057. IV. The Mystery Of Creation.

IV. The Mystery Of Creation.

1. Mystery of Immediate Creation.—A mediate or formative creation is so common in the history of civilization, so manifest in its manifold works, and, indeed, so deeply wrought into our experience, that the sense of mystery is mostly precluded. The great achievements in mechanics may often surprise us as to the powers of man, but without perplexity as to the modes of his operation. With this familiarity of a merely formative creation through our own agency, there is the less perplexity for our thought of such an agency in God. Yet for our deeper thought there is still a profound difference in the two cases. We mostly work through mechanical means; whereas God as a purely spiritual being must work by an immediate power of personal will. There is still some light for our thought in the facts of consciousness. We surely know the immediate energizing of our personal will. This energizing is not the less immediate for the reason that the action is first upon our bodily organism, and then through it upon exterior nature. With the simple spiritual essence of mind, we must at some initial point exert an immediate power of will upon the physical organism. To deny this is to assume for all forms of our personal action an absolute mechanical law. Reflective thought, with the facts of personal consciousness in clear view, must ever reject this law. It is true that we thus reach an immediate power of will only upon our own bodily organism, and without the faintest insight into its mode; yet even so much is of value for our thinking of the formative creations of God. With the distinctive fact of a physical organism, we may yet see in the light of our own immediate power of will the reality of an immediate power of the divine will which can so act upon the elements of matter as to set them in their orderly forms. With this power, the formative creations of God are clearly possible. The profound mystery is in the notion of an immediate creation of essential being. If we but think a little, it must appear that any notion of such being as an actual existence is a profound mystery. With the thought of such a reality, the alternatives of an eternal existence or an origination in time inevitably present themselves. Neither is comprehensible in thought. Yet we are shut up to the reality of eternal being. There is no escape either in the extremest idealism or in the baldest positivism. Eternal being is for us an absolute truth. This alternative, however incomprehensible, has ever been accepted in reflective thought. So constant and thorough is this conviction that the possibility of an originative creation never appears in human thought apart from the light of revelation. In all heathen thought, even in its profoundest philosophic forms, matter itself is either eternal or in some inexplicable mode an emanation of the very nature of God. Even with the light of our biblical theism, we need have no reserve in conceding the utter mystery of an originative creation of matter. Objectors, who must admit the utterly incomprehensible reality of eternal being, are in no position to question the possibility of such a creation. The mystery for our thought is no disproof of the possibility.

2. Deeper Mystery of Emanation.—The profound mystery of an originative creation of essential being has induced not a few minds, and even some Christian minds, to accept the notion that things which appear as real and individual existences are an emanation or evolution out of the very nature of God. Sir William Hamilton may represent this view. With him the annihilation of being is just as inconceivable as its origination: “We are utterly unable to construe it in thought as possible that the complement of existence has been either increased or diminished. We cannot conceive, either, on the one hand, nothing becoming something, or, on the other, something becoming nothing. When God is said to create the universe out of nothing, we think this by supposing that he evolves the universe out of himself; and, in like manner, we conceive annihilation only by conceiving the Creator to withdraw his creation from actuality into power.”^[290] All this is grounded in the principle that nothing can come from nothing, and nothing be reduced to nothing—for the forcible expression of which the author cites the words of Lucretius and Persius.^{[291] [290]} Philosophy(Wight’s), pp. 493, 494.

^[291]“Nil posse creari De Nihilo, neque quod genitu ‘st ad Nil revocari;” “ Gigni De Nihilo Nihil, in Nihilum Nil posse reverti.” The ancient and familiar formula, ex nihilo nihil fit—from nothing nothing is or can be—is true in its principle, but may be false in its application. It is true in respect to all events and in such application it is thoroughly validated by the law of causation. Whether this law so validates Hamilton’s doctrine of creation is the very question in issue. The creation of the universe out of nothing never can mean, and is never intended to mean, that nothing is in any sense wrought into the material of the new existence. Further, the creation of the universe out of nothing is, in the sense of Christian theism, totally different from the notion of its springing from nothing. In the antecedents for thought there is the infinite difference between an absolute void and the omnipotent God. The notion of an originative creation through his agency is in no violation of the law of causation. The sufficient cause of the new existence is given in the potential plenitude of the Creator. The notion of an absolute complement of being, forever without possible increase or diminution, from which the doctrine is deduced of an emanation or evolution of the universe out of the very nature of God, must be monistic in principle. Otherwise, it must involve an eternal dualism, or even an eternal pluralism of existences, according to the distinctions of essential being. Materialism is monistic, but, as utterly atheistic, it has no part in this question. Monism is the ground-principle of pantheism. Nor is the deduction of a mere phenomenal character of all sensible forms of existence illogical. Hamilton admitted no such an implication of his doctrine of creation, but it is much easier to deny than legitimately to escape such an implication. A doctrine of creation which lies so near the deepest and most determining principle of pantheism cannot give the true sense of the Scriptures respecting the origin of the universe. Further, if this doctrine of an evolutionary creation be true of matter, it must be equally true of mind, whether human or angelic. Mind is thus reduced to a merely phenomenal mode of existence, without any reality of being in itself. For otherwise the very being of God must be divided into many parts. It thus appears that this doctrine lies close to the emanation of souls out of the nature of God as maintained in Brahmanism—entirely too close to be true to the Scriptures. The heading of these paragraphs signifies a deeper mystery of an evolutionary than of an originative creation. With the pure spirituality and infinite personal perfections of God, such must be the fact. True, we cannot think how either matter or mind is originated. Can we think how either can be evolved out of the very nature of God? If we know any thing, we know the reality of our own personal being. “We cannot be such through a mode of evolution except by a division of the divine nature. If matter is an evolution, either it must express the eternal nature of God or be the subject of an essential mutation, which is equivalent to an originative creation. These facts fully justify our heading. As one turns back from the mystery of an originative creation to the evolution of the universe out of the nature of God, he does but plunge into a deeper mystery.

3. Evil Tendency of Emanative Doctrine.—The doctrine of an emanation or evolution of finite existences out of the nature of God is not new to speculative thought. In its deeper principle, as we have seen, it underlies pantheism. In widely prevailing pagan religions, souls are an emanation of God, and destined to a re-absorption into his nature. Such an evolution of matter was deeply wrought into the gnosticism which appeared as a malign heresy in the early history of the Church. There was a long series of emanations, on a scale of degradation, and terminating in matter. Matter was thus viewed as intrinsically evil, and the inevitable source of moral evil. In these latter facts, matter was much the same in the Greek philosophy; in which, however, it was held to be a distinct eternal existence, not an evolution out of the nature of God. The tendency of the doctrine in both was evil, and only evil. In religion, its tendency is to asceticism, but with an easy diversion into a life of vicious indulgence. Apart from religion, the primary tendency is to such a life. With an intrinsically evil nature and a consequent absolute helplessness, there is a ready excuse for the grossest vices; and only the more ready with this evil nature as an emanation of God. With a true Christian theism, of course such consequences are denied. It is hardly thinkable that, with the evolution of finite existences out of the nature of God, such a theism can be maintained or held in any clear view. In any case, the law of moral duty and responsibility may be greatly weakened. If in our whole being, as consisting of soul and body, we are an evolution out of the being of God, and therefore of his very nature, why should not such a nature be the law of our life? The clear view and deep sense of God as revealed in Christianity would reject such an implication; but that view and sense may easily be obscured and weakened; and the direct tendency of such an origin of our nature in God must be toward such obscurity and weakness.

4. Mode of Divine Agency in Creating.—The question thus raised specially concerns the providence of God, but is also properly in place here. Forces, and the power of God as well, are in their deeper nature still secret to our thought, but there are clearly noticeable distinctions in their operation. The mode of agency must in all cases be determined by the nature of the agent. We may thus distinguish between personal agency in man and physical agency in matter. If we cannot reach the secret of physical forces, we yet know their reality in the energy of their operation, and that, on the proper collocation of material elements, they act immediately and necessarily. Such is the law through all the forms of physical force. In distinction from this law, personal agency in man is through an optional energizing of the will. Still, in our present condition there can be no putting forth of power to act upon exterior nature except through our physical organism. There are exigencies of experience when we are deeply conscious of this inability. Such, however, is simply the fact of a present limitation, and it does not follow that in an unbodied state we can have no such power. Much less could such limitation of the divine will thus follow. God is a purely spiritual being, and, hence, whatever power ho puts forth, whether in an originative or in a formative creation, must be purely spiritual, and, therefore, only through the energy of his personal will. Any other sense of creative agency in God is contradictory to both his spirituality and personality, and must sink into some form of pantheism.

Such a mode of the divine agency in the work of creation is widely pervasive of the Scriptures. We read it in the forms of the divine fiat as given in the narrative of creation (Genesis 1:3; Genesis 1:6; Genesis 1:9; Genesis 1:11; Genesis 1:14; Genesis 1:20; Genesis 1:24); in all the texts which attribute the work of creation to the word of God (Psalms 33:6; Psalms 33:9; Hebrews 11:3; 2 Peter 3:5). This view of the divine agency is profoundly important in both a doctrinal and practical sense. It is the only view which can secure for our faith and religious consciousness the personality of God and his transcendence above the realm of nature.

5. Freedom of God in Creating.—There is observable in both philosophical and theological thought a strong tendency toward the necessitation of God in his creative work. Various grounds are alleged for this necessitation, some of which may properly be noticed. The ground with some is that some form of existence objective to God was necessary to his personal consciousness. God could not come to the knowledge of himself except in this mode. Therefore creation was for him a necessity. This assumption is beyond any warrant of our reason. Personal consciousness in man may be conditioned on some distinct and objective existence. If it be true, as mostly accepted, that the inception of our own consciousness is in sensation, seemingly an objective existence, as the condition of sensation, is necessary to our consciousness. This, however, may be a requirement only for our present embodied state. We cannot affirm it as a law for all intelligences. Much less can we affirm it as a necessary law for the divine consciousness. The difference between the finite and the infinite precludes such an affirmation. Further, there are weighty objections to this assumed necessity for the work of creation. The assumption implies a purpose of God in creating—a purpose that through an objective existence so created he might come to self-consciousness. These ideas are inconsistent. There can be no such purpose without personal consciousness. This leads to further objection. If an objective existence was necessary to the coming of God into a personal consciousness, it follows that such consciousness could not arise until after his creative work. Therefore creation could not be his personal work, for there can be no personal agency without consciousness. Neither could there be intelligence, motive, or aim in the work of creation. In a word, the existence of the world and the universe must be without a divine teleology. We should thus surrender all that is distinctively theistic in the conception of creation.

Some find the necessary source of finite existences in a plenitude of the divine nature which must overflow, and which does overflow in the creation of such forms of existence. Such a view is utterly irreconcilable with any teleological conception of creation. The personal agency of God is whelmed in the necessary activities of his nature. Nor can such a view be reconciled either with the time-origin of the universe or with definite instances of origination. Such a plenitude in God, if assumed at all, must be assumed as eternal. Therefore there should have been an eternal outflow of finite existences, while in fact they are clearly of time-origin.

Many, especially in the line of theological thought, find in the nature of God a moral necessity for his creative work. It is wise and good to create; therefore God as eternally Wise and good must create. “By far the most common opinion from the beginning has been that the creation is to be referred to thebonitas, the goodness, benevolence, or, as the modern Germans at least generally express it, the love of God. As God is love, and the nature of love is to communicate itself, as it must have an object to be enjoyed and rendered blessed, so God created the world that he might rejoice in it and render it blessed.”^[292] If the wisdom and goodness of God necessitated the work of creation, it follows that this world, and every other as well, must be the best possible. This was definitely the doctrine of Leibnitz,^[293] and in complete logical consistency with such a stand-point. The whole view is open to criticism. It is open to the same insuperable objection as previously alleged against another assumed ground of necessitation. Wisdom and goodness, as of the very nature of God, must be eternal in him. Therefore, if they are assumed to necessitate his creative work, there must be conceded an eternal necessitation. This is utterly irreconcilable with the time-origin of the world, and especially with the very recent origin of man. Farther, if God must create that he may communicate his love to his creatures and render them blessed, it follows that his creative efficiency should be the only limit of his work. We are in no position to affirm any such implied extension. Finally, ii, as an implication of the ground-principle, this is the best world possible, it further follows that every other world must be precisely the same. There is no proof of any such sameness, but decisive indications of the contrary. Clearly, the angelic orders are very differently constituted from mankind. The reasoning which we thus criticize seems plausible, but it proceeds upon lines which run out far beyond the possible reach of our thought, and hence we cannot be sure of the conclusion. The facts which we can grasp seem decisive against it. If no sentient being, or no rational being, with capacity for higher blessedness, had ever been created, there would have been no wrong to any. Nonentities have no rights.

^[292]Hodge:Systematic Theology, vol. i, p. 566.

^[293]Theodicee. The freedom of God in creating is a requirement of his personal agency therein. Personal agency and free agency are really the same; and there is no clearer truth in Scripture than the personal agency of God in the work of creation. Creation has a purpose and a plan. All things were created in the divine pleasure, and for the manifestation of the divine glory (Revelation 4:11; Psalms 19:1.), to the end that men might know God and live to him as their supreme good (Acts 17:24-28; Romans 1:19-20). Personal agency in such work must be free agency. Hence no necessity could have determined the creative work of God. His freedom therein was absolute.^{[294] [294]} Cocker:Theistic Conception of the World, pp. 62-66.