The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-06

paganism; and left other pagans in their
paganism. He had called Jacob and left
Esau to be the head of the wandering Be
douin tribes. He had called Joseph for
honor and glory and left his brethren fol
ignoble lives. He had called Moses and
had not only cast out but had used
Pharaoh for his own destruction and for
the emancipation of Israel and the giorifi-
cation OF Israel through him. He had chos-
en- David from the sneep field and passed
saul nv So ali through The Jewish history
the Pharisee thought he could trace a di-
vine sovereignty, using men and using ma
tons for no reason that was given, for no
reason that could be given, using them be-
cause he chose them, his choice the ultl-
mate fact.
CONCEPTIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY.
Thus there were three conceptions of
sovereignty current in Paul's time = the
necessarian, whatever is must be; the
Greek, fate ruling both gods and men to
punish wrongdoing; Pharisaic, the choice
Of personal God the final factor in hu-
man life. To this audience Paul addresses
himself. In these schools Paul was edu-
Gated. He had come to believe in The SUI
premacy of fate, or sovereignty, or des-
tiny, call it what you will, and to believe in
sovereignty as personifed in Jehovah, as
invested in an individual, and he had grown
up to believe that this sovereignty was ex-
erclsed IN an arbitrary way - that is, at
yah gave to His people or which His people
could understand, and He had come to be-
neve that in the exercise of this was real
choice. Jehovah had chosen Israel not as
He himself said in one of the old prophets,
not because you were great and good; you
We're the least and feeblest choose you
because / choose you That Is ALL He had
come to believe that the Jews were the
eject nation of God This was his primary
education. He was stepped and soaked and
imbued with it. The very fiber of his being
was colored by this profound faith in SOW
ereignty. And yet now he was teaching
something that seemed incongruous to it.
He was declaring that gentiles might come
into the church of God as well as the Jews.
He. was teaching that Greek and Roman
mad the door flung as wide open to them
as the orthodox Pharisee. He had come to
believe that the mercy of God in Christ
Jesus is as large and universal as sin. and
his old faith and his new faith were in APP
parently irreconcilable conflict one with the
other; the old faith that God had chosen
Few and given no reason for it, and those
few Jews the new faith, that God flung
wide open His mercy, that His sun shone
alike on the evil and the good and His rain
fell alike on the just and unjust.
He was himself in perplexity. He did not
himself understand how to reconcile this
new faith which was a part of his new. life
and this old faith which was part of his
Old life, and he was speaking to a people
who, in one form or another, believed in
absolute sovereignty. The sovereignty Of
the supremacy of fate-thar was the Greek
bellef; the absolute certainty of memorable
necessity-that was the Roman belief; and
yet he was saying to these men that all men
We're free to take the gift of Gods life.
How could he reconcile this largeness of
the Gospel which he had come to believe
In with this old belief which was almost a
part of his very existence? How could he
reconcile this belief in the universally of
Gods mercy with this doctrine of Roman
necessitarianism. of Greek fate, of Phara-
sale election, or how coul6 he commend his
universalism to these educated in partial
ism?
Let me recall what he has said already
in the Epistle to the Romans. He said The
world cannot be made right by obedience
to law; not by human enactment declaring
righteousness; not even by divine enactment
requiring Righteousness The Roman has
tried the one, the jew has tried the other,
and both have failed. The world must be
set right; despotic government must be
made free: labor must be efnancipated the
home must be purified; society. must be up
the church must be made effective as an
ethical instrument-by receiving freely the
ceives the gift of Gods life will live there
after a free and spontaneous life himself;
he will be dead to sin, although sometimes
he will be creeping back to his grave. If
one walks after he has been raised to new
ness OF life he will be emancipated from
sin, though still the letters will clank en-
his wrists and on his feet. Still he will be
a new man, and in his pursuit after the
new life he will be conscious he is under no
condemnation. God will not condemn him;
he will not condemn himself. Rising into
this life, rejoicing in this goodness of God,
neither life. nor death, nor principalities,
nor powers, nor things present, nor things
separate him from the love of God wit
messed to his life wrought in his life.
A HALTING-PLACE
'"Then he stops. I can imagine that he
has gone as far as he can when he reaches
that elimination, and he says to his aman-
uensis, I will wait little There is a
clear break between the eighth chapter and
the ninth. And he ponders this question
within himself: How is it that this free gift
of God is given? How can 1 reconcile the
universally of this gift with my belief in
the election of Israel? How can I commend
it to the people who believe either in neces-
sity or fate or in an overruling, supreme,
arbitrary Jehovah? The NINTH tenth and
eleventh chapters are his answer to these
questions. They are not written for the
purpose Of disproving. sovereignty. They
for the purpose of proving sovereignty.
They are not Calvinistic. They are not writ
ten ten, for the purpose Of reconciling soyer-
sophieal. They are written for the purpose
of showing what is the end of the Roman
necessity, the Greek fate, the Jewish cleo
ton, the universal sovereignty. TO recall
for moment the figure, he still believes
this steamer is blowing its. way, carrying
it's passengers; he still believes they can
only walk the deck to and fro. He does not
discuss the measure and the limits of their
liberty. He does not discuss the absolute
ness OF the sovereignty which determines
their voyage. He addresses himself to this
one single question: What is the end of the
voyage? What is the object of the SOW
ereignty? For what does it exist? Is the
Roman rights it simply hard material
lstIc necessity? Is the Greek rights it
SIMPLY the punishment of wrongdoing? Is
the Jew rights it simply an arbitrary
choice that cannot be explained?
If we wish to know the meaning of an
argument we must look to it's conclusion.
No man, l conceive, would undertake to
interpret Daniel Websters reply to Hayne
by single sentences or single paragraphs
taken here and there He would turn If he
We're in perplexity, to the end of the adj
dress, see to what issue the orator was con-
Quoting himself and his hearers and by
that issue and that result reached would
interpret all that had preceded. The ninth
tenth and eleventh chapters of Romans. in
which Paul discusses this relation of SOW
ereignty to freedom, ends thus God hath
shut up all unto disobedience that He might
have mercy upon ALL All, Romans, you
are mistaken. This necessity is not a blind
materialistic necessity. Greek, you are
wrong. This fate is not for the punishment
OF wrongdoing. Pharisee, you are mistaken.
This is not an arbitrary choice for which
no explanation can be given. The end and
cfs1ecI of sovereignty, the purpose which it
as, the result which 1T will achieve, is
mercy upon ALL
II am aware that this is not the inter-
probation which has been very currently
given to these chapters, and, therefore,
repeat it, so as by repetition may make ii
ereignty. and addressing auditors, all OF
whom believe in sovereignty in one form OF
another. seeks not to define what are the
limits of human liberty, not to overthrow