The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-03-06
SOVEREIGNTY AND MERCY
THE LATTER, DIR. ABBOTT SAYS, IS
THE END OF THE FORMER.
How Paul Interprets the Change in
His own Mind from Narrower to
Larger view of Sovereignty.
Brooklyn Eagle.


week ago yesterday at Cornell University.
resumed his series of lectures on the Life
and Writings of ST. Paul" DIR. Abbott
said:
THAT portion of Pauls Epistle to the Ro-
mans which is to be the subject OF our con-
sheraton tonight is confessedly the most
difficult portion in all his writing, and /
think that may be said to be equivalent to
saying that it is the most difficult portion
in any phlosophc writing intended for
popular impression and for public use. 1t
is difficult by reason of the nature of the
characterization of law to liberty, or sover-
eighty to human freedom. 1t is difficult by
reason of PauPs treatment of that subject
for his arguments are in measure archaic
effective in their time, ineffective now, and
as 1t were, out of date. 1t is difficult by
reason of the fact that in America, at all
events where individualism has received
its highest development. and where popular
sovereignty has been popular cry, there is
q disinciina ton to recognize any sovereign
~, any law above that which men make for
themselves, anything greater than human
free will. 1t is enhanced still further by the
fact that the divine sovereignty has been
presented oftentimes in pagan and cruel
forms as a harsh, arbitrary, unreasonable
and unjust sovereignty 1t is made still
more difficult by reason of the fact that
Paul himself, in the three chapters which
we are to consider tonight, was passing
through an intellectual transition. He inter-
prets the change taking place in his own
mind from the narrower to the larger view
Of sovereignty. He argues with himself
He opens the door, and we see the very
mental processes and therefore the men
tai contradictions of mind working its
way toward the truth. These difficulties
are still further enhanced, in speaking to
such a congregation as this, by the circum-
stances that 1 cannot assume that you have
all Of you read the ninth, tenth and elev-
enth chapters of Romans before you came
mere Tonight. If this were a Bible class /
would ask you first to read 1T with me, then
would point out to you how / thought it
was to be interpreted, and then would re-
interpret IT In accordance with those prin-
ciples. But that is not practicable here,
ana must assume what i am afraid is not
absolutely true, that you are familiar with
the passages on which am to speak.
LIBERTY AND LAW.
The most difficult problem, perhaps, in.
philosophy is the relation of liberty to law,
or human freedom to the power that lies
beyond and above humanity. Within our
selves we are conscious of freedom. We
choose, and we know that we choose. In
vain II is argued that it must be determined
by the strongest motive, that mans will is
but like balance which incIines whichever
way the weight is heaviest Within our
selves we are conscious that we choose and
our whole sense of moral responsibility and
Snoral obligations toward one another rests
Upon that consciousness. And yet, on the
other hand, we see and know that there are
laws and forces outside ourselves which
mold and shape and direct us. We know
that there is q Providence which shapes
our ends, rough hew them as we may. Our
fhoug6f nerceiSes If Tndesd tbesa fo, 9es
which lie outside ourselves-I do not stop
zow 20 consider whether they are divine or
Indivine, personal or impersonal-are far
more efficient in determining our destiny
than we are ourselves Whether for exam
pie, you should be born in the first century
or the nineteenth century, under the des-
potism of Rome or the free flag OF America,
you did not determine, but it has had a
very much greater influence on your life
than any one thing you ever did determine.
When we should be born, where we should
be born what qualities we should inherit
from our ancestry what should be the for
native Influences in the most formative pc
Rod of our life Chat of childhood). these
and kindred questions we had no share in
determining. They have somehow been de-
termined for US. And yet within the limits
of our life we know that we are free.
There are, indeed. some schools Of phi
losophy which, in order to simplify truth,
deny one or the other factor of this strange
ard ever unsoived problem. They are, on
the one hand, necessariaHs, who deny that
man is a free moral agent. They are. on
the other hand, fndividualists. who deny
that there are any forces superior to his
will. But think ii may safely be said that
neither the one class of thinkers nor the
other have any standing ground IN human
philosophy. On the whole, the great mass
of men recognize not only in their schools
OF philosophy, not only in their religious
systems, but, as ] have said, in their
dramas, in their novels in their whole life,
these two factors-faith and freedom, SOW
ereignty and liberty-the forces and cur
rents Of life without and the force that lies
within
Man may be compared 10 a traveller on
an ocean steamer. He is free. He may
walk from the bow of the steamer to the
stern, or from the starboard to the larboard
side, and yet, walk where he will and as
ne pleases, the steamer is irresistibly carry
Ing him to his destination. No freedom that
he can exercise can change the current of
the voyage on which he is embarked. We
ind ourselves thus embarked on a strange
VOYAGE We do not know from what port
VIC came, we do not know to what port
we tend and we do not know what are the
forces that are carrying our ship, what are
the bounds and limits of the ocean on which
we sail, nor who is the commander that
determines its destiny; but we know II we
know anything that from our part of it,
within the narrow parts of our narrow
deck, we may walk where we like. In spite
of our walking, whithersoever we walk. we
are carried still on to the final destiny.
That we cannot control.
FORMS OF RECOGNITION.
Now, this sovereignty in life was recog-
nized in Pauls time, as it has been in our
times. 1t was recognized in three forms,
which 1 may very briefly, and therefore
very imperfectly, describe. 1t was recog-
nized, in the first Dlace by the Stoics-and
Stolcism was the only virile philosophy in
Rome in the time of Paul. There were
other philosophers, fragmentary, imperfect,
but the only philosophy that had strength
IN it was the Stoical philosophy. And this
Stoical philosophy was thoroughly neces-
zff1 rfa NH " "a m l.
ism. Its philosophy was, on the whole anal
ogous TO modern materialism; that nature
Is one great machine; that each individual
man is little machine and that his course
and currents of life is determined by the
way in which he is made and the way in
be--that was the doctrine of StoiciSm. LII
was pure simple necessitafianiSm.
There was in the second place, the doc
trine of fate, which was held by the Greek
philosophy. While fate was not less mex
orable than destiny under the Stole phil
osophy, IT. was very different in its charac-
ter. Fate was personified in certain deities,
It determined the destinies of the gods, as
well as of men. But it determined them
for just ends The function of fate was to
reward the virtuous; but that was rather
incidental. IL was, primarily, TO punish the
wicked, and fate pursued the wicked and
Eumenides, no place could hide from these
aVenging deities. No tears, no prayers, no
sacrifices could avail to propitiate their
wrath for wrong which has been done. The
penalty must be paid by the man himself
and by his family and by his descendants
Thus the Romans held that there was a
fate, which was simply materialistic. The
Cracks held that there was 81 fate which