256 THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON 
in connection with man—(though it is unhappily mistranslated 
as “ Mankind” in the third chapter of his Epistle). St. Paul 
uses it to describe nature neither in connection with God nor 
with man, but as it is in itself if you examine the uses by St. 
Paul you will find them valuable and instructive. 
The Apostle appears to regard g@uavs as a Monitor,* where he 
speaks of the Gentiles doing by nature the things which are 
contained in the law; as a Zeacher,f where he says that 
nature teaches the propriety of a woman wearing long hair, as 
a Witnesst against idolatry ; as a Registrar§ of decrees of God 
distinguishing Jew from Gentile; as a Recorder of God’s 
displeasure with our sinful condition.|| 
A new conception of human nature, and with it of human 
education, gradually possessed the minds of the best 
Christian teachers. It flowed inevitably from such a view of 
nature, that nature seen in man should be regarded as 
dignified and splendid,—a something whereby man comes into 
living fellowship with God both as his Creator and_ his 
Redeemer. When once human nature, albeit fallen, was 
realized as something redeemable, if not redeemed, thenceforth 
the contracted notion of State humanity, and consequently of 
State Education, began to wane. 
On comparing Plato’s view of human nature with that 
prevailing in the New Testament, we perceive that the two 
views have features in common. Both are cast in gloomy 
colours. There are passages in Plato more trenchantly inter- 
pretative than the severest indictment framed by St. Paul.f 
The philosopher and the apostle are alike remote from the 
sickening self-complacency of Rousseau and his imitators. There 
are in Plato no rosy-tinted illusions about the inherent 
goodness of human nature, as it actually is. 
But the Christian doctrine of human nature is, when com- 
pared with Plato’s, felt to be tenderer, more liberal, more 
profound. To Plato, indeed, human nature** meant little more 
than Greek human nature. The Apostolic writers treat of 
man as man. “There is no difference.” “What God hath 
cleansed that call not thou common.” Such is the language of 
the New Testament about human nature. 
This language flowed from the knowledge that man, however 
* Romans. + 1 Corinthians. { Galatians. 
§ Galatians and Romans. || Ephesians. 
“| Politeia, Book vii, Jowett’s translation, p. 214; Book ix, Jowett’s 
translation, p. 280. 
** See Luthardt, Moral Truths of Christianity, pp. 238, 239. 
