation to the Creator and the moral intelligences whom He brought into existence. For instance, in his Christ in Modern Theology, pp. 475-7, Dr. Fairbairn says, “If God is to become the real Father of man, and man the real son of God, then all the energies and loves and ideals of the unseen Paternity must be incarnated and organized in a visible sonship, that they may become creative of a mankind which shall realize the filial ideal."
"If God's Fatherhood is to be a reality to man, he must see it as it is, know it by experience, by handling it, and by being handled by it. But the only way in which it can thus come, is in the form of humanity.”
“ The Incarnation may be described as the most illustrious example of the supremacy of God's moral over His physical attributes, and of the relation they hold to the healing and happiness of man. As such it is of all acts the act that most becomes Him, and so the one we can least conceive as accidental. And, therefore, though its special form may be affected by the fact of sin, yet it were mere impertinence to imagine that but for the accident of sin the universe would have been deprived of its most invincible evidence of grace." " Now, these are true, beautiful, and far-reaching utterances, the significance of which Dr. Fairbairn himself does not seem to apprehend. If God, as he argues, must be incarnated in "a visible Sonship”-if that visible Sonship must come “in the form of humanity"-if that visible Sonship in human form must have come apart from “ the accident of sin,” then we earnestly and urgently inquireIf sin had never existed, at what time was it most likely that the Son of the Father would become the God-Man--the Visible God ? Surely ! before man was created, and not after the human race had existed for thousands of years upon the earth, and been developed, in measure, out of the natural condition into that which is spiritual. Apart from sin, what reason can be imagined for a flesh and blood Incarnation of the Divine Son, late in time and after humanity had far advanced on its upward and heavenly way, and become more or less spiritual-even physically,-and therefore like unto the angels'? There is no ground for such a conception, either in reason or in revelation. Canon Gore and
others have given expression to the same belief stated by Dr. Fairbairn, that the Son of God must have become Incarnate, even though man had never sinned; but Dr. Denny in his admirable work on Studies in Theology most truly says (p. 101), " Scripture never gives the faintest hint of any opening for the mind in this direction." And why? Because the Lord God was already Man, and frequently appeared as such in Old Testament times. Dr. Denny does not see this, and must therefore believe that but for the Fall and the consequent need of Incarnation and Redemption, the Divine Son would never have become Human at all. But if so, then how could He have made known the Father ? (Matt. xi. 27). Had the Divine Son been only Divine, how could He have become the Revealer of God?. If the Father is invisible, the Son as God must also be invisible, and therefore could not bring the Invisible into view. It needs more than God to reveal God unto men, for men are unable to rise above the level of their own nature, and can only apprehend that which is human. Truly, “it were mere impertinence to imagine that but for the accident of sin the universe would have been deprived of its most invincible evidence of grace," but it was not so deprived, for the Creator was God-Man— the Divine Ideal of man. It was in His 'image and likeness' that the first man was made, and all through the periods of the old dispensations the Visible God frequently appeared unto men as Man.* Indeed, He never appeared as anything else, for He was the Primal Man—the Perfect Man; and had humanity never fallen under the
i power of sin and death, He would have been to all men their Teacher and Exemplar for evermore. It was the Divine Man by whom all things were created. The invisible Father created nothing directly, but everything through the agency of the Visible Son, who being originally in the form of God,' became the Maker of the universe and the great Mediator between God and men. What says Paul ? He was 'the image of the invisible God—the firstborn of all creation : For in him were all things
* Gen. iii. 8 ; Gen. xviii. 2; Gen. xxxii. 24, 30; Acts vii. 2; Exod. iii. 6; Exod. xxiv, 9-11; Num. xii. 4-8; Josh. v. 13-15; Judg. xiii. 22; Ezek. i. 26-28; Dan. jji. 24, 25.