3>^
CONFLICT OF AGES;
THE GREAT DEBATE
MORAL RELATIONS OF GOD AND MAN.
BY
EDWARD BEEOHEK D. D.
Why jadge ye not, even of yourselves, what is right?— ^ Jesus' Chbi^^
SEVENTH EDITION.
BOSTON:
PHILLIPS, SAMPSON, AND COMPANY.
NEW YORK: J. C. DERBY.
1855.
THE NEW YORK
PUBLIC LIBRARY
68004:3
ABTOR, LtNOX AHt
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1863, hy
EDWARD BBECHER,
Ja the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusettft
stereotyped by
HOBABT A BOBBINS,
BOSTON.
J^Mcati0tt
TO
MY HONORED AND BELOVED BRETHREN IN CHRIST,
OF EVERY NAME.
I am induced to dedicate this work to you, because its subject is one in
which you all haye a deep and common interest. You will doubtless observe
that I do not address you as a controversialist, aiming to promote the in-
terests of any existing theological party, but simply as a Christian brother,
endeavoring to remove the causes of paralysis and division from our
common Christianity, and thus to promote the interests of the church
as a whole. I think also that you will not deny that the issue which
I present to you is of sufficient magnitude to deserve and demand your
candid and dkrefal consideration. The great conflict of which I speak
is, on the whole, the most prominent and important fact in the history of
the church. So great a fact must have an adequate cause. Moreover,
a cause powerful enough to produce, for so many centu.ries, such stu-
pendous results, must also be powerful enough seriously to affect the
adaptation of Christianity, as a system, to accomplish all that is in-
volved in the great work of the conversion of the world. It is not enough
that the existing system can do some good, or even much good ; we need
a system that shall give us the power intelligently to meet and logically
to solve all of the great religious and social problems which we are called
on to encounter in the great work of converting the world, and thoroughly
i-eorganizing human society ; for this work is not to be done, even in
l):irt, by infidel philosophy, but solely by the gospel of Christ, in its
purity and power, as applied to all the relations of human society.
Animated by these considerations, I have endeavored to point out, as
the cause of the conflict, an element foreign to the system, and which
creates constant and powerful tendencies to pernicious errors in philoso-
phy and in doctrine, divides the church, depresses the tone of piety, and
thus paralyzes the energies of Christianity, and unfits it to accomplish the
great enterprise which it has undertaken.
IV DEDICATION,
Whatever, my Christian brethren, may be your ultimate couclusions
concerning the truth of my views, I cannot but believe that every intelli-
gent man will concede that they involve interests so great as to merit a
thorough and prayerful consideration.
From this I do not shrink, — nay, I earnestly desire it. My piniyer is.
Let God guide his church into all truth, and let the truth prevail. I feel
that such, too, are the momentous relations of the subject that He cannot
be indifferent to it ; and that if we seek his guidance in true humility,
and free from the power of previous committals, it will be freely given.
The most profound inquiry, conducted under his gviidance, I do not fear.
I fear nothing but a partisan spirit and sinful excitement, and those
narrow and local views to which they give rise.
But so great is the power and the grace of our God and Saviour, Jesus
Christ, that I look for better things in you, and things that accompany
salvation. God is giving increasing enlargement of views, fraternal affec-
tion, and Christian dignity, to the leading minds of his church in the
various Christian denominations. Moreover, I think with great and con-
stantly increasing pleasure of that widely-extended circle of sanctified
and highly-educated minds, in every Christian body, whom it is my privi-
lege and honor to call my beloved brethren in Christ. I rejoice in the
thought of their intellectual and moral power and ample resources,
and of the cheering fact that they are all consecrated to the service of our
common Lord and Saviour. I rejoice still more in the assurance that we
are in daily communion with one common God and Father, who is over
all, and in all, and through all ; and that nothing is too much for us
mutually to ask for each other, and to expect to receive through his grace,
and the mighty working in us of the power of the divine and sacred Spirit.
May He, therefore, guide you into all the truth, till the light of the
moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be
seven-fold, as the light of seven days ; till the watchmen shall see eye to
eye, and together lift up the voice and sing, when the Lord shall turn
back the captivity of his people, and cause all the nations of the earth to
rejoice in his salvation !
Yours, in Christian affection,
E. BEECHER.
Boston, August 27, 1858,
SUMMARY VIEW OF THE CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION. —Nature of the conflict. End and compass of
the work, 1 — 8
BOOK I.
THE CONFLICT IN ITS PKINCIPLES.
CHAPTER I. — The Case Stated. — The steam-ship. The question
to be discussed, Is there a misadjustment of the moving powers of
Christianity, resulting in an inevitable logical conflict ? . . . . 9 — 10
CHAPTER n.— Presumptive Arguihext. — Conflict of Old School
and New School divines. Great evils of the conflict. Exist-
ence of the same conflict in substance for fifteen centuries, . . . 11 — 15
CHAPTER HI. — The Movixg Powers op Ciiristiaxity. — The
powers essential to the practical working of the system. The
principles of honor and of right. A full statement of the fallen
and ruined condition of man, 16 — 18
CHAPTER IV. — The Prixciples of Hoxoraxd of Right. — The
origin of these principles. How developed. Opinions of philos-
ophers. Testimony of Scripture. Expositions of Dr. Hodge,
Prof Stuart, Dr. Chalmers, Tholuck, Melancthon and Calvin.
The supreme importance and authority of these principles.
Questions to be tested by them, 19 — 30
CHAPTER V. — Statemext OF Moral Principles. — The obliga-
tions of great and powerful minds to inferior and feeble miuds.
Application to God. Obligations of God — as to the standard of
responsibility ; as to the maintenance of the principles of jus-
tice in imputation and retribution ; as to the original consti-
tutions and circumstances of his creatures. Support of these
principles from Scripture and from Christian experience, . . . 81 — 41
CHAPTER VI. — Orthodox Authorities. — How far the princi-
ples above stated have been recognized by the church. Testimony
of Turretiu, of the Princeton divines, of Dr. Watts, ^f J. Wesley,
of the Westminster divines. Supreme importance of these prin-
ciples, 42—50
CHAPTER VII. — Facts as to Human Depravity. — The second
moving power is a thorough view of luiman depravity and ruin.
Certain I'acts are obvious Statement of tliem by Unitarian
VI SUMMARY VIEW OF THE CONTENTS.
divines — Dr. Burnap, Pres Sparks, Prof. Norton, Dr. Dewey.
Their theory. Need of a deeper view virtually conceded, . . 61 — 60
CHAPTER Vm.— Radical View of the Ruin of Man.—
Necessity of depth and thoroughness. Points involved in a
full view. Statements of Calvin. Synod of Dort. Confession
of Helvetia. Confession of the TValdenses. French Confes-
sion. The Church of England. Confession of Belgia. Con-
fession of Augsburg. Moravian confession. The Westaiinster
divines. Exposition and remarks, 61 — 71
CHAPTER IX. — Social and Organic Relations of Man. —
Corrupting power of sinful family relations, and of depraved
social and political organizations. Views of Dr. Burnap, . . 72 — 75
CHAPTER X. — Relations of Man to Invisible Enemies. —
A kingdom of fallen spirits revealed. Their power and wiles.
Exposure of man to their influence, 76 — 78
CHAPTER XI. — The Conflict a Reality. — Each moving
power is real, true, and well-sustained. Yet, as now adjusted,
they are in direct conflict. Proof of this assertion, 79 — 82
BOOK II.
THE CONFLICT IN EXPERIENCE.
CHAPTER I. — Laws of Thought and Emotion under the Sys-
tem. — Nature and design of Christianity. Interests involved.
Depth of emotions excited. Tendencies to division and con-
flict, 83—85
CHAPTER II. — Experiences Characterized. — Caused by the
predominance, in different minds, of contending parts of the
system. Resulting in reactions. Six enumerated, 86 — 88
CHAPTER in. — First Experience ; or, the Philosophy of
Old School Theology. — Its basis a belief of a depraved
nature before action. Its origin a deep Christian experience.
Illustrated by the case of Edwards. Scriptural testimony.
Public formularies. Sources of its power, 89 — 97
CHAPTER IV.— The Reaction. — Not the result of carnal
reason, but of the divine principles of equity and honor.
These principles not denied. Effort to avert the conflict. A
most remarkable position. Immeasurable interests involved.
A failure, 98—101
CHAPTER V. — The Reaction irresistible, as the System
NOW is. — Virtual confession of Dr. Woods. Improper mode
of representing the principles of honor and right. Attempt
at defence by Dr. Hodge. His virtual confession. Course of
ibelard, Pascal and others. Course of Dr. Chalmers. They
improperly repudiate the application of the principles of equity
and honor, as unauthorized rationalizing. In so doing they
ar^ at war with the word of God, 102 — 115
SUMMARY VIEW OF THE CONTENTS. VII
CHAPTER VI. — Second Experience ; on, the Philosophy op
Unitariajj Theology. — An entire recoil from the Old School
theology. Its result is the rejection of radical views of human
depravity. Its strength is in the principles of equity and
honor. Early development of the system in New England.
Case of John Adams, of Story, and of Channing. They
argued logically from the true principles of honor and right.
Extracts from Dr. Channing. He vindicates these principles.
Inadequate replies. Power of the system, 116 — 130
CHAPTER Vn. — The Reaction. Testimony of Dr. Channing
AND others. Obvious Facts. — Christian experience and
Scripture react. Disappointment of the anticipations of Dr.
Channing. Reasons. His altered views of Unitarianism.
The increasing power of Christian experience and the word of
God decide the question, 131 — 140
CHAPTER \^^. — Degradation of Free Agency itself. —
Original righteousness rejected. Position of Dr. Ware, Dr.
Dewey, and Dr. Burnap. Hegelian theory, 141 — 146
CHAPTER IX. — Third Experience ; or, the Philosophy of
Orthodox Universalism. — Both moving powers retained.
Relief sought in Universalism. Case of John Foster. His
character, views and course. Extent of his influence, . . . .147 — 155
CHAPTER X.— The Re.a.ction. — Influence of the Bible and
of a Christian experience. The nature of cruelty, the neces-
sity of regeneration, and the causes of future misery. The
tendency of moral causes, 156 — 159
CHAPTER XL — The Fourth Experience; or, the Philos-
ophy OF New School Theology. — Both moving powers are
retained, but the lacts are modified by the principles. Its
origin from holy men, for practical ends. Influence of Ed-
wards and Fuller. Peculiarities of this theology. Appeal to
the principles of honor and right. Controversy with the old
theology. Extracts from Whelpley. Power of the system in
revivals. Its auspicious general influences, 160 — 167
CHAPTER Xn. — The Reaction. — Causes of a reaction are
found in the consequences of denying a sinful nature before
action. Either sin is caused by divine efficiency, as held by
Dr. Emmons, or by an innocent though deteriorated nature
and circumstances. Charge of a superficial view of depravity.
Alarm of Dr. Nettleton and others. Charge that the conflict
with the principles of honor and right is net averted. Argu-
ments of Dr. Hodge. Princeton divines. Dr. Woods. De-
gradation of free agency results in some cases, 168 — 183
CHAPTER XIII. — The Fifth Experience ; or, the Eclipse
OF THE Glory of God. — Cause of this experience, a full
perception of the conflict, without relief. Tendencies to it in
John Foster. Its full development. Its succession by the
sixth experience. A full account of this experience deferred
till the reconciliation lias been pi'esented, 184 — 101
VIII SUMMARY VIEW OF THE CONTENTS.
BOOK III.
THE RECONCILIATION IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
CHAPTER I. — The Problem Proposed. — The suggestion of a
possible mode of reconciliation. The great importance even of
this. Incidental evidence involved, 192 — 195
CHAPTER II. — Method of Procedure. — Two supposable
modes of solution. The adoption of the second, 196 — 198
CHAPTER III. — State of the Humajj Mind, and Conditions
OF THE Problem. — Power of illogical influences. Character
of the persons addressed, 199 — 202
CHAPTER IV. — The Essentials of Harmony. — Retention of
all the facts of the system. Full scope for Christian emotions
and experience. The presentation of a perfect character of
God, 203—210
CHAPTER V. — The Misadjustment. — Great power of a small
misadjustment. The misadjustment stated. Its extensive and
injurious influence. It is a mei-e assumption, 211 — 220
CHAPTER VI. — The Readjustment. — It retains all the facts.
It concedes all the principles. It harmonizes the combatants.
Causes of the rejection of this view, 221 — 226
CHAPTER Vn. — The System as Adjusted. — It gives a rad-
ical \[(iw of human depravity, and averts Pelagian tendencies.
It averts the degradation of free agency. It vindicates the
measures of God. It elevates our conceptions of new-created
minds. It gives a rational view of the kingdom of fallen
spirits, 227—238
CHAPTER VLH. — The Kingdom of Fallen Spirits, — Import-
ance of this part of the general system. Eiiects of the read-
justment. The number of fallen beings not increased, but
diminished, by the system of this world. Relations to the
antiquity of the eartli. Statements from Dr. Hitchcock ; J.
P. Smith ; Babbage. Elevated point of vision, 234 — 241
CHAPTER IX. — Brief Summary of the Y^^hole Case.—
Original state of all new-created beings. The entrance of evil.
The course of events. The final results, 242 — 245
CH.iPTER X. — A Presumption Rebutted. — It is alleged that
this view has been considered and found insufflcient. The
allegation denied. The case stated. Illustration from the
course of opinon with reference to the Copernican system.
Extract from Whewell, 246—252
BOOK IV.
IlISTORrCAL OUTLINE AND ESTIMATE OF THE CONFLICT.
!!HAPTER I. — General Outline. — Importance and design of
the discussions of other ages. Importance of a full history of
this conflict. Sources of it. Outline of llie fipl<l, 2.53—258
SUMMARY VIEW OF THE CONTENTS. IX
CHAPTER n. — The Point of Vision. — Intellectual power and
greatness of Augustine. Relations of present discussions to
him. Views of Prof. Sliedd, E. H. Sears, and others, concern
ing him. He is the point of vision, 259 — 264
CHAPTER HI. — Theological Speculations before Augus-
tine. — State of things immediately after the apostles. Char-
acter of the first assaults on Christianity. The principles of
honor and right become predominant. Tendencies to super-
ficial views of depravity resulted. Theology of the Greek
Church. Pelagius logically carried out existing tendencies to
dangci'ous i-esults, 265—277
CHAPTER TV. — The Mountain-top ; or, Augustine and his
Experience. — The necessity of a reaction. Augustine the
providential agent. Not a mere logician. His depth of feeling
and Christian experience. Not a mystic in a bad sense, . . . 278 — 288
CHAPTER V. — Augustine's Principles of Equity and Honor.
— His elevated views of new-created minds. His high de-
mands in their behalf The extensive influence of these views
in subsequent ages. His deep views of depravity. The inev-
itable conflict, 289—296
CHAPTER VI. — Augustine's Theory of Reconciliation. —
A forfeiture of rights before birth. A kind of preexistence.
Real preexistence rejected. His theory was, that all men ex-
isted and acted in Adam in a common nature, 297 — 301
CHAPTER VII. — Response of the Huivian Mind to the The-
ory OF Augustine. — The fact of a forfeiture generally
accepted. His solution ultimately and generally rejected.
Various other contradictory solutions. The problem absurd
and impossible, without real preexistence, 302 — 307
CHx\PTER Vin. — Different Modes of Solution Considered.
— Augustine's solution rejected by the Princeton divines.
Two forms of the theory of federal headship. Prof. Shedd
resorts to a real self-determined choice or governing purpose
before consciousness, and in Adam. Theory of Edwards is the
personal identity of all men with Adam. Views of Haldane.
Exposition of Augustine by Odo of Tournay, and Ansehu, . . 308 — 323
CHAPTER IX. — Disquiet of the Human Mind. — The ortho-
dox principles of equity and honor very elevated. The pres-
ent state of man conceded to be indefensible, except on the
ground of a forfeiture of rights. All solutions of the problem
of forfeiture unsatisfactory. Final result, the idea of forfeiture
rejected. In this no relief is found, 324 — 331
CHAPTER X. — First Result of Denying a Forfeiture be-
fore Birth. — Pelagianism the direct and logical result. Its
first development. Its reappearance in various subsequent
ages. Degradation of free agency its result. Elevation
and truth of the principles which led to these inauspicious
results. Julian of Eclanum, Dr. Channing, Whelpley, and
J. Taylor, alike contend for these principles, and so far are
correct and unanswerable, 332 — 339
CHAPTER XT. — SKfoxD Rksult of Denying a Forfeiture
X SUMMARY VIEW OF THE CONTENTS.
BEFORE Birth. — Resolution of human depravity through
Adam into divine sovereignty. Cause of this modification of
orthodoxy. Its chief development in New England. Hopkins
leads the way. The younger Edwards, Dwiglit, Emmons, and
the modern New England divines, follow. It does not give the
desired relief. Views of Dr. Watts. Of the Old School divines.
Of Unitarians, 340—348
CHAPTER Xn. — Other Ineffectual Efforts for Relief. —
Course adopted by the Semipelagians and the Roman Cath-
olic Church. Course pursued by Arminius. Wesley and the
Methodist divines. The theory of a forfeiture before bu'th is
still the basis of their systems, and is not properly solved or
defended. Calviuists, Lutlierans, Arminians and Romanists,
here stand on common ground, 349 — 355
CHAPTER Xin. — Estimate of the Conflict — It has sprung
from the honorable feelings of man, and the experience of
Christians of deep piety ; and yet has either given superficial
views of human depravity, or else obscured the glory of God.
The present state of things. Prospects of the future, . . . 356 — 362
BOOK V.
THE ARGUMENT.
CHAPTER I. — The Mode of Proceeding. — Question at issue,
the truth of preexistence. Proof of the validity of arguments
from the facts of the system. The necessity of first consider-
ing the alleged testimony of the Bible. Basis of the common
doctrine, Rom. 5 : 12—19, 363—367
CHAPTER II, — General View of the various Interpreta-
tions of Rom, 5 : 12 — 19. — Vast and extended influence of
the passage. Fundamental idea of the common interpretation.
Various theories of the fall in Adam. No exposition of uni-
versal authority, 368 — 373
CHAPTER m.— True Interpretation of Rom, 5 : 12—19.—
The sense of the passage is judicial, as the Old School divines
contend. The deatli spoken of is natural death, as the primi-
tive church contended. The sequence is merely typical, and
not causative. Explanation of this statement, 374 — 379
CHAPTER IV, — Use of Language in describing Sequences
of Apparent Causation. — They are denoted by the same
forms of speech which are used to denote real causation. This
mode of si^eech natural and univei'sal. Case of miracles. Ex-
tract from Dr. Smalley, Use of illustrative comparisons, . .379 — 38'^
CHAPTER V, — Use of Language in describing Apparent
Causation in Types, — Explanation of sequences merely typ-
ical. Law of language, as before stated. Cases. The sprink-
ling of the blood of tlie paschal lamb. Atonement by sacrifices.
SUMMARY VIEW OF THE CONTENTS. XI
Atonement by burning incense. Healing by the brazen ser-
pent. Review of positions, 384 — 392
CHAPTER M!, — AppLICATIO^^ of the Preceding Principles
To Rom. 5 : 12 — 19. — The judicial sense is authorized by
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Grotius, Storr, Bloomfield, Knapp
and others. Tholuck and Stuart concede that the words ■will
admit of it. According to the preceding argument, the sequence
is merely typical. The death is merely natural. Hlustration
of the type. Results, 393—398
CHAPTER Vn. — Appeal to Authorities. — The judicial
sense excludes the New School interpretation. Argument of
Prof. Hodge and others in favor of that sense. Result, it is not
asserted in the word of God that the sinfulness of man was
caused by the sin of Adam. Virtual coincidence on this point
of Dr. Hodge and Dr. Emmons, 399 — 410
CHAPTER Vm.— Import op the Word Death, in Rom. 5:
12 — 19. — Its import is natural death. Argument. Author-
ity of the Greek Church. Internal evidence. The facts of
the Old Testament. Argument from the antithesis refuted.
The sequence is merely typical, whether we adopt the judicial
sense, or that of the New School divines, 411 — 418
CHAPTER IX. — Additional Evidence. — Analogy of the
early types with which this is connected. Appropriateness
and sublimity of the view. Root of the common errors. Genius
and spirit of Paul demand this view. ISIoral arguments irre-
sistible, 419-423
CHAPTER X. — Case of IVIelcbisedek. — A striking illustra-
tion of the laws of typical interpretation involved in this argu-
ment. Paul speaks according to the appearance of things,
and not according to the reality. Yet he uses the language
of reality. Authority of Calvin, Barnes, Stuart, Bloomfield
and others. True theory of typical language. Power of Rom.
5 : 12—19, thus viewed, 424—429
CHAPTER XI. — The Completion op the Picture. — Decline
and revival of typical interpretation. The habits of Paul's
mind. The sentence of death. The case of Adam. That of
his posterity. The antitype. Objections refuted. Paraphrase
of the passage. Analogous typical comparisons, 430 — 438
CHAPTER Xn. — The Argument Reinforced. — General rule.
The type is in the natural sphere; the antitype, in the spiritual.
Appeal to Scripture. Rule of Fairbairn. To violate this rule
overloads the type, and destroys the truth of the comparison.
It also violates all our ideas of justice, and causes a reaction.
The final result, and appea , 439 — 447
CHAPTER Xni. — Survey'op the Ge.vbral Arqujient. — The
deepest foundations of our religious belief. Principles applied
to the being of a God ; the evidences of revelation ; the New-
tonian system. The same mode of reasoning proves preexist-
ence. Illustration in a single line of reasoning. Auxiliary
arguments from the failure of all the common theories, and the
inadequacy of the cause assigned for effects. Sufficiency of
XII SUMMARY VIEW OF THE CONTENTS.
preexistence illustrated by the statements of the Princeton
divines and Prof. Stuart, Arguments of Julius Miiller, . . 448 — 472
CHAPTER XIV. — The Origin of Evil. — Allegation of Dr.
Woods against preexistence, that it merely shifts the difficulty,
but does not remove it. Reply. Further allegation that God
has the entire control of all the feelings and acts of his crea-
tures. Reply — a temporary limitation of control is implied in
the greatness of God and his system, and the limited nature of
created minds. This view honors God, and accords with the
Bible. It explains the origin of evil, the need of development,
and the origin of the present system. Dr. Woods is obliged to
concede the principle, and does so in fact. The revealed char-
acter of God proves it, 473 — 488
CHAPTER XV. — Argument from the System. — Outline ot
the argument. Preexistence unites in a sublime system the
great scriptural facts, and harmonizes the action of all thb
parts. Facts to be united. The common theories fail. A
true system of the universe much needed. Essentials of such
a system. Common views of the church. A more full view
essential. Statement of her real place in the system. Her
work. Her worth to God and to the xiniverse. Future in-
crease of the universe. Analogy of Marriage. Hypothesis
of Bellamy. View of PoUok and of Chalmers. Inadequacy
of all other systems. Point of the argument. Discrimina-
tions, 489—616
CHAPTER XVI. — The Material System. — Importance ot
its relations to doctrine and practice. Errors caused by false
views of it. Preexistence eradicates them. Tendency of the
common doctrine to Gnosticism, BII^^-^^m
CHAPTER XVn. — Results and Practical Tendencies. —
1. To rescue Christianity from its present perilous position,
and to restore to it its legitimate power. 2. To give dignity
and elevation to the argument, and certainty to the conclu-
sions derived. 3. To expose the verbal and superficial nature
of alleged scriptural objections. 4. To produce sympathy
with the whole spirit of the Bible. 5. To relieve difficulties,
and introduce sympathy and mutual confidence into future
discussions. 6. To avert Pelagianism, and to produce a
deeper Christian experience. Favorable omens in the work
of E. H. Sears, and in the recent rejection of Pelagianism by
Unitarians. Dissent from some of his views. General con-
cessions as to the good tendencies of the doctrine of preex-
'stence. Origin of the present state of things from ancient
ecclesiastical Gnosticism. 7. Beneficial effects of the doctrine
of preexistence wiU. disclose themselves in aU departments of
life, 523—552
INTRODUCTION.
NATURE OF THE CONFLICT. END AND COMPASS
OF THE WORK.
Of the heroes and the conflicts of war I do not propose
to speak. It were, indeed, a more exciting theme. The
vivid delineation of floating banners, flowing plumes, gor-
geous apparel, glittering armor, and the stately march of
embattled squadrons, agreeably stimulates and excites the
imagination. The fierce onset of contending hosts, and the
unutterable horrors of the conflict, arouse the deepest
emotions of the soul.
A narrative of the conflicts of minds has not these advan-
tages for popular effect. Such conflicts do not appeal to the
senses, nor stimulate the imagination ; nor is it easy to
create, with respect to them, a popular excitement which
shall be powerful and all-pervading. Nevertheless, all
intelligent and thoughtful minds feel in them an interest
deep and lasting, even though it be less exciting than that
which is felt, for a time, in the conflicts of war.
Moreover, if in such intellectual conflicts the deep and
honorable emotions of the heart can be unveiled, the interest
rises, and often becomes intense.
The conflict of which I propose to write is, and ever
has been, in its deepest recesses, a conflict of the heart.
Not that gigantic intellectual efibrts have not been abun-
2 CONFLICT OF AGES.
dantlj put forth, but that the deepest and most powerful
impulses have ever been those of the heart.
It has, indeed, often assumed a repulsive external aspect.
In the huge volumes of the fathers, or of the scholastic
divines, it has been presented in forms wearisome, and
devoid of the decorations of rhetoric and the refinements
of taste. In modern times, too, the technics of theology
have sometimes rendered it mysterious and repulsive.
Yet beneath all this there has always rolled a deeper
tide of pure and honorable emotion than has ever flowed
from the heart of man on any other theme ; moreover, the
intellectual aspects of the conflict, viewed from a proper
point of vision, have ever been majestic and sublime.
The subject of this conflict has been the greatest and
most affecting that can interest or excite the human mind.
It has been no less a theme than THE moral renova-
tion OF MAN. Through a long course of centuries, the
Christian world has been divided into opposing parties on
this great question.
On the one side have been the advocates of that system
the peculiar characteristic of which is the doctrine of a
supernatural regeneration rendered necessary by the native
and original depravity of man, and effected according to the
eternal purposes of a divine and mysterious sovereignty.
This system has always been exegetically developed from
the epistle of Paul to the Romans, as its centre and
strength. At the same time, however, all other parts of
the word of God are appealed to in its support. Augustine
in ancient, and Calvin in modern times, have been preemi-
nent in its development and defence. It has accordingly
been called sometimes Pauline, at others Augustinian, and
at others Calvinistic theology. It was substantially the
theology of the Reformers, and of the Puritans. By the
INTRODUCTIOIT. 3
confession of all, it has exerted great power on the destinies
of the world. Of its ablest opponents, some have honor-
ably conceded that it has always elevated the tone of morals
where it has prevailed. A leading historian of this age
also concedes that it has led the van in the conflict for
popular liberty. " For a century and a half," says Ban-
croft, " it assumed the guardianship of liberty for the
English world." " In Geneva, in Scotland, wherever it
gained dominion, it invoked intelligence for the people, and
in every parish planted the common school."
Yet, in all ages, ever since the days of Celestius, Julian
and Pelagius, there have been, in large numbers, men
highly estimable for intelligence and benevolence, and
animated by a strong desire of urging society onward in
the pursuit of moral excellence, who have, nevertheless,
earnestly, perseveringly and with deep emotion, opposed
this system, as at war with the fundamental principles of
honor and right, and hostile to the best interests of human-
ity. In the wide interval between these extremes, other in-
termediate parties have arisen, attempting in various modes,
but hitherto without success, to reconcile the combatants,
or in any other way to terminate the conflict. Indeed,
these intervening parties have often contended violently
among themselves, as well as with each of the extreme
parties. The long duration and the astonishing vigor of
this conflict indicate that it is not without some permanent
and powerful cause. I propose, if possible, to discover that
caiise, and to state a mode in which all true Christians can,
without any sacrifice of principle, be at harmony among
themselves. I shall, in doing this, attempt to redeem the
first-named system from a just liability to such attacks as
it has sustained, by showing that all of its fundamental
4 CONFLICT OF AGES.
elements may be so stated and held as not to be inconsist*
ent with the highest principles of honor and right.
I propose at the same time to do full justice to the
motives and principles of those who in different ages have
opposed it, as has been stated. So far as their principles of
honor and right have been correct, it is my purpose to vin-
dicate and defend them ; at the same time, endeavoring to
explain how it has happened that they have been brought
into conflict with the system which they oppose. I shall
endeavor to point out a needless misadjustment of the parts
of the system, by which these principles have been brought
into collision with the fundamental facts on which it is
based.
To effect these purposes, it will become necessary to give
a compendious view of the various efforts of the human
mind, in different ages, to remove this antagonism. Such a
view, properly given, will exhibit the deep interior emotions,
as well as the logical and philosophical reasons, of that great
controversy on this subject which has so long existed, and
show the relations of its various parts to each other.
I earnestly desire, if possible, so to effect this as to
remove the acerbities of feeling which have been caused by
the controversies of the present or of past ages on this sub-
ject. The merely logical encounters of powerfully developed
intellectual systems tend rather to irritation and alienation
than to sympathy and confidence. Nevertheless, beneath
every benevolent man's intellectual efforts on this subject
there has been a deeply affecting personal experience, which,
if known, would show, in a manner adapted to awaken deep
sympathy, why he has reasoned as he has. Indeed, there
is a great heart, not only of natural honor, but, still more,
of sanctified humanity, which, from beginning to end, under-
lies this momentous controversy, the deep workings of
INTRODUCTION. 5
which must be developed and appreciated, before the contro-
versy can be properly understood. No honorable mind can
see these workings uncovered, and not be touched with deep
emotion in viewing the struggles of our common humanity,
in endeavoring to resolve the deepest and most momentous
problems of the present trying and mysterious system.
This experience I aim to unfold, and thus, if I may, to
create on all sides a feeling of sympathy and mutual
interest, by pointing out those benevolent and honorable
impulses, and that regard to truth, — mixed, it may be, with
other motives, — by which the various parties have been
actuated, and to produce a candid and united effort to elimi-
nate error, and to develop the whole truth.
I am no less anxious to do what I can to save the minds
of future inquirers from those painful and exhausting con-
flicts to which such multitudes have been exposed in ages
past, by developing the entire range of the controversy, and
sketching the outlines of the whole subject, and thus show-
ing that from the greatest difficulties there is always a
possible relief I aim, moreover, to evince that, in order to
a firm and decided defence of the whole Christian system, it
is essential that w^e no longer confine the mind to those lim-
ited views of the relations of the church of God in eternity
to his whole kingdom, in which it has hitherto generally
moved, but that we should rather enter other and more
extended fields of thought.
It is also my hope that I may furnish some small contri-
bution to aid in advancing the future triumphs of the
kingdom of Christ, by showing the relations of these more
extended views to intellectual philosophy, education, and the
proper organization of the ecclesiastical, civil and social
system.
A due regard to the friends and advocates of certain
1*
6 CONFLICT OF AGES.
opinions, which have been long received, but are here con-
troverted, leads me to say that the views which I have
presented are not set forth in haste. For more than twenty
years, so far as I could judge, I have regarded them as
substantially true. But I have, nevertheless, deemed it my
duty often to review and reconsider them in the light of
past as well as of existing controversies, and also of the
word and providence of God. I have been, moreover, in
part induced to defer their publication till this time, by a
respect to the judgment of honored friends. Still, however,
my chief motive for delay has been a desire longer to watch
this great controversy of ages in its present developments,
and even to its close, — if, indeed, there should ever be a
satisfactory close, — and to ascertain whether anything new
could be suggested to give rational relief and unity to the
mind of the community, and, at the same time, to mature
my own thoughts, so that, if possible, I might avoid a crude
and ill-digested presentation of so great a theme.
In reviewing the opinions of others, I have uniformly
felt that men who have honestly labored to elucidate so dif-
ficult and trying a subject deserve sympathy and respect,
and never severity, much less ridicule, even if their results
may seem to us in many respects unreasonable or untrue.
In this way only can a subject so difficult be treated, with
any rational hope of benefiting all whom it concerns. May
I not hope that, if any shall consider it their duty to review
or to controvert any of my opinions, they will follow the
same general principles ?
Certainly, if any of my views are false, or any of my
arguments unsound, they can be thoroughly exposed, and
refuted with calmness, dignity, candor and kindness. Such
honorable treatment is what I expect, if any effort shall be
made to refute my views. But if, instead of this (which I
INTRODUCTION. 7
will not anticipate), my arguments should be encountered
with invidious remarks, or ridicule, or appeals to prejudice,
then there Avill be sufficient reason to conclude, and all
candid judges will conclude, that there is a conscious want
of anything better with which they can be opposed.
Is it not, however, to be hoped and expected that God, at
length, will give to his people such faith in himself, as the
only perfect defender of the truth, that they will practically
believe that no degree whatever of sinful feeling can be of
any avail, in defending the doctrines of the Bible ; nay,
that, so far as it exists, it separates the soul from the great
source of life and of truth, biases its judgment, and destroys
the keenness and discrimination of its perceptions ?
Is not the history of the church, in all ages, full of warn-
ings on this point? How prone is depraved humanity
imperfectly sanctified, to be influenced by such considera-
tions and emotions as God abhors ! As hating sin, and
infinitely exalted above its pollutions. He cannot but regard
with utter repulsion any remaining pollutions of his people.
He is entirely free from the narrowness of local interests,
from envy, from rivalry, from ambition, from sectarian
prejudice, from national bias, and from the errors of the
age. He is light. He dwells in light ; and the essential
element of that light is love. How, then, can he who walks
in the darkness of sin commune with Him ?
He has assured us, moreover, that into this light his
church, at length, shall come. To her it shall be given to
put on fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteous-
ness of saints. To her shall be given that full knowledge of
God which is implied in the marriage supper of the Lamb.
To her it shall be said, ''Arise ! shine ! for thy light is come,
and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee ! " To her it
shall be said, " The sun shall be no more thy light by day ;
$ CONFLICT OF AGES.
neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee 5
but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and
thy God thy glory. Thy sun shall no more go down ;
neither shall thy moon withdraw itself; for the Lord shall
be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning
shall be ended."
If such things are near at hand, may we not hope, or.
rather, believe, that God will give to all of his own people,
who may engage in this and other investigations, so much
of his Spirit that they shall walk in his light and dwell in
his love ?
BOOK 1.
THE CONFLICT IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
CHAPTER I.
THE CASE STATED.
If into a community but little skilled in the laws of
nature and the principles of mechanics a steamship were
to be introduced, and if it were stated, as the common
traditional direction of mechanics and philosophers, that the
wheels should be so adjusted that they would revolve in
opposite directions, it may be that the ignorance of the men
of that community, and the force of traditional authority,
would induce them, at first, to comply with the direction.
But if, as would surely be the case, it was found by experi-
ment that, when the wheels so adjusted were put in motion,
the boat, so far from obeying her rudder, or taking an
onward course, would do nothing but revolve incessantly
round, without progress, — and, moreover, that her whole
frame was unnaturally wrenched and strained by this
method of procedure, and that, meantime, she had no power
so to resist the winds and currents that they would not
drift her wheresoever they would, — then, in all probability,
the men in that community would repudiate the traditional
10 CONFLICl OF AGF<5.
direction which they had received, as inconsistent with the
necessary and immutable laws of mechanics, and introducing
discord and conflict into the system to which it was applied.
And if, on adjusting the wheels so that they would both
revolve in the same direction, it was found that the boat
moved straight on in obedience to her rudder, and was able
to resist the power of winds and currents, they would feel
abundantly confirmed in their conviction of the essential
falsehood of the traditional direction ; nor could any amount
of authority avail against this practical demonstration, taken
from the working of the system itself.
An argument of the same kind, and of no less power,
would rationally arise from the practical workings of a sys-
tem of theology, against any traditional adjustment of its
parts, if it had been found, on trial, to cause its main mov-
ing powers, in like manner, to work against each other, —
thus introducing perpetual internal conflict into the very
vitals of the system.
No question can be more interesting or important than
whether there is good reason to believe that such a tradi-
tional misadjustment has been introduced into the current
system of Christianity ; and whether, in consequence of it,
the main moving powers of the system have been made,
from age to age, to work against each other ; and whether
at this hour there is an internal conflict in the system, which
no wit or skill of man can remove or overcome, till the tra-
ditional misadjustment from which it springs has been repu-
diated. For, if such be the fact, never, till the misadjust-
ment is removed, will the moving powers of the system
work together, — never, till then, will the internal conflict
cease. Whether such is the fact is the question to be con-
sidered.
CHAPTER II.
PRESUMPTIVE ARGUMENT.
That this is the case, we may derive a presumptive
proof from the history of certain recent wide-spread theo-
logical controversies among ourselves. No controversy in
the theological world has excited a deeper interest among
those who are reputed — and that justly — the decided
friends of orthodoxy, than that between those who are
familiarly called, in the Congregational and Presbyterian
churches, "the Old School" and "the New School"
divines. These terms have, in themselves, little signifi-
cancy. Their import will be more fully disclosed as we
proceed. It is sufficient here to remark, that New Eng-
land has been the great fountain-head of the new divinity,
and that the theological seminary at Princeton has been
conceded to be the strongest citadel of the old theology.
The two denominations among whom this conflict has been
most fully developed have exerted, from the beginning, a
very powerful influence in forming the character and shap-
ing the destinies of this nation. The influence of the con-
troversy has also extended to other denominations. If, then,
we view our relations as a nation to the world, no one can
properly say that this is merely a local controversy. Aflect-
ing deeply, as it does, the religious interests of this nation,
it affects, also, those of the world. No one who is famil-
iarly acquainted with those engaged in this controversy ean
12 CONFLICT OF AGES.
deny that the great body on both sides are eminently pious,
devoted, laborious, useful men. They profess, alike, to be
followers of the great reformers, and to regard with peculiar
favor the system of doctrines developed by Calvin. They
are, alike, the antagonists of formalism, and of ecclesiastical
despotism, and the advocates of spiritual religion, of colle-
g-iate and popular education, of revivals of religion, and of
the benevolent enterprises of the age. There is no good
reason, therefore, why they should not have loved each
other with a pure heart fervently, and no reason, so far as
the great fundamentals of doctrine and practice are con-
cerned, why they should not have been perfectly joined
together in one mind and in one judgment. Brotherly love,
in its elevated forms, is one of the happiest experiences of
the human mind ; nor is there any the manifestation of
which is more honorable to God, or more powerful to pro-
duce conviction of the divine origin of Christianity. How
much, then, might these Christian brethren have enjoyed,
how much might they have honored God, how much might
they have blessed the world, if they had been united with
the full power and fervor of common convictions and broth-
erly love !
And yet, instead of this, for years there has been between
them an incessant controversy. In it, an incredible amount
of intellect, emotion and energy, has been expended. Each
party has been jEilled with alarm at the dangerous tenden-
cies, or alleged pernicious influence, of some fondly-cherished
principles of the other, as threatening either to subvert
the gospel or to destroy its power. They have, therefore,
conscientiously put, forth great eiforts to destroy the influ-
ence and arrest the progress of each other. As a natural
and necessary result, in the course of this controversy there
lias been, in various ways, a vast amount of mental suffer-
PRESUMPTIVE ARGUMENT. 18
ing. Pious men, deeply devoted to God, and earnestly
laboring to effect the moral renovation and salvation of their
fellow-men, have been cut to the heart by a keen sense of
injustice, when suspicions have been created and dissemi-
nated, Dr even direct charges made, that they were unsound
in the faith, and dangerous heresiarchs. Others have been
pained and irritated by the charge of holding gross and
exploded absurdities, dishonorable to God and ruinous to
man. The amount of influence thus employed by good men
to neutralize each other's power has been immense, nor has
it failed to produce its natural effects. The internal strug-
gles and convulsions thus produced in this large body of
churches have wasted an amount of energy great almost
beyond imagination. The Presbyterian church has been
twice rent asunder. The New England Congregational
churches, incapable, by reason of their organization, of such
a division, have yet been, in fact, thrown into opposing par-
ties, and agitated and torn by incessant and painful strife.
Meantime, in the eyes of intelligent spectators, not
familiar with theological debates, religion itself has been
dishonored. How can it be otherwise, when such eminent
men as have figured in these unhappy controversies, on both
sides, — men who have had no superiors in the land, — have
not only been arrayed in strife against each other, but have
brought against each other charges of the most serious and
injurious kind? We have, by custom, become famihar
with this state of things, and do not at once apprehend its
unspeakable evils. But, if we could suppose entire confi-
dence and ardent brotherly love to have existed for the last
century among the leading minds of these churches, and
all their energies consecrated to the great departments of
education, religious revivals, and benevolent enterprise, who
can conceive how much greater the impulse that had been
2
14 CONFLICT OF AGES.
given to tlie cause of God, not only in our own land, but
throughout the whole world !
And when these intelligent spectators ask, what are the
points on which these good men are so divided, and in view
of which they expend so much energy in destroying each
other's power, it is very hard to give a reply which shall
be brief, intelligible and satisfactory to the common mind.
No one or two great, prominent, definite, intelligible scrip-
tural doctrines can be stated by which a fundamental line of
distinction can be drawn between them. They profess, in
fact, to hold the same great revealed doctrines, and to differ
only in certain modes of stating, explaining, and defending
them.
Nor are developments of this kind limited to the last fifty
or one hundred years, nor to the Presbyterian and Congre-
gational churches of this land. The controversy has not.
indeed, always been developed under its present names, nor
with the same extent and system. But its essential ele-
ments have existed — as I shall soon show — as far back as
the third or fourth century since Christ, and have been
developed, in various forms, in each succeeding century, to
this day, and in almost, if not quite, every Christian body.
It has been, moreover, in all ages, as it is now, a contro-
versy among sincere Christians. It is, in this respect, en-
tirely unlike the atheistic, pantheistic, infidel, and othei-
controversies, in which all real Christians are on one side.
But by this controversy, in all ages, as now, real Christians
are divided against real Christians.
It is, also, worthy of special note, that this is a contro-
versy in which no permanent and radical progress has as
yet been made towards a final settlement. Good men are
at this day as really and as thoroughly divided against good
men as they ever were. At one time, the New School
PRESUMPTIVE ARGUMENT. 15
Theology (so called), proceeding from New England, seems
to be carrying all before it in the Presbyterian church.
Then there is a division, and a combination, not only with-
out, but also within New England, to react upon it, and to
restore the Old School theology to its original power. So
has it been, in other ages and climes. Action and reaction
have followed each other, but no substantial progress towards
a termination of the controversy has ever been made.
Until at some future time this controversy shall cease, no
one can tell how much it has weakened and paralyzed the
whole church of God, and fatally destroyed its onward and
impulsive power. Like the ship supposed, she has obeyed
no rudder of universally-admitted principle, but has drifted
at the mercy of the winds and currents of controversy.
And yet no serious suspicion seems ever to have been
awakened, that, after all, the difficulty lies, not in the alleged
points of difference, but in some false adjustment, in which
both parties agree, and by which the great moving powers
of the system have been made to act against each other ; and
that, until this false adjustment is removed, there is a neces-
sary and inevitable conflict in the system itself
Is it not time, then, to consider this aspect of the case ?
Is not such a thing supposable ? And does not this endless
conflict of good men, with no progress, and no result but to
cripple and neutralize each other, render the supposition in
no small degree probable 7
Such probability, however, is not all the evidence that
the case demands, nor, happily, is it all that exists. It is
possible, not only to show what are the two great moving
powers of Christianity, but, also, to prove that they have
been so adjusted that they do, in fact, work against each
other, and thus produce necessary division and conflict in
the system. Of this it now remains to adduce the proof
CHAPTER III.
THE MOVING POWERS OF CHRISTIANITY.
By the moving powers of Christianity, I mean those
truths which in practice are of fundamental importance in
the great work of moral renovation. Moral renovation is
the great practical end for which the system of Christianity
is designed, and in which it terminates. This work presup-
poses depravity in man, and a system of means ordained
for its removal. Christ thus states his own views of his
great aim and end : "I came not to call the righteous, but
sinners, to repentance. The Son of Man is come to seek
and save that which is lost." This is to be effected by pro-
ducing in sinful man conviction of sin, a true and honorable
sense of its evils, repentance and faith in Christ. But true
repentance and confession of sin imply a conviction that the
conduct of God towards the sinner has been, in all things,
honorable and right, and that his own conduct towards God
has been wrong, dishonorable, and without excuse. It is
plain, therefore, that those are the great moving powers of
Christianity which are essential in order to produce these
results. It is no less plain that they are the two following :
1. A true and thorough statement of what is involved in
the fallen and ruined condition of man as a sinner.
2. A full development of the honor, justice, and benevo-
lence of God, in all his dealings with man, so made, as, in
THE MOVING POWERS OP CHRISTIANITY. 17
the first place, to free him from the charge of dishonorably
ruining them, and then to exhibit him as earnestly and
benevolently engaged in efforts for their salvation, througli
Christ, after they have been ruined by their own fault.
Of these two moving powers, each is equally indispens-
able in the great work of renovating and saving man. Till
he is brought truly to see and deeply to feel his lost and
ruined state, and the dangers to which he is exposed, he
will make no effort to secure a salvation of which he feels
no need.
Nor, on the other hand, can any one sincerely and honor-
ably confess and repent, if his views of God are such that
he regards him as, by unjust and dishonorable measures, the
author of his ruin. He may feel slavish fear, but he will
not feel genuine repentance, till he admits the charge that
the entire guilt is his own, and believes that God can for-
give him through Christ, and is earnestly and benevolently
eDo;ao;ed in efforts for his salvation.
In these views, thus generally stated, we think that all
true Christians will agree. They may differ in the manner
in which they would develop the truths included under each
of these great heads. But, that the practical working
power of the system depends upon them, no one, we think,
will deny.
These, then, are the two great moving powers of Chris-
tianity. These, to resume our original comparison, are the
wheels which must be so adjusted as to work harmoniously
together, before Christianity as a system can exert its full
power. These, too, are the powers which, as we propose to
show, have been made, by an unhappy misadjustment, to
work against each other, and hence the calamitous results
that have been already set forth.
Before attempting definitely to state what is the alleged
a*
18 CONFLICT OF AGES.
misadjustment, it is important, in the first place, to prove
that the conflict said to be caused by it really exists, and is
unavoidable as the system is now adjusted. This will be
made perfectly apparent by a mere statement of what is
involved in a full development of each of these great moving
powers.
CHAPTER IV.
THE PRINCIPLES OF HONOR AND OF RIGHT.
What, then, are the principles of honor and of right, by
"which the conduct of God ought to be regulated in his deal-
ings with his creatures, and especially with new-created
minds ? A knowledge of these is manifestly essential, in
order to set forth that great moving power of Christianity,
which I announced as the second, but shall consider as in
in the order of nature the first.
This is, as has been said, a full development of the honor,
righteousness and benevolence of God towards his sinful
creatures, so as, in the first place, to free him from the
charge of dishonorably causing their ruin, and then to
exhibit him as earnestly and benevolently engaged in eiForts,
through Christ, for their salvation when lost, so that he
can truly say, " Thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is
thy help!"
The elements of this great moving power of Christianity
are to be derived from those natural judgments, concerning
the principles of honor and right, which God has made the
human mind to form with intuitive certainty, and which he
designed to be a divine disclosure to us of the principles by
which he regulates his own conduct.
Inasmuch, however, as the mind of man is depraved, and
there may be danger in trusting its unrevised and uncor-
20 CONFLICT OF AGES.
reeled decisions as to these principles, it is of great
importance, for purposes of revision, carefully to study
those developments of benevolent, honorable and just feel-
ings, towards which the human mind, after regeneration,
and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is found most
directly to tend.
The results thus obtained we are again to verify, by com-
paring them, as far as may be, with the explicit statements
of the word of God.
This great moving power deserves particular attention.
It is of fundamental importance in this whole investigation.
No man will call in question what he concedes to be a real
decision of God, however made ; but there have been, and
still are, those who think so much more of the verbal rev-
elations of God than of any other, that they almost overlook
the fact that the foundations of all possible knowledge
have been laid by God in the consciousness and the intuitive
perceptions of the mind itself Forgetful of this fact, they
have often, by unfounded interpretations of scripture, done
violence to the mind, and overruled the decisions made by
God himself through it, and then sought shelter in faith
and mystery. To avert, therefore, such results, I shall
proceed in the manner already suggested, to show that there
are divinely-given convictions as to honor and right, and to
state such of them as are required by the present dis-
cussion.
That there are, then, fundamental judgments concerning
honor and right, which God has made the human mind to
form with intuitive certainty, and which he designed to be a
divine disclosure of the principles by which he regulates
his own conduct, has been extensively held by leading
divines and philosophers. Dr. Alexander says, "That God,
as a moral governor, has incorporated the elements of his
THE PRINCIPLES OF HONOR AND OF RIGHT. 21
law into our very constitution." He with great earnest-
ness maintains, so his son assures us, "the intuitive
perceptions of conscience as independent of every doctrine
of theology, even the greatest." Other authorities might
be quoted, but it is better to rest the case upon the testi-
mony of God himself, and not upon the decisions of unin-
spired teachers. The doctrine before us is an expressly
revealed doctrine of the word of God. Nor has it been
revealed incidentally, and in unimportant relations; but
formally, and as the basis of God's proceedings in the most
important transaction of the present dispensation, — a trans-
action vitally affecting the interests of the greatest portion
of the human race. I refer to the final judgment of all
who have lived and died without a written revelation of the
laws of God. That such will be judged and punished for
their sins, is distinctly announced by the Apostle Paul
(Rom. 2 : 12, 16). The reason which justifies this mode
of proceeding is there distinctly declared to be, that God
has so constituted their minds that their intuitive decisions
on questions of honor and right are, in fact, a law of God,
although not revealed by a written revelation. Listen, then,
to the divine statement :
" For when the Gentiles, which have not the (revealed)
law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these,
having not the law, are a law unto themselves ; which
show the work of the law written in their hearts, — their
conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the
mean while accusing, or else excusing, one another."
It is not necessary here to go into a careful analysis of
words or phrases, for the main truth which I am consider-
ing lies on the very face of the passage. God, it assures
us, will judge the Gentiles at the last day, though they
have no revealed law, " Because they are a law unto them-
22 CONFLICT OF AGES.
selves, inasmuch as the work of the law is written on their
hearts ; that is, because he has so made their minds that
a standard of judgment is disclosed by their natural and
intuitive perceptions and convictions of honor and right.
Indeed, so clear is the case, that leading commentators of
all schools coincide in this interpretation.
Prof Hodge says, in commenting on the assertion
that the Gentiles "do by nature the things of the law,'*'
" When they practise any of the virtues, or perform any
moral acts, these acts are evidence of a moral sense ; they
show that the Gentiles have a rule of right and wrong, and
a feeling of obligation ; or, in other words, that they are
* a law unto themselves.' When the Gentiles are said to
do by nature the things of the law, it is meant that they
have not been taught by others. It is neither by instruc-
tion nor example, but by their own innate sense of right and
wrong, that they are directed. Having this natural sense of
right and wrong, though destitute of a law externally
revealed, they are a law unto themselves."
Prof. Stuart declares that the import of the passage, as
a reply to the Jew, is, " Although a heathen man has no
scripture (and in this 'respect no law), yet he has an inter-
nal revelation inscribed on his heart, which is a rule of
life to him, and which, if perfectly obeyed, would confer
justification on him, as well and as truly as entire obedience
to the written law could confer it upon you." As a matter
of fact, however, he holds that neither Jew nor Gentile
does so obey as to be justified. Prof Stuart again
says, " Those commit a great mistake who deny that men
can have any sense of moral duty or obligation without a
knowledge of the Scriptures. The apostle's argument^ in
order to convince the Gentiles of sin, rests on a basis
entirely difierent from this." Again, the statement that
THE PRINCIPLES OF HONOR AND OF RIGHT. 23
the work of the law is written on their hearts means, in
his judgment, " That the great precepts of moral duty are
deeply impressed on our moral nature, and coexist with it,
even when it is unenlightened by special revelation."
Dr. Chalmers says of the apostle's reasoning, in verse
15, "There seem here to be two distinct proofs of the
Gentiles being a law unto themselves. The first is from
the fact of there being a conscience individually at work in
each bosom, and deponing either to the merit or demerit of
actions ; the second, from the fact of their accusing or
excusing one another in the reasonings or disputes which
took place between man and man. * ^ * This proves
them to be in possession of a common rule or standard of
judging ; or, in other words, that a la,w is actually among
them. So true is it, even in its application to the Gentiles,
that there is a light which lighteth every man who cometh
into the world." Again, " There do exist, even in the
remotest tracks of paganism, such vestiges of light, as,
when collected together, form a code or directory of moral
conduct. There are still to be found among them the
fragments of a law, which they never follow but with an
approving conscience, and never violate but with the check
of an opposing remonstrance, that by their own wilfulness
and their own obstinacy is overborne, — in other words, they
are a law unto themselves, and their conscience vests it
with an authority, by bearing witness to the Tightness and
obligation of its requirements."
Tholuck remarks, '' By the law written on the heart, Paul
meant the conscience, — that which constitutes the bond of
relationship between man and God, and which discovers
itself as a sense of what is just and good." Agam, '* When
the Gentiie contemplated the law written within him as a
commandment inscribed by God himself upon his heart, he
24 CONFLICT OF AGES.
miglit feel himself excited to obedience by a reverential awe
of what is holy. This feeling, although it did not govern
men's lives among the Greeks, comes yet^ nobly forward in
many sentiments of the tragic poets. To cite one example,
see the admirable chorus upon conscience in (Edipus
Tyrannus."
In striking accordance with these views, Melancthon has
with great eloquence said, " Wherefore our decision is this :
that those precepts which learned men have committed to
writing, transcribing them from the common reason and
common feelings of human nature, are to be accounted as
not less divine than those contained in the tables given to
Moses ; and, that it could not be the intention of our Maker
to supersede, by a law graven on stone, that which is written
by his own finger on the table of the heart."
Calvin, commenting on this passage, strongly enforces
the same views: — ''Since all nations are spontaneously
inclined to enact laws for themselves, it is too clear to be
doubted that there are certain conceptions of justice and
right which exist by nature in the minds of men." "He
opposes nature to the written law, meaning that a natural
light of justice illuminates the Gentiles, which supplies the
place of the law by which the Jews are instructed, so that
they are a law unto themselves." (See Note, p. 30.)
Nor have these views been promulgated solely by the
apostle Paul. Our Saviour, in his controversies with the
Jews, assumed the existence of native and intuitive princi-
ples of right, — of divine authority, — and appealed to them,
and called on his antagonists to do the same (Luke 12 :
57). '^ Yea, why, even of yourselves, judge ye not what
is right?" The system of Christ, to use the words of
Henry, "has reason and natural conscience on its side;
and, if men would allow themselves the liberty of judging
THE PRINCIPLES OF HONOR AND OF RIGHT. 25
what is right, they would soon find that all Christ's pre-
cepts concerning all things are right." Calvin says, on
this passage, " Here Christ lays open the source of the evil,
and touches, as it were with a lancet, the internal ulcer ;
they would not descend into their own consciences, and,
before God, inquire within themselves what is right."
Abraham, moreover, in his plea for guilty Sodom, first
adduced certain intuitive principles of right, and then, by the
appeal, " Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
assumed not only that the mind of man was made intuitively
to perceive the principles of right, but also that God was
as truly bound by them as man ; and God himself, by his
reply, sanctioned the assumption. He has also at other
times sanctioned it, particularly in that impressive argument
with the Jews, contained in the eighteenth and thirty-third
chapters of Ezekiel, in which he appeals to the natural con-
victions of the human mind concerning what is honorable
and right, in vindication of his own conduct against the
charge that his ways were not equal. The conclusion of his
argument is this, " Are not my ways equal, and are not
your ways unequal? saith the Lord." Thus he did not
repudiate the standard of judgment before which they
sought to try his ways ; but, admitting its authority as a
natural revelation proceeding from himself, he joined issue
with them, and declared that he could endure the scrutiny,
and that they could not. Indeed, it is the highest, the
crowning glory of God, that he can thus " overcome when
he is judged.'^
It is proper that I should here call particular attention
to the reason why I have so largely unfolded the scriptural
evidence in favor of the position which I have laid down.
I have done it for the sake of prominence and impression,
and fixed attention. It is, because an appeal to the natural
3
26 CONFLICT OF AGES.
and intuitive principles of honor and right, such as I shalJ
soon have occasion to make, is often regarded and treated
as an improper and dangerous species of rationalizing. Of
this we maj see striking illustrations hefore we close this
discussion. I deem it therefore important — nay, essential —
to show that the position which I shall hereafter assume is
ri.ot improper rationalism, but a doctrine of the word of
God, as clearly revealed as the doctrine of depravity itself
God himself declares that the intuitive perceptions of the
human mind, as to honor and right, are a revelation from
the Creator, — a divine law, of supreme and binding
authority. God himself enjoins it on men, as a sacred duty,
to judge by them. He does not feel honored by any
defence which disregards them. Nay, he admits that his
own conduct is amenable to judgment by these principles,
and defends himself by an appeal to the same.
I admit, indeed, that few have dared openly to deny that
there are among men such intuitive principles of honor and
right ; but, nevertheless, some, as we shall soon see, when
pressed by their application to certain alleged acts of
God, have denied that they are common alike to God and
to man, and alike binding on both. Concerning this view,
I would say, with emphasis, that it is a most unfounded and
pernicious position. It is unfounded ; for who has evei
adduced, or can adduce, any evidence of its truth 7 It is
most pernicious; for it destroys that which Tholuck sc
impressively calls '' the bond of relationship between God
and man." Indeed, it would subvert the very foundation?
of the government of God. How could we see or adore
the glories of the divine character, how could we ever
enter into rational and joyful communion with God, if he
had so made our minds that our intuitive judgments of
honor and right were, or could be, opposed to his ownl
THE PKINCIPLES OF HONOR AND OF RIGHT. 27
How could we ever correctly judge of the honor or recti-
tude of his conduct, if the standard of honor and rectitude
revealed by him. in the structure of our minds, did not
agree with his own standard on the same points ? Such a
state of things would lay the foundation of necessary and
eternal discord between him and us, and that on the most
important of all practical questions. We must therefore
of necessity assume, not only that there are judgments con-
cerning honor and right which God has made the human
mind to form with intuitive certainty, but that they are
common to God and to man. This is a fundamental
doctrine of the Bible. To test any alleged acts of God
by such principles, is not improper rationalizing. God not
only authorizes, but even enjoins it as a sacred duty. To
this point I call special attention.
It is no less plain, that whatever these principles are,
their authority is supreme. Iso considerations of mere
expediency or policy, whether individual or general, if
opposed to them, ought to have any force ; nor with God can
they have any force. Though there is above him neither
judge nor judgment to which he is responsible, yet he has, in
his own mind, an eternal and immutable law of honor and
right which he cannot disregard, and he is his own omnis-
cient judge. Should he not follow his own convictions of
honor and of right, he could not retain his own self-respect,
but would experience infinite self-condemnation and remorse ;
he would be the most miserable being in the universe. It
is, therefore, an infinite necessity in God's own nature that
he should obey the laws of honor and of right ; and, beyond
all doubt, he ever has, and ever will. A summary of these
laws is nowhere explicitly and systematically set forth in
the word of God: they are rather from time to timo
assumed, as exigences occur.
28 CONFLICT OF AGES.
Nor, so far as I know, has it been customary, in setting
forth the Christian system, to attempt any formal statement
of them. For this, obvious reasons may, in certain cases,
account. Acts have been by some ascribed to God, which,
to say the least, are at war with our common ideas of equity
and honor. In such cases, it is natural, as far as may be,
to avoid a formal statement of these ideas.
If, however, the subject cannot be avoided, the same
causes tend to produce a constrained and unnatural action
of the mind. The supposed acts of God are assumed as a
standard, and all principles are rejected that disagree with
them ; or, at least, it is said that, though true with respect
to man, they are not with respect to God : and that he is not
bound by them, though man is. Indeed, this has been done
to a great extent, as will be shown in the cases of Pascal,
Abelard, and others ; and has, as might have been expected,
revealed its tendencies by its disastrous influences on the
mind. An effort to eradicate from the mind any real prin-
ciple of honor and right does violence to our intellectual
and moral nature. Such principles cannot be exterminated.
They will protest against the violence. The mind still
yearns after them, and cannot rest and be satisfied till they
are assumed as true.
These principles, so far as involved in this inquiry, have
reference to the following points, among others :
1. The distinction that ought to be made between the
innocent and the guilty. /
2. The distinction that ought to be made between original
constitution and responsible moral character.
3. The relations and obligations that exist between great
and powerful minds and such as are more feeble and lim-
ited, and especially between the great self-sustained Mind
and such as are inferior and dependent.
THE PRINCIPLES OF HONOR AND OF RIGHT. 29
4. The obligations of the Creator to new-created beings,
as to their original constitution, powers, circumstances, and
probation.
On all these points God has made the human mind to
have decided intuitive convictions as to what is consist-
ent with equity and honor. These we are not violently
to suppress by preconceived theories, or assumed facts.
If any alleged actions of God come into collision with
the natural and intuitive judgments of the human mind
concerning what is honorable and right on the points speci-
fied, there is better reason to call in question the alleged
fiicts than to suppose those principles to be false which God
has made the human mind intuitively to recognize as true.
Moreover, we have divine authority for so doing ; since, in
a debate with the Jews, involving these points, God does
not hesitate to appeal to these very principles, and to reason
in perfect accordance with their common and obvious deci-
sions. Ezek. 18: 1—4, 19, 22, 25, 29, and 33: 11,
17—20.
It has been already stated that aid is to be derived, in
developing and arranging the principles of honor and right,
by considering those manifestations of thought and convic-
tion towards which the human mind, when regenerated and
sanctified, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, most
directly tends. It cannot be supposed that the progress
of true sanctification tends to make men unlike God in
thought, emotions and convictions ; but, rather, to restore
them more fully to his lost image, and to prepare them for
that intimate and perfect communion with him for which
the redeemed are especially designed.
How far the unregenerated mind can, in fact, be per-
verted in its moral judgments by depravity, I shall not here
undertake to ' decide. But, so far as there is a liability of
3*
so CONFLICT OF AGES.
this kind, it is plainly rem-Dved so far as the mind is sancti •
fied, and thus restored to its normal state of sympathetic
communion with God. In this state, its moral decisions
ought justly to be regarded as more and more evidently in
harmony with those of God.
The remaining source which I have specified, from which
we can derive aid in revising and perfecting our systematic
enunciation of the principles of honor and right, is to be
found in the incidental assumptions and statements of the
word of God. Though there is not, as has been remarked,
any complete formal and systematic view of this subject
given in the Bible, yet, in various occasional assertions and
incidental statements, God has clearly set forth his own
feelings and views.
The fact that so much less intellectual effort has ever
been expended in setting forth the demands of honor and
justice on God, in his dealings with new-created rJnds, than
has been in stating and proving the ruined condi ,ion of man,
is, probably, the reason that no public formulari js have ever
made any explicit statements on the subject. In conse-
quence of this, and of the fact that it has not been common
formally to discuss it in systems of theology, I shall not be
able to make full statements of conceded principles in the
systematized formulas of others, as I propose to do on the
subject of human depravity. I shall, on the other hand,
derive my statements from a careful examination and con-
sideration of the sources of evidence already stated, and then
compare them with incidental statements by others.
Note. — I do not quote the preceding authors to sanction the peculiar
theory of any one as to the nature and action of conscience, but only their
great common doctrine, that God has so made the mind that i* has in som«
way intuitive perceptions of honsr and right.
CHAPTER V.
STATEMENT OF MORAL PRINCIPLES.
What, then, are the principles of honor and right on the
various points which have been specified ?
1. God has made us intuitively to perceive and feel, and,
therefore, he also perceives and feels, that increase of powers
to any degree of magnitude produces, not a decrease, but
an increase, of obligation to feel and act benevolently
towards inferiors, — that is, with an honorable regard to
their true and highest good.
In proportion as a mind is strong, independent, and
abundantly able to secure its own welfare, it is free from
temptations to be absorbed in its own interests and cares,
and is at leisure to think and feel and plan for others,
whose welfare is not thus secure.
Moreover, as the powers of the superior mind increase,
he has the greater ability to do good or evil to inferior
minds. Of course, his obligation to use it for their good
increases. Moreover, the influence of his example increases
as his powers increase. Of course, he is bound by a propor-
tionate obligation to make it such as all can safely imitate.
No moral principles are recognized as true with a clearer
and more absolute intuition than those which I have now
stated.
How is it in the parental relation ? Do not all feel that
the superior powers of parents create an obligation of the
82 CONFLICT OF AGES.
most toucliing and imperative kind towards a weak, de-
fenceless, new-born infant ? Do not such superior powers,
and the fact that their example will exert a controlling influ-
ence, sacredly bind them in all things so to use their powers,
and regulate their example, as to promote the highest good
of the young heir of immortality who lies helpless in their
arms ? Would it not seem unspeakably horrible to allege
their superior powers as a reason for doing otherwise ?
If, therefore, God gives existence to inferior and depend-
ent minds, is he, the Infinite Father, can he be, under any
other or different obligations 7 Does he desire us to think
of him as not tenderly affected, and not bound by the appeal
made to him by a new-created mind, in view of the fearful
eternity that spreads out before him, so to exert his infinite
powers, and so to order his infinite example, as shall most
entirely tend to promote his eternal good 7 Does not every
intuitive conviction, every honorable impulse of a benevolent
mind, call for such an assurance concerning God, in order
to be satisfied with his character 7 Is not this the dividing
line between the divine and the satanic spirit 7 When, in
this world, those who have gained wealth, knowledge and
power, separate themselves in feeling and sympathy from
the poor, ignorant and weak, and form select and exclusive
circles, as if their superior powers and advantages imposed
on them no obligation to sympathize with the sufferings
and promote the welfare of those below them, can anything
more perfectly illustrate the satanic spirit of him whose law
is selfishness 7 Ought not the spirit of God to be entirely
the reverse of this 7 Is it not 7 Could he be honorable or
righteous if it were not so 7 Does any one allege his right,
as creator, to do as he will with his creatures 7 Within
certain limits, he has this right. But creation gives no
vight to the creator to disregard or to undervalue the well-
STATEMENT OF MORAL PRINCIPLES. 33
being of creatures, or to treat them contrary to the lawa
of their intellectual, moral and voluntary nature, on the
ground that he created them. It is not enough to say,
that, as he would treat them if he had not made them, so
ought he now to treat them. On the other hand, the fact
that he created them makes the most touching of all appeals
to every principle of honor and right in the Almighty Cre-
ator to be their defender, protector, and friend.
If it is said, God, as the greatest of all beings, makes
himself, and not his creatures, his great end, it is enough
to say, in reply, even if this were so, — ^^n which I do not
feel called upon now to express an opinion, — still, God
cannot promote either his own happiness or glory, except by
the observance of the principles of honor and right of which
we are now speaking. Even if, therefore, he makes him-
self his chief end, he must observe them. Nor could he
make any other truly honorable minds happy, if he were to
disregard these principles, for the sake of any supposed
greater good of which they are to partake. A truly hon-
orable mind cannot conceive of a higher good, than that the
God whom he loves and adores should fulfil, to the highest
conceivable degree of exactness, every demand of honor and
right to every created mind, however small.
No personal honor, no exaltation, no amount of enjoy-
ment, would bribe such a mind to be satisfied with a God
who (even for his sake) had disregarded the principles
of honor to any one, even the least of all created minds.
And it calls for a serious review of his opinions, if any one
is conscious of ascribing to God acts which make him fear
to admit this principle in its full extent. God glories in
defending the smallest and the feeblest of all his creatures.
2. No man, unless compelled by some supposed neces-
sH.y, would ever think of denying that the principles of
84 CONFLICT OE AGES.
honor and right call upon God not to hold his creatures
responsible or punishable for anything in them of which
they are not the authors, but of which he is. either directly
or indirectly, the creator, and which exists in them anterior
to and independent of any knowledge, desire, choice or
action, of their own. Whatever thus exists is a part of the
original constitution conferred by the Creator on his creat-
ures; and for this he is obviously responsible, and not
they. His creatures are responsible only for that moral
character which consists in or flows from their own volun-
tary use of the powers conferred on them by him. To prove
the truth of this statement, no argument is needed. It is
one of the clearest and most absolute intuitive perceptions
of the mind. God has so made our nature that we recog-
nize its truth with a clearness and certainty that cannot be
increased. This is distinctly recognized as the true ground
of responsibility in the inspired volume. It is so expressly
stated by God, through the prophet Ezekiel. The sen-
tence of death is denounced upon the soul that sinneth, and
none else. (Ezekiel, chapters eighteen and thirty- three.)
The coming judge of all declares, "My reward is with me,
to give to every man according as his work shall be." The
apostle Paul also announces that, before the judgment-seat
of Jesus Christ, every man shall receive according to what
he has done, whether it be good or bad. But nowhere in
the word of God is it ever stated that a man is rewarded or
punished for an involuntary constitution, which he received
from God.
3. The principles of honor and right require of God,
inasmuch as he demands of his creatures that they do what
is right, and inasmuch as this demand is founded in the
nature of things, that he should not himself confound the
distinction between right and wrong, by dealing with the
STATEMENT OF MORAL PRINCIPLES. 85
righteous as with the wicked. The patriarch Abraham, in
his most eloquent and touching plea for guilty Sodom,
assumed that the judge of all the earth would do wrong if
he did this. '' That be far from thee to do after this man-
ner, to slay the righteous with the wicked ; and that the
righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee ;
shall not the judge of all the earth do right? " Did God
repudiate this assumption of Abraham, that righteous man,
whom he was not ashamed to call his friend ? Nay, verily,
he rather accepted and con&med it by his approval. With
reference to this point, Dr. Alexander, therefore, well says,
' • All intuitively discern, that, for a ruler to punish the
innocent, and spare the guilty, is morally wrong," p. 36.
Still further ; inspiration has decided that it is essential to
true faith in God to believe, not only that he is, but that
he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.
4. The principles of honor and right demand of God not
so to charge the wrong conduct of one being to others as to
punish one person for the conduct of another, to which he
did not consent, and in which he had no part. No decision
of the human mind concerning honor and right can be
clearer than this, and it is distinctly recognized by God as
true. When the Jews, in the days of Ezekiel, charged him
with injustice, for punishing them for sins which they had
never committed, — that is, for the sins of their fathers, — he
did not admit the truth of the charge, and claim the right
so to punish ; but he indignantly, and in every variety of
form, denied the fact alleged, and declared that the son
should not bear the iniquity of the father, nor the lather
that of the son, but that every man should bear his own
iniquity. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." "The
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Upon this
M CONFLICT OF AGES.
ground alone did God rest his appeal to his accusers,— " Are
not my ways equal, and are not your ways unequal? "
5. Since the creatures of God do not exist by their own
will, and since they exist for eternity, and since nothing
more vitally affects their prospects for eternity than t)ie
constitutional powers and propensities with which they begin
their existence, the dictates of honor and right demand thvit
God shall confer on them such original constitutions r^s
shall, in their natural and proper tendencies, favorably
aifect their prospects for eternity, and place a reasonable
power of right conduct and of securing eternal life in the
possession of all.
If, then, in the original constitution of any new-created
mind, and entirely independent of his knowledge, desire,
choice or agency, there is that which is really sinful (if the
idea were not absurd, and the supposition were possible), and
if he had no power to do good, and thus secure eternal life,
such a creature would not be treated by the Creator accord-
ing to the dictates of honor and right, nor would he be
responsible for the sin so existing ; for he would not be its
author, but God, and for it God would be responsible.
Still further ; if in the original constitution of a new-
created mind, anterior to his choice or action, there is a
radical derangement or corruption, resulting in a powerful
tendency or propensity to sin, certain to result in ruin,
whilst, at the same time, God had the power to create it
without this derangement or corruption, so that its natural
and proper development would tend towards eternal life,
then such a mind is not dealt with rightfully and honorably.
He does not and cannot decide with what constitutional
powers he shall exist. And yet nothing more vitally
aflfects his prospects for eternity. If his original constitu-
tion is such that it naturally tends towards evil with great
STATEMENT OP MORAL PRINCIPLES. 87
power, and thus cr<!ates a moral certainty of ruin, then
existence is to him no blessing, but a curse ; nor has the
Creator dealt honorably or benevolently by him.
6. Not only do the demands of honor and right forbid
the Creator thus to injure his creature in his original con-
stitution, but they equally forbid him to place him in
circumstances needlessly unfavorable to right conduct, and
a proper development of his powers.
What benevolent being, dealing with new-created minds
committed to his care, would not feel bound to place them
under a system of influences most favorably arranged for
their highest good, and where all needless trials and tempt-
ations to sin and ruin would be avoided 7 Could any man
defend himself on any principles of benevolence, honor or
right, if he did not act on this principle ? And when the
great Creator is deciding on the circumstances of the
new-created immortal minds called into being by his power,
is it benevolent, honorable or right, for him to act on any
other principles 7
If, now, in opposition to these views, any allege that God,
for his own happiness or glory, or that of his creatures,
may act on other principles, it is enough to say, as before,
that it is not supposable that a perfect being could be made
happy or glorious by acting on any other principles. The
only grounds on Avhich God, or any of his holy creatures,
can be happy or glorious, as honorable and benevolent
minds, in view of the ruin of any others, are those already
stated. It must appear that God did not wrong them in
their original constitution, but gave them a constitution
honorably manifesting his sincere good will towards them as
individuals, and tending towards eternal life. It must also
appear that he did not wrong them in their situation and
circumstances, but so placod them, that all things were, on
4
38 CONi^LlCT OF AGES.
the whole, as favorably arranged for all as possible. That,
having thus placed them, he sincerely desired the highest
good of all ; and that he set before them good and evil, — ■
life and death, — and demanded only faith and obedience,
that they should live. If, in such circumstances, any dis-
believe his word, and disregard his will and wishes, and
perish, God is absolved, and the guilt is theirs.
These principles are so simple and obvious, that no one
accustomed to regard benevolence, honor and right, would
ever have thought of calling any of them in question, had
not certain supposed facts seemed, at times, to make it
necessary. But, notwithstanding this, these principles have
been seen and felt to be true. They have been also incident-
ally, if not formally and systematically, acknowledged and
announced, in all ages ; and towards them, in their fulness,
the mind of man has continually struggled, in proportion as
it has become sensitive to the nature and demands of
benevolence, honor and right. Nor will it ever rest, short
of this ground. Indeed, why should it? Are not these
views in accordance with the revealed character of God 7
Does not the Bible ascribe to him all those traits from
which all the principles that have been stated may 1)e
inferred ? By his own testimony, he is love. He is the
essence of honor, generosity, magnanimity. He has no
pleasure at all in the death of any of his creatures. He
exceeds all his creatures in the spirit of self-sacrifice for the
good of others. He desires all to be saved. He is merci-
ful, gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and
truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity
and transgression and sin. He expostulates with his sinful
creatures, saying, " Why will ye die ? " He says, " How
shall I give thee up 7 " He laments, saying, concerning
the lost, " 0, that thou hadst known the things that belong
STATEMENT OF MOKAL PRINCIPLES. 89
to thy peace ! " He declares that men perish entirely by
their own fault, and against his desires, efforts and warn-
ings. " 0, Israel ! thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me^
is thy help found." It is not possible that a being whose
feelings are such, and who makes such appeals, should act
on any other principles than those already stated. If he
were to give to any new-created mind a depraved natural
constitution, disqualifying him for right action, and impel-
ling him to sin, and then place him in circumstances of
extreme temptation, how could he lament over him, declare
that he had no pleasure at all in his death, entreat him not
to die, but to turn and live, without manifest and gross
insincerity? The fact, then, that God does, in all parts
of the Bible, throw the entire blame of their ruin on
men, and declares that it is contrary to his wishes, pleasure,
and strenuous expostulations and efforts, is decisive proof
that in all his dealings with them God has observed the
principles of honor, right and benevolence, as they have
been laid down. The Bible does not for a moment admit
that men have in any respect been wronged. It always
presents God as the injured party, and throws the whole
responsibility of wronging him, and ruining themselves, on
men.
Additional authority will be conferred upon the princi-
ples of honor and right thus set forth, if we will consult
the inspired representation of the feelings, towards which a
regenerate mind, under the influences of the divine Spirit,
naturally tends. They are feelings of such deep interest
in the welfare of others that they produce a disposition to
forego the exercise even of our own rights, rather than to
be the occasion of tempting them to sin. If a Christian
could eat meat in an idol's temple, or meat that had been
offered to an idol, without injuring his own conscience, yet,
40 CONFLICT OF AGES.
as a truly benevolent person, he would readily abstain from
it, rather than to expose a weak l^rother, by the power of
the temptation of an example which he would misunder-
stand, to do violence to his own conscience ; and, in general,
true benevolence will lead us not only to avoid becoming
to others an occasion of temptation to sin, but to do all in
our power to avert from them such temptation, from any
quarter whatever. Even if in any case the sinner who
yields to temptation is criminal, and without excuse, still,
no man acting under the full influence of the Christian
spirit will excuse himself, if he has needlessly tempted or
provoked him to the commission of the sin. It is the spon-
taneous impulse of a regenerate heart, in its highest
exercises of holy love, to avert from others to the greatest
extent temptations to sin, and to concentrate upon them
to the highest degree influences that tend to lead them to
holiness and eternal life. These feelings will not, indeed,
forbid him to act on the principles of sovereignty and
justice towards such as have forfeited their rights, wherever
the public good demands. Nor are such feelings in God
inconsistent with a dispensation of sovereignty and justice
on similar grounds. But, even under such a dispensation,
he inspires his people with a desire to do all that they can
to avert temptations, and to save all even of those who
have forfeited their rights, and might justly perish.
Can it be for a moment supposed that, as these feel-
inors increase, the Christian becomes more and more unlike
God 7 Is it not reasonable to believe that he becomes
more and more his image? If, then, such are the feel-
ings of God even towards sinners, can he be satisfied, in
his dealings with new-created minds, with anything short
of the principles of honor and right which have been
stated? Moreover, if, as the Christian crucifies all self-
\
STATEMENT OF MORAL PRINCIPLES. 41
ish desires, and comes under the full influence of lovC;
he, in like manner, feels more keenly the principles of
honor and right already stated, — and this is the fact, —
then is there not conclusive evidence that they are of
God 7
4*
CEAPTER VI.
ORTHODOX AUTHORITIES.
At this point, some of my readers are probably disposed
to raise the inquiry, whether the preceding views of
the intuitive decisions of the human mind as to the princi-
ples of honor and right have been, in fact, recognized as
true in the church of God. To such I reply, they have.
This will be made fully to appear during the progress of
the investigation. At present, it is enough to adduce some
evidence on those points which are, of all others, to us the
most immediately practical and important, — I refer to the
demands of honor and right as to the proper constitution
and circumstances of new-created minds.
The evidence which I shall adduce, in order to be above
suspicion, will be derived from those who are high in repu-
tation for sound and orthodox views.
It is derived from their discussions and decisions as to
the constitution with which God made Adam, and the cir-
cumstances in which he placed him. In these discussions,
they were incidentally called to meet, on its real merits,
the great question, what was due from God to a new-
created mind, and what was a fair probation of such a mind 7
The eminence of Turretin as a champion of orthodoxy is
unquestioned. What, then, teaches he on these points,
ORTHODOX AUTHORITIES. 43
viewing them as presented to God for practical decision, in
the case of Adam ?
He earnestly defends the position that God could not,
consistently with his glory, make him otherwise than with
a good constitution, well-ordered powers, and original right-
eousness, so that there should be in him no inclination to
sin, no sinful propensities, and no conflict of the inferior
against the superior powers ; but, on the other hand, the
love of holiness and of God, and a strong and constant pro-
pensity to all that is right. He utterly denied that God
could consistently make man with mere natural powers,
which, although free from positive sin, tended to sin, and
then produce a tendency to good only by a supernatural
influence. In opposition to this, he held that on Adam, as
a new-created being, God ought to confer an original right-
eousness properly belonging to his nature. Hence, in
opposition to the theory of Bellarmin, and many of the
scholastic divines, that original righteousness was not an
essential part of the nature of Adam, but merely a super-
natural gift, he says :
" If original righteousness was supernatural^ it follows
that it was the natural condition of Adam to be devoid of
righteousness (or sanctity), and to be the subject of all
those things which necessarily must exist in a person
capable of holiness, and yet devoid of it ; as, for example,
ignorance, inclination to vices, concupiscence of the flesh,
rebellion of the inferior part against the superior, and other
things of the kind, which Bellarmin calls diseases and
weaknesses of nature.
" But this cannot be said without ascribing
THEM TO Him who is the author op nature, and
■who would thus be represented as the author of
SIN." (L. 5, Q. 11, § 9.)
44 CONFLICT OF AGES.
Against the same ideas he, in another place, thus argues :
*' If there was in man any inclination to sin by na-
ture, THEN God would be the author of it, and so
THE SIN ITSELF WOULD BE CHARGEABLE UPON GOD, aa
before proved." (L. 9, Q. 7, *§> 3.)
As to the fallen angels, he says: "There is reason to
assert that some protracted interval of time elapsed between
the creation of the angels, which is the work of God, and
their revolt, which is the work of evil spirits ; otherwise, if
THEIR FIRST ACTS WERE SINFUL, THE CAUSATION OF SIN
WOULD SEEM TO BE ASCRIBED TO GOD, AS THE NEXT PRE-
CEDING EFFICIENT CAUSE." (L. 9, Q. 5, <J 2.)
Thus clearly does Turretin inculcate the great truth
that God is bound, by principles of equity and honor, to give
to all new-created beings original constitutions, healthy,
well-balanced, and tending decidedly and effectually towards
good. To make them either neutral, or with constitutions
tending to evil, would be utterly inconsistent with the honor
and justice of God, and would involve him in the guilt and
dishonor of sin. What can be more absolutely unequivocal
and decided than this ?
To the wide reach of these fundamental principles I
would call particular attention, as well as to their decision
and strength. The place occupied by the work of Turretin
in the seminary at Princeton is well known. No protest has
ever been issued by the professors there, or by the Presbyte-
rian church, against these views. On the other hand, it will
soon become apparent that the Princeton divines have them-
selves advanced similar views, and that in them they are
sustained by the standards of their own church.
Views similar to those of Turretin may be found strongly
expressed in the work of Dr. Watts on the Ruin and Re-
covery of Mankind, in r^ply to Dr. J. Taylor. In consid-
OETHODOX AUTHORITIES. 4£>
ering what is due from the Creator to a new-created being,
he states, at some length, that he ought to confer on him a
perfection of natural powers, both of body and spirit, con-
sidered as united and adapted to his present state. Even if
they did not involve all the perfections which God can con-
fer, or man produce by cultivation, yet, at least, they ought
to be perfectly sufficient for his present well-being and sta-
tion ; that his bodily powers should be in perfect order, his
reason clear, his judgment uncorrupted, his conscience up-
right and sensible ; that he should have no bias to sin, but a
bias to holiness, that is, to the love of God and of man ; that
there should be an entire subordination of the inferior to
the superior powers, — indeed, that he should have a concre-
ated principle of hoUness ; — in short, that he should have
the image of God, not merely natural and political, but
moral. He ought, he concedes, in order to a trial, still to
have free will, so as not to be constrained to obey, and ren-
dered incapable of sin ; but, at the same time, he should
have a superior propensity to good, and a full sufficiency of
power to preserve himself in a state of obedience and love
to his Creator. In a marginal note he thus proves that
God ought to give to a new-created mind a preponderating
bias to holiness :
'' If the new-made creature had not a propensity to love
and obey God, but was in a state of mere indifference to
good or evil, then his being put into such an union with
flesh and blood, among a thousand temptations, would have
been an overbalance on the side of vice. But our reason
can never suppose that God, the wise, just and good, would
have placed a new-made creature in such a situation."
These statements are so clear that they need no comment.
It is, also, a matter of great interest that they have been
fully endorsed by John Wesley, the great founder of Meth-
46 CONFLICT OF AGES.
odism. When Dr. John Taylor made his great assault on
Original Sin, Wesley, as well as Watts, came forth in its
defence. On the points then at issue, he avowed himself as
at one with Dr. Watts and the Calvinists ; and defended this
position of Dr. Watts, as a self-evident truth, and pro-
nounced the argument of Dr. Taylor against it to be utterly
powerless and insufficient. He says :
"This argument cannot be answered, unless it can be
showed either, 1st, that in such a situation there would not
have been an overbalance on the side of vice, or, 2d, that to
place a new-made creature in a situation where there was
such an overbalance was consistent with the wisdom, justice
and goodness of God. But, instead of showing, or even
attempting to show this, you feebly say, ' I do not think the
reason of man by any means sufficient to direct God in what
state to make moral agents. But, however Adam's propen-
sities and temptations were balanced, he had freedom to
choose evil as well as good.' He had. But this is no
answer to the argument, which, like the former, remains in
its full force. How could a wise, just and good God place
his creature in such a state as that the scale of evil should
preponderate 7 Although it be allowed, he is, in a measure^
free still, — the other scale does not '■ fly up and kick the
beam.' "
Here Wesley perfectly accords with Turretin, as well as
with Watts, in holding that to make new-created beings
either neutral, or with a preponderance towards evil, would
be highly unjust and dishonorable in God. The scales
ought not to be merely balanced, but the preponderance
towards good should be decided and powerful.
Unless these original rights had been in some way for-
feited, Dr. Watts, also, regarded it as in the highest degree
dishonorable in ^od ever to disregard them.
ORTHODOX AUTHORITIES. 47
The Princeton divines, in reality, advance similar views,
although not as openly, and with as much fulness and
strength, as Turretin, Watts and Wesley. First, they
decide that to every new-created being a probation is due.
"Isut not necessary," they say, "that a moral being shall
have a probation before his fate is decided 7 " Again; they
state what is essential to a fair probation. " A probation,
to be FAIR, must afford as favorable a prospect of a happy
as of an unhappy conclusion." Their ideas, however, of
what is involved in such a ftiir probation, though not fully
stated, may be clearly inferred from the fact that they refer
to the probation of our first parents as a fair one. Their
views of the moral constitution necessary for such a proba-
tion are, no doubt, in accordance with the decision of the
standards of their own church, as expressed in the following
words of the larger catechism : '' God endued them with
living, reasonable and immortal souls, made them after his
own image, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, hav-
ing the law of God written in their hearts, and power to
fulfil it, with dominion over the creatures, yet subject to
fall." (Larger Catechism, Q. 17.) This, then, is the
essential basis of a fair probation. The statement of the
Confession of Faith is, in essence, the same, except that it
gives a more expanded view of the state of the will of our
first parents, asserting that they " were under a possibility
of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will,
which was subject unto change." (Chap. IV. § 2.)
These statements, it is plain, involve, in our first parents,
as the essential basis of a fair probation, a good original
constitution, well-proportioned powers, and a decided and
powerful bias to good, resulting, at first, in actual and per-
fect obedience to the law of God.
Satisfactory as is this implication of the yiews of the
i$ CONFLICT OF AGES.
Princeton divines, yet they are exhibited still more clearly
by their statements with respect to an original bias to evil.
They teach us that it is the greatest of all calamities, and
that it is utterly inconsistent with the existence of a fair
and honorable probation.
"What greater evil for moral and immortal beings can
there be," say they, " than to be born contaminated in
their moral nature, or under a divine constitution which
secures the universality and certainty of sin, and that, too,
with undeviating and remorseless eifect? It is, as Cole-
ridge well says, ' an outrage on common sense ' to affirm that
it is no evil for men to be placed, on their probation, under
such circumstances that not one of ten thousand millions
ever escaped sin and condemnation to eternal death." On
these grounds they elsewhere assert that men, if they have
had no other or better probation than is involved in such a
state of things, have, in reality, had no probation at all.
Such a view, Prof. Hodge assures us, "represents the race
as being involved in ruin and condemnation, without having
the slightest probation." (Com. on Rom., p. 227, 1st ed.)
The Princeton reviewers, as we have seen, have decided
that "a probation, to be fair, must aiford as favorable a
prospect of a happy as of an unhappy conclusion." Ac-
cordingly, as consistency requires, immediately after, in
view of the supposition " that men are brought up to their
trial under a divine constitution which secures the certainty
of their sinning," they ask, with great emphasis, " Is this a
fair trial? " (Theol. Ess., vol. i. p. 159.)
In the preceding statements of Turretin, Watts, the
Westminster divines, and the Princeton divines, is involved
all that I have claimed on this point, in my expose of the
principles of honor and right. Indeed, the strength of their
Btatements rather exceeds my own.
ORTHODOX AUTHORITIES. 49
I shall not at this time add any further evidence that the
£)rinciples which I have stated have been generally recog-
nized as true by the church of God. At a subsequent time
I shall resume the subject, and prove that the Reformers,
as well as Augustine and other distinguished champions of
orthodoxy, from age to age. have advanced as self-evident
similar views as to the demands of the principles of honor
and right upon the great Creator, with reference to new-
created minds.
It would have been easy, instead of going into so much
detail in proof of my positions, simply to have referred, in a
general way, to Augustine, the Reformers, the Puritans,
and their consistent and exact followers, as holdino; the views
which have been set forth concerning the obhgations of God
to new-created minds. But, though the reference would
have been well founded, it would have excited less attention,
and awakened less interest.
It was not, however, for the public good that the thing
should be thus lightly passed over. It has been the great
evil of other ages that principles like these, although avowed,
have not been consistently carried out. They need to be
exalted, made prominent, and insisted on. If true at all,
they are to all created beings the most fundamental and
most momentous truths in the universe of God. They are
like a full-orbed sun, in the centre of all created existence.
No system can be truly seen but in their light. No system
can be true which really contravenes tnem. For God is
all glorious, all holy, all just, all honorable, all good. He
cannot but observe the true principles of honor and of right.
For, though he often dwelleth in the thick darkness, and
deep clouds are his pavilion, yet now and evermore right-
eousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.
Thus has one of the great moving powers of Christianity
50 CONFLICT OF AGES.
been developed and set forth. It is now necessary to set
forth the other, as it has been stated by those held in the
highest reputation as the true friends and defenders of the
gospel. I refer to the great Keformers of the sixteenth
century, and to those who glory in being deemed their true
followers.
CHAPTER VII.
FACTS AS TO HUMAN DEPRAVITY.
In order to present the conflict which is under considera«
tion in its full strength, it is necessary to place in contrast
"with the principles of honor and right which have been
developed the most radical view which has been extensively
given of the fallen and ruined condition of man.
But, before doing this, it is expedient to prepare the way
by a brief statement of some conceded facts, by which, even
independently of the testimony of the Bible, the necessity
of some such radical view is made apparent. The facts in
question lie upon the surface of the history of this world,
and are witnessed to by the observation and experience of all
men. They are by no means such as our recent survey of
the principles of honor and right would have led us to
expect. For, if the demands of these principles on God,
with reference to new-created minds, are such as have been
stated, we ought a priori to expect to find in this world a
race whose moral constitutions, powers and tendencies, should
correspond with the principles which have been laid down,
and whose history should illustrate and prove the existence
of strong and predominant tendencies to good. We ought
to expect that, although some mighty through an abuse of
freedom, fall into sin, the greater part would lead holy and
perfect lives. That harmony, unity, brotherly love, pure
morality, and an intelligent and devoted love of God, would
52 CONFLICT OF AGES.
Characterize the great majority of men, giving a holy and
lovely character alike to individuals and to communities.
That pride, malice, envy, falsehood, contentions and wars,
•would be regarded as str^mge and painful anomalies in the
history of this world.
It is needless to say that such anticipations, if formed by
a visitor to this world, ignorant of its real history, would
soon be dissipated by a painful view of the stern realities of
actual human life. The word of God, the consciousness of
every Christian, and the dark records of vice and crime, ot
jfraud and violence, of war and slavery, of remorse and woe
which fill the history of this world, too clearly and painfully
testify that such ideal conceptions of human excellence must
be regarded as nothing but the baseless fabric of a vision.
Indeed, so plain are the mournful realities, that the most
eminent Unitarian divines do not hesitate to state them with
an eloquence and power which cannot be resisted. That I
may avoid even the appearance of exaggeration, I will state
the facts in the words of such men as President Sparks,
Professor Norton, Dr. Burnap, and Dr. Dewey. I will,
moreover, take their statements from works designed to
oppose the Calvinistic doctrine of depravity, that it may be
the more evident how clear and undoubted are the real
facts which exhibit the actual depravity of man. Dr. G. W.
Burnap, of Baltimore, in an able work, designed to evince
the rectitude of human nature, in opposition to the Calvin-
istic doctrine of depravity, does not hesitate to make the fol-
towing clear and decided statement as to actual depravity :
'' The sinfulness of mankind no man in his senses has
ever pretended to deny. ' No man liveth, and sinneth not.'
No human being, with the exception of the Saviour, has
ever lived long enough to develop the moral nature, without
being conscious of having done wrong.
FACTS AS TO HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 53
^' The sinfulness of mankind lias been demonstrated by
the prevalence of iDa?^s, since the first recorded history of
our race. War transforms a human being into a fiend, and
leads to the commission of every crime, and is itself the
greatest of all crimes. The number of people who have
perished in war is, perhaps, ten times as great as now exists
on earth. The quantity of property consumed and destroyed
in war is, not unlikely, more than a hundred times as much
as all mankind now possess.
" The sinfulness of mankind has been demonstrated by
the fearful amount of sensuality that has existed. The
world has always been filled with the wretched victims of
intemperance. It may safely be said, that most of the dis-
eases which have afflicted mankind, and shortened human
life, have been produced by the unlawful or excessive
indulgence of the appetites.
''The sinfulness of mankind has been demonstrated by
the social unkindness that has always prevailed, the cruel
abuse of power which has reigned since the beginning of
time, so pathetically described in the book from which our
text is taken. ' So I returned and considered all the op-
pressloiis that are done under the sun ; and, behold, the
tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter,
and on the side of their oppressors there was power, but
they had no comforter.' So much was the author's sensi-
bility shocked and his pity moved, that he ' praised the
dead which are already dead more than the living which are
yet alive,' and thought it was better never to have been
born than to have an existence in a world so full of
injustice.
"The sinfulness of mankind is demonstrated by the exist-
ence of laivs and courts and prisons and piinisJunents.
Their very purpose is to restrain man from sin, and iQ
5*
54 CONFLICT OF AGES.
defend one man from the injustice of another. The evi-
dences of man's sinfulness meet us at every turn, in the
anger we witness, in the profaneness we hear, in the theft
against which we bar our doors, in the confcagr^ations we
behold by night hghted up by the incendiary's torch, in the
wretched outcasts whom vice has driven forth to die of
misery and want. Such are the overwhelming and unde-
niable evidences of the sinfulness of mankind."
Dr. Sparks, also, in his Letters to Dr. Miller, in opposi-
tion to Calvinism, — a work of decided ability, — says, with
reference to Unitarian divines, " They preach that all men
are depraved, deeply depraved^ and sinners in the sight of
God, — not by the will and appointment of their Creator,
but by their own choice, their neglect of duty, and their
obstinate disobedience. There is no theme, in fiict, on
which Unitarian preachers dwell more than on the moral
depravity of man. This is the moral disease which they
believe the religion of Jesus was intended to heal." (p.
290.)
The testimony of Prof. Norton to the facts of the case is
still more ample and unequivocal. In an article entitled
" Views of Calvinism," containing an argument of great
vigor against that system, he says: " If we look abroad,
beyond the confines of Christianity, to the past history and
present state of the world, we shall find that it is on the
subject of religion that the most portentous and pernicious
errors have prevailed, — errors of superstition and errors of
virtual atheism, — on the one hand, conceptions of the spir-
itual world disastrously false, and, on the other, an abnega-
tion of all but Avhat is present and material." These state-
ments he confirms by a reference to Buddhism, " the mon-
strous mythology and. all-pervading superstitions of the
Hindoos," the systems of Mahomet and Confucius, and
FACTS AS TO HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 55
finally a great miscellaneous multitude of various supersti-
tions and idolatries, into whicli any proper religious belief
or sentiment rarely enters. Of the followers of these
" most portentous and pernicious errors " he says : " These
classes constitute a great majority of mankind." (p. 209.)
He then turns to the Romish and the Greek churches,
and finds in them by far the greater part of those numbered
as Christians. Concerning them, he says: "Intelligent
Protestants regard the doctrines of either church as a mass
of gross errors, accumulated and consolidated during centu-
ries of ignorance and superstition." (p. 210.)
Passing from these to the Protestants, he represents the
great majority of them as holding a system at war with
reason and the character of God, — a system which it is his
main purpose, in two articles, to represent as pernicious in
a high degree, yea, as even a system of blasphemy. (p.
107.)
As to the moral condition of Christendom, he uses the
followino; lancruacre :
" Are we to conclude that it is the part of a wise man to
turn away his eyes from the moral and religious ignorance,
the debasement and annihilation of intellect, which exist in
the Christian world ? Should we look with philosophical in-
diiference on the vices and selfishness which spread through
all classes of society, on the physical and moral wretched-
ness of the poor and the crimes which it generates, on op-
pression and tyranny, and the maddening passions which
they are exasperating? Should we regard these things as
the necessary condition of humanity?"
"With regard to the actual intiuence exerted even on
Christian communities by the simple, sublime and practical
principles of Christianity, he uses the following unequivocal
language :
56 CONFLICT OF AGES.
'•Is it impossible to render the practical operation of
these truths more general and effective? Is it impossible,
when religion joins her voice to that which experience has
been so long uttering, to make men believe and feel, at
last, that their duty and their interest are the same ; that
the laws of God are but directions which he has given us,
in his infinite vfisdom and mercy, for attaining our highest
happiness ; that it is better to be just and benevolent, hon-
ored and beloved, than to be selfish, unjust and cruel,
despised, distrusted and hated ; that it is unwise to sacri-
fice a great future good to a present indulgence, which
leaves behind it dissatisfaction and repentance ; and that he
who submits the moral part of his nature to the animal is
degrading himself, and destroying his best capacities for
enjoyment 7 Is it impossible that the generality of men in
a Christian land should be brought to act as if they really
believed these truths, and truths such as these ? Whether
it be so or not, yet remains to be determined. The experi-
ment has never been made."
Of course, the moral state of the heathen world is still
worse.
To complete the dark picture, and to take away all excuse
for this state of things, he informs us that the reason
of these mournful results is not that the truths of Chris-
tianity are obscure, or beyond the comprehension of the
masses of mankind :
" Are the truths for which v/e contend intrinsically diffi-
cult to be understood 7 They are not so. They are as
simple and intelligible as they are sublime. The prospect
which true religion opens to the mind has a beautiful and
solemn grandeur, to which that of the visible heavens affords
but a faint comparison ; but it is with one as with the other,
— we need not tra^vel far, nor search for our point of view.
FACTS AS TO HUMAN DEPRAVITY, 57
in order to behold all that is given us to see of the moral or
of the physical universe."
Such, then, according to Professor Norton, is the present
wide-spread moral depravity and degradation of the human
race, after all that God has done by the light of nature, by
his providence, by revelation, and by the various and power-
ful means of grace, to sanctify and elevate individuals and
society ; moreover, no one will pretend that the state of
things has been any better for six thousand years past.
Indeed, if all that Professor Norton says in the preceding
passages concerning Protestant communities were true, I do
not see how to avoid the conclusion that the picture Avhich
he gives of the prevalence and power of error and actual
depravity in the world is darker even than that given by
the Calvinists, whose doctrine of depravity he opposes.
Truly, if these views are correct, the words of our Saviour,
" Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto
life, and few there be that find it," are true to an extent far
beyond what we had supposed. But we regard this part of
the picture as too deeply colored. In many portions of
the Protestant world the true gospel has exerted great
power in producing, love, faith, self-denial, benevolent en-
terprise, and a holy life. With this exception, we admit
the correctness of the picture ; and, if it is correct, then
how deep and dark are the shades of error and sin which
rest upon and brood over this unhappy world !
The testimony of Dr. Dewey is no less unequivocal and
..-lecided. In a professed and formal statement of the
[Jnitarian belief, elaborately finished, he thus speaks :
" We believe in human depravity ; and a very serious
and saddening belief it is, too, that we hold on this point.
We believe in the very great depravity of mankind, — in the
exceeding depravation of human nature. We believe that
58 CONFLICT OF AGES.
'the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
wicked.' We believe all that is meant when it is said of
the world in the time of Noah that ' all the imaginations
of men, and all the thoughts of their hearts, were evil, and
only evil continually.' We believe all that Paul meant when
he said, speaking of the general character of the heathen
world in his time, ' There is none that is righteous, no, not
one ; there is none that understandeth, there is none that
seeketh after God ; they have all gone out of the way, there
is none that doeth good, or is a doer of good, no, not one ;
with their tongues they use deceit, and the poison of asps is
under their lips ; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitter-
ness ; and the way of peace have they not known, and there
is no fear of God before their eyes.' We believe that this
was not intended to be taken without qualifications, for Paul,
as we shall soon have occasion to observe, made qualifica-
tions. It was true in the general. But it is not the
ancient heathen world alone that we regard as filled with
evil. We believe that the world now, taken in the mass, is
a very, a very bad world ; that the sinfulness of the world
is dreadful and horrible to consider ; that the nations ought
to be covered with aackcloth and mourning for it ; that they
are filled with misery by it. Why, can any man look
abroad upon the countless miseries inflicted by selfishness,
dishonesty, slander, strife, war ; upon the boundless woes
of intemperance, libertinism, gambling, crime ; can any
man look upon all this, with the thousand minor diversities
and shadings of guilt and guilty sorrow, and feel that he
could write any less dreadful sentence against the world than
Paul has written ? Not believe in human depravity, — great,
general, dreadful depravity ! Why. a man must be a fool,
nay, a stock, or a stone, not to believe in it ! He has no
eyes, he has no senses, he has no perceptions, if he refuses
FACTS AS TO HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 59
to believe in it ! " (Controversial Discourses, pp. IG— 18.)
What can be more explicit than this testimony to the deep
and general depravity of our race ?
It ought, hov^ever, to be distinctly stated that Dr. Dewey,
and, indeed, all the writers whom I have quoted, earnestly
repudiate the idea that this development of sin implies in
man a sinful nature in the obvious and literal sense of
those vrords. They regard such an idea as highly dishonor-
able to God, and as diminishing, or even anniliilating, the
criminality of sin ; nor, as we are informed by Dr. Dewey,
do they profess to believe ' ' in what is technically called
total depravity.''^ The origin of sin they ascribe to the
perversion of free agency by hmited, imperfect beings, in a
world of temptation, bodily and mental.
There is, nevertheless, in this world an extent, a power,
a preponderance and a stubbornness of sin, for which a
solution so simple and obvious does not seem to account.
This was felt and conceded, even by Dr. Dewey. Accord-
ingly, while insisting that the origin of sin is plain, he says,
*'The extent to which these evils go is, doubtless, a problem
that I cannot solve. There are shadows upon the world
that we cannot penetrate ; masses of sin and misery that
overwhelm us with wonder and awe."
This very impressive and affecting statement of Dr.
Dewey will now prepare us to see why there are so many
who cannot rest content in tlie solution which he, and others
of the same school, give of the origin of this state of
things. ^The extent and the power of evil in this world are
so great, even as conceded by Unitarians, that they cannot
find an adequate solution of them in the mere free agency
and temptation of uncorrupted minds. The facts stated
are so unlike the action of upright and undepraved minds,
that they at once suggest the idea that, in some way, tho
60 CONFLICT OF AGES.
human race has come into a fallen and ruined state, eyes,
before action. Certainly the dark and mournful facts which
have been stated are not like the action of minds possessing
a sound moral constitution, -well-balanced powers, and pre-
dominating tendencies to holiness and truth.
Nor, in view of such facts, ought it to be deemed won-
derful if efforts should be made to find a deeper and more
radical cause for results so calamitous and so strange. The
most thorough of these efforts I shall now proceed to con-
sider. I shall show, moreover, that the impulse to the
effort is in the highest degree honorable, even if it does
happen to involve those who make it in a conflict with those
principles of honor and right which they themselves avow
and defend.
CHAPTER VIII.
RADICAL VIEW OF THE BUIN OP MAN.
It is a principle of common sense, and will, at least in
theory, be conceded by all, that, before the moral diseases
of man can be thoroughly healed, their true nature, power
and depth, must be understood. Moreover, in order to save
him from the evils and perils of his present state, it ought
to be fully known what those evils and perils are. If he
has enemies, visible or invisible, it ought to be known who
they are, and what is their power.
Under the influence of these convictions a large class of
benevolent Christian minds have acted, in all ages. They
have felt that the purest benevolence which can be exercised
towards man demands the most full and faithful statement
of his fallen and ruined condition as a sinner, however dark
the views which may be thus presented. Those who have
presented such views have commonly been men of deep
Christian experience, like Augustine, the Reformers, the
Puritans, and Edwards. To such men the deep depravity
of their own hearts is not merely a matter of doctrinal
theory, but of profound experimental knowledge. To every
statement of .the Word of God, even the most humiliating,
there is an unhesitating response within. Moreover, upon
this deep inward knowledge of their fallen state is based, in
their judgment, that whole work of new creation in right-
eousness of which they are no less conscious. In all cases,
6
62 CONFLICT OF AGES.
the knowledge of the first is regarded as the measure of the
progress of the second.
Hence, the predominating influence under which they
ever act is a desire of thoroughness in disclosing the
ruined state of man before he is renovated by the grace of
God. Fearful of healing slightly the wounds of the people
of God, they have earnestly sought to probe them to their
deepest recesses. Believing the heart to be deceitful above
all things and desperately wicked, they have felt that the
danger was very great of being deceived by superficial
views of the nature and extent of sin. Knowing that none
but God can thoroughly search the heart, they have besought
him clearly to reveal to them its depths of evil. When
God, as they believe, in answer to such prayers, and
through his word, providences and spirit, has given to such
a full and experimental development of w^hat they have
sought, it has led them to insist much on three leading
points, as all involved in a full view of the fallen and
ruined condition of man.
1. His deep innate depravity as an individual.
2. His subjection to the power of depraved social organ-
izations, called, taken collectively, the world.
3. His subjection to the power of unseen malignant
spirits, who are centralized and controlled by Satan, their
leader and head.
In considering the first point, they have not rested content
with the mere fact that all men actually sin from the com-
mencement of moral agency, but have sought to penetrate
deeper, and to find in the antecedent nature of man a suffi-
cient cause for this- sad result, so uniform, yet so unreason-
able. The consequence has been a very general belief of a
properly depraved nature in man anterior to action of any
kind. They have conceited of the human mind as a kind
tlADlCAL VIEW OF THE RUIN OF MAN. 63
of seed-plot of sin, so to say, in which the seeds and germs
and roots of sin were thick sown, and needed only exposure
to the influence of the atmosphere and warmth of active hfe
to cause them to germinate, spring up, and bear fruit.
The highest statements on these points Avere undoubtedly
made by the Reformers and their immediate followers, in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In their oppo-
sition to what they regarded the Pelagian tendencies of the
Romish church, they transcended even the statements of
Augustine, in some points. I refer, in particular, to their
doctrine concerning the sinfulness of concupiscence (that is,
propensity to sin) after baptism, and the predestination of
the fall of Adam. In the Reformers, then, we shall find a
sincere effort to make the most full and thorough develop-
ment of the doctrine of human depravity that was possible,
and from motives the most honorable and benevolent.
Let my readers, even if any of them reject the opinions of
these men as stated, at least do them the justice to endeavor,
for a time, to look at the system from their point of vision.
Let them regard the numerous Christian experiences of
such men as I have described — men of the highest mental
power, and of clear discrimination — as at least intellectual
phenomena worthy of study, and consideration, and com-
prehension. Nor let any one feel an illiberal repulsion from
an honest effort to give a thorough statement of the reality
and depth of the moral diseases of the human heart.
Moreover, if many of the facts as staged are, in reality,
at war with the principles of honor and right, as I concede
them to be, let them not rashly conclude that no adjustment
of the system is possible by which the facts can be retained
and that conflict can be removed.
But let us hear them speak for themselves. Calvin thus
defines original sin : It is "a hereditary depravity and
64 CONFLICT OF AGES.
corruption of our nature, diffused through all parts of thti
soul, which, in the first place, exposes us to the wrath of
God, and then produces in us those works which the Scrip-
ture calls the works of the flesh." (Inst. ii. 1, 8.) Of
infants he says, "They bring their condemnation with
them from then' mother's womb, being liable to punishment,
not for the sin of another, but for their own. For, although
they have not as yet produced the fruits of their iniquity,
yet they have the seed enclosed in themselves ; nay, their
whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin; therefore it can-
not but be odious and abominable to God. Whence it fol-
lows that it is properly considered sin before God, because
there could not be liability to punishment without sin."
(Inst. II. 1, 8.) He also states, in general, that the coi^-
ruption of nature precedes and gives rise to all sinful acts,
and is itself deserving of punishment. "Two things
deserve distinct notice : first, that since we are so vitiated
and depraved in all parts of our nature, we are justly con-
victed and condemned before God, to whom nothing is
accepted but justice, innocence, purity, =^' * ^ *
Second, that this depravity never ceases to produce new
fruits, — that is. those works of the flesh before alluded to,
— just as a kindled furnace incessantly emits flame and
sparks, or a fountain constantly sends forth water." (Inst.
II. 1, 8.)
He also contrasts actual sins, and indeed corrupt habits,
with a depravity of nature, and, in reference to Rom. 3 :
10 — 18, says, "Men are not such as are here described
merely through sinful habits, but also by a depravity of
nature." (Inst., ii. 3, 2.)
Calvin introduces this view of the ruined condition of
man by a statement of his motives. He regarded it as the
chief wile of Satan, "by concealing from man a knowledge
RADICAL VIEW OF THE RUIN OF MAN. 65
of his disease, to render it incurable." In opposition to
this, he aims to produce a knowledge of our miserable con-
dition, that shall cause earnest desires and efforts after a
true and thorough remedy. He plainly asserts, in doing
this, that, anterior to all actual sin, there is in man a depraved
nature, by which he is exposed to the just anger of God,
and from which a constant stream of actual sins proceeds.
Let us, for the present, look at this statement merely as an
effort at depth and thoroughness. As such, we cannot deny
that it is radical and fundamental.
Erom the following quotations, taken from public form-
ularies, it will be seen that the leading churches of the
Reformers took substantially the same views, and, no doubt,
for the same reasons.
The Synod of Dort assert that all men become depraved
through "the propagation of a vicious nature;''' and after
this thus proceed, "Therefore, all men are conceived in
sin, and born the children of wrath, disqualified for all
saving good, prepense to evil, dead in sins, and the slaves
of sin ; and, without the grace of the regenerating Holy
Spirit, they neither are willing nor able to return to God,
to correct their depraved nature^ or to dispose themselves
to the correction of it." (Scott's Synod of Dort. Chaps.
III. k IV. §§ 2, 3.)
In the latter confession of Helvetia this language is used :
"We take sin to be that natural corruption of man de-
rived or spread from those our parents unto us all ; through
which, we being di'owned in evil concupiscences, and clean
turned away from God, but prone to all evil, full of all wicked-
ness, distrust, contempt, and hatred of God, can do no good of
ourselves, — no, not so much as think of any." (Harmony
of Confessions, p. 163.)
The confession of Bohemia, or the Waldenses, says of
6=^
C6 CONFLICT OF AGES.
original sin, that it is '' naturally engendered in us and
hereditary, wherein we are all conceived and born into this
world." * * "Let the force of this hereditary destruc-
tion be acknowledged and judged of by the guilt and fault
involved, by our pr oneness and declination to evil, hy our
evil nature^ and by the punishment which is laid upon
it." (Har., p. 169.) Of actual sins, they say they are
"the fruits of original sin, and do burst out within, with-
out, privily and openly, by the powers of man ; that is,
by all that ever man is able to do, and by his members,
transgressing all those things which God commandeth and
forbiddeth, and also running into blindness and errors,
worthy to be punished with all kinds of damnation." They
declare that these things ought to be earnestly insisted on,
that men " may know themselves, that they are conceived
and born in sin, and that forthwith, even from their birth
and by nature, they are sinners, full of lusts and evil inclin-
ations."
The French confession says of man : " His nature is
become altogether defiled, and, being blind in spirit and cor-
rupt in heart, hath utterly lost all his original integrity."
* * ^ * ''We believe that all the oifspring of Adam
are infected with this contagion, which we call original sin ;
that is, a stain spreading itself by propagation, and not by
imitation only, as the Pelagians thought, — all whose errors
we do detest." * * * "We believe that this stain is
indeed sin, because that it maketh every man (not so much
as those little ones excepted, which as yet lie hid in their
mother's womb) deserving of eternal death before God.
We also affirm that this stain, even after baptism, is in
nature sin." =* * ^ (On this point, the Reformers
contradict Augustine.) " Moreover, we say that this fro-
wardness of nature doth always bring forth some fruits of
RADICAL VIEW OF THE RUIN OF MAN. 67
malice and rebellion, in such sort that even they which are
most holy, although they resist it, yet are they defiled
with many infirmities and offences, so long as they live in
this world." (Harmony, pp. 172-3.)
The Church of England, in her thirty-nine articles, says :
'' Original sin is the fault and corruption of the nature
of every man that is naturally engendered of the offspring
of Adam." * * "In every person born into this world.
it deserveth God's wrath and damnation." (Har., p. 173.)
In the confession of Belgia it is said : " We believe that
throuofh the disobedience of Adam the sin that is called
original hath been spread and poured into all mankind.
Now, original sin is a corruption of the lohole nature^ and
an hereditary evil, wherewith even the very infants in their
mother's womb are polluted; the which, also, as a most
noisome root, doth branch out most abundantly all kinds of
sin in man, and is so filthy and abominable in the sight of
God that it alone is sufficient to the condemnation of all
mankind." (Har., p. 175.) It is added, " Out of it, as
out of a corrupt fountain, continual floods and rivers of
iniquity do daily flow."
The authors of the confession of Augsburg say : "We
mean, by original sin, that which the holy fathers and all
of sound judgment and learning in the church do so call,
namely, that guilt whereby all that come into the world
are, through Adarn'^ fall, subject to God's wrath, and eter-
nal death, and that very corruption of magi's nature
derived from Adam." (In this definition they include
what is called original sin imputed^ as well as original sin
inherent.) They define this corruption of nature as
involving want of all forms of original righteousness and
concupiscence, and then add, " Wherefore, those defects
and this concupiscence are things damnable, and, of their
C8 CONFLICT OF AGES.
own nature, worthy of death. And this original blot is sin
indeed, condemning and bringing eternal death even now,
also, upon all them which M^e not born again bj baptism
and the Holy Ghost." (Har., p. 176.)
The Moravian confession declares, '• This innate disease
and original sin, is truly sin, and condemns under God's
eternal wrath all those who are not born again through
water and the Holy Ghost." (Har., p. 178.)
The Westminster divines teach that "J. co?^rupted
nature was conveyed from our first parents to all their pos-
terity. From this original corruption, whereby we are
utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,
and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual trans-
gressions." Concerning this corruption of nature, they say
that " both itself and all the motions thereof are truly
and properly sin." To this they add, " Every sin, both
original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous
law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature,
bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to
the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so made sub-
ject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal and
eternal." (Har., pp. 179, 180.)
It is not my purpose at this time to enter into a full dis-
cussion of the precise import of all this language of the
Reformers. It is, however, no more than equitable to guard
it against a misunderstanding to which it is liable. It has
sometimes been interpreted as if they meant to teach that
the substance or essence of man, of which God is the
creator, is itself sinful or sin. This idea was in fact
advanced by Flaccus Illyricus in his controversy with Vic-
lorinus Strigelius, and was also defended by Spangenberg.
Moehler also resrards this as the loo^ical result of the
original statements of Luther and his followers on original
RADICAL VIEW OF THE RUIN OF MAN. 69
*.fi. But whether it is so or not, one thing is undeniable^
that the Reformers always disclaimed it as a part of their
doctrine.
A labored refutation of this error may be found in
Turretin (Loc. 9, Quaes. 11). They held, he assures us,
that the essence or substance of man, so far as created by
God, was in itself negatively good; but, nevertheless, it
was, in their view, devoid of original righteousness, and dis-
ordered by original sin as a moral disease^ perverting the
action of all the faculties. As the substance of the body is
not itself disease, but is perverted and disordered in its
action by disease, so the substance of the body and soul is
not sin, but is perverted and disordered in its action by
original sin. Moreover, Turretin defines original sin as
neither an act nor as the substance of the soul, but as an
'' innate vicious habit." It is so called because it is a state
of the body and soul predisposing to wrong action, just as
acquired habits predispose to various modes of action. Of
this he says, "It is compared to a disease, and is not
merely a want of righteousness, but also a positive corrup-
tion, which introduces a universal derangement of nature
and all its faculties, and is commonly described as involving
folly, blindness and ignorance in the intellect, malice, con-
tumacy and rebellion in the will, insubordination or want
of . sensibility in the affections, so that man becomes not
only averse from good, but also prone to all evil."
This original sin, however, though not consisting in
action, but preceding all knowledge and action, they
regarded as criminal, and punishable to such a degree as to
be a proper justification of eternal punishments, even in the
case of unborn infants, as is distinctly stated in the French
confession.
Such is a brief vie^v of the depravity of man as an indi-
70 CONFLICT OF AGES.
vidual, which has been believed by some of the most devoted
and experimental Christians whom this world has ever seen.
In all of these statements it is apparent that they have
benevolently aimed at the great end before mentioned, — that
is, to give a thorough and radical view of the fallen and
ruined condition of man, so as to dissipate all the delusions
of pride and self-confidence, and to prepare the way for a
cure no less radical and thorough. They felt that the
strength and obstinacy of their own inherent depravity was
so great, and its resistance of all means of thorough cure
so long-continued, that it must have its roots lower than
any act of conscious choice, even in a depraved nature.
So also the power of depravity, as developed in the history
of the world was so great, both in resisting and rendering
vain divine means and influences adapted to reform it, and
in plunging man headlong into all depths of sin in its vilest
forms, that they could not rest satisfied with a mere state-
ment of the fact that men do voluntarily sin from the
commencement of moral agency, but descended into the
depths of a nature utterly depraved, anterior to all individ-
ual, personal action, for a cause permanent and powerful
enough to produce such results.
To illustrate their ideas of the activity and of the power
of this depraved nature, they resort to the most striking
material analogies. It is like a glowing furnace, constantly
emitting flames and sparks ; a fountain sending out polluted
streams. It is a seed or seed-plot of sin. Original sin,
by which it is thus corrupted, is a stain or infection per-
vading all the powers of the soul. It is a noisome root,
out of which do spring most abundantly all kinds of sin.
They do not regard it as merely a propensity to sin, Avhich
is not of itself sinful, but assert emphatically that it is
truly and properly sin, and exposes those in whom it is,
RADICAL VIEW OF THE RUIN OF MAN. 71
even before they have acted at all, to the wrath of God and
eternal death.
In coming to these results, they turned the clear gaze of
their minds away, for a time, from other considerations, and
regarded intently what they knew of human depravity by
experience, by history, and by the word of God, and sought
to lay a foundation deep enough to sustain a doctrine that
should come up to the fearful reahties of the case. Nor
does their language convey an idea at all too strong of
the fearful power of the actual developments of human
depravity in the history of this world, — even as stated by
Unitarians, — or of the great truth, that there must be in
man some adequate cause, before action, of a course of
action so universal, so powerful, so contrary to right, to
the natural laws of all created minds, and to his own
highest interests.
But the question whether their statements are not liable
to serious and unanswerable objections, so long as the
moving powers of Christianity are adjusted as they are at
present; will more properly come up for consideration here-
after.
CHAPTER IX.
SOCIAL A»D ORGANIC RELATIONS OF MAiT.
We have seen how full are the statements of Turretin
Dr. Watts, John Wesley, and others, against the idea that
a new-created being should be so made, or so circumstanced,
that there should be an original bias or preponderance
towards sin and ruin. If a new-created being has a sinful
or morally deteriorated nature, there would seem to be, on
these principles, the greater reason for not exposing him t^
the additional influence of circumstances tending to develop,
strengthen and mature, his sinful propensities. We need,
then, in order to judge of the conflict between principles,
and facts, to consider the circumstances of man, as well as
his nature and original propensities. If we stop short of
this, we shall not adequately conceive the power of those
causes, various and united, that tend to the ruin of man,
as conceived by those who entertain the views under con-
sideration. We see only the power of his personal depravity
as an individual, and his weakness to resist allurements to
sin. We ought, then, in order to complete these views,
next to consider the fact, that, being thus depraved, man
is subjected from his birth to the power of other sinful
minds, united in depraved social arrangements and organ-
izations, called, collectively, the world.
In the heathen world, and in sinful families of Christian
SOCIAL AND ORGANIC RELATIONS OF MAN. 78
nations, this subjugation to the power of evil social organi-
zations begins from the time of birth. All the pollutions
of idolatry, all the evil passions, actions and examples, of
sinful parents, surround the child from his birth upward,
and form the moral atmosphere in which he lives.
' ' Superstitions exist that are the growth of ages ; and
idolatries that seem to have been adapted, with consummate
address, to meet all that depraved nature craves ; and these
are so in^vrought with the fabric of society as to make an
integral part of every one of its institutions, and thus every
earthly interest seems to demand that things should remain
as they are."
On this subject Dr. Bumap has thus spoken, with great
truth and eloquence :
" Society, from the same causes, is as capable of becom-
mcr vitiated as the individual, with this more calamitous
consequence, that it reacts upon the individual, to make him
more depraved than he could have become had he stood
alone. Not only so, but the vices of society are more
enduring than those of the individual. The vices of the
individual die with him, but the vices of society are per-
petuated from generation to generation." =^- * ^ *
"Under an arbitrary or a tyrannical government, all
motives to a virtuous life are greatly weakened. Virtue^
has no reward, and vice is safe so long as it has the means
to bribe the hand of justice.
" It is in vain to expect any high degree of moral attain-
ment under a bad government. Take, as an example, the
Ottoman empire. It occupies some of the fairest portions
of the globe. But the very manner in which the govern-
ment is administered corrupts and ruins everything. The
whole organization of the state is nothing more nor less
than a vast machine for extortion and robbery. The suc-
7
74 CONFLICT OF AGES.
cessive governors of the different provinces are generally
court favorites, or mere adventurers, whose only hope of
wealth and distinction is the favor of their sovereign, result-
ing in the opportunity of plundering, for a few years, one of
the provinces of the empire. With this understanding, the
sycophant takes possession of his government, and under the
pretence of taxation, which he levies at his own discretion,
the best citizens are sure to suffer the worst spoliation. The
very appearance of thrift and wealth is dangerous, and all
motive to industry and economy, to good morals and good
management, is taken away. Those who are plundered seek
first a refuge in hypocrisy and deception ; or, having lost
all, become the robbers and oppressors of those who are
more defenceless than themselves.
" Can it be said that a human being, who is born and
passes through life under such a government and in such a
state of society, has a fair opportunity for right develop-
ment 7 No more than a grain of corn thrown into a heap
of stones or a thicket of brambles."
The power of corrupt social organizations is not at all
exaggerated in this statement ; and the same remarks may
be extended to corrupt religious, educational and commercial
organizations, which have in all ages exerted inconceivable
power.
So, too, as far as the larger social circles, of which he
is a part, in Christian nations, are worldly, ambitious,
luxurious or sensual, he is led, by social power and rewards,
and by the fear of shame, to follow the same course to which
his depraved heart already impels him. Hence the fact that
large cities are slaughter-houses of countless throngs of
young men, — in theatres, at the gaming-table, the tavern,
or the place of impure resort. Moreover, so far as business
and politics are worldly and corrupt, so far they give a new
SOCIAL AND ORGANIC RELATIONS OF MAN. 75
impulse and greater development to his natural depravity.
In some communities, the tendencies are all to ruin. In
Others, Christian families and churches to a certain degree
counteract them ; but still, even to this day, the predomi-
nant power of the organizations of this world has been to
evil. They have tended to develop, mature, and confirm
the native depravity which already exists in each man as an
individual ; and this alike in the higher circles of the
wealthy, fashionable and powerful, and in the middle and
lower walks of life. What Christian parent can send his
child to the schools and colleges of our land, or into the
stores of our merchants, or shops of our artisans, or even
to the farms of our agriculturalists, without feeling that evil
social influences, of vast power, will beset him on every
side?
CHAPTER X.
KBLATIONS OF MAN TO INVISIBLE ENEMIES.
We have seen tlie social and organic relations of man.
But even this, in the judgment of those who hold these
views, does not complete the dark picture. They regard
every man who is born under such social organizations as
also exposed to the malice and wiles of powerful evil spirits,
acting through them. This is not, indeed, a doctrine of
nature ; but, in their judgment, what nature does not teach
is clearly revealed in the word of God. This world, we are
there informed, is the abode and theatre of action for hosts
of fallen spirits, who, whilst the generations of men die, Uve
and plan, and acquire malignant wisdom, from age to age.
They understand the depravity of man, and his moral weak-
ness ; and long experience has given them terrific skill in
the science of temptation. Such systems of error as the
depraved hearts of men are ready to adopt, they skilfully
invent, promulgate and defend. Such organizations as are
in spirit most opposed to the kingdom of God, they form,
animate and sustain. Thus, not only by individual and
transient suggestions, but through organized, established,
and permanent systems of evil, do they ' ' work in the chil-
dren of disobedience," and ''lead them captive at their
will." The fearful power exerted by these dark rulers of
this world we are in no danger of over-estimating. None
had a deeper conviction of it than our Saviour. He was
RELATIONS OF MAN TO INVISIBLE ENEMIES. 7T
revealed and became incarnate to destroy the power of the
devil and his hosts. When Paul was sent to the heathen
world, his commission was, to turn them from the power of
Satan to God. He regarded his chief conflict to be not so
much with depraved man as with these dark hosts. Nor
does prophecy give any hope of the conversion of the world
till Satan is bound and cast into the abyss. Such is the
fearful power of those spirits, in the midst of whose systems
men, themselves so deeply depraved, are born and live.
Not only, then, are men surrounded by corrupt human sys-
tems, but by powerful spirits of evil, skilled to animate and
employ these systems for their ruin with the highest degree
of energy.
Combine all of these statements, and we shall have a
comprehensive and fearful view of the ruined state of man.
Yet. fearful as it is, it is a view that has been, and, in its
fundamental facts, still is, believed- by some of the most
devoted Christians overseen on earth. They have been led
to it by their own experience, by observation of history, and
by the word of God. So the Reformers, so the Puritans
believed, and so the leading orthodox bodies of the present
day substantially believe. Eminently devoted men, like
Edwards, have commonly the deepest and most heartfelt
conviction of these things. They regard them as obviously
the views of the inspired writers. Accordingly, it is be-
cause God can and does save men, against such mighty
causes of ruin, that, in the words of the apostle Paul, they
extol the magnitude of his power. It is " according to the
working of his mighty power which he wrought in Christ
when he raised him from the dead and placed him at his
own right hand in the heavenly places." (Eph. 1 : 19,
20.) Those thus saved he describes as once " dead in tres-
passes and sins, walking according to the course of this
78 CONFLICT OF AGES.
world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the
spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, and
by nature the children of wrath, even as others." (Eph.
2: 1—3.)
Such, then, is a development of the remaining great mov-
ing power of Christianity, as it has been and still is set
forth by men deeply engaged in the great work of the moral
renovation of man. At another time we shall consider the
question, to what extent, and on what grounds, it is justly
open to assault, as opposed to the principles of honor and
right. But we will now look at it as a statement aiming at
a thorough view of human depravity, and of the hostile
forces which are arrayed against the renovation and sal-
vation of man, and which are to be assailed and reversed by
the power of God. It must be confessed that, on such a
general view, it accords with the fearful energy with which
depravity has been, in fact, developed in this world. It also
presents a deep foundation for a system of redemption, — a
system vast and sublime, and interlocking with the whole
system of the moral universe. In its penetrating and revo-
lutionary power it has proved itself deep and thorough. It
presents to every individual a great work to be done, a great
salvation to be secured. It provides powerful motives. It
imparts energy. It creates a deep experience. It gives a
profound and thorough character to all schemes of social
reform. Moreover, it has ever been the great centre of
evangelical enterprise and power.
CHAPTER XI.
THE CONFLICT A REALITY.
SucHj then, is a statement of the principles of equity and
honor, on the one hand, and of the most radical view of the
fallen and ruined condition of man, on the other. Each
statement, it has been seen, is sustained by the testimony of
men eminent for piety, and of the highest reputation as the
defenders of orthodoxy. With regard to the fearful depth
and power of human depravity, as actually developed^ even
eminent Unitarian divines give most explicit testimony.
That only which is needed to complete the view is an ac-
count of the antecedent causes of such developments. This,
as it has been just given, completes the common orthodox
view of the two great moving powers of the Christian system.
Can anything be more certain than that Christianity can
never, as a system, operate harmoniously and with full
power, except on two conditions, — first, that it shall, in
theory, include what really belongs to them both, and, sec-
ondly, that it shall give ample room for the full and consist-
ent development of each? For the radical elements of both
belong to the system, and are alike essential to its perfect
development and most salutary influence.
In contemplating them as they have been set forth, two
things strike the mind as worthy of notice : one, that each,
in its radical elements, is sustained by its own independent
and indestructible evidence ; the other, that, as Christianity
80 CONFLICT OF AGES.
is at present adjusted, tliere is no possibility of a full and
harmonious development of them both, but, on the other
hand, one constantly conflicts with and tends to repress, and
even to destroy, the other.
The evidence which sustains the principles of honor and
right, as we have seen, originates from the fact that God
has so made the mind that their truth is intuitively recog-
nized and affirmed, and is, therefore, a divino revelation j and
also from the distinct recognition of these principles in
Christian experience and in the word of God.
- The truth of the fundamental facts concerning the ruined
state of man is evinced by the combined testimony of the
word of God, of history, of observation, and of Christian
consciousness.
But, that in some way these moving powers have been so
misadjusted as to conflict with each other, is obvious from
simply placing them, as above developed, side by side. To
say the very least, the preceding statements as to the ruin
of man do appear directly to conflict with the principles of
honor and right which have been set forth, and tend directly
to subvert and destroy them. He who holds that God, in
the manner already set forth, gives existence to men with
natures radically corrupt and depraved, anterior to any
knowledge, desire or choice, of their own, with full power to
do evil and none to do good, and then places them under the
all-pervading influence of corrupt and corrupting social sys •
tems, — and, in addition to all this, subjects them to the tre-
mendous and delusive power of malignant spirits, fearfully
skilled in the work of developing, maturing and confirming
original depravity, — cannot, at least, with any apparent con-
sistency, say that the Creator has fulfilled towards them the
demands of honor and of right, as they have been exhibited.
How can he say that he has regarded their well-being as he
THE CONFLICT A REALITY. 81
ought, or that he has observed towards them the pwftciples
of justice? Has he not held them responsible for what
exists in them through his own agency, and anterior to
any desire, choice or action, of their own ? Has he not con-
ferred on them such original constitutions as most unfa-
vorably affect their prospects for eternity, and render their
right conduct and eternal hfe in the highest degree improb-
able 'I Has he not placed them in circumstances which are
not reasonably and benevolently favorable to their eternal
life ?
He, then, who holds that God is the author of the facts
alleged, finds himself constantly urged, by the demands of
logical consistency, to evade, or else to call in question and
deny, the real and self-evident principles of honor and right.
On the other hand, he who holds to the genuine principles
of honor and right will be no less powerfully urged to deny
the facts alleged as to the ruined state of man, and to put
forth all his energies to subvert and destroy them.
Nay, more ; it would seem as if the preceding statement
of the principles of honor and right had been specially de-
signed to effect this end. It seems to oppose the statement
of facts, as to the ruined state of man, deliberately, univer-
sally, radically, and step by step.
Moreover, undeniable facts prove the reality of the alleged
collision. Each of these moving powers of the system thus
put into opposition to each other has, in fact, created a party
to represent and defend it, and to oppose and subvert the
other.
It is, also, a fact worthy of distinct notice, that when, as
has often been the case, individuals have tried to retain
both powers in their system in full action, they have almost
invariably run into self-contradiction ; so much so, that few,
82 CONFLICT OF AGES.
if any writers of this class can be found who are exempt
from the charge.
Finallj ; all attempts to harmonize these opposing powers
have hitherto failed, and. as the system is at present ad-
justed, ever must fail. Eor, since each has in itself radical
truth, which is sustained bj its own evidence, it has a vital
power which cannot be destroyed, nor can its defenders be
thoroughly defeated; and, therefore, unless they can be
harmoniously adjusted, division and conflict will be per-
petual.
It is not possible, however, to convey a full idea of this
momentous truth by mere general statements. We will,
therefore, more in detail, exhibit principles and facts, to
illustrate the reality of this conflict, and to show that, on
existing grounds, it is interminable.
BOOK 11.
THE CONFLICT IN EXPERIENCE.
CHAPTER I.
LAWS OF THOUGHT AND EMOTION UNDER THIS
SYSTEM.
Let us, then, proceed more fully to set forth what has
been the actual operation of these powers, so misadjusted
and in conflict, on the human mind. In doing this, I shall
not, at present, follow the order of history. I shall, rather,
look at the relations of the system to the human mind, its
tendencies to produce deep divisions of opinions and feelings,
and the different kinds of experience to which it naturally
gives rise.
It will be seen at once that the opposing doctrinal posi-
tions which have been advanced are not points of mere spec-
ulation, but of deep practical, personal interest. Christianity
does not meet man as a mere philosophical theory, nor as a
speculation of some Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, or any other
uninspired sage; but as an inspired message from God,
invested with supreme authority, and pointing man to a
final judgment, and to eternal destinies, to be decided in
accordance with its principles and requisitions.
84 CONFLICT OF AGES.
Nor does it relate, primarilyj to theory, but to action.
Its great end is to produce a moral change in man — in
every man. It charges guilt on all. It calls at once foi
repentance, for a believing application for pardon through
Christ, and for a holy life. Nor can the great points in
question be avoided. Since they relate to conviction of sin,
repentance, faith, and a holy life, they are, of course,
involved in all preaching, in all prayer, and in all religious
efforts.
Nor are the interests involved in these conflicting powers
0^ secondary consequence, and therefore adapted to excite
out little feeling. They involve all that mi«n holds dear for
two worlds, all that he can conceive of persL#a9l good or evil.
Nay, more ; they involve not merely individu*^! well-being,
but, what is infinitely more momentous, the character of God,
and the eternal prospects of the universe under his omnipo-
tent and all-pervading sway.
We need not wonder, then, that the developments of the
human mind, under a system so misadjusted, and involving
such interests, have been characterized by a fearful earnest-
ness, and deep and intense emotion.
When such interests and emotions impel men, under such
a system, it is absurd to suppose that division, of the deep-
est and most radical kind, can be averted. It never has
been possible. It never Avill be. Each of the conflicting
views is fundamentally true, and is sustained by powerful
evidence. Each is intensely affecting to the feelings ; and,
such is the human mind, that it is to be expected that some
will come entirely under the influence of one view, and
others of the other. Moreover, if either gains the ascend-
ency, it is large enough, and true and important enough, so
to fill the field of vision, and to produce such an unwavering
conviction of its truth, such an overpowering sense of its
LAWS OF THOUGHT. 8 ')
supreme importance, that it shall compel all that adorns lo
be at war with it to give way, and summon the powers i>f
logic, criticism and exposition, to effect its purpose. More-
over, if either of these views thus takes possession of the
mind, and fills and overwhelms it with emotion, it, of course,
creates and gives character to a peculiar religious expe-
rience.
There are those, I know, Avho look with contempt upon
such theological conflicts of the present and of past ages, and
the next to superhuman efforts which men have put forth in
the defence of their views. But conflicts on such themes
as these are worthy of any other emotion than contempt.
Nothing can be more sublime and affecting than this great
controversy of ages truly viewed, as from some mountain-
top of history we survey the reality and earnestness of the
conflict, its extent and duration, the depth of emotion awak-
ened by it, its fertility in varied intellectual results, and the
relations of its solution to the future destinies of the world.
Let us, then, from such an eminence, endeavor to survey
and develop some of the experi ^-n'sss which have sprung
from the conflicting operations of t.Kc&« ill-adjusted truths.
8
CHAPTER II.
EXPERIENCES CHARACTERIZED.
It is not my present purpose minutely to consider all of
the experiences to which the system of Christianity, as mis-
adjusted, has given rise. I propose rather to exhibit in
their bold outlines some of the more important of them,
reserving others for future consideration.
In setting forth any experience, my purpose is, first, to
present those true views in which are found the elements of
its permanent vitality and power. After this, I shall then
subjoin to each experience the reaction which has ever
arisen against it from the truths which it has excluded, and
with which it is in conflict. Of these experiences I shall
now consider but six ; others may be adverted to hereafter.
1. First of all will be noticed that in which a Christian
experience, and a deep consciousness of the ruin of man,
become so intense and powerful as to give the entire ascend-
ency to the belief of the facts assumed in the most radical
theory which has been stated of human depravity, and to
suspend the power of the principles of honor and right to
produce a disbelief, or even an essential modification, of
them. Such full faith has, indeed, sometimes led even to a
rejection of those principles, at least in their relations to
God ; or, if not, to an evasion of them, or to a resort to the
plea of mystery.
2. Next will be considered that feeling sense of the
EXPERIENCES CHARACTERIZED. 87
Bacredness and momentous importance of tlie principles of
honor and right in their relations to God, which gives the
entire ascendency to those principles, and leads to an entire
denial and rejection cf the facts alleged, in setting forth
in a radical manner the utter ruin of man.
3. I notice next an experience in which the fundamental
facts and the moral principles are both retained without
modification ; but the mind seeks relief from their conflict
in a system of ultimate universal salvation. Of this we
have a deeply interesting illustration in the experience of
the celebrated John Foster.
4. Next to this will pass in review that class of ex-
periences in which both the principles of honor and right
and the essential facts are professedly retained ; but still
the principles are allowed to rjodify the facts, with the
intention of removing all real conflict between them.
5. We shall then advert to an experience in which the
principles and the most radical facts in question are both
retained, without any perceived and satisfactory mode of
modification or adjustment. In this case, the mind comes,
for a time, under the oppressive and overwhelming con-
sciousness of being apparently under an universal system
which is incapable of defence, and under a God whom the
principles of honor and of right forbid us to love and to
worship.
6. Lastly, an experience will be noticed in which, as in
the last, the principles and the most radical facts in question
are both retained, but are harmonized by a new adjustment
of the system, such that the painful conflict between fun-
damental truths is at an end, and God is seen in his full-
orbed glory and loveliness, and is worshipped with undivided
afiection and reverence.
I shall consider in the case of only the first four of these
88 CONFLICT OF AGES.
experiences the reaction to which they give rise; for the
fifth experience is too terrible ever to be embodied in formal
statements, or to become so general and permanent as to call
for a re'iction ; and the sixth, if it is ever truly reached, is
adapted to harmonize all the facts of the case with the
principles of honor and right, and thus to render needless a
re'iction.
In this review of experiences, it is my earnest desire and
aim, not merely to be impartial, but ever to regard with
sympathy, and sincerely to honor, every response of the
human soul to any part of the great system of truth, with
whatever other errors it may have been connected. I am
no less desirous to find a similar spirit in all of my readers.
I do most earnestly deprecate the awakening in any mind
of a spirit of partisan controversy. I rather desire, as I
have already said, to do all in my power to create, on all
sides, a feeling of sympathy and mutual interest, by point-
ing out those benevolent and honorable impulses, and that
regard to truth, — mixed though it should be with other
motives, by which the various parties have been actuated., —
and to produce a candid and united efibrt to eliminate error
and to develop the whole truth.
CHAPTER III.
THE! FIRST EXPERIENCE, OR THE PHILOSOPHY
OF OLD-SCHOOL THEOLOGY.
The radical element of the first experience is the doctrine
of real, responsible, punishable depravity in man, before vol-
untary action. Whether this depravity be called boldly a
depraved or a corrupt nature, or, more mildly, innate or inhe-
rent depravity, it comes, at last, to the same thing. It is,
as I have said, resorted to by Christian men to account for
the fearful developments of actual depravity, ^Yhich are so
plain that even eminent Unitarian divines concede them, and
state them with impressive eloquence and power. The mere
power of choice and external temptation seem insufficient to
explain a course of action so contrary to reason, so obstinate,
so general, so ruinous. They, therefore, resort to the idea
of a depraved and sinful nature anterior to choice and
action. Those who hold this view also hold, so far as I
know, without exception, the connected views of man's ex-
posure to the full influence of corrupt social and organic
relations, and of invisible malignant spirits of great power.
At first sight, it would be supposed that no one could be
induced to believe that the great Creator could or would
give to a new-created being such a nature, rendering it
powerless to do good, and then place it in such circum-
stances. Yet many most excellent men have so believed
and taught.
By what power, then, have they been brought to sucb
A*
90 CONFLICT OF AGES.
conclusions? I answer, by the power of Christian ex-
perience. Nor is this an irrational ground of belief
If a man is conscious that he has the plague, or a fevei,
or a consumption, he knows perfectly that he is not well.
If by any medicine he is restored to perfect health, he
knows what health is, and what is the normal and proper
state of the body. In this case, no argument from divine
benevolen^e.;-;or the laws of honor and of right, against the
existence of a diseased* constitution, will ever convince him
that he was not in fact sick with a malignant disease, affect-
ing his whole constitution.
So there is a life of the mind. It involves an original
and designed correlation to God, and such a state of the
affections, passions, emotions, intellect and will, that com-
munion with God shall be natural, habitual, and the life of
the soul. He who has been so far healed by divine grace
as to reach this state has a true idea of the normal and
healthy state of the soul ; and, if he finds that there is that
in the state of his moral constitution and emotions which
seems to lie beneath his will and undermine its energy to
follow the convictions of reason and conscience, and that by
divine grace this is changed, and an energy, not only to
will, but to do good, is supplied, — is it to be wondered at
that, in some way, he should come to the conclusion that
there is in his nature, or moral constitution, depravity or
pollution anterior to the action of the will ? Is it strange
that he should deeply feel and express his moral impotence
to do good, arising from such a cause, and, in his struggles
against it, long for deliverance in the words of Paul, " 0,
wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me from the
body of this death ? "
Let us look into the experience of Edwards in one par-
ticular,— that is, as to a sinful propensity to self-admiration,
THE riRST EXPERIENCE. 91
which is always connected with a sinful desire of the praise
and admiration of others, and leads to quick and bitter re-
sentment if reputation is assailed. He who has been taught
bj God to know what spiritual chastity is will see in this
action of the human mind, so natural, so powerful, so fear-
fully common, a kind of moral pollution, the loathsomeness
of which he lacks words to express. He will long to exter-
minate this malignant and polluting disease of the soul, and
to become in the sight of God spiritually chaste, humble,
satisfied with the judgment and favor of God, and regard-
ing it as a very small matter to be judged or censured by
human judgments, and censure as no reason for ceasing to
exercise towards all the utmost good will and Christian
love and forgiveness. In this respect, Edwards, when tried
by the most unreasonable and unkind rejection and dishonor
from his own church and people, manifested one of the
most beautiful examples on record of a mild, forgiving,
Christ- like spirit. Why was it? If wc look into his expe-
rience, Ave shall see that God had prepared him for it, by
erndicating that bitter root of malignity, of which I have
spoken. His experience I give in his own words :
" I have a much greater sense of my universal, exceed-
ing dependence on God's grace and strength than I used
formerly to have, and have experienced more of an abhor-
rence of my own righteousness. The very thought of any
joy arising in me, on any consideration of my own amiable-
ness, performances or experiences, or any goodness of heart
or life, is nauseous and detestable to me."
This is exactly the experience of one to whom God has
shown, in its true light, the deep and unutterable pollution
of that spiritual unchastity which is involved in that deep-
rooted pride, which, like a cancer, seems to have struck its
roots deeply into the human soul, and the extermination of
92 CONFLICT OF AGES.
which calls for so much providential discipline, and so many
and so painful struggles, and which made the thorn in the
flesh necessary to preserve the humility even of the apostle
Paul.
Yet Edwards did not find this root of evil entirely exter-
minated in his soul : and so much had his moral sensibilities
been quickened to see and feel its pollutions, that any tend-
encies to what he thus abhorred filled him with deep
distress ; therefore he proceeds to say :
'' And yet I am greatly afflicted with a proud and self-
righteous spirit, much more sensibly than I used to be
formerly. I see that serpent rising and putting forth its
head continually, everywhere, all around me."
This one instance illustrates what takes place in such an
experience, in many respects. It is a process which the
apostles Paul and Peter compare to a crucifixion. The
original depraved character is called the flesh, and is
likened to a body composed of many members, each of
which is to be crucified and destroyed. This radical process
of regeneration and sanctification leads to a consciousness
of depths of inward and hidden sinfulness, of which a deep
innate depravity seems to give the only adequate account.
The action of all the powers seems to be deranged and
perverted by sin. The whole mind appears to be a wonder-
ful system in ruins. The heart is felt to be deceitful above
all things, and desperately wicked ; and, as such, is hidden
from the full knowledge of all but God
This, no doubt, is what Prof Hodge means, when he
says, " Conviction of sin under this system is more than
remorse for actual transgressions ; it is also a sense of the
thorough depravity of the whole nature, penetrating far
beneath the acts of the soul, affecting its permanent moral
states, which lie beyond the reach of the will."
THE FIRST EXPERIENCE. 93
Under the influence of such feelings, Edwards says : " It
is affecting to think how ignorant I was, when a young
Christian, of the bottomless, infinite depths of wickedness,
Dride, hypocrisy and deceit, left in my heart."
His more mature experiences cannot be understood,
unless we consider by what principles he judged. His
standard was this • '' What must my soul become before it
is capable of that pure and perfect sympathy with God in
which its true life and health consists ; and what are those
moral states, habits and emotions, which must be eradicated
in order to secure these results?" All of these he sets
down under the category of sinful states and emotions. All
know that he became an eminently holy man. All know
that through him God exercised an immense vital power in
quickening the religious experience of the church. All know
that no man in severe trials ever displayed more of the
power of godliness than he. Being thus restored to spir-
itual health, was he not qualified to judge what was the
moral state from which he had been raised by the grace of
God ? Let us, then, hear him state his own views of it.
In his more mature experiences he thus speaks of himself:
" My wickedness, as I am in myself, has long appeared
to me perfectly ineffable, and swallowing up all thought and
imagination like an infinite deluge, or mountains over my
head. I know not how to express better what my sina
appear to me to be, than by heaping infinite upon infinite,
and multiplying infinite by infinite. Very often, for these
many years, these expressions are in my mind, and in my
mouth, ' Infinite upon infinite ! Infinite upon infinite ! '
When I look into my heart and take a view of my wicked-
ness, it looks like an abyss infinitely deeper than hell.
And it appears to me that, were it not for free grace,
exalted and raised to the infinite height of all the fulness
04 CONFLICT OF AGES.
and glory of the great Jehovali, and the arm of his powei
and grace, stretched forth in all the majesty of his power,
and in all the glory of his sovereignty, I should appear sunk
down in my sins, below hell itself; far beyond the sight of
everything but the eye of sovereign grace, that can pierce
even down to such a depth. And yet it seems to me that
my conviction of sin is exceedingly small and faint. It is
enough to amaze me, that I have no more sense of my sin.
I know, certainly, that I have very little sense of my sin-
fulness. When I have had turns of weeping and crying for
my sins, I thought I knew at the time that my repentance
was nothing to my sin."
I am aware that, to some, this experience of Edwards
will seem either mysterious or exaggerated. It is, never-
theless, an important fact, and deserves study. It is to be
judged of by the principles which have been stated, and of
which I shall speak more fully in another place. It is
enough, at present, to say that these very remarkable words
are not to be set aside with contempt, as the exaggerated
professions of an excitable mind, incapable of clear and dis-
criminating thought. Their author was, confessedly, the
great metaphysician of his age. None knew better than he,
so far as experience is concerned, what sin and hohness
were. And yet, such is his mature report of his own expe-
rience. I believe that there were real facts upon which his
statements were based. What explanation ought to be
given of them I shall consider in another place.
To Edwards, therefore, must it not have appeared evident
that he had never, by conscious acts of choice, introduced
all of this depravity into himself, but that his sins were, in
some way, the development of something from the depths of
his being, that had preceded his consciousness and choice 7
Would it not strongly incline him, — as a similar experience
THE FIRST EXPERIENCE. 95
has thousands beside, — to the idea of a deeply depraved
nature before actual sin?
Edwards, moreover, was no less distinguished by a deep
sense of the reality and power of the malignant influences of
evil spirits. He looked upon Satan as the great framer of
systems of error, and the author of spurious and delusive
religious affections ; and he compares men to weak and silly
sheep, constantly deluded, deceived, and combined in evil,
or else frightened and scattered by his terrors. In the
word of God, and in all history too, as eloquently and log-
ically set forth in his treatise on original sin, he found a
constant illustration and proof of the truth of these views.
In this experience he was but an exponent of a class of men
found in all ages. To them has the law of God come home,
as it did to Paul, and, under the influences of the divine
spirit, their conviction of sin has been deep and agonizing,
their regeneration has been thorough, their spiritual expe-
rience profound, and their new nature fully developed.
Out of such an experience grows an unwavering and
unconquerable faith as to the most radical view of the great
facts of man's ruin. If there is anything which they know
with absolute certainty, it is the truth of these facts. Their
own experience, history, and the Bible, coincide; the evi-
dence is cumulative, manifold, irresistible. They not only
believe, but, in fact, they know. They are not mistaken,
and they know that they are not. Such is the legitimate
tendency of an experimental knowledge of the truths of the
case on regenerated minds. They know their original
depravity, just as a man restored to health knows that he
was diseased and is now in health. He knows past disease
more absolutely by reason of its contrast with present health.
Evidence of the truth of such views of depravity they also
find in the clear statements of the word of God, and in the
96 CONFLICT OF AGES.
history of the world. Such views have, therefore, been Yery
extensively held by the most powerful bodies of evangelical
Christians, as appears from the quotations made from the
creeds of the Reformation. Indeed, the Princeton Revleiv
alleges, and, so far as I know, correctly, that ' ' there is not
a creed of any Christian church (we do not mean separate
congregation) in which the doctrine that inherent corrup-
tion, as existing prior to voluntary action, is of the nature
of sin, is not distinctly affirmed. The whole Latin church,
the Lutheran, all branches of the Reformed church, unite
in the most express, nicely-measured assertions of faith in
this doctrine." (April, 1851, p. 324.) Moreover, men of
the most eminent Christian character, in successive ages,
such as the Reformers, the Puritans, Edwards, Chalmers,
and the Haldanes, have held these views. In their hands,
too, deep and powerful results have been produced by the
system.
Therefore is it that Dr. Hodge asserts, in the Princeton
Review^ that ''it is an undeniable fact, that this system
underlies the piety of the church in all ages. It is the great
granitic formation, whose peaks tower towards heaven, and
draw thence the waters of life, and in whose capacious bosom
repose those green pastures in which the great Shepherd
gathers and sustains his flock. It has withstood all changes,
and it still stands. Heat and cold, snow and rain, gentle
abrasion and violent convulsions, leave it as it was. It
cannot be moved. In our own age and country, this system
of doctrine has had to sustain a renewed conflict. It has
been assailed by argument, by ridicule, by contempt. It
has been pronounced absurd, obsolete, effete, powerless. It
has withstood logic, indignation, wit. * * =^ Still it
stands." {Prin. Rev., April, 1851, p. 319.)
Indeed, we think that no one can fail to see that the
THE FIRST EXPERIENCE. 97
religious depth that has been found in the Western church,
and among the Reformers, and Puritans, and their follow-
ers, as compared with the superficiality of the Eastern
church, under the auspices of John of Damascus, and the
Greek fathers, is owing to the more profound views of
human depravity which were introduced into it by Augus-
tine, and which gave a deep and vital character to its theol-
ogy, but which never penetrated and vitalized the Eastern
church.
No one, we think, in view of facts on the great scale, can
deny that this system has exerted a deeper and more
powerful influence on the world than any other. It has in
it the elements of the greatest power, simply because it
meets as no other system does the wants of the deepest
forms of Christian experience, and through such channels
the great river of moral power on earth must ever run.
And yet, powerful as it is, it has never acted in any com-
munity without meeting the counter influence of another
power, springing from the deepest sources of intuitive human
convictions and emotions. And, therefore, as we proposed,
we shall proceed to consider the reaction to which this view
of the system has ever given rijje.
9
CHAPTER IV.
THE REACTION.
We have stated the elements of power in the first view
of the system ; and, clearly, they are great, for a deep
Christian experience has ever been the ruling power in
God's kingdom. Yet we are obliged to add, that at no
time, and in no community, have its triumphs been universal
or permanent. Its advocates have been obliged to work
against a steady, powerful and deathless reaction. Nor is
the reason obscure.
As at present adjusted, it has never been able to prevent,
or successfully to repel, a most powerful assault, prompted,
not by human depravity and carnal reason, but by the
divinely-revealed principles of honor and of right. And to
this assault its advocates have never made a reply which
has had any decisive power.
And, indeed, at first one wonders how even the advocates
of this doctrine can avoid seeing that it is in direct conflict
with their own statements of the principles of equity and of
honor. For instance ; Turretin says of new-created Adam,
that if there was in him '' any inclination to sin by nature,
then God would be the author of it, and so the sin itself be
chargeable upon God." How much more is this true, if, in
new-created beings, there is not merely an inclination to
sin, but even a sinful nature before action, and an entire
want of power to do right !
THE REACTION. &9
How explicit, too, are the statements of Dr. Watts, that
it would be unjust for God so to form a new-created being
that there should be in his nature a bias to evil. So, too,
the Princeton divines tell us that " a probation, in order to
be fair, must afford as favorable a prospect of a happy as
of an unhappy conclusion ; " and, by referring to the proba-
tion of Adam as a fair one, they teach us that a good moral
constitution, well-balanced powers, and a decided bias to
good, are essential to such a probation.
But are not men, by their concession, new-created
beings 7 Do they not exphcitly deny ''any mysterious
union with Adam, any confusion of our identity with his " 7
(Theol. Ess., i. 136.) Is not God, therefore, truly the
immediate creator of every man, — at least, so far as the
spirit is concerned 1 Turretin, and the church at large,
avow and defend this view.
Here, then, we have millions of new-created beings, com-
mencing an eternal existence with sinful natures and a total
inability to do goud, even before thought or action. Can
anything be more demonstrably at war with the principles
of honor and of right which they avow than these facts 1
Are we to suppose, then, that the advocates of this view
have not seen this self-evident conflict, and have made no
effort to obviate it? By no means. They have made
strenuous efforts to defend the alleged facts on principles of
equity and honor. Indeed, they take a ground that would,
at least in part, sustain their position, if it were true. It
is, however, a most remarkable ground ; but, as it has been
most extensively taken and held, and still is, it deserves
careful attention.
The ground is this, — that all men, even before knowl-
edge or action, and, indeed, before existence, have forfeited
their rights a; nei'p-created beings ^ and have fallen,
PS0042
100 CONFLICT OF AGES.
under the just displeasure of God; and that the existence
m them of a depraved nature, and' of inability to do right, is
a 'punishment inflicted on them by God, in accordance with
their just deserts.
It is conceded, by the Reformers and their followers, that
God cannot be defended on any ground unless on this. The
demands of honor and right towards new-created beings they
fully admit, even to the highest degree. God is absolutely
Dound by them until they have been forfeited. But they
allege that in the case of all men they have been forfeited :
AND THEIR WHOLE DEFENCE OF GOD TURNS UPON THIS
ALLEGATION. If it Can be made out, the defence may be
valid. If it cannot be made out, the defence fails. And if
it fails, it is no common failure. It involves God's honor
and justice as to the eternal destinies of the countless mil-
lions of the human race.
With deep interest, then, we ask, when did all men make
this alleged forfeiture, and incur this liability? The reply
is, never in their own persons. Indeed, it was done before
they existed, by the act of another, even of Adam.
But, in endeavoring by such a position to avoid collision
with one law of equity and honor, do they not at once come
into conflict with others ? Is it not unjust and dishonorable
falsely to charge the innocent, and to punish them for what
they never did ? Is it not unjust to decide that a new-
created being has forfeited his right to a good moral con-
stitution and propensities, and power to good, by an act
which he never performed, and which took place hundreds
or thousands of years before he was created ?
Dr. Alexander says, that ''all intuitively discern that
for a ruler to punish the innocent is morally wrong." He
also says, that "where we have intuitive certainty of any-
thing, it is foolish to seek for other reasons." But who
THE REACTION. 101
can be innocent of a sin in every possible respect, if those
are not who did not exist when it was committed ?
Of what avail, then, is it to avoid a conflict with one law
of equity and honor, merely by coming into collision with
others no less important and sacred? What are the naked
facts alleged by the advocates of this view? They are
these : that across the chasm of hundreds or thousands of
years of absolute non-existence, the guilt and forfeiture of
Adam's sin are transported, and ascribed to new-created
beings, just beginning an immortal existence, and made the
ground of punishing them with a depraved nature and ina-
bility to do good. Can such a procedure be made to accord
with our intuitive convictions of equity and honor ? Is it
not punishing the innocent with infinite severity, and with-
out a cause 7
Nor is any relief gained by regarding such a sinful nature
and inability to do good as coming on men not as a penalty,
but as a consequence of Adam's sin, according to an ordi-
nance of God as an absolute sovereign. Indeed, this is con-
ceded and insisted on, as we shall see more fully hereafter,
by all the leading divines of the Reformation, and by those
who in modern days profess to walk most exactly in their
steps. The sovereignty of God, as they have clearly seen
and declared, implies no superiority to the laws of equity
and honor. If their rights as new-created beings have not
been forfeited, God has no right to disregard them.
But let us look at some of the efforts made to defend the
alleged facts now under consideration. We shall then be
able to judge what can be said to break the force of the
principles of honor and right to which I have appealed.
9*
CHAPTER V
The first point of attack has ever been, as we have
already stated, the doctrine of the existence in a new-created
being of a sinful nature, for which he is hable to just pun-
ishment, and that anterior to any knowledge, will or choice,
of his own. How, it is asked, can it be honorable or right
for God so to deal with any new-created being 7 To this
question no one has ever been able to give any more satis-
factory reply than those we have considered. These do
not seem to have satisfied even all the friends of the doctrine
of an inherent depravity of nature.
Indeed, a distinguished theological professor (Dr. Woods),
after setting forth what he asserts to be the faith of the
church in all ages on this point, and surveying the discus-
sions to which it has given rise, takes distinctly the ground
of mere faith and mystery ; that is, he comes distinctly to
the conclusion that it cannot be vindicated on any principles
of honor and right known to the human mind. Well may
he say so. He expressly teaches that there is in the nature
of man, anterior to knowledge or choice, a proneness or
propensity to sin, which is "in its own nature sinful," "the
essence of moral evil," "the sum of all that is vile and
hateful." (Woods' Works, vol. ii. p. 336.) He also
teaches that God inflicts this "tremendous calamity" on
THE REACTION IRRESISTIBLE. 103
all men for the sin of one man. This, he says, has been
the belief of the church in all ages.
He then asks, "But how is thisproceeding just to Adam's
posterity 7 What have they done, before they commit sin,
to merit pain and death 7 What have they done to merit
the evil of existing without original righteousness, and with
a nature prone to sin 7" (Vol. ii. 315.) To feel the
full force of this question, let it be once more stated that
he regards this proneness of nature to sin as in itself
sinful, yea, the essence of moral evil, the sum of all that
is vile and hateful. ;
Surely, questions more momentous than these were never
proposed. They affect all that man holds dear in all worlds,
all that is holy and reverend in God. They are, also,
frankly and fairly stated. What, then, is his reply 7 It is
a reply eminently worthy of profound attention. It touches
the very vitals of Christianity. It shows, more clearly
than words can utter it, the unfortunate, the defenceless
condition of the system of Christianity when thus presented.
What, then, is the reply 7 In essence, it is simply this.
It is utterly beyond our powers to show that such a pro-
ceeding on the part of God is either just or honorable.
"Here (he says) our wisdom fails. We apply in vain
to human reason, or human consciousness, for an answer."
Nay, more ; he even admits that such conduct is ''''contrary
to the dictates of our fallible minds. ^'' Yet he still
insists that we ought not to judge at all in the case, but to
believe that it is right, because God has done it. " God has
not made us judges. The case lies wholly out of our
province."
But if, as we have shown, God has made the human mind
to form intuitive convictions of what is right and honorable
in such cases if such convictions are a revelation of God
104 CONFLICT OF AGES.
himself, if he appeals to them in his own defence, then
plainly the case does not lie wholly out of our province.
How can we have any rational ideas of mercy in a case
where, as God has made our minds, we must see that the
most sacred principles of honor and right have been
violated 7 Is such the basis of the greatest of all God's
works, the redemption of the church ?
That the human mind has strong intuitive convictions in
tbis case, Dr. Woods concedes. The acts ascribed to God,
according to our necessary convictions, appear dishonorable
and unjust. But, to concede that, in this case, these moral
intuitions are of divine origin, would be to abandon the
argument. Nothing, therefore, remains but in some way to
destroy their power, by giving them an evil name. This is
commonly done by calling them "human reason," or " un-
sanctified philosophy," or "natural reason," or "carnal
reason," and then warning all who revere God and love the
truth not to be carried away with the subtlety of human
reason, or by philosophical or metaphysical sagacity and
adroitness. The following is an illustration of what I mean.
Dr. Woods says :
"It is no difficult task for the subtlety of human
reason^ to urge very plausible arguments against the com-
mon doctrine of man's innate moral depravity. But, so far
as the doctrine is taught us by the inspired writers, it is our
duty to hold it fast, however unable we may be to sustain it
by metaphysical reasonings or to remove the objections
which unsanctijied philosophy may set in array against it.
It is a doctrine which is not to be brought for trial to the
bar of human reason. Mere natural reason^ mere philo-
sophical or metaphysical sagacity, transcends its just bounds,
^nd commits a heinous sacrilege, when it attacks this pri
inary article of onr faith, and la^bors to distort it, to under-
THE REACTION IRRESISTIBLE. 105
mine it, or to expose its truth or its importance to distrust."
(Woods, vol. II 828.)
I admit fully that the essential facts of human depravity,
as I have set them forth, are of unspeakable moment, and
that no revealed doctrine of the Bible is to be given up at
the demand of unsanctified philosophy or carnal reason.
But how does it appear that the intuitive decisions of the
human mind as to honor and right, in view of the facts
alleged, are unsanctified philosophy and carnal reason?
How does it appear that they are not of divine origin, yea,
the very voice of God through the human soul ? Till this
can be shown, it is not lawful to evade their power by
resorting to mystery and faith in God.
Nor ought it to be forgotten that this style of reasoning
is easily retorted. It is only necessary to assume that the
theory in question is based upon a false interpretation of
the word of God, and then to warn all who fear God to
avoid the sacrilegous audacity involved in doing violence to
the divinely revealed principles of equity and honor, for the
sake of sustaining the unfounded dogmas and crude spec-
ulations of human theorizers. If in this there would be no
fair argument, as I concede, — if it would be but begging
the question in debate, — why is the same style of argument
any better on the other side of the question 1
Dr. Hodge, an eminent leader of the Princeton divines,
in view of the same alleged facts, at first assumes a ground
of defence on the principles of justice. It would not be
just, he tells us, to condemn men without a probation, either
personally or in Adam. But a fair probation they have
had. But even he must come at last to the same issue.
His account of the matter is this : God's proceedings can
be justified, because, before inflicting this tremendous evil,
the raoe had a probation, through Adam as a representative ;
10§ CONFLICT OF AGES.
and that, since he sinned in this character, all men forfeited
their original rights, and became obnoxious to penalty.
Hence, the evils that come on men through his offence are
not an arbitrary infliction, nor merely a natural consequence,
but the infliction of a penalty.
But let us look a little more closely through these words
at the real facts of the case, as held by Professor Hodge,
and see if any real relief is gained. When, then, this
penalty was originally denounced on them, had man trans-
gressed any law 7 None ; neither the law of Moses, nor
the law of nature. Was there in them any innate depravity,
on account of which they could be punished ] None at all.
The infliction of the penalty is antecedent to all these
things. What, then, is this penalty? It is the greatest
evil of which the mind of man can conceive. It is an
entire forfeiture of the favor of God. It is the doom of
comniencmg their existence out of fellowship with Him.
It is to be utterly deprived of those original influences of
the Spirit without which the mind cannot be developed in
the image of God, but becomes inevitably sinful and cor-
rupt, even before choice and action ; and all this is denounced
on all men before they have personally acted at all,
and yet " it is of all evils the essence and the sum." That
this is a fair statement of his views the following passage
will show. (Hodge on Romans, pp. 189, 190.)
After considering some supposable causes of the penal
evils that are asserted to come on the race through Adam,
he decidedly rejects them, and thus proceeds :
" No one of these causes, nor all combined, can account
for the infliction of all the penal evils to which men are
subjected. The great fact in the apostle's mind was, that
God regards and treats all men, from the first moment
of their existencCj as out of fellowshij) with himself
THE REACTION IRRESISTIBLE. 107
AS HAVING FORFEITED HIS FAVOR. Instead of entering
into communion with them the moment they begin to exist
(as he did with Adam), and forming them by his spirit in
his own moral image, he regards them as out of nis favor,
ana withholds the influences of the Spirit.
'' Why is this 1 Why does God thus deal with the human
race ? Here is a form of death which the violation of the
law of Moses, the transgression of the law of nature, the
existence of innate depravity, separately or combined,
are insufficient to account for. Its infliction is ajitecedent
to them all ; and yet it is of all evils the essence
AND THE SUM. Men begin to exist out of communion
with God. This is the fact which no sophistry can get out
of the Bible, or the history of the world. Paul tells us
why it is. It is because we fell in Adam ; it is for the
offence of one man that all thus die. The covenant being
formed with Adam, not only for himself, but also for his
posterity, — in other words, Adam having been placed on
trial not for himself only, but also for his race, — his act
was, in virtue of this relation, regarded as our act.
God withdrew from us, as he did from him ; in consequence
of this withdrawal we begin to exist in moral darkness,
destitute of a disposition to delight in God, and prone to
delight in ourselves and the world. The sin of Adam,
therefore, ruined us ; it was the ground of the withdrawing
of the divine favor from the whole race ; and the inter-
vention of the Son of God for our salvation is an act of
pure, sovereign and wonderful grace." And again : •' The
infliction of a penalty supposes the violation of law. But
such evil was inflicted before the giving of the Mosaic law ;
it comes on men before the transgression of the law of
nature, or even the existence of inherent depravity. It
108 CONFLICT OF AGES.
must, therefore, be for tlie oiFence of one man tliat judgmens
has come upon all men to condemnation."
Now, it will be observed, that the whole of this attempted
vindication of God in inflicting such a penalty turns simply
and only upon the assumed fact that " He regarded as
our act^'' the act of Adam, — ^an act which it is at the
same time conceded icas not our act. It is conceded that
we had not sinned in any sense ; w^e had not violated the
law of Moses, nor of nature, nor of Paradise, and there
was in us no innate depravity. Nay, we did not even exist.
Yet before our existence the penalty on us was denounced,
and before any action of ours it is inflicted, — a penalty
which "is of all evils the essence and the sum," and
inflicted solely on the ground that God regarded as ours an
act which was confessedly not ours.
The question by such a defence is merely shifted ; but it
returns with augmented force. On what principles of
honor or of right is God to be justified in regarding as ours
an act which was not ours, and on such a ground inflict-
ing on us the greatest of all conceivable evils ? Is not the
imputation in question an additional act of injustice, instead
of a just ground of inflicting a penalty so severe?
On this point Prof Hodge has thrown no light. No
light can be thrown upon it. So long as he holds such
views, he must at last — as in fact he does — come to the
ground of mystery and faith taken by Dr. Woods. That
venerable father, conceding, as he does, that such facts are
against our natural intuitions of honor and right, is
obliged to say, "Here our wisdom fails. We apply in
vain to human reason and human consciousness for an
answer. We are perplexed and confounded, and find no
resting-place until we seize the sublime truth, that ' God's
ways are not our ways, nor his thoughts our thoughts,' and
THE REACTION IRRESISTIBLE. 109
that all his acts and all liis appointments are right." Prof.
Hodge must, and does at last, join Dr. Woods in thus
rejecting the testimony of our intuitive convictions of honor
and right, and in retreating beneath the shelter of mystery
and faith.
With reference to these dealings of God "with our race,
he distinctly says that they cannot be •' explained on the
common-sense principles of moral government. The system
which Paul taught was not a system of common sense,
but of profound and awful mystery." (^Prhi. Rev., April,
1851, p. 818.)
Still, there are certain things from which they both
shrink ; and, in so doing, they, in at least one particular,
admit the authority of these same natural intuitions, which
they have just rejected. Dr. Woods regards as unauthor-
ized and appalling the position that infant children, who
are not guilty of any actual sin, either outwardly or
inwardly, will be doomed to misery in the world to come,
merely for sinful propensity, — forgetting that elsewhere he
had declared it to be the very essence of all depravity.
Dr. Hodge also repudiates the doctrine " that eternal
misery is inflicted on any man for the sin of Adam,
irrespective of inherent depravity or actual transgression."
But why should even these views be repudiated, or regarded
as appalling 7
Have they not been taught and defended by the same
plea of faith and mystery to which Dr. Woods and Dr.
Hodge resort, in opposition to the most obvious principles
of equity and honor ? We shall soon see that they have
been. Why, then, do they repudiate them, or regard them
a,s appalling ?
Is it not merely because they are at war with those
intuitive principles of honor and of right which God has
10
110 CONFLICT OF AGES.
made the mind to form? But are not the other facts,
defended hy both, as really against those principles ? Dr.
Woods concedes that they are "contrary to the dictates of
our minds " (vol. it. p. 315), but attempts to weaken the
force of the concession by calling them ^^ fallible minds."
But if our intuitive decisions are fallible in one case, why
not in another 1 It certainly is an intuitive perception of
the human mind — if there is any — that to regard that as
our act which is not our act, and, on this ground, to inflict
on us, before knowledge or action of any sort, a penalty
which "is of all evils the essence and the sum," is as
much at war with the principles of honor and of right as
any act whatever can be. Therefore, if this intuition is
delusive, what ground is there for trusting any other ']
True, it seems to us appalling and unjust in the highest
degree to sentence a human being to eternal misery who
has never acted at all, whether it be done on the ground
of a propensity of which he is not the author, or an act
which he never performed. But our intuitions of right are
no more clear against such acts as those which Dr. Woods
and Dr. Hodge condemn, than they are against those which
they justify in God. If they are fallible in one case, why
not in the other 7
After all, the course of Abelard, Pascal and others, was
the only thoroughly consistent course. They boldly took
the ground that God did condemn innocent beings to end-
less misery for Adam's sin, and that on this subject our
ideas of honor and right are not to be trusted, because not
common to us and to God.
Listen to Pascal : " What can be more contrary to the
rules of ow^ wretched Justice than to damn eternally an
infant, incapable of volition, for an offence in which he
seems to have had no share, and which was committed six
THE REACTION IRRESISTIBLE. Ill
thousand years before he was born? Certainly nothing
shocks us more rudely than this doctrine : and yet, without
this mystery, — the most incomprehensible of all, — we are
incomprehensible to ourselves." Yes. He reverently
believed the tremendous fact alleged, and thousands of
others have done the same, — on the ground that, though at
war with our necessary and intuitive convictions of justice,
still those convictions are '' wretched," and not worthy of
confidence. " Such, indeed," said they, " are oi/r views
of justice, but they are not the views of God."
Listen next to Abelard : " Would it not be deemed the
summit of injustice among men, if any one should cast an
innocent son, for the sin of a father, into those flames, even
if they endured but a short time ? How much more so, if
eternal 7 Truly, I confess this would be unjust in men,
because they are forbidden to avenge even their own real
injuries. But it is not so in God, who says, ' Vengeance
is mine, I will repay ; ' and again, in another place, ' I will
kill, and I will make alive.' For God commits no injustice
towards his creature in whatever way he treats him, —
whether he assigns him to punishment or to life. ^ ^
In whatever way God may wish to treat his creature, he
can be accused of no injustice ; nor can anything be called
evil in any way, if it is done according to his will. Nor
can we, in any other way, distinguish good from evil,
except by noticing what is agreeable to his will." (Opera,
Paris, 1616, p. 395.) So, then, Abelard deemed it just
in God to cast an ^^ innocent^' child into eternal flames
for the sin of Adam ; and that, in whatever way God should
treat any of his creatures, it would be just.
Is not this a distinct avowal of the doctrine so sublimely
repudiated by Abraham, the friend of God, when he
appealed to the eternal principles of right, as conceived of
112 CONFLICT OF AGES.
by the human mind, as bindmg God also? " That be far
from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous
with the wicked ; and that the righteous should be as the
wicked, that be far from thee. Shall not the Judge of all
the earth do ris^ht? " And did not God sanction this
appeal ?
But, at all events, Abelard was consistent. Entangled
in the Romish system, from which he could not fully extri-
cate himself, he ascribed to God acts at war with the intui-
tive moral convictions of the human mind ; and what else
could he do, except to say that, however such acts might
seem to man, they appeared right to God, since in his idea
and in reality right consisted simply in following his own
will. Thus did Abelard virtually reject our ideas of right,
as false and unworthy of confidence.
But, on this ground, there is no standard by which the
creatures of God can judge of his character ; and it would be
absurd to ask. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do
right? for certainly he will always do what he in fact wills
to do, and this, according to Abelard, is the standard of
right. Just as if there were no essential difference between
benevolence and malevolence, between a purpose to produce
a happy universe and a purpose to produce a miserable one !
Just as if God could make it right to treat the innocent and
the guilty as if there were no difference in their character ;
or to make a law, and then punish with eternal misery all
who obey, and reward all Avho break it ; or to hate all who
love and honor him, and to love all who hate and dishonor
him ! But enough. Nothing but the supposed necessity
of defending acts of gross injustice falsely ascribed to God
could ever have driven a man like Abelard — one of the
most independent thinkers of his age — upon ground so
truly appalling.
THE REACTION IRRESISTIBLE. 113
And yet, even Dr. Chalmers, at this late day, has taken
a similar ground. He adopts it ''as the truth of the case
that an individual is justly culpable for an iniquitous deed,
done, not by himself, but by another, who lived nearly six
thousand years ago." And yet he admits that " his own
moral sense is altogether unable to apprehend it." This
is not all. His moral sense is altogether against it.
In principle, however, Dr. Woods, Dr. Hodge, Pascal,
Abelard and Dr. Chalmers, all «tand on the same ground.
In order to defend certain alleged acts of God, which are at
war with the intuitive convictions of the human mind as to
honor and right, they all reject — though not all to the
same extent — the authority of those convictions, and call
the application of them to those acts an improper rational-
izing.
Now, in reply to this charge of improper rationalizing, it
is enough to say that, as has been abundantly shown, it is
a doctrine of the word of God, revealed as plainly as the
doctrine of depravity, that such intuitive convictions of the
human mind are, in fact, a revelation, and a law of God
himself ; and that their authority is supreme, and that God
adopts them as the jule of his own conduct, and admits that
he is bound by them, and declares that he always observes
them, and is ready to have all his acts tested by them.
Therefore, in denying that he has done such acts as these
divines ascribe to him, we not only stand on scripture
ground, but, still more, we obey an explicit requisition of
God, and do him the highest honor.
The intuitive convictions of the minds of created beings,
as to honor and dishonor, right and wrong, are the most
important in the universe. They are the voice of God him-
self in the soul. On them all just views of God depend.
On them, as a basis, his universal and eternal government
10^
114 CONFLICT OP AGES.
must ever rest. Shake them, and you shake the very
foundations of his kingdom ; for righteousness and judgment
are the habitation of his throne.
Moreover, so long as any one clearly sees what he regards
as acts of God to be at war with these fundamental princi-
ples of equity and honor, genuine, honest and honorable
conviction of sin, confession and repentance, are impossible.
To thinking minds in this state it is of no avail to resort, by
a familiar analogy, to the case of a man who has fallen into
the ocean, and to whom a rope is thrown. In vain are they
told that he will not waste his time in speculating whether
he was thrown overboard honorably, or dishonorably, or acci-
dentally, but will at once lay hold of the rope, that he may
be saved. To those who speak thus they will say, " You do
not reflect that a spirit cannot lay hold of the rope of salva-
tion without repentance, and that true repentance implies a
sincere confession that the conduct of God has been honor-
able and right, and that of the sinner dishonorable and
wrong ; and this is the very point on which we have diffi-
culties which we long to remove, in order that we may con-
fess sincerely and honorably, and not hypocritically, and
under the influence of selfish fear."
The only practical course, so long as these views are
retained, is to suppress or prevent, if possible, such an
action of the moral nature. Within certain limits, this is
possible. The influence of early education, and a reverence
for sacred things, may keep the minds of many at rest. If
objections are raised, the consideration of them may be
declined, on the ground that the system of Christianity " is
not a system of common sense, but of profound and awful
mystery," and that it is not to be tried before the bar of
reason. They can be taught to withdraw their minds from
all such questions, and fix them on the facts as developed in
THB REACTION IRRESISTIBLE. 115
experience and in the scripture, and to aim at practical
results. As the system in question now stands, this is
clearly the wisest course for its advocates. For, so far as
the minds of men can be called away from such points, and
fixed on the legitimate evidences of their guilt and ruin,
many will he alarmed, and brought to seek salvation in
Christ. And, to a very considerable extent, by organiza-
tion, and the pressure of denominational public sentiment
on the mind from childhood, this can be done.
Nevertheless, since these facts are within the proper
province of the mind, a universal and permanent suppres-
sion of the action of the instinctive convictions of the human
race as to honor and right is not possible, and, if it were,
it is not in accordance with the purposes of God that it
should be effected. He has done nothing at war with those
principles of honor and right that he has implanted in the
human mind ; and, therefore, he does not fear to have his
system judged by them. Nay, there is reason to believe
that he has allowed these principles to be embodied as at
present they are in the Unitarian body with a view to this
result.
CHAPTER VI.
THE SECOND EXPERIENCE, OR THE PHILOS-
OPHY OF UNITARIAN THEOLOGY.
We come, next, to the development of the second of those
experiences of which I have spoken, as originating from the
influence upon the human mind of the conflict of the great
moving powers of Christianity. It is an entire recoil from
Old School theology to the other extreme. It is an expe-
rience in Avhich a feeling sense of the truth and importance
of the great principles of honor and right, in their relations
to God, so far gains the ascendency as to lead to the entire
rejection of the radical facts which have been stated con-
cerning human depravity and the ruined condition of man.
This experience has found a more consistent and complete
development among the Unitarians of New England than
ever before ; for, in the case of such as Pelagius, Socinus,
and Dr. J. Taylor, it existed, as will hereafter appear, in
connection with a greater or less number of inconsistent
truths, but here its influence has extended logically through
the whole system.
It is obvious that the orthodox views of the doctrines of
regeneration, the atonement, the Trinity, and other parts
of their system, naturally correspond with their views of
human depravity. The great end of their system is to
restore man from the state of sin and ruin into which he has
fallen. Of course, a renunciation of their views as to that
THE SECOND EXPERIENCE. 117
Btate of sin and ruin naturally leads to an effort at a self-
consistent readjustment of the whole system. Nowhere has
this effort been more consistently and thoroughly carried out
than in New England.
When we consider the original character of the Puritan
fathers of New England, and their strong attachment to the
faith of the Reformers, it may seem surprising that a defec-
tion from their principles so extensive, and including a body
of men of so much intellectual power, should have occurred
as it has in the very heart of New England.
With some, a ready and familiar solution of the fact is,
to refer it to the depravity of the human heart, and its
aversion to the humbling truths of the gospel. But,
although I am as fully assured as any one can be of the
deep depravity and deceitfulness of the human heart, I can-
not believe that this solution can furnish a full, adequate and
truly philosophical account of the matter. I do not believe
that this great mental movement and revolution will ever
be properly understood, until it is seen and conceded that
the influence of an important part of the truth of God was
one of the most powerful causes which was concerned in
producing it. I refer to that part which I have already
developed in the statement which I have made of the prin-
ciples of equity and of honor, in the dealings of God with
new-created minds.
The reality and truth of those principles, it will be remem-
bered, has been in all ages fully conceded, or, rather, asserted
by the orthodox ; and the only ground of justifying God, in
not applying them to men in this world, was the allegation
that he imputed to them the sin of Adam, and regarded them
as having thus forfeited all their rights. The invalidity of
this justification I have already set forth. Is it to be won-
dered at that the free and powerful minds of New England
118 CONFLICT OF AGES.
could not always be held by such views, or that they should
at last recoil from the whole system which was made to rest
upon them 7 Even before the full and open development
of Unitarianism, many of the strongest and most thinking
minds were reacting against the system which this view
presented to them. They could not but regard it as dark,
dreadful and unjust. The case of John Adams — after-
wards President of the United States — is a striking illus-
tration of the truth of these remarks.
After leaving college it was his original design, as we
learn from his diary, to prepare for the life of a clergyman ;
but doctrinal difficulties prevented. Under date of August
22, 1756, he thus writes, — being at that time engaged in
teaching a school in Worcester, and having just decided to
commence the study of the law :
" 22, Sunday. — My inclination, I think, was to preach ;
however, that would not do." * "The reason of my
quitting divinity was my opinion concerning some disputed
points." He was at this time a young man, having only
completed his twentieth year. By consulting the record of
the preceding Sabbath, we can look deeply into his heart,
and see how he was affected by one of these '' disputed
points," — the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin.
Though but a youth, he writes with strong common sense,
and with the clearness and force that distinguished his
maturer years :
'' If one man or being, out of pure generosity and without
any expectation of returns, is about to confer any favor or
emolument upon another, he has a right and is at liberty
to choose in what manner and by what means to confer it.
He may confer the favor by his own hand, or by the hand
of his servant ; and the obligation to gratitude is equally
strong upon the benefited being. The mode of bestowing
THE SECOND EXPERIENCE. 119
does not diminish the kindness, provided the commodity or
good is brought to us equally perfect, and without our
expense. But, on the other hand, if one being is the
original cause of pain, sorrow or suffering, to another,
voluntarily, and without provocation, it is injurious to that
other, whatever means he might employ, and whatever cir-
cumstances the conveyance of the injury might be attended
with. Thus, we are equally obliged to the supreme Being
for the information he has given us of our duty, whether by
the constitution of our minds and bodies, or by a supernat-
ural revelation. For an instance of the latter, let us take
original sin. Some say that Adam's sin was enough to
damn the whole human race, without any actual crimes
committed by any of them. Now, this guilt is brought
upon them not by their own rashness and indiscretion, not
by their own wickedness and vice, but by the supreme
Being. This guilt brought upon us is a real injury and
misfortune, because it renders us worse than not to be ; and,
therefore, making us guilty on account of Adam's delega-
tion, or representing all of us, is not in the least diminish-
ing the injury and injustice, but only changing the mode of
conveyance."
Judge Story, too, that great luminary of American juris-
prudence, though educated in the Calvinistic faith, before
he finished his college life turned from that system, — under
the influences of similar causes, — and, with his class-mate,
the world-renowned Channing, became the earnest advocate
of an opposing system.
If the principles of honor and of right which I have stated
are true, then, however much we may regret the results
to which these and other eminent men came, it is both dis-
ingenuous and uncandid to deny that, so far as they followed
them, they w^re actuated by noble and sublime principles.
120 CONFLICT OF AGES.
I am aware that, in view of the results to which they
came, it has happened that, by a natural association, any
application of the principles themselves, in these relations,
is very often regarded with a kind of fear and distrust.
Whenever any one begins to speak of forming a judgment
on the doctrine of imputation and human depravity by
referring to the principles of honor and right as they apply
to God, fears are entertained, at once, of the worst results.
They are warned of the danger of such speculations, and
of our incapacity to judge of the divine dispensations, and
of the necessity of confiding in the statements of God.
These cautions, together with education and Christian
consciousness, are sufficient to restrain many minds. But
many are so deeply aifected by a conviction of the truth
and importance of the principles in question, and are so
much agitated by the seeming conflict of the common views
of depravity with them, that they cannot rest. The char-
acter of God is the sun of the moral world. To them
these views seem fatally to darken it, and to fill the
universe with gloom. This they cannot endure. At
length, after many painful struggles, they first reject the
facts concerning human depravity and ruin, from which
such results seem to flow ; and, finally, the whole system
which gi'ows out of them. Such appears to have been the
case with Dr. Channing, who, at first, was taught to believe
and seemed to hold the usual doctrine of human depravity.
Step by step he proceeded, till he had renounced not merely
human depravity, but the other doctrines connected with it,
including that of evil spirits. But, even in those who thus
reject the whole system, there is no point on which they feel
BO deeply as on the conflict of the common doctrine of
depravity with the principles of honor and right in the
divine Being. Their attention has been turned strongly and
THE SECOND EXPERIENCE. 121
predominantly to these principles. Their deepest experi-
ence has arisen from a contemplation of them, and from an
earnest desire and firm purpose to repudiate all alleged
facts that represent the supreme Ruler of the universe as
dishonorable and unjust.
Almost the entire force of the argument of Dr. Ware
against Dr. Woods depends upon his appeal to the moral
attributes of God as inconsistent with the Calvinistic doc-
trine of imputation, original sin, and total depravity.
Moreover, the strength of the feelings of Unitarians
against the doctrine of the Trinity seems to be chiefly owing
to its connection with the orthodox doctrine of depravity.
Accordingly, Dr. Channing says, "We find Trinitarianism
connecting itself with a scheme of administration exceed-
ingly derogatory to the divine character. It teaches that
the infinite Father saw fit to put into the hands of our first
parents the character and condition of their whole progeny ;
and that through one act of disobedience the whole race
bring with them into being a corrupt nature, or are born
depraved. It teaches that the ofiences of a short life,
though begun and spent under this disastrous influence,
merit endless punishment; and that God's law threatens this
infinite penalty ; and that man is thus burdened with a guilt
which no sufierings of the created universe can expiate,
which nothing but the sufierings of an infinite being can
purge away. In this condition of human nature Trin-
itarianisni finds a sj^hei'e of action for its different
j)ersonsy
Notice, now, the depth of emotion which is caused by the
conviction that for God to deal thus with his creatures is
dishonorable and unjust. He proceeds to say, of such
views, that they look upon them with " horror and grief."
" They take from us our Father in heaven, and substitute a
11
122 CONFLICT OF AGES.
stem and unjust Lord. Our filial love and reverence r:se
up against them. We saj to the Trinitarian, touch any-
thing but the perfections of God. Cast no stain on thai
spotless purity and loveliness. We can endure any errors
but those which subvert or unsettle the conviction of God's
paternal goodness. Urge not upon us a system which
makes existence a curse, and wraps the universe in gloom. ^'
Let no one suppose that there is any affectation of feeling
here. It is a true and genuine experience of a mind highly
endowed with the noblest sensibilities of our nature.
Beyond all doubt, his feelings were sincere, honorable and
deep.
Nor were these words the sudden result of oratorical
excitement and enthusiasm, although a part of that elo-
quent discourse which fully opened the great controversy.
We find the same views in a private letter, dated Boston,
December 29, 1812 :
" I have spent this evening with our dear , and she
put into my hands your letter on the subject of religion, to
which you referred in the last which I received from you.
I read it with sorrow. I saw that your mind was yielding
to impressions which I trusted you would repel with instinct-
ive horror. I know that Calvinism is embraced by many
excellent people, but I know that on some minds it has the
most mournful effects ; that it spreads over them an impene-
trable gloom, that it generates a spirit of bondage and fear,
that it chills the best affections, that it represses virtuous
effort, that it sometimes shakes the throne of reason. On
susceptible minds the influence of the system is always to
be dreaded. If it be believed, I think there is ground for
a despondence bordering on insanity. If I, and my beloved
friends, and my whole race, have come from the hands of
our Creator wholly depraved, irresistibly prepense to all
THE SECOND EXPERIENCE. 123
evil, and averse to all good, — if only a portion are chosen
to escape from this miserable state, and if the rest are to be
consigned by the Being who gave us our depraved and
wretched nature to endless torments in inextinguishable
flames, — then I do think that nothing remains but to mourn
in anguish of heart ; then existence is a curse, and the
Creator is
"0, my merciful Father ! I cannot speak of thee in the
language which this system would suggest. No ! thou hast
been too kind to me to deserve this reproach from my lips.
Thou hast created me to be happy ; thou call est me to
virtue and piety, because in these consists my felicity ; and
thou wilt demand nothing from me but what thou givest
me ability to perform." (Channing's Memoirs, vol. I. p.
353.)
It is true that the Reformers do not teach that God
directly creates in man a sinful nature ; but they do teach
that, on account of the sin of Adam, he creates the soul
without original righteousness, withholds from it divine
influences, places it in a body and in a world of temptation,
so that it inevitably becomes corrupt before action, and,
being prepense to all evil, and averse to all good, is developed
in nothing but absolute and entire depravity. Do not
such doctrines as these fully justify the feelings of Dr.
Channing 7
The principles of Turretin, of "Watts, of "Wesley, of the
Princeton divines, of the Presbyterian church, and of the
Reformers, as to the claims of new-created minds on God.
will abundantly justify such feelings, unless God can be
released from those claims by imputing to men a sin which
was committed by another long before they were created ;
and shall we wonder that Channing was not satisfied or
relieved by such a defence 7 Plainly, then, the system had
124 CONFLICT OF AGES.
been so adjusted as to bring into collision the real facts as
to human depravity, and the principles of honor and right ;
and he clung to the principles, and, seeing no way to recon-
cile them with the facts, he rejected the facts.
This was, indeed, a calamitous result, but it sprung from
the action of some of the noblest principles of our nature.
Nor on the great scale will it be in vain. The existence of
the Unitarian body is a providential protest in favor of the
great principles of honor and of right.
It was not the purpose of Dr. Channing to color or ex-
aggerate the opinions of Trinitarians in the representation
which we have quoted, nor, in my judgment, has he done
it. The statements of the creeds of the Reformation are
stronger and more deeply colored than his. In another
place he refers to the fact that later representations are
somewhat softened ; but he is not even so satisfied with
them.
" This system, indeed, (he remarks) takes various shapes,
but in all it casts dishonor on the Creator. According
to its old and genuine form, it teaches that God brings
us into life wholly depraved, so that under the innocent
features of childhood is hidden a nature averse to all good,
and propense to all evil — a nature which exposes us to
God's displeasure and wrath, even before we have acquired
power to understand our duties, or to reflect upon our
actions. According to a more modern exposition, it teaches
that we came from the hands of our Maker with such a con-
stitution, and are placed under such influences and circum-
stances, as to render certain and infallible the total depravity
of every human being from the first moment of his moral
agency ; and it also teaches that the ofience of the child
who brings into life this ceaseless tendency to unmingled
erime exposes him to the sentence of everlasting damna-
THE SECOND EXPERIENCE. 125
tion. Now, according to the plainest principles of morality,
we maintain th?.t a natural constitution of 'the mind un-
failingly dispos'ng it to evil, and to evil alone, would absolve
it from guilt ; that to give existence under this condition
would argue unspeakable cruelty ; and that to punish the
sin of this unhappily constituted child with endless ruin
would be a wrong unparalleled by the most merciless
despotism." (i. 543.)
This statement, too, is fully justified by all the orthodox
authorities to whom I have referred, unless God can be
absolved from the claims of honor and right, by imputing to
millions of new-created minds a sin which they never com-
mitted, and then inflicting on them, by way of punishment,
a corrupted moral constitution, certain to plunge them into
sin and misery.
• It is apparent that the force of these statements of Dr.
Channing depends upon the assumption of our power and
duty to test any alleged facts by the intuitive principles of
honor and right, and that these principles are invested by
God with just and supreme authority. But, not to leave an
assumption so fundamental unsustained, in his piece entitled
"Moral argument against Calvinism," he formally inves-
tigates the subject. The statement of Calvinism which he
there gives is taken substantially from the Westminster
divines, and is not exaggerated.
" Calvinism teaches that, in consequence of Adam's sin,
in eating the forbidden fruit, God brings into life all his
posterity with a nature wholly corrupt, so that they are
utterly indisposed, disabled and made opposite to all that is
spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that
continually. It teaches that all mankind, having fallen in
Adam, are under God's wrath and curse, and so made liable
to all miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the pains of
11*
126 CONFLICT OF AGES.
hell forever." In the light of this doctrine he presents,
also, both here and elsewhere, the related doctrines of pre-
destination, election, reprobation, and endless punishment.
Against this doctrine, in such relations, he arrays the argu-
ment ''that a doctrine which contradicts our best ideas of
goodness and justice cannot come from the just and good
God, or be a true representation of his character."
In reply to the allegation that our capacities are limited,
and we, therefore, incompetent to judge, he admits the
limitations of the human mind, but denies that on this
account we are to distrust or call in question those moral
intuitions which God created it necessarily to form. To
confide in these, he asserts, is to confide in God, not to dis-
honor Him. We cannot reason, if we distrust our primitive
and necessary laws of belief Nor can w^e judge in morals,
if we distrust our necessary moral intuitions. Herein he
exactly agrees with Dr. Alexander. He proceeds to say
that there is indeed much that we do not now know, and
shall know hereafter. Nevertheless, "no extent of obser-
vation can unsettle those primary and fundamental prin-
ciples of moral truth which we derive from our highest
faculties operating in the relations in which God has fixed
us."
" God, in giving us conscience, has implanted a principle
within us which forbids us to prostrate ourselves before mere
power, or to ofier praise where we do not discover worth.
— a principle which challenges our supreme homage for
supreme goodness, and which absolves us from guilt when
w^e abhor a severe and unjust administration. Our Creator
has consequently waived his own claims to our veneration
and obedience any further than he discovers himself to us
in characters of benevolence, equity, and righteousness.
He rests his authority on the perfect coincidence of his will
THE SECOND EXPERIENCE. 127
and government with those great fundamental principles of
morality written in our souls."
This conclusive argument is conducted with great elo-
quence and ability on the ground of natural reason, without
reference to the Scriptures. The result of it, as applied to
Christianity, is thus stated : " We know that this reasoning
will be met by the question, What, then, becomes of
Christianity ? for this religion plainly teaches the doctrines
you have condemned. Our answer is ready, — Christianity
contains no such doctrines."
Thus, then, the principles of honor and right have
formed around themselves a party, and, being carried logic-
ally out to their full results, have destroyed all belief of
any radical view of the facts in which the ruin of man
consists.
Let no man despise this argument, or think fairly to
meet it by alleging that human pride, or carnal reason, or
hatred to the truth, is its moving power. It is not so. Its
moving power is to be found in those great principles of
honor and right which are a part of that natural law of
God which he has inscribed on the soul of man, and which
is rightfully invested with his own supreme authority.
Moreover, as an argument it is adapted to operate with im-
mense power on a rational mind ; and, unless some different
adjustment of the system can be made, it is unanswerable,
and logically fatal to the scheme ; nor will it ever be pos-
sible to prevent a large class of minds from feeling its power
and yielding to its influence. It has in it a principle of
vitality which cannot be destroyed. Unless it is recognized,
and the system so stated as to harmonize with it, it will
surely cause eternal conflict and division. The radical doc-
trine of depravity will still live ; for it is true, and cannot
die. But it is impossible that the human mind, especially
128 CONFLICT or AGES.
after it has been so educated and elevated as to feel the
generous and honorable spii-it of Christianity, should not
respond to such an appeal.
How, then, has this argument been met? Attempts
have been made to meet it in two ways. Some retain the
facts unmodified, and resort to faith and mystery. Oihers
modify the statement of facts, in order to remove the
alleged discord between them and the principles of honor
and right. I shall consider these modifications in a sub-
sequent experience giving rise to the New School theology.
At present it is sufficient to consider the course of those
who do not attempt to modify the facts. As we have seen,
they concede that their equity and honor cannot be shown,
according to any known principles of the human mind.
Accordingly, they take refuge in faith and mystery. They
deprecate all attempts to compare the facts in question with
the principles of honor and right, as a kind of sceptical
rationalism. They deny that we have any right to suijject
these doctrines to the scrutiny of reason. They declare
that such a process is sacrilegious, and leads to Pelagianism,
Unitarianism, and Infidelity. Indeed, the ground assumed
often painfully recalls to our memory the sneer of Hume,
that the friends of Christianity are very indiscreet in ex-
posing it to the scrutiny of reason, a test which it is by no
means able to endure. We know, indeed, that there are
facts which are to be taken solely on divine authority. But
if any statement, designed as the basis of conviction of
sin and repentance, is palpably at war with natural right, it is
not merely profitless to resort to the plea of mystery and faith,
but, for many minds, it is dangerous. When they hear
that God regards as ours an act which was confessedly not
ours, and punishes u3 for it by a penalty great beyond con-
ception, rejecting us from his fellowship, and giving us a
THE SECOND EXPERIENCE. 129
nature depraved before knowledge or choice, they find no
relief in the statement of Professor Hodge, that Christian-
ity is " not a system of common sense, but of profound and
awful mystery." After Dr. Woods has conceded that such
facts are contrary to the moral convictions of our minds,
and cannot be justified on any known principles, it is no
relief to be told that the whole subject is a mystery, and
that it is our duty to believe that all is right from a regard
to the veracity and rectitude of God. There are limits to
the duty of faith in alleged mysteries. If there were not,
there could be no defence against absurdities the most gross,
promulgated under the cover of the Bible. The advocates
of Transubstantiation take refuge behind the shield of mys-
tery; but all Protestants agree in the decision that a dogma
which does violence to the intuitive convictions of the
human mind, through the senses, shall not be sheltered by
the plea of mystery and faith. So there are certain first
truths on which all reasoning rests. Without them we can-
not evince the being of a God, or establish the divine origin
or authority of the Bible. The intuitive convictions of
the human mind as to honor and right are of no less
authority. Without them we could form no idea of the
moral character of God. If any statements are directly at
war with these, the resort to mystery and faith in their
defence is not legitimate. That millions of non-existent
beings should be considered as performirg Adam's act,
and on this ground be punished for it, before they have
known or done anything, or that any created being should
deserve punishment for a nature existing in him anterior to
any knowledge, will, or act of his own, will ever and
universally be regarded as at war with the divinely inspired
principles of honor and right, by all who are left to their
natural and spontaneous convictions. The idea of an
130 CONFLICT OF AGES.
original constitution corrupted, and sure to result in sin,
will no less earnestly be rejected. Nothing but a sup-
posed necessity of the sternest kind will ever lead any one
to disregard such first truths, and to take refuge under
mystery.
CHAPTER VII.
THE REACTION. — TESTIMONY OP DR. CHANNINQ
AND OTHERS. — OBVIOUS FACTS.
Such are the elements of strength in this scheme of doc-
trine ; and, certainly, as the system is now adjusted, they
are irresistible in a logical encounter with the opposing
position. Why, then, does not this scheme prevail, and
carry with it the whole Christian community? That it
does not do this, that it never has done it, is plain. Why
is it so ?
The reason is one similar to that mentioned in the case of
Old School theology; it is. that it meets everywhere a
powerful reaction. This reaction arises from facts, from
Scripture, and from Christian consciousness.
The reaction of facts is clear and decided. Recall the
statements made by leading Unitarian divines as to the sin-
fulness of man and the history of this world. What can be
more^dark than the views given by Professor Norton 7 Dr.
Dewey confesses that the extent of human depravity " is a
problem that he cannot solve, and that there are shadows
upon the world that we cannot penetrate, — masses of sin and
misery that overwhelm us with wonder and awe." Let any
man study the interior history of governments in all ages ;
of war, of slavery and the slave-trade ; of idolatry ; of all
pursuits in which the main-spring has been the love of
money ; of morals, not only in the pagan, but also in the
132 CONFLICT OF AGES.
Christian world ; of sensualism and licentiousness. — and he
will be obliged to say, with Dr. Dewey, " We believe that
the world now, taken in the mass, is a very, a very bad
world ; that the sinfulness of the world is dreadful and hor-
rible to consider ; that the nations ought to be covered with
sackcloth and mourning for it ; that they are filled with
misery by it. Why, can any man look abroad upon the
countless miseries inflicted by selfishness, dishonesty, slan-
der, strife, war ; upon the boundless woes of intemperance,
libertinism, gambling, crime ; — can any man look upon all
this, with the thousand minor diversities and shadings of
guilt and guilty sorrow, and feel that he could write any
less dreadful sentence against the world than Paul has writ-
ten? Not believe in human depravity, — great, general,
dreadful depravity ! Why, a man must be a fool, nay, a
stock or a stone, not to believe in it ! He has no eyes, he
has no senses, he has no perceptions, if he refuses to believe
in it ! "
Moreover, we find in the recorded experience of Dr.
Channing himself that, with all his efforts to infuse into
men elevated and honorable convictions of their own nature,
and to arouse them to correspondent action, he found a
general, steady and powerful indisposition to respond to the
appeal.
Under the date of November, 1833, he has given us an
interesting discussion of the spirit of society in this world.
He develops truly and eloquently the great law. of love to
God and to man, and then thus proceeds :
"Need I ask you whether a love thus grounded and
nourished is the spirit of society 7 Is it the habit of society
to meditate on the grei^t purposes for which each human
being was framed? Has society yet learned man's relation
to God, his powers, his perils, his immortahty ? Are theso
THE REACTION. 133
the thoughts which circulate in conversation, these the con-
victions which are brought home to you in your ordinary
intercourse ? Need I tell you how blind the multitude yet
are to what is nearest them and concerns them most deeply,
to their own nature, — how they overlook the spiritual in
man, — how they stop at the outward and accidental, — how
few penetrate to the soul, and discern in that responsible,
immortal being, an object for unbounded solicitude and
love ? The multitude are living an outward life, discerning
little but what meets the eye, valuing little but what can be
weighed or measured by the senses, estimating one another
by outward success, conflicting or cooperating with one
another for outward interests. The consciousness of what
is inward, and spiritual, and immortal, — how faintly does it
stir in the multitude ! Man's solemn, infinite connections
with God and eternity are unacknowledged or forgotten ;
and so little are they comprehended, that, when urged on
the conscience as realities, as motives to action and as found-
ations of love, they are dismissed as too unsubstantial or
refined to exert a serious influence on life. Thus the spirit
of society is virtually hostile to those great truths in regard
to human nature on which Christian love is built, and with-
out which Ave cannot steadfastly and disinterestedly bind
ourselves to our race."
How far does this differ from the orthodox view of such
scriptural statements as these, that men, until regenerated,
are "without God in the world," and act under the influ-
ence of "the carnal mind, which is enmity against God,
because not subject to the law of God " ?
Again ; after unfolding the demands of the law, as to
universal, all-embracing love of man, independently of
wealth, social position, rank or birth, he thus proceeds :
" Thus universal, all-coTiprehending, is the love which
12
134 CONFLICT OF AGES.
springs from just views of man's nature and relation to God.
And is this the spirit of society ? Does society breathe and
nurture this, or does it inculcate narrowness, exclusiveness,
and indifference towards the great mass of mankind 1 Do
we see in the world a prevalent respect for what all human
beings partake ? On the contrary, do not men attach them-
selves to what is peculiar, to what distinguishes one man
from another, and especially to outward distinction ; and is
there not a tendency to overlook, as of little value, those
who in these respects are depressed ? Do they not worship
the accidents, adventitious, unessential circumstances, of the
human being, — birth, outward appearance, wealth, manner,
rank, show, — and ground on these a consciousness of a
superiority which divides them from others ? Can we say
of that distinction, which is alone important in the sight of
God, which is confined to no condition, which is to outlive
all the inequalities of life, and which, far from separating,
binds those who possess it more and more to their race, — I
mean moral and rehgious worth, — can we say of this, that
it is the object of general homage, before whose commanding
presence all lower differences among men are abased'? The
influence of outward condition in attracting or repelling
men's sympathies and interest is one of the most striking
features of modern society, and gives mournful proof of the
faint hold which Christianity has as yet gained over the
hearts and minds of men. * ^ * * Who can deny
that, on the whole, the spirit of society is adverse to this
enlarged, all-embracing spirit of Christ ? ^ * ^ ^- ^-
" Such is the spirit of society. Christianity teaches us
to feel ourselves members of the whole human family;
society, to make or keep ourselves members of some favored
caste. Christianity calls us to unite ourselves with others ;
society, to separate ourselves from them. Christianity
THE REACTION. 135
l.(x« ties us to raise others ; society, to rise above them.
Christianity calls us to narrow the space between ourselves
and our inferiors, by communicating to them, as we have
ability, what is most valuable in our own minds ; society
tells us to leave them to their degradation. Christianity
summons us to employ superior ability, if such we have, as
a means of wider and more beneficent action on the world ;
society suggests that these are a means of personal eleva-
tion. Christianity teaches us that what is peculiar in our
lot or our acquisitions is of little worth, in comparison with
what we possess in common with our race ; society teaches
us to cling to what is peculiar, as our highest honor and
most precious possession. Traternal union, sympathy, aid,
is the spirit of Christianity ; exclusiveness is the spirit of
the world. And this spirit is not confined to what is called
the highest class. It burns, perhaps, more intensely in
those who are seeking than in those who occupy the emi-
nences of social life. It is a disposition to undervalue those
who want what we possess, to narrow our sympathies to one
or another class, to forget the great bond of humanity.
This spirit of exclusiveness triumphs over the spirit of
Christianity, and, through its prevalence, the great work
given to every human being, which is to improve his less
favored fellow-being, is slighted. The sublime sphere of
usefulness is little occupied. A spirit of rivalry, jealousy,
envy, selfish competition, supplants the spirit of mutual
interest, the respect, support and aid, by which Christianity
proposes to knit mankind into a universal brotherhood.''''
If the essence and root of sin is selfishness, as opposed
to the law of love, does not this state of things seem to
justify the conclusion that men must have in them powerful
native tendencies to such deep depravity ? Is this like the
136 CONFLICT OF AGES.
action of a race whose original constitutions, as tliey enter
upon this life, are pure and uncorrupted ?
At first, he was full of hope as to the power of the Unita-
rian movement to renovate society. But the stern teach-
ings of experience at last taught him that even to the call
of that system there was not that readiness to respond that
ought to be expected from a race of men naturally tending
to all that is good and noble. In a letter to Blanco White,
dated Sept. 18, 1839, he says :
"I would that I could look to Unitarianism with more
hope. But this system was, at its recent revival, a protest
of the understanding against absurd dogmas, rather than
the work of deep religious principle, and was early para-
lyzed by the mixture of a material philosophy, and fell too
much into the hands of scholars and political reformers ; and
the consequence is a want of vitality and force, which gives
us little hope of its accomplishing much under its present
auspices, or in its present form. When I tell you that no
sect in this country has taken less interest in the slavery
question, or is more inclined to conservatism, than our body,
you will judge what may be expected from it. Whence is
salvation to come ? This is the question which springs up
in my mind continually. Is the world to receive new
impulse from individual reformers, or from new organiza-
tions ? Or is the work to go on by a more silent, unorgan-
ized action of thought and great principles in the mass ? Or
are great convulsions, breaking up the present order of
things, as in the fall of the Roman empire, needed to the
introduction of a reform worthy of the name ? Sometimes
I fear the last, so rooted seem the corruptions of the church
and society. But I live in hope of milder processes."
To me, the solution of all this seems to be clear ; — sin-
cere, earnest an^ indefatigable, as were the efforts of Dr.
THE REACTION. 137
Charming, the force of the radical and originating causes of
such wide-spread actual human depravity was deeper and
greater than his system would allow him to understand and
consistently to believe, and therefore it steadily defied and
resisted his most earnest and philanthropic eiforts.
He did not, indeed, despair ; but most of his hopes lay in
the uncertain future. Li the year 1839, in the preface to
the third Glasgow edition of his works, he thus sets forth
his hopes as a social reformer :
'' These volumes will show that the author feels strongly
the need of deep social changes, of a spiritual revolution in
Christendom, of a new bond between man and man, of a
new sense of the relation between man and his Creator. At
the same time, they will show his firm belief that our pres-
ent low civilization, the central idea of which is wealth,
cannot last forever ; that the mass of men are not doomed
hopelessly and irresistibly to the degradation of mind and
heart in which they are now sunk ; that a new comprehen-
sion of the end and dignity of a human being is to remodel
social institutions and manners ; that in Christianity, and
in the powers and principles of human nature, we have the
promise of something holier and happier than now exists.
It is a privilege to live in this faith, and a privilege to com-
municate it to others. The author is not without hope that
he may have strength for some more important labors ; but
if disappointed in this, he trusts that these writings, which
may survive him a little time, will testify to his sympathy
with his fellow-creatures, and to his faith in God's great
purposes towards the human race."
In another place he says, in the same year :
" I live as did Simeon, in the hope of seeing a brighter
day. I do see the gleams of dawn, and that ought to cheer
me. I hope nothing from increased zeal in urging an imper-
12*
138 CONFLICT OF AGES.
feet, decaying form of Christianity. One higher, clearer
view of religion rising on a single mind encourages me more
than the organization of millions to repeat what has been
repeated for ages with little effect. The individual here is
mightier than the world ; and I have the satisfaction of
seeing aspirations after this purer truth. ^ -^ ^ * ^'
I believe, — I trust, — that a better age of theological litera-
ture is dawning upon us. The human mind is beginning to
throw off the weight of authority which has crushed it for
ages ; and, although its first strength may be put forth in
vehement wrestling with errors, in the subtilties of contro-
versy, perhaps in rushing from one to another extreme, yet,
if left to the free use of its powers, and to the quickening
influences which God is pouring upon it through nature,
through events, through revelation, and through a more
secret and inward energy, it will at length arrive, in one
and another gifted individual, to that state of calm, intense
and deep medits-tion and feeling, from which all living and
life-giving works on morals and religion are to proceed.
One such work may be enough to give a new aspect to
theology, to introduce modes of viewing and studying it as
superior to those which now prevail as those are to the
antiquated scholastic subtilties and jargon which once bore
its name."
In the anticipations of such results, to be produced by
the power of truth and love, I am happy to sympathize with
this distinguished philanthropist. But, in my judgment,
the turning point of the whole revolution will be, so to
adjust the system that the highest and most perfect enunci-
ation of the principles of equity and honor in God shall not
hide or extenuate the reality or the depth of the depravity
and the moral ruin of man. When the depth of the moral
malady of the race is fully understood, and so set forth as
THE REACTION. 139
to imply no dishonor in God, then will that great revo-
lution be attained the hope of which Dr. Channing waa
never willing to abandon, but to which he still clung, in the
midst of the severest disappointments and the most gloomy
prospects.
But, at present, I am concerned simply with the facta
which a long course of philanthropic effort compelled Dr.
Channing reluctantly to admit.
In view of such facts, we ask, as before, is it possible that
a race of beings in whom there is no native and inherent
depravity, whose original constitutions are healthy and well
balanced, and in whom there are preponderating tendencies
to good, should for a long course of thousands of years have
presented such results as these ? It cannot be.
This view of the mournful facts of history and observa-
tion must naturally prepare the way for a more affecting
and impressive study of the word of God. In that are
found most vivid statements of the original, universal and
deep depravity of man, — a depravity so absolute that men
are said to be dead in trespasses and sins, and by nature the
children of wrath. This state of things is asserted to be as
universal and absolute as the need of the redemption of
Christ. " We thus judge," saith the apostle Paul, " that
if one died for all, tlien were all dead ; and that he died for
all that they who live should henceforth live not unto them-
selves, but unto him who died for them and rose again."
The universal necessity of a moral regeneration, or new
creation, is seen to result from these facts, and to be clearly
stated in the word of God.
These views are illustrated and confirmed by the state-
ment of the experience of the inspired writers, — an expe-
rience utterly unlike that of any other human writers,
140 CONFLICT OF AGES.
except such as have derived a similar experience from the
word of God.
In addition to this, it is a fact that multitudes in ever^?
age do become conscious, in their own experience, of a great
and radical moral change, which fully corresponds to these
statements of the word of God, in their most obvious sense
and deepest extent. They are made to see in the character
of God, and in his law, the true standard of holiness ; they
are deeply convinced of their own sinfulness and moral
impotence ; they become conscious of a great moral cha,nge,
corresponding in all respects to that set forth in the word
of God ; they now receive a new and spiritual understand-
ing of that sacred book ; the new creation therein revealed
towers upwards like a mountain towards heaven, radiant
with glory, full of new and enrapturing spiritual life.
Even one individual book, like the Epistle to the Ephesians,
seen and felt in its spiritual glory, is enough to satisfy the
soul of the divine, the supernatural origin of the word of
God. In it the new-born soul mounts up as on the wings
of an eagle, until it sits down with Christ in heavenly
places, amidst the glories of heaven.
Is it to be wondered at that causes so powerful as these
should cause a constant reaction against the results which
by a strict logic are made to flow from the principles of
honor and right by Unitarian divines? In evangelical
conviction of sin, and regeneration, there is a living power ;
and in the certainty which it gives of the deep meaning and
exact truth of the Bible on the subject of human depravity,
there is an energy of resistance to opposite doctrines which
nothing can overcome or destroy.
CHAPTER VIII
DEGRADATION OF FREE AGENCY ITSELF.
One result of the Unitarian views is altogether unde-
signed, and was little foreseen by the leaders of the system.
Indeed, it is not peculiar to their system, as we shall show
in considering some forms of the New School theology. It is
the virtual degradation of free agency itself, in their efforts
to elevate the existing nature of man. They assert that God
creates men from age to age with such moral constitutions
as the claims of equity and honor demand. But the his-
tory of this world, as they state it, contradicts the idea that
men are born holy, or with powerful and predominating
tendencies to good. Therefore they take the ground of Dr.
Ware : " Man is by nature — by which is to be understood
as he is born into the world, as he comes from the hands of
the Creator — innocent and pure ; he is by nature no more
inclined or disposed to vice than to virtue, and is equally
capable, in the ordinary use of his faculties, and with the
common assistance afforded him, of either." Thus, in order
to account for the actual sinfulness of man in this world,
Unitarians are compelled to abandon the highest standard
as to what is due from God to new-created minds. They
abandon the idea of minds created with original righteous-
ness, and, therefore, with strong predominant and effective
tendencies to good, as unphilosophical, or even impossible.
They take the ground that God has given to men, as neces-
142 CONFLICT OF AGES.
sarily limited, ignorant, imperfect, new-created beings, all
that the nature of free agency will allow. Thus, Dr
Dewej says :
''It is in the very nature of a moral and imperfect being
to err ; not to sin wilfully, malignantly, — that is not neces-
sary,— but to err through ignorance and impulse, to fall
into excess or defect, and so to fall into sin. And it is in
the poiver of such a being to sin intentionally. Man hag
done both. And misery has followed as the consequence,
at once, and corrective, of his errors. Where, now, is the
mystery or difficulty? * * * An imperfect, free
moral nature is, in its essential constitution, — is, by defini-
tion, peccable ; it is liable to err ; and its erring is nothing
strange nor mysterious. The notion of untempted inno-
cence for such a being is, I hold, a dream of theology.
His very improvement^ his very progress^ ever iinplies
previous err in g^
The essential principle of this defence of God, in view of
the conceded and fearful sinfulness of man, is, that God has
given to men as good original constitutions as the nature of
free agency admits of Indeed, it would seem logically to
result in the principle that sinning is a general necessity of
all finite moral beings, as such, and is an essential part of a
moral education, designed to result in stable virtue.
Dr. Burnap presents similar views. He teaches us that
" every human soul comes from the hand of God pure, as
was Adam; without, indeed, any decided character, but
capable of virtue and holiness, though exposed to temptation
and sin." He explains his sin by the fact that he is free,
has strong appetites and impulses, bodily and mental, is
ignorant, is surrounded by temptations, and yet is under
law. Thus he inevitably falls into sin. Then comes in the
power of habit, and the law of development, to strengthen
DEGRADATION OF FREE AGENCY ITSELF. 143
and confirm these evil results. (See the wliole of Dis-
course XXI.)
In another place he makes the following clear and ex-
plicit statements :
'' It is God's will that man should commence his career
at nothing, without positive character, though innocent;
without knowledge, without experience ; weak, and subjected
to urgent wants and strong necessities ; with passions within
and many and mighty temptations without. His ignorance
is liable to be deceived, his passions to be excited, his inter-
ests to be miscalculated, and, of course, he is liable to sin.
In comparison to God, in his best estate, he has the weak-
ness of infancy. Is it not to be expected that a being thus
endowed and thus conditioned should sometimes sin ? All
that can be expected of man is that his career should be
progressive ; that his choice should be fixed on good
after wavering a while. Man being free, the only way in
which his character can be established is by fixing his delib-
erate and habitual choice on good. Accordingly, this seems
to be the whole purpose of the present life. This world is
a state of discipline, having in view this very end, — the
production in man of a holy character."
This view accounts for the universal sin of this world by
the necessary nature of free agency and of a state of proba-
tion, as designed to form a holy character. Of course, as
in a great majority of cases there is an entire failure to
secure this result, we are compelled to entertain very low
ideas of the possibilities of free agency.
The obvious tendency of these views is to degrade the
essential nature of free agency itself, and of the universe as
based on it. It no less diminishes the guilt and evil of sin.
Indeed, it approximates very closely to the idea of the
14:4 CONFLICT OF AGES.
Hegelian scliool, — that sin, tliough an evil, is yet a neces-
sary and useful means of moral development.
Dr. Burnap seems to have been aware that his views
would appear to be open to this objection ; for he states it^
and endeavors to show that his views do not tend to it.
'' To the doctrine of this discourse I am aware that it
may be objected, that it is calculated to lower the standard
of the gospel, to diminish our apprehensions of the evil of
sin, to make it less burdensome to the conscience, and to dis-
parage the importance of the mission of Christ as a remedy
for the sinfulness of mankind. Serious and religious minds
may fear that it tends to the development of such a reli-
gious philosophy as that so widely propagated of late in
Germany by Hegel, which represents sin as not only i?ici-
dent to human nature, but one of the ajipointed means
of its development mid perfection.^ ^
In his reply he concedes and endeavors to show that sin
is not by any means so great an evil as it is represented by
the orthodox. He then adds : '' But it does not follow,
because no sin is an infinite evil, and no sin can merit an
infinite punishment, that it is no evil at all^ and does not
deserve any punishment. Nor does it follow, because pun-
ishment is remedial and inflicted for the purpose of curing
sin, that it is as well to sin and suffer for it, as to keep the
law of God and avoid both the sin and the suffering." He
speaks of it, however, chiefly as an evil to the sinner, and
sums up his views in the following brief statement :
" The condition of man, then, here on earth, as in a state
of moral probation, amounts to this. God has given him
two chances for happiness ; — one, through sinless obedience ;
the other, through repentance and reformation, — in short,
through moral discipline. Human imperfection renders
DEGRADATION OF FREE AGENCY ITSELF. 145
the first impossible, and therefore God has kindly provided
the second."
This involves, of course, the doctrine that the nature of
free agency is such, that to form a perfect character through
sinless obedience is, in the nature of things, impossible. It
cannot be done except through a process of sinning, and of
consequent moral discipline and repentance. Certainly
such views, even if they differ in some respects from those
of Hegel, do, nevertheless, so depress our ideas of the evil
of sin, that men of deep Christian experience, who know
its evils and its power, will be likely to feel that there is
very little to choose between the two views.
Of course, there will be men of deep Christian conscious-
ness who Avill feel that such views imply a false standard
of the true life and health of the soul. They do not, in
their view, probe its diseases thoroughly; they cannot,
therefore, effect a radical cure. Whenever a standard is
taken so low as to represent the fearful and gigantic devel-
opments of human depravity in this world as the result of
human limitation, ignorance and frailty, in a mind naturally
pure, and not of deep innate depravity, the highest vitality
and power of religion is rendered impossible. Until it aims
at a radical regeneration, it has no adequate end : it effects
nothing of any moment, and, in the great conflict with the
real and earnest and gigantic depravity of earth, it will be
trodden under foot and despised.
Hence, although such views are derived from and depend
upon the true and powerful principles of honor and right
as applied to a misadjusted system, yet the steady testi-
mony of fact, the Bible and Christian consciousness,
produces a constant reaction, which, on a great scale, has
prevailed against them, and ever will prevail. Even the
power of the most obvious first truths will not ever avail
13
146 CONFLICT OF AGES.
universally to eradicate from the minds of men a belief of
the great fact of innate human depravity in its most pro-
found and radical form, and of its connected facts. They
are sustained by independent evidence of their own so
strong that they will live. But equally powerless will
argument be universally to eradicate the views of those
who reject those facts because so presented as to war with
honor and right. Unless, therefore, in some way these
truths shall be harmonized, there is a foundation laid for
endless conflict and division.
CHAPTER IX.
I, PHILOSOPHY OF
ORTHODOX UNIVERSALISM.
We now come to a third and most interesting experience.
It is one -wliich results from holding unmodified, and with
full faith and deep sensibihty, both the most radical facts
concerning human depravity and the principles of honor
and of right.
Upon a certain portion of such minds the power of the
principles of honor and right is so great, that, although
they cannot cease to believe the facts as to human depravity,
yet they shrink from carrying out the system of Chris-
tianity to its full and scriptural results, and take refuge in
the doctrine of universal salvation. It is well known that
the prevailing opinion of the great body of evangelical
Christians, in all ages, has been opposed to this doctrine.
This has resulted from a full conviction that the testimony
of scripture is decidedly against it. Yet, so urgent and
powerful are the principles of honor in some minds, that,
in view of the common doctrine concerning the alleged
dealings of God with man through Adam, they have been
unable to rest in any result short of universal salvation.
But it is not till after many struggles and much suffering
that they finally come to this conclusion. The experience
of such has found an eloquent utterance in the words of
the truly eminent John Foster :
148 CONFLICT OF AGES.
Of the intellectual and moral eminence of this distin-
guished man it is unnecessary that I should speak. He
occupies an unquestioned place among the most powerful
writers of the English language. His friend and biogra-
pher, J. E. E-jland, says of him, " He had that intellectual
magic which summons from all points of the compass the
most sudden and happy illuminations of thought. Images
arose on all sides at the master's bidding ; nor did he hesi-
tate to call them from the loftiest region or the lowest."
John Sheppard, another intimate friend and pupil, says of
him, '' Few spirits can have passed away from earth
endowed with more of intellectual grasp and penetration, to
meet the wonders and grandeurs of regions immense and
untraversed; few, also, I believe, with a more profound
persuasion that, as creatures, however endowed, admired or
dignified, ' in ourselves we are nothing.' " But, vast as
were his powers, they did not elevate him in spirit above
the feeblest and most lowly of our race. His feelings ever
tended to sympathy with the weak and the oppressed.
Hence his biographer says of him, " He was remarkable
for civility and kindness to small tradesmen and work-
people ; he used to complain that women were generally
underpaid, and would often give them more than they
asked. He abhorred driving a bargain with poor people.
When sometimes shown small wares brought to the door for
sale, on being told the price, he would say, ' 0, give
them a few pence more ! See ! there 's a great deal of
work here ; it must have taken some time to make.' And
he would turn the article — whatever it might be — in every
direction, and find out all the little ingenuities and orna-
ments about it." These small facts reveal great principles.
They give us an insight into a great and noble spirit. They
reveal a mind so keenly sensitive to the principles of honor
THIRD EXPERIENCE. 149
and of right that over it their influence must have been
supreme. They furnish, therefore, the key to the ex-
perience which we are about to disclose and illustrate.
The occasion on which Foster expressed his views was
this :
In the year 1841 a young minister wrote to him a state-
ment of his inquiries and difficulties on the subject of the
eternity of future punishments. In reply, he concedes the
almost universal judgment of divines in affirmation of
the doctrine, and that the testimony of scripture for it is
" formidably strong." Yet, solely on the basis of what he
calls " the moral argument," he rejects the doctrine. On
what, then, is this argument based ? Plainly, on a view of
the facts concerning the origin of man's depravity.
By this I mean that the facts which have been stated as
held by the orthodox concerning the conduct of God towards
new-created minds, both with regard to their original con-
stitutions and their circumstances, so deeply affected and
pained his benevolent spirit, that, seeing no way to answer
the arguments which sustained the system of which those
facts were a part, he sought relief in the doctrine of univer-
sal salvation.
That this process was not a logical vindication of God, in
the acts in question, is plain; but it gave at least this relief,
that it represented God as not adding an eternal and still
greater wrong to that of which he appeared already to have
been guilty. But of this I shall speak again. My present
object is to show how the mind of Foster sought relief
under a system so misadjusted as to bring the conduct of
God towards man into actual conflict with tne principles of
honor and right.
In his reply to the young clergyman, he first illustrates
the fearful idea of eternity, and then thus proceeds :
13^
150 ~ CONFLICT OF AGES.
'' Then think of man, — his nature, his situation, the cir-
cumstances of his brief sojourn and trial on earth. Far be
it from us to make light of the demerit of sin, and to
remonstrate with the supreme Judge against a severe chas-
tisement, of whatever moral nature we may regard the in-
fliction to be. But still, what is man ? He comes into the
world iDith a nature fatally corrupt^ and powerfully tend-
ing to actual evil. He comes among a crowd of tempt-
ations adapted to his innate evil propensities. He
grows up (incomparably the greater proportion of the race)
in great ignorance ; his judgment weak, and under number-
less beguilements to error, while his passions and appetites
are strong ; his conscience unequally matched against their
power, — in the majority of men, but feebly and rudely
constituted. The influence of whatever good instructions
he may receive is counteracted by a combination of oppo-
site influences almost constantly acting on him. He is
essentially and inevitably unapt to be powerfully acted
on by what is invisible and future. In addition to all
which, there is the intervention ayid activity of the great
tempter and destroyer. In short, his condition is such
that there is no hope of him, but from a direct special
operation on him of what we denominate grace. Is it not
so 7 Are we not convinced? Is it not the plain doctrine of
scripture ? Is there not irresistible evidence, from a view
of the actual condition of the human world, that no man
can become good, in the Christian sense, can become fit for
a holy and happy place hereafter, but by this operation, ab
extra 7 But this is arbitrary and discriminative on the
part of the sovereign agent, and independent of the will of
man ; and how awfully evident is it that this indispensable
operation takes place only on a comparatively small propor-
tion of the collective race !
THIRD EXPERIENCE. 151
''Now, this creature, thus constituted and circumstanced,
passes a few fleeting years on earth, — a short, sinful course,
in which he does often what, notwithstanding his ignorance
and ill-disciplined judgment and conscience, he knows to be
wrong, and neglects what he knows to be his duty, and
consequently, for a greater or less measure of guilt, widely
different in different offenders, deserves punishment. But
endless punishment ! hopeless misery through a duration to
which the enormous terms above imagined will be nothing !
I acknowledge my inability (I would say it reverently) to
admit this belief, together with a belief in the divine good-
ness, — the belief that ' God is love,' that his tender
mercies are over all his works. Goodness, benevolence,
charity, as ascribed in supreme perfection to Him, cannot
mean a quality foreign to all human conceptions of good-
ness. It must be sometlmig analogous in 'principle to
what himself has defined and required as goodness in
his moral creatures^ that, in adoring the divine goodness,
we may not be worshipping an ' unknown God.' But, if
so, how vfould all our ideas be confounded while contem-
plating him bringing, of his own sovereign will, a race of
creatures into existence in such a condition that they cer-
tainly will and must, — must, by tlieir nature and circum-
stances,— go wrong and be miserable, unless prevented by
especial grace, which is the privilege of only a small pro-
portion of them, and at the same time affixing on their
delinquency a doom of which it is infinitely beyond the
highest archangel's faculty to apprehend a thousandth part
of the horror ! "
On page 290 he presents similar views :
"It would be a transcendently direful contemplation, if I
believed the doctrine of the eternity of future misery. It
amazes me to imagine how thoughtful and benevolent men
152 CONFLICT OF AGES,
believing that doctrinej can endure the sight of the present
■world, and the history of the past. To behold successive,
innumerable crowds carried 07i in the mighty impulse of
a depraved nature, lohich they are impotent to reverse,
and to which it is not the will of God, in his sovereignty, to
apply the only adequate power, the withholding of which
consigns them inevitably to their doom ; to see them pass-
ing through a short term of mortal existence (absurdly
sometimes denominated di probation), under all the world'' s
pernicious influences, with the addition of the malign
afid deadly one of the great tem.pter and destroyer, to
confirm and augment the inherent depravity, on their speedy
passage to everlasting woe; — I repeat, I am, without pre-
tending to any extraordinary depth of feeling, amazed tc
conceive what they contrive to do with their sensibility, and
in what manner they maintain a firm assurance of the
Divine goodness and justice.^''
In these passages we cannot but notice the clear and
eloquent manner in which he combines the three great ele-
ments wliich I have set forth as constituting the ruined
condition of man; deep personal depravity anterior to
action, exposure to corrupt worldly social combinations and
influences, and the fearful wiles of evil spirits.
We notice, also, the full faith with which he sets them
forth. Scripture, experience, history, and his own obser-
vation and Christian consciousness, appeared to him to unite
their testimony to sustain this view of facts.
At the same time, he was keenly alive to the demands of
the principles of honor and right, and could not avoid seeing
their contrariety to such alleged facts. The effect upon his
mind he states in these affecting words, concerning the sys-
tem of this world, — " To me it appears a most mysteriously
awful economy, overspread by a lurid and dreadful shade/'
THIRD EXPERIENCE. 153
Who does not see here the elements of an experience pre-
cisely similar to that of Dr. Channing ? The facts contem-
plated by Foster appeared to Channing, also, to present an
" awful economy, overspread by a lurid and dreadful shade."
Of course, such minds as these must find rehef somewhere
from such a state of thino;s. Channino; renounced and
denied the facts ; Foster's mind was unable to resort to this
mode of relief. The facts he could not deny. The prin-
ciples of honor he could not renounce. Hence, though he
saw that it was at war with the almost universal opinion of
the church and the clear words of scripture, he overruled
the laws of interpretation, and rejected, on purely moral
grounds, the doctrine of the eternity of future punishment.
And are there not still other minds who feel these dif-
ficulties, as well as Foster and Channing ? And will not
such an appeal, presented with such eloquence, exert great
power on many such minds ? Dr. Woods seems to be of
this opinion. He says, -^ The thoughts suggested in the
letter, together with the influence of the author's name, are
adapted to unsettle the faith of imdtittides.''' Such an
influence was no doubt deeply felt in England. Foster
says : '' A number (not large, but of great piety and intel-
ligence) of ministers within my acquaintance have been
disbelievers of the doctrine in question, at the same time
not feeling themselves called upon to make a public dis-
avowal. ' ' How many more there may have been, or may still
be, in the same state of mind, of course no one can tell. But
the belief that many real Christians held such views caused
in England, as is well known, a great reluctance, even
among the believers of the doctrine, to introduce it as a
test in the Evangelical Alliance. I know of no reason to
be confident that the views of Foster will not also make
converts even among the evangelical ministers of our own
154 CONFLICT OF AGES.
land, so strong is the appeal to tlie principles of honor and
right, in view of the facts of human depravity as exten-
sively held. I am aware that many suppose that a more
correct theory of free agency, — - as applied to the facts of
depravity, — would have relieved Foster, and is, among us,
a defence against the spread of his views. Of this we can
better judge after considering the next experience.
There is not, however, in my judgment, any good reason
to believe that the improved views in question would have
given the needed relief to Foster. He appears to have
considered the course of reasoning on which they rest, and
to have derived from it no relief
He says in his journal, No. 485 : " The very intelligent
Mr. G. reasoned against the Calvinistic doctrine of original
depravity" (that is, its most radical form) "evidently, I
perceived, from his feeling respecting that of eternal pun-
ishments. Believing this last, he was anxious — as a kind
of palliation of its severity — to make man as accountable
a being as possible, by making his vice entirely optional^
and so making all his depravity his crime." Foster, then,
had looked at the principles of the system that resolves all
moral depravity in man into voluntary action, and did not
find in it the requisite relief He did not regard it as a
true view of the real facts of the case. Nor did it hold
him back from 'his appeal against the doctrine of future
eternal punishment.
But, whether this appeal shall extensively avail or not to
shake the belief of the Christian community in that doc-
trine, still it shows with what fearful power the principles
of honor and right operate upon some of the most finely
constituted minds of our race. It shows, also, that sym-
pathy, and not severity, is due to all such minds, even if
they fiill into error, when struggling under the painful
THIRD EXPERIENCE, 155
pressure of a system involving trutlis so great, and yet so
radically misadjusted. It evinces no less clearly that a
proper readjustment of these truths is the only radical
relief. It is in vain to attempt to suppress or to extermi-
nate the influence of the principles of equity and of honor,
or the efibr-ts of men to find relief from the conflict which
exists between them and the facts concerning human
depravity as commonly held. It is not without deep
anguish and fearful struggles that such men as John
Foster are impelled to force their way, by overruling
scriptural testimony, to such results. There is an awful
and affecting solemnity and earnestness in his words, which
clearly indicates that his soul had been agitated to its lowest
depths. It is affecting to think how many other minds of a
like kind may have encountered struggles, similar at least
in kind, if not in their results. Moreover, until the system
is better adjusted, there will be a powerful tendency to the
results at which Foster arrived.
CHAPTER X.
THE REACTION.
Powerful as is the appeal of John Foster, it is by no
means adapted to control the convictions of the universal
Christian community. Its power lies in the appeal to the
principles of honor and right ; but there are other truths
that will still assert their claim to be heard, and react
against it. The Bible will ever powerfully react.
In the next place, there is a Christian experience which
so reveals the malignant nature of sin as to throw it out
of the pale of lawful sympathy, as in its essential nature
cruel, and tending to cruelty in the highest degree, so that
to punish it implies in God no cruelty, but the reverse.
Cruelty is that disregard of the feelings of others, or
that infliction of suffering on them, which arises from the
want of a proper benevolent interest in their welfare. It is
not enough to prove cruelty that pain is caused. This is
often done from the most benevolent purposes. In the
education of children, to spare the rod is often cruel ; to
inflict it, mercy.
But especially to cause pain, however intense, by defeat-
ing malevolent and cruel purposes, is not cruelty. If the
plans of a seducer, or an assassin, or a slanderer, are
exposed, and a retributive tide of moral emotion turned
against them, they suffer. So is it — so must it ever be —
THE REACTION. 157
when all sin is disappointed and exposed. The suffering
thus caused is not a kind of suffering which can be felt
ahke by good and bad, as is the burning of material fire,
or the tortures of the inquisition. Such physical tortures
could oe continued even after sorrow, regret, penitence,
confession, and reformation.
Such are the physical ideas which many entertain of the
sufferings of hell. They came from that church which cre-
ated and administered the inquisition, — that tremendous
engine of cruelty, — and which consigned to endless misery
all who refused to enter her pale, however holy they might
be. Such a church would need to conceive of a hell whose
torments should depend on material fire, against which
holiness is no defence. Such ideas, too, have extensively
infected the imagination of the Protestant world.
But such is not the suffering caused by the exposure and
punishment of sin. It is not merely positive or physical.
Much of it is the result of the disappointment of sinful pur-
poses, involving cruelty in their essential nature, and in all
their tendencies towards God and man. Against suffering
thus caused the law of moral sympathy in holy minds does
not re 'let.
A profound Christian experience, moreover, reveals the
fact that the radical character of all men is selfishness, as
opposed to the law of love ; and that this tends to cruelty,
and is the great source of the cruelty that fills this earth.
The great design of the gospel is by regeneration to remove
this root of cruelty and misery. But, if it is not removed in
this world, but is left forever to increase in strength, and to
disclose its natural results, it will encounter God, be exposed
and justly abhorred, and thus be rendered unutterably mis-
erable ; and yet, by a kind of misery which is in its nature
so malignant that it will repel all sympathy, and array
14
158 CONFLICT OF AGE&,
against itself the reaction of benevolent justice. In short,
the root of future misery will be the just defeat and exposure
of the spirit of cruelty, by infinite love, armed with infinite
power. This suffering will endure so long as selfishness,
its cause, endures. To remove that cause is the great
object of regeneration. The system of this world is adapted
to produce that change. Future suffering, consisting, as it
does, in malignant passions, is not adapted to produce it, but
the reverse. There is, therefore, no reason why the future
suffering of such as die in sin should ever end.
A profound Christian experience naturally suggests this
view, and it is so plainly sustained by the word of God that
all doubt is removed.
On the other hand, the law of God, by forbidding selfish-
ness and enjoining love, is seen to be, in effect, a prohibition
of cruelty ; and its penalty a defence of the universe against
such as refuse to love God and his creatures, but give
themselves up to a spirit of selfishness, which, in its very
essence and tendencies, is cruel towards God and all his
creatures, and deserves to be exposed and abhorred in all
who will not renounce it and return to the law of love.
In addition to these considerations, as has already been
stated, it is seen that Foster does not furnish the needed
relief at the right point. The real difficulty is that God
should give to any new-created beings corrupt moral consti-
tutions, and then place them in circumstances of so great
moral disadvantage. It is no relief to this to say that God
will not punish them forever for the sins which originate
in such a constitution and circumstances. This would be
no compensation for wronging them at the outset. And,
knowing by religious experience what sin is, and to what it
tends, they choose to beheve the word of God as to its futuxe
results, and to take refuge in faith and mystery with refer-
THE REACTION. 159
ence to those dealings of God -which are so hard to under-
stand and defend, as to the original constitutions and cir-
cumstances of the human race, rather than to disregard the
plain teachings of the Bible as to future punishment. Even
Foster conceded that the obvious language of the Bible was
strongly adverse to his views. This, to the largest portion
of true Christians, will ever be decisive. God knows best
what will be the future state of sinners. He has a complete
view of the whole case. It is wisest and safest, as well as
our duty, to trust him. Thus will the great body of the
Christian community continue to reason.
It is not to be expected, however, that all even of true
Christians will be able to find relief in this course. Others
will not improbably feel impelled to obtain relief by reject-
ing the doctrine of future eternal punishment. Nor, till
there is a better adjustment of the facts and principles of
the system, will this powerful tendency to conflict and
division cease. The doctrine of the eternity of future pun-
ishments will not ever be generally repudiated, so clear are
the revelations of Christian consciousness as to sin, and so
strong is the scriptural argument by which the doctrine is
sustained. On the other hand, till some better adjustment
is made, it will be impossible to prevent some, even of the
most pious, from seeking relief by following in the steps of
John Foster.
CHAPTER XI.
THE FOURTH EXPERIENCE; OR, THE PHILOSO-
PHY OF NEW SCHOOL THEOLOGY.
We come now to an experience of great interest and
importance, in consequence of the controversies to which it
has given rise, and the extended results which still flow from
it. It is that experience in which, in some form, a constant
appeal is made to the principles of honor and right, to
modify or correct certain parts of the Old School doctrine
of the ruined state of man, whilst, at the same time, an
earnest effort is made fully to retain and inculcate the real
and essential facts of human depravity, yet so as to accord
alike with those principles and with the word of God.
It derived its origin from no predisposition to subject the
doctrines of God's word to any processes of cold and heart-
less rationalism. Its present developments originated with
one of the holiest men whom God has ever raised up to
illuminate and bless the church and the world. The deep
Christian experience of Edwards has already called forth
our grateful recognition of the goodness and sanctifying
power of God, as manifested in him. We now add that it
was this holy man who gave the first impulse to the great
movement which we are now considering.
The occasion of its commencement was the interruption
of the plain, direct and faithful preaching of the gospel,
which had been caused by the doctrine of the entire ina-
THE FOURTH EXPERIENCE. 161
bility of the sinner to perform the spiritual duties of repent-
ance and faith, upon which his salvation Avas suspended by
God. This doctrine was carried out logically.
In New England, to a great extent, the practice of urging
sinners to immediate repentance and faith, as reasonable and
practicable duties, had ceased. In place of it, men were
directed to use the means of grace with moral sincerity, and
to pray to God that he would interpose and do for them
that which they were unable to do for themselves. Uncon-
verted men were encouraged to enter into either a full or a
partial covenant with the church, and to cherish the idea
that thus, at least to a certain extent, they were doing their
duty. In this way, although the doctrine of entire depravity
and absolute inability was retained in theory, it was virtu-
ally denied in practice. The consciences of sinners were
thus quieted, and urgent calls to immediate repentance had
almost entirely disappeared. Meanwhile, errors of various
kinds were rolling in like a flood.
In England, in some circles, as we learn from the narra-
tive of his own experience by Andrew Fuller, this same
doctrine of the absolute inability of the sinner to perform
spiritual duties had produced almost an entire cessation of
preaching the gospel, in any form, to the impenitent. Ful-
ler says of himself, " My father and mother were dissenters
of the Calvinistic persuasion ; and were in the habit of hear-
ing Mr. Eve, a Baptist minister, who, being what is here
termed high in his sentiments, or tinged with false Calvin-
ism, had little or nothing to say to the unconverted. I
therefore never considered myself as any way concerned in
what I heard from the pulpit." Again he says: "With
respect to the system of doctrine which I had been used to
hear from my youth, it was in the high Calvinistic, or.
rather, hyper- Calvinistic strain, admitting nothing spiritu-
14*
162 CONFLICT OF AGES.
ally good to be the duty of the unregenerate, and nothing
to be addressed to them in a way of exhortation, excepting
what related to external obedience. Outward services
might be required, such as an attendance on the means of
grace, and abstinence from gross evils might be enforced ;
but nothing was said to them from the pulpit in the way of
warning them to flee from the wrath to come, or inviting
them to apply to Christ for salvation." Of himself, when
he first began to preach, he says: " Those exhortations to
repectance and faith, therefore, which are addressed in the
New Testament to the unconverted, I supposed to refer
only to such external repentance and faith as were within
their power, and might be complied with without the grace
of God. The effect of these views was, that I had very
little to say to the unconverted ; indeed, nothing in a way of
exhortation to things spiritually good, or certainly connected
with salvation." Around him, too, on every side, fatal
errors were triumphant.
Here, then, was an emergency, and in meeting it Ed-
wards was God's chosen instrument in America, and Andrew
Fuller in England. The great principle from which this
reaction against the paralyzing and ruinous errors which
have been stated derived its life and energy was, that the
inability ascribed to the sinner in the Bible was not an
absolute inability, caused by the want of natural powers, but
solely a voluntary and inflexible aversion to duty; or, to use
the technical terms adopted to express these ideas, it was
not a natural, but a moral inability, consisting in a fixed
unwillingness to do what God requires. Of course, so far
from excusing the sinner, it did but enhance his guilt.
Neither did it furnish any reason why the sinner should
not be urged, by every possible motive, to the immediate
performance of his duty. This at once gave directness,
THE FOURTH EXPERIENCE. 163
pungency and power to preaching, and led the way in
extending those great revivals of religion which began under
the preaching of Edwards. The principles were first devel-
oped by Edwards, and carried out and applied by Hopkins,
Bellamy, and others of kindred \aews. In England, Fuller
at first began to investigate the same questions without aid,
but, being directed to the works of Edwards, adopted his
principles and results. Edwards, inconsistently, still held
to a sinful nature, but Hopkins consistently developed from
these principles, and from the treatise of Edwards on the
nature of true virtue, the doctrine that all sin and holiness
consist in voluntary action, and that the essence of holiness
is disinterested benevolence, and of sin is selfishness. He
also rejected the doctrine of imputation, or of a forfeiture of
the rights of the human race by the sin of Adam. Thus
were the foundations of New School theology laid by men
of deep Christian experience, and in view of ends of the
highest moment. It was the theology of revivals.
When Unitarianism subsequently developed itself, the
advocates of this system constantly endeavored so to pre-
sent it as to escape the pressure of hostile arguments derived
from the principles of honor and of right, by rejecting all
that appears to be irreconcilable with them. Under such
influences, the system has reached its present condition. The
advocates of these views have had no disposition to relinquish
or to weaken the doctrine of depravity. On the other hand,
the voice of their own Christian consciousness, the word of
God, and the testimony of history, have confirmed them in
its belief and defence. But they have, nevertheless, made
unwearied efforts to reconcile it with the principles of equity
and honor, so as to remove, if possible, the conflict which
had, in the case of the Unitarians, led to results which they
regarded as alike mournful and calamitous.
164 CONFLICT )F AGES.
Briefly stated, then, tlieir fundamental peculiarities are
these : They deny the imputation of Adam's sin to his pos-
terity,— that is, they deny that God regards as their act
that which was not their act, and that on this ground he
inflicts on them the inconceivably severe penalty alleged
by the Old School divines. They also deny the existence
in man of a nature in the strict sense sinful and deserving
of punishment anterior to knowledge and voluntary action,
and teach that all sin and holiness consist in voluntary
action. As a natural result, they also deny the doctrine of
the absolute and entire inability of the sinner to do the
duties required of him by God. The inability asserted in
the Scriptures they hold to be, according to just laws of
interpretation, merely a fixed unwillingness to comply with
the will of God, which is not inconsistent with a real and
proper ability to obey, but derives its character of inexcus-
able guilt from the existence of such an ability.
Any one who will read the writings of the advocates of
this scheme will see at once that they resort as confidently
to the principles of honor and of right for the defence of
their peculiar views as either John Foster or the Unita-
rians. The only difference is, either that they do not apply
them to the same doctrines, or else not to the same extent.
They do not from a regard to them, with Foster, reject the
eternity of future punishment, nor, with the Unitarians, the
doctrine of depravity, — but they do attempt so to modify
the old statements of the latter doctrine, in view of them,
as to represent the conduct of God towards his creatures in
their fall as neither dishonorable nor unjust, and the doctrine
of eternal punishment as not at war with benevolence and
justice, and, therefore, as not incredible.
These views, as they passed out of New England into the
Presbyterian church, were encountered with the most
THE FOURTH EXPERIENCE. 165
decided hostility, and the doctrines of the old theology
were inculcated, often in forms the most repulsive and
c-dious to the New School divines.
As was natural in such circumstances, the emotions and
the language of the advocates of these views, in refuting
what they regarded as so injurious, were often no less vivid
and powerful than those of the Unitarians in refuting what
they regarded as the pernicious errors of orthodoxy. We
have considered the language of Dr. Channing. Compare
with this the language of Whelpley, in his celebrated
Triangle. Speaking of the course of events in the city of
New York, he says : ''You shall hear it inculcated from
Sabbath to Sabbath, in many of our churches, that a man
ought to feel himself actually guilty of a sin committed six
thousand years before he was born ; nay, that, prior to all
consideration of his own moral conduct, he ought to feel
himself deserving of eternal damnation for the first sin
of Adam, y
This, it will be seen, is the identical doctrine that Pascal
and Abelard undertook to defend, at the sacrifice of our
moral convictions of honor and right. Listen, now, to the
emotions with which it is repudiated by this eloquent
writer, as at war with equity and honor.
" I hesitate not to say that no scheme of religion ever
propagated among men contains a more monstrous, a more
horrible tenet. The atrocity of this doctrine is beyond
comparison. The visions of the Koran, the fictions of the
Sadder, the fables of the Zendavesta, all give place to this
— Rabbinical legends, Brahminical vag^'ies, all vanish
before it."
"The idea, that all the numerous millions of Adam's
posterity deserve the ineffable and endless torments of hell,
for a suigle act of his, before any one of them existedj is
3.66 CONFLICT OP AGES.
repugnant to tliat reason which God has given us ; is sul
versive of all possible conceptions of justice." Concerning
the doctrine of man's natural inability to do his duty, he
uses the following strong expressions: "It is an insult
to every man's unbiased understanding, — to the hght of
his conscience."
In like manner, the idea that God gives us a depraved and
punishable nature anterior to knowledge and choice is by
the same writer repudiated, on the same ground. The con-
nection of these doctrines with that of a limited atonement
he thus sets forth: "The whole of their doctrine, then,
amounts to this : that a man is, in the first place, con-
demned, incapacitated, and eternally reprobated, for the sin
of Adam ; in the next place, that he is condemned over
again for not doing that which he is totally and in all
respects unable to do ; and, in the third place, that he is con-
demned, doubly and trebly condemned, for not believing in
a Saviour who never died for him, and with whom he has
no more to do than a fallen angel."
Of these doctrines he says that " they are calculated
and tend to drive men to scepticism, deism, atheism, liber-
tinism, nay, to madness." The reason is, that by " them
the first principles of immutable and eternal justice are
supervened and destroyed."
He exposes the pretext that our moral intuitions — which
condemn such views — are carnal or unsanctified reason ;
and recognizes in them the voice of God. A similar strain
of remark is very frequent in the advocates of these views.
Indeed, they arejdirectly adapted to call into exercise seme
of the deepest and most powerful emotions of the soul.
It cannot be denied that, in many respects, these views
give great relief to the mind ; and their appeal to the moral
THE FOURTH EXPERIENCE. 167
sense of the community is powerful, and, to no small extent,
effectual,
This system has not had so long a history, nor has it
acted on so wide a scale, as the older system. But durino"
its existence it has effected an incalculable amount of good.
It has exerted a penetrating and powerful influence on the
Old School theology. It has acted as a counterpoise against
its tendencies to paralysis and inaction, and rendered it
more direct and aggressive in its appeals to sinners. It
early exploded the idea that unregenerated men could prop-
erly be received as members of churches, or assume the
office of preaching the gospel. It elevated the standard of
piety and activity in the clergy and in the churches. It
aroused and developed great intellectual activity in theolog-
ical investigations. Its great idea is, the power and duty of
holy action. It has accordingly communicated an impulsive
energy to every interest and department of society.
It has, moreover, been instrumental in arousing the atten-
tion of multitudes to religion, and exciting them to earnest
efforts, and leading them to true repentance and faith. And,
in connection with its development, and under the influence
of its advocates, the modern system of benevolent enter-
prise came into existence and was matured and established.
The system, therefore, contains in itself many elements of
great, varied and lasting power. Yet it has not succeeded
in uniting the Christian community ; nor, thus far, does it
seem to be approximating towards it. It has not super-
seded a reaction ; it has always been violently opposed, and
is no less so now than at any other time.
CHAPTER XII.
THE REACTION.
The reasons of the reaction which has been referred to
I now proceed to unfold. The denial of a depraved
nature — in the proper sense — before action, is regarded
by many as either leading to a doctrine of divine efficiency
in the production of sin, which, in their view, reason and
the moral sense repudiate ; or else to the doctrine that the
cause of man's entire actual depravity is an innocent na-
ture, and circumstances.
It is obvious that, assuming the fact of the universal
and entire actual depravity of the human race as soon as
they begin to act, some cause ought to be assigned for a
result so contrary to reason, interest and right. But, after
rejecting the theory of imputation and of a sinful nature,
in the proper sense of the term, nothing seems to remain
but an innocent nature so affected by the fall of Adam as
always to lead to sin, or else a stated exercise of divine
efficiency to produce sinful volitions in every human being,
from the beginning of his existence. Accordingly, some
have taken one of these grounds, and others the other.
With regard to the second of these schemes, it is plain
that it really denies that there was any influence or agency
in the sin of Adam to produce universal sin, except that
it was merely the condition on which God suspended the
THE REACTIOX. 169
determination of his own stated mode of action in causing
sin or holiness. If Adam had obeyed, then God, by direct
efficiency, would have statedly caused obedience in all his
posterity ; but, as he sinned, God statedly causes sin. This
view is adopted and defended as necessary, on account of
a theory of free agency, which denies to any moral agent
the power of choice, except through the agency of God to
cause him to choose, and which asserts the exercise of the
same divine agency in sinful as in holy choice. Some
eminent men have, I concede, reconciled their reason and
moral sense to this view.
The considerations which chiefly recommend it are its
simplicity, its entire rejection of a depraved nature in any
form, its complete resolution of all sin into voluntary action,
and its apparent tendency to exalt the sovereignty of God.
Some of the bold language of scripture also seems, at first
sight, to sustain these views. But it never has been able
to recommend itself to the universal Christian community.
In fact, it results in this : that God, as a sovereign, and for
general ends, first caused Adam to sin, and then, because
he sinned under the power of this divine efficiency, he^ pro-
ceeded by a like efficiency to cause all of his posterity to
sin in all their actions, and always continues so to do,
except when he sees fit to cause holy actions by the same
divine energy.
This view is properly rejected by numerous opponents, on
tlie ground that it would be unjust to reward or punish
volitions so created; that it tends to destroy a sense of
accountability, and that it is inconsistent with all just ideas
of free agency and the liberty of the will.
We come back, then, to the idea of a deteriorated consti-
tution, which, though not sinful or punishable, is yet the
certain, uniform, and universal cause of sin.
15
170 CONFLICT OF AGES.
To tliis view the Old Scliool divines object on two
grounds : first, that, however plausible the argument from
the principles of honor and right, it nevertheless denies,
under the name of physical depravity, what are the actual
facts in all men, as stated in scripture and revealed by
experience, — that is, real depravity and strong sinful pro-
pensities anterior to knowledge and action, — and that hence
it gives a defective and superficial view of the real nature
and power of original sin and total depravity. There is,
as I have before said, an experience wdiich tends to lead to
the belief of such deep original depravity. An example of
this we gave in the case of Edwards. The depth of
depravity in the regenerated heart seems to such, bottom-
less,— far, far below anything introduced by a wrong and
intelligent main purpose. History and observation seem to
confirm these views.
It was a spiritual consciousness of this fact which so
deeply alarmed Dr. Nettleton, in view of the doctrine under
consideration. He felt that the very foundations of ortho-
doxy were destroyed ; and yet he could not make a logical
defence against the arguments of Dr. Taylor, from the
principles of honor and right, against physical depravity
anterior to knowledge and choice. Nor can any one do it
whilst the system of Christianity remains on its present
basis. Yet the feelings and the experience will remain,
and in many minds will overrule all arguments against
them, even as they did in the case of Dr. Nettleton. They
will also cause deep apprehension and alarm. Those who
deny real inherent criminal depravity, anterior to voluntary
moral action, will be regarded as abandoning original sin,
and as on the high road to Pelagianism and Unitarianism.
That they have no such purpose, their opponents, if candid,
will concede : yea, that they intend to hold fast to the
THE REACTION. 171
great cardinal doctrines of depravity and regeneration in
the fullest sense. Yet, since they have abandoned the
plea of mystery, and adopted the principles of honor and
right, they regard them as having launched their system
on a logical current, the tendencies of which they have
not calculated, and the issue of which they do not fore-
see. They see, either consciously or unconsciously, that the
alleged principles of honor and right, as the system now is,
directly tend to sweep away the true and deep doctrine
of depravity and satanic influence, and to leave only a
nominal and superficial depravity, which will not finally difier
much from the position of sober Unitarians.
It is a consciousness of this tendency which has aroused
the Old School divines to oppose the progress of this sys-
tem with so much earnestness and perseverance. Their
feelings are clearly stated in the following letter of Dr.
Nettleton to Dr. Woods. (Memoir, pp. 291—4.)
Speaking of those who hold these views, he says, " They
admit that there is a tendency or propensity to sin in the
very constitution of the human mind, but they deny that
this tendency is sinful." In consequence of this, he
says, " They adopt a new theory of regeneration. It has
been said by some that regeneration consists in removing
this sinful bias, which is anterior to actual volition ; this
they deny. But, whether we call this propensity sinful or
not, all orthodox divines who have admitted its existence
have, I believe, united in the opinion that regeneration does
consist in removing it. * * No sinner ever did or ever
will make a holy choice prior to an inclination, bias or tend-
ency, to holiness. On the whole, their views of depravity,
of regeneration, and the mode of preaching to sinners, can-
not fail, I think, of doing very great mischief This ex-
hibition overlooks the most alarming features of human
172 CONrLICT OF AGES.
depravity, and tlie very essence of experimental religion.
It is directly calculated to prevent sinners from coming
under conviction of sin. * * The progress of conviction
is ordinarily as follows : — Trouble and alarm, 1. On account
of outward sins. 2. On account of sinful thoughts.
3. On account of hardness of heart, deadness and insens-
ibility to divine things,— tendency, bias, proneness or pro-
pensity to sin, both inferred and felt ; and this the convicted
sinner always regards, not merely as calamitous, but as
awfully criminal in the sight of God. And the sinner
utterly despairs of salvation without a change in this pro-
pensity to sin ; and while he feels this propensity to be
thus criminal, he is fully aware that, if God by a sovereign
act of his grace does not interpose to remove or change it,
he shall never give his heart to God, nor make one holy
choice. If the sumer has not felt this, he has not yet been
under conviction of sin, or felt his need of regeneration."
Of those who adopt the views which he is opposing he
says: "They do in effect tell their hearers and their readers
what the most godly Christians certainly find it the most
difficult to believe, — that their propensity to sin, however
strong it may be, is not criminal, but only calamitous ; that
they need not be alarmed at this awful propensity to sin ;
that they need not, for God does not. regard it with dis-
pleasure. * Every step in the progress of conviction and
conversion is in direct opposition to these sentiments."
He then states strongly the tendency of such views to
produce spurious conversions, and adds : " Piety never did
and never w^ill descend far in the line of such sentiments.
Were I to preach in this manner, I do solemnly believe that
I should be the means of healing the hurt of awakened sin-
ners slightly ; of crying peace, peace, when there is no peace,
THE REACTION. 17S
and of throwing the whole weight of my ministerial influence
on the side of human rebellion against God."
No one can properly refuse to honor the deep experimental
feeling which prompted these remarks, and the sincerity
and earnestness of the protest against the views in question.
Kor are such sentiments and feelings confined to Dr. Net-
tleton. Many sympathize with him. Dr. Woods, in his
lectures recently pubhshed, has enforced similar views.
The same is true of the writers in the last series of the
PanopUst. On this ground we explain then- fear of ration-
alism, and of the intuitive principles of the Scotch philos-
ophers ; for their great difficulty is to refute the argument
from the intuitive principles of honor and right, against a
depraved nature before choice. The Princeton divines pur-
sue the same strain of argument, and so do all who sym-
pathize with them in New England; especially Dr. Dana, in
his letter to Professor Stuart, and in his recent Appeal.
Nor is this all. It is still further alleged that so long as
the doctrine of a deteriorated nature, resulting in tlie
universal certainty of a consequent actual and total deprav-
ity, is retained, there is no real relief gained in respect to
the alleged conflict with the principles of honor and right.
This objection to this view is sustained by the allegation
that the chief difficulty lies more in the thing done than in
the mode of doing it.
The thing done is this, as is agreed on both sides. God,
in consequence of Adam's a,ct, — an act preceding the personal
existence of all men, — has, in some way, brought it to pass
that all men, without fail in any one case, do sin and come
into a state of utter and endless ruin, unless they are saved
from it by supernatural and special grace. Moreover, it is
conceded that it was God's purpose and design to effect this,
and in some way he established a system or a constitution
15*
174 CONFLICT OF AGES.
by which it has been effected. In this fiict, it is said, — a fact
conceded by both sides, — the main and great difficulty lies.
In removing this difficulty, Professor Hodge says that every
theory that denies imputation is less effectual than the doc-
trine of imputation. Under this statement he includes the
theory of a depraved and criminal nature before action, a
deteriorated constitution leading to sin, and a divine system
or constitution leading to sin. Professor Hodge says :
"How is it to be reconciled with the divine character,
that the fate of Tinhorn millions should depend on an act
over which they had not the slightest control, and in which
they had no agency 7 This difficulty presses the opponents
of the doctrine (of imputation) more heavily than its ad-
vocates." These views are sustained by the Princeton re-
viewers. God, they say, must produce such results either
on the ground of justice or of sovereignty. The defenders
of imputation take the ground of justice. Their opponents
that of sovereignty. This, they say, greatly aggravates the
difficulty.
"Is it more congenial with the unsophisticated moral
feelings of men that God, out of his mere sovereignty, should
determine that because one man sinned all men should sin,
that because one man forfeited his favor all men should
incur his curse, or because one man sinned all should be
born with a contaminated moral nature, than that, in virtue
of a most benevolent constitution, by which one was made
the representative of the race, the punishment of the one
should come upon alH " ^
Against the theory of mere sovereignty Professor Hodge
alleges that, " It represents the race as being involved in
ruin and condemnation, without having the slightest pro-
bation." The same allegation is made elsewhere by the
THE REACTIOX. 175
Princeton reviewers. (Princeton Theol. Essays, vol. ii.
p. 159.)
This allegation, of course, leads them to state what are
the principles of honor and right, as it respects a ncAV-
created being. We have already stated them, but will refer
to them again. First, that to every such being a probation
is due. " Is it not necessary (they say) that a moral being
should nave a probation before his fate is decided? " Again,
they state what is essential to a fair probation, and, in so
doing, they distinctly recognize the binding force of two of
the most stringent of the principles of honor and right
which I have laid down. I mean those that relate to the
original constitution and circumstances of a nevr-created
being. Concerning these I assert that honor and right require
that they be such as to render a favorable result of pro-
bation to each individual hopeful, and not utterly im-
probable and hopeless. In accordance with this, they say,
* A probation, to be fair, must afford as favorable a pros-
pect of a happy as of an unhappy conclusion."
Is this condition complied with, say they, if God either
gives a depraved nature, before action and trial, in con-
sequence of a single act of Adam, done ages before they
were born, and in which they did not participate, or if,
before action or trial, he introduces into their original con-
Ftitution predisposing causes of sin, so powerful and certain
in their operation that they are sure to ruin all, unless
counteracted by a divine interposition transcending all
human power, and then exposes the possessors of such
natures, even from their earliest years, through life, to the
influences of sinful organizations ; and to all this superadds
the fearful wiles of Satan and his hosts ? Or, if we resort
to the idea of merely a divine constitution, intentionally so
ordained as in some way to effect the same results, is the
1T6 CONFLICT OF AGES.
case any better? In the judgment of the Princeton divines^;
not at all. They say, " Men are brought up to their trial
under a ' divine constitution,' which secures the certainty
of their sinning ; and this is done because an individual
sinned thousands of years before the vast majority of them
were born 1 Is this a fair trial 7 "
Again, they say, " What greater evil for moral and im-
mortal beings can there be than to be born ' contaminated
in their moral nature,' or under a divine constitution which
secures 'the universality and certainty of sin,' and that, too,
with undeviating and remorseless effect? It is, as Coleridge
well says, ' an outrage on common sense ' to affirm that it
is no evil for men to be placed o?i their probation under
such circumstances that not one of ten thousand millions
ever escaped sin and condemnation to eternal death."
It will, perhaps, be asked, how much better is that to
which the Princeton divines resort as a justification of God,
in producing the facts in question ? This let every man
decide for himself They resort to the idea that we had
n fair probation in Adam. God (they s-ay) appointed
him our federal head, and made a covenant with him,
including us. His probation he regarded as our probation ;
his sin as our sin ; his act as our act. Hence, from the
beginning of our existence, he regards us as covenant
breakers and rebels, withholds divine influences from us, and
leaves us to the consequent and necessary corruption of
nature, to actual sin, and to final ruin, unless grace inter-
poses. I have already given my views of this effort at jus-
tifying the alleged facts, and need, at present, to make no
more remarks. I recur to it here for the sake of saying
that, according to the Princeton divines, — and in this they
are correct. — all the Reformers, had it not been for the
assumption of such a probation, trial, failure, and con-
THE REACTION. 177
deniDation iu Adam, would have felt it impossible to justify
God in bringing men into existence -with depraved natures.
Speaking of Mark, tbej say, " He, in common with all
the Reformers, almost without exception, and the whole body
of the reformed, constantly make the distinction between
imputed sin and inherent corruption ; maintaining that the
latter could not be eeconciled with God's justice
WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF THE FORMER."
This theory, it is interesting to notice, leads to modes of
speech which seem to be designed to pay homage to the
sense of honor and justice which God has implanted in the
mind. Men are, therefore, spoken of as having been once
upright ; as having had a fair probation ; as having failed
in the trial ; as having broken the covenant, and revolted
from God ; as having corrupted their natures, and justly
exposed themselves to the anger of God. These forms of
speech plainly evince what are the demands of honor and
right, and are adapted to turn away the eye from the pain-
ful realities of the case ; and thus enable those who think to
justify God by them, and are affected by them, as if it were
possible that the real facts could correspond with them, to
see clearly that the theories of a corrupt nature before action,
or a deteriorated nature always sure to lead to sin, or a
divine constitution adapted and sure to lead to sin, are
unjust to new-created minds.
But, on the other hand, those v,'ho resort for relief to the
theory that all sin consists in voluntary action, and that
men, as free agents, have truly a real, though never ex-
ercised, power to avoid becoming sinful from the first, see
just as clearly that every possible form of the doctrine of
imputation fails to justify the great conceded flicts of
human depravity. The idea of a mysterious unity of all
men in Adam, so as to make one great moral person, thus
178 CONFLICT OF AGES.
making the sin of Adam truly and properly that of every
man, they reject as absurd, and in this the Princeton divines
agree with them. The literal transfer of the moral charac-
ter and personal guilt of Adam to all men, they reject ; and
so do the Princeton divines. The doctrine that God, by any
constitution or covenant whatever, can justly or honorably
regard Adam's sin as the sin of thousands of millions who
are and were confessedly innocent of it, as not being in
existence when it was committed, and on the ground of such
an unjust judgment inflict on them that which is of all evils
the essence and the sum, they also very properly reject,
though here their Princeton brethren do not agree with
them. \
What, then, is the result? Two large bodies of most
intelligent and pious men reject reciprocally each other's
grounds for justifying the facts in question. It is certainly
supposable, and not at all improbable, that both sides are
correct in the allegation that the views of their opponents
do thus war with honor and right.
At all events, it is plain that the New School views do not so
meet and satisfy the sense of- honor and right, in the advocates
of the doctrine of imputation, as to remove deep conflict and
division. A similar retort is made by Dr. Woods against
the New School divines, in view of the fact that they
reject the idea that God gives to his creatures a nature
which is, in the proper and literal sense, sinful before
action, as dishonorable to him, and at war with equity. To
this Dr. Woods replies that the doctrine in question is not
at. all worse than the doctrine that God gives to all men
deteriorated natures, which, even if not strictly sinful, are
yet sure to lead them into sin and ruin. This, it will be
seen, is in accordance Avith the principles of Dr. Watts.
Wesley, and the Reformers, that it is dishonorable and un-
THE REACTION. 170
just (if there has heen no forfeiture of rights) to give to a
new-created being a preponderating bias to sin. Dr. Woods
urges his retort at great length. I will give a specimen of
his mode of reasoning.
In replying to the charge that it is unjust for God "to
bring tnoral corriq?tion and ruin upon the whole human
race merely on account of one offence of their commcn pro-
genitor, and without any fault of theirs," he says : "And
is there not just as much reason to urge this objection
against the theory just named? Its advocates hold that
God brings the whole human nice into existence without
holiness, and with such propensities and in such circum-
stances as will certainly lead them into sin ; and that he
brings them into this fearful condition in consequence of
the sin of their first father, without any fault of their
own. Now, as far as the divine justice or goodness is con-
cerned, what great difference is there between our being
depraved at first, and being in such circumstances as will
certainly lead to depravity the moment moral action begins'?
Will not the latter as infallibly bring about our destruction
as the former ? and how is it more compatible vv^ith the jus-
tice or the goodness of God to put us into one of these
conditions than into the other, when they are both equally
fatal?" It is said that our natural appetites and propensities
and our outward circumstances do not lead us into sin by
any absolute or physical necessity; but they do, in all
cases^ certainly lead us into sin, and God knows that they
will when he appoints them for us. Now, how can our
merciful Father voluntarily place us, while feeble, helpless
infants, in such circumstances as he knows beforehand will
be the certain occasion of our sin and ruin ? * =^ *
What difference does it make, either as to God's character
or the result of his proceedings, whether he constitutes us
180 CONFLICT OF AGES.
sinners at first, or knowingly places us in sucli circum
stances that we shall certainly become sinners, and that
very soon 7 Must not God's design as to our being sinners
be the same in one case as in the other ; and must not the
final result be the same 7 Is not one of these states of
mankind fraught with as many and as great evils as the
other 7 What ground of preference, then, would any man
have 7 * ^^ * Let intelligent,- candid men, w^ho do not
believe either of these schemes, say w^hether one of them is
not open to as many objections as the other. It is said
that all the feelings of our hearts revolt at the idea that God
gives us a depraved, sinful nature at our birth, and that no
man can believe this without resisting and overcoming his
most amiable sensibilities ; and do not our moral feelings
equally revolt at the idea that God creates us without
holiness, and gives us at our birth such appetites and pro-
pensities as he knows will forthwith bring us into a state of
depravity 7 And have we not as much occasion to resist
and overcome our amiable sensibilities in one case as in the
other 7" (Woods, vol. ii. pp. 359—361.)
The appeal of Dr. Woods to those who do not believe
either of these schemes had already been fully met, as will
be remembered, by Dr. Channing. After condemning the
older form of the doctrine, which involves a depraved and
punishable nature before action, he condemns, with no less
severity, ' ' the more modern exposition, that we came from the
hand of our Maker with such a constitution, and are placed
under snch influences and circumstances, as to render certain
and infallible the total depravity of every human being,
from the first moment of his moral agency. Concerning
this view, he says, "That to give existence under this con-
dition would argue unspeakable cruelty, and that to punish
the sin of this unhappily constituted child with endless ruiia
THE REACTION. 181
would be a wrong unparalleled by the most merciless des-
potism."
It is plain, then, that no real available and general
harmony is effected by the positions of the New School
party. Indeed, as we see, they satisfy neither the Unita-
rians, as zealous advocates of honor and right, on the one
hand, nor the thorough defenders of the innate depravity
and utterly ruined condition of man, on the other. Both
of these parties agree that a conflict with the principles of
honor and right exists as truly in the new scheme as in the
old. And, in addition to this, the Old School divines
regard the denial of a real, inherent criminal depravity,
anterior to action, as virtually an abandonment of the doc-
trine of original sin, and as leading ultimately to Pelagi-
anism and Unitarianism.
But, on the other hand, the New School party relying,
justly, on the self-evident principles of equity and honor,
reject the theory of imputation and forfeiture on which the
Old School party base their entire justification of God. In
this they are sustained by the unanimous concurring opin-
ion of the Unitarian party. Both of these parties agree
that the fundamental position of the old theology is utterly
indefensible.
With reference to the New School theology, I would here
also say that it has, at least as held by certain minds and
in certain circumstances, a tendency to degrade our concep-
tions of free agency. To escape the pressure of the argu-
ment against the theory of a deteriorated moral constitu-
tion, that it is at war with equity and honor in God, some,
who profess to hold the doctrines of the New School
divines, take the ground that the moral constitutions of
men are as good as the nature of free agency will allow.
In this way they arrive at the same virtual degradation of
16
182 ■ CONFLICT OF AGES.
free agency of which I have spoken when considering the
tendencies of Unitarian theology. This is, virtually, a
denial that there has been any fall of the race. But, cer-
tainly, it is a ver^? low and unworthy conception of the
capabilities of free agency to suppose that the mournful
and deeply corrupt moral developments of this world are a
fair illustration of its natural tendencies and results in the
best and most uncorrupted minds.
Even that Hegelian view of the necessity of moral evil
as a means of education, whi^h Dr. Burnap was not willing
to adopt, — though his views seem to approximate to it, —
has an unpleasant similarity to the views of Dr. Bushnell.
He teaches that '' if a child was born as clear of natural
prejudice or damage as Adam before his sin, spiritual
education, or, what is the same, probation, that which
trains a being for a stable, intelligent virtue hereafter
would still involve an experiment of evil; therefore, a
fall and bondage under the laws of evil." Again, of
Christian virtue he says : "It involves a struggle with
evil, a fall and rescue. The soul becomes established in
holy virtue as a free exercise only as it is passed round
the corner of Ml and redemption, ascending thus unto God
through a double experience, in which it learns the bitter-
ness of evil and the worth of good ; fighting its way out of
one, and achieving the other as a victory." It would
seem, according to this, that such is free agency that a
process of sinning is an indispensable part of a finished
spiritual education in all minds. This certainly degrades
free agency to the lowest point of the scale, and represents
moral evil as a necessary means of moral education at all
times, and in all worlds. But, if evil is thus necessary for
such an end, how can a proper sense of its moral ill-desert
be consistently retained?
THE REACTION. 183
This error may, perhaps, have arisen from generalizing
as true of all minds what is sometimes true of depraved
minds. If inherent depravity exists, to act it out is some-
times overruled to effect a cure. But, that sin is not neces-
sary to develop undepraved minds, the case of the unfallen
angels and of Christ plainly shows.
On the whole, after thus considering the diverse systems
which have resulted from an attempt to modify the facts so
as to accord with the principles of honor and right, the
following conclusion appears to be established : that though,
so far as they rest on these principles, they all have inde-
structible elements of power, yet they always give rise to a
powerful reaction. Hence, though in certain aspects they
have a decided logical advantage over the old system, yet it
also, in other aspects, has a great power of assault, as
opposed to them. The deep depravity of man, even before
action, seems to find a response in facts in human con-
sciousness and in the word of God. In particular, a deep
Christian experience leads naturally to its belief The
moral wants of man and Christian experience will ever
give power to the deepest views of depravity : and, when
the conclusions derived from the principles of honor and
right begin to render the New School system superficial,
there will be a reaction in some of the most experimental
minds to deeper views. But, since these profound views
cannot be harmonized with reason and the moral sense, as
the system is now adjusted, the exercise of these powers
with reference to them will be proscribed, and refuge will
be sought in faith and mystery. From this result other
minds wall again earnestly and decidedly react, and thus
the conflict will be eternal.
CHAPTER XIII.
OR,
THE GLORY OF GOD.
We now come to an experience which, in its full develop-
ment, is less common than either of those which have been
considered; but towards which, nevertheless, there are
often strong tendencies. It is that experience in which the
principles of honor and right, and also the facts concerning
the depravity and ruin of man, are both retained, and yet
without the perception of any satisfactory mode of modifi-
cation and adjustment. In this case the mind comes, for a
time, under the oppressive and overwhelming consciousness
of existing, apparently, under a universal system which is
incapable of defence, and under a God whom the principles
of honor and of right forbid us to worship.
We will first look at the tendencies to this state as illus-
trated in the experience of an eminent theological writer,
whose views we have before considered ; we refer to the
celebrated John Foster. In a letter to that distinguished
scholar and divine, Dr. Harris, President of Cheshunt Col-
lege, Foster thus expresses himself:
" I hope, indeed may assume, that you are of a cheerful
temperament ; but are you not sometimes invaded by the
darkest visions and reflections, while casting your view over
the scene of human existence, from the beginning to this
hour ? To me it appears a most mysteriously awful
economy, overspread by a lurid and dreadful shade. I pray
FIFTH EXPERIENCE. 185
for the piety to maintain an humble submission of thought
and feeling to the wise and righteous Disposer of all exist-
ence. But, to see a nature created in purity, qualified for
perfect and endless felicity, but ruined^ at the very origin^
by a disaster devolving fatally on all the race^ — to see it
in an early age of the world estranged from truth, from the
love and fear of its Creator ; from that, therefore, without
which existence is a thing to be deplored, — abandoned to
all evil, till swept away by a deluge, — the renovated race
revolving into idolatry and iniquity, and spreading down-
ward through ages in darkness, wickedness and misery, —
no Divine dispensation to enlighten and reclaim it, except
for one small section, and that section itself a no less
flagrant proof of the desperate corruption of the nature ; —
the ultimate, grand remedial visitation, Christianity, labor-
ing in a difficult progress and very limited extension, and
soon perverted from its purpose into darkness and super-
stition, for a period of a thousand years, — at the present
hour known and even nominally acknowledged by very
greatly the minority of the race, the mighty mass remain-
ing prostrate under the infernal dominion of which countless
generations of their ancestors have been the slaves and
victims, — a deplorable majority of the people in the Chris-
tian nations strangers to the vital power of Christianity,
and a large proportion directly hostile to it ; and even the
institutions pretended to be for its support and promotion
being baneful to its virtue, — its progress in the work of
conversion, in even the most favored part of the world, dis-
tanced by the progressive increase of the population, so
that even there (but to a fearful extent, if we take the
world at large) the disproportion of the faithtul to the
irreligious is continually increasing, — the sum of all these
melancholy facts being, that thousands of millions have
16^
186 CONFLICT OF AGES.
passed, and thousands every day are passing out of the
world, in no state of fitness for a pure and happy state
elsewhere ; 0, it is a most confounding and appalling con-
templation !"
It is perfectly apparent that there was a powerful tend-
ency in Foster's mind towards the state which has just
been described. In looking over the scene of human exist-
ence, he found himself sometimes invaded by " the darkest
visions and reflections P The whole of the present dis-
pensation appeared to him ' ' a most mysteriously aiofut
economy^ overspread by a lurid and dreadful shadeP
He still held fast to the belief that God is wise and right-
eous. But it cost him many struggles to retain this aspect
of his character, in view of the apparent facts of the case.
"I pray for the piety," he says, " to maintain an humble
submission of thought and feeling to the wise and righteous
Disposer of all existence." But a connected view of the
system as a whole, including the fall of the race in Adam, —
their deep individual depravity, their subjection to corrupt
social organizations and to the malign power of evil spirits,
and their mournful history in all ages, was to him ' ' a
'iuost confounding and appalling contemplation.''''
His biographer, J. E. Ryland, represents him as having
here " advanced within the auful shadoio of a subject
which seems partially to have obscured his perception of
the ultimate ground of moral responsibility." I do not
think that this is a full statement of the case. The expe-
rience of Foster originated from the difficult}^ of reconciling
the facts of the system, as a whole, with God's obligations,
as a being of honor and justice, towards successive genera-
tions of new-created minds. And it is plain that, if he had
r.ot found relief in some way, he would have come into
the dark shade of a system which he could see no mode of
FIFTH EXPERIENCE. 187
reconciling with honor and right ; and, under the govern-
ment of a God whose character, as he saw it, he could not
rationally reverence and adore.
I know that the human mind A\ill earnestly struggle
against coming into such a state. Yet, if the system logi-
cally xcads to it, we ought not to wonder that minds which
have a strong regard to logical consistency are sometimes
forced into it. It was in view of such results that Dr.
Channing said of Calvinism, ^' I know that on some minds
it has the most mournful effects ; that it spreads over them
an impenetrable gloom." Such would have been its lasting
influence on Foster, had he not in some way found relief.
But he immediately proceeds to state in what manner he
found it possible to avoid such an entire eclipse of the
character of God.
" And it would be a transcendently direful contemplation,
if I believed the doctrine of the eternity of future misery.
It amazes me to imagine how thoughtful and benevolent
men, believing that doctrine, can endure the sight of the
present world and the history of the past. To behold suc-
cessive, innumerable crowds carried on m the mighty
impulse of a depraved nature, which they are impotent to
reverse, and to which it is not the will of God in his sov-
ereignty to apply the only adequate power, the withholding of
Yvhich consigns them inevitably to their doom, — to see them
passing through a short term of mortal existence (absurdly
sometimes denominated a probation) under all the icorid's
pernicious influences, with the addition of the malign and
deadly one of the great tempter and destroyer, to con-
firm and augment the inherent depravity, on their
speedy passage to everlasting woe, — I repeat, I am, with-
out pretending to any extraordinary depth of feeling,
amazed to conceive what they contrive to do with their
188 CONFLICT OF AGES.
sensibility, and in what manner they maintain a firn.
assurance of the Divine goodness and justice."
We are now prepared to see what are the causes of the
experience which we are considering, vfhen it is fully de-
veloped. They are these : to have, from Christian experience
and from the word of God, a conviction of the radical &cts
as to the ruin of man, as clear and unwavering as the
belief of one's own existence ; and, at the same time, to
have an equally unwavering belief of the principles of
honor and right, and of the demands made by them on God
with reference to new-created beings, and to see the conflict
between them, without any apparent mode of reconciliation.
This is not the experience of a sceptic, or of a caviller.
It sometimes takes place after years of deep and joyful
Christian experience have purified the soul, and produced a
full conviction of the inspiration of the word of God, which
nothing can shake.
In this state of mind, and whilst keenly sensitive to those
demands of honor and right which pressed upon Foster, let
the following things be true: that, after a careful examina-
tion of all the theories of the Old School and the New School
divines for vindicating the fall in Adam, and its results, they
are rejected as insufficient; that an experience of the
deep depravity of the heart, and the study of history arid
the Bible, render impossible the adoption of the Unitarian
theory ; that the theory of John Foster is wholly irrecon-
cilable with the obvious tendencies of things, and the
explicit testimony of the word of God; that in the rejection
of the Bible there would be no relief, since the depravity of
man, and his tendencies to irremediable misery, are as clear
by the light of nature as by revelation; that, moreover,
there is no rational ground for the rejection of the Bible,
but full and ample grounds for its reception as an inspired
FIFTH EXPERIENCE. 189
communication from God; — let these things be true, and the
things of which we speak will be the unavoidable result.
The mind of any refined and educated man, and especially
of a Christian man, recoils from the thought that God can
be other than holy, just and good. Hence, Dr. Channing
says, ''We can endure any errors but those which subvert
or unsettle the conviction of God's paternal goodness.
Urge not upon us a system which makes existence a curse,
and wraps the universe in gloom ! "
Yet views of the conduct of God may be presented, and
for a time believed, which are, in fact, at war with the prin-
ciples of honor and right, and which present to the mind a
malevolent God ; and a consistently logical mind cannot
escape the influence on its feelings of what it really believes.
Although no Christian will ever, in fact, believe that God
is dishonorable and unjust in his dealings with his creatures,
yet his alleged acts may be such that he cannot rationally
• be seen in any other light. Then is the sun of the universe
for a time eclipsed, and the whole system seems, to use the
words of Foster, '-to be overspread by a lurid and dreadful
shade." How many ever pass in fact into this dark valley,
I have no means of determining. It is not an experience
that men are disposed to make public. I knew one man, of
eminent piety, and distinguished as a clergyman, who had
had trials of great severity from tendencies to such views.
I have, however, a full knowledge only of what I have
learned by experience. For a time the system of this
world rose before my mind, in the same manner, as far as I
can judge, as it did before the minds of Chanmng and Foster.
I can, therefore, more fully appreciate their expression of their
trials and emotions. But I was entirely unable to find relief
is they did. The depravity of man neither Christian expe-
rience, the Bible, nor history, would permit me to deny. Nor
190 CONFLICT OF AGES.
did reason or scripture afford me any satisfactory grounds
whatever for antici^^ating the restoration of the lost to
holiness in a future state. Hence, for a time, all was dark
as night.
If any one would know the full worth of the privilege of
living under, worshipping, loving and adoring a God of
honor, righteousness and love, let him, after years of joyful
Christian experience, and soul- satisfying communion with
God, at last come to a point where his lovely character, for
a time, vanishes from his eyes, and nothing can be ration-
ally seen but a God selfish, dishonorable, unfeeling. No
such person can ever believe that God is such ; but he may
be so situated as to be unable rationally to see him in any
other light. All the common modes of defending the doc-
trine of native depravity may have been examined and pro-
nounced insufficient, and the question may urgently press
itself upon the mind. Is not the present system a malevolent
one '? and of it no defence may appear.
Who can describe the gloom of him who looks on such a
prospect 7 How dark to him appears the history of man !
He looks with pity on the children that pass him in the
street. The more violent manifestations of their depravity
seem to be the unfoldings of a corrupt nature, given to
them by God before any knowledge, choice or consent, of
their own. Mercy now seems to be no mercy, and he who
once delighted to speak of the love of Christ is obliged to
close his lips in silence, for the original wrong of giving
man such a nature seems so great that no subsequent acts
can atone for the deed. In this state of mind, he who once
delighted to pray kneels and rises again, because he cannot
sincerely worship the only God whom he sees. His distress
is not on his own account. He feels that God has redeemed
and regenerated liim ; but this gives him no relief. He feels
as if he could not be bribed by the offer of all the honors of
FIFTH EXPERIENCE. 191
the universe to pretend to worship or praise a God whose
character he cannot defend. He feels that he should in-
finitely prefer once more to see a God whom he could
honorably adore, and a universe radiant with his glory, and
then to sink into non-existence, rather than to have all the
honors of the universe forever heaped upon him by a God
whose character he could not sincerely and honestly defend
Never before has he so deeply felt a longing after a God of
a spotless character. Never has he so deeply felt that the
whole light and joy of the universe are in him, and that
when his character is darkened all worlds are filled with
gloom.
Yet, during all this strange experience, he feels that he is
in fact doing no dishonor to the true God. He knows that
all true goodness, honor and love, in himself, came from thp
word and spirit of that God ; and asks, could he thus have
trained me, if he were not good, honorable and full of love 7
Could he have trained me to hate himself?
In contrast with this it would be appropriate finally to
place the experience of one who retains all the radical
facts as to human depravity, and the system that grows out
of it, but passes from the deep gloom of the last experience
into the sunshine of the divine glory, by discovering a mode
in which these facts can be so adjusted as to harmonize with
the principles of honor and right in God. The transition
in my own case was as if, when I had been groping in some
vast cathedral, in the gloom of midnight, vainly striving to
comprehend its parts and relations, suddenly before the vast
arched window of the nave a glorious sun had suddenly
burst forth, filling the whole structure with its radiance, and
showing in perfect harmony the proportions and beauties of
its parts. But the rational basis of such an experience
needs first to be seen, before the experience itself can be
understood.
BOOK III.
THE RECONCILIATION IN ITS PRINCIPLES.
CHAPTER I.
THE PROBLEM PROPOSED.
The reality, tlie nature and the power, of the great con-
flict which I have undertaken to consider, are by this time
sufficiently apparent. Who can estimate the amount of
emotion and of suifering which the system of Christianity,
as thus misadjusted, has caused in minds eminent alike for
intellectual power and for benevolence?
How sad to think of its influence for years upon such a
mind as that of Foster ! How affecting the conflicts which
it causes in the minds of ingenuous young men, trained to
the love of free thought, and sensitive to the principles of
equity and honor, when they find themselves impelled by
these principles either to reject facts revealed by Christian
consciousness and the Bible, or else to see dark clouds aris-
ing to eclipse the character of God ! Under the present
system they can take no position in which the action of
their minds will not be, in some respects, forced, unhealthy
and unnatural. To reject the thorough doctrine of deprav-
ity, leaves the deep moral wounds of their nature unprobed
THE PROBLEM PROPOSED. 193
and unhealed, and perpetuates the sufferings which pride,
when not properly understood and eradicated, always
causes. To retain the doctrine of depravity in its fulness^
and to war against honor and the principles of right in
its defence, or by sophistry to evade their demands, or to
sink into deep gloom with Foster, — either, though less per-
nicious in its results, is nevertheless a course the necessity
of which is deeply to be deplored. To spend centuries in
a conflict on such points, without progress, is certainly a
mournful waste of energy, enjoyment and usefulness.
But a full idea of the magnitude of this conflict cannot
be gained, till its historical development, through a long
series of centuries, has been surveyed. To this survey it
would seem to be natural and appropriate now to proceed.
I am induced, however, to defer such a survey for the
present, by the conviction that a consideration of the mode
in which the system can be so readjusted as to remove the
conflict is essential to a thorough aiid profound understand-
ing of the various historical developments of that conflict.
But, before entering directly upon the solution of the
problem thus presented, to avert all misunderstanding, it is
necessary first to state how much I propose at this point of
the investigation to undertake. I propose, then, at this
time, merely to show that there is, at least, one supposable
mode in which the system can be so adjusted that both of
the great moving powers of Christianity may be retained
and fully developed, and yet made to act together in perfect
harmony.
A full and argumentative consideration of the evidence
of its truth does not fall within the scope of my present
purpose. At another time I propose to resume that point,
and to enter carefully into a consideration of that part of
the subject. But, as a preparatory step, it is sufficient for
17
194 CONFLICT OF AGES.
my presen: purpose to sliow tliat the solution wliich I sliall
suggest is possible. It is no doubt true, as will soon
appear, that the mere statement of it will incidentally effect
much more than this : but I aim not so much at argument
as at statement and exposition.
For we are not to suppose that, in a case like the present,
it is of no importance to establish merely the possibility
of the mode of reconciliation in question. It will avail to
show that the full belief of the truths on both sides, which
have been brought in conflict, is not of necessity unreason-
able. It will prove that they do not of necessity come into
collision with each other. It will evince that there is at
least one way in which they can be harmonized. If we can
also show that there can be no other way, then doubtless
the mode suggested is the true way. If we do not know
this, and if we see no reason why there should not be other
modes in which it can be done, then we are authorized to
say that either in the mode suggested, or in some other way,
they can be harmonized.
I shall begin, therefore, with simply proposing a possible
mode of reconciliation, and defer to a future time a full
consideration of the question whether it is in fact the real
mode.
At the same time, I Avould again advert to the truth that,
in many cases, the mere fact that a certain adjustment of
the parts of a system will harmonize the action of the
whole is reasonably deemed to be a very strong presump-
tion, or even a sufficient proof, that that is the true arrange-
ment. If a certain number of wheels, levers and axles, were
known to belong to one machine, and if, after repeated
trials of various modes of combination, the parts of the
machine had never worked harmoniously together, then the
mere fact that a mode of combination which had at iast
THE PROBLEM PROPOSED. ^ 195
been pointed out would remove the conflict and develop the
full power of the machine, would be regarded by all as a
sufficient proof that it was the true and proper mode of com-
bination. I cannot, therefore, even state the present solu-
tion, without furnishing evidence of this kind, of greater or
less degree of strength.
CHAPTER II.
METHOD OF PROCEDURE
There are two modes in whicli we may suppose tliat a
problem of this kind can be solved. One by a direct and
specific divine revelation in language ; the other by a
study of the principles and component parts of the system
0 itself We are obliged to resort to the latter mode in order
"f to^ prove the being of a God, and the divine origin and
^H\ inspiration Of his word. It cannot, therefore, be an unsafe
^vV*^:lnode of proceeding, since it is at the basis of all our belief
4 in a God and in revelation.
For the present, I shall consider the problem now before
us in the second mode, on the assumption that we are
allowed by the word of God to solve it by simply consider-
ing the principles and component parts of the system, and
are not bound by any verbal statements of revelation to
adopt any particular theory on the subject.
To illustrate my meaning, I would refer to the true
theory of the solar system. It is now conceded that there
has been no solution of this system given in the word of
God. The great Creator has made it known only by dis-
closing to the human mind the principles and facts which,
when viewed as a system, involve its truth. By the study
and comparison and arrangement of these, it was at last
discovered. God, by making the system as he did, and by
placing the requisite principles and facts in the possession
METHOD OF PROCEDURE. 197
of men, did virtually, thougli not verbally, reveal to them
the true laws of the universe. Newton, by studying and
combining what God gave to men, at last interpreted the
revelation.
So I shall assume that, in this case, God has given to us
the principles and facts, which, viewed in their relations, do
reveal to us the true mode of harmonizing the great mov-
ing powers of Christianity. These principles and facts he
has given to us, not in any one mode, but in various
modes. He has so made the mind that it gives us, by its
intuitive perceptions, those great intellectual and moral
principles which are at the basis of all possible knowledge.
He has so made the body, and the material system around
us, that they are to us a great and inexhaustible library of
facts, principles and laws. He has given us, by his provi-
dence, as developed in history, sacred and profane, rich and
varied stores of truth. There we see his great moral sys-
tem in operation. There we study the various theories of
man with reference to it, and watch their results as reduced
to practice. But, above all, God has revealed to us in his
word facts and principles of the highest moment, and most
extended relations. He there transcends the bounds "of
sense and of time. He places before us the inhabitants of
other worlds, and their relations to us. He discloses his
own plans, in their eternal relations, and our connection
with them. He unfolds to us the great fact that all things
in this world centre and terminate in the redemption of the
church. He discloses to us, moreover, the final and glori-
ous destinies of the church in eternity.
All the principles and facts placed before us, in these
various ways, in fact belong to one and the same great sys-
tem, the centre of which is that high and holy One of
whom and through whom and to whom are all things.
17#
198 CONFLICT OF AGES.
Moreover, in my present inquiries, I shall assume that
God has so presented to us this system, taken as a whole,
that by a careful study of it we may learn the great law
of its harmonious action ; and that the Bible has said nothing
designed to foreclose this mode of inquiry, or to confine us,
by express verbal revelation, to any particular theory on the
subject.
I know that this position has been denied, and will be
disputed. In its proper place, therefore, I shall fully con-
sider such denials, and endeavor to exhibit the real relations
of the Bible to the subject. At present, however, I shall
assume as correct the position concerning the Bible which
I have laid down, reserving the proof of its truth to another
place.
On this assumption, then, I shall proceed to present
what is certainly a possible mode of removing all conflict
between the moving powers of Christianity ; that is, between
those thorough views of innate human depravity, and sub-
jection to the powers of evil, which are recognized as true
and scriptural by men of a profound Christian experience,
and the highest principles of honor and right, which a well-
ordered mind intuitively perceives to be t"ue, and obligatory
upon God as well as upon men.
CHAPTER III.
AND CON-
DITIONS OF THE PROBLEM.
Before engaging in an undertaking as serious as that
proposed, it is important to call to mind the great fact that
sound logic and true benevolence are but a part of the
influences by which the human mind is, or ever has been,
in fact, controlled in forming its opinions. Even, there-
fore, if I should succeed in presenting a solution in which
truly logical and benevolent minds would be united, it
would not follow, of course, that all division would cease,
but only that it would cease among candid and reasonable
good men. This is not possible as things now are, and
therefore to make it possible is my great aim.
But in a large portion of the religious community there
are committals from which it is hard, if not impossible, for
them to escape. I refer to the votaries of the Church of
Rome in particular. That body was early committed to a
false theory, and, by reason of her claim to infallibility, is
cut off from alteration or retraction. Moreover, upon the
minds of many, various illogical influences still exert great
power. These flow sometimes from the imagination, some-
times from the association of ideas, sometimes from pecuni-
ary or social interests, sometimes from a bad heart. More-
over, the solution before me will touch and affect a wide
range of such influences and interests. It is not, therefore,
200 CONFLICT OF AGES.
reasonable to demand of me that I shall succeed in present-
ing a solution which will, in fact, avert division among all
men, of all moral characters, and in all states of mind, but
that I shall present a solution adequate to avert division
among benevolent and reasonable minds. Nor is it a con-
dition that I shall be able at once to suspend the power of
illogical influences proceeding from constitutional peculiari-
ties, or pecuniary or organic interests, even among good
men.
In some good men the imagination is so inordinately pre-
dominant that they are so governed by taste and poetry as
to be almost insensible to the force of logic. Others are so
impelled by imaginative emotions that they have no affinity
for enlarged, calm and comprehensive logical views. In
others the association of ideas has imparted to everything
that has been, during their education, linked in with the
system of the gospel, such an aspect of holiness,, that even
errors are invested with all the sacredness of the truths
with which they have been associated. Not only the
Church of Rome, but all state churches, and great denomi-
national organizations, exert an influence, upon the standing
and means of support of all their members, so powerful that
it tends to arrest or overrule the free action of the logical
power, by an influence which is, in its essential nature,
rather intimidating than illuminating or reasoning. In
others, emotions of reverence and gratitude to great and good
men of past ages, emotions in themselves very proper, are
so inordinate as to render them incapable of admitting that
any of their views can be erroneous. National prejudices,
moreover, and denominational commitments, and the general
state of society in any age, exert a great control over the
action of the logical power. It is not a condition of the
problem before me that I shall be able at once to suspend
CONDITIONS OF THE PEOBLEM. 201
the influence of such causes, and to unite all men in one
common view. It only requires that I give a reconciliation
which is sound in principle, and will finally be recognized
as such by all rational, impartial, and unbiased minds.
Much less do the conditions of the problem require, as I
have before said, that I shall be able to suspend the blind-
ing povrer of a sinful aversion to the truth, or to neutral-
ize the influence of a moral repulsion from the divine
character which no reasonable view of things can harmon
ize with God. There is such a thing as hating the truth
by reason of sin. Of this our Saviour spoke when he said
that men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds
are evil. Pride and selfishness cannot be practically and
heartily harmonized with the true principles of honor and
right, for they are not themselves honorable and righteous.
But those who are truly humble, benevolent and penitent,
are disposed to see the truth. They are not indisposed to
justify God, and to condemn themselves as sinners. There
is, therefore, no moral obstacle in the way of a clear per-
ception of truth in the minds of such. What they shrink
from is not just humiliation and self-condemnation, nor
any just views of the divine sovereignty, but allega-
tions which, in their most candid and humble hours, seem
at war with the honor and rectitude of God. From these
they recoil, from the very fact that they love him with
supreme afiection, and cannot endure to see his glory
obscured. Our problem, then, has respect to such minds
as these, and not to such as are in spirit still opposed to
GoJ. It is in vain to try to satisfy the feelings of worldly,
proud, conceited, selfish minds, continuing such, or to har-
monize them with statements of their own deep depravity
and guilt, and of the right of God to deal with them in
accordance with the principles of a wise and benevolent
202 CONFLICT OF AGES.
sovereignty. Sinful feelings are essentially unreasonable,
and lead to a dislike of the truth itself, however stated ; ana
the difficulty caused by them cannot be remedied till they
are removed.
But those difficulties which are felt by truly sanctified,
humble and reasonable minds, and the more in proportion
as they become holy, humble and reasonable, are entirely
of another kind ; and it is of the removal of these that we
now propose to speak.
The problem, therefore, has reference to benevolent, can-
did, humble, logical, well-balanced minds, who, though
keenly sensitive to all proper appeals to their feelings, are
yet not governed by the association of ideas, nor by the
imagination, nor by mere emotion, but desire to maintain a
proper consistency and harmony between their intellectual
and moral views and their emotions, and who cannot rest
in systems made up of incongruous and self-contradictory
positions.
CHAPTER IV.
THE ESSENTIALS OF HARMONY.
I HAVE stated the character of the minds among whom
I regard it as possible to produce harmonj. Let us
proceed to consider the essential elements of harmony
among such minds. First of all, then, I remark, that, m
order to secure this result, it is obviously indispensable to
retain all the facts which really belong to the system as a
great whole. This is essential in order to avoid partial and
one-sided views. The universal system may be compared
to a machine composed of many wheels, which may be put
together in various ways, by omitting one or more of the
wheels ; but yet, there is always evidence that the true way
has not been discovered, so long as all the wheels are not
included, each in a place that makes it contribute to the
common result to be produced by their joint action. Or,
to resort for an illustration to a common game among chil-
dren, the parts of the system are like the letters which
compose a word, and are given out in confusion, to be
united by the discovery of the word to which they belong
Other words may be spelled by a part of them, but if any
are omitted it is a proof that the true word has not been
discovered.
In like manner, if any of the real and great facts of
God's system are omitted, no matter if the rest are so
204 CONFLICT OF AGES.
united as to make a system of some sort, it is plainly not
the true system, nor can it harmonize such minds as those
to whom my reasoning is directed. They will desire to
take not one-sided, but enlarged and comprehensive views,
and to include all the known or discoverable facts of God's
system. To ilkistrate by an example: there are those
who reject the Bible, in reality, on account of its deep
views of human depravity, or of future punishment, or ol
Satanic agency. Others, retaining it in name, on various
grounds drop many of its doctrines. To a truly benevo-
lent, logical and vrell-balanced mind, such a course can give
no relief It is merely rejecting a large portion of the
most important and best authenticated facts of the system ;
and it results of necessity in limited, defective and one-
sided views.
The system, therefore, which satisfies a truly logical and
well-balanced mind, will retain all the facts of the Bible,
of history, of science, and of the philosophy of the human
mind and body, as being, in fact, harmonious parts of the
true system of which it is in pursuit.
Moreover, in order to produce harmony, the system must
be such as to give full and free play to all the convictions
and em^otions which it is the design of Christianity to call
into existence. In particular, it must allow the process of
conviction of sin, humiliation and confession, to advance
with such power, and to such an extent, as thoroughly to
probe and radically to heal the moral diseases of the mind.
The theory of sin and the facts concerning human deprav-
ity must be so stated as to aid, and not to impede, the full
development of the deepest forms of Christian experience.
For the work of sanctification is the chief work of the Spirit
of God, and, till its full demands are met, the most power-
ful portion of Christian minds will never rest. In all ages
THE ESSENTIALS OF HARMONY. 205
the channel of power has been that of deep conviction of
Bin, penitence and self-abasement before God. Any views
which permanently obstruct this channel will cause a rise
in tne streams of Christian emotion, till they are swept
away. The fundamental facts as to the fallen and ruined
state of man must be, therefore, retained with the utmost
fulness.
Nor must the full power of the invisible spiritual'enemies
of the human race to flatter and deceive be hidden, so as
to allow of delusive views of human power and self-orig-
inated progress. On the other hand, the need of a super-
natural divine agency must be recognized as essential, in
order thoroughly to purify the soul, and to restore it to its
normal relation to God.
The reason of this is obvious. There is a correlation
between the mind and God, which is the basis, so far as
the mind is holy, of a sympathetic communion, designed
and adapted to fill all the capacities and develop and perfect
all the povy'ers.
This is not merely natural, like the vision of the
sun : but it is suspended on a manifesting power in God, —
such that he can reveal or hide himself, as he will.
This sympathetic communion cannot be perfect until the
soul is entirely cleansed from sin ; for hohness in man is
essential to a true conception of holiness in God, as well as
to sympathy with it. Every one that loveth knoweth
God, and he who loveth not knoweth not God ; for God is
love. Nor can perfect love in God be comprehended,
except by that perfect love which casteth out fear.
Hence, as a matter of experience, seasons of deep con-
viction of sin, mourning and self-loathing, precede seasons
of eminent and joyful communion with God. It is this
process of moral cleansing which fits the soul for commu-
18
206 CONFLICT OP AGES.
nion witli God. It also renders peculiar manifestations of
divine favor safe to the Christian, since it increases the
depth of his humihtj before God, and his conviction that
he owes all that he has of moral excellence to the grace of
God.
Edwards says of himself: ''Often, since I lived in this
town, I have had very affecting views of my own sinfulness
and vileness ; very frequently to such a degree as to hold
me in a kind of loud weeping, sometimes for a considerable
time together ; so that I have often been forced to shut
myself up. I have had a vastly greater sense of my own
wickedness, and the badness of my heart, than ever I had
before my conversion. It has often appeared to me that,
if God should mark iniquity against me, I should appear
the very worst of all mankind ; of all that have been since
the beginning of the world to this time ; and that I should
have by far the lowest place in hell."
To this the editor subjoins in a note the following
judicious remarks :
" Our author does not say that he had more wickedness
and badness of heart since his conversion than he had
before ; but that he had a greater sense thereof Thus a
bhnd man may have his garden full of noxious weeds, and
yet not see or be sensible of them. But should the garden
be in great part cleared of these, and furnished with many
beautiful and salutary plants ; and, supposing the owner
now to have the power of discriminating objects of sight :
in this case, he would have less, but would see and have a
sense of more. And thus it was that St. Paul, though
greatly freed from sin, yet saw and felt himself as ' the
chief of sinners.' To which may be added, that the better
the organ and clearer the light may be, the stronger will be
the sense excited by sin or holiness."
THE ESSENTIALS OF HARMONY. 207
This is but a natural result of the illuminating power of
the divine Spirit, whilst engaged in the work of thoroughly
purging the soul from the pollutions of sin.
It is an experience like that of an eminent ancient
saintj who exclaimed, ''I have heard of thee by the hear-
ing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee ; wherefore, I
abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes ! "
The natural result of such seasons of mournino; for sin
is divine comfort and communion in a still higher degree ;
and such was, in fact, his experience.
He says, in describing other parts of his religious life,
" I have sometimes had a sense of the excellent fulness of
Christ, and his meetness and suitableness as a Saviour ;
whereby he has appeared to me far above all, the chief
of ten thousands. His blood and atonement have appeared
sweet, and his righteousness sweet; which was always
accompanied with ardency of spirit, and inward strugglings
and breathings, and groanings that cannot be uttered, to be
emptied of myself, and swallowed up in Christ.
" Once, as I rode out into the woods for my health, in
1737, having alighted from my horse in a retired place, as
my manner commonly has been, to walk for divine contem-
plation and prayer, I had a view, that for me was extraor-
dinary, of the glory of the Son of God, as Mediator
between God and man, and his wonderful, great, full, pure
and sweet grace and love, and meek and gentle condescen-
sion. This grace, that appeared so calm and sweet, appeared
also great above the heavens. The person of Christ appeared
ineffably excellent, with an excellency great enough to
swallow up all thought and conception, — which continued,
as near as I can judge, about an hour ; which kept me the
greater part of the time in a flood of tears, and weeping
aloud. I felt an ardency of soul to be, what I know not
208 CONFLICT OF AGES.
otherwise how to express, emptied and annihilated ; tc lie
in the dust, and to be full of Christ alone ; to love him
with a holy and pure love ; to trust in him ; to live upon
him ; to serve and follow him ; and to be perfectly sancti-
fied and made pure, with a divine and heavenly purity. I
have several other times had views very much of the same
nature, and which have had the same effects."
Such is the process by which the soul is conducted
towards perfect holiness, and which it is essential that noth-
ing be allowed to interrupt.
But it is no less important that nothing shall be mingled
with such views as shall misrepresent God, and make the
system, logically viewed as a whole, a source of torture
to the sanctified and fully developed mind, exquisite in
proportion to the degree of its sanctification. There is
nothing of this kind in God, when truly seen ; but false
theories have often introduced such elements.
The decisive point of trial of every system, therefore, is,
can it give a view of depravity such as to include all sin,
and so deep and powerful as to go to the bottom of the
human malady, and purge it fully out, and give a con-
sciousness of life and health, and of restoration to its true
and normal state ; and, moreover, reveal to man the true
system of this world, and yet, at the same time, disclose
to it a God such in attributes and acts that, in its most
holy state, it can perfectly love him, without doing violence
to any of its regenerated powers and honorable emotions?
Human depravity is a matter of fact and of conscious-
ness ; and, in order to heal it, we must take it as it is, in
all its extent and magnitude. And any system that cannot
go to the bottom of a regenerated consciousness, cannot
radically heal the soul ; and, till the mind is thus healed, it
IS in vain to present to it a theoretically perfect view of
THE ESSENTIALS OF HARMONY. 209
God, for it must first be radically sanctified before it can
experimentally know and commune -with such a God.
On the other hand, however deep a system is in its
theory of human depravity, if, in fact, it misrepresents the
feelings or the acts of God, it must fill a truly regenerated
and fully developed mind with deep distress, because it
cannot fully love God without doing violence to its regen-
erated nature. Let us illustrate this by a familiar scrip-
tural analogy. The church is united to God in such rela-
tions that she is called the bride, the Lamb's wife.
Suppose, then, that a truly benevolent king, deeply inter-
ested in a young woman of low rank but of distinguished
natural talent, and yet proud, ambitious, selfish and cruel,
had undertaken to correct her defects and educate her to
become his wife, and had so far revolutionized her charac-
ter as to make her humble, unaspiring, full of disinterested
love, forgiving, compassionate and sensitively honorable,
and then had espoused her to himself, — could anything fill
her with deeper anguish than to have facts stated concern-
ing him, on evidence apparently conclusive, which, if true,
would prove that in his general administration he was cold-
hearted, selfish, cruel, and devoid of all sympathy in the
sufierings of his subjects?
Would not the very fact of her own moral renovation —
her love, tenderness, sympathy, and sensitive honor — fit
her for keener sufiering than she could have endured in
her original ambitious and unfeeling state? Would any
personal favors from him satisfy her ? Would she not say,
'' How can I love one so unlike the character which he has
taken so much pains to form in me? 0, why, why has he
trained me to hate himself?"
Yet the fact that he had so trained her would lead her to
feel that there must be some error about the alleged facts.
18*
210 CONFLICT OF AGES.
" His true character," she would say, '' must accord with
that which he has taken so much pains to form in me."
And so, if acts and states of mind are ascribed to God
which, in fact, logically imply that He has acted wrong-
fully towards his creatures, or that he is cold-hearted, cruel
and unfeeling, it fills the regenerated mind with unutterable
distress. And yet, statements have, in fact, too often been
made, which legitimately imply this.
God can, indeed, even under such a system, so reveal
himself, by special grace, that his real character shall be
truly seen and felt in such a manner as to be independent
of opposing theories, and to suspend their power. Or, the
mind may for a time defend itself by false logical pro-
cesses, Or by statements addressed rather to the imagination
than to the reason.
Thus, the logical tendencies of the system may for a
time be suspended, as seeds often lie long in the soil with-
out vegetating.
But, as education and general culture and Christian sym-
pathy and honor advance, the real nature of the theory will
be disclosed, and the mind cannot but see and feel the logi-
cal tendencies of the facts alleged; and, as soon as this
comes to pass, it is in anguish ; for the system is then seen
to be such that it cannot find a God whom its regenerated
powers can truly, honorably and fully love ; nay, the only
God which it can logically find it feels bound to hate.
HoAV, then, can a harmony and reconciliation be eflfocted
between the facts which are essential in order to reveal the
true character and condition of man, and effect his thorough
moral renovation, and such a character of God as a regen-
erated mind can reasonably honor and love ?
CHAPTER V.
THE MIS AD JUSTMENT.
In order to answer the question before us, the natural
course is carefully to examine the system as it now is, and
thus to ascertain, if possible, what is the cause of the mis-
adjustment. It is not, of necessity, anything obvious and
prominent. Powerful systems are often easily and fatally
misadjusted by a small cause. The movement of a part of
the iron track of a railroad only a few inches from its true
position is enough to put the whole system out of order,
and to produce terrific scenes of confusion, ruin, suffering
and death. A small motion, easily and quickly performed,
can ruinously misadjust the wheels of a steamboat.
So, in the great system of the universe, a single false
assumption, plausible in its aspects, and made without due
examination and consideration of its necessary and inevi-
table effects, may, by falsely adjusting its moving powers,
throw the whole system into confusion, and plunge mil-
lions into endless ruin. Such a plausible but unfounded
assumption I now proceed to state.
That, then, which I regard as having produced the great
and f ital misadjustment of the system of Christianity, the
effect:^ of which I have endeavored to exhibit, is the simple
and plausible assumption that men as they come into
THIS WORLD are NEW-CREATED BEINGS. That they are
212 CONFLICT OF AGES.
NEW-BORN beings, is plain enough; that they are, ther-
fore. NEW- CREATED beings, is certainly a mere assumption.
True, it is a plausible assumption ; and so was the old
theory that the sun revolved around the earth. Was it
not obvious, it was said, to the eyes of all, that such was
the fact? Moreover, was there not, apparently, clear
scriptural evidence of it ? Did not the Bible speak of the
sun as rising and setting 7 Did not Joshua cause it to
stand still 7 Such was the reasoning' of good men, even so
late as the time of Turretin. On this point Dr. Hitchcock
says :
" Until the time of Copernicus, no opinion respecting
natural phenomena was thought more firmly established,
than that the earth is fixed immovably in the centre of the
universe, and that the heavenly bodies move diurnally
around it. To sustain this view, the most decided language
of scripture could be quoted. God is there said to have
established the foundations of the earthy so that they coidd
not be removed forever ; and the sacred writers expressly
declare that the sun and other heavenly bodies arise and
set, and nowhere allude to any proper motion in the earth.
And those statements corresponded exactly to the testimony
of the senses. Men felt the earth to be immovably firm
under their feet : and when they looked up, they saw the
heavenly bodies in motion. What bold impiety, therefore,
did it seem, even to men of liberal and enlightened minds,
for any one to rise up and assert that all this testimony of
the Bible and of the senses was to be set aside ! It is easy
to conceive with what strong jealousy the friends of the
Bible would look upon the new science which was thus
arraying itself in bold defiance of inspiration, and how its
votaries would be branded as infidels in disguise. We need
not resort to Catholic intolerance to explain how it waa
TUE MISADJUSTMENT. 213
that the new doctrine of the earth's motion should be de-
nounced as the most fatal heresy ; as alike contrary to scrip-
ture and sound philosophy ; and that even the venerable
Galileo should be forced to recant it upon his knees. What
though the astronomer stood ready, with his diagrams and
formulas, to demonstrate the motion of the earth ; who would
calmly and impartially examine the claims of a scientific
discovery, which, by its very announcement, threw dis-
credit upon the Bible and the senses, and contradicted the
unanimous opinion of the wise and good, — of all mankind,
indeed, — through all past centuries ? Kather would the
distinguished theologians of the day set their ingenuity at
work to frame an argument in opposition to the dangerous
neology, that should fall upon it like an avalanche, and
grind it to powder. And, to show you how firm and irre-
sistible such an argument would seem, we need no longer
tax the imagination ; for Francis Turretin, a distinguished
Protestant professor of theology, whose writings have, even
to the present day, sustained no mean reputation, has left
us an argument on the subject, compacted and arranged
according to the nicest rules of logic, and which he sup-
posed would stand unrefuted as long as the authority of the
Bible should be regarded among men."
But, after all these plausible appearances in external
phenomena and in the Scriptures, the theory in question
was a mere assumption, and its influence, so long as it was
retained, was to throw the whole system of the material
universe into confusion. Therefore, notwithstanding the
reasonings and prejudices of good men, and the anathemas of
the Romish church, it has long since been rejected, and con-
signed to the locality in the moon where the great Italian
bard located the forged decretals, upon which, in their day,
was erected the portentous structure of Romish despotism.
*214: CONFLICT OF AGES.
Such, too, may soon be the destiny of the plausible but
unproved assumption that men, as they enter this world,
are new-created beings.
But, it may be asked, what is the injurious influence of
this assumption ? How does it misadjust and disorganize
the system of the moral universe 7 To this I reply ; by an
absolute necessity it gives an immediate and definite direc-
tion to the powerful principles of honor and of right, such
that they energetically war against and tend to destroy any
radical doctrine of original and inherent depravity. That
there are powerful principles of honor and of right, with
respect to new-created beings, we have shown. We have
also shown that the reality and validity of these principles,
in their highest form, has been decidedly and earnestly
maintained by the most orthodox portions of the church,
as well as by others. And what do these principles de-
mand ? As stated by myself, and avowed by Turretin,
Watts, Wesley and the Princeton divines, and confirmed
by the churches of' the Reformation, they demand that God
shall give to all new-created beings original constitutions,
healthy and well-balanced, and tending decidedly and efiect-
ually towards good. To make them either neutral or
with constitutions tending to sin, would be utterly inconsist-
ent with the honor and justice of God, and would involve
him in the guilt and dishonor of sin. Moreover, God is
bound to place new-created things in such circumstances
that there shall be an over-balance of influences and tenden-
cies on the side of holiness, and not of sin. Such are the
conceded demands of the principles of equity and of honor.
If there should be any doubt of the absolute truth and entire
accuracy of these statements, let my readers refresh their
memories by reading once more the fifth and sixth chapter?
of the first book of this work.
THE MISADJUSTMENT. 215
If, then, in view of such principles, we assume that men
are new-created beings, what are the inevitable consequences?
It follows, by a logical necessity, if God is honorable and
just, — which all assume, — that they have uncorrupt moral
constitutions, and predominant propensities to holiness, and
are in circumstances tending to develop and perfect these
tendencies. If not so, what becomes of the honor and jus-
tice of God ? But if so, then what fragment is there left
of any radical doctrine of human depravity, or of corrupt
human or satanic influence ?
But such wholesale inferences as these, though perfectly
logical and irresistible so long as the premises are retained,
make war as directly upon facts, common experience and
history, as upon the fundamental doctrine of depravity in
the word of God.
What, then, is to be done 7 Only two resources remain.
One is, to justify the Creator by devising some mode in
which new-created beings, long before they are created, or
have known or done anything, can forfeit all their rights.
and come under his just displeasure ; the other, to release
God from the elevated claims of the principles of equity and
honor, as above stated, by the plea that such is free agency
that they involve an impossibility, — that is, by so degrading
the nature of free agency as to bring it down so very low
that it will reach the deep moral depression of the atrocious
developments of men, and of evil spirits through men, in this
world, and accept them as the natural and necessary devel-
opments of free agency.
But, by resorting to either of these alternatives, the con-
flict is not removed, but rather augmented. The doctrine
of a forfeiture of rights by the imputation of Adam's sin
can never escape the charge of involving, not merely injus-
tice, but falsehood also. According to it, it will ever be
216 CONFLICT OF AGES.
said, God first falsely accuses new-created beings, and then,
on the basis of this false accusation, inflicts a penalty of,
infinite and inconceivable severity, — a penalty which is of
all evils the essence and the sum.
One would think that the worst enemy of Christianity
could not desire to place it on a worse basis, or in a more
indefensible position, than this. The redemption of the
church is the chief work of God. In it he aims to reveal
in its highest degree the glory of his grace. And yet, as
God has made the mind, it cannot but regard it as based on
an act of God dishonorable and unjust in the highest con-
ceivable degree. Is this a proper basis of a system of free,
pure, wonderful, sovereign grace 1
On the other hand, the doctrine that free agency is of
necessity so imperfect as to involve such atrocious develop-
ments as those which make up the history of this world, is
at war with well-known facts. It was not such in the
innumerable hosts of holy angels, who have never deviated
from the reverent worship and service of God, but are still
glorious • in holiness and flaming fires of love, and intent
with all their powers to do his will. And who has any
shadow of right to say that the great majority of the whole
created universe are not such, to this day 7 It was not so
in the case of our great exemplar, — the man Jesus Christ ;
for, though he was in all points tempted as we are, yet
was he without sin. Amid trials of every form, and of
intense severity, he remained hoty, harmless, undefiled,
separate from sinners.
But, if the necessary nature of free agency does not
involve such results of sin and misery as fill this world,
and there has been no forfeiture of original rights, then
God cannot be justified in bringing such results to pass.
merely as a sovereign, either by his own direct efficiency, or
THE MISADJUSTMENT. 217
by a series of natural causes, acting tlirougli the body or
the soul, or both : and this is conceded, or rather strongly
asserted, by all the leading Old School authorities. So that,
on this ground, the actual facts of this world, and of revela-
tion, are such that they logically lead us to the result that
the present system is indefensible, and that God does not
deserve the honor, reverence and worship, of his creatures.
Nor is it any relief to resort, with Foster, to the idea of
universal salvation ; for, in addition to the fact that the doc-
trine is at war with scripture, and the natural tendency of
things, it is no defence of God against the charge of wrong-
ing men in their original constitution and circumstances, to
say that he does not add to it a still greater, even an infi-
nite wrong.
It is perfectly plain, then, that the simple and plausible
assumption that men, as they come into this world, are new-
created beings, does so direct the action of the great, the
omnipotent principles of honor and right, that they do act
with constant and fearful energy against the other great
moving power of Christianity. This is the simple and
unnoticed motion by which the great wheels of the ship of
Christianity are made to revolve in opposite directions.
That they do so revolve, I have shown by an appeal to
facts. By the statements just made I have shown how
that effect is produced ; nor, so long as the assumption in
question is made, is it possible to avoid the result.
It appears, then, that the whole conflict which we have
been considering arises from the assumption that men, as
they come into this world, are new-created beings. The
principles of honor and of right, as we have stated them,
relate solely to new-created beings, who have had no proba-
tion, but who are to have one, in which they are to decide
by their own action their destinies for eternity. In all
19
218 CONFLICT OF AGES.
ageSj the binding force of these laws has been felt to rest on
this consideration. . If any person has been created with a
moral constitution tending to good, and well circumstanced,
and honorably, and affectionately dealt with by God, and
then has made an ungrateful return, by disobedience and
revolt, then all concede that he has forfeited his original
rights. If such a person is punished, or dealt with on
principles of sovereignty, all feel that it is right.
Now, as it regards men, it is always merely assurn,ed^ on
all sides, that they are, as they enter this world, new-created
beings. This is certainly, in a case of so much moment,
a remarkable fact. It cannot be explained on the ground
that it is a self-evident truth ; for it is not. Never has it
been regarded as such in the world at large. Indeed, a
large proportion of the human race, if not the majority, have
always believed in some form of the doctrine of the pre-
existence of man.
Nor is it because this assumed truth has no powerful
logical relations ; for, in fact, it is, as I have proved, involved
in all the reasoning of the opposing parties in the great con-
flict which I have described : nor have the advocates of
equity and honor any power in argument against the other
party which does not depend upon this assumption.
Ncr is it because this assumed truth is clearly revealed f
for it is not. Indeed, it can be conclusively shown that it
is not revealed even indirectly, much less directly and
obviously.
Nor is it because the evidence of the assumed truth has
ever been carefully considered and proved to be sufficient ;
for no such thing has ever been done. In short, it is the
most remarkable case of an illogical assumption of a funda-
mental truth, during a controversy of ages, of which I have
any knowledge. The only thing that has prevented its
THE MISADJUSTMENT. 219
proper exposure has been the fact that it has been so gen-
erally, not to say all but universally, assumed on both sides
of the question. This assumption is involved in the doc-
trine that the cause of human depravity is the sin of Adam,
and that on this account all men are born with either in-
herent depravity, or deteriorated or deranged moral consti-
tutions. These things, of course, imply that their deprav-
ity is not the result of their previous action in a preceding
state of existence, but that they come into this world as
new-created minds. This is plain to a demonstration ; for,
if men caused their own original depravity in a former state,
then it was not caused by the sin of Adam. But, if Adam
caused it, then they did not cause it in a former state, but
are new-created beings.
But, if they are new-created beings, then all the demands
of honor and right are in full force towards them. Accord-
ingly, Pelagius and his compeers and successors, in view of
these principles, have always denied that man is, in fact,
born with a deteriorated moral constitution, and asserted
that he has such a one as the principles of honor and right
demand for a new-created being. This is the fundamental
element of Pelagianism. The same principles lead to the
denial of man's exposure and subjection to powerful malig-
nant spirits. This, it is alleged, is not consistent with the
demands of honor and right towards new-created beings.
The same principles would also lead to a denial of man's
exposure to corrupt human organizations, if the facts were
not too notorious to be denied. Those who hold these
views, however, do, in fact, make every effort that they
can to present in lighter shades the dark colors of depraved
human society and organizations. The system thus devel-
oped is clearly logical, in view of the premises ; but it wars
220 CONFLICT OP AGES.
with the facts of history. Christian consciousness and the
Bible.
On the other hand, those who assert innate depravity, or
a deteriorated moral constitution, in view of fact, scripture
and Christian consciousness, at once come in conflict with
the demands of the principles of honor and right towards
new-created minds.
CHAPTER VI.
THE READJUSTMENT.
If, as I have shown, the moving powers of the system
are at once and of necessity raisadjusted by the assumption
that men enter this world as new-created minds, then, by
the denial and rejection of this assumption, can the system
be at once readjusted.
If, in a previous state of existence, God created all men
with such constitutions, and placed them in such circum-
stances, as the laws of honor and of right demanded, — if,
then, they revolted and corrupted themselves, and forfeited
their rights, and were introduced into this world under a
dispensation of sovereignty, disclosing both justice and
mercy, — then all conflict of the moving powers of Chris-
tianity can be at once and entirely removed.
Each party can retain the truth for which they have so
earnestly contended, and yet not war with that which now
opposes it. The advocates of the deepest views of human
depravity can hold to their views, and yet not war with the
principles of honor and of right. The warmest advocates
of these principles can retain them in full, and yet not
conflict with the great facts of human depravity and rum.
Let us first look at the case of the Old School divines.
It has already become apparent that the great result at
which the most orthodox leaders have aimed has l>een to
19*
222 CONFLICT OF AGES.
justify God in his dealings with man by showing that
there was a forfeiture of the rights of the human race ante-
rior to their birth into this world. We have seen that, on
the supposition that they come into this world as new-
created beings, it is impossible to justify such a forfeiture.
But no such difficulty attends the supposition that the for-
feiture in question occurred not in this world, but in a
previous state of existence, by the voluntary and personal
revolt of each individual from God. That is a real for-
feiture, and one that does not implicate God.
Let us next consider the case of the most strenuous advo-
cates of the principles of honor and right. They very
properly contend that God cannot give to new-created
beings a corrupt or sinful nature. Yet they do not deny
the general depravity of man, — so mysterious, at least in
its extent and power. This view fully vindicates God from
the charge against which they protest, and throws on man
the entire blame of any deterioration or corruption in his
nature with which he enters this world. It also fully
explains the mysterious depth and power of depravity; nor
does it, in so doing, depreciate or degrade the nature of
free agency itself In like manner can it be shown that
there is, in reality, no important principle or fact, for which
the various opposing parties contend, that cannot be secured
without conflict, on this assumption. It is, therefore,
entirely eifectual to harmonize the system, — which is the
end for which I propose it, — and is, on this ground at least,
worthy of universal acceptance. Moreover, as there is no
middle ground between the two assumptions, that men enter
this world as new-created beings, or that they do not, it
appears to be the only assumption that can restore har-
mony.
I am well aware that there is, in many most excellent
THE READJUSTMENT. 223
persons, a disposition to revolt from this view. But I feel
assured that it is not so much from thorough investigation,
as on the ground of an unexpressed but powerful state of
general feeling, that has been created bj the course of
events in past ages. To the production of this state of
feeling I am well aware that men of eminent religious
character have largely contributed.
But it is no less true that good men aided in the forma-
tion of the dogmas of Rome, and of her despotic organiza-
tion. It is one of the mysteries of God's providence, that
his great enemy has been allowed to effect so much by
means of good men. Is it, then, at all improbable that, by
his agency, — even through good men, — a prejudice has
been created against the truth on this point also 7
If there is, in fact, a malignant spirit, of great and all-
pervading power, intent on making a fixed and steady
opposition to the progress of the cause of God, — and, if he
well knows that there is one truth of relations so manifold,
important and sublime, that on it depends, in great meas-
ure, the highest and most triumphant energy of the system
of Christianity, — then, beyond all doubt, he would exert his
utmost power in so misleading the church of God as to fort-
ify them in the strongest possible manner against its belief
and reception. He would as early and as far as possible
pervert and disgrace it. He would present it in false and
odious combinations, and thus array against it the full
power of that most energetic faculty of the human soul,
the association of ideas. He would fill the church and the
ministry with a prejudgment against it, not founded on
argument, and yet so profound as to make its falsehood a
foregone conclusion, and that to such an extent as entirely
to prevent any deep and thorough intellectual effort on the
subject He would, after succeeding in this, paralyze them
224 CONFLICT OF AGES.
with an eiFeminate timidity with reference even to any
serious and thorough discussion of the subject ; so that even
men who are in general the boldest advocates of free
inquiry shall tremble and grow pale at the thought that
any one with whom they are associated shall dare to avow
an open and firm belief of the proscribed truth.
But, if the Bible is to be trusted, there is such a spirit
employing from age to age his utmost energies in opposing
the cause of God ; and it is and ever has been true, in
fact, that this sublime and momentous principle of widely-
extended relations, and of immense power in all its rela-
tions,— a principle that can restore perfect harmony to the
system of Christianity, — has been treated, for long and
gloomy centuries, in just the manner that I have described.
On no subject that I have ever examined have minds
which in general were elevated, free and liberal, manifested
to such an extent the power of an irrational prejudgment,
or of sensitive and paralyzing timidity. I will not say that
this has been universal, for I have evidence to the contrary.
But yet, as the causes that have tended to such a result
have been of universal operation, they have exerted a wide-
spread and almost universal power. Nor will I positively
affirm who is the author of this state of things. It is
enough to say that it has, to my own mind, in view of its
history, a striking resemblance to the workings of that
great and sagacious spirit, who in so many other respects
has deceived and deluded the nations, in his mcst skilful
efforts to oppose the progress of the kingdom of Christ, and
to fortify and extend his own dark domains.
For it appears that an effectual harmonizing principle
of the Christian system is found in the assumption that all
men, by a revolt from God in a previous state of existence,
incurred a forfeiture of their oria;inal rioihts as new-created
THE READJUSTMENT. 22C>
minds, and are born into this world under that forfeiture.
It also appears that to evolve and defend the idea of such a
forfeiture is that at which the orthodox leaders of the
church have been aiming, for century after century.
Indeed, they have — and very properly so far as this point
is concerned — made the whole system of Christianity, as
involving the redemption of the church, the glory of God
and the eternal welfare of the universe, to rest upon a for-
feiture of rights by all men before birth. Before them
was early placed the idea of it which I have presented ;
an idea, simple, intelligible, rational, perfectly adequate to
meet and explain every fact of the case, involving no viola-
tion of a single principle of honor or right, and capable of
a development reflecting the highest glory on God.
And yet things were so managed, from an early period,
that step by step the mind of the church was misdirected on
this subject, early committals were entered into, and preju-
dices created ; so that, when the great conflict came on which
first tried to sound the depths of this great question, all
things were prepared to involve the orthodox world, under
the lead of Augustine, in a wrong decision, which since that
time has never been thoroughly reconsidered. From that
time to the present, whenever the view which I have pre-
sented has been brought forward, it has been, to a great
extent, timidly or passionately rejected, without thorough
and adequate investigation. Meantime, when the difficulties
of the Augustinian theory have been found too great to be
endured, other theories of forfeiture have been devised,
which are no better. I shall endeavor hereafter clearly to
evince that every one of these theories of forfeiture involves
God, and his whole administration, and his eternal kingdom,
in the deepest dishonor that the mind of man or angel can
conceive, by the violation of the liighest and most sac;:<^
226 CONFLICT CF AGES.
principles of honor and- right, and that on the scale of
infinity and eternity. And yet their authors were most
excellent men, and were aiming at most benevolent ends.
The same, however, was true of most of the early advocates
of some of the worst principles of the Church of Rome. To
me both cases appear strangely like subtle delusions of the
great master-mind of falsehood and fraud.
If the facts which I have already adduced do not seem to
any to justify this strong language, then I would only ask
them to suspend their final j iidgment until they have heard
the whole statement of the case. If they are not convinced
before I close this inquiry, then let them freely, if they see
fit, charge my language Avith extravagance and excess. For
my own part, I feel that, strong as my assertions are, yet
the words of truth and soberness were never more truly
spoken than in this case. Moreover, I have felt that no
less than this was due to a principle so vitally affecting the
glory of God, and yet so long and so extensively dishonored,
trodden under foot, and despised.
CHAPTER VII.
THE SYSTEM AS ADJUSTED.
I HAVE, in tlie preceding chapters, shown at large that
the assumption that men enter this world as new-created
beings at once causes the principles of honor and of right to
act against any doctrine of original and inherent depravity ;
and that any effort so to degrade the capabilities of free
agency as to account by it for the sinful developments of
this AYorld is at war with reason and with facts. I have
also shown that as soon as we drop this assumption, and
enter upon a former sphere of existence, in which all the
laws of honor and of right were in all respects fully
observed towards all new-created minds, every difficulty is
at once removed. In this sphere of existence every man
was the unreasonable and inexcusable author of his own
corruption and ruin. From this sphere all men come into
this world under a dispensation of wise and benevolent
sovereignty, established for the more full development of
the excellence of God, and the attainment of great public
ends by the redemption of the church.
I propose now to consider a little more in detail the
effects of this readjustment on the system as a whole.
I have before stated that, to insure harmony, it is essen-
tial not only to retain all the facts of the system, but so to
adjust all its parts as to give full and free play to all the
228 CONFLICT OF AGES.
convictions and emotions whicli it is tlie design of Chris ^
tianity to call into existence. I adverted in particular to
the process of deep conviction of sin, and purification from
it, as the great end of the system ; and to the necessity of
presenting to a mind thus purified a God whom it could
consistently Iovg. I also specified the importance of a clear
view and a feeling sense of the presence and power of our
invisible spiritual enemies, and of our need of the sustain-
ing, invigorating and sanctifying influences of the divine
Spirit. To secure all these results, the system, as read-
justed, directly tends. We retain all the facts of the
system, because we exhibit in full power the great and
fundamental doctrine which leads to them, — that all men
are in a fallen state, and have forfeited their original rights,
and are under the just displeasure of God, and exposed to
his righteous judgments. This, as all must concede, has
ever been regarded by the orthodox as the fundamental
basis of the Christian system, and out of it grows the
whole economy of redemption. The whole Christian doc-
trine concerning God the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, atonement, regeneration, the means of grace, the
church, and eternal retributions, naturally grows out of it in
undiminished, yea, rather in augmented fulness and glory.
All of the teachings of God, through the human mind, the
material system, providence, his word and his spirit, it
gratefully and confidingly receives. It mutilates nothing,
it rejects nothing, in the great and majestic temple of uni-
versal truth.
But, to bo more particular :
1. We escape the constant and powerful tendency which
exists under the old theory to give a superficial view of the
great facts of man's depravity and ruin.
A rational regard to the honor and justice of God is not;
THE SYSTEM AS ADJUSTED. 229
under this view, creating constant tendencies towards Pela-
gian ideas. On the other hand, we are at once enabled to
penetrate deeply and philosophically into the lowest recesses
of human depravity, even as they are disclosed in the expe-
rience of the most profound and spiritual minds.
The old orthodox writers, in order to convey their
ideas of a sinful state in man preceding and causing actual
transgression, often familiarly call it a sinful habit ^ just as
they call a foundation for holy acts a holy habit of soul.
But, if men enter this world as new-created beings, there
cannot, in reality, be in them anything to correspond to the
w^ords " sinful habit." For they have not acted at all ; and
a good God cannot create sinful habits. But, under the
system as readjusted, these words describe the very thing
which precedes wrong action, and causes a propensity to it.
Men are born with deeply-rooted sinful habits and propen-
sities. We are enabled, also, to understand the power and
obstinacy of those evil propensities of which the holiest men
are most deeply sensible, and why so intense a furnace of
trial is needed in this world, to purge out the dross of sin.
This view of the system, therefore, without dishonoring
God, opens the way to a deep and thorough conviction of
sin, and thus to the highest attainments in sanctification.
In short, this theory enables us to understand and to explain
such an experience as that of Edwards, and to see that it
could be founded on facts.
2. We escape the constant and poAverful tendency, to
which I have before referred, to degrade the nature of free
agency itself, by supposing that such facts as occur in this
world are the natural and necessary results of the oest
minds which God could make, in their normal state.
There has been in the church, in all ages, a strong desire
to believe in the possibility of an elevated state of original
20
280 CONFLICT OF AGES.
righteousness. But, with any even tolerably elevated stand-
ard of excellence, any man must see that the human race
are, from their earliest developments, in a very degraded
state. What can be more dark than the picture of them
given by Dr. Channing and Prof. Norton? Yet, if we deny
preexistence, and maintain the divine justice, we are driven
towards the conclusion that a free agent is such a being
that God could do no better for him, on account of the essen-
tial nature of free agency. From this fatal and melancholy
tendency the system, as readjusted, entirely relieves us.
Moreover, it gives us what the church has sought in vain.
The idea that men were once upright in Adam is merely a
shadow of relief, but has in it no reality. There is no reality
except in the idea that men were once, in their own per-
sons, actually upright, but fell before they entered this
world ; and that, therefore, their sins here are not the nat-
ural result of mere free agency.
3. We do not ascribe to God any facts at all at war with
the highest principles of honor and of right. Nay. more ;
we open the way for the presentation of his character in
new and peculiar forms of lovehness and grace. Nor is
this all. If I may use the language of painters, we change
the ground color of the whole view of the universe. If we
look at this natural world through a colored medium, —
whether it be red, yellow, blue, purple, or black, — the
whole aspect of the scene is changed. Every object appears
in an unnatural hue, and we long once more to see all
things in the pure white light of heaven. But the old
theory is a dark-colored medium. Seen through it, the
whole universe appears, to use the heart-moving words of
Foster, to be " overspread by a lurid and dreadful shade."
Well do I understand the import of those words, and well
do I remember my joy when that dark medium was broken,
THE SYSTEM AS ADJUSTED. 231
and I was by divine grace enabled to see all things in the
pure, natural and radiant light of the true glory of my
Saviour and my God.
And now, instead of a God dishonorably ruining his
creatures, the mind can find a God who has devised, at the
expense of great self-denial, a system merciful towards the
fallen, and benevolent towards the universe. It can find a
God whom its regenerated emotions, and its highest concep-
tions of honor and right, do not forbid it to worship ; and
light irradiates, and joy unspeakable fills the soul. Such
are the principles on which the last experience to which I
have adverted is based. Such was the character of God,
which, like a radiant sun, rose upon my mind when involved
for a time in midnight gloom, and filled my soul with sacred
joy and peace.
4. We arrive at a sphere of existence in which we can
carry up to the highest point our conceptions of the recti-
tude of the original constitutions of all new-created beings,
and of God's sincere good will towards them, and sympa-
thetic and benevolent treatment of them.
I do not mean that we can historically retrace and set
forth the actual course of events in God's dealings with new-
created beings ; but I do mean that there is nothing to for-
bid the highest conceptions concerning such dealings that
can flow from the attributes of infinite wisdom, justice, honor
and love.
The importance of preexistence, as averting a theoretical
degradation of the nature of free agency itself, cannot be
over-estimated. Such degradation, I have shown, is the
inevitable result of endeavoring to defend God on the
assumption that he has given to men, as they are in this
world^ as good constitutions as the nature of free agency will
allow. If free agency, in its best cstiite, results in such a
232 CONFLICT OF AGES.
history as that of this world. — in such a development of
universal and desperate depravity, resulting in vice, crime,
woes, idolatry, and moral pollution, to an extent almost
inconceivable, — then it depresses and darkens our ideas of
the universe itself Indeed, what motive can God have to
create free agents, if free agency, in its own nature, is capa-
ble of nothing better than it has disclosed in this world ?
But, if this world is but a moral hospital of the universe,
— if in it are collected, for various great and public ends, tlic
diseased of past ages, the fallen of all preceding generations
of creatures, — then we are at onc^ relieved from sueU
depressing views of free agency itself. A new-created,
upright mind, may still be an elevated and glorious ob-
ject, and reflect the highest honor on the great Creator.
Moreover, of all preceding generations of created beings it
may still be true that incomparably the greatest part have
retained their integrity. Compare, now, with a view so
elevated and cheering, the gloomy and depressing theory
that a free agent is necessarily a being of so low a grada
that he cannot be fully developed, and come to the knowl-
edge of good and evil, and arrive at mature and stable
virtue, without the experience of sin. Concerning such
views, Moehler has vfell said that they make any doctrine
of a fall a foolishness, and make "an entrance into evil
necessary, in order to serve as a self-conscious retur^i to
good." This idea, he remarks, "exalts evil itself into
goodness."
Hagenbach also says, concerning certain such speculators,
who seemed to concede that men are in a fallen state, that llie
kind of original sin which they seem to establish is identic^]
with the finite character of the nature and consciousness (.f
man, which is a matter of necessity. Thus, the idea of s'n
and responsibility is destroyed, and a doctrine introduced
THE SYSTEM AS ADJUSTED. 233
which would prove fatal to all true morality. According
to this theory, no being can be properly educated, except
through a process of sinning. "Education must first
seduce that man who is in a process of mental development,
before it can lead him to virtue." (Blasche, quoted by
Hagenbach, § 295.)
This 13 the lowest and most depressing conception of the
nature and capabilities of free agency. From all temptation
to conceptions of this dark and gloomy aspect we find a
relief in the theory of preexistence. The fallen minds
around us may be no more a fair specimen of what new-
created, upright minds should be, than the inmates of a hos-
pital are of the normal and healthy state of the body.
"We now see that new-created minds may have been in a
high degree beautiful and well ordered, so that, even in
their perfections, there may have been an incidental occasion
for sin. We can see that God loved them all, and that no
one ever fell and perished, except against his expostulations,
and without causing him sincere grief
5. It presents the scriptural doctrine concerning a king-
dom of fallen spirits in a light much more rational, intelli-
gible and impressive.
But, as this is one of the most difficult and delicate points
in theology, it deserves a separate and formal consideration.
20^
CHAPTER Yin.
THE KINGDOM OF HOSTILE SPIRITS.
The doctrine concerning a kingdom of hostile spirits is^
certainly, not a neutral doctrine. If it is not true, no doc-
trine ought to be more decidedly rejected. If it is true,
none ought more earnestly to be defended. If it is true,
this world can never be understood till its truth is admitted.
If it is true, as the apostle John says, that those most
powerful civil and ecclesiastical organizations, wdiich are set
forth under the symbol of a beast, and a harlot riding
thereon, were framed, and are animated, by the God of this
world, the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience,
— if his power must be broken before they are destroyed,
and if he must be bound before the church can reign, then
all views of the power of evil in this world, and all measures
designed to encounter it, must be superficial, if they over-
look and ignore these and similar great facts.
And yet the supposition that men are new-created beings,
and are exposed to the power of such spirits, although either
disabled by innate depravity, or enfeebled by deteriorated
moral constitutions, is so repugnant to every principle of
honor and right, that there has been a steady tendency to
disbelieve and deny the whole doctrine concerning evil
spirits, because it involves such results.
But, by the readjustment which I have suggested, the
whole aspect of the doctrine is changed. The system of
THE KINGDOM OF HOSTILE SPIRITS. 235
fchis world, viewed firom this new point of vision, implies
not that any new subjects are added by it to the kingdom
of darkness, but that multitudes are redeemed from it who
were already in it when the system was established.
To gain a clear and consistent conception of this aspect
of the case, we must enlarge our views of the amount of
time that may have elapsed since the creation and Ml of
those angels who founded the kingdom of error and of sin.
In many minds, a belief has existed of the comparative
recency of the creation of this world. It has also been
believed that the creation of the angels, and the fall of a
part of them, but little preceded the creation of this world.
In this case, the dispensation of this world could not grow
out of a state of things which had come into existence during
the lapse of millions of preceding ages.
No room, therefore, has been left, after the origmal fall
of the angels, for organizing and extending a kingdom of
falsehood, fraud and seduction ; and for its augmentation
in the course of ages, by tempting individuals in various
worlds, and in the successive orders of new-created spirits.
Now, although no one is authorized to say positively that
such was the course of events, no more ought he to assume,
without proof, that it was not.
And now, at length, we are in a position to know that,
at least so far as the material creation is concerned, it is not
as recent as has been supposed. There is internal evidence
to the contrary in the very structure of the globe. Many
millions of years must have elapsed since this earth avus
created. Indeed, on this point the language of geologists is
very strong and decided, as the following extracts from Drs.
Hitchcock and J. P. Smith will evince. The argument
from the time needed to deposit the various strata of tho
rocks is thus stated by Dr. Hitchcock :
236 CONFLICT OF AGES.
^' It is certain that, since man existed on the globe, mate-
rials for the production of rocks have not accumulated to the
average thickness of more than one hundred or two hundred
feet ; although in particular places, as already mentioned,
the accumulations are thicker. The evidence of this posi-
tion is, that neither the works nor the re??iains of man
have been found any deeper in the earth than in the upper
part of that superficial deposit called alluvium. But, had
man existed while the other deposits were going on, no pos-
sible reason can be given why hisr bones and the fruits of
his labors should not be found mixed with those of other
animals, so abundant in the rocks to the depth of six or
seven miles. In the last six thousand years, then, only
one five-hundredth part of the stratified rocks has been
accumulated. I mention this fact, not as by any means an
exact, but only an approximate, measure of the time in
which the older rocks were deposited ; for the precise age of
the world is probably a problem which science never can
solve. All the means of comparison within our reach enable
us to say, only, that its duration must have been immense.'*
Again, he says :
'' Numerous races of animals and plants must have occu-
pied the globe previous to those which now inhabit it, and
have successively passed away, as catastrophes occurred, or
the climate became unfit for their residence. Not less than
thirty thousand species have already been dug out of the
rocks ; and, excepting a few hundred species, m^ostly of sea
shells^ occurring in the uppermost rocks^ none of them
correspond to those now living on the globe. In Europe,
they are found to the depth of about six and a half miles ;
and in this country, deeper ; and no living species is found
more than one- twelfth of this depth. All the rest are
specifically and often generically unlike living species ; and
THE KINGDOM OF HOSTILE SPIRITS. 237
fche conclusion seems irresistible, that they must have lived
and died before the creation of the present species. Indeed,
so diflferent was the climate in those early times, — it having
been much warmer than at present in most parts of the
world, — that but few of the present races could have lived
then. Still further; it appears that, during the whole
period since organized beings first appeared on the globe,
not less than four, or five, and probably more — some think
as many as ten or twelve — entire races have passed away,
and been succeeded by recent ones ; so that the globe has
actually changed all its inhabitants half a dozen times.
Yet each of the successive groups occupied it long enough
to leave immense quantities of their remains, which some-
times constitute almost entire mountains. And, in general,
these groups became extinct in consequence of a change of
climate ; which, if imputed to any known cause, must have
been an extremely slow process."
Again, he says :
''The denudations and erosions that have taken place on
the earth's surface indicate a far higher antiquity to the
globe, even since it assumed essentially its present condition,
than the common interpretation of Genesis admits. The
geologist can prove that in many cases the rocks have beeii
worn away, by the slow action of the ocean, moi^e than two
miles in depth in some regions, and those very wide, as in
South Wales, in England. As the continents rose from the
ocean, the slow drainage by the rivers has excavated numer-
ous long and deep gorges, requiring periods incalculably
extended. I do not wonder that, when the sceptic stands
upon the banks of Niagara river, and sees how obviously
the splendid cataract has worn out the deep gorge extending
to Lake Ontario, he should feel that there is a standing
proof that the common opinion, as tc the age of the world,
238 CONFLICT OF AGES.
cannot be true, and hence be led to discard the Bible, if ho
supposes that to be a true interpretation. But the Niagara
gorge is only one among a multitude of examples of erosion
that might be quoted, and some of them far more striking to
a geologist. On Oak Orchard creek, and the Genesee
river, between Rochester and Lake Ontario, are similar
erosions, seven miles long. On the latter river, south of
Rochester, we find a cut from Mount Morris to Portage,
sometimes four hundred feet deep. On many of our south-
western rivers we have what are called canons^ or gorges,
often two hundred and fifty feet deep, and several miles
long. Near the source of Missouri river are what are called
the Gates of the Rocky Mountains, where there is a gorge
six miles long and twelve hundred feet deep."
To these he adds nearly two pages more of similar cases.
After adducing much other evidence, he thus concludes :
'• Now, let this imperfect summary of evidence in favor
of the earth's high antiquity be candidly weighed, and can
any one think it strange that every man, who has carefully
and extensively examined the rocks in their native beds, is
entirely convinced of its validity 7 Men of all professions,
and of diverse opinions concerning the Bible, have been
geologists ; but on this point they are unanimous, however
they may differ as to other points in the science. Must we
not, then, regard this fact as one of the settled principles of
science? "
Equally striking, or even more so, are the statements of
Dr. J. P. Smith, in the supplementary notes to his learned
treatise entitled Geology and Scripture. After consid-
ering certain volcanic formations, he says : ''It would seem
perfectly impossible for any person, but moderately ac-
quainted with the visible phenomena of volcanic regions, to
escape the impression that myriads of ages must have J)een
THE KINGDOM OF HOSTILE SPIRITS. 239
occupied in the production of these formations, before the
creation of man, and the adaptation of the earth's surface
for his abode." — p. 367, Bohn's edition. Of another form-
ation he says, '' Ages innumerable must have rolled over
the Avorld, in the making of this single formation." — p. 373.
He also quotes Babbage, as saying in his " Ninth
Bridge water Treatise," '' It is now admitted by all compe-
tent persons that the formation of those strata which are
nearest the surface must have occupied vast periods, prob-
ably millions of years ^ in arriving at their present state."
-p. 72.
And are we to suppose that in all of these past ages there
were no intelligent beings in existence ? Were there no
angels great in might, and swift to do EQs will ?
There is, indeed, no reason to believe in the existence of
the human race on this earth before the time assigned in the
Mosaic record. But the existence of some of the angels
from the beginning of the creation, and the creation of
other intelligent spirits from that time onward, in other
parts of the Creator's kingdom, to see his works and execute
his plans, are in the highest degree reasonable and probable.
Therefore, after the first creation of the angels, the fall
of Satan and his fellows may have taken place in ages far
remote ; and through them the kingdom of darkness may
have been extended by moral conflict, wnles and temptation,
from age to age. Moreover, the final destruction of this
kingdom, by a system of moral exposure, may be one of the
groat ends of this present and final dispensation.
In perfect accordance with this view is the prominence
given in the Bible to the conflict of the two great kingdoms
of light and of darkness, and of the relations of the events of
this world to that conflict. Listen to the words of inspired
apostles : — " For tliis purpose the Son of God was mani-
240 CONFLICT OF AGES.
festedj that he might destroy the works of the devil.'
" He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet,
Then cometh the end, when he shall have put down all rule
and all authority and power." — 1 Jn. 3 : 8. 1 Cor. 15 •
24, 25.
It would seem, from passages like these, — and they are
numerous, — that the destruction of the kingdom of darkness,
and of its king, was one great end of the manifestation of
God in human form. To destroy his works He was revealed.
When all the power and rule and authority of this kingdom
are put down, then cometh the end.
It is true that in the process of subduing this kingdom
he also redeems the church, and that this also is a primary
end of the system.
But, in fact, the great end, which includes both, is so to
prostrate Satan's kingdom, and to establish God's, that God
shall be all and in all. And it is by redeeming the church,
as we shall hereafter more fully show, that he secures both
results.
Now, if we take enlarged views of the antiquity, origin
and progress, of the kingdom of Satan, we shall see that
in it may have been found, among spirits seduced by him
and his angels, after their own original fall, the materials
out of which the church is formed, and that the triumph of
God may be vastly augmented by this fact.
He may rescue millions from his grasp by means of the
system of this world, and by their redemption develop such
an amount of moral power as utterly to prostrate both the
king of darkness and his kingdom.
It is not my purpose, at present, to assert these things aa
facts, but simply to remove those narrow views of the pre-
vious history of creation, which would, without evidence, ex-
clude the propriety or possibility of such a supposition.
THE KINGDOM OP HOSTILE SPIRITS. 241
I aim to sliow that by tlie proposed readjustment of the
system the whole aspect of the doctrine concerning a kino--
dom of hostile spirits, and man's exposure to it. is changed;
and that the system of this world, viewed from this point
of vision, implies not that any new subjects are added to
that kingdom, but that multitudes are redeemed from it
who were in it when the system was established.
Having now reached this point of vision, we are enabled
to take still more elevated and enlarged views of the dispen-
sation of this world in its relations to the past and the
future history of the universe. For it is a fair conclu-
sion, from the statements of the word of God, that the ante-
cedent history of God's kingdom extends back for ages of
ages, and that the results of all this anterior history of
the universe are concentrated and brought to a crisis in
this world, and that all the future history of the universe
will diverge from the results of the dispensation of this
world. The great idea is, evil entered in ages past, and in-
troduced a kingdom hostile to that of God. The conflict of
these kingdoms comes to its crisis here ; and then cometh
the end of this dispensation, and the eternal state of the
universe begins.
CHAPTER IX.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CASE.
For the sake of a definite and vivid impression, I will
now endeavor to concentrate in one summary view the re-
sult of the preceding discussions. That result is this : that,
by supposing the preexistent sin and fall of man, the most
radical views of human depravity can be harmonized with
the highest views of the justice and honor of God. The
doctrines of the innate depravity of man, and his exposure
to corrupt social organizations, and to the power of evil
spirits, sustain entirely different relations to the principles
of honor and right, as we reject, or as we adopt, the idea of
preexistence. If we reject it, the alleged facts and the
principles come into immediate and inevitable conflict.
But if all men have existed and sinned, before this life, in
another state of being, then it is easily conceivable, and
worthy of belief, that, when first created, all the demands
of honor and right as to theii constitution and circumstances
were fully met, and that, since in those circumstances they
smned, the fault w^as entirely their own, and not at all
yGod's. Moreover, it is easily conceivable, and worthy of
belief, that the result of a course of sinning should be to
leave in their minds that predisposition to sin which we, in
common cases, designate by the name sinful habit, but which
is in this case called original sin ; which is no part of the
original constitution of the mind, but was introduced into it
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CASE. 243
by the sinner himself ; so that for it he, and he only, is
responsible : which is not an act, but a permanent result of
previous acts, and appears as simply a strong predisposition,
or tendency, or propensity to sin.
It has also been shown to be supposable that the fall of
Satan and his angels took place in the far -remote ages of
past eternity, and that since their fall other spiritual beings
have been seduced to join them in their revolt, and have
come under the despotism of Satan, forming a vastly ex-
tended kingdom of fallen souls. It is still further sup-
posable that God saw fit to destroy the power of Satan and
his hosts by a system of disclosures, in which he should
enter this kingdom, and, by a material system, regenerate
and rescue from his grasp a large portion of his subjects,
and destroy him and the rest by those disclosures of moral
power that should proceed from this work of redemption.
It may be that, not only this world, but the whole existing
material system, were created with reference to this end, and
that this is the basis of the analogies of things material and
spiritual. That for the same end the incarnation and
atonement of Christ were predetermined, and the results of
the whole work ordained before the foundation of the world.
All this, on the supposition now under consideration, may
be true ; and, if it may be true, thefl there is no necessary
collision between the facts as to human depravity and the
principles of honor and right which have been stated ; for,
if these were all observed at the time of the original crea-
tion and trial of man, and if they then, on a fair and hon-
orable probation, forfeited their rights, and fell under the
penalty of God's law, and were justly exposed to endless
ruin, then the entire aspect of God's dispensations towards
this world is radically changed. The principles of honor
and right which pertain to new-created minds having been
244 CONFLICT OP AGES.
observed, and all claim to divine favor having been for-
feited by each for himself, then all fall into the hands of
God as clay of the same lump, to be dealt with on such
principles of sovereignty as the interests of his universal
kingdom may demand. And now the whole aspect of this
world changes. Man is the author of his original de-
pravity, and not God. No addition is made by the system
to the number of fallen minds, but, on the other hand, un-
numbered multitudes are delivered by it from a fallen
state. What men enjoy in this world is a gracious gift of
God to them, beyond their deserts. What they suffer is less
than they deserve, for it is of the Lord's mercies that they
are not consumed. The multitudes who are saved owe
eternal life to the free grace of God. All who are lost
perish entirely by their own original revolt from God, per-
sisted in during this life.
But, on the other supposition, none of these things is
true. If men are new-created beings, then all the laws of
honor and right towards them, as such, are in full force.
They have done nothing before they come into existence in
this world to forfeit the favor of God. If any of them
perish, it is the addition of so many new-created souls to
the number of the lost. To create them sinful before
knowledge or action, if it were possible, and then expose
them to the malignant influences of corrupt society and
Satanic wiles, would be at war with the principles of honor
and of right. And any dispensation or constitution of God
which brings them into this world with deteriorated and
corrupted constitutions, and places them in circumstances
of immense social disadvantage, and exposed to the organ-
ized and fearfully powerful temptations of Satan, for aught
that I can see, comes into direct collision with those prin-
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CASE. 245
ciples of honor and right which God himself has implanted
in the soul.
Here, then, we arrive at what I have referred to from
the beginning, — a possible adjustment of the two great mov-
ing powers of Christianity. There is between them no
necessary opposition. They may be so adjusted as to work
together in harmony. But the assumption that this is our
first state of existence at once misadjusts them, and causes
one to work against the other with tremendous power. And
it is this counter-working of the two great wheels of the sys-
tem which has produced those lamentable divisions among
good men, to which I have already so fully adverted.
21*
CHAPTER X.
A PRESUMPTION REBUTTED.
I HAVE already expressed my views as to the antecedent
sSourse of speculation in the church on the subject of pre-
existence. But, as references may still be made to it, in
order to ^orejudice the views which I have advanced, I
propose, before I proceed further, to anticipate any prejudg-
ment which may arise in any mind from this quarter.
It may, then, be said — as, in fact, it has been said to
me — that this view is no novelty ; that it has been sug-
gested again and again, for centuries ; and that, after full
and mature consideration in all its relations, it has been
rejected as not furnishing the requisite relief But, if
there were in it any self-evidencing power of truth, it
would before this have been received, at least by all regen-
erated and reasonable minds, even as the true doctrine
of the solar system has been by all candid and learned
inquirers.
To this I reply, that though it is true that the funda-
i)[iental idea has been suggested in various ages past, yet it
is not true that it has ever been fully and maturely con-
sidered in all its relations. On the other hand, it has been
treated just as was the true theory of the solar system, for
many long centuries after that was proposed ; that is, it has
been merely proposed and suggested, but the system to
which it belongs, and of wliich it is a logical part, has never
A PRESUMPTION REBUTTED. 247
been wrought out and adjusted. There is, as I shall
endeavor to show, a view of the character of God, which
properly belongs to this system, which has never been
properly developed and introduced as an element in systems
of theology.
All know with what energy the mind of the church has
been developed on such subjects as the Trinity, the Atone-
ment, and the eternal purposes of God. This subject
deserves, at least, as thorough a discussion as these, or any
other ; for no other involves questions, or principles, or
results, of greater moment. And yet there never has been
in any age a period of mental energy expended in a full
and radical discussion of this question. On the other hand,
almost the entire intellectual energy of all ages has been
expended in setting forth and defending the opposite
system.
Such being the facts, till this view has been fully
considered there can be no presumptive argument against
it from the fact that it has not been generally adopted.
The theory that the sun, and not the earth, was the centre
of the solar system, was rejected for ages, simply because it
was not thoroughly looked into, although often suggested ;
and has been adopted only within a few centuries, and
solely in consequence of a general, profound and radical
investigation of it, in all its relations to existing facts.
Before this, the mathematical talent of the world was em-
ployed to expound and defend the geocentric theory, with
its cycles and epicycles.
The following extract from ^'Whe well's History of the
Inductive Sciences" will place this subject in its true light :
" The doctrine of Copernicus, that the sun is the true
centre of the celestial motions, depends primarily upon the
consideration that sucli a supposition explains very simply
248 CONFLICT OP AGES.
and completely all tlie obvious appearances of the heavens
In order to see that it does this, nothing more is requisite
than a distinct conception of the nature of relative motion,
and a knowledge of the principal astronomical phenomena.
There was, therefore, no reason why such a doctrine might
not be discovered^ — that is, suggested as a theory plausible
at first sight, — long before the time of Copernicus ; or, rather,
it was inevitable that this guess, among others, should be
propounded as a solution of the appearances of the heavens.
We are not, therefore, to be surprised, if we jind^ l?i the
eai^liest times of astronomy^ and at various succeedmg
periods, such a system spoken of by astronomers, and
maintained by some as true, though rejected by the
majority, and by the princifpal writer sP
He then proceeds to show how the application of mathe-
matical talent to the geocentric theory (that which places
the earth in the centre) gave it an apparent superiority, by
means of the theory of eccentrics and epicycles, to the
heliocentric theory (that which places the sun in the
centre). He then adds, "It is true that all the contriv-
ances of epicycles, and the like, by which the geocentric
hypothesis was made to represent the phenomena, were sus-
ceptible of an easy adaptation to a heliocentric method,
when a good mathematician had once proposed to him,-
self the problem ; and this was precisely what Copernicus
undertook and executed. But, till the appearance of his
wprk, the heliocentric system had never come before the
world, except as a hasty and imperfect hypothesis ; which
bore a favorable comparison with the phenomena, so long
as their general features only were known ; but which had
been completely thrown into the shade by the labor and intel-
ligence bestowed upon the Hipparchian or Ptolemaic theories
by a long series of great astronomers of all cotmtries.^^
A PRESUMPTION REBUTTED. 249
He then proceeds to state at some length the evidence of
the fact that, whilst all the mathematical talent of the world
was employed in developing and defending a false theory
of the universe, yet the true theory had been often and
clearly suggested. He remarks, ^^ It is curious to trace
the early and repeated manifestations of this view of the
universe. Its distinct assertion among the Greeks is an
evidence of the clearness of their thoughts, and the vigor
of their minds ; and it is a jwoof of the feebleness and
servility of intellect in the stationary j^eriod^ that, till the
period of Copernicus, 7io one was found to try the fortune
of this hypothesis, modified according to the improved
astronomical knowledge of the time.
" The most ancient of the Greek philosophers to whom the
ancients ascribe the heliocentric doctrine is Pythagoras :
but Diogenes Laertius makes Philolaus, one of the follow-
ers of Pythagoras, the first author of tliis doctrine. We
learn from Archimedes that it was held by his contempo-
rary, Aristarchus. 'Aristarchus of Samos,' says he,
' makes this supposition, that the fixed stars and the sun
remain at rest, and that the earth revolves round the sun
in a circle.' Plutarch asserts that this, which was only a
hypothesis in the hands of Aristarchus, was proved by
Seleucus ; but we may venture to say that, at that time, no
such proof was possible. Aristotle had recognized the ex-
istence of this doctrine by arguing against it. ' All things,'
says he, ' tend to the centre of the earth, and rest tliere,
and therefore the whole mass of the earth cannot rest ex-
cept there.' Ptolemy had in like manner argued against
the diurnal motion of the earth : such a revolution would,
he urged, disperse into surrounding space all the loose parts
of the earth. Yet he allowed that such a supposition would
fa,cilitate the explanation of some phenomena. Cicero
250 CONFLICT OF AGES.
appears to make Mercury and Venus revolve about the sun,
as does Martianus Capella at a later period ; and Seneca
says, it is a worthy subject of contemplation, whether the
earth be at rest or in motion : but at this period, as we may
see from Seneca himself, that habit of intellect which was
requisite for the solution of such a qiiestion had been suc-
ceeded by indistinct views and rhetorical forms d'f speech.
If the}' e were miy good mathematicians and good ob-
servers at this i^eriod^ they were employed in cultivating
and verifying the Hipparchian theory.
"Next to the Greeks, the Indians appear to have pos-
sessed that original vigor and clearness of thought from
which true science springs. It is remarkable that the
Indians, also, had their heliocentric theorists. Aryabatta
(a. d. 1322), and other astronomers of that country, are
said to have advocated the doctrine of the earth's revolution
on its axis ; which ojjinioji, however^ was rejected by sub-
sequent philosojjhers amojig the Hindoos.
" Some writers have thought that the heliocentric doctrine
was derived^ by Pythagoras and other European philoso-
phers, from some of the oriental nations. This opinion,
however, will appear to have little weight, if we consider
that the heliocentric hypothesis, in the only shape in which
the ancients knew it, was too obvious to require much
teaching ; that it did not, and could not, so far as we know,
receive any additional strength from anything which the
oriental nations could teach : and that each astronomer was
induced to adopt or reject it, not by any information which
a master could give him, but by his love of geometrical sim-
plicity on the one hand, or the prejudices of sense on the
other. Real science, depending on a clear view of the
relation of phenomena to general theoretical ideas, cannot
be communicated in the way }f secret and exclusive tradi-
A PRESUMPTION REBUTTED. 251
tions, like the mysteries of certain arts and crafts. If the
philosopher do not see that the theory is true, he is little
the better for having heard or read the words which assert
its truth.
'^It is impossible, therefore, to assent to those views
which would discover in the heliocentric doctrines of the
ancients traces of a more profound astronomy than any
which they have transmitted to us. Those doctrines were
merely the plausible conjectures of men with sound geom-
etrical notions ; but they were never extended so as to
embrace the details of the existing astronomical knoiol-
edge ; and perhaps we may say that the analysis of the
phenomena into the arrangements of the Ptolemaic system
was so much more obvious than any other, that it must
necessarily come first, in order to form an introduction to
the Copernican."
Now, I freely admit that the common theory of the moral
system, at first sight, did seem to be suggested by some
passages of scripture, just as was the geocentric theory of
the material universe. Moreover, it seemed to account for
the fundamental facts of the Christian system, just as the
geocentric theory seemed to account for the phenomena
of the solar system. Hence, it being hastily assumed
that the Bible teaches it, all the energy of evangelical
divines has been put forth to explain and defend it. It has,
indeed, not been denied that the theory of preexistence
would also explain the facts of native and entire depravity,
and relieve some difficulties. But it has been for the most
part summarily rejected, just as w^as the heliocentric
theory, and for the same reason. Eminent divines have
never tlioroughly considered its scriptural relations, and
undertaken and thoroughly executed the problem of develop-
252 CONFLICT OF AGES.
ing the system to wliich it belongs, so as to embrace the
details of the existing theological knowledge.
Perhaps, too, in this, as in the other case, the energetic
investigations of the advocates of the old system were
allowed to exist, as an introduction to a new and better sys-
tem. We have, at least, been enabled by them to see what
is the best that can be said in its behalf; and we have had
full and ample opportunity to study its operation on indi-
viduals and on society.
It would have been well if the theory of preexistence had
suffered merely from neglect, as above stated. But, in
addition to this, prejudice was awakened against it, by the
errors and eccentricities of some of its early defenders. Of
these, perhaps no one was more conspicuous than Origen.
He, by his unsound views on many points, and by associat-
ing preexistence with a false philosophical theory of the
universe, created in many minds a prejudice against the
idea itself To this I shall advert again, in its place.
Thus have I endeavored to state the principles of the
reconciliation of the contending powers of Christianity which
I propose. We are now prepared to enter upon a consider-
ation of a historical analysis of the course of the great con-
flict which has been spoken of as existing during a long
series of ages.
BOOK IV.
HISTORICAL OUTLINE AND ESTIMATE OF
THE CONFLICT.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL OUTLINE.
When we turn from the interests and controversies of
\iie present generation, and undertake to survey those of
past ages, we seem at first to be entering upon a boundless
ocean, of difficult and perilous navigation. But, after a lit-
tle experience, we find that the ocean is not illimitable, and
that its navigation is by no means as difficult or hazardous
as at first appeared. We soon find a compass and a chart ;
and, aided by the favoring gales of the spirit, we safely and
happily complete our voyage. We find, too, that such a
voyage is not in vain. We find more than dry dogmas and
obsolete creeds to bring home with us, as the fruits of our
adventures. We find that the history of thought and emo-
tion in the church of God, in all ages, has a vital relation
to the condition and interests of the present age ; and that
the future is not to be separated from the past by an abrupt
interval, but to have its roots in it, and to grow out of it
with a mature and healthy growth.
22
254 CONFLICT OF AGES.
We have seen that the careful study and development of
the false theories of the material universe was, in the judg-
ment of Whewell, an important preparation for the develop-
ment of the true theory. In like manner, it may be true
that the energetic investigations of false theories of the sys-
tem of the moral universe were needed, and were designed
by God as an introduction to a new and better system. We
have, at least, thereby been enabled to see what is the best
that can be said in behalf of those theories, and have had
ample opportunity to study their intellectual and moral
influences on individuals and on society.
So far as I know, no complete^ and philosophical history
of this great conflict of ages has ever been written, although
many and important elements of it are contained in the vari-
ous learned and able histories of the church, and of dog-
matic theology, which have from time to time appeared.
Whenever such a history shall be fairly written, it will,
I am assured; clearly evince that the principles of honor and
of right, as I have stated them, have been recognized in
every age ; but that, so long as it has been assumed that
this is our first state of existence, the course of events has
been this : First, that these principles have, in some minds,
given rise to superficial views of human depravity, which
are not adapted to produce a deep Christian experience.
Then, that against these views, from time to time, men,
actuated by a profound Christian consciousness, have
reacted, and endeavored to promulgate and defend deeper
views of the great facts concerning the depravity of man,
and his exposure to unseen and powerful spirits of evil
but that, nevertheless, in so doing they have made a pain-
ful war upon the most obvious and sacred principles of
honor and right ; and that every eflbrt to remove this con-
trariety, made during the course of more than fifteen cen-
GENERAL OUTLINE. 255
turies, has been in vain. The study of such a history would
be eminently salutary. It would enable us to avoid all
a priori and abstract theorizing, and to consider the simple
question, what, in fact, have been the developments of the
human mind, under the common assumption that this is our
&st state of existence, and that the fall of Adam is, in
some way, the cause of the sinfulness of the human race.
Such a review would powerfully confirm our previously-
announced conclusion, that the conflict of principles, which
I have in this work asserted to exist, is a reality ; that the
two great working powers of Christianity are in fact mis-
adjusted, and do work against each other; and that they can
never be made to work together, on the assumption that this
is our first state of existence.
A history of the kind to which I have adverted ought to
contain a full view of the manifestations and phases of this
great controversy, as seen in at least tlie following theolog-
ical developments :
1. The doctrines and speculations of the period anterior
to Augustine, on the sinful condition of man and his
redemption through Christ.
2. The great Augustinian and Pelagian controversy.
3. The Semipelagian controversies, till the tenth cen-
tury.
4. The controversies of the schoolmen, upon the same
topics, until the Reformation.
5. The discussions and decisions of the Reformers.
6. The iebates and decisions of the council of Trent, and
the subsequent controversies in the Romish church, e. g.
in the case of Baius, of Molina, and of the Jansenists.
7. The Arminian controversy in Europe ana America.
8. The Socinian controversy on these points, soon after
the opening of the Reformation.
256 CONFLICT OF AGES.
9. The assaults of the celebrated Arian, Dr. J. Taylor, on
the doctrine of original sin, and the rejoinders of his Englis\
antagonists.
10. The development of New England theology on sin^
holiness and human depravity, by Edwards, Hopkins, Em-
mons and others, in reply to the Arminians and J. Tay-
lor.
11. The more recent Unitarian controversies on human
depravity, m Europe and America.
12. The further developments of New England theology
on sin and holiness, by Dr. N. Taylor and the New Haven
divines.
13. The controversies in New England and the Presby-
terian church, to which they gave rise.
14. The more recent controversy of Professor Park and
the Princeton divines.
If any one, on looking over this formidable outline of a
wide-extended field of controversy, should fear lest the mind
should be wearied and confounded by the multiplicity of
names and conflicting theories, let him, for a moment, rise
above names, and consider the things in debate, and he will
see that they are few and simple. On the one side he will
find, under the influence of Christian consciousness. Scrip
ture and history, a constant efibrt to state thoroughly the
entire ruin^of ma^ its origin from Adam, and its remedy
in Christ. On the other he will find the annunciation, with
greater or less fulness, of the principles of honor and right, in
their relations to God, and his dealings with men ; and efibrts,
under their influence, either utterly to disprove, or to modify
and soften, the facts alleged, concerning the utter ruin and
gracious recovery of man. As the valley of the Mississippi,
though vast, is simple in its great outlines, and as the river
that drains it is formed of necessity, as it is, by the waters
GENERAL OUTLINE. 257
that flow from the descending slopes of the great eastern and
western chains of mountains, so the valley of this great
river of controversy, that has flowed for ages, is simple, and
the river itself has been made, of necessity, by the meeting
of the constant streams of thought and feeling that have
flowed from these great and opposite mountain ranges of
alleged facts on the one hand, and of principles on the other.
Nor need we wonder at the depth, mtensity and power, of the
feehngs that have been manifested. The subject involves
all that man has to hope or fear in an eternal destiny.
Who can fully conceive of the importance of a thorough
and radical regeneration, if the account given of the ruin
of man is true ? It is a deliverance from eternal pollution,
eternal shame and eternal woe, the magnitude of wliich
overwhelms the mind, and eclipses all other deliverances.
Hence, to the deeply experimental Christian, no evil can
appear greater than the dissemination of false or superficial
views of the depravity and ruin of man. To such, the flip-
pancy and levity and self-exaltation which so many exhibit,
who are ignorant of their own utter ruin, is unutterably
mournful and repulsive. Hence, we need not wonder at the
earnestness and zeal with which experimental Christians,
such as Augustine, the Reformers, the Puritans, Edwards,
and others of a like spirit, have defended the doctrine of
depravity; nor at the deep sufferings which they have
endured, when errors have prevailed affecting vitally the
eternal welfare of their fellow-men.
But this is not the only just ground of earnest intellectual
activity and deep suffering. Who can estimate the import-
ance of true views of honor and right, in reference to the
character of God ?
All that is great, glorious and praiseworthy, in the Cre-
ator,— all that is valuable or desirable in his eternal king-
22*
258 CONFLICT OF AGES.
dom, all that makes existence itself in any degree a bless-
ing,— nay, all that prevents it from becoming a most fearful
curse, is at stake. There is no other interest, of which the
mind can form a conception, that deserves for a moment to
be compared with the interest that every created being has
in the character of God. Not only individual non-exist-
ence, but much more universal non-existence, is to be pre-
ferred to existence under a God the measures of whose
administration should violate the fundamental and eternal
principles of honor and of right.
This estimate of the importance of this great controversy
is not exaggerated. Nor is it so regarded by any competent
judge. Hence, Wiggers, in his history of Pelagianism and
Augustinism, justly remarks, " Among all the doctrinal
controversies in the Christian church, the Pelagian cer-
tainly take the first place^ if we regard the consequences,
and the importance of their results to Christian doctrine."
Ranke, too, in his History of the Popes, says of the question,
debated by Molina, concerning grace, free will, good works
and predestination, — which is but the necessary development
of the Pelagian controversy, — that, throughout the whole
range of theology. Catholic as well as Protestant, it is, and
ever has been, " the most im,porta7it^ and the most 'preg-
nant ivith consequences.^^
CHAPTER II.
THE POINT OF VISION.
I SHALL not, in my restricted limits, undertake anything
like a full history of so great a controversy. I shall merely
attempt to develop the principleSj and sketch the general
course of the conflict.
It is happy for us, however, that there is a mountain-top
so situated that to it we can easily ascend, and from it
distinctly and accurately survey the course of this whole
conflict. This lofty mountain- top is that eminent Christian
father and divine, Augustine, Bishop of Hippo.
It will be conceded, by all competent judges, that the
most momentous and influential crisis in the Avhole of this
great theological conflict occurred during the fifth century,
in the emmently radical and able controversy between him
on the one hand, and Pelagius. Celestius and Julian, on the
other.
If it is any honorable evidence of intellectual gi-eatness
to be able to control, from age to age. the theological specu-
lations of the profoundest and most experimental minds in
the church, and, after the eminently able discussions of the
present day, to become once more the master spirit,
towards whom many leading minds are beginning to gravi-
tate, as a centre of revolution and of light, that honorable
evidence clearly belongs to Augustine.
260 CONFLICT OF AGES.
In an able article on the doctrine of original sin,
in the Christia?i Review for January, 1852, of which Pro-
fessor Sheddj of Auburn, is the author, there is an open
and avowed return to the fundamental positions of Augus-
tine, as essential in order to n. lintain the true depth and
vitality of the doctrine. Of Augustine he says, " In two
traits he never had a superior, — depth and penetration."
Again, referring to the theory that all men sinned in
Adam's sin, he says: " Augustine, although the first to
philosophize upon this difficult point in order to bring it
within the limits of a doctrinal system, has, nevertheless,
as it seems to us, not been excelled by any of his success-
ors in the profundity and comprehensiveness of his views."
He considers that as the most profound theological period
in which all the evangelical churches stood together on his
ground ; and seems to anticipate a speedy return to it, as
the opening of an age of deeper and more vital theology.
These views were set forth in the organ of the great
orthodox Baptist denomination of our country, and were
received by them, so far as I know, with universal applause.
Certainly, so it was with IVie Watchman and Reflector ^
of Boston, one of the most influential papers of that denom-
ination. The editor of that able paper speaks of it in the
following terms :
"It is an article discussing at considerable length, and
with metaphysical acumen and logic seldom surpassed, a
docjjrine of theology necessarily fundamental. The writer
takes ground that back of consciousness, and of all outward
manifestations, there is in man an evil nature, — a corrupt
fountain, forming the source of whatever is sinful in his
life."
The editor, moreover, is manifestly a convert to the
opinions of Prof Shedd, and anticipates the final triumph
THE POINT OF VISION. 261
e-i" his views, for he proceeds to say : '' We do not see how
the force of the writer's reasoning can be evaded. He
belongs to the school of Augustine, Turretin and Calvin,
though bringing to the investigation of his subject more of
the fruits of scripture philology and of philosophy than
were furnished to the hand of those distinguished defenders
*)f the faith. He regards the scientific statement of the
doctrine of original sin as having made no advance since
the framing of the Westminster Catechism in 1643, and
eees no prospect of advance for the future in this depart-
ment of theological inquiry.
"Remarking of 'those ages of controversy, the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuries,' he says: 'Those who
held the doctrine of a sinful nature, and of a sinful nature
that is guilt, stood upon one side, and stood all together ;
and those who rejected this doctrine stood upon the other
side, and also stood all together. The Christian church
was divided into two divisions, and no more. And this,
because the controversy was a thorough one, owing to
the profound view of sin taken by the disputants on the
Augustinian side ; the metaphysical rather than the merely
psychological aspect of the doctrine being uppermost.'
"Since the period here alluded to, various systems of
theological belief and denial have come into existence.
Socinianism has flourished on the continent, in England,
and in this country. The same may be said of Armin-
ianism as the distinguishing element of Methodism, and as
having largely permeated the Episcopacy, the Lutherans,
the General and Free Will Baptists. Under the lead of
Rev. C. G. Finney, Drs. Taylor, Barnes and others, a
system of what is sometimes called ' New Divinity ' has
also come into vogue. The denial of original sin, as held
by these men, and at the time referred to, is a marked
262 CONFLICT OF AGES. .
feature of each of these systems ; while, of course, there is
great general diversity between them. We cannot help
thinking that a true or a false theory of original sin exerts
a vital influence upon theology, either to preserve it pure,
or to corrupt it. It would not be surprising again to see
men holding to the doctrine of a sinful nature, and that
nature guilt, standing upon one side, and all standing
together ; and those rejecting the same doctrine standing on
the other side, and all standing together. There are tend-
encies towarcbv this issue, which it is not difficult to mistake.
And when that\ issue is fairly reached, there will be fewer
hiding-places of )error than now exist."
Again, in a notice of this number of the Christian
RevieiD he says :
"The opening article, on the doctrine of original sin, by
a writer who chooses to withhold his name, is a rare con-
tribution to the metaphysical side of that profound subject.
' Sin a nature, and that nature guilt,' is the running
title, and indicates the writer's position, — just the position
which harmonizes with scripture and with consciousness,
and establishes man's need of the redemption which is in
Christ. In the main coinciding with Edwards, it differs
from him on points pertaining to the will, and will furnish
to the metaphysical student some views on those points
which will specially arrest his attention. It may be
doubted whether a more profound or more valuable theolog-
ical article has lately been given to the pubhc."
The Piiritafi Recorder^ a prominent organ of the ortho-
dox Congregationalists, says of the article : "It treats of a
subject that is destined to occasion no little discussion ; and
it treats of it in a masterly manner."
I mention these things as striking signs of the times,
and as a proof that it is not needless once more to look
THE POINT OF VISION. 263
thorouglily into the opinions of Augustine. By many it is
thought that his views have become as lifeless as the
entombed remains of the antediluvian and ante-Mosaic
ages. E. H. Sears, in a recent able and deeply interesting
work, entitled ''Regeneration," thus expresses his
views : " Pleasing omens already indicate that this form of
belief is ceasing to become active. We lay it off, then, in
the persuasion that it is taking its place among the fossil-
ized remains of a former theologic world, which old con-
vulsions had turned up and left bare to our wondering and
curious gaze." It is obvious, however, that the views of
Augustine are not destined to lose their hold on men
of eminent piety and intellectual power, at least until they
have been once more thoroughly reviewed and reconsidered.
Nor ought we to wonder at this. His mind was one of
uncommon scope, richness and power. His works are, in
all parts, full of the seeds of thought. They were, during
the middle ages, the great encyclopedia of the theological
sciences. We rarely, if ever, find a profound Christian
and an eminent divine, from Gregory the great to Luther
and Calvin, who had not been moulded by the study of
Augustine. Among the scholastic divines, Neander says,
" The dogmatical bent of Augustine exercised the most
decided influence on the minds of the age." Of AnseM
of Canterbury, Neander remarks that " he was the Augus-
tine of his age; " and that " he exerted the most important
influence on the theological and philosophical turn of the
twelfth century." Yet, " the works from which his mind
derived all its nourishment, and which, as he continually
studied them, gave an impulse to all his inquiries, were the
Bible and St. Augustine." In addition to his rich and
creative intellect, the deep piety of Augustine enabled him
thus to draw to himself the great evangelical leaders of
264 CONFLICT OF ACES.
each successive age. In addition to this, it ouglit to be said
that the discussion of the great questions concerning the
moral character and relations of man has never been so
much more comprehensive and thorough, at any one time
since Augustine, than it was in his day. that any subse-
quent age has been fully and properly qualified to sit in
judgment upon him. The more that great original contro-
versy is examined, the deeper will be our conviction of the
extent and profundity of the discussion. Pelagius, Celes-
tius, and especially Julian, were men of uncommon abihty.
They left few new modes of assailing the views of Augus-
tine to the ingenuity of their successors. Nor did the
indefatigable mind of Augustine shrink from their encoun-
ter on any point. The question, also, as to preexistence,
was at that time more an open question than it has evei
since been, or is now ; and was not overlooked in the dis
cussion, as it has generally been from that time to this
The question as to the proper interpretation of the las-'
part of the fifth chapter of Romans, which is the chief
passage relied on for disclosing the relations of Adam to
his race, was then more an open question than it has evei
been since that time. In short, the highest issues of this
whole discussion were then first made, and were so deeply
discussed that no subsequent generation has ever reached a
point of vision high enough to enable them thoroughly to
reconsider them.
/ It is not, therefore, without reason that I have selected
this as the point of vision, — the lofty mountain- top from
which to review the whole discussion.
CHAPTER III.
THEOLOGICAL SPECULATIONS BEFORE AUGUS-
TINE.
This period includes about four centuries, extending
from Christ nearly to the fall of the western Roman
empire. In it occurred the earliest and most exciting dis-
cussions as to the Trinity. These, however, I shall not
notice, but shall fix my attention solely on the great conflict
that is now before us.
It is a striking peculiarity of this period that it opened
under the influence of no human systems of theology. The
sources of theology were in the possession of all, but had not
been explored. The Old Testament was in existence, and
Christ and his apostles had taught and written. The Holy
Spirit had descended, and Jews and Gentiles had been con-
vinced of sin, and, being united to Christ by a living faith,
had learned the mysteries of a Christian experience.
Without any metaphysical theory as to the origin of sin,
they were convinced by facts on every side, as well as by
the word of God, of the deep depravity of all men. Of
the moral state, both of the Jewish and Pagan world, Paul
had given a dark picture in the first chapters of the epistle
to the Romans. Besides all this, in every true convert a
Christian experience, without any theological theory, dis-
closed the deep depravity of the heart. Yet, for many
years, these abundant materials were wrought up into no
23
266 CONFLICT OE AvJES.
system. No great theologians followed the apostles. An
immense chasm separated the apostolical fathers from them.
The men whom God inspired tower upwards like mountains.
Their uninspired successors at once sink down to the dead
level of the plains below.
As years rolled on, however, assaults were made upon
various doctrines of the word of God by different classes of
errorists, or else attempts were made to undermine or cor-
rupt them by mixtures of erroneous systems. It thus
became necessary to define the real doctrines of Christian-
ity, and to sustain them alike against open assaults and
insidious corruptions.
Which of the two moving powers of Christianity should
have the ascendency in these opening theological movements
would, of course, depend upon the nature of the attacks
made, and of the defence which was thus rendered necessary.
The defence of the divine origin of Christianity against
Jews and Gentiles was the first work of the church. But
they were called, very soon, to repel attacks on the char-
acter of God, charging him with having violated the princi-
ples of honor and of right in his dealings wdth men, both
as to their natures and powers, and his action upon them.
Of course, this rendered necessary and called forth defences
of God, in which the principles of equity and of honor were
recognized, and arguments were presented to prove that
God had always and perfectly regarded them.
/ It is plain, from what I have before said, that such a
course of events would lead to such statements concerning
the constitution and faculties of man, and the freedom and
power of his will, as would tend to superficial views of
human depravity. Accordingly, when we take a general
view of the main course and logical drift of the discussions
on the moral character of man and the grace of God which
EARLY THEOLOGICAL SPECULATIONS. 267
preceded Augustine, obvious facts authorize us to saj tLat
thej did finally result in superficial views of human
depravity. I do not mean that the doctrine that all men
are sinners, and that they need to be saved by the grace of
God through Christ, wa^i ever denied. On the other hand,
it was universally maintained. But the sinfulness of man
was not so developed as to tend to those views of innate
depravity which produce the deepest forms of Christian
experience, — those forms in which there is a keen sense of
the utter moral weakness of man, and of his entire depend-
ence on the grace of the regenerating and sanctifying Spirit.
Instead of this, there was a development of those forms
which make prominent the energies of the human will, as
free and competent to fulfil all the demands of the law and
of the gospel. Accordingly, the final result was that the
errors of Pelagianism were developed from these tendencies
carried out to their extreme issues.
It is well known that the whole church, with one voice,
maintained the freedom of the will before the discussions of
Augustine and Pelagius. Especially was this true of the
oriental church. The Greek fathers carefully excluded firom
their theological system the idea of a nature depraved and
punishable before action. According to them, no man was a
sinner until he had voluntarily transgressed the laws of con-
science and of God, and this no man was under any neces-
sity of doing. We are now prepared to understand and to
believe Neander, when he says that " Pelagius was a dili-
gent student of the oriental church teachers ; and the form
in which he found Christian anthropology exhibited in those
writers corresponded with the peculiar development of his
own inward life." (Torrey's Neander. II. 573.) The
great idea of his experience, the same emment historian
States to be, to determine "how far man might advance
268 CONFLICT OF AGES.
towards perfection, by a self-active development of the
germs of goodness lying in his own moral nature, by the
superior energy of the will, by self-control."
I have already stated, in general terms, how it happened
that the first development of the church was in this direc-
tion. I remarked that it originated from the nature of the
first great controversial attacks to which the early Christians
were exposed. The nature and form of these attacks I shall
now more particularly consider. One of the most important
proceeded from the Gnostics. The assaults, also, of the
Manicheans, and of the philosophers who inculcated the
doctrine of fate, tended in the same direction. Gnosticism,
it is well knoAvn, developed itself in a systematic and con-
centrated attack upon the Old Testament.
The Gnostics, holding that matter is in its own nature
essentially evil, and productive of sin, sought to explain the
evils of this world as the result, not of the action of the
supreme God, but of a deity called the Demiurgus, or world-
maker, who, from preexisting elements, had formed this
material system, and in it involved in the bondage of mat-
ter spirits of divine origin from the heavenly regions, who
thereby were rendered sinful and corrupt. This Demiurgus
they asserted to be the God of the Old Testament ; and
most of them regarded him as an evil and malignant being,
whom Christ was revealed to destroy, in order to deliver
men from bondage to him and to matter. In proof of these
iassertions, they appealed to his acts, as recorded in the Old
Testament. This, of course, resulted in an attack on the
real God of Christianity, which the church was called on to
repel. They alleged, in particular, his despotic and unjust
conduct, in punishing children for the sins of their fathers,
and in violating the free will of man ; as, for example, in the
case of hardening Pharaoh's heart, and, in general, by his
EARLY THEOLOGICAL SPECULATIONS. 269
arbitrary and irresistible decrees. Is there any reason,
then, to wonder that, in defence of God and of the Old
Testament against such charges, the early fathers should
have concentrated their energies in a full development and
defence of the doctrine of the freedom of the will, and in
the exposition of those bold passages which represent God
as hardenino^ men and turning; their hearts to evil in such a
manner as to consist with the laws of honor and of right,
and with just views of human responsibility 7 Moreover,
as the Gnostics taught that only one out of the three classes
into which they divided men had natures capable of a holy
development, is it to be wondered at that the church should
earnestly seek to demonstrate tha.t no man had a nature
essentially evil and sinful before action, and as such inca-
pable of a right and holy choice of God and of his king-
dom ? Afterwards, the Manichean notion of a nature essen-
tially evil in itself called for a repetition of the same course
of reasoning. And, as the doctrine of fate, which had per-
vaded the pagan world, encountered them on every side, it,
of course, impelled them with augmented momentum in the
same direction. Accordingly, it is not possible to state
in stronger terms than they have abundantly used the great
fact of man's perfect free agency, as a capacity of choosing,
with the power of contrary choice, in every instance of vol-
untary and responsible conduct. This is so fully conceded
by all writers on the history of dogmatic theology, of any
authority, that it is superfluous to produce any documentary
evidence of the fact.
It is also evident, beyond denial, that they conditioned
God's decree of election upon his fore-knowledge of the vol-
untary conduct of those to whom the offers of mercy should
be proclaimed. In addition to this, by their opposition to
the Gnostic and Manichean dogmas concerning natures
23-*
270 • CONFLICT OF AGES.
essentially evil, they were, in fact, led definitely to deny
the existence of a sinful nature in man. Hence, Gregory
of Nyssa, in his work concerning children prematurely
removed, says, '* The cJiild^ free from all sin, finds itself
in the natural state, and needs no purification for its health,
because it has as yet fallen into no disease of the soul."
(Emerson's Wiggers, p. 346.) Chrysostom also says, " We
baptize children, though they have no sin^ that they may
have hohness," &c. At the same time, they did not deny
that all men do in fact sin, and thus, becoming guilty and
corrupt, need the atonement of Christ. Moreover, in gen-
eral they held that the sin of Adam, in some way, had
so affected his race that it stood connected with this result.
Still, however, they considered the only immediate effects
of this sin to be natural death, a higher degree of sensual
excitability, and exposure to a higher power of temptation.
And yet on these points some of them spoke with great
caution, lest they should seem to undermine the idea of a
true and real free agency.
Of the fathers, up to the death of Origen, or the year
254, Hagenbach says :
" The opinions of the fathers were not as yet fully devel-
oped concerning the moral depravity of every individual,
and the existence of sin in mankind generally, as the effect
of the sin of the first man. Many felt too much disposed to
look upon sin as the voluntary act of a moral agent, to con-
ceive of a kind of hereditary tendency transmitted from one
generation to another. The sinful acts of every individual
appeared to them less the necessary consequence of the first
sin, than a voluntary repetition of it. In order to explain
the mysterious power which almost compels men to sin,
they had recourse not so much to original sin, as to a sup-
EARLY THEOLOGICAL SPECULATIONS. 271
posed influence of the demons, wMch, however, cannot
constrain anj man to trespass."
In the preceding passage, I think, however, that the
statement would have been more correct if he had said tha,t
sorne^ rather than "many," were disposed to call in ques-
tion any kind of hereditary tendency to sin. Concerning
the Greek fathers down to the time of Au2;ustine, Hagen-
bach also remarks :
^'Even those theologians, who kept themselves free from
the influence of the Augustinian system, supposed that the
sin of Adam was followed by disastrous effects upon the
human race, but restricted them (as the fathers of the pre-
ceding period had done) to the mortality of the body, the
hardships and miseries of life, and sometimes admitted
that the moral faculties of man had been affected by the fall.
Thus, Gregory of Nazianzum, in particular (to whom
Augustine appealed in preference to all others), thought
that both the ^ovi and the Hi^x^ had been considerably
impaired by the fall, and regarded the perversion of man's
sentiments, and its consequence, idolatry, which the writers
previous to his time had ascribed to the influence of demons,
as the effect of the first sin. But he was far from supposing
the total depravity of mankind, and the entire loss of the
free will. On the contrary, the doctrine of the freedom of
the will continued to be distinctly maintained by the Greek
church. Athanasius himself, commonly called the father
of orthodoxy^ asserted in the strongest terms that man has
the ability of choosing between good and evil ; and was so
far from believing in the general corruption of mankind, as
to look upon several individuals, who lived prior -^^c the
appearance of Christ, as righteous. Cyrill of Jerusalem
also assumed that men are born in a state of innocence, and
that a free agent alone can commit sin. Similar views were
272 CONFLICT OF AGES.
entertained by Ephraim the Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa,
Basil the Great, and others. Chrysostom, whose whole
tendency was of a practico-moral kind, brought the liberty
of man and his moral self-determination most distinctly for-
ward, and passed a severe censure upon those who endeav-
ored to excuse their own immoralities by ascribing the origin
of sin to the fall of Adam."
In support of these statements, he quotes many passages,
of which I shall omit all except those from Cyrill of Jeru-
salem. He says, '' We come into this world without sin,
and sin of free choice." " The soul has free will, and the
devil can suggest temptations, but he cannot compel to sin
contrary to choice." ^' If any one through his own neglect
is not deemed fit to receive grace, let him not censure the
Spirit, but his OAvn unbehef " (Cat. iv. 19, 21, and xvi.
23.) Properly to understand these views of the Greek
fathers, we must consider against what errors they were
aimed, and remember that eyen those who held that infants
were born sinless, as Cyrill. and Gregory of Nyssa, believed
that there was still in the race a universal tendency to sin.
and, in opposition to pride and self-conceit, urged the deep
actual depravity of man.
It is too plain to need proof that these views of the
Greek fathers are based upon a laudable and reverential
purpose to defend God against all charges of violating the
principles of equity and honor ; but it is no less obvious that
they fend to superficial views of human depravity. They
also tend to a degradation of free agency itself, in the way
which has been pointed out in considering the Unitarian
and some forms of the New School theology. For it is
plain that every effort to account for developments so uni-
versally and so deeply depraved as are those of the human
race in this world, by regarding them as the natural result
EARLY THEOLOGICAL SPECULATIONS. 273
of free agency as such, of necessity degrades free agency
itself. Moreover, all efforts to prove that free agency, as it
exists in this world, is such as God ought in honor and jus-
tice to confer on new-created minds, naturally leads to low
views of what is possible in the original and upright state
of new-created minds. Accordingly, in the Greek fathers
we find low views of the state of original righteousness in
which man was created. Hence, Neander remarks that
" the Pelagians, like the older, particularly the oriental
church teachers, with whom they, in fact, more especially
coincided, compare the state of the first man with that of an
innocent, inexperienced child; only with this difference,
that, as a thing necessary in order to his preservation, his
spiritual and corporeal powers were already unfolded to a
certain extent." Moreover, in comparing the Greek with
the Latin church, he remarks, ' ' By means of Augustine,
whose influence did not extend to the eastern church, the
general system of (western) doctrine took its shape and
direction more decidedly from the doctrine of redemption as
a centre, and from the anthropology (of Augustine) con-
nected therewith. But among the Greeks the case teas
otherwise. Whilst, in the western church, the Augustinian
scheme of doctrine had become dominant, in the Greek
church the older and more indefinite mode of apprehending
the doctrines of grace, of free will, and of providence, — a
theory bordering on Pelagianlsm, — had been preserved."
Any one can satisfy himself of the truth of this view by a
reference to John of Damascus, the great systematic divine
of the Greek church, who has preserved the oriental system
as it was in the days of Chrysostom, excluding all the modi-
fications introduced by Augustine.
In connection with this state of facts let it now be noticed
that it is conceded that the religious experience of the
274 CONFLICT OF AGES.
period before Augustine did not have that deep Pauline
character which was afterwards developed in Augustine, and
in those who adopted his views. Hagenbach says : "In
opposition to the opinion that conviction of sin, accom-
panied by powerful excitement, which attains to a sense of
pardon only after internal struggles, is alone the sure crite-
rion and indispensable condition of the Christian's charac-
ter, we may safely refer to the primitive church, in which,
to say the least, such a notion of sin did not prevail." His
explanation of this phenomenon appears to me singular and
inadequate. In days of external martyrdom, he informs
us, such an experience was not needed. But, " when per-
secutions ceased, it became a duty imperative on the church
to cultivate the internal martyrdom in opposition to exter-
nal triumphs." This internal martyrdom, he tells us,
" consisted in the subjection of the heart to the power of
the Holy Spirit, in the sense of Augustine, which pre-
pared the way for the regeneration of the church in after
ages." He thinks that one experience belonged very
properly to the childhood of the church, but the other to a
period of necessary subsequent development. From this
view I beg leave to dissent. Did not Paul live in the
martyr-age 7 Yet he had the same deep experience and
self-crucifixion with Augustine ; and he inculcated it as a
proper and necessary part of Christian experience, in all
ages. Moreover, ought not the heart to be subjected to the
power of the Holy Spirit, in all ages, as truly as in the
ages after Augustine ? There are others who account for
such cases of deep conviction by the supposition tliat the
subjects of them were men of violent passions, and power-
ful sensual tendencies, who, like Augustine, for a time
wallow in sin, or at least are called to a violent struggle
with their appetites and impulses. What, then, shall be
EARLY THEOLOGICAL SPECULATIONS. 275
said of the case of Edwards, moral, intellectual and refined
from his youth up, and surrounded bj nothing but pure
and intellectual society ? How is his deep Pauline and
Augustinian experience to be explained, on this theory?
To me it is plain that the type of experience before Augus-
tine was, to a great extent, caused by the tendencies of the
prevailmg doctrinal system, and that the change of doctrine
effected by Augustine introduced a deeper style of Chris-
tian experience. A strikmg confirmation of this view is
found in the fact that, in the Greek church, — retaining
their original system, — the Augustinian experience has
rarely, if ever, been found, even to this day. To complete
our view, it ought to be added, that during this period the
ascetic system, which is based upon the idea that the origin
of sin is to be found in matter, — a principle of Gnosticism,
with which the church, in spite of her conflicts against that
system in general, was early infected, — struck its roots deep
in the Cln^istian world, and developed itself in the form of
monastic institutions. The tendency of this ascetic s^-stem,
in all its forms, is to magnify the works of man, and to hide
the free grace of God. We shall find in this, in connection
with the superficial theology which has already been con-
sidered, a sufiicient account of the want, at that time, of a
det;p Christian experience of the same kind which charac-
terized the apostle Paul, as well as the profound Augustine.
Here, then, we see that, in accordance with my opening
statement, the principles of equity and of honor, in their
re'Iction from Gnosticism, Manicheism and fatalism, have, in
fact, given rise to superficial views of human depravity,
which are not adapted to produce a deep Christian expe-
rience. These, at length, were taken up and carried beyond
the prevailing views of the church, even to their extreme
results, by Pelagius and his compeers ; and thus led to that
27G CONFLICT OF AGEB.
great reaction wliich was developed bj the agency of tliat
eminent master-spirit, through whom the channels of a pro-
found Christian experience were disclosed and deepened for
all coming ages.
All that PelagiuSj Celestius and Julian did, was to carry
out to their natural results the principles of honor and
right, on the supposition that this is our first state of exist-
ence. Their doctrine, in brief, is, that man has such a moral
constitution and such powers as God ought, as an honorable
and just being, to confer on every new-created being. All
men receive so much from the Creator, and Adam had no
more. Therefore, all men are naturally as well off as
Adam was 1)efore the fall. Hence his fall injured himself
only, and not his posterity. Herein Pelagius differed from
the early fathers, so far as they held that the fall of Adam
injured the moral constitution of his posterity, and produced
a hereditary propensity to sin. By.t he did not differ from
them in teaching that all men are free agents, with full
power to obey the lavf of God and the gospel ; and that there
is in them no sin, and no sinful nature, before voluntary
action. Such was the general view of the whole church
before his day.
It followed from the views of Pelagius that a man could
live without sin, and so be saved by the law, without any
need of the atonement. Hence the Pelagian doctrine that
th^ law is as good a means of salvation as the gospel.
Hence, too, the idea of Pelagius, that the grace of God con-
sisted in part in making man a free agent, and also in the
presentation to him, in various ways, of motives adapted to
excite him to a right use of his powers as a free agent ; hence,
too, his reluctance to admit the absolute necessity of any
other grace exerting an interior and decisive power uj)on
the will, such as to deliver it from the bondage of sin, and
EARLY THEOLOGICAL SPECULATIONS. 277
restore to it true liberty. Pelagius also differed from the
preceding fathers by holding that natural death was not the
result of Adam's sm, either in himself or in his posterity.
He held that death was inseparable from our nature ; and
that, therefore, Adam and all his offspring would have died,
even if he had not sinned.
Note on p. 272.
The tendency of teaching that the mind of man enters this world in a
normal and nnfallen state to degrade our conceptions of free agency, and
of the true original dignity of the nature of man, and to produce superfi-
cial views of the reality and guilt of sin, I have not fully discussed in any
one place according to its importance, but have viewed it in various
aspects during the progress of the general discussion. To enable any one
who desires it to unite these separate discussions in one view, I will refer
.to the other places where they occur :
Boo. n.^O'aP-^-PP- 141-146.
Boo.IU.fCl.ap.y^^pp.216_217.
Book IV. ^ Chap. m. pp. 272^77.
24
CHAPTER IV.
R, AUGUSTINE AND
HIS EXPERIENCE.
From what has been said, it appears that up to the time
of Augustine there had been no serious controversy among
good men on the subject of human depravity. The assaults
on Christianity from without, by the Gnostics, Fatalists and
Manicheans, had united the whole church in defending the
freedom of the will, and the rectitude of God with respect
to the original constitution and powers of man. Thus, all
things had given to the principles of equity and of honor
an ascendency and a preponderance which threatened at
length entirely to eradicate the radical and thorough doctrine
of human depravity. That such was the tendency, is
obvious from the fact that Pelagius, by whom this work was
at length consummated, was a diligent student of the early
fathers, especially those of the Greek church, and found in
their doctrine concerning man views which accorded with
his own experience.
We come now to a great and necessary reaction from this
mode of thinking and reasoning, the influence of which has
not been expended even to this day. It has not, indeed,
ever gained the ascendency, so as to unite all good men in
one harmonious phalanx ; it has never been able to prevent
powerful reactions against itself ; yet, as compared with what
AUGUSTINE AND HIS EXPERIENCE. 279
preceded it, it was a great advance, and it has effected a
great work for God and for humanity.
Its peculiar and fundamental work was to restore to the
church that deep and radical view of human depravity
which is found in the word of God, and without which all
efforts to effect the moral renovation of man and of society
will be superficial and powerless.
The great instrument of divine providence, in effecting
this reaction, was Augustine, a man whom God had fitted,
by his own experience, to sound all the depths of a true and
Pauline Christian consciousness, and thus to form an accu-
rate conception of what are the original and normal relations
of the mind to God, and of what are the corruptions and
perversions which have been introduced into it by sin.
He is that spiritual mountain-top upon which I propose
to stand, in order to survey this great conflict, from its first
development to this day. And, as his influence enters so
deeply into all the religious history of the world since his
day, I think it important, so far as possible, to establish a
Christian sympathy and good understanding between him
and Christians of the present age.
I am the more desirous to do this, as he is extensively
misunderstood. He is thought of as the advocate of a sys-
tem so stern and fearful that he must have been a mere
heartless rcasoner, ready to sacrifice all the finer feelings
of humanity upon the altar of an iron logical consistency.
It is true that Augustine was a logician ; but it is no less
true that no man ever had a larger, a more tender, a more
sensitive heart, or a deeper abyss of profound and glowing
emotion. Indeed, it was the great, the final end of Augus-
tine, to love with the whole intensity of his being, and to be
loved with an infinite and almighty love, a love such as can
be found nowhere but in God. It was this union of power-
280 CONFLICT OF AGES.
ful logic and deep emotion which gave Augustine such
power over the minds of men, — a power to which every age
has borne witness, from that day to the present.
These characteristics of Augustine are noticed by Wig-
gers, as effecting in him a union of scholasticism and mysti-
cism. But, as some of his remarks on the subject of a mys-
tic experience are adapted to produce misunderstanding, I
here introduce them for the sake of some remarks.
Concerning him, then, Wiggers thus speaks: "From
all this, the following characteristic of Augustine is mani-
fest. The most distinctive and the most interesting thing, and
that by which his individuality is the most strikingly indi-
cated, is the union of mysticism with scholasticism, — that
is, the endeavor by feeling to reach the infinite, with the
endeavor to reduce the infinite to our comprehension. In
this respect, Augustine is altogether remarkable, — a pecu-
liar phenomenon, one might say, of Christian antiquity.
Certainly, we find no father in whom we meet with just as
many proofs of a mystic way of thinking as of the preva-
lence of intellect. How can any one express himself in a
more mystical way than to speak of the embraces of God,
and of sucking his milk? And how clearly do we hear the
mere mental philosopher, when he disputes with the Dona-
tists, and still more when he seeks to prove ' the servile
will' in opposition to the Pelagians ! The ecstasies also, of
wMch the vestiges are found in his confessions, and which
put him in the condition of those who have prophetic visions,
show what a dominion fancy, the mother of mysticism, had
over him. It might, indeed, be objected that we ought to
consider the age of Augustine. But even in his latter age,
during his contests with the Pelagians, striking traces are
seen of the mystic mode of thinking, particularly in his
assertions respecting the grace of God. Fancy, therefore.
AUGUSTINE AND HIS EXPERIENCE. 281
and sagacity were combined in him in a manner wholly
peculiar, without our being able to say that either prepon-
derated over the other. This peculiar combination, by
which he was at once a mystic and a scholastic, is the great-
est singularity in Augustine. In full accordance with this
peculiarity, or sufficiently explained by it, are both his ear-
nest effort for truth and his devout disposition, — his deep
religious feeling, which speaks forth in so lovely a manner,
particularly where he is not acting the polemic, e. g. in the
Confessions, and which must have made him abhor that
pride of human virtue which ascribes a merit to its own
works.
"Augustine had by nature an excessive propensity to the
pleasures of sense, of which he often complains himself, and
which was also confirmed by the early errors of his youth.
This propensity must in due time have led him to mysti-
cism. For, when it afterwards became more intellectual, his
fancy must needs have revelled in a world above sense ; and
this readily affords a psychological explanation of the fact
that his love to God was never entirely free from a tinge of
sensuous love. As a necessary consequence, the new Pla-
tonic philosophy, which, from its mystic tendency, was well
adapted to his mind, confirmed him still more in this mode
of thinking.
" From what has been said, we may readily infer that
Augustine possessed much natural kindness, and a delicate
susceptibility for friendship. Eut the acuteness of his
understanding inclined him freely to admit consequences
from principles once established, even when repugnant to
his moral feeling. Hence was he so formidable a disputant.
The study of Aristotle's works had certainly a very salu-
tary influence on his consecutive mode of thinking. Against
24*
282 CONFLICT OF AGES.
the justness of his conclusions no objection can easily be
made, if we only admit the principles.''
On this I would suggest, that it is, beyond all doubt, pos-
sible not only to mix sensuous love with the love of God,
but also to create a false religious experience, of which God
shall be the nominal object, but all the elements of which
shall be sensual. Such an experience seems to be intima-
ted in the writings of Hafiz, and other eastern mystics. Nor
is it uncommon to denote such religious excitement by the
term mysticism. The term, I am aware, is also used, in a
better sense, to denote a true and powerful inward experi-
ence of the love of God. But this ambiguity of usage
makes it the more important not to leave the remarks of
Wiggers unguarded. If he means that the love of Augus-
tine towards God was mystical in the sense of being
improperly tinged by sensualism, I beg leave to dissent from
his view. It is well known by all, that God has so made
material things that they are analogous to spiritual things.
Is not light analogous to truth, heat to powerful love,
water and food to the nutriment of the soul which is found
in truth and love, and harmony in sounds to mental har-
mony among spirits ? Is not the relation of God to man
set forth by analogies taken from a human father or a
mother, or from the sun, or from a rock or a fortress ? Is
it, then, sensual to think of God, or to love God, by the aid
otf such analogies ? This would condemn the greater part
€)f the religious experience of the Bible ; for it is always
expressed by means of such analogies. Suppose, then,. •*hat
we pass from such analogies as these, to another, n^ less
scriptural, and eminently elevated and sacred, — I mean the
relation of the lover and the beloved, the bridegroom and the
bride, the husband and the wife. This analogy i.s, in fact,
no more material, no more sensual^ than those of which I
AUGUSTINE AND HIS EXPERIENCE. 283
have spoken, and others of the same kind. So far as they
are material, they all stand on exactly the same ground.
Nor is it any more sensual or material to illustrate the love
of God by the relations of the bridegroom and the bride,
than it is by the analogies of light, heat, an earthly father,
the sun, a shield, a rock or a fortress.
I concede that by the analogy of the bridegroom and the
bride an appeal is made to the strongest human passions,
and that these are often corrupted. But it is no less true
that a love of God may exist so spiritual, so pure, so
powerful, that it shall altogether transcend the power of
such passions and emotions, and subordinate, purify, regu-
late, and control them, and impart to them a sanctity un-
known before, by using them as the emblems of a higher
love. If the higher love is wanting or feeble, the use of
such emblems is dangerous ; if that love is as it should be,
it is safe. That this higher love did exist in full power in
Augustine, there is no reason to doubt. It ruled his mind,
and subordinated and sanctified all the analogies by which it
was expressed. Indeed, he has given us a definite state-
ment of his views and experience upon this point. Appeal-
ing to God, he says :
" Not with doubting, but with assured consciousness, do
I love thee, 0 Lord. * * But what do I love, when I love
thee 7 Not beauty of bodies, nor the fair harmony of time,
nor the brightness of the lighrt so gladsome to our eyes, nor
sweet melodies of varied songs, nor the fragrant smell of
flowers and ointments and spices : not manna and honey ; not
a corporeal form, beautiful to embrace. None .f these I
love, when I love my God ; and yet I love a kind of light,
and melody, and fragrance, and food, and embraces, wjien I
love my God ; the fight, melody, fragrance, food, embraces,
of my inner man ; where there shineth unto my soul what
284 CONFLICT OF AGES.
space cannot contain, and there soundeth what time bearetb
not away; and there is fragrance which breathing dis-
perseth not, and food is tasted which eating diminisheth
not, and therp are embraces which satiety dissolveth not.
This is it which I love, when I love my God." (Confess-
ions X. VI. 8.) What can more perfectly and beautifully ex-
plain the passages to which Wiggers refers as proofs of
mysticism ? Does it not divest them entirely of all tinge
of sensual love in any improper sense ? The full passage
with reference to sucking the milk of God will show that
Wiggers has not done justice to Augustine in so brief a
reference. Addressing God, he says : " What am I to my-
self, without thee, but a guide to mine own downfall 7 Or,
what am I when truly blessed, but an infant sucking the
milk thou givest, and feeding upon Thee, the food that
perisheth not?" Who, that has heard God saying, "As
one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you,"
or, " I am the bread of life," can take exception to Augus-
tine's touching expression of filial dependence and love
towards God? Did not David thirst for God ; and when he
found him did he not declare that in the enjoyment of his
love his soul was satisfied as with marrow and fatness, and
that his loving-kindness was better than life ? In a simi-
lar style, also, does Augustine thus lament his former in-
gratitude: "Thou light of my heart, thou bread of my
inmost soul, thou power who givest vigor to my mind, and
who qnickenest my thoughts, I loved Thee not. ^ * Too
late loved I thee, 0 thou beauty of ancient days, yet ever
new ! too late I loved thee ! * * Thou didst call and
shout, and my deafness ceased ; thou didst flash and shine,
and my blind eyes were opened. Thou breathedst odors, and
1 have inhaled them, and pant for thee. I tasted, and
hunger and thirst. Thou touchedst me, and I burned for
AUGUSTINE AND HIS EXPERIENCE. 285
thy peace. Wlien I shall, with my whole self, cleave to
thee, then I shall no more have sorrow or labor, and my life
shall wholly live as wholly full of thee." ^ * " And some-
times thou admittest me to an unusual affection in my
inmost soul ; rising to a strange sweetness, which, if it were
perfected in me, I know not what in it would not belong to
the life to come. ^
And through what process did Augustine pass, in order to
reach such visions of God, and such seasons of heavenly
communion with him? In this respect, his experience
and that of Edwards were the same. Both had seasons of
deep and unutterable conviction of sin ; both learned deeply
to loathe themselves, and to long, with intense longing, to
eradicate the roots of pride, that most dangerous and
deepest defilement of lofty, highly-gifted minds. With
regard to this, Augustine says to his God : " Thou knowest,
on this matter, the groans of my heart and the floods of my
eyes. For I cannot learn how far I am advanced in being
cleansed from this plague ; and I much fear my secret sins,
which thine eyes know and mine do not." ^ * "Eain
would I that the approbation of another should not increase
my joy for any good in me." How truly coincident is this
last expression with the statement of Edwards, before
quoted, — "The very thought of any joy arising in me, on
any consideration of my own amiableness, performances or
experiences, or any goodness of heart or life, is nauseous and
detestable to me." Yet was he constantly afilicted by con-
jcious tendencies to pride. Augustine, in hke manner,
-jails this " his daily furnace," the constant affliction of his
'joul. He desired in all things to see and honor God, and
to him he confessed that he ought to value fame solely for
benevolent ends. " Behold, in thee, 0 Truth, I see that I
ought not to be moved at my own praises, for my own sake,
286 CONFLICT OF AGES.
but for the good of my neighbor." Knowing, as he did
the treachery of liis heart, he earnestly sought the searching
of the omniscient eye.
To this brief view of the Christian experience of Augus-
tine it may be added, that he was naturally a man of ge-
nial, humane and tender feelings. We see in him, therefore,
no tendencies to a stern theology, unless there is in man a
sternness of depravity that calls for stern measures of jus-
tice^on the part of God, whilst, at the same time, it opens
the way for the interposition of sovereign grace. If such is,
in fact, the character of man, then it is to be expected that
one like Augustine would arrive at a profound and unwa-
vering conviction of the fact.
On the whole, we need not wonder that Augustine has
had so long-continued a sway over the human mind. He
had the fervor, the deep passion and the imagination, of an
oriental temperament ; and yet with it was combined the
keen logic of a western mind. He was master of all the
learning of his age that was accessible in the Latin tongue.
Though like Edwards in the union of logical power with a
profound experience, he greatly surpassed him in rhetorical
power ; for he had studied rhetoric as an art, and had
taught it before he became a Christian bishop. Hence, his
style is universally more rhetorical and finished than that
of Edwards.
Is it to be wondered at that such men as Bernard,
Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Jansenius, and
Pascal, should be drawn by a sympathetic attraction to the
profound doctrinal and experimental discussions of such a
mind 7 Or that, from age to age, they should light their
lamps at his fire 7
There is in the Agamemnon of iEschylus a beautiful and
Drilliant passage, in which Clytemnestra describes the trans-
AUGUSTINE AND HIS EXPERIENCE. 287
mission to herself by signal fires, kindled successively on
mountain-tops, of the intelligence of the downfall of Troy.
If we will substitute in it the idea of time instead of space,
we may use it as a lively image of the mode in which the
fires of Christian doctrine and experience have been trans-
mitted from Augustine down the tract of time, kindling
upon one mountain-top after another, till they reach the
remotest ages.
I give the passage in the translation of Potter. Though
slightly inaccurate, it is equally good for my purpose. In
reply to the inquiry what herald conveyed the news, Cly-
temnestra answers :
*' The fire, that from the height of Ida sent
Its streaming light, as from the announcing flame
Torch blazed to torch. First Ida to the steep
Of Lemnos : Athos' sacred height received
The mighty splendor ; from the surging back
Of the Hellespont the vigorous blaze held on
Its smiling way, and like the orient sun
Illumes with golden-gleaming rays the head
Of rocky Macetas ; nor lingers there.
Nor winks unheedful, but its warning flames
Darts to the streams of Euripus, and gives
Its glittering signal to the guards that hold
Their high watch on Mesapius. These enkindle
The joy-announcing fires, that spread the blaze
To where Erica hoar its shaggy brow
Waves rudely. Unimpaired the active flame
Bounds o'er the level of Asopus, like
The jocund moon, and on Cithocron's steep
Wakes a successive flame ; the distant watch
Agnize its shine, and raise a brighter fire.
That, o'er the lake Gorgopis streaming, holds
Its rapid course, and on the mountainous heights
Of -^giplanctus huge, swift-shooting spreads
The lengthened line of light. Thence onwards wavea
Its fiery tresses, eager to ascend
The crags of Prone, frowning in their pride
288 CONFLICT OF AGES.
O'er the Saronic gulf: it leaps, it mounts
The summit of Arachne, whose high head
Looks down on Argos : to this royal seat
Thence darts the light that from the Idaean fire
Derives its birth. Rightly in order thus
Each to the next consigns the torchy that fills
The bright succession.^^
To complete tlie image, however, we should remember on
what mountain and by whom the fire was kindled that first
shone on Augustine. It was kindled by Paul and his com-
peers on Zion, the mountain of our God.
CHAPTER V.
Augustine's principles of equity and
HONOR.
We have seen that before Augustine all things, especially
in the oriental church, had taken such a course that, in
efforts to defend God, two results had come to pass. The
standard of the original righteousness which God ought to
confer on new-created minds was lowered ; and, also, that
superficial views had been given of the deep original deprav-
ity of man. The result was, that neither subject was truly
seen. The principles of honor and right were unduly
degraded, the character of man was unduly exalted. This
is the necessary result of endeavoring to justify God on the
assumption that this is our first state of existence. And
yet, even so, no available harmony was secured.
It was reserved for Augustine to restore each of these
subjects to its true place in the system, and to attempt to
effect a harmony between them.
I shall consider, in order, first, what he endeavored to do
on each of these great points, the principles of honor and
right, the original and deep depravity of man, and then set
forth the mode of harmonizing these moving powers of
Christianity which he proposed and defended.
In general, then, I remark that he entirely abandoned
all efforts to prove that men, as they enter this world, have
such constitutions, propensities and powers, as the principles
of equity and honor require God to confer on new-created
25
290 CONFLICT OF AGES.
minds. He clearly conceded and fully taught that this was
not the fact. To make this plain, it is only necessary to
consider his principles of equity and honor, and his views
of men as they enter this world.
We come, then, to the fundamental question on which
this present discussion turns, — What were the principles of
honor and right, as held by Augustine ?
1 reply, Augustine held that the principles of honor and
right demand of the great Creator that he should give to
all new-created minds such an original constitution, and
such powers, and place them in such circumstances and
under such influences, that they should enjoy a full and fair
probation, in which they had full power, by their own free
will, to secure a permanent confirmation in holiness and
eternal life. These principles Avere not incidentally avowed
by Augustine, but were fully, formally and scientifically
set forth : not merely in his early writings, but in his last
and most mature works, and especially in his treatise, De
Correptione et Gratia (concerning reproof and grace),
addressed to the Adrumettian monks, near the close of his
labors in the Pelagian controversy. Without going into
any analysis of that or any other work as a whole, I will
merely state what pertains to the point now under consid-
eration.
The constitution and powers which he regarded as de
manded of God for new-created beings by the principles of
honor and right, were such as result in a true and real free
will. The influence and circumstances demanded of God
are such that this free will shall not be left to its own
unaided energies, but shall be so invigorated and sustained
by divine influence that the creatures shall be able always
so to choose the right, and persevere therein, that the result
shall be an eternal confirmation in good.
AUGUSTINE'S PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY. 291
In accordance with these views, Augustine asserts con-
cerning the angels that they were, when created, endowed
with the requisite powers, and aided by the necessary divine
influence ; and that some of them, by their own free will,
revolted, whilst others so persevered in good as to merit
final confirmation in holiness and eternal life. A single
extract will make this point sufficiently plain :
'' God so ordered the life of angels and men, that in it he
might first show what their free will could efiect, and then
what the beneficence of his grace and the judgment of his
justice could efiect. Accordingly, certain angels, of whom
he is the chief who is called the devil, fled from the service
of the Lord God. by free will. But, thus escaping from
his goodness, in which they had been happy, they were not
able to escape his judgment, by which they were rendered
most miserable. But the rest, through the same free will,
continued in the truth, and merited and received a certain
assurance that they should never fall."
It appears from this that God dealt with angels and men
on the same principles. What those principles were will be
more clearly disclosed in what he subsequently sets forth
concerning God's providential dealings with men. Let us,
then, consider on what principles, according to Augustine,
God dealt with man :
" So, also, he made man with free will, and, although
about to fall, yet happy during his ignorance of it, because
he perceived that it was in his power both not to die and
not to become miserable. In which state of uprightness
and freedom from sin, if through the same free will he had
chosen to remain, truly, without any experience of death or
unhappiness, he would have received, through the merit of
this perseverance, the same fulness of blessedness with which
the holy angels were rewarded; that is, that he should
292 CONFLICT OF AGES.
never after be able to fall, and that lie should have certain
assurance thereof"
Thus far, Augustine has spoken in general terms con-
cerning the original powers and free will of men and angels.
A more particular view of what was implied in the original
state of his mind may be gathered from other parts of his
works. He particularly states that God so made man that
he had a perfectly faultless and sinless nature. He asks,
" Who does not know that man was made sane, and fault-
less, and furnished with free will, and free power for holy
living?" (De Nat. et. Gr. 43.) His intellect was in the
most perfect state. " Such was his power of mind, and use
of reason, that Adam docilely received the precept of God
and the law of commandment, and might easily have kept
them if he would." (lb.) He ascribes to him '' the most
excellent wisdom." He says, also, that in the inward man
Adam was spiritual, after the image of Him that created
him. (De Gen. ad Lit. vi. 28.) He asserts the same in
the following passage: "Not only Genesis, but also the
apostle, proclaims that man was made after the image of
God, when he says man is the image and glory of God. (1
Cor. 11 : 7.) And, that it may be clearly understood that
he was made in the image of God, not according to his old
corrupt and sinful nature, but according to a spiritual con-
stitution, the same apostle admonishes us (Col. 3 : 10) that
we should put off habits of sin, that is, the old man, and put
on the character of Christ, which he calls the new man.
And, that he may teach that we once lost this, he calls it a
renovation ; for he thus speaks, ' Ye have put on the new
man, who is renewed in knowledge after the image of him
who created him.' " (Contra Adamantum Manich. 5.)
It is true that Augustine very often, if not generally,
explains the assertion that God made man in his own image.
Augustine's principles of equity. 293
after his own likeness, with reference to his powers of reju-
son, conscience and will, and his rule over the creatures
which is based on these powers. But the passages already
quoted show that he also included in the image of God
true holiness, or the moral image of God. In this passage
he clearly combines both ideas.
Accordingly, of his will he says, ^' that it was constituted
without sin, and that no passion resisted it, and that it had
such power that the decision of perseverance was properly
left to such great goodness and such great facility of holy
living." (De Cor. et Gr. 11.) In another place he says
that "by free will, which then had its powers uncorrupted,
they obeyed the law^ not only with no impossibility, but
even with no difficulty," and " that man had so very free a
will, that he obeyed the law of God loith great energy
of mind.'" (Op. Imp. vi. 8, and iv. 14.)
Yet, with all this, as man was mutable, and but a limited
creature, it was not safe to leave him entirely to himself
God only, the infinite Creator, is above all temptation and
all danger of falling. Man, therefore, left to himself, could
not always extricate himself from danger, nor insure his
own perseverance in good. Hence, it was necessary that
God should confer on him an additional divine influence,
by way of aid and support ; and, accordingly, he bestowed
the requisite aid. By this aid, perseverance in good was
put entirely within the power of man, and yet still he was
not forced to persevere, nor was his free will coerced. Even
this aid he could abandon. After describing the nature of
this additional aid, he says : "It was, therefore, in his
power to remain, if he would, because the aid was not want-
ing by which he could, and without which he could not,
perseveringly retain the good which he would. But, be-
cause he refused to persevere, truly it was his fault, whos«
25*
294 CONFLICT OF AGES.
merit it would have been if he had chosen to persevere, as
did the holy angels, who, whilst others fell by free will, stood
by the same free will, and deserved to receive the due
reward of this permanence in good, — that is, so great a ful-
ness of blessedness as is involved in a certain assurance
that they shall never fall." (De. Cor. et Gr. 11.)
We can now decide how high Augustine carried his ideas
of the demands of honor and right, by considering whether
he regarded this superadded influence as a matter of grace
or of debt. Probably those who have not particularly
examined the matter will be surprised to hear that he
regarded even this aid as a matter of debt, and not of grace.
His words are very explicit :
" If this aid had been wanting either to an angel or to
men, when they lo ere first created^ their fall would have
involved no guilty since their nature was not made such
that without divine aid they could insure their own perse-
verance in good, even if they would, and the aid was want-
ing without which they could not insure perseverance."
Augustine says this, as Neander well remarks, on the
ground that " God is the absolute spirit, without whose
fellowship, without whose support and assistance, no creat-
urely spirit, whether angel or man, can persevere in good-
ness, in the sound and healthy development of his essential
being, Avhich is akin to the divine." (Neander, ii. 604.)
Therefore, Augustine boldly and decidedly takes the ground
that if the divine aid which puts such perseverance in good
fully into the power of every new-created mind is wanting,
then no guilt is involved in the fall of such a mind.
It is deeply interesting and affecting to read such state •
ments as these from the great father of what are considered
the stern doctrines of Calvinism. Certainly such sentiments
find a response in every generous and honorable mind.
Augustine's principles of equity. 295
Our moral intuitions declare tliem to be true. They place
in a most striking light the obligations of the great Creator
to every new-created mind of men or angels.
And now I do not hesitate to ask, Have any of my state-
ments of the principles of honor and right ever risen higher
than this?
By the promulgation of such views, Augustine conferred
an unspeakable benefit on the Christian world. He elevated
their ideas of the nature and possibihties of free agency,
and erected a standard by which to judge fairly of existing
facts in the history of man. It rendered possible and
enforced more deep and thorough views of human depravity ;
for, surely, no man can pretend that men as they come into
this world develop themselves according to the law of new-
created minds, as laid down by Augustine.
The actual influence, too, of these views, has been great.
We find a constant reference to them m Anselm and other
great thinkers of profound Christian experience during the
middle ages. They were recognized and reproduced by the
Reformers. They have given form to the language of the
Westminster standards. The original righteousness of the
new-created man, the fact that he was left to the freedom of
his own will, and that his sin was his own free, unforced,
and therefore criminal act, — all these are purely Augus-
tinian conceptions, reproduced in almost his own terms,
after a lapse of ages.
With such a standard of original righteousness, and with
such an experience as Augustine had of the deep depravity
of his own heart, the disorder of his passions and appetites,
and the moral impotence of his own will, — knowing, too,
what he did, by the increasing restoration of his own powers
to their normal state, of the original relations of the human
mind to Grod, — can it be wondered at that he took deep views
■:296 CONFLICT of ages.
of the depravity of men as they now are ? His doctrine is
what we should have anticipated from these facts, — that
men enter this world vfith deranged constitutions and disor-
ganized powers of soul and body, their intellectual powers
darkened by sin and blind to the true beauty of God and
spiritual things, their wills in a state of moral impotence as
to that which is holy and good, their propensities, passions
and affections, deeply corrupt. Such was man, in his view,
as an individual ; and, being such, he is also subjected to the
power of depraved human society, and of evil spirits.
In these deep views of Augustine, too, we recognize a
fountain-head of thought and doctrine for the profound
thinkers and experienced Christians of all following ages.
But how could Augustine hold such views consistently
with his doctrines of equity and of honor ?
In answering this inquiry, we shall see that, although
Augustine stood on the verge of truth, and even reached it
in the form of his words, yet he failed, through adverse
influences which he had not surmounted, to reach it in fact ;
and, therefore, left the great conflict of the moving powers
of Christianity, more fully developed than ever before, to
agitate and divide all coming ages.
CHAPTER VI.
Augustine's theory of reconciliation.
I HAVE said that Augustine in his theory of reconcil-
iation stood on the verge of truth, and that he even reached
It in the form of his words. Let us proceed to consider the
development of his theory.
His whole system turned upon the position that all the
claims of all men on God. as new-created beings, had been
already forfeited, even before they were born. So far, then,
Augustine coincided with the theory of preexistence. He
escaped from the pressure of his own principles by the great
idea of A forfeiture previous to birth.
Did Augustine, then, believe in the proper preexistence
of men ; and that they had sinned each separately, and in
liis own proper person, before their birth into this world?
We answer no. But, nevertheless, he tried, by a dif-
ferent kind of preexistence, to account for and to justify
such appalling results as occur in this world. He supposed
and believed that all men so preexisted in Adam that they
could and did act in his act, and forfeit together all of their
rights, in that great and original forfeiture of Adam.
This is, indeed, a kind of preexistence that is available
only through the imagination, and not through the reason, —
yet it gave to much of his language the form of truth. He
spoke of men as if they had preL^xisted, enjoyed their rights
298 CONFLICT OF A«ES.
and forfeited them ; and this language reacted through hig
imagination on his feelings, and gave him relief Bj the
aid of this fiction of the imagination, when men were born
into the world he did not look on them as properly new-
created beings, or as having the rights of new-created
beings, but as beings who were created six thousand years
before thej were born, and who, at the time of their crea-
tion, received from God all the rights of new-created beings .
and, soon after, freely and wickedly forfeited them, and so
came at that time under his just judgment and condemna-
tion, and have been born under them ever since.
God, he taught, gave to the whole human race a good
original constitution, good powers, free will and divine aid,
in Adam. But in him they abandoned this aid. This is
what Augustine means by the statement, " Which aid if
man had not forsaken by free will, he would always have
been good ; but he forsook it, and was forsaken. For the
aid was such that he could forsake it when he chose, and in
it he could persevere if he chose." * * * ''For he
had power even to persevere, if he would ; but that he
refused proceeded (descendit) from free will, which then
was so free that it could choose both right and wrong. But,
now, in the case of those to whom this aid is wanting, it is
the punishment of sin ; and in the case of those to whom it
is given, it is given by grace, and not of debt.'' (De Cor.
et Gr. 11.) Man, in all these passages, means not
merely Adam, but the race. Let it be also considered that
the fact that men have not now the original aid', is the
penalty of their original forfeiture.
Once more I would call particular attention to the fxct
that Augustine, in his own peculiar way, reached, at least
ideally, a theory of preexistence, upon which, after all, 'the
depth and power of his system depended. It enabled him
Augustine's theory of reconciliation. 299
at least verbally to conceive and to speak of every man, as
he is born into this world, as a being already fallen by his
own act. and who l)y his sin had forfeited all claims to his
original rights as a new-created being, and who had thus
fallen under the principles of just sovereignty.
It is also worthy of special notice that Augustine
ascribed to the original free will of man such self-deter-
mining power as to exempt it entirely from the decree of
predestination. He did not deny, on general grounds, such
freedom of the will. He did not, as has often been alleged,
subject it to a fatal necessity on universal principles. He
did it merely in the case of fallen man. In Adam all men
were free, and enjoyed in full perfection the self- determining
power of the will. No divine purpose interposed to con-
trol its use. They were left to the freedom of their own
will. That freedom they abused and fell, and in this state
the principles of predestination first reached them. Thus,
predestination did not cause their fall. In Adam, on the
other hand, they had perfect free will, and all needed divine
aid. Therefore, that first and universal fiill v/as not pre-
destined. It was the result of mere free will ; and was,
therefore, without excuse. Thus, in words at least, and in
appearance, did Augustine reach a theory of preexistence,
and by it maintain his principles of honor and right, and
vindicate the ways of God to man. Stated in his own
words, his theory is, " Because by free will he forsook God,
he experienced the just judgment of God, that he should
be condemned with his whole race ; for, &ince they all were,
as yet, existing in him, they also had sinned in him. For,
as many of this race as are set free by the grace of God
are freed from that condemnation by which they are thus
held bound. Whence, also, if no one had been liberated,
no one could justly blame the judgment of God."
300 CONFLICT OF AGES
On these views Neander remarks (vol. ii. 260)5 " I^
this way he could still hold fast at one point to the holiness
and justice of God, and to the free guilt of man ; could
remove the origin of evil from God, and push it back to the
originally present, free, self-determining povv^er of man.
And, by his supposition of the necessary and incomprehen-
sible connection between the first man and the entire race,
the act of the first man may be considered as the proper
act of every man ; and so, on this ground, the loss of the
original freedom is a loss for which all are at fault."
There is not, in the whole history of the human mind,
an intellectual phenomenon more remarkable, and in some
aspects more sublime, than this.
It is remarkable from the nature of the doctrine pro-
pounded,— a doctrine which one would suppose, a 'priori^
that no one could ever have believed. It is sublime from
the extent and magnitude of the power which it in fact
exerted after it had been by Augustine established as an
article of belief
In its logical bearings, of course it was a wide-reaching
theory. And Augustine was not without serious difficulties
in some questions of detail in its application. But he was
not a man to shrink from the fair results of his own princi-
ples. Having adopted the theory and caused it to triumph,
he carried it out consistently to all its consequences.
The forfeiture which he alleged he never treated as any-
thino; verbal. He resrarded it as an absolute and fixed
reality. So real was it, that even unconscious infants, who
did not gain remission by baptism, were, for it alone, con-
signed at least to the penalty of endless loss of heaven. Not
only did Augustine inflexibly teach this doctrine, but he
caused it to be for ages the doctrine at least of the West-
ern church.
Here, now, we have a mountain-summit of thought, from
which we can survey this whole great conflict, both in pre-
ceding and in succeeding ages. We have, also, a standard
of comparison, with which we may compare the various
theories of preceding and of subsequent writers. Let us
look at Augustine's position.
If the mode of forfeiture which he alleged, and upon
which his whole defence of God turned, had been possible
and real, then there would have been a place for the element
of justice in his system. But, as there was no real preex-
istence and no real action, it was not possible, and of course
was not real ; and therefore his whole system was, in reality,
devoid of justice. He admitted and insisted upon the very
highest standard of judgment, when setting forth the prin-
ciples of honor and right by which the conduct of God
towards new-created minds should be judged ; and then, in
fact, resorted to a mere verbal evasion of them, by a shad-
owy and unreal theory of the preexistence and action of
the millions of the human race in Adam, thousands of years
before they were born.
Yet, shadowy and baseless as is this theory, upon it for
centuries the doctrine of the "Western church as to Oiiginal
sin, and also all the doctrines which grow out of b ?ffsr.w>.
made to rest.
26
CHAPTER Vll.
RESPONSE OF THE HUMAN MIND TO THE THEORY
OF AUGUSTINE.
It is often assumed that Augustine developed a doctrine
of original sin in which deep thinkers and men of a pro-
found Christian consciousness have agreed with him, in
every subsequent age. This Prof. Shedd and others
assume ; and, to a certain extent, it is true. In the idea of
a forfeiture before birth they have agreed with him, and
also in the idea that the depravity which precedes action in
this life is the result of that forfeiture.
But, as to the mode of explaining the forfeiture itself,
which, after all, is the most essential point, the theory of
Augustine has not proved satisfactory to the human mind.
Indeed, as will soon appear, he experienced great trouble
from it himself One obvious and striking proof that it is
not fitted to satisfy even the most orthodox portions of the
church, is found in the fact that it has been definitely
renounced in this country by the leaders of the great body
of Old School Calvinists, — I mean the Princeton divines.
Instead of it they have introduced another and a different
theory, the nature and validity of which I have already
considered. They do not differ from Augustine as to the
fact of forfeiture ; but as to the mode of it, which is, after
all, the great question, they do differ from him to the extent
of utter and absolute opposition. Yet they assert that the
RESPONSE OE THE HUMAN MIND. 803
doctrine taught by them is the true doctrine of the Reform-
ers. Again, Prof Shedd in his theory differs from them
both, and is opposed to them both. Still further, Presi-
dent Edwards in his theory differs from them all, and is
opposed to them all. Once more, many of the scholastic
divines, and of the Reformers, have advanced another
theory, different from all the preceding, and opposed to them
all. And, finally, Haldane rejects all existing theories as
unsatisfactory and injurious, and declares that the only safe
course is to rest on the unexplained assertions of the word
of God. Such, then, has been the response of the human
mind to the theory of Augustine, and that, too, after centu-
ries of earnest and profound discussion. And what is the
fair import of all this ? Is it not that the problem that
they have undertaken to solve involves conditions that
render it an absurd and impossible problem ? What is the
problem 7 It is to show how the human race could have
forfeited their rights as new-created minds before they
enter this world, without having existed and acted in their
own persons before they enter this world. This problem is
as if all the algebraic skill of ages were required to be
expended on the equation a^-{-x=^ — 7 as given by inspira-
Uon. It is not likely that they would ever reach any
«;atisfactory results ; for the equation is absurd and inipos-
Bible. Nor would it be any better to say that we must
receive it as a profound mystery ; for it is within the reach
of the human mind, and we can see that it is absurd and
impossible.
But, if we may trust the intuitions and unambiguous
testimony of all ages, the rights of ncAV-creatcd minds are
the clearest and the most momentous realities in the universe
of God. And' is it to be supposed that sucii rights can be
forfeited at all before the existence of the mind, by the
804 CONFLICT OF AGES.
action of which a forfeiture can be made ? Is not the whole
theory of human rights of every kind a mere mockery, if
the great foundation rights can be undermined and evacu-
ated by an alleged forfeiture before existence ?
Calvin expressly concedes that nothing is more remote
from common sense than that on account of the offence of
one man all should be made guilty, and so the sin of one
become the sin of all. '' Quum a communi sensu nihil
magis sit remotum, quam ob unius culpam fieri omnes reos,
et ita peccatum fieri commune." (Inst. ii. 1, 5.) The
language of Pascal, the devoted and profound Pascal, is even
stronger than this: ''^ Undoubtedly^''^ he says, ''nothing
appears so revolting to our reason as to say that the trans-
gression of the first man imparted guilt to those who, from
their extreme distance from the source of evil, seem inca-
pable of such a participation. This transmission seems to
us not only impossible, but unjust." (Thoughts, Part ii.
ch. 5, § 4.) From such astounding results Pascal found
no mode of escape but to discredit the decisions alike of our
intellectual and moral intuitions as unworthy of credit,
because opposed to what he deemed a revealed fact.
Such is a compendious view of the responses of the
human mind to the theory of Augustine, in view of every
solution that has yet been devised for explaining how a new-
created being can come into existence under a forfeiture of
its original and inherent rights by an act which it never
performed, and which took place ages before it was created.
I can say of this nothing stronger than Pascal has said.
Nothing appears so revolting to our reason. It seems to
us not only impossible, but unjust. And, in view of the
action on the human mind of this theory for ages, is there
not the best possible reason to believe that it is in fixed and
sober reality impossible and unjust ? Is the truth wont to
RESPONSE OF THE HUMAN MIND. 30S
act on the human mind as this theory has done ? Has it
not been tried long enough to disclose its true merits, if. it
has any ? Is it desirable any longer to attempt to base the
redemption of the church, and God's eternal glory, on a
theory that seems to the purest, holiest, humblest minds,
impossible and unjust? Is it safe for the human mind any
longer to pursue such a course ? Is there no danger of a
reaction into universal scepticism, if the most absolute of our
intellectual and moral intuitions are thus contemned and
trodden under foot as worthless and invalid ?
I desire, however, at this point once more to call attention
to the fact that this reasoning does not at all affect the great
doctrine that men enter this world under a forfeiture, and
with innate depravity. This, which is the real element of
strength in the system of Augustine, and which has given
it all its power, is neither impossible nor absurd. By sup-
posing such a real and intelligible preexistence as I have set
forth, all can see that it is both possible and just.
My argument is directed simply against an absurd and
impossible theory as to a real and important fact, and not
against the fact itself I should not deem it necessary to
say more, did I not know what is the mournful effect upon
the human mind of being trained for ages to disregard the
most sacred and fundamental intellectual and moral intui-
tions, under the plea of faith and mystery. Tlie mind seems
to be paralyzed and stunned, as if it had been smitten down
by a blow, and cannot again, in that particular, react and
rally, and recover the use of its powers. Such an effect has
been extensively produced on the human mind, for ages, by
this result of the discussion under Augustine ; for, when
the plea of any great moral or intellectual intuitions has
been once heard, and, after long, earnest and full debate,
rejected, and the coui-se of thought has afterwards rolled on
26*
30G CONFLICT OF AGES.
in disregard of them for subsequent centuries under tlie
guidance of ecclesiastical authority, and of the original
arguments, in one deep channel, it becomes almost impossi-
ble to restore the human mind to the vantao;e-o;round on
which it stood when the original conflict began. This effect
of the Augustinian debates and decisions was, therefore,
like a Waterloo defeat to certain fundamental principles of
reason, honor and right ; a defeat by which the whole course
of events has been changed in every subsequent age, to the
present day. Then the great battle for those principles was
lost ; and never since then have they been able to rally and
reunite their scattered forces, and once more to bring them
up to the encounter.
I do not mean by this — as is apparent from my previous
remarks — that the existence and the just authority of these
principles in other important forms was denied. I have
clearly evinced that such was not the fict. I do not mean
that the results to which Pelagius, Celestius and Julian
came were true. In my judgment, they were not. I do
not mean that the fundamental facts as to the depravity of
man for which Augustine contended were not true. In
my judgment, they were. What I mean is, that these true
facts were then for the first time fully and authoritatively
established upon a theory of forfeiture which was, in the
words of Pascal, both impossible and unjust ; and that ever
since, the human mind has been degraded and crushed
beneath the impossible task of vindicating and defending
that theory, and has even been urged to the mournful and
lamentable extreme of basing the redemption of God's own
church and the whole glory of his kingdom upon that false
and ruinous foundation, which cannot logically hold it up
for one moment from an abyss of infamy and just abhor-
rence. The human mind cannot be held back from abhor
RESPONSE OF THE HUMAN MIND. 307
ring such a theory, except by the most unnatural violence
to its divinely-inspired convictions of honor and of right.
It will be observed that, in the preceding general view of
the operation of the theory of Augustine on the mind, I have
made some assertions of the truth of Avhich I have not as
yet give-n any formal proof. I have done this deliberately.
I desired to arrest attention, and to produce a call for proof
And, since I suppose that call now to be made, I intend to
show the truth of the facts asserted concerning the Princeton
divines, Prof. Shedd, Edwards, the Reformers, Haldane and
others, and thus to prove that the action of the theory of
Augustine on the human mind has in all ages been such that
we ought to regard it as being in reality what it appeared
to be to Pascal — impossible and unjust.
By the theory of Augustine, I mean the theory that
MEN ENTER THIS WORLD UNDER A FORFEITURE OF THEIR
RIGHTS, ^VITHOUT HAVING ACTUALLY PREEXISTED AND
SINNED, EACH IN HIS OWN SEPARATE PERSON. This is
the general and comprehensive theory. Under it are com-
prehended all the modes in which different men have
attempted to solve a problem that is inherently impossible
and absurd.
CHAPTER VIII.
DIFFERENT MODES OF SOLUTION.
Let us, then, consider, in order, tlie various solutions of
the problem how men can enter this world under a forfeiture
of all their rights, if they have not preexisted and sinned,
each in his own proper person. "We come, then, first, to
the solution of Augustine, that all men did exist in Adam,
so that they sinned in him in reality, though not in their
own separate persons. Augustine, in his Retractions,
expresses it thus : "Infants belong to the human nature,
and are guilty of original sin, because human nature sinned
in our first parents." In proof of this, he refers to the vul-
gate translation of Rom. 5: 12, — "In quo omnes peccave-
runt," — " in whom all sinned." Augustine, therefore, held
to a mysterious unity of all men in Adam, such that in
reality they all, as included in him in a common nature,
sinned together with him, and thus incurred the forfeiture
under which they are born.
Now, that this solution acts on the human mind as if it
were false and absurd, is obvious from the fact that the
Princeton divines, the leaders of orthodoxy among the old
Calvinists, have formally rejected it as such, and introduced
another solution in its place. Moreover, they defend this
new theory as the true doctrine of the Reformers. In this
solution, it is still true that men are spoken of as sinning in
DIFFERENT MODES OF SOLUTION. 309
Adam and falling with him. But, as Prof. Hodge dis-
tinctly informs us, this "does not include the idea of a
mysterious identity of Adam and his race, nor that of a
transfer of the moral turpitude of his sin to his descendants.
It does not teach that his offence was personally or properly
the sin of all men, or that his act was in any mysterious
sense the act of his posterity."
So, also, we are told in the Princeton Review : " We
deny that this doctrine (imputation) involves any mysterious
union with Adam, any confusion of our identity with his, so
that his act was personally and properly our act ; and, sec-
ondly, that the moral turpitude of that sin was transferred
from him to us, — we deny the possibility of any such
transfer." (Princeton Essays, i. 136.) Indeed, after all
the labors of Augustine to defend his solution, they call in
question even the fact that he and his followers ever held to
any such a unity of Adam and his race as we have stated,
a union such as made his sin theirs, truly and properly.
They think it incredible that Augustine ever taught such
an absurdity. They admit, however, that Doderlein,
Knapp, and Bretschneider, all assert it ; and they might
have added Neander and Wiggers, and, indeed, all others,
so far as I know, who have ever thoroughly investigated the
point.
But we need not refer to authority on such a point. The
unequivocal testimony of Augustine himself puts it beyond
all question. It appears that Jerome had taken and begun to
advocate the position that the souls of all men are from time
to time newly created by God, as fast as they are needed to ani-
mate their bodies. Now, this is, at this time, the general faith
of the church, and yet is not looked upon by the Princeton
divines as inconsistent with their view of the guilt of man for
Adam's sin. Had Augustine held such views as the Prince-
310 CONFLICT OF AGES.
ton divines now set forth, it would have caused him no
trouble, just as it causes them no trouble. Far otherwise
was the fact. Augustine regarded it as breaking up that
unity of Adam and his race on which his theory of forfeiture
rested. On this assumption, all men were not in Adam when
he sinned. But, if so, he could not conceive how the guilt
of Adam's sin could rest on them, since they could have had
nothing to do with it. How, then, he asks, can they be
justly condemned for it 1 Does not this imply that he held
to a real though mysterious unity of Adam and all his pos-
terity in his sin ? But Augustine shall speak for himself.
Hearing of the views of Jerome, and fearing to arouse him
to controversy by open opposition, in a letter to him he puts
himself in the position of a learner, and seeks to arrest the
course of his excitable and imperious friend by gentle means.
Jerome did not see fit, for reasons best known to himself, to
answer the inquiries of Augustine. Hereupon Augustine
laid by his letter till after the death of Jerome, and then
made it public. A very instructive letter it is. It clearly
shows that even Augustine could not find undisturbed
repose in his own views. But let us hsten to him, as he
thus addresses Jerome :
" Teach me, therefore, I entreat you, what I shall teach,
teach what I shall hold, and tell me, if souls are created one
by one for those who are born, when do they sin in the
little ones so that they need remission of sins in baptism, as
sinning in Adam, from whom the sinful body is propagated ?
Or, if they do not sin, by what justice of the Creator are
they so held responsible for the sin of another, when they
are introduced into bodies propagated from him, that they
are condemned, if the church does not relieve them by bap-
tism, although they have no power to decide whether they
•shall be baptized or not ? How can so many thousands of
DIFFERENT MODES OF SOLUTION. 811
souls, which leave the bodies of unbaptized infants, be with
any equity condemned, if they were newly created, and
introduced into these bodies for no previous sin of their own,
but by the mere will of Him who created them to animate
these bodies, and foreknew that each of them, for no fault of
his own, would die unbaptized ? Since, then, we cannot say
that God either makes souls sinful by compulsion, or pun-
ishes them when innocent, and yet are obliged to confess
that the souls of the little ones are condemned if they die
unbaptized, I beseech you, tell me how can this opinion
be defended, by which it is believed that souls are not all
derived from that one first man, but are newly created for
each particular body, as his was for his body? " (Ep. ad
Hier.)
Here he does not, indeed, openly avow the generation of
souls ; nay, he elsewhere says that he would be glad, if he
could, to believe in their creation. But he saw no way of
removing the objection stated by him. Nor is there any.
And, in fact, there is little reason to doubt that he really
believed in the generation of souls. Does not the fact that he
started such a difficulty, and could not solve it, prove, to a
demonstration, that he held to a real unity of all men in Adam
as the ground of their sinning in him and falling with him ?
But this is but a small part of the evidence that exists to
prove this point. We do not believe that any one, after a
careful examination of Augustine, will call it in question.
Nevertheless, now, the Princeton divines earnestly renounce
this theory as absurd, and substitute another in its place.
But this only the more clearly shows that the ground on
which Augustine fought his great battle, and which is
repudiated by them, is really untenable and defenceless.
In place of this, however, they still defend, in another
form, as we have seen, the idea of a forfeiture in Adam of
312 CONFLICT OF AGES.
all the rights of new-created beings. To effect this, they
introduce the idea of federal headship and representation,
and teach that, though we did not exist, and, of course, did
not act, when Adam sinned, yet that, in virtue of the
divinely-established representative headship of Adam, God
regarded his act as our act, and withdrew from each indi-
vidual of the race those divine influences w^hich are essential
to his proper moral development ; in consequence of which,
his nature inevitably becomes corrupt, and develops nothing
but actual sin.
The validity of this solution I need not now consider, as
it has already been fully discussed ; and to that discussion I
refer.
But, although the Princeton divines set forth such views
as those of the Reformers, there is clear evidence that, to
say the least, many of them held to still another and oppo-
site solution of the great problem of forfeiture. They held
that, by imputation, the sin and guilt of Adam were made
to be the real sin and guilt of all his posterity ; not,
indeed, their personal sin and guilt, but still their real sin
and guilt. If this implies that which the Princeton
divines declare to be absurd and impossible, — that is, a real
transfer of sin and moral turpitude from Adam to all his
posterity, — it is, nevertheless, a doctrine of some of the
Reformers, and of some of the schoolmen before them.
Indeed, it is but a natural result of the decision of the
church and of most of the schoolmen in favor of Jerome's
view, that the souls of all men are created by God, and
not derived from their parents, and thus from Adam. In
this they forsook Augustine, who plainly held that the sin
of Adam was really the sin of all his posterity, because all
his posterity were really in him when he sinned. But they
were still desirous of agreeing with Augustine in the fact
DIFFERENT MODES OF SOLUTION. 313
that Adam's sin was the real sin of the race. Therefore,
having given up Augustine's basis of the doctrine, — that is,
the derivation of souls from Adam, — they would be naturally
led to seek out a new basis. This they found in a system
of federal headship and representation, in which, by God's
constitution, ordinance or decree, the sin of Adam should
still be made the real sin of his posterity. Hence Whitby
concedes to Bishop Davenant that, so far as the authority
of certain of the scholastic divines is concerned, they do
teach " that, by the decree of God, Adam sustained the
person of all mankind ; and that, by the same decree (or
ordinance), his posterity are guilty of his first sin, but not
of his other sins," — but he attaches no weight to their
authority. This view of the origin of the theory of the
federal headship of Adam is confirmed by Knapp, who
says that " this theory was invented by some schoolmen,
and has been adopted by many in the Romish and Protest-
ant churches since the sixteenth century."
That by Owen, Turretin, the Westminster divines and
others, the sin of Adam was regarded as being really the
sin of his posterity, though not personally^ is proved at
great length and beyond dispute in an article in the Chris-
tian Spectator for September, 1831, in answer to the
Princeton Review^ — an article to which no reply was ever
made, and to which I refer for a more full view of this
aspect of the case. It appears, then, that of the doctrine
of the federal headship of Adam there are two forms :
the more ancient one, that of those who hold that Adam's
sin by imputation becomes ours tndy^ so that, though it is
not our personal sin, it is yet our real sin, for which Ave
are truly guilty ; the other and more modern one, that of
those who, with the Princeton divines, assert that God
merely regards and treats it as our sin, though in fact it
27
314 CONFLICT OF AGES.
is not, and we are entirely innocent in our own persons^
and free from all the moral turpitude of the sin.
It hence appears that, in making out the result aimed at,
— that is, a forfeiture in Adam by the race of all the original
rights of new-created minds, — very different courses have
been taken. First, a forfeiture by a real existence and
action of the race in Adam ; then a forfeiture by the repre-
sentative action of Adam, which by imputation becomes
really their sin ; then a forfeiture by the same representa-
tive action, regarded and treated as their sin, though in fact
it is not.
The view of Prof Shedd differs from either of these.
He holds, with Coleridge, that there is no sin, or sinful
nature, that is anterior to a free, self-determined act of the
will. The sinful nature that he asserts to exist in man is
merely such an act of the will ; not, indeed, a mere specific
volition, but that main and controlling determination that
carries with it all the powers and energies of a man, and
devotes them to some object as the ultimate end of living.
He speaks of the sinful nature of man as " that central
self-determination, that great main tendency of the will to
self and sin as an ultimate end." This, of course, must be
a personal act, of which every man is the author. This
self-determination of the will to sense and sin he regards as
the fall of every man's Avill. Of it he says ^' that the fall
of the will unquestionably occurs back of consciousness,
and in a region beyond the reach of it. Certainly, no one
of the posterity of Adam was ever conscious of that act
whereby his will fell from God." Further, he holds that
this region beyond the reach of consciousness was in Adam.
''All men were, in some sense, coa^e?izf in Adam ; other-
wise they could not have fallen with him." This view is
not the view of Augustine, for he held that the common
DIFFERENT MODES OF SOLUTION. 315
nature of all men sinned, and not that all men sinned
together, each as an individual, and by a self-determining
act of his own will. Prof Shedd concedes that such
unconscious action in Adam is a mystery. He also ascribes
his theory to the Westminster divines. In this he is
directly at war with the Princeton divines ; for they assert
that tnere was no such mysterious action of all men in
Adam, and that the Reformers and Westminster divines did
not believe that there was.
The theory of Edwards is different from all these. I
shall more fully state it hereafter. It is enough now to
say that he held that God established a personal identity
between Adam and all his posterity with respect to Adam's
first sin, but not with respect to any other. Thus, the first
sin of Adam is truly and properly the sin of every man,
since with reference to that sin each is the same person with
Adam. I need not undertake to prove that this view differs
from and opposes all the rest. The thing speaks for itself.
Still, the language used by those who hold either of these
theories is in so many particulars the same with that of
those who hold the others, that it is sometimes hard to tell
on which of these various gi'ounds any writer stands,
unless he fully defines and carries out his system.
All of these solutions seem to have been given by different
individuals since the Reformation. Sometimes writers use
the language which belongs to two of them, or even to all
of them, in a confused manner. This is not wonderful, for
the mind of man has been so made by God that it cannot
see any rational way in which the result which they aim at
in common can be gained, — that is, the alleged forfeiture
of the original rights of the whole human race by the act
of one man. Therefore, any solution designed to explain
316 CONFLICT OF AGES.
such a result naturally tends to confuse the human mind,
and to destroy its powers of discrimination.
The more modern solutions, I think, have no advantage
over that of Augustine. On the other hand, so far as he
approximated to the idea of preexistence, there was at least
an appearance of depth and reality in his theory, which is
entirely wanting in the more modern views.
Haldane, however, — a most eminent and devoted Chris-
tian, and honored by God as the instrument of a great
revival of religion on the European continent, — at last takes
the ground that the sin of Adam is as truly ours as it was
Adam's. He also holds that it is not made ours by imputa-
tion, but is imputed to us because it is ours. Still, he
refuses to enter into any explanation. Prof. Stuart had
argued against imputation, as implying that God regards a
sin as the sin of all men which is not theirs really and in
fact. In reply to this, he says that "Adam's sin is
hnputed to his posterity because it is their sin in reality j
though we may not be able to see the way in which it is so.
Indeed, we should not pretend to explain this, because it is
to be believed on the foundation of divine testimony, and
not on human speculation, or on our ability to account for
it." "In opposition to all such infidel reasonings, it is
becoming in the believer to say, I fully acknowledge, and
I humbly confess, on the testimony of my God, that I am
guilty of Adam's sin." " The difficulty that some persons
feel on this subject arises from the supposition that, though
the sin of the first man is charged on his posterity, yet it
is not theirs. But the Scriptures hold it forth as ours in as
ti'ue a sense as it teas Adam>s.''^ " Can God impute to
any man anything that is not true ? If Adam's sin is not
ours as truly as it was Adam's sin, could God impute it to
us 7 Does God deal with men as sinners while they are not
DIFFERENT MODi:S OF SOLUTION. 317
truly such ?" He also maintains that this view is not con-
trary io reason, though mysterious. "A thing may be
very disagreeable and far beyond the ken of human pen-
etration, which is not contrary to reason. We are not
entitled to pronounce anything contrary to reason which
does not imply a contradiction. A contradiction cannot be
true ; but all other things may be true, and, on sufficient
evidence, ought to be received as true." According to
this, it may be true that God has lied, or been malevolent ;
for neither implies a contradiction. But, if it be said in
reply, that to do so is contrary to his holy and righteous
nature, and morally impossible, I reply the same is true
as to any act contrary to those moral principles which God
has made the human mind intuitively to perceive as true.
Therefore, whatever opposes these is contrary to reason,
even though not a contradiction.
Of God's alleged dealings in this case, he says that they
are "not such as to be vindicated or illustrated by human
transactions. The union of Adam and his posterity is a
divine constitution. The grounds of this constitution are
not to be found in any of the justifiable transactions of
men ; and all attempts to make us submit by convincing us
of its propriety, from what we are able to understand upon
a comparison with the affiiirs of men, are only calculated
to impose on credulity, and produce unbelief We receive
it because God says it, not because we see it to be just."
" Those who have endeavored to vindicate divine justice in
accounting Adam's sin to be ours, and to reconcile the
mind of man to that procedure, have not only labored in
vain, but actually injured the cause they meant to uphold."
Haldane, as usual, regards his views of this matter as
those of the Westminster divines and the Reformers. It is
plain, however, that he is directly at war on this point with
27*
318 CONFLICT OF AGES.
the Princeton divines, who teach that the sin and the moral
turpitude of Adam are not, and cannot be, actually and
i?i reality those of his posterity, but are only regarded
as such, and that this is the uniform doctrine of the
Keformers.
I am not sure that I have gathered up all the modes of
solving the great Augustinian problem stated at the outset
of this discussion, — that is, to show how men can forfeit
their original rights before they are born into this world, as
long as a real personal preexistence and real sin are denied.
What I have produced, however, is enough to furnish evi-
dence that the problem does, in fact, as Pascal says it seems
to do, involve both an impossibility and injustice. Certainly,
the human mind never acted under a system of truth as it
has acted under the system which demands the solution of
such a problem. The mind of Augustine never was at rest
under it. His successors have never been at rest, but have
fluctuated from view to view ; and yet no view has ever been
proposed which has not been condemned by as sound ortho-
dox and godly divines as have ever existed. Such, I do
not doubt, are the Princeton divines ; and yet, even they are
logically involved in Haldane's charge of ^^ infidel specula-
tions^''^ for they deny that the sin and guilt of Adam are, or
can be, as truly and properly ours as they are Adam's.
After reading and carefully considering multitudes of
statements, from Augustine down to this day, I cannot find
any time or place in which all orthodox divines — as alleged
by Prof Shedd — all stood on one side, and that Augus-
tine's side, except in two particulars, — that is, that all men
are born into this world under a forfeiture of their original
rights, and with inherent depravity. But, denying, as they
have done, a real personal preexistence and sinfulness of all
men before birth, they have done nothing after this but
DIFFERENT MODES OF SOLUTION. 319
multiply unsatisfactory solutions of an absurd and impos-
sible problem.
Before I close this chapter, since so much advantage is
taken of the prestige of the name of Augustine, I will give
a statement of his theory of our sinning in Adam, by
a celebrated advocate of his doctrine. I have stated it
as his theory, not that we sinned in him as coexistent
and coiigent individuals, with each a self- determining will,
according to the theory of Prof. Shedd, but, that in
him human nature sinned as a great totality, which was
afterwards distributed into the individuals of the race. This
is clearly the view set forth by Odo or Udardus of Tournay,
afterwai'ds Archbishop of Cambray. Being by nature prone
to philosophical speculation, he became eminent as a teacher,
but was devoid of piety. He was at length recalled from
a worldly spirit by the power of a deep conviction of sin,
wrought in him by the writings of Augustine, and ever
after sincerely devoted himself to the service of God. For
the sake of a specimen of the thinking and style of an
eminent divine of .the middle age, I will give his views ;
first in his own words, and then in a translation. The title
of his work is as follows :
" Odonis ex Abbate primo Tornacensi Episcopi Camera-
eensis Ecclesiae de Peccato Originali libri tres." {Bib.
Vet. Pat., vol. XXI. p. 230.)
He thus propounds^ and answers the question to be con-
sidered :
" Quid distat naturale' peceatum et personale 7
" Dicitur enim duobus modis peceatum personale et nat-
urale. Et naturale est cum quo nascimur, et quod ab
Adam trahimus, in quo omnes peccavimus. In ipso enim
erat anima mea, specie non persona, non individua sed com-
muni natura. Nam omnis humanse animoe natura commu-
320 CONFLICT OF AGES.
nis erat in Adam obnoxia peccato. Et ideo omnis humana
anima culpabilis est secundum suam naturam, etsi non
secundum suam personam. Ita peccatum quo peccavimug
in Adam, mihi quidam naturale est, in Adam vero per-
sonale. In Adam gravius, levius in me ; nam peccavi in eo
non qui sum sed quod sum. Peccavi in eo non ego, sed
hoc, quod sum ego. Peccavi homo, sed non Odo. Peccavi
substantia non persona, et quia substantia non est nisi in
persona, peccatum substantias est etiam personas, sed non
personale, Peccatum vero personale est, quod facio ego
qui sum, non hoc quod sum ; quo pecco Odo, non homo ; quo
pecco persona, non natura ; sed quia persona non est sine
natura, peccatum personae est etiam naturae, sed non natu-
rale."—p. 233.
Of this peculiar passage I subjoin a translation :
" How does the sin of nature diifer from personal sin?
" Two kinds of sin are spoken of, that of nature and per-^
sonal sin. The sin of nature is that with which we are born,
and which we derive from Adam, in whom we all sinned.
For my mind was in him as a part of the whole species,
but not as a person ; not in mj individual nature, bat in the
common nature. For the common nature of all human
minds in Adam was involved in sin. And thus every
human mind is blamable with respect to its nature ^
although not with respect to its person. Thus the sin by
which we sinned in Adam is to me a sin of nature. — in
Adam a personal sin. In Adam it was more criminal, in
me less so ; for I, who am, did not sin in him, but that
which I am. I did not sin in him, but this essence which
I am. I sinned as the genus man, not as the individual Odo.
I sinned as a substance, not as a person ; and because my
substance does not exist but in a person, the sin of my sub-
stance is the sin of one who is a person, but not a personal
DIFFERENT MODES OF SOLUTION. 821
sin. For a personal sin is one which I, wlio am, commit^
but this substance Avhich I am does not commit ; a sin in
which I sin as Odo, and not as the genus man ; in which I
sin as a person, and not as a nature ; but, because there is
no person without a nature, the sin of a person is also the
sin of a nature, but not a natural sin."
If all this is not, bj this time, perfectly clear, even to
the lowest capacity, certainly it is not for the want of suf-
ficient pains on the part of the distinguished archbishop.
The diflficulty must rather lie in making that intelligible to
the human mind which is, in the nature of things, absurd
and impossible. Yet this elaborate view of the archbishop
is merely an expansion of the definite statements of Augus-
tine, upon whose ground so many eminent men among us
are emulously declaring themselves determined to stand.
In addition to the passage from the Retractions of Augus-
tme already quoted, in which he asserts that it was human
nature which sinned in our first parents, the following
statements, as quoted by Wiggers, are very express : "In
that one all have sinned, as all died in him. For those
who were to he many in themselves out of him, were then
one in him. That sin, therefore, would be his only, if no
one had proceeded from him. But now no one is free
from his fault in whom was the common natter e.^^ (Fp.
186, C. 6.) "In Adam all have sinned, as all n) ere that
one man.^'' (De Pec, Mer. I. 10.) "Those are not
condemned who have not sinned, since that sin has passed
from one to all, in which we all have sinned in common
previously to the personal sins of each one as an indi-
vidual." (Ep. 194, c. 6.)
The statement of Odo, then, is clearly but an expansion
of the doctrine of Augustine. Moreover, his idea that the
sni of nature is in each individual less criminal ^han hia
322 CONFLICT OF AGES.
personal sin is a truly Augustinian idea ; for, tliougl*
Augustine held that even those who died before committing;
any other sin than that of nature would be punished, still
he held that they would be punished more mildly than any
others. This is owing, at least in part, to the fact that the
immense guilt of the great common sin of nature is not
charged to each individual, but only his due proportion of
it. For Augustine is careful to inform us that " there
comes not on individuals what Ihe lohole apostate creature
has deserved ; and no individual endures so much as the
whole mass deserves to suffer, but God has arranged all.
in measure, Aveight and number, and suffers no one to
endure any evil which he does not deserve." (Op. Imp. ii.
87.) In still another form he expresses the same idea of a
common sin of that all-embracing nature of man which was
in Adam, and was afterward divided up and distributed into
individuals, each bearing his share of the common guilt.
" We were all in that one, since we were all that one who
fell into sin by the woman who was made from him before
sin. Not as yet was the form created and distributed to us
singly in which we were individually to live ; but there
was that seminal nature from which we were to be propa-
gated. This, by reason of sin having been corrupted, and
bound by the bond of death, and brought under just con-
demnation, no man could be born of man in a different
condition." (De Civ. Dei, xiii. 14.)
Neander, regarding Anselm as coinciding with Odo in his
exposition of the doctrine of Augustine, represents him as
holding "that as entire human nature was only expressed
and contained, as yet. in this first exemplar (Adam), entire
humanity, therefore, became corrupt in him, and the cor-
ruption passed from him to his posterity." Accordingly,
Anselm says, "The wliole of human nature was so in 7\.dam
DIFFERENT MODES OF SOLUTION. 323
tlmt no part of it was without him." Neander adds, ''He
therefore distinguishes peccatum nattirale from peccatum
personale. * * This connection of ideas is exhibited with
remarkable distinctness in the work of Odo of Tournay."
It is not uncommon at this day for writers, otherwise of
great ability, to overlook the fact Avhich I have stated and
now prominently repeat, that men may agree with Augus-
tine in the general idea of a forfeiture and of inherent
depravity before action in this world, who yet radically
differ from him, and directly oppose him, in his solution
of the mode of forfeiture. Nevertheless, I cannot but
think that if any man desires to be in reality a profound
thinker, he ought to discriminate the things that differ, and
not collect together a mass of warring solutions of an im-
possible problem, and call the self-repellent compound the
Augustinian theology ; or to attempt to represent men as
standing together on one side, who, though in general on
one side, are yet, while there, engaged in mortal conflict
with each other.
I have stated at least six dissimilar and conflicting solu-
tions of the alleged forfeiture of rights by the human race
in Adam. If any man holds either of the five that are
opposed to Augustine's, whether his view is true or false, he
is certainly not on the ground of Augustine. Finally, all
of these solutions cannot be true ; but all of them cnn be,
and, in my judgment, ai^e false, as designed to explain and
justify what is impossible and unjust.
CHAPTER IX.
DISQUIET OF THE HUMAN MIND.
I HAVE given a general view of the import of the
response of the human mind to Augustine's solution of the
mode of forfeiture. It has proved so unsatisfactory that-
the leaders of Old Sehool orthodoxy in this country have
not only repudiated it, but even denied that Augustine ever
held it.
I have also taken a general view of the principles of the
other solutions which have been devised to take its place,
and seen that these, too, are unsatisfactory, and mutually
destructive of each other.
We are now prepared to hear without surprise that such
a state of things has never conducted the Christian church
to a haven of rest. Beneath the hard outside shell of these
discussions there has ever been the profound abyss of deep
emotion in view of the vast and eternal interests involved,
and of the sacred principles of equity and honor, and their
bearing on the character of God.
Let us now attempt, for a few moments, to look into the
interior of this vast world of conflicting thought and deep
emotion.
I have already said that the principles of honor and
right towards new-created minds, set forth by Augustine,
have been ever since fully recognized and affirmed. I have
DISQUIET OF THE HUMAN MIND. 325
given the testimony of Turretin, Wesley, Watts, and the
Princeton divines, to this effect. The Princeton divines
also testify that the views of the Reformers were the same.
I will add a statement from Pictet to illustrate these
remarks. He says, " The corruption which we bring from
the womb of our mothers is a very great evil, for it is the
source of all sins. To permit, then, that this corruption
should pass from their fathers to their children is to 'mjiict
a punishment. But how is it that God should punish
men, if they had not sinned, and if they were not guilty?"
This is an avowal of the great principle that God is bound
to give cdl neiu-created beings upright moral constitu-
tions and tendencies^ if they have not jjreviously for-
feited their rights. According to Pictet, this forfeiture
was effected by Adam, whose sin God imputed to all his
posterity, and considered as their sin, before they had
existed or acted. Similar evidence is abundant : but, as no
one denies the fact, so fiir as I know, it is needless to adduce
more proof.
All who thus hold to a forfeiture in Adam as a justifica-
tion of God in bringing men into this world with depraved
natures, and strong and controlling propensities to evil, are
wont to set forth in the strongest terms the injustice of
dealing thus with men on any other ground. Though they
regard God as the immediate creator of souls in every gen-
eration, yet, by the aid of the theory of imputation, they
speak of all men as sinning in Adam. Then, by the aid of
the imagination, they conceive of human nature as cor-
rupted in Adam, and thus speak of the human race as not
having such natures as God at first gave them, and then
declare that it would be impious to regard God as orig-
inally giving such natures to his creatures. For example,
Wesley says :
28
326 CONFLICT OF AGES.
" Highly injurious, indeed, is this supposition to the God
of our nature. Did He originally give us such a nature as
this ? So, like that of a wild ass' colt ! so stupid, so
stubborn, so intractable ; so prone to evil ; averse to good.
Did His hands form and fashion us thus 7 No wiser or
better than men at present are 7 If I believed this, that
men were originally what they are now, — if you could once
convince me of this, — I could not go so far as to be a Deist;
I must either be a Manichee or an Atheist. I must either
believe there was an evil God, or that there was no God
at all."
Dr. Watts says : '• And methinks, when I take a just sur-
vey of this world, with all the inhabitants of it, I can look
upon it no otherwise than as a grand and magnificent struc-
ture in ruins, wherein lie millions of rebels against their
Creator under condemnation to misery and death ; who are,
at the same time, sick of a mortal distemper, and disordered
in their minds even to distraction. Hence proceed those
numberless follies and vices which are practised here ; and
the righteous anger of an offended God, visible in ten thou-
sand instances."
Again, after a survey of the sinfulness and misery of man
in all ages, he proceeds to say :
^' If we put together all these scenes of vice and misery,
it is evident that creatures lying in such deplorable circum-
stances are not such as they came out of the hands of their
Creator, who is wise, holy and good. His wisdom^ which
is all harmony and order, would not suffer Him to frame a
whole race of beings under such wild and innumerable dis-
orders, moral as well as natural. His holiness would not
permit Him to create beings with innate principles of
iniquity ; nor his goodness^ to produce a whole order of
creatures in such circumstances of pain, torment and death.
DISQUIET OF THE HUMAN MIND. 327
'' Could the holy and blessed God originally design and
frame a whole ^Yorld of intelligent creatures in such circum-
stances, that every one of them coming into being according
to the laws of nature, in a long succession of ages, in
different climates, of different constitutions and tempers,
and in ten thousand thousand different stations and condi-
tions of life, — that every one of them should break the laws
of reason, and more or less defile themselves with sin?
That every one should offend his Maker, — every one become
guilty in his sight? Everyone expose himself to God's
displeasure, to pain and misery and mortality, without one
single exception ? If men were such creatures as God at
first made them, w^ould not one man, among so many mil-
lions, have made a right use of his reason and conscience,
and so have avoided sin and death ? Would this have been
the universal consequent of their original constitution, as
fcmed by the hand of a wise, holy, merciful God ? What
can be more absurd to imagine than this ? Surely, God
made man upright and happy : nor could all these mischiefs
liave come directly from our Creator's hand."
From what has been said, it is apparent that in the
formation of the various theories of forfeiture which have
been considered, men have been actuated by the noblest
impulses of their nature ; they have desired to find a basis
on which they might found a reconciliation of God's actual
treatment of the human race with the demands of the
highest principles of honor and right towards new-created
mmds.
As we have said, if the forfeiture alleged could be made
out by any of their schemes, it would be a relief; but, as it
cannot, it is no relief. Of this fact some even of the most
eminent of the advocates of such theories seem to have
had uncomfortable surmises. Augustine, as we have seen.
828 CONFLICT OP AGES.
could liscover no reason to rest in the doctrine of a for-
feiture, except on the assumption that all human soula
came from the soul of Adam; but this theory Jerome
rejected, and was followed by the most of the schoolmen.
These same schoolmen, however, originated another theory
of forfeiture, — that of federal headship, — of which new
theory a desire to escape the objections of Augustine was
clearly the moving cause. But this theory also has failed
to give rest even to its most decided advocates.
Dr. Watts, for example, though an earnest and zealous
defender of it against Dr. J. Taylor, says : '' I am not fond
of it. No. I would gladly renounce it because of some
great difficulties attending it." The reason for not re-
nouncing it which he assigns is, that, in his view, there are
greater difficulties attending every other scheme. He held
to the common theory that souls are newly created, and one
of his chief difficulties lay in reconciling it with the good-
ness and justice of God that new-created souls should be
placed in bodies in and by which they were sure to be
morally corrupted in consequence of the sin of Adam.
After laboring for some pages to effect such a reconcilia-
tion, he does not seem to be at all confident that he has
succeeded ; nay, he betrays an inward apprehension that he
has not, for he says :
"I am doubtful whether this solution sets the matter in
such a sufficient light as to take away all remaining scruples
from a curious and inquisitive mind. I confess it is the
most probable hypothesis I can think of, and shall be glad
to see this perplexing inquiry more happily answered. But,
if the case itself be matter of fact, that souls are defiled
and exposed to pain by being united to human bodies so
vitiated, we are sure it must be just and equitable, because
God has thus ordered it, though we should not find out a
DISQUIET OF THE HUMAN MIND. 829
happier solution of the difficulties that attend it in this dark
and imperfect state."
His difficulties were the same which were felt by Augus-
tine of old, and which have never as yet been removed. He
could not but feel that new-created minds, who had nothing
to do with Adam's sin, since they did not exist when he
sinned, were hardly dealt with in being treated as if they
had forfeited all their rights as new-created minds by that
act. This is not to be wondered at. It is a difficulty so
obvious that the wonder is that any man can overlook it,
or, if he does not, can think that he has removed it. This
difficulty lies on the very face of the solution of the problem
attempted by Turretin. (L. 9, Q. 12, § 10.) He holds,
with Jerome and the church generally, that God creates
souls to animate bodies, but creates them devoid of orig-
inal righteousness, ''of which man had rendered himself
unworthy in Adam. For God is under no obhgation to
create minds with original righteousness ; nay, he may
most justly deprive them of such a gift, as a punishment of
the sin of Adam." Here, then, we are told that it is most
just for God to punish a new-created soul, in the very act
of its creation, for an act which took place thousands of
years before its creation, — that is, to punish it by creating
it without original righteousness, — although, without this,
its moral development is certainly corrupt and ruinous, so
that this deprivation is, in the words of Prof Hodge, ' ' of
all evils the essence and sum." He proceeds to add ''that
this destitution is blamable on the part of man, because it
is a destitution of the righteousness that ought to be in
him ; but as it respects God it is not blamable, since it is
an act of vindictive justice in punishing the fost sin."
That is, a new-created mind is punished for a sin which
it did not commit, ^)j being created devoid of righteousness^
28*
330 CONFLICT OF AGES.
and yet is criminal for not having that righteousness tho
possession of which did not depend upon itself at all, but
solely on the creative act of God. Moreover, God is just
in all this, because he is thus punishing Adam's sin, which
the new-created mind did not commit. To complete the
result, a mind thus defectively created is then put into a
body such that the sympathy of the two inevitably calls into
action and develops its depravity. If, now, the moral sense
recoils from this as anything but a satisfe^ctory vindication
of God's conduct towards the new-created souls of the
human race, the fault lies more in the theory from which it
springs than in Turretin. He calls it " a most obscure
question;" and, to use the words of Dr. Watts, resorted
to 'Hhe most probable hypothesis he could think of"
But, as Dr. -Watts suggested a doubt whether his
hypothesis "set the matter in a sufficient light to take
away all remaining scruples from a curious and inquis-
itive mind," so, in fact, it has happened with the hypoth-
esis of Turretin, and all others aiming at the same end.
The simple fact is, that the problem of defending such a
forfeiture is insoluble, except on the ground of a real pre-
existence. On that ground it can be defended in perfect
accordance with the principles of honor and right, and on,
no other.
It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that in all ages
the theory of a forfeiture of rights in Adam has been
unsatisfactory to multitudes, who concur with the great
mass of Christian divines in rejecting preexistence.
Nor is it wonderful that finally Haldane should try to
find rest by refusing to think at all, and, on the authority
of God, as he assumed, declaring that Adam's sin is our
sin as really and as truly as it was his, and that this is the
end of all dispute.
DISQUIET OF THE HUMAN MIND. 331
But, wlien things come to such a pass, it becomes neces
sary to be quite sure that God has, in fact, said so, before
we rest in the doctrine of Mr. Haldane ; and this raises a
question of interpretation, which neither he nor any one
else can evade. Mr. Haldane, then, as well as the rest, has
not been able to conduct even the most pious man to a
haven of rest.
Finally, when we consider that this theory of a forfeiture
in Adam is made the basis of the redemption of the church,
and that to justify it is essential to any sense of the mercy
of God, and that yet to Pascal it appeared " impossible and
unjust," and to Calvin "the most remote of all things from
common sense," and to Prof. Hodge a "profound and awful
mystery," and that Dr. Woods is "perplexed and con-
founded" by it, and that the advocates of it mutually
neutralize each other by their contradictory solutions, we
ought not to be surprised that in successive ages men have
been found who have sought relief by the entire rejection
of the theory itself. And yet the results of this rejection
have not been such as to furnish the desired relief It is
my next object to consider these results.
CHAPTER X.
FIRST RESULT OF DENYING A FORFEITURE
BEFORE BIRTH.
But, when the idea of a forfeiture before birth is rejected
on such grounds as have been stated, then but two general
courses remain, which we shall consider in order. The first
is to declare that men are born such and in such circum-
stances as the principles of honor and right demand ; and,
of course, we land at once and directly in Pelagianism as
implied in this general statement, — that all men are as well
^off, both as to constitution and powers, as Adam was before
his sin. For God, in making Adam, of course gave him all
that was due to a new-created mind, and he gives the same
to all men as fast as he creates them. This at once cuts
up by the roots all ideas of a fall in Adam ; or, indeed, in
any other way. It regards all men as well created by God,
and by nature in full possession of all the powers w^hich,
as a practical matter, are needed perfectly to obey him.
Let no one be surprised at this statement ; for, so long
as the opposite view of a fall is defended and justified only
on the ground of a forfeiture in Adam, it is plain that so
long as the principles of honor and right — as the defenders
of that theory have ever promulgated and maintained
them — are regarded as true, there is no logical middle
ground between a just forfeiture of rights and Pelagianism.
We say this on the assumption that it is not for a moment
FIRST RESULT OF DENYING A FORFEITURE. 333
to be supposed that God ever has disregarded, or ever will
disregard, in his dealings with new-created minds, their
just claims according to the laws of honor and right. What
those claims are we have seen. If they have not forfeited
them, then, of course, they have them, and are made, as
they ought to be, with well-ordered powers, free from sin,
and in the image of God.
This general course of reasoning we have already illus-
trated, and the experience to which it gives rise in the case
of Dr. Channing. Substantially the same course of rea-
soning was pursued by Pelagius and his followers in the
fifth century, by the *Socinians in the sixteenth, and by Dr.
John Taylor and his followers in the eighteenth century.
It is true that Pelagius did not see the logical relations of
his views to the rest of the system. He still retained and
defended the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the incarnation
and atonement of Christ ; and, in a ' certain sense, of the
influences of the Spirit. But, as Dr. Channing well
remarked, these doctrines find a consistent development
only in a system based on the doctrine of original deprav-
ity. The power of the church system prevented this logical
development in the days of Pelagius. But, soon after the
opening of the E-eformation, the power of that system was
so far broken, and consistent and free thought had so much
more scope, that the whole system was so modified as better
to accord with the fundamental principles of the Pelagian
theory of human nature. The same was true in the case
of Dr. John Taylor. The doctrine of the Trinity was
dropped in each case. Yet, at first, the whole system was
not reduced to its natural and consistent level. Socinus
still retained the worship of Christ, and persecuted Davides
for dissenting from his views. Dr. J. Taylor approximated
as near to the Trinity as the Arianism of Dr. S. Clarke
334 CONFLICT OF AGES.
would allow. He also did not remove from liis doctrine
all the language which belonged to the orthodox doctrine of
the atonement. It was not until the close of the last and
the beginning of the present century that the principles of
the Pelagian theory were fully and consistently developed
in modern Unitarianism.
No one, we think, who holds to the principles of honor
and right, and denies a forfeiture of rights in Adam, or
by preexistence, ought to censure this ultimate development
of the principles of Pelagianism as illogical or inconsistent.
The principles of honor and right to which they have ever
appealed have never, so far as we know, been formally denied
by any orthodox body. Indeed, the most orthodox have
had the highest standard. They have been simply evaded
by the plea of a forfeiture in Adam. To this the Pela-
gians and others have objected that it is irrational, unscrip-
tural, at war with the intuitive perceptions of the human
mind, and unjust.
If so, then the logical development of the system accord-
ing to the highest orthodox principles of honor and right
is, that men are created by God with well constituted and
holy minds, tending powerfully to all that is good. They
are not morally weak or impotent. They do not come
under the delusive and controlling power of evil spirits.
Indeed, there are no evil spirits. Moreover, the predomi-
nant and natural developments of men, in all ages, are
holy and good. There is no predominating tendency to
selfishness, dishonesty, violence, wrong, war, conquest and
oppression. There is no prevailing tendency to idolatry,
lust, sensualism and pollution. All men, as a universal
fact, develop a benevolent and holy character, loving God
supremely and their neighbors as themselves, and mani-
FIR8T RESULT OF DENYING A FORFEITURE. 335
festing it in all tlie organizations of society, and in all the
business and duties of life.
These results, however, are so much at war with facts,
that they react upon the principles from which they flow.
The result commonly is that lower views are adopted
of what is possible in new-created minds. Some theory
of free agency is adopted which excludes the idea alike of
original sin and original righteousness. Men are regarded
as free agents, beginning life ignorant and inexperienced,
exposed to temptation, with powerful appetites, passions
and propensities, and yet able by free choice to form a
holy character. If they do this, they are holy from the
beginning, and are saved by obedience to the law of God.
That this could be done, and had been done, was taught by
the Pelasiians. Hence their doctrine that men can be saved
by the law as well as by the gospel ; and that some, in fact,
have lived perfectly holy lives. If, on the other hand, men
fall into sinful habits. — as they admitted to be the case
to a lamentable degree, — they needed, not regeneration
by special and supernatural grace, but repentance and
reformation, in view of the motives of the law and of the
gospel. Moreover, the proper sphere of the grace of God
is found in the presentation of these motives. The gospel
exceeds the law simply as a more powerful presentation of
motives.
It appears, then, that the highest views of the principles
of honor and right are modified and reduced, because,
according to them, men would be better than even Pela-
gians, in view of facts, can maintain them to be. For, look-
ing at the history of this world, men have, in fact, sinned
with so much power, and energy, and perseverance, that it
does not at all look rational to suppose that they are born
in the image of God, understanding it to denote a power-
336 CONFLICT OF AGES.
ful bias to good, and real holiness. They, therefore, resort
to a theory of mere free will, not implying either sin or
holiness, but a power to practise either. Starting from
this point, they deduce varieties of character from the use
made by men of their free will. This is, certainly, the
best view that facts will allow them to take of man. To
assert that he is born with original righteousness and a
strong bias and impulse towards holiness, would be too
palpably at war with facts.
Of course, these views react upon their ideas of the
original condition and character of Adam. Denying that
men are now in a fallen state, of course they cannot admit
of any marked contrast between them and Adam. Hence
they regard all the glowing statements which we have set
forth as to the original perfection of his constitution and
powers, and the energy of his holiness, as irrational exag-
gerations. Adam, though created full-grown, was only an
inexperienced free agent, who, like all others, needed to
form a character by the exercise of his free will, either in
sinning or in obeying God.
A tendency to depreciate the original powers and per-
fection of Adam is, therefore, the natural and necessary
result of any theory which, denying preexistence, repre-
sents the present condition of man as his natural state, and
not a fallen condition. The more Adam is exalted, the
greater is the evidence of a fall from his state to the present
condition of man. The more he is depressed, the less is
the evidence of such a fall. Hence, the final result is, that
our ideas of free agency itself, and of the possible capaci-
ties of created minds, are seriously lowered. The operation
of such a view — assuming the facts of human depravity
really to be as I have stated them — is as if a diseased
man, who had lived only in a hospital, among diseased
FIRST RESULT OF DENYING A FORFEITURE. 337
attendants and patients, should form his ideas of the normal
state of the powers of the body, and of good health, from
such specimens ; and should justify God in so making them,
bj saying that they were as well made and organized as
could reasonably be expected, in view of the fact that all
created things are necessarily limited and imperfect.
We have already remarked that there has been in all
ages a large body of Christians whose deep experimental
knowledge of their own sinfulness, and of the need of a
thorough supernatural regeneration, have led them earnestly
and decidedly to reject these views, and to retain the theory
of a forfeiture in Adam, notwithstanding its inconsistency
with the first principles of reason and of morals. Of the
facts for which that theory proposed to account they were
certain. In words, at least, that theory did account for
them ; and it appeared to be scriptural. Therefore they
adopted it. The arguments of the Pelagians against the
alleged forfeiture of rio-hts were never answered, and never
can be. Yet still the power of Christian consciousness
was so great that it trod them down, for the sake of a theory
w^hich had at least this merit, that it seemed to explain the
great facts of human depravity and ruin. The same has
been true in every subsequent conflict. In a large body of
Christians, Christian consciousness has prevailed.
In accordance with these views, Neander has w^ell re-
marked, concerning the condemnation of Pelagianism in the
days of Augustine, that, although Pelagianism succumbed to
an outward force of the civil power, yet there never was a
subsequent and violent reaction, since "that doctrine con-
quered which had on its side the voice of the universal
Christian consciousness, and which found a ready point of
union in the whole life and experience of the church, as
29
838 CONi'LICT 01' A^k'^.
expressed in its prayers and in all its liturgical forms. ^'
(II. 599.)
And yet the principles for wliicli the Pelagians contended
were of the highest and noblest kind. They contended, as
did Dr. Channing, for the honor of God. Neander says of
Julian of Eclanum, ' ' He maintained that the highest object
of the Christian faith itself, the doctrine concerning God^
was essentially compromised ; " for the Pelagians and their
opponents did not agree even in their doctrine concerning
God. The God of their opponents "was not the God of the
gospel." Accordingly, Julian says to Augustine, " The
children, you say, do not bear the blame of their own, but
of another's sins. What sort of sin can that be ? What an
unfeeling wretch, cruel, forgetful of God and of righteous-
ness, an inhuman barbarian, is he who would make such
innocent creatures as little children bear the consequences
of transgressions which they never committed, and never
could commit 1 God, you answer. What god '? For there
are gods many, and lords many ; but we worship but one
God, and one Lord Jesus Christ. What God dost thou
make the malefactor ? Here, most holy priest, and most
learned orator, thou fabricatest something more mournful
and frightful than the brimstone in the valley of Amsanctus.
God himself, say ^^ou, who commendeth his love towards us,
who even spared not his own Son, but hath given him up for
us all, he so determines, — he is himself the persecutor of
those that are born. He himself consigns to eternal fire,
for an evil will, the children who, as he knows, can havi6
neither a good nor an evil will." Dr. Channing, contend*
ing for the same great interests, expressed himself with less
excited vehemence and personal severity, and therefore in
better taste. But his conceptions of the discord of the facts
alleged with the character of God were no less keen than
FIRST RESULT OP DENTING A FORFEITURE. 839
those of Julian. Hence he said, " Thej take from us our
Father in heaven, and substitute a stern and unjust Lord.
Our filial love and reverence rise up against them. We
saj, Touch anything but the perfections of God. Cast na
stain on that spotless purity and loveliness. We can en-
dure any errors but those which subvert or unsettle, the
conviction of God's paternal goodness. Urge not upon us
a system which makes existence a curse, and wraps the
universe in gloom."
It was also in view of the theory of the imputation of
Adam's sin that Whelpley, in the name of New England
divinity, said : " The idea that all the numerous millions of
Adam's posterity deserve the ineffable and endless torments
of hell, for a single act of his, before any one of them
existed, is repugnant to that reason that God has given
us, is subversive of all possible conceptions of justice. I
hesitate not to say that no scheme of religion ever prop-
agated amongst men contains a more monstrous, a more
horrible tenet. The atrocity of this doctrine is beyond
comparison. The visions of the Koran, the fictions of the
Sadder, the fables of the Zendavesta, all give place to this :
Rabbinical legends, Brahminical vagaries, all vanish before
it." It were easy to produce similar utterances from
Socinus and John Taylor and their followers ; for, in fact,
the argument has been one and the same, from age to age.
It has ever been a bold, earnest and eloquent protest, in
the name of the immortal principles of honor and right,
against the imputation to the God of the universe of such
acts as would conflict with justice, fatally obscure his glory,
and fill the universe itself with mournmg and gloom.
CHAPTER XI.
SECOND RESULT OF DENYING A FORFEITURE
BEFORE BIRTH.
"We now come to consider the second general course that
can be taken by those who reject the idea of a forfeiture in
Adam, and do not hold to preexistence. They can still in
theory retain, in all their integrity and fulness, the facts
of human depravity, and resolve them into the sovereign
dispensations of God.
This development is an important part of New England
Theology, and seems to have sprung out of the pressure of
the arguments used by Dr. John Taylor in his celebrated
work against original sin. In his day, the whole Calvin-
istic world held to the theory of a forfeiture in Adam, in
some one of the forms which have been set forth. Of
course, the heaviest artillery of Dr. Taylor was brought to
bear against it. And yet his arguments were not and
could not be novel. Pelagius, Julian, Celestius, Socinus
and many others, had employed them before him, as w^e
have shown. But he bore with especial force upon the
great point, that it was inconsistent with all just concep-
tions of personal identity and of justice to consider and treat
the sin of Adam as that of his posterity. He says :
"How mankind, who were perfectly innocent of Adam's
gin, could, for that sin and upon no other account, be justly
SECOND RESULT OF DENYING A FORFEITURE. 341
brouglit under God's displeasure and curse, we cannot
understand. But, on the contrary, we do understand,
and bj our faculties must necessarily judge, accoraing to
all rules of equity, it is unjust. And therefore, unless
our understanding, or perception of truth, be false, — that is,
unless we do not understand what we do understand, or
understand that to be true which other minds understand to
be false, — it must he unjust.''^
Again, ^' That any man, without my knowledge or con-
sent, should so represent me that when he is guilty I am
to be reputed guilty, and when he transgresses I shall be
accountable and punishable for his transgression, and
thereby subjected to the wrath and curse of God; nay,
further, that his wickedness shall give me a sinful nature,
and all this before I am born, and consequently while I
am in no capacity of knowing, helping or hindering, what he
doth ; — surely any one, who dares use his understanding,
must clearly see this is unreasonable, and altogether incon-
sistent with the truth and goodness of God. We may call
it a righteous constitution, but in the nature of things it is
absolutely impossible we should 'prove it to be so." (S.
109.)
"Understanding cannot be various, but must be the
same in all beings, so far as they do understand. And
therefore, if we understand that it is imjust that the
innocent should be under displeasure or a curse (and we see
it very clearly, as clearly as we see that that which is, is,
or that U'hich is not, is ?wt), then God understands it to be
so too." (p. 151.)
This is simply an assertion that the intuitive perceptions
of truth and right, given by God to us in the structure of
our minds, must accord with the renlity of things, and the
perceptions of all minds, including that of God himself.
29*
342 CONFLICT OF A(;]':s.
At tlie close of his last statement, he says, very much m
the spirit of Julian of Eclanum, " 2\nd pray consider
seriously what a God he must be who can be displeased
with and curse his innocent creatures, even before they have
a being." (p. 151.)
The younger Edwards informs us that "in their day
Drs. Watts and Doddridge were accounted leaders of the
Calvinists." They, in this great emergency, put forth
their energies to defend the received doctrine of a forfeiture
in Adam. The celebrated John Wesley united his energies
with theirs in the defence of this common ground. He says to
Dr. Taylor : " In your second part you profess to ' examine
the principal passages of scripture which divines have ap-
plied in support of the doctrine of original sin ; particularly
those cited by the Assembly of Divines in their Larger
Catechism.^ To this I never subscribed; but I think it, in
the main, an excellent composition, which I shall therefore
cheerfully endeavor to defend, so far as I conceive it is
grounded on clear scripture." (p. 132, Doc. of Orig. Sin.)
He also quotes a large portion of the work of Watts on the
same subject.
Edwards had seen and studied the work of Watts before
he wrote ; for he makes strictures on some of its positions.
Nor did he deem it a sufficient defence, — otherwise he would
not have written his own. But, in his reply to the argu-
ments of Taylor against the current theory of a forfeiture
in Adam, he was so hard driven by the argument from the
diversity of personal identity, the amount of which he thus
states, that "Adam and his posterity are not one, but
entirely distinct agents," that he took the ground that
there is no such thing as identity or oneness in created
objects existing in successive moments, "but what depends
on the arbitrary constitution of the Creator," — (p. 224, vol.
SECOND RESULT OF DENYING A FORFEITURE. 343
l). Hence it all ^'depends on God's sovereign coiistitu-
tion.^' This he proves bj the consideration that preserva-
tion or upholding of objects, or persons, is a mere series of
new momentarv separate creations, which are united as the
same identical existence;, not by the nature of things, but by
God's will. And so the objection that Adam and his pos-
terity are not and cannot be one and the same agent, or
justly be treated as such, '' is built on a false hypothesis;
for it appears that a divine constitution is what makes
truth in affairs of this nature." (The italics are as Ed-
wards left them.) Thus Edwards, in away unthought of by
Augustine, or Watts, or Turretin, made out and defended
his theory of a forfeiture in Adam, by resolving personal
identity itself into an arbitrary sovereign constitution of
God, thus opening the way to make Adam and his posterity
all one person by such a constitution. In order to complete
his explanation, Edwards ought still further to have shown
how, after God had thus made Adam and his posterity as
really and truly one and the same person as a man is dur-
ing the different portions of his life, it did not follow that
all the sins of Adam, and, indeed, of all other men, are our
sins. There is no way to avoid this consequence but to
limit the operation of " the arbitrary constitution of the Cre-
ator" to only one of Adam's sins, and to exclude from its
operation all the sins of other men. This certainly would
merit in the highest degree the name of an arbitrary con-
stitution. It only the more clearly shows to what straits
Edwards was reduced in attempting to defend the doctrine of
a forfeiture in Adam against the divinely-given and intuitive
convictions of the human mind on the subject of personal
identity. This theory of Edwards is at war with the theory
of Prof Shcdd, yet he eulogizes this reasoning of Edwards a9
profound and truf. Nevcrtholess, it appeals to have been
344 CONFLICT OF AGES.
too much for Hopkins to receive. He seems to have
thought that here Edwards had strained his metaphysical
bow until it broke. Nor was he ignorant of what the
European divines had said to defend the theory of a for-
feiture in Adam. He had also carefully studied John, Tay-
lor, and had, no doubt, examined the argument of Dr. Watts
in reply to him ; and, on the whole, he concluded that the
theory of a forfeiture was not defensible on any ground, and
he abandoned it, and threw himself simply upon divine
sovereignty.
What, then, is the real significance of this position 7 It
is, in brief, this, — although men did not sin in Adam, and
thus forfeit their claims as new-created beings, yet God, in
fact, treats them as if they had. There was no forfeiture,
and yet God treats men as if there had been. He does not
enter into communion with them, as they come into exist-
ence. He does not bestow upon them a divine influence
"which secures the right development of their moral char-
acters. On the other hand, he has in some way, by a
divine constitution of things, established such a connection
between the sin of Adam and his posterity that it will
infallibly secure a wrong development of character in them,
amounting to total depravity and utter ruin. Moreover,
this depravity is so strong that no power short of the
almighty energy of the Holy Spirit can overcome it.
This theory, as commonly stated, involves, first, a denial
of the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin, and of a
forfeiture of rights, and an exposure to punishment by it ;
and, secondly, the existence of a fixed and infallible connec-
tion between Adam's sin and the depravity of his posterity.
Thus, Dr. Hopkins states his views as follows :
"It is not to be supposed that the offence of Adam is
imputed to them to their condemnation, while they are con-
SECOND RESULT OF DENYING A FORFEITURE. 345^
sidered as in themselves in their own "persons innocent ;
or that they are guilty of the sin of their first father, ante-
cedently to their own personal sinfulness." " It is care-
fully to be observed that they are not constituted sinners
by his disobedience as a punishment, or the penalty of the
law coming upon them for his sin.*' (Vol. I. 218.)
Again, ' ' All that is asserted as Avhat the Scripture
teaches on this head is, that, by a divine constitntion^ there
is a certain connection between the first sin of Adam and
the sinfulness of his posterity ; so that, as he sinned and fell
under condemnation, they, in consequence of this, became
sinful and condemned." (Ibid.)
This was, in the circumstances, a bold step for a Calvin-
ist. But the younger Edwards, Dwight, Emmons, and
other leading New England divines, followed in his steps.
Bellamy, it is true, still defended the ancient view ; but it
has long since ceased to be any proper part of New England
theology as distinguished from old Calvinism.
The younger Edwards, in his views of the improvements
in theology eifected either by his father or by his followers,
says, on this point, "The common doctrine has been that
Adam's posterity, unless saved by Christ, are damned (con-
demned) on account of Adam's sin ; and that this is just,
because his sin is imputed or transferred to them. By
imputation, his sin becomes their sin. When the justice of
such a transfer is demanded, it is said that the constitution
which God has established makes the transfer just. To
this it may be replied, that in the same way it may be
proved just to damn (condemn) a man without any sin at
all, either personal or imputed. We need only resolve it
into a sovereign constitution of God. From this difficulty
the folloivers of jMr. Edwards relieve themselves, by hold-
inor that, tliouoih Adam was so constituted the federal head
346 CONFLICT OF AGES.
of his posterity that in consequence of his sin they all sin
or become sinners, yet they are damned (condemned) on
account of their own ^personal sin merely, and not on
account of Adani's sin, as though they were individually
guilty of his identical transgression." (Vol. i. 487.)
Dr. Dwight simply says, " The corruption of mankind
exists in consequence of the apostasy of Adam." " I do
not intend that the posterity of Adam are guilty of his
transgression." " Neither do I intend that the descendants
of Adam are punished for his transgression." " By means
of the offence or transgression of Adam, the judgment or
sentence of God came upon all men unto condemnation ;
because, and solely because, all men, in that state of things
which was constituted in consequence of the transgression
of Adam, become sinners."
Of the mode in which this effect results, he says, " I am
unable to explain this part of the subject. Many attempts
have been made to explain it ; but I freely confess myself to
have seen none which was satisfactory to me ; or which
did not leave the difficulties as great, and, for aught I know,
as numerous, as they were before."
Emmons no less distinctly denies sinning in Adam and
imputation in every fonn. In the train of these the
majority of the divines of New England have followed, atj
well as a large party in other parts of the United States.
They differ, indeed, in their mode of accounting for the
universal sinfulness which results from the fall of Adam :
8ome, as we have seen, resolving it into no natural ca^uses,
but into a stated mode of divine efficiency, called a divine
constitution ; others resolving it into the natural operation
of the laws of procreation and descent, transmitting a dete-
riorated constitution and sinful propensities.
But, meantime, the question naturally arises, How are
SECOND RESULT OF DENYING A FORFEITURE. 34T
these things consistent with the demands of the great laws
of honor and right in reference to new-created minds ?
These hiAv^s have been stated, and we see that they have been
held for ages, as the intuitive moral perceptions of the mind.
Are ihej not i=;o ? If they are, — if nevf-created minds have
rights, and there iias been no forfeiture of them. — then how
can God be justified in the course alleged? It is not
enough to resort to the idea of sovereignty. God, as a sov-
ereign, has no authority to disregard the original rights of
bis creatures. Does any one resort to the law of genera-
tion '? This is a mere ordinance of God. The question stili
ai^ises, How is he to be defended in establishing and main-
taining it? On this point, Dr. Watts says, "This natural
propagation of sinful inclinations from a common parent,
by a law of creation, seems difficult to be reconciled Avith the
goodness and justice of God (that is, without a previous
forfeiture). It seems exceeding hard to suppose that such
a righteous and holy God, the Creator, who is also a being
of such infinite goodness, should, by a poAverful law and
order of creation, w^hich is now called nature, appoint young,
intelligent creatures to come into being in such unhappy
and degenerate circumstances, liable to such intense pains
and miseries, and under such powerful tendencies and pro-
pensities to evil, by the mere law of propagation, as should
almost unavoidably expose them to ten thousand actual sins,
and all this before they have any personal sin or guilt to
deserve it." In a note he adds :
"If it could be well made out that the whole race of
mankind are partakers of sinful inclinations, and evil pas-
sions, and biases to vice, and also are exposed to many
sharp actual sufferings and to death, merely and only by
the original divine law of propagation from their parents
who had sinned ; and, if the justice and goodness of God
348 CONFLICT OF AGES.
could be vindicated in making and maintaining such a
dreadful law or order of propagation through six thou-
sand years, we have no need of further inquiries, but might
here be at rest. But, if the scheme be so injurious to the
goodness and equity of God as it seems to be, then we are
constrained to seek a little further for a satisfactory account
of this universal degeneracy and misery of mankind."
These, as we have seen, are also the views of the Prince-
ton divines ; and, indeed, of all who hold the old system of
a forfeiture in Adam. With them the Unitarians coincide.
Nor is any relief found by resolving the results in question
into a stated mode of divine efficiency, instead of a law or
order of propagation. Indeed, this view seems less to accord
with the principles of honor and right than any other which
has yet been considered.
We come, then, once more to the final result, that every
theory of forfeiture before birth that denies pretxistence
has failed, and must fail, to give permanent rest to good
men. Moreover, the results of entirely rejecting the theory
of a forfeiture before birth are equally unsatisfactory, and
are often in the highest degree injurious. We have also
seen that this fact is owing to the existence of a real conflict
between the actual facts of this system, and the principles
of honor and right, on the assumption that this is our first
state of existence. We have also seen that, by assuming
the theory of a real pre existence, this conflict can be
entirely removed, and all the powers of the mind find rest.
It follows that the existing system has thus far acted as if
it had been deranged by a falsehood. It remains to be
tried Avhether the system that I propose will not act as if
it had been properly readjusted by the truth. Certainly,
the first view has had a fair trial. Is it not time, at least,
to give tlie other a fiir opportunity to develop its genuine
results ?
CHAPTER XII.
OTHER INEFFECTUAL EFFORTS FOR RELIEF.
We have considered the Augustinian doctrine of a for-
feiture in Adam of the rights of new-created minds by the
whole human race, and of the conflict existing between it
and the principles of equity and honor. We have also set
forth the results of an entire rejection of the doctrine of
such a forfeiture in any way, and have seen that there is
no available relief to be found in this course.
It remains that I consider some other ineffectual efforts to
find relief by those who hold the common doctrine of for-
feiture. It will be remembered that the doctrine, as held
by Augustine, exalted the original rights of new-created
minds to a very high point, and then represented the effects
of the forfeiture through Adam as very disastrous. In
consequence of it, man inherits a nature so deranged and
sinful that he has lost free will and the power of doing good
works, or of saving himself by repentance and faith. Of
course, as man has not the power to accept the offers of
mercy, God could not foresee that any would accept of them,
nor predestinate them to life on that ground. Hence the
doctrines of absolute and unconditional predestination, of
passive regeneration, and of irresistible grace.
As was to be expected, this view was early assailed by
the Semipclagians, under Cassian, as at war with the char-
acter of God, and a return to the exploded errors of fatalism
30
350 CONFLICT OF AGES.
Nevertheless, in the case of a large portion of Christians in
every age, this assault has not led to a rejection of the doc-
trine of a forfeiture in Adam, but to a modification and soft-
ening of the Augustinian form of that doctrine. This haa
been attempted in two ways : — the first, by giving a milder
view of the effects of the forfeiture itself ; the second, by
introducing the idea of a gracious ability restored by Christ
to all the race, after their original ability had been entirely
destroyed by the fall. By the first of these methods, the
Roman Catholic church, though at first they condemned the
Semipelagians, at last, revolting from Luther, and under
the guidance of the Jesuits, decided, in the Council of
Trent, in direct opposition to Augustine, that free will was
not wholly extinguished by the fall, although they conceded
that it was debilitated and depressed. (Decree on Justifi-
cation, chap. I.) They also decided that man, in the work
of moral renovation, is not passive, and that grace is not
irresistible ; but that man, when acted on by God, freely
cooperates with the divine influence, and has at all times
the power to resist it. (Chap, v.) The fifth and sixth-
anathemas, which follow the Decree on Justification, are
also directed against all who shall deny these positions. At
the same time, they continue to announce the doctrine of
the forfeiture in Adam, in the most decided terms. They
assert that "infants derive from Adam that " original guilt
which must be expiated in the laver of regeneration, in
order to obtain eternal life," and that "Adam lost the
purity and righteousness which he received from God, not
for himself only, but also for us." (Decree on Original
Sin, II. and iv.) In view of these decisions, the Catechism
of the Council of Trent says, " The pastor, therefore, w^ill
not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punish-
ment of original sin were not confined to Adam, but justly
OTHER INEFFECTUAL EFFORTS FOR RELIEF. 351
descended from him, as from their source and cause, to all
posterity." Hence, it is added, "a sentence of condemna-
tion was pronounced against the hnman race immediately
after the fall of Adam." (p. 37, 38, Baltimore edition.)
In taking their ground as to free will, the Romish church
coincided with the Semipelagians, who, in opposition to
Augustine, held that there still remained in man, after the
fall, some power to perform good works, and to cooperate
with God in effecting their own salvation. The Semipela-
gians also still farther maintained that God's decree of
election and predestination was based upon a foresight of
the use which men would make of this power. This form
of the doctrine of predestination, however, has never been
formally established within the Romish church, but has
been, from age to age, the subject of fierce controversies.
It was held by the followers of Duns Scotus, Molina, and
others. The Augustinian doctrine on this point, however,
has always had its earnest defenders in that church.
Although Wiggers regards Semipelagianism as beings the
predominant system in the middle age to the time of Luther,
yet it was so rather in its fundamental principles as to free
will and power, than in an ultimate development of them in
the form of a conditional predestination.
The second mode of modifying the Augustinian doctrine is
that of Armlnius, in which he is followed by Wesley, Wat-
son, and other leading divines of the Methodist denomina-
tion. By these divines the same view ifj given of the
effects of the forfeiture in Adam as was given by Augustine
and the Reformers. They hold to the entire destruction of
free will in all men by the fill. ArminiuSj as quoted by
Watson, says " that the will of man, with respect to true
good, is not only wounded, bruised, inferior, crooked and
attenuated, but it is, likewise, captivated^ destroyed and
352 CONFLICT OF AGES.
lost; and has no powers whatever, except such as are
excited by grace." (Watson's Theol. Inst. vol. ii. p. 46.)
Watson also says that on this point the true Arminians
agree with the Augsburgh Confession, the French Calvin-
istic churches, the Calvinistic church of Scotland, and
Calvin himself (p. 47.) He adds, that in the doctrine
of the corruption of our common nature, and man's natural
incapacity to do good, the Arminians and Calvinists so well
agree, " that it is an entire delusion to represent this doc-
trine, as is often done, as exclusively Calvinistic." (p. 48.)
Hence Wesley joined with Watts, against Dr. J. Taylor, in
its defence, as we have seen. As to the extent of the for-
feiture in Adam, Watson says that "the death threatened
as the penalty of Adam's transgression included corporeal,
moral or spiritual and eternal death, and that the sentence
included the whole of his posterity," (p. 61.) There is
also an entire coincidence between the arguments of Wesley,
Fletcher and Watson, to prove the doctrine of original sin,
and those of Watts and Edwards.
The modification of the Augustinian system introduced by
Arminian divines is effected by their doctrine that, in con-
sequence of the death of Christ, a gracious ability is restored
to all men in a sufficient degree to enable them to embrace
the gospel. This is called by Fletcher "a gracious free
agency ;" and Watson says that by it is communicated "a
power of willing to come to Christ, even when men do not
come, — a power of considering their ways and turning to
the Lord, when they do not consider them and turn to
him." (p. 377.) Upon the foreseen use of this power
they base the eternal decision of God as to man's salvation,
and thus arrive at the ancient doctrine of conditional pre-
destination, although in a different way from the Semipela-
gians and the early Greek church.
OTHER INEFFECTUAL EFFORTS FOR RELIEF. 353
It is not my purpose to enter into a discussion of the
points at issue, between the Arminians and the Calvinists,
with reference to this doctrine. I will only say, that,
under a system of real preexistence there is an important
truth which is very nearly related to the doctrine of
gracious ability, though not identical with it, but which I
have not space now to develop.
But my main object is to say that, so long as the idea of
a forfeiture in Adam is retained, and real preexistence is
denied, neither of the modifications which I have described
is effectual to meet the demands of the principles of equity
and of honor.
As we have seen, "Wesley places the demands of these
principles as high as Augustine, Dr. Watts, or any of the
Reformers.
According to these principles, God is bound to give to
every new-created being a sound and healthy moral consti-
tution, perfect free will, and predominant tendencies to
good. Accordingly, Wesley perfectly accords with Augus-
tine, Turretin, Watts, and the Reformers, in holding tliat
to make new-created beings either neutral, or with a pre-
ponderance towards evil, would be highly unjust and
dishonorable in God. Unless these rights have been for-
feited, it is in the hio-hest de^-ree dishonorable in God to
disregard them.
Now, that men are born without such constitutions and
propensities, and not in such circumstances as these princi-
ples demand, is conceded by Romanists, Semipelagians and
Arminians, as well as by Calvinists. True, the Romanists
and Semipelagians do not regard free will as annihilated by
the fall. Nevertheless, they concede that it is weakened
and depressed, and that the mind is full of corrupt propen-
sities, all strongly tending towards evil, so that without
30=^
d54 CONFLICT OF AGES.
divine grace man will surely perish. It follows that man is
as truly wronged n& on the Augustinian supposition, even
if not to the same extent. There is, in principle, no differ-
ence in the two cases, and this modification of the system
furnishes no relief.
On the other hand, the Arminians allege that by divine
grace, through Christ, free agency has been restored to all
men. Even if this were conceded, it does not bring them
up to the point demanded by the principles of equity and
honor ; for they still have depraved natures, and are full of
propensities to evil, which are certain to ruin them if God
does not interpose. But this is contrary to the demands of
the laws of honor and right with reference to new-created
minds, as set forth by Wesley and the Reformers.
But, if, even notwithstanding gracious ability, men are
wronged, still more are they wronged by being created in a
state of such entire depravity and inability as to need such
a restoration of power. They ought to have had it from
the outset ; and the restoration of it is not grace, but only a
partial and inadequate compensation for the original wrong.
The same reply may be made to tlie allegation of some
high churchmen, that God is justified in his dealings with
men through Adam, by providing for them the opportunity
of baptismal regeneration in infancy. For, according to
the principles of equity and honor, God ought not to have
created men in such a state as to need such a remedy, —
even if it were one, which it is not. Moreover, this alleged
remedy did not exist till the days of Christ, and since then
has been inaccessible by the majority of the human race.
After all, in every one of these cases, and in all equally,
if we would defend God, we are driven back to the problem
which I have already considered at length, — that is, to
show how men can forfeit their original rights, as new-
OTHER INEFFECTUAL EFFORTS FOR RELIEF. ^55
created minds, before they are born into tbis world, as long
as a real personal preexistence and real sin are denied. A
necessity of solving this problem lies at the foundation of
all these systems alike. If it is, as I have endeavored to
show, absurd and impossible, then no modification of a sys-
tem, so lonor as it rests on such an allecred forfeiture as its
basis, can furnish any relief.
Undoubtedly the motive of the Romish divines, in their
doctrine of free will, was to vindicate God from dishonor
with reference to the origin of sin and the ruin of man.
This Moehler distinctly affirms, and makes prominent in his
defence of their theology. So, also, no one who has read
Wesley, Fletcher and Watson, can doubt that the Armin-
ians aimed at the same end in their doctrine of the restora-
tion of ability by grace and conditional predestination.
But the difficulty lay too deep for either of these expedients
to reach. It is not peculiar to the Lutheran, to the Calvin-
ist. to the Romanist, to the Arminian or to the Episcopa-
lian. It is found in the common foundation of the system
of each and all.
After laying such a foundation, the evil cannot be reme-
died by any improved mode of building upon it. A system
based on injustice cannot be so developed as to become a
just system.
CHAPTER XIII.
ESTIMATE OF THE CONFLICT.
In my introductory remarks I made the following state-
ments : "The conflict of which I propose to write is, and
ever has been, in its deepest recesses, a conflict of the heart.
Not that gigantic intellectual efforts have not been abun-
dantly put forth, but that the deepest and most powerful
impulses have ever been those of the heart." I also
remarked that ' ' the merely logical encounters of power-
fully developed intellectual systems tend rather to irritation
and alienation than to sympathy and confidence. Never-
theless, beneath every man's intellectual efforts on this
subject there has been a deeply affecting personal expe-
rience, which, if known, would show, in a manner adapted
to awaken deep sympathy, why he has reasoned as he has.
Indeed, there is a great heart, not only of natural honor,
but, still more, of sanctified humanity, which, from begin-
ning to end, underlies this momentous controversy, the
deep workings of which must be developed and appreciated
before the controversy can be properly understood. No
honorable mind can see these workings uncovered, and not
be touched with deep emotion in viewing the -struggles of
our common humanity, in endeavoring to resolve the deepest
and most momentous problems of the present trying and
mysterious system." I also declared that " it is my aim
to unfold this experience, and thus, if I may, to create on
ESTIMATE OF THE CONFLICT. 357
all sides a feeling of sympathy and mutual interest, by
pointing out those benevolent and honorable impulses, and
that regard for truth, — mixed, it may be, with other
motives, — by which the various parties have been actuated,
and to produce a candid and united effort to eliminate error,
and to develop the whole truth."
To some extent I have been able, in the general survey
which I have now completed, to unveil the workings of the
hearts of our fellow- Christians of different ages, from the
beginning. My chief regret has been that, on account of
my narrow limits, I have not been able to do it more fully.
I deeply feel the importance of such an exhibition. We
are too prone to forget that all redeemed and holy men of
every age are still our brethren, and one with us in Christ.
We are too prone to forget their circumstances and trials,
and the real and great works which they have performed,
each in his age, for God and for man. We are too much
inclined to think of their works as collections of dry and
dead dogmas, forgetting that they were once filled with the
warm emotions of living hearts, and that their authors still
live, and, if we are Christians, still love us, and delight to
receive from us fraternal tributes of love and esteem.
The most affecting thought to my mind, in making this
review, has been that God, who knows all truth, should
have permitted men who truly loved him and communed
with him to remain involved in so great and so injurious
errors. But facts show that God has not seen fit to con-
nect infallibility with eminent piety. Indeed, had he done
it, he must have entirely changed his administration of this
world. The mysterious developments of this system, such
dS the great apostasy, and the long reign of ecclesiastical
despotism and of brute force, could not have taken place as
they have, if God had from the first given infallibility to
858 CONFLICT OF AGES.
all holy men. One result of the course pursued by God
has been, to rebuke, in all ages, the spirit of man-worship.
Nevertheless, He has never designed by it to destroy the
spirit of brotherly love and of mutual respect among
Christians of different ages ; and the time will come when
they will know, love and respect each other, as they have
not done in the dark ages of the past conflict. It will be
seen, too, that the final end and highest aim of this great
conflict has been in all ages simple and sublime.
The regeneration of man has been the practical work to
be done ; . but, as he is regenerated for God, the final end
and highest aim has been to find a full, consistent, and per-
fect view of a glorious God. This is the highest necessity
of a holy mind. It awakens its strongest desires, and is
essential to its perfect peace. The voice of every holy soul
in all ages has been, ' ' 0 God, thou art my God ; early
will I seek thee ; my soul thirsteth for thee ; my flesh long-
eth for thee, in a dry and thirsty land where no water is,
for thy loving-kindness is better than life." "With thee
is the fountain of life; in thy light shall I see light."
"One thing have I desired, that will I seek after, that
I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my
life ; that I may behold the beauty of the Lord, and inquire
in his holy temple."
It will nevertheless be seen, as I think, that, in some
way, dark clouds have been made to arise and to eclipse the
glories of God, so that in the most absolute sense it has
been true that, logically viewed, he has dwelt in the thick
darkness. INIany things received and taught and defended
concerning him by the best of men, have ascribed to him
acts more at war with the fundamental principles of equity
and honor than have ever been imagined or performed by
the most unjust, depraved and corrupt of created minds.
ESTIMATE OF TUE CONFLICT. 859
Nothing, in fact, can be conceived of wliich is more dishon-
orable and unjust than the deeds which have been ascribed
to God, and made the basis of the whole work of redemp-
tion,— that greatest of all his works.
It is no doubt true that this has always been done uncon-
sciously and unintentionally. ' No Christian divine has ever
for a moment admitted that the real rei^inins; God of the
universe ever has, in fact, ceased to make honor and right
the foundation of his throne; yet it is nevertheless true
that systems of theology have been framed which, in reality,
have represented him as so doing, and that these systems
have been supposed to be based upon the explicit state-
ments of God. These statements have sometimes been
received as the decisions of an infallible church as to the
sense of the Bible ; at others, as the opinions of the great
body of believers, in all ages, as to that sense.
These are the things which, in fact, have been done;
and, under the influence of such systems, honorable and
ingenuous minds have been, and still are, liable to be
exposed to an inconceivable amount of suffering. Fearing
to call in question what is regarded as sustained by the
assertion of God, or is believed by an infallible church, or
by the great body of Christians, — prevented by Christian
consciousness from taking refuge in infidelity, and yet
unable to exterminate the principles of honor and right
implanted by God in their souls, — they cannot see around
them anything but a universe of terror and gloom, in tho
lurid light of which a just and honorable God cannot be
seen, and in which the soul faints, and it seems better to
die than to live.
Others may have defended themselves against coming
into such a state, by entirely suspending the exercise of the
logical power, from respect to the supposed statements of
860 CONFLICT OF AGES.
God, or from a regard to the decisions of a church supposed
to be infalUble, or to the opinions of the main body of
Christians in all ages. Of the truth of the great features
of the system, they are assured; and, if they meet with
positive contradictions of fundamental principles of equity
and honor, they will not look into them. Thus, to use a
metaphor, though by faith they swallow them, still they
do not logically digest them, and thus the poison does not
directly enter into their mental circulation.
But with an increasing number of minds such a course
will not always be possible. This is especially likely to be
true of those who have been disciplined in the higher
departments of a properly conducted system of education,
and yet have a deep Christian experience. One great end
of a true education is to discipline the mind for the candid
and unprejudiced pursuit of truth. It teaches the honest
Christian to renounce all pious fraud, and not to think that
it can ever be for God's glory that we should lie for him.
Moreover, it teaches that it is for the interest of all to know
the truth, and that it is a duty to be faithful to it at any
sacrifice of reputation or property, or personal ease and
enjoyment. It also recognizes the truth which is taught
by the structure of the human mind, by the material uni-
verse, and by providence, as a part of the revelation which
God has made to man as really as the Bible, and does not
feel at liberty to suppress any truth taught by God. The
future, at least, will develop the result of such views.
But, even if education has not been in all past ages such
as it ought to be, — and we do not pretend that it has, —
still, even when imperfectly developed, its higher grades
have naturally tended to produce free thought, and to give
power to that thought. But it has ever led to peculiar
trials ; for, since the mind is limited and wakes up in this
ESTIMATE OF THE CONFLICT. 361
vorld under the influence of the opinions of the existing
goneration, and the system of God is vast and manifold in
its relations, it is extremely difficult and laborious for a
single mind so to grasp and comprehend it as to study out
and adjust all its parts, relations and bearings. And if it
has had elements wrought into it that bring one part of it
into conflict with another, and these remain undiscovered,
then the logical tendencies of difierent minds will impel
them in diflerent directions, according as circumstances
or the constitutional temperament fix the attention on one
part or another of the system. Those who feel deeply one
part of the system try to carry that out logically. Others,
who feel another part, try to do the same w^ith that. Hence
arises at once the tendency, already illustrated, of one part
of the system to destroy another, to which it has been put
in opposition. Hence divisions arise, and extreme parties
are formed, — each urging one part of the system so far as
to destroy another. In view of these conflicts intermediate
parties arise, each trying to retain both of the opposing
parts of the system, but differing in the modes in which
they endeavor to harmonize and adjust them ; but all alike
failing in the effort.
Nevertheless, on the scale of ages, the principles of honor
and right will finally predominate and have the advantage,
whatever may be the purposes or wishes of those who hold
the system ; and if, by any false theory, they have been put
in opposition to any fundamental facts of tlio system, either
those facts will be generally dropped, or they will be so mod-
ified as to lose their real nature and import, or else the false
theory Avill be repudiated by which the opposition has been
produced.
Now, all the Avide field of history which I have sketched
is but a collection of instructive illustrations of these tenden-
31
062 CONFLICT OF AGES.
;ies of the mind under the common system ; and, after ages
)f conflict, the time seems to be drawing near in which one or
the other of the last-mentioned results must be anticipated.
Either the principles of honor and right will generally
iestroy or render unmeaning the great facts as to the ruin of
\nan, or else that theory will be renounced by which those
t>rinciples have been arrayed in opposition to these facts.
Thus have the reality of the alleged conflict, its causes,
md a possible remedy, been considered, and the importance
of its speedy application. The final question now arises.
Shall the theory of a previous existence be received as true ?
In answer to this three things have been said : There is
no evidence of its truth ; it merely shifts the difficulty, but
does not remove it ; and it is inconsistent with the word of
God. These allegations I shall consider in the following
booi
BOOK V.
THE ARGUMENT.
CHAPTER I.
THE MODE OF PROCEEDINa.
When it is asserted, as has been stated, that the doc-
triae of preexistence — to which I have resorted as alone
effectual to harmonize the conflicting powers of Chris-
tianity — is a mere theory not sustained by any proof, the
question naturally arises, What is meant by this assertion 7
Is it that it is nowhere in express terms asserted in the
Scriptures ? The truth of this assertion I have conceded ;
for I have only assumed " that God has so presented to us
this system, taken as a whole, that by a careful study of
it we may learn the great law of its harmonious action ; and
that the Bible has said nothing designed to foreclose this
mode of inquiry, or to confine us, by express verbal revela-
tion, to any particular theory on the subject.^' (Book in.
oh. 2, p. 198.)
If, however, any one is disposed to call in question the
validity of this mode of reasoning, I would simply ask him,
Have texts of scripture any authority before you have
364 CONFLICT OF AGES.
proved that there is a God, and that the Bible is hia
inspired word 7
If not, then you must prove those fundamental truths, —
the being of a God, and the divine origin and inspiration
of the Bible, — by the kind of reasoning which I propose to
use to prove preexistence ; that is, reasoning from divinely
implanted intellectual and moral intuitions, and from the
facts of the system. If, therefore, this mode of reasoning
is sufficiently valid to be the original basis of all religion,
is it not also valid enough to sustain the doctrine of pre-
existence? Moreover, by what other mode of reasoning
can the truth of the Newtonian theory be proved ? But I
shall say more upon this point in another place.
But, if any one shall concede the validity of the mode
of reasoning, but shall assert that by it nothing can be
proved in favor of the doctrine of preexistence, then I
reply that this is a mere gratuitous assertion, and no argu-
ment. Before conceding any weight to such an assertion,
it is at least expedient first to hear the arguments which
this mode of reasoning will furnish in favor of the doctrine
in question.
The same reply may be made to the allegation that it
merely shifts the difficulty, but does not remove it. This,
also, is an unproved assertion ; and it would be well, before
giving any credit to it, to consider carefully and thoroughly
and to weigh well the true and logical bearings of preexist-
ence on the difficulties of the system.
But, before proceeding to consider either of these main
points, it is indispensable at the outset to meet the third
assertion, — that the doctrine of preexistence is opposed to
the statements of the inspired volume.
It is natural and proper, in view of such an assertion, to
ask, What aie those statements ? Are they those which
THE MODE OF PROCEEDING. 365
i«»ftcli merely the fact tliat men are born depraved, and are
hj nature the children of wrath ? Certainly these do not
deny or disprove preexistence. For, if men preexisted and
fell before they entered this world, it would of course result
in these very facts. Therefore, when the Bible asserts the
existence of these facts, it does not deny preexistence. Nay,
more, so far as preexistence accounts for these facts, in con-
sistency with the character of God, better than any other
system, so far does the statement of them in the Bible cre-
ate a presumption of its truth. The same also is true as to
the inspired statements of the magnitude and totality of
human depravity.
To disprove preexistence from the Bible, then, it is
necessary to produce not merely texts to prove native
depravity, and its development in a life entirely sinful, but
also passages that shall particularly state that these facts
originated in this world, and not in a previous state of
existence.
To meet this point, there is, so far as I know, but one
passage on which any general reliance is placed ; but still
that one is enough, if it really does meet and decide the
point. That one passage is the celebrated comparison of
Adam and Christ, which occurs in verses 12 — 21 of the
fifth chapter of the epistle of Paul to the Romans.
I need not say of this that it has been in all ages and
still is relied on by many eminent Christians, as proving
that the sinfulness of the human race was caused by the sin
of Adam, either by imputation, or by natural causation, or
through divine efficiency, or in some other way. But, if so,
then, of course, it was not caused by a fall in a preexistent
state.
It is necessary, therefore, before proceeding to any gen-
eral course of reasoning, first to inquire what is the true
31*
366 CONFLICT OF AGES.
import of this celebrated passage. Indeed, I think ft.«it
practically the whole of the present discussion turns more
upon this than upon any other point. For, if it had not
been for the belief that this chapter proves such a doctrine
of forfeiture as I have considered, — a doctrine that
appears impossible and unjust, — it could never have gained
credence, or sustained itself for a single hour ; nor would
it have ever been believed that the sin of Adam could
or did in any way produce the terrific depravity which
has been exhibited in this world ever since his creation
and fall.
But so long as it has been supposed that God has asserted
these things, it has been felt to be a duty to overrule even
those intuitive moral and intellectual convictions which He
has implanted in the soul, rather than to distrust his word.
Much as I respect the spirit of faith and of submission to
God from which this course of conduct has proceeded, still
I cannot but lament that the proper laws of interpreting
such a passage had not been more thoroughly studied before
coming to such painful and injurious results.
It is evident, therefore, from what has been said, that the
proper interpretation of this passage is the first point which
demands our attention.
It is plain, also, that this is a point of peculiar moment,
since the whole scriptural question depends, in fact, upon
this text. If this fails to sustain the common opinion, there
is no other. This will probably strike some with surprise.
They have been wont to regard the Bible as full of proof
of the fall in Adam. The reason is, that they have
regarded all proof of native depravity and the fallen con-
dition of the race as virtually proof of the fall of the race
in Adam. It is, however, as we have said, no proof at all
of this point. It is proof of a fall at some time, but
THE MODE OF PROCEEDINa. 367
whether in Adam or before Adam it does not decide. It
suits alike either hypothesis. Let us, then, come to the
solitary passage on which the common doctrine is wholly
based,— Rom. 5: 12—19.
If it shall appear that no valid argument can be derived
from this passage against the doctrine of preexistence, then
the way will be fully prepared to take up and to develop
the general argument for that doctrine, on the principles
which have been already stated ; and also to answer such
objections as have been alleged against it in those super-
ficial discussions of it to which I have previously referred.
CHAPTER II.
GENERAL VIEW OF THE VARIOUS INTER-
PRETATIONS OF ROM. 5: 12—19.
No other passage of scripture can be mentioned, the inter-
pretation of which has so seriously affected the human race.
Indeed, from the magnitude and universality of its effects,
an aspect of sublimity must ever invest it to the thoughtful
mind.
From age to age, the millions of a depraved race had
filled this world in successive generations. At length a
great Redeemer came. He came to redeem a church, to
destroy the kingdom and works of Satan, and to reorganize
the universe of God. But whence originated the evil which
he came to remedy ? What was it that plunged the human
race in ruins ? What caused the infinite emergency to
meet which none was adequate in the wide universe but an
incarnate God ?
Questions these full of interest to all worlds, but above
all to us ; for we are the race from which the church is to be
redeemed, and all of our race not included in this redemp-
tion are to perish forever.
Need we wonder, then, that theologians and poets, phi-
losophers and kings, as well as unlettered men in all the
walks of common' life, have listened with deep interest to
these teachings of the apostle : that Milton, in his immortal
VIEW OF INTERPRETATIONS. 869
epic, designed to justify the ways of God to man, should make
it the burden of his song ; that learned expositors and divines
should expend volumes on it ; that it should become the basis
of systems of theology, sermons, catechisms and hymns ; that
it should tinge all the scenes of domestic life, rise before the
mind in the sacred hour of marriage, or as any new-born
heir of immortality enters the world, or as death closes the
scene ; — in short, that it should lie at the basis of all
religious thought and emotion in the evangelical Christian
world?
Are not, then, the moral aspects of the interpretation of
this passage truly sublime ? Has it not given character to
the intellectual and moral atmosphere into which each suc"
cessive generation is born, in which their powers are un-
folded, and under the influence of which their eternity is
decided ? And, if it is much to shape one ingenuous youth-
ful mind, like that of Bacon, Burke, Milton, or Wash-
ington, in which are the elements of all that can affect and
interest our deepest sympathies, how much more so, to
shape the minds of all such for eighteen long centuries, —
to take whole generations of minds, of all grades and in all
ranks, and mould them from the cradle to the grave ?
But, if these things are so, need I say, what every one
must see and feel without my saying it, how unspeakable
and inconceivable is the importance of a right interpretation
of such a passage ?-
What, then, is the fundamental idea of the common inter-
pretation? It presupposes that this is our first state of
existence, and that the guilt and depravity of man are not
the result of a fall in a previous state of existence, but are
in some way the result of the first sin of Adam.
Various have been the attempts to unfold the mode in
which this alleged fall in or through him took place. Some
870 CONFLICT OF AGES.
teach thatj in some mysterious way, we existed in Adam,
were one with him, sinned in him and fell with him, and
thus corrupted the common generic nature of the race, and
that hence natural death and a depraved nature descend
through physical generation ; and that all men being born
in fact sinners, and with corrupted natures, are under the
wrath of God ; and that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed
to them, because it is truly and properly theirs.
Others deny any mysterious unity with Adam before we
were born, and our actual commission of his first sin, but
say that, as Adam was our natural and federal head, God
imputes his sin to us, and thus makes it really ours, though
not personally ; or else that, by a divine judicial constitution,
he regards it as ours, though it is not, and holds us liable
to punishment for it, independently of and before our own
acts ; and that, on one of these grounds, as a punishment
of that sin, we forfeit his favor, and that accordingly he
withdraws from us divine supernatural influences, so that
we are born devoid of original righteousness, and, as a
necessary result, with natures corrupt and sinful, anterior
to choice or action, and leading to actual sin, and deserving
of eternal death.
Others do not retain the doctrine of imputation at all,
and yet believe that the ruinous consequences of Adam's sin
do come upon us ; and that, on account of it, we are born
with depraved natures before choice or action, which are
properly sinful.
Others, denying a depraved nature anterior to choice,
and holding that all sin is voluntary, ascribe to a stated
exercise of divine efliciency the fact that all men sin.
Others only affirm that our natures have been so changed,
in consequence of Adam's fall, that in all the appropriate
circumstances of our being in this world we sin as soon as
VIEW OF INTERPRETATIONS. 371
moral agency commences ; and, although the mere nature
of man before volition cannot be strictly sinful, yet, in a
popular sense, it may be called corrupt, depraved and
sinful, — that is, always leading to sin.
Augustine, as we have seen, originally developed the first
view, and the others are different stages of recession from it,
caused by the pressure of arguments derived from the prin-
ciples of honor and right, and the character of God. But
still, all have one idea in common,— that our original guilt
and sinfulness were not caused by our own action in another
state ot being, but by the sin of Adam.
The interpretat^'on of Augustine rested very much on the
false translation of verse 12 in the Latin Vulgate, " in quo
omnes peccaverunt," which means " in whom all sinned,''
instead of " for that (or because) all sinned." Hence
he often says, that all men were one in Adam, and that
Adam, though one, was all men. His philosophical notions,
according to Neander, Hagenbach and others, also favored
this view. His realistic mode of thinking, as Hagenbach
alleges, led him to confound the abstract with the concrete,
and so to consider the human race as originally a concrete
totality, in which the individuals were merged, instead of a
mere collection of distinct and successive individuals, repre-
sented by a generic term.
This interpretation was to some extent held during the
Middle Ages, and by some at the time of the Reformation,
and even since then, it has been defended. So long as it
was supposed to rest on the testimony of revelation, its
advocates could repel any protest of reason on the grounds
of faith and mystery. And it is instructive to notice how
wide may be the influence of a wrong translation or exposi-
tion of even one word of the inspired oracles ; and therefore
it is well for all to feel the responsibility, even at this day,,
of translating or expounding a passage like this.
372 CONFLICT OF AGEH.
The second exposition, or that of those who derive thtj
doctrine of imputation from this passage, is distinguished
by this peculiarity, that it denies absolutely and unequivo-
cally that the apostle here asserts that men became actual
sinners, or even received a depraved nature through the sin
of Adam. Not only, say they, the passage does not teach
this, but it is entirely against its scope and main end. It
teaches simply th»t, as all men were condemned to death for
Adam's sin, so all who belong by faith to Christ were jus-
tified by Christ's righteousness. By death, they under-
stand penal evils of all kinds. They hold, indeed, that
human depravity resnlted from this condemnation, since
God forsook the condemned race, and took away his Spirit,
and depravity followed of course. But all that the passage
directly teaches is the condemnation of all for the sin of
Adam, and the justification of believers for Christ's sake.
The sense is altogether judicial. This is at present the
proper Old School vicAv.
The New School divines, on the other hand, consider the
passage as teaching not that all men were condemned for
Adam's act, but that they all became sinners in consequence
of it in some way, without defining alike in what way it
was. For saying this, they are charged by their Old School
brethren with overlooking the entire scope, end and aim, of
the passage.
There was originally, and for four centuries, still another
view of this passage; that of the Greek church, which
regarded the death spoken of in it as merely natural death.
Before Tertullian and Augustine, this was also the view of
the Latin church. Irenseus, the great opponent of heretics,
knew nothing of anything but physical death in this pas-
sage. In favor of this view the authority of the Greek
fathers is uniform and unbroken. Muenscher gives passages
VIEW OF INTERPRETATIONS. 378
in proof of this statement, from Justin Martyr, Athena-
goras. Tatian, Theopliilus Antioch., Clemens Alex.,
Origen, Atlianasius, Chrysostom, Cyrill Hierosol., Titus of
Bostra, Basil the Great, Gregory Naz., Gregory Nyss.,
Nemesius, Epiphanius. Moreover, it is remarkable that
Pelagius took the lead in denying this position, and in
defending the doctrine that the death here spoken of wag
spiritual death. >
In John of Damascus, who, at a subsequent date, gave
form to the theology of the Greek church, the early doctrine
of that church reappears ; and still later Greek writers, as
Theodorus Studaita, Theophylact and Euthymius Ziga-
benus, repeat it. They all teach that Adam's sin brought
natural death on his posterity, but do not teach the propa-
gation of a depraved nature, nor any connate guilt of
Adam's sin. Indeed, as we have seen, earlier fathere
explained the fact that men do uniformly sin, rather by the
influence of evil spirits, than by a reference to the fall of
Adam. Some, however, admitted that the moral faculties
of man had been iveakened by the fall ; but none thought
of denying the free will of man, and the voluntary nature
of all sin. Cyrill of Jerusalem, according to Hagenbach,
as we have seen, regarded men as born in a state of inno-
cence, and that a free agent alone can sin. Ephraim the
Syrian, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great, take the
same view. Chrysostom most earnestly advocated the
liberty of man and his power of moral self-determination,
and severely censured all who endeavored to excuse their
own immoralities by ascribing the origin of their sin to the
fall of Adam.
From this general view of the interpretation of this
passage, one thing is plain, — that no one exposition, ancient
or modern, can claim tiie sanction of universal authority.
CHAPTER III.
THE TRFE INTERPRETATION OF ROM. 5 : 12— IS.
We have considered some of the various modes in whicn
this passage has been interpreted.
I shall next proceed to state what appears to me to be
the true interpretation.
In my opinion, then, the interpretations of the Old
School party and of the Greek church contain each an
element of the true interpretation, to which must be added a
third, found in neither, in order to combine all the parts of
the true system.
The element of truth in the Old School system is, that
the sense of the passage is judicial, relating to condemna-
tion and justification, and not to the causation of sin or
holiness in the race.
The element of truth in the Greek system is, that the
death spoken of is simply natural death.
The element to be added, however, is one of more import-
ance than either of the preceding, and must control the
whole interpretation of the passage.
It is this, — that all the language, in this passage, which is
commonly understood to assert that the sin of Adam exerted
a causative power upon the condition and character of his
descendants, need not be understood to denote real causa-
THE TRUE INTERPRETATION. 875
tion, but may, if any good reason calls for it, be held to
denote only apparent causation ; and that a good reason does
call for this view ; and moreover that such a sequence of
apparent causation was established solely in order to make
Adan_ a type of Christ.
The passage, then, thus viewed, teaches that God was
pleased to establish immediately on the sin of Adam, and
through that sin, the sequence of condemnation to natural
death upon all men ; a sequence linked to Adam's act by
no causative power, but established solely as a type and
illustration, both by similitude and antithesis, of the
sequence of justification and life eternal from the obedience
of Christ, — a sequence in which there is a real and
glorious causative power.
Such a sequence, in itself devoid of causative power, but
established for typical purposes, I call a merely typical
sequence. It is one not founded in the nature of things,
but in a positive arrangement, designed for typical effect.
To illustrate my idea. When an Israelite, bitten by a
fiery serpent, in accordance with the word of God, looked
up at the brazen serpent erected by Moses on a pole, he
was immediately healed. Here, then, was a fixed sequence
established by God. And yet all admit that there was in
the brazen serpent no healing power. It was then a
sequence of apparent causation, and not of real causation.
But God was pleased to establish it for typical purposes, to
illustrate the healing of the soul, mortally wounded by sin,
that folloAvs looking by faith to Christ.
Here, then, is a case of a merely typical sequence.
There is apparent causation, but no real causation ; and the
sequence is established to typify another, in which there is a
real and glorious causative power.
In like manner, that the sequence of condemnation and
STB CONFLICT OF AGES.
death coming on all men througli the sin of Adam was a
merely typical sequence, established to illustrate a causative
sequence of justification and spiritual life through Christ,
is the position which I lay down as the key of this whole
passage.
So important a position will, of course, demand a radical
investigation. Such an investigation will require us to
consider tw^o questions :
1. Is the sequence in this case, whatever it may be. one
merely typical 1
2. What is the sequence ?
Of these two, the first, as we have said, is the funda-
mental question. Certain things are, in this passage, said to
have been done by or through one man. What they are, as
we have seen, is not agreed. Some say that by him natu-
ral death came on all men. Others, that penal retributions
in general came on all men. Others, that universal sinful-
ness came on all men.
Now, without at present deciding which of these sequences
is meant in the passage, I will merely assume that a
sequence is meant of some sort, and ask is it, or is it not, a
sequence of real causation ?
To this I have replied that it is not, by any necessity of
the case. I admit that the lano-uaore used to denote actual
causation is used. So far as the mere words are concerned,
they may bear that sense. But there is no necessity of it.
It is equally in accordance with the laws of language and
the usages of scripture to suppose that the sequence is one
of merely apparent causation ; so that the sin of Adam, in
> fact, exerted no influence whatever on his race, but it and
its sequences were merely ordered .so to stand in relation to
each other as to make, at the very introduction of the
human race into this world, a striking type of the coming
THE TRUE INTERPilETATION. 377
Messiah, by -whom the race was to be redeemed. On this
latter supposition, the fallen condition and depravity of the
race are assumed as having been already in existence, and
the doctrine is that the events connected with the introduc-
tion of tne race into this world by one man were such as tc
form a type of the relations and acts of the coming Messiah,
in redeeming the church.
Those interpretations which assume a causative sequence
make the sin of Adam really to cause either natural death,
or condemnation, or depravity to all the race, and so to do
it as to be a type of the coming Messiah.
The interpretation which I propose makes it a divinely-
established antecedent, without causative power, but de-
signed to make in the opening scene of this world's history
a sublime, impressive and beautiful type of the coming
Messiah. The truth of this view, as I have said, is the
fundamental question of the whole discussion. It is also a
question the importance of which cannot be over-estimated.
It is also a question, so far as I know, never thus raised or
discussed before. It has been generally assumed that,
whatever it is that followed the act of Adam, it was linked
to it by the power of a real causation. No one seems to
have thought that any law of language, or any usage of
scripture, gave us our choice here between real and apparent
causation. All seem to have felt themselves shut up to one
mode of understanding the language of causation here used.
However great, therefore, might be the objections from
the nature of things, or from the principles of honor and
right, to such an understanding, it has been felt that we
have no right to give them any weight in opposition to the
express statements of God.
It is my purpose, therefore, to show that the laws of lan-
guage and the usages of scripture do not shut us up to such
32*
o78 CONFLICT OF AGES.
a mode of interpretation ; that the mode which regards the
sequence as merely apparent and typical is in perfect
accordance with scripture usages, and the just laws of inter-
pretation.
1. I say, then, in the first place, that nothing is more
common in scripture than to describe sequences of apparent
causation in the same language as is used to describe real
causation.
2. Secondly, in the case of types in particular, the
sequences are very often those of apparent causation, and
yet are always spoken of in the same language which is
used to denote real causation.
3. Thirdly, that, in the case of any type, if there is in
the nature of things a valid objection to the admission of
real causation between the antecedent and the consequent,
we have a perfect right to resort to the interpretation which
assumes apparent causation.
4. By thus presenting to the mind a choice between the
two modes of interpretation, objections to the first mode
cease to be objections against the assertions of God, and
become appropriate means of deciding what his language
means, and thus what his assertions are.
Before proceeding to confirm my statements by proof, I
would remark that the fundamental nature and the supreme
importance of the inquiry will authorize more detail of
Bcripture and other proof than I should otherwise employ.
If, therefore, I multiply proofs and examples, it will
be for the sake of impression, and to countervail long-
established associations by the full exhibition of the laws
of language, and the usages of the word of God.
CHAPTER IV.
USE OF LANGUAGE IN DESCRIBING SEQUENCES
OF APPARENT CAUSATION.
We come now to consider the truth of the propositions
which I have laid down. And, in the first place, I say that
there are in the word of God many sequences of merely
apparent causation, not only in types, but elsewhere. And
in all such cases both scripture and the common usages of
language, Ayithout hesitation, denote these sequences by the
same forms of speech which are used to denote real causa-
tion. Of this we may find striking illustrations in the case
of miracles, where the causative power is in God alone, and
yet is apparently exerted by second causes. For example,
Moses, by the direction of God, employed a rod, called the
rod of God (Ex. 4 : 20, and 17 : 9), in producing the
plagues of Egypt, in dividing the Red Sea, and in bringing
water from the rock. Hence God speaks as if the rod had
a causative power, — Ex. 4 : 17. " Take this rod, where-
with thou shalt do signs." Hence, also, without hesitation,
men say that by the rod of Moses the water of Egypt wsis
turned into blood, thunder and hail were brought from,
heaven, and swarms of locusts were summoned to devour
the land. So also they say that by the rod of Moses the
Red Sea was divided, and water was brouglit from the flinty
rock.
880 CONFLICT OP AGES.
In like manner, so far as language is concerned, a caus-
ative power to work miracles is by God ascribed to Moses
himself; for, in Num. 20 : 8, God says to him, " Thou
shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock ; so shalt
thou give the congregation and their beasts to drink."
So also it is said (Acts 5: 12), "By the hands of the
apostles (that is, by the apostles) were many signs and
wonders wrought among the people." God also said to
Moses, " Lift thou up the rod, and stretch out thine hand
over the sea and divide it." (Ex. 14 : 16.)
This mode of speech is natural to man, and almost uni-
versal. If we will read commentators, and the sermons
even of the most eminent divines, we shall find that they
speak as if miracles were in fact wrought by second causes ;
that is, they speak according to the appearance of things.
Thus they freely say that handkerchiefs or aprons from the
body of Paul, or even his shadow, healed the sick, or that
the sick were healed by them. (Acts 19 : 12.) So also
they say that by an ointment made of Christ's spittle and
clay, and by washing in the pool of Siloam, the eyes of the
blind man were opened ; and also that by washing in the
Jordan the leprosy of Naaman was healed.
So also it is said that by a stick of wood thrown into the
water the lost head of the axe was made to swim ; and that
the bad water near Jericho was healed by salt that was
thrown into it ; and that the bitter water of Marah was made
sweet by a branch of a tree thrown into it.
In like manner it is said that Elijah and Elisha divided
the Jordan by smiting it with their mantle ; and that the same
river was again divided by the feet of the priests, and the
ark of the covenant ; that Elisha made iron to swim by a
stick of wood, and that by the blowing of horns and a shout
the w\alls of Jericho wei^e thrown down.
SEQUENCES OF ArPARrNT CAUSATION. 881
Also, in describing all these facts, the mode of expression
is often varied, and the apparent cause is said directly to
do that which follows it. The rod of Moses is said to have
divided the sea, and the mantle of Elijah the Jordan. Salt
healed the waters of Jericho, a stick of wood made iron to
swim, and a branch of a tree rendered sweet the bitter
waters of Mar ah.
As an example of the general usage in question, we will
quote Dr. Smalley: — "The Ked Sea was divided by
Moses' rod, and the river Jordan by Elijah's mantle. It
was by smiting the ^nty rock in the wilderness that the
waters were made to flow out of it like a river. It was by
throwing a stick into the river that the young prophet's axe
was made to swim, and by washing seven times in the Jor-
dan that Naaman was healed of his leprosy." He is here
endeavoring to show that men are not regenerated by any
causative efficiency of the truth ; and, to explain such state-
ments as that men are "born again by the word of God^''
he regards it as a case of merely apparent causation, spoken
of in the same language that is used to denote real caus-
ation, and quotes these instances as parallel cases. Whether
he is correct or not in denying that the word of God is a
real cause in regeneration, he is certainly correct in his
recognition of the law of language which I have stated.
Cases of apparent causation, he clearly saw, are often
described by the same language which is used to describe
real causation.
In like manner, w^hat is said to be done by the rod of
Moses, or by the mantle of Elijah, or by the salt, or the
branch of a tree, or the stick of wood, is at other times said
to be done by Moses or Elijah or Elisha themselves,
although they did not do it any more than the material
instrument which they used. There is no need of more
882 CONFLICT OF AGES.
numerous quotations to illustrate and prove tliese usages ;
they are so abundant that any one can find them for
himself at pleasure.
I now proceed to another connected usage of language
which is worthy of special notice. I refer to the common
and almost universal practice of forming illustrative com-
parisons by means of these sequences of apparent causation.
It will be noticed that, in such cases, there is on one side a
sequence of apparent causation to illustrate a sequence of
real causation on the other. Thus Henry says of Elisha,
"He was a man of great power; he could make iron to
swim, contrary to its nature; God's grace can thus raise
the stony iron heart, which is sunk into the mud of
this world, and raise up affections naturally earthly to
things above." Here apparent and real causation are
expressed in the same language, and one is used to illustrate
the other. He says of Naaman, ''His being cleansed by
washing put an honor on the law for cleansing lepers."
He says of Elisha, '' He cast the salt into the spring of the
waters, and so healed the streams and the ground they
watered. Thus the way to reform men's lives is to renew
their hearts ; let those be seasoned with the salt of grace,
for out of them are the issues of life." Here, too, are the
elements of a typical comparison. As Elisha, by casting
in salt, healed the fountains of water, so God by his grace
heals the fountains of spiritual life in the soul. In this
case there is on one side apparent, on the other real causa-
tion, similarly expressed. Scott says that at Marah a tree
was pointed out to Moses, " by means of which the waters
became sweet and wholesome." Henry says, " The Jews'
tradition is, that the wood of this tree was itself bitter, yet
it sweetened the waters of Marah; so the bitterness of
Christ's suffering and death alters the property of ours."
SEQUENCES OF APPARENT CAUSATION. 383
Here again apparent and real causation are expressed alike,
and one is used to illustrate the other. Of Elisha, Henry
says, " He was possessed of Elijah's power of dividing the
Jordan." Also, speaking of '' the influence which the
rod of Moses had upon the battle with the Amalekites,"
he says, "to convince Israel that the hand of MoSes (with
whom they had just now been chiding) contributed more to
their safety than their own hands, his rod than their sword,
the success rises and falls, as Moses lifts up or lets down
his hands."
Again, comparing Moses and Elijah, he says, "As Moses
with his rod divided the sea, so Elijah with his mantle
divided Jordan." With reference to the passage of the
Jordan under Joshua, he says, " These waters of old yielded
to the ark, now to the prophet's mantle."
In some of the preceding examples, when no comparison
is formed, it will be seen that the strongest language of real
causation is used to describe sequences which are known to
be entirely devoid of causation. In the last comparisons the
sequences on both sides are those of apparent causation.
CHAPTER V.
USE OF LANGUAGE IN DESCRIBING APPARENT
CAUSATION IN TYPES.
Under the general laws of language as to sequences of
apparent causation comes that which it is my main purpose
at this time to consider. I refer to typical sequences with-
out any causative power, but established merely for the
purpose of illustrating other sequences, in which there is
real causation. Such sequences are merely typical sequences.
They have no foundation in the nature of things. I do
not mean to assert, of course, that a sequence in which
there is real causation cannot be a type, but only that
there were sequences that had no causative power, and were
therefore merely typical. They were merely positive insti-
tutions for typical purposes. In the acts of David as king,
in which he was a type of Christ, I do not deny that he
exerted real and causative power ; as, for example, in defend-
ing the people of God and defeating their foes. In other
cases, however, if they were not established for the sake of
making a type, the sequences Avould not have existed at all,
for they have no foundation in the existing nature of things.
A sequence of this kind I call a merely typical sequence ;
it is a sequence of merely apparent causation, established for
the sake of a typical illustration of another sequence of i^ea]
causation.
In this case the same laws of language exist as in any
APPARENT CAUSATION IN TYPES. 885
other sequence of apparent causation; that is, the lan-
guage of real causation is used. It is the more important
to observe this, inasmuch as a neglect of these laws is the
main cause of the misinterpretation of the passage in ques-
tion.
For example, God ordained that after certain sacrifices
sms should be remitted. This is a sequence of merely
apparent causation, for it is impossible that the blood of
bulls and of goats should take away sins. But when the
sacrifice of Christ is followed by the remission of the sins of
the believer, the causation is real. Moreover, the first
of these sequences was established for the sake of fore-
shadowing the second. It is, therefore, a merely typical
sequence.
God also ordained that the sprinkling of the blood of the
paschal lamb on the door-posts of the houses of his people
should be followed by exemption from the stroke of the
angel of death. Here, too, the blood had no causative
power to save. It was a sequence established to illustrate
the^ power of Christ's blood to avert the blow of divine jus-
tice. Yet of this blood Scott uses the following remarkable
language : ' ' The blood of the paschal lamb, sprinkled on
the lintel and door-posts, was the only security to the
Israelites from the destroyer who smote the Egyptians ; and
under that 'protection they must abide during the whole
night, if they would be secured from destruction. Thus
must we abide in Christ by faith to the end of our days."
In like manner the sacred writers habitually speak accord-
ing to the appearance of things ; and express a typical
sequence, in which no causation exists, by the same terms
in which they express a sequence of real causation in the
antitype. Accordingly, the Mosaic sacrifices are said, in the
word of God, times without number, to take away sins, to
33
386 CONFLICT OF AGES.
make atonement for sins, to confer tlie pardon of sins, &c. ,
the very modes of expression that are used in describing tht
effects of the elTicient atoning power of the blood of Christ.
For example, the man who was guilty of fraud as to a trust
or in fellowship, or of violent robbery, or of deceit, or of ap-
propriating what had been found and was known to belong to
another, and swearing falsely to conceal it, was commanded
first to make restitution, and then to bring a ram as a tres-
pass offering unto the priest, and then the following une-
quivocal language is used: "And the priest shall make
atonement for him before the Lord ; and it shall be forgiven
him for anything of all that he hath done in trespassing
therein." (Lev. 6 : 1 — 7.) The same kind of language is
repeated, in various cases, in the preceding chapter. This
usage of language is most impressively exhibited in the six-
teenth of Leviticus, in the account of the great annual
expiation made by the High Priest in the holy of holies for
the whole people, by the sprinkling of blood upon and
before the mercy-seat. He is expressly said to make atone-
ment, by the sacrifice of the scape-goat, for himself, and
for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel,
and to take away all their iniquities, as fully as this is ever
said to be done by the atonement made by the blood of
Christ, of which this great annual expiation was the most
striking type.
I am aware that Socinus and others have asserted that
the Mosaic sacrifices were offered only for certain lighter
offences and sins of ignorance, but not for sins in general.
In reply to them, Turretin, referring to the passages just
quoted, and to numerous others, clearly proves that they
were offered for sins in general, even of the most atrocious
kind. He asks, "When God, in Lev. 16, mentions ini-
quities and ?^ebeUio?is, nay, all their sins, does he mean
APPARENT CAUSATION IN TYPES. 387
only infirmities and sins of ignorance ? No sane man can
belie vo it." He shows that the sins for which these sacri-
fices were ofiered were designated by the same names as
the greatest and most intentional and voluntary sins, and
then adds, " Since the sins for which these sacrifices were
offered are expressed by all these names, without any
restriction, — nay, since the expiation is expressly extended
to all sins, of whatever kind, — he would do injustice to the
Holy Spirit who should limit them to sins of a particular
kind." (Turretin, Disp. xix. on the atonement of Christ, ^
9 and 4.) He also freely speaks of these sacrifices as mak-
ing atonement for all these sins, in language as full as is
ever used concerning the atonement of Christ ; and he
adverts to the same use of language in the Scriptures.
The substitution of the victim, the imposition of hands,
the confession of sins, the shedding of blood, the depreca-
tion of divine anger, and the efiects of the whole transaction,
he refers to as proving that by these sacrifices an atone-
ment for real and great sins was made. "For," says he,
"if the sacred rites were duly performed, and the victim
was declared to be accepted, and to be a sweet-smelling
savor, then the consequences were the forgiveness of sins
and the liberation of the criminal. Hence, repeatedly you
may read in Lev. 4, 5, &c., 'the priest shall make atone-
ment for him, and his sins shall be forgiven.'" (Disp. xviii.
<§> 7.) He also illustrates this view by a reference to cases
in which it is said that an atonement was in fact made and
accepted, and God appeased by it (Disp. xix. § 6), and then
adds, "Thus, in innumerable other cases, as often as the
anger of God against the sins of men is appeased by sacri-
fices^ so often is it intimated that these sacrifices are offered
not for some particular and lighter sins, but for all in gen-
eral, unless in any case particular exceptions are made in
CONFLICT OF AGES.
the law." The existence of some such specially exempted
cases he admits.
Yetj in other places, the same Turretin no less distinctly
declares that these sacrifices had no power to purify the
conscience by a real atonement, or by any real efl&ciency to
take away sin. He expressly states and proves the follow-
ing proposition: ''The victims and sacrifices of the law
neither expiated nor could expiate any sin, properly speak-
ing ; they could only expiate certain corporeal and ceremo-
nial impurities." (Disp. xix. § 18.)
Hence he says, " There are various modes of speaking
concerning these victims that seem to be contradictory ; for
at one time it is denied that they have the power of atoning
for sins, and at another time it is asserted. But these state-
ments are easily reconciled by making this distinction : we
deny to them the power of expiation considered in them-
selves and in their relations to the law ' ' (that is, the causa-
tion is merely apparent) ; " but we ascribe it to them viewed
as connected with Christ in the covenant of grace, and in
their relations to the mysteries of the gospel, of which they
were the types and representations." (Disp. xix. § 26.)
That is, viewing them as types, we use this language just as
if the causation were real, though in fact it is in Christ only.
All, then, that I have stated, concerning the laws of
typical language, is, in fact, recognized by Turretin, and
would be true if it were not. There was in the sacrifices a
merely typical sequence, designed to represent a real and
causative sequence, effected by the atonement of Christ;
but the language used to describe each sequence was the
same, so that, although the sacrifices had no power to make
atonement for sins, yet, as types of the great atonement,
they were again and again said to make such atonement.
A very striking case of a similar sequence of apparent
APPARENT CAUSATION IN TYPES. 389
causation is found in the history of the rebellion of Korah.
(Num. 16 : 46, 47.) Wrath had gone out from the Lord,
and the plague had begun. Moses said to Aaron, Go, " take
a censer, and fire, and incense, and make an atonement for
them. And Aaron ran into the midst of the people, and
behold the plague was begun ; and he put on incense and
made an atonement for the people, and he stood between the
dead and the living, and the plague was stayed."
On this Scott says, " This success was a decisive proof
of the efficacy of his priesthood." " By his burning of
incense the plague was instantly stayed." "In this he
was an eminent type of Christ, and his intercession, by
which his atonement is rendered effectual to our salvation."
Here is a striking typical illustration of the kind which 1
am describing. On one side is a merely typical sequence,
devoid of causative power ; on the other, a causative sequence
of real and glorious power. Yet God says that Aaron
made atonement, and the plague was stayed. Concerning
this same scene, Henry says, "The cloud of Aaron's
incense, coming from his hand, stayed the plague." Yet
did he suppose that there was in the incense any real
power to heal so fatal a pestilence ? It ought here to be
attentively noticed, that as now by incense, so in the case
of the passover by the sprinkling of blood on the door-
posts in Egypt, temporal death was averted. But by
Christ's blood and intercession spiritual death is averted.
But, when sacrifices aiid incense are said to atone for sin,
does the language ever mislead an intelligeixt reader 7 He
knows that blood and incense cannot thus atone. He
knows equally well that there is no power to remit sins but
in the great atoning sacrifice of Christ, and that the remis-
sions following Mosaic sacrifices were, in fact, efiected by
the power of that great atonement, as foreseen.
33*
890 CONFLICT OF AGES.
Indeed, this use of causative language is so natural that
we fall into it spontaneously and abundantly. For ex-
ample, though we know that a brazen serpent had no po-wer
to heal one who had been bitten by a venomous fiery
serpent, yet we as naturally speak of the serpent lifted up
by Moses as healing those who looked to it as we do of
Christ as healing those who look to him. Scott says, " The
sight of the brazen serpent healed the people." Henry
says, " That which cured was shapen in the likeness of that
which wounded." ' ' A serpent of brass cured them. " ' ' Jesus
Christ came to save us by healing us, as the children of
Israel that were stung by fiery serpents were cured and
lived by looking up to the brazen serpent." Peers, speak-
ing of this type, says, "The tremulous eye of infancj^, or
the feeble sight of old age, if only directed to its proper
.object, alike experienced its salutary energy ; and the
obscure and imperfect faith of those whose natural faculties
may be insufiicient to comprehend the mysteries of the
kingdom, or even to explain the nature of their belief, yet
if humbly directed to the author of life, shall experience
his poicer to save equally with their more highly-gifted
brethren." '• As each sufferer must himself look to the
brazen serpent/or his cure^ so must every repenting sinnei
believe (in Christ) for salvation." Yet he well knew, foi
so he says, that the healing efficacy was not in the serpent
but in God. Newton says, " From guilt and condemnatioi
there is no relief, till we can look to Jesus, as the woundeo
Israelites did to the brazen serpent ; which was not to give
efficacy to medicines and plasters of their own application,
but to heal them completely of itself by looking at it.'''
Yet he knew that in reality it had of itself no healing
power. No stronger language can be used to denote a
causative sequence than is here used to denote a sequence
APPARENT CAUSATION IN TYPES. 391
not causative, but merely typical. Edwards says. "The
way that the people were saved by the brazen serpent was
by looking k, it, beholding it, as seeking and expecting sal-
vation from it. And faith and trust in the Messiah are
often spoken of as the great condition of salvation through
himP Calvin saj^s, "Christ was to be lifted up that all
might look to him. Of this there was a type in the brazen
serpent lifted up by Moses, the ^ight of which was a sav-
ing cure for those who were mortally wounded by the bite
of serpents." Turretin says, " If a living serpent bit
any one, a dead serpent cured him, and that merely by the
sight of it." Yet elsewhere he says that neither the ser-
pent nor the act of looking to him had any healing power.
He then asks, "Why was the serpent lifted up as a
remedy for the wounds of Israel ? Why did a sight of
it heal 7 ' ' He answers, - ' Because the serpent was a divinely-
ordained type of Christ, and his power to heal the wounds
of sin." Doddridge, in his paraphrase, says. " As Moses
lifted up the brazen serpent on a pole in the wilderness, tc
heal those that were dying by the venom of the fiery
serpents there, so also must the Son of Man be first lifted
up on a cross, and then publicly exhibited in the preaching
of the gospel, that sinners may receive by him a far more
noble and important cure.''''
I quote thus largely in order to make the laws of lan-
guage in such cases familiar, and could easily multiply cases
from the usages of language concerning other types. But
what I have quoted must be sufficient. In this last case,
two things are deserving of very particular notice. One,
that a typical sequence, not implying causative power, is
expressed in precisely the same way as the causative
sequence which it typified. The other, that the type
relates to the healing of the body, the antitype to the heal-
392 CONFLICT OF AGES.
ing of the mind, just as the sprinkling of blood in Egypt
and the incense of Aaron related to averting temporal
death, but the blood and intercession of Christ to averting
spiritual and eternal death, in accordance with the analogy
established by God between things material and things
spiritual.
Let us now review what has been proved. It has been
shown,
1. That nothing is more common than the existence in
types of sequences of apparent causation, established foi
purposes of typical illustration.
2. That these, in common with all other sequences of
apparent causation, are both in scriptural and in commoij
usage described in the very language that is used to denote
real causation.
It follows that, if in the case of any type there is a valid
objection to admitting a sequence of real causation, we have
a perfect right in interpretation to assume that the language
denotes a sequence of apparent causation.
That the justice and honor of God forbid a sequence of
real causation in the case of Adam, has, I think, l)een shown,
and will more fully be shown. The inference is self-evident.
CHAPTER VI.
APPLICATION OF THE PRECEDING PHINCIPIES
TO E 0 M . 5 : 12—19.
I COME now to apply the principles whicli have been
illustrated to the passage which is the main subject of our
present consideration. The passage in question is as fol-
lows : "12. Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the
w^orld, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned. 13. (For until the law, sin was in
the world ; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even
over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if
through the offence of one many be dead, much more the
grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man,
Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16. And not as
it was by one that sinned, so is the gift. For the judgment
was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many
offences unto justification. 17. For if by one man's offence
death reigned by one ; much more they which receive
abundance of gracC;^ and of the gift of righteousness, shall
reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18. Therefore, as by the
offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemna-
tion, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came
394 CONFLICT OF AGES.
upon all men unto justification of life. 19. For as by one
man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by tbe
obedience of one sball many be made righteous."
So far as tbe relations of Adam to his race are con-
cerned, this passage, as it stands, asserts (v. 12) that by
one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and
so (that is, by one man) death passed upon all men, for
that all have simied ; v. 15, through the offence of one
the many have died ; v. 16, the judgment was by one to
condemnation ; v. 17, by one man's offence death reigned
by one ; v. 18, by the offence of one, judgment came upon
all men to condemnation; v. 19, by one man's disobedi-
ence the many were made sinners.
Tholuck refers to Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Grotius,
as taking the expression "all have sinned," in v. 12, to
mean "all have been treated as sinners." He also con-
cedes that the original words n^vrfi iau^wv may have that
sense, and so does Professor Stuart. Storr and Bloomfield
adopt it. Knapp also gives to the v^'ord hftuQuu (sin) the
sense, " the guilt of sin," and Schleusner " the guilt and
punishment of sin." These judicial senses of these words
are still further authorized by the highest authority, as will
appear hereafter.
Accordingly, I shall take the expressions "all have
sinned," v. 12, and "many were made sinners," v. 19, to
mean " were made liable to penalty as sinners ;" and " sin,"
V. 12, to mean " liability to penalty as a sinner." Thus
understood, these verses coincide in idea with the statement
of verse 16, that "the judgment was by one to condemna-
tion;" and of verse 18, that "by the offence of one judg-
ment came upon all men to condemnation."
It is plain also that the sinful act of Adam, and the con-
demnation that followed it, are set forth as, in a general
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. 395
view, typical, by way of similitude and antithesis, of the
righteousness of Christ, and of the justification of believers
thereby.
The main questions in the interpretation of this passage,
thus viewed, are, what is the import of the condemnation
or judgment on the human race which is said to be by the
offence of Adam, and what is the real connection between
Adam's sin and this condemnation or judgment ; — is it
causative, or only typical ?
In reply to these inquiries, I say, in view of the prin-
ciples already set forth, that when a certain sinfiil act of
Adam, and its sequences, condemnation and death, are set forth
as antithetically typical of the righteousness of Christ, and its
sequences, justification and life, there is good reason for
insisting that the sequence in the case of Adam does not
involve a causative power. It should clearly be regarded as
merely typical, and not causative. Moreover, the fact that
the sequence to the righteousness of Christ is spiritual, — that
is, eternal life, — is no proof at all that the typical sequence
to the sin of Adam is not natural, — that is, corporeal death,
— in accordance with the same laws of analogy which we see
observed in the case of bodily wounds healed by the brazen
serpent, as a type of mental wounds healed by Christ. On
these principles, the sequences would stand thus : As by the
transgression of one (Adam) condemnation and natural death
came on all naturally related to him, so by the righteous-
ness of one (Christ) justification and eternal life came on
all spiritually related to him.
The passage, thus viewed, simply teaches that Adam was
a typical person ; and that his transgression, and the events
consequent thereon, were so arranged as to be typical
events ; and accordingly were so ordered by God that the
condemnation of the race to death for his offence, and its
396 CONFLICT OF AGES.
sequences, should, both by way of similarity and also of
antithesis or contrast, be a striking foreshadowing of the
justification and life of all who trust in the great Saviour,
by whom the church was to be redeemed out of our race ;
and that what is said to be done by Adam, or by his
offence, to his posterity, denotes a merely typical sequence,
and not a sequence of causation.
Let us, then, consider more in detail the truth of these
statements.
First, then, as to the typical character of Adam, it is
asserted in express terms. He is said to be a type of him
who is to come {rvnos xov fiillovToi^ ; that is, of Christ. Nor
is this the only place, as we shall see, where this typical
character is asserted or assumed.
His typical character is, in this passage, developed by
points of similarity, modified and limited by points of con-
trast. Let us first consider the points of similarity.
1. One point of similarity lies in the fact that in each
case there is unity of headship in reference to those related
to each. God might, if he had seen fit, have introduced the
human race into tliis world by many heads. But, if he had
done so, then it would not have foreshadowed the one great
redeeming head of the church, who was to come. Hence he
introduced them by one head. For this reason, Adam is
prominently set forth as the one who is the sole head of his
natural posterity, and thus, as a type of Christ, as the one
who is the sole head of believers in him. On this unity of
headship, in each case, the whole comparison turns. As by
ONE came condemnation and death, so by ONE came justifi-
cation and life.
2. In each case the relations of each head were not
"limited and national, but catholic, extending to men of all
nations. The pride of the Jews conceived of a Messiah
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES. 897
whose highest favors should be pecuharly and exclusively
their own. As a conquering king, he was destined to exalt
their nation above all others. This exclusive idea Paul
rebuts by saying that, as the first Adam (the type) was
not national in his relations, but universal, — as through
him all men were sentenced to natural death, — so must the
second Adam be the universal head and Saviour of all men
of all nations who believe in him, justifying alike all who
believe, — making, in this respect, no distinction between
Gentile and Jew.
3. Another point of similarity is that in each case there is
a judicial act in consequence of what is done by each head.
This idea enters deeply into the whole structure of the pas-
sage, from beginning to end. The preceding discussion of
Paul relative to the effects of the atonement of Christ had
been judicial. Justification is a judicial act, flowing from
something done by Christ, the antitype. So also is con-
demnation a judicial act, flowing from something done by
Adam, the type. The entire spirit of the passage is judi-
cial. It speaks of acquitting and condemning, and not of
making holy or sinful ; and, as before remarked, the judicial
act flowing from the conduct of each head extends to all
connected with him. Condemnation and death, flowino;
from Adam's act, extend to all men. Justification and life,
flowing from Christ's act, extend to all of whom he becomes
the head by faith. There is, therefore, in each case a judi-
cial sequence, of which the reality is asserted ; while it is of
necessity clear that there is no efficient causation in the
case of the type. Such are the points of similarity.
The points of dissimilarity and contrast, by which these
are modified and limited, are,
1. That the action of one head was sinful ; of the other,
righteous.
84
398 CONFLICT OP Ages.
2. That the judicial act in one case was just condemna-
tion ; in the other, gracious acquittal.
3. That in one case the result of the judicial act was the
penalty of natural death ; in the other, the free gift of spir-
itual and eternal life. This I shall more fully prove.
4. That the acquittal greatly transcends in the results of
grace the results of the condemnation, inasmuch as it justi-
fies and confers eternal life notwithstanding many sins,
whereas the condemnation was based on one sin and resulted
in natural death.
Now, if this is the true view of the passage, it decides
nothing but this, respecting our relations to Adam, and his
influence on the race, namely, the fact that the sentence of
condemnation to natural death which was passed on him
when he sinned was intended to include, and from age to
age actually to come upon, the whole human race ; and that
accordingly such have been, and ever will be, the sequences
of his act of sin. But any efficient or causative power of
Adam's act to produce such results it does not imply. For,
as we have seen, the use of causative language in typical
sequences by no means implies any causative power, but
merely a sequence established by God for the sake of illus-
tration and impression. And certainly, in the present case,
the actual preexistent sin of the human race, each for him-
self, is a rational ground for passing such a sentence ; but
the single sin of the first man, a sin in which they neither
did or could act at all, is not either a reasonable or just
ground of such a sequence.
CHAPTER VII.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES.
I HAVE mentioned, as worthy of notice, that the judicial
view of this passage, independently of what I have just
said of the nature of typical sequences and the interpreta-
tion of language applied to them, excludes the interpreta-
tion which is so common among the New School divines
who deny imputation, namely, that the sin of Adam ex-
erted an influence to make all men actual sinners, or that
all men are caused to become actual sinners in consequence
of it.
The Old School divines teach, that, whether the sin of
Adam made all men actual sinners or not in fact, at all
events, this passage does not teach that doctrine. If to any
this seems to be a surprising and dangerous position, to such
I would say that it is nevertheless the openly-avowed posi-
tion of those who are in the highest repute for orthodoxy,
and Avho consider themselves as peculiarly devoted to its
vindication and defence. As this is a very important point,
I will state an outline of the course of reasoning pursued by
Prof Hodge, designing to avail myself not only of the
weight of his authority, but of his logical and exegetical
power, to sustain the judicial view of the passage which I
have given, and all its legitimate consequences.
The main scope of his argument is to prove that through-
400 CONFLICT OF AGES.
out tliis passage; " the very point and pith of the com
parison " are not this, — that, as the sin of Adam was th*i
cause of a corrupt nature in us, or of our actual sin and
entire depravity, so the obedience of Christ is the cause of
the restoration to us of true holiness, either in nature or in
action; — but this, — that, as through the sin of Adam a con-
demning sentence was passed upon all men, so, through the
obedience of Christ, a sentence of acquittal or justification
is passed on all who trust in him. In accordance with this
view, he holds that in verse 12 the words " by one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," do not refer
to actual sin, or a corrupt nature, but to the great fact that
through the sin of Adam all men were rendered liable to
the same sentence of death which was passed on Adam.
He thus states the different views of leading authors on this
point :
^'1. Many, not only of the older, but also of the modern
commentators and theologians, understand sin here to mean
corruption ; so Storr, Flatt, Bretschneider, &c. This
clause, then, teaches that Adam was the cause of the cor-
ruption of our nature, which all men have derived from him.
2. Others, taking the word sin in its ordinary signification,
understand the passage as teaching that Adam vms the
cause or occasion of all meiTb s being led to commit "personal
or actual sin, either from the force of example or circum-
stances, or divine constitution. 3. Others understand the
declaration that ' through Adam all men became sinners ' to
mean that on his account all men are regarded a?id treated
as sinner's J ^
He then proceeds to state the arguments against the first
and second opinions, and in favor of the third. Against the
first he reasons as follows :
APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 401
''1. It assigns a very unusual, if not an unexampled
sense to the words, — the word rendered have become cor-
rupt not occurring elsewhere with this signification. 2. It
destroys the analogy between Christ and Adam. The
point of the comparison is not^ ' As Adam was the source
of corruption, so is Christ of holiness ; ' but, ' As Adam was
the cause of our condemnation, so is Christ of our justifica-
tion.' 3. It is inconsistent with the meaning of vs. 13, 14,
which are designed to prove that the ground of the univer-
sality of death is the sin or offence of Adam. 4. It would
require us, in order to preserve any consistency in the pas-
sage, to put an interpretation on vs. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,
which they will not bear. Although the sentiment^ there-
fore^ is correct and scriptural^ that tee derive a corrupt
nature from Adam^ as it is also true that Christ is the
author of holiness, yet these are not the truths which
Paid is here hnmediately desirous of presenting ^
His objections to the second view are presented in the
form of arguments for the third. The main course of argu-
ment I approve, but not every particular argument.
1. The words translated ''sin,'"' and "have sinned," in
V. 12, may, in strict accordance with scriptural usage,
have the tense of liability to condemnation, or penalty, or
of becoming liable to penalty, so as to be regarded and
treated as sinners. On this point his argument is clearly
conclusive. It is as follows :
•' The word translated have sinned ma;y, in strict accord-
ance with usage, be rendered have become guilty, or
regarded and treated as sinners. Gen. 44 : 32 is in
Greek, 'I shall have sinned ' (JiuugTi]y.a)i acxouut^, which ex-
presses the same idea as the English version of the passage ;
' I sliall bear the blame to my father forever,' that is, ' I
shall always be regarded as a sinner.' The same phrase
34^-
102 CONFLICT OF AGES.
occurs, 43 : 9, 'Then let me bear the blame,' the precise
idea of being regarded as a sinner ; 1 Kings 1 : 21, 'I and
my son Solomon shall be sinners.' that is, regarded and
counted as such. In our version, therefore, it is correctly
rendered, ' Shall be counted offenders.' (In Greek, tooauk
lyco y.ul, X. t. I. 'u,fmQTMloL) In Job 9 : 29, ' If I be Avicked'
is the opposite idea to 'thou will not hold me innocent,' v.
28, and therefore means, 'If I be condemned or regarded
as wicked.' Indeed, there is no usage more familiar to the
student of the Bible than one nearly identical with this.
' He shall be clean,' ' he shall be unclean,' ' he shall be
just,' ' he shall be wicked,' are expressions constantly
occurring in the sense of ' he shall be so regarded and
treated.' (See Storr's Observatimies. p. 14.) The inter-
pretation, therefore, which has been given of these words,
instead of being forced or unusual, is agreeable to one of
the most common and familiar usages of scripture language.
Even Wahl, in his Lexicon, so explains them, ' uffuQTdto),
to bear the blame of sin, Rom. 5 : 12, coll. v. 19, ubi
InagTMloi y.aTf-aTd(}i]i>. Ita Lxx. et ^r*?, Gen. 44 : 32.'"
His argument on the expression were tnade sinners (v.
19) is as follows :
" It is in accordance with one of the most familiar of scrip-
tural usages that the words to make sinners, are inter-
preted as meaning to regard and treat as such. This
interpretation, which is demanded both by the usage of the
terms employed (see on Rom. 8 : 4) and the antithesis in
this verse, is now almost universally adopted by all classes
of commentators. (See Wahl's Lexicon under the word
IfjixQi'ta.^ Thus, to make clean^ to make unclean^ to make
righteous, to make guilty^ are the constant scriptural ex-
pressions for regarding and treating as clean, unclean,
righteous or unrighteous. (See on v. 12.)
APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 403
"The expressions, to make sin, and to make i^ight-
eousness, occurring in a corresponding sense, illustrate and
confirm this interpretation. Thus, in 2 Cor. 5 : 21, Christ
is said to be ' made sin,' that is, regarded and treated as a
sinner, ' that we might be made the righteousness of God in
him,' that is, that we might be regarded and treated as
righteous, in the sight of God, on his account. The word
(^yAiTfar^d-ijuup^ rendered ivere m^ade, in its ground form
signifies to place, and is often equivalent very nearly with
the simple verb to . be. James 4:4, ' "Whosoever, there-
fore, will be the friend of the world, is an enemy of God : '
see also 3:6. It also signifies to constitute in the sense
of appoi?itiug to office, Luke 12 : 14 ; Acts 7 : 10, &c.
&c. ; or in that oi tnaking a person or thing something.
In this case it may be rendered simply they are. ' By one
man's disobedience many are sinners, or are constituted
such, or are made such.'' The idea is the same. The
antithesis is here so plain as to be of itself decisive. ' To
be made righteous' is, according to Prof Stuart, 'to be
justified, pardoned, regarded and treated as righteous.'
With what show of consistency, then, can it be denied that
' to be made sinners,' in the opposite clause, means to be
regarded and treated as sinners? If one part of the verse
speaks of justification, the other must speak of condemna-
tion."
2. In V. 12, a comparison is begun, which is resumed
and completed in vs. 18 and 19. " It will be seen that those
verses teach that 'judgment came Upon all men on account
of the oifence of one man ; ' that ' on account of the disobe-
dience of one man all were regarded as sinners.' To this
corresponds the plain declaration of v. 16, ' We are con-
demned for one offence.' If, then, these vei-ses express the
same idea with v. 12, as is freely admitted by Prof Stuart
404 CONFLICT OF AGES.
and others, we are forced to understand verse 12 an
teachings not the acknowledged truth that men are
actual sinners^ but that they have beeji treated as sinners
on account of one Tnan.^^
3. The connection of v. 12 with those which follow
demands this interpretation; for vs. 13, 14 are designed
to prove the assertion of v. 12 in the sense which is claimed,
and are inconsistent with any other sense.
4. It is assumed in vs. 15 — 19 that the truth of v. 12 has
been proved, in this sense, as a proper basis of reasoning
and illustration.
5. " This interpretation is required by the whole scope
of the passage and drift of the argument. The scope of the
passage, as shown above, is to illustrate the doctrine of jus-
tification on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, by a
reference to the condemnation of men for the sin of Adam.
Not only does the scope of the passage demand this view,
but only thus can the argument of the apostle be consist-
ently carried through. We die on account of Adam's sin,
v. 12 ; this is true, because on no other ground can the uni-
versality of death be accounted for (vs. 13, 14). But, if
we all die on Adam's account, how much more shall we
live on account of Christ (v. 15) ! Adam, indeed, brings
upon us the evil inflicted for the first great violation of the
covenant, but Christ saves us from all our numberless sins,
V. 16. As, therefore, for the offence of one we are con-
demned, so for the righteousness of one we are justified (v.
18). As on account of the disobedience of one we are
treated as sinners, so on account of the obedience of one we
are treated as righteous (v. 19). The inconsistency and
confusion consequent on attempting to carry either of the
other interpretations through, must be obvious to any atten-
tive reader of such attemnts."
APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 405
6. Scripture and experience confirm this intei'pretation.
7. It accords with the views of the Jews at the time of
the apostle and afterward.
8. "This interpretation, so far from being the offspring
of theological prejudice, or fondness for any special theory,
is so obviously the true and simple meaning of the passage
required by the context, that it has the sanction of theolo-
gians of every grade and class of doctrine. Calvinists,
Arminians, Lutherans, Rationalists, agree in its support.
Thus Storr, one of the most accurate of philological inter-
preters, explains the last words of the verse in the manner
stated above. ' By one man all are subject to death,
because all are regarded and treated as sinners ; that is,
because all lie under the sentence of condemnation.' The
phrase all have sinned (v. 12), he says, is equivalent to all
are constituted sinners (v. 19) ; which latter expression
he renders ' sie werden als Sunder angesehen and behan-
delt,' that is, they were regarded and treated as sinners.
See his Commentary on Hebrews, p. 636, 640, &c. (Flatt
renders these vwrds in precisely the same manner.) The
Rationalist Ammon also considers the apostle as teaching
that on the account of the sin of Adam all men are sub-
ject to death. (See Excursus C. to Koppe's Commentary
on the Ep. to the Romans.) Zachariae, in his Biblische
Theologie^ vol. vi. p. 128, has an excellent exposition of
this whole passage. The question of the imputation of
Adam's sin, he says, is this : ' Whether God regarded the
act of Adam as the act of all men, or, which is the same
thing, whether he has subjected them all to punishment on
account of this single act.' This, he maintains, the apostle
asserts and proves. On this verse he remarks, ' The ques-
tion is not here immediately about the propagation of a
corrupted nature to all m,e7i, and of the personal sins
406 CONFLICT OF AGES.
com/m,itted by all men^ but of imiversal guilt (Strafwiir-
digkeit, liabilitj to punishment), in the sight of God, which
has come upon all men ; and which Paul in the sequel does
not rest on the personal sins of men, but only on the offence
of one man, Adam (v. 16).' Neither the corriiptioyi of
nature^ nor the actual sins of men and their liability on
account of them, is either questioned or denied ; but the
simple stateinent is, that on account of the siii of Adam,
all m^en are treated as sinners. Zachariae, it must be
remembered, was not a Calvinist, but one of the modern
and moderate theologians of Gottingen. Whitby, the great
advocate of Arminianism, says, on these words, It is not
true that death came upon all men /or that or because all
have sinned, (ii/e contends for the rendering in whom,.)
For the apostle directly here asserts the contrary, namely,
that the death and the condemnation to it, which befell all
men, was for the sin of Adam only ; for here it is expressly
said that by the sin of one Tnan m^any died ; that the
sentence loas from one, and by one man sifuiing to con-
demnation ; and that by the sin of one death reigned by
one. Therefore, the apostle doth expressly teach us tha,t
this death — this condemnation to it — came not upon us
for the sin of all, but only for the sin of one ; that is, of
that one Adam in whom all Tnen die. (1 Cor. 15 : 22.)
Such extracts might be indefinitely multiplied from the most
various sources. However these commentators may differ
in other points, they almost all agree in the general idea,
which is the sum of the whole passage, that the sin of
Adam, and not their ow7i individual actual transgres-
sions, is the ground and reason of the subjection of all
7nen to the penal evils here spoken of. With what plau-
sibility can an interpretation commanding the assent of men
so various be ascribed to theory or philosophy, or love of a
APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 407
particular theological system ? IMay not its rejection with
more probability be attributed, as is done by Knapp, to
theological prejudice? Certain it is, at least, that the
objections against it are almost exclusively of a philosophical
or theological, rather than of an exegetical or philological
character."
That I do not agree with Prof Hodge in the extent of
meaning which he assigns to the word deaths is apparent
from -what I have previously said. On this point I shall
soon speak more at large. But this does not affect the
general question, whether the words sin^ to sin and to make
sinners^ in vs. 12, 19, are to be taken in the judicial sense,
as he asserts, or in one of the senses which he opposes. In-
deed, many of those to Avhom he appeals as authorities in
behalf of the judicial sense of the terms restrict the words
die and death to natural death, in the passage in question.
Setting aside, therefore, this point, I regard it as plain that
Professor Hodge is right on the main question ; that is, he
is right in holding that the words 5m, to sin and to be
made sin7iers, in vs. 12 and 19, are to be taken, in the
judicial sense, to denote subjection to the condemning sen-
tence of the law violated by Adam, and a consequent lia-
bility to death, the penalty annexed ; and that to this reference
is had in the "judgment by one to condemnation " of v. 16,
and the " coming of judgment upon all men to condemna-
tion by the offence of one" of v. 18. Thus the main idea
of the passage is simply this : as through Adam came con-
demnation, so through Christ came justification.
As in this particular, therefore. I stand on oLi and gen-
erally-acknowledged ground, I do not feel that T need to
put forth any special efforts in its defence. So clear is the
evidence in favor of this mode of interpretation, and so ably
has it been developed by Professor Hodge and others, that I
408 CONFLICT OF AGES.
do not see any present demand for a new laborer in this
field.
At the same time, I do not admit the existence of any-
thing but a merely typical sequence in the case of Adam.
Though, so far as the form of the language used is con-
cerned, it may express a causative sequence, yet I adopt the
same principles of interpretation as I do when it is said by
Turretin that " a sight of the brazen serpent healed; '"' or
by Calvin, that "it was a saving cure for those who were
mortally wounded; " or by Edwards, that '' the people were
saved by the brazen serpent, by looking to it; " or when the
scripture says that sacrifices or incense atoned for sin. Such
language describes divinely-ordained sequences, according to
the appearance of things, and not according to such real laws
of causation as connect justification with faith in Christ.
And now, before I leave this part of the subject, I would
once more call special attention to the great fact, so often
and so clearly asserted by Professor Hodge, that, if the main
idea of the passage is what has been stated, then it does not
teach that " the sin of Adam was the occasion of our sins,
for which we are condemned" (p. 202); nor ''that the
ofience of Adam was the means of involving us in a multi-
tude of crimes, from which Christ saves us " (p. 203) ; nor
"that Adam's sin was the occasion of our sinning, and thus
incurring the divine displeasure" (p. 210) ; nor " that the
sin of Adam was the occasion of all men's being placed in
such circumstances that they all sin, and thus incur death "
(p. 199) ; nor " that, by being the cause of the corruption
of their nature, it is thus indirectly the cause of their con-
demnation " (p. 199, 200). On the other hand, such a
mode of interpretation " destroys the analogy, and causes
the very point and pith of the comparison to fail " (p. 185).
" That we have corrupt natures, and are personally sinners.
APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES.' 409
and therefore liable to other and further inflictions, is indeed
true, but nothing to the point." (p. 185.)
The force of the reasoning by which Prof Hodge sus-
tains these statements I fully admit. I regard it as
perfectly unanswerable against the idea that this passage
teaches that the sin of Adam was the cause either of our
actually sinning or of a corrupt nature in us. I, therefore,
most fully concede that which is so earnestly and ably
maintained by the highest Old School authority ; I concede
that, though it is true that we have corrupt natures, and are
personally sinners, and therefore liable to other and higher
inflictions, yet these things are not asserted in this passage
to have been caused by the sin of Adam, and that any such
assertion would be nothing to the poiiit of the argument, but
directly opposed to it. Moreover, I concede that leading
scholars of all parties confirm this view. But, if these things
are not asserted in this passage to have been caused by the
sin of Adam, then plainly they are not asserted to have been
caused by it at all, in any part of the word of God ; for
there is no other passage of scripture in which it can be
even pretended, with any show of plausibility whatever, that
these things are asserted. It appears, then, as the final
result of these well-sustained premises, that the doctrine
that our depraved natures, or our sinful conduct, have been
caused or occasioned by the sin of Adam, is not asserted in
any part of the word of God.
Nor is this result peculiar to the Old School Calvinists.
It is found, at least substantially, in one section of the
New England divines. I refer to Dr. Emmons, and
other advocates of the scheme of divine efficiency, so
called, wlio, with equal clearness, deny any causative power
of Adam's act to produce either a depraved nature or
actual sin. It is, according to them, a mere condition on
35
410 CONFLICT UF AGES.
which God suspended his decision, that he would exercise
his power in causing sinful volitions in all men from the
beginning of free agency. Moreover, it was God who
caused this condition itself to occur.
The theory of Prof. Hodge, Turretin and others of like
views, as to the real origin of human depravity, does not in
principle diifer from this view of Dr. Emmons. True, they
deny God's direct efficiency in causing sinful vohtions by
reason of Adam's sin ; but they do clearly teach that on
that ground he creates the soul without original righteous-
ness, and withdraws from it those divine influences which
are essential to prevent the corruption of nature and entire
sinfulness in action. According to each theory, therefore,
the sin of Adam exerted a direct influence, not on his pos-
terity, but on God. It caused him to change his mode of
action towards new-created minds, and thus directly or
indirectly to cause their depravity, either of action only, or
of nature and action both.
Moreover, the whole evidence even of this indirect influ-
ence of Adam's sin on his posterity, through God, is derived
solely from the sense which is attached to the word death
in this passage. It is assumed that it does not denote
merely natural death, but penal evils of all kinds, natural
and spiritual, temporal and eternal. Assuming this sense
of the word, they proceed to unfold, as above stated, how
God inflicts the penalty in this broad sense. The grounds
of this view claim a careful consideration.
CHAPTER VIII.
IMPORT OF THE WORD DEATH, IN ROM,
5: 12—19.
That the interpretation of the word death last referred to
— that is, as including the death of the soul — is not based
on any sound critical grounds, can be shown with great ease.
1. In the first place, that it is not its obvious sense is
plain from the fact that four centuries passed away, after
the epistle to the Romans was written, before the word was
ever here interpreted in this broad sense. Nor was that
sense ever adopted by the Greek church at all. Is it not to be
supposed that the Greek fathers were capable of judging
what was the true sense of so plain and so common a
word, as here used by a writer of Greek ?
2. In part of the passage natural death is plainly and
confessedly meant, as when it is said " death reigned from
Adam to Moses," and consistency demands the same sense
through the passage.
3. The facts referred to by Paul as recorded in the Old
Testament, and on which his reasoning is based, demand
this view. He refers to a certain typical transaction as well
known, and assumes, as terms of comparison, certain events.
These are recorded in Gen. ch. 2 and 3. Let us briefly
recapitulate them.
In Gen. 2 : 16, 17, is contained the law or rule of con-
412 CONFLICT OF AGES.
duct prescribed to Adam, allowing him in general to eat
of the trees of the garden, but forbidding him to eat of the
tree of knowledge of good and evil. The penalty threat-
ened, in case of disobedience, was death. On the day thou
eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.
In Gen. 3 : 6, 7, the specific act is related by which the
law was violated, called "the offence of one" and "one
man' s disobedience. ' ' After Eve had taken of the fruit of the
forbidden tree and eaten, she gave to Adam and he did eat.
This act of Adam is pointedly characterized in Rom. 5 : 16
as being one offence, in opposition to many offences ; and
in vs. 15, 17, 18, 19, as the offence of the one man, whose
grand peculiarity is, that he is the one through whom, as a
type of the coming Messiah, God was about to introduci
into this world the whole human race.
In Gen. 3 : 14 — 19, is narrated the passing of the sen-
tence on all the offenders. On the serpent eternal degra-
dation, eternal hostility between him and his seed, and the
woman and her seed, and final defeat, at the expense of
incidental suffering to the Messiah. On the woman, great
sorrow and pain in child-birth, increased dependence on man,
need of his aid, and entire subjection to him.
On man, a curse on the ground, rendering the support of
life more difficult and laborious ; and finally, natural or tem-
poral death, — "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou
return."
Thus, all parts of the penalty are minutely and fully
developed, without the remotest allusion to spiritual and
eternal death. In a transaction so plainly typical such a
penalty would have been out of place. At all events, the
import of the death threatened is here fixed. It denotes
merely natural death. Besides these, no facts are on record
as the basis of the comparison in Rom. 5 : 12 — 19. Paul
IMPORT OF THE WORD DEATH. 41S
refers, therefore, to these alone, and by reference to these
we must interpret his language.
It also appears that the sentence of death was intended to
include the race. The mode of address is, as Edwards well
remarks, as much suited to include the race as that in Gen.
1 : 27 — 29, which enjoins on Adam and Eve fruitfulness, sub-
jugation of the earth and rule over it, and confers on them
vegetables for food, — a mode of address which obviously in-
cludes the race. Moreover, all parts of the sentence, on both
Adam and Eve, come of necessity on men of all ages. The
curse on the ground reaches all generations ; for it began at
once, and has extended to this day. This part of the sen-
tence, then, was at that time denounced on all men, and
meets them in all ages. So pains of child-birth, need of the
aid of man, and subjection to him, come on all women in
all ages. Finally, natural death comes on all men in all
ages.
Hence, the words " offence " and "disobedience " refer to
one well-known act of one man, followed by a well-known
sentence, which sentence in its scope includes the whole
race, and is, in fact, executed on all. Hence ''the judg-
ment " and '' condemnation " relate to this well-known sen-
tence and condemnation, as left on record, and the death
referred to is natural death. In view of these facts, it is
plain that, in making out the parallel and antithesis
between Christ and Adam, a strict adherence to the Old
Testament required Paul merely to say that this particu-
lar, definite, well-known sentence came on all men in all
ages ; for the passage in Genesis actually means no more.
Hence his language ought not to be made to mean more, in
Rom. 5 : 12 — 19, than is involved in the facts to which he
refers. We ought to interpret "death " in Romans by the
sentence in Genesis ; and this says nothing of spiritual and
35*
414 CONFLICT OF AGES.
eternal death. It refers to temporal death, and that only.
The words are, " Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou
return."
The main argument for the extended sense of death (that
is, all kinds and degrees of penal evil) is taken from the
fact that on the other side of the antithesis life is taken in
the full and highest sense, and not to denote natural life.
But, as I have already abundantly shown, the type is often
in the natural world, and the antitype in the spiritual, as
when the brazen serpent healed bodily wounds caused by
serpents, as a type of Christ's healing the mental wounds
caused by sin and Satan ; or, as when deliverance from
natural death by the blood of the paschal lamb typified
deliverance from spiritual death. Indeed, the whole system
of material types is but a carrying out of this principle.
Hence, Edwards says, " Not only the things of the Old
Testament are typical, for this is but one part of the typi-
cal world. The system of created beings may be divided
into two parts, the typical world and the antitypical world.
The inferior and carnal, — that is, the more external and
transitory part of the universe, that part of it that is in-
choative, imperfect and subservient, — is typical of the
superior spiritual and durable part of it, which is the end,
and, as it were, the substance and consummation of the
other. Thus the material and natural world is typical of
the spiritual and intelligent world, or the city of God. And
many things in the world of mankind, as to their external
and worldly state, are typical of things pertaining to the
city and kingdom of God." Now, if this is so, and if natu-
ral life and death are typical of spiritual life and death, how
appropriate, how impressive, how worthy of God, to make
the sentencing of the whole human race to natural death
through the offence of Adam a type, by way of antithesis,
IMPORT OF THE WORD DEATH. 415
of the restoration of spiritual and eternal life, the justifi-
cation of all who believe in Christ !
In addition to this, it is clear, from 1 Cor. 15, that Paul
elsewhere looks on the sentence as denoting simply natural
death, and does not take the more comprehensive view.
'' For since bj man came death, by man came also the
resurrection of the dead. For as through Adam all die,
even so through Christ shall all be made alive." It is,
then, in perfect accordance with his habits of thought, that
Paul should in Romans also regard the sentence which
came through Adam as a sentence of natural death. There
is, therefore, in view of all that has been said, nothing
arbitrary or forced, or against the general practice of the
Scriptures, in this view. On the other hand, it is in perfect
accordance with the nature of things and the general prac-
tice of the Holy Spirit It is mierely a case of illustrating
spiritual things by things natural and material ; and need I
say that this pervades the Bible ? Natural health and life
and light on the one hand, and disease and death and dark-
ness on the other, are the standing scriptural illustrations
of spiritual health, life, light, or spiritual disease, death and
darkness. Nay, what is the whole Mosaic system of mate-
rial types, but a carrying out of this principle ?
If, then, as we have shown, the facts of the Old Testa-
ment demand this view, — if in a part of the passage the word
death clearly denotes natural death, — if this sense accords
with Paul's known habits of thought, and the prevailing
usage of the Bible in such cases, — there can be no doubt that
the view which I defend is true and unanswerable.
The passage, therefore, teaches nothing but the pronounc-
ing of a sentence of condemnation to natural death on all
men, through the sin of Adam, as a type and illustration,
4 \6 CONFLICT OF AGES.
both by similitude and antithesis, of justification and life
eternal through the righteousness of Christ.
To complete this view, however, it is necessary to
repeat the statement which I have already made, that, even
as it respects natural death, the sin of Adam exerted no
causative power to effect the condemnation of his race. It
did not involve them in any real guilt whatever, I admit,
indeed, without hesitation, that the established sequence of
condemnation and death on all men, from the one sin of the
one man Adam, is set forth in forms of language exactly
like those which denote the sequence of justification and
life from Christ, in whose acts there Avas causative power.
Nevertheless, I hold, on grounds already stated, that, accord-
ing to the laws of typical language, the sequence in one
case is merely typical and illustrative, and not causative ;
in the other, it is antitypical and causative. Adam no more
brought real guilt on his posterity than the brazen serpent
really healed those who looked at it, or sacrifices really
made atonement.
It is perfectly plain that, so long as the great laws of lan-
guage, which I have developed as pervading the Bible, and
the common usage of all interpreters and divines remain, it
is impossible to overthrow this position. For, if the strong-
est forms of language that can be used to denote causative
sequences are, as I have shown, abundantly applied to
denote sequences in which there is confessedly no causative
power at all, and if this is eminently so in typical
sequences, then plainly in the case of Adam, who is ex-
pressly declared to be a type of Christ, no causative power
can be proved by any mere forms of language, however
strong. They are not and cannot be stronger than those
forms which are applied to typical sequences in other
cases, in which there is no causation whatever.
IMPORT OP THE WOED DEATH. 417
I am now prepared to advance another step, and to say
that, even if the words sl?v, to sm, and to w>ake sinners,
in vs. 12 and 19, were to be taken in the sense claimed by
the New School divines, or others, as referring to actual
sin or a corrupt nature, still, even so, it would be impos-
sible to prove by this passage that the sin of Adam exerted
any causative power to produce sin or a corrupt nature in
his posterity. For, as I have shown, even in that case we
are abundantly authorized to interpret all the language of
causation as denoting merely a typical sequence of a cor-
rupt nature, or of sin and death after Adam's sin ; a
sequence devoid of causative power, and established by God
for the sake of illustrating the sequence of holiness, and
spiritual life from Christ's obedience, — a sequence in which
there is causative power.
Moreover, the just power of God to establish such typi-
cal sequences, on the system which I advocate, would origi-
nate from the fact that, in bringing into this world beings
already depraved, that from among them he might redeem
his church, he had a perfect right to introduce them, as he
did, by one man, and through him to establish such a
sequence of sin, and death in connection with his trans-
gression, as should by its typical power foreshadow and
predict the coming of that great ONE by whom the church
was to be redeemed. As to the principle of interpretation
involved, it matters not whether the sequence be as it is set
forth by the Old School divines or by the New.
At the same time, to my mind it is perfectly clear that
the real sequences are these : that through the sin of Adam
all men were condemned to natural death, as a type of the
justification of the church and her restoration to eternal life,
through the obedience of Christ.
This great antithetic comparison lies at the basis of the
418 . CONFLICT OF AGES.
whole passage. It is, however, as we have seen, modified
and rendered more striking by the apostle, in some respects,
bj pointing out certain particulars in which the antitype
greatly transcends the foreshadowings of the type, in its
inestimable gifts of grace and glory.
CHAPTER IX.
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.
Thus much, then, I think is clear, — that, so long as the
great scriptural laws of typical interpretation stand, no man
can be, with any propriety, condemned or censured for
understanding this passage in the sense which I have set
forth. Nor is this all. Reasons of great power exist for
its general adoption. Every form of the common view I
have shown to imply injustice and dishonor in God. On
the other hand, the whole view which we have taken of this
passage is deeply impressive, highly instructive, and in all
respects honorable to God. It is also in full accordance
with the spirit and practice of the inspired writers. This
will more plainly appear, if we now present this type in its
relations to the other early types with which it is con-
nected.
All of the events connected with the origin of this world
are by the inspired writers treated as types, looking for-
ward to the ultimate and glorious results of a new-created
moral system about to be produced by means of the natural
creation, and at the same time indicating the character of
the materials out of which that moral system should be
created.
The earth without form and void, and the darkness upon
the face of the deep, are employed by the apostle Paul (2
420 CONFLICT OF AGES.
Cor. 4 : 6) to symbolize the condition of disordered and
darkened minds such as those out of which a new creation
was to spring. As the spirit broods upon the abyss, and
the light beams forth at the word of God, we see shadowed
forth His action on the mass of ruined minds, and the truth
by which He operates. The harmony and beauty of the
completed natural creation strikingly symbolized the higher
symmetry and beauty of the new creation in the moral
world, — the new heavens and new earth, in comparison with
which the first shall not be remembered or called to mind.
(Is. 65 : 17, 18.) So, also, the formation of woman from
man typified the formation of the church from Christ ; her
union to Adam, the marriage of the church to Christ ; their
exaltation to the head of this natural system, the exaltation
of Christ and the church to the head of the universe. All
this the Bible plainly tells us. (Eph. 5 : 23—33. Rev.
3 : 21. Rom. 8 : 17, 29.) (See note, p. 423.)
Suppose, now, that in a preexistent state sin had entered
and a hostile kingdom had been established, and God cre-
ated this world in order to take out of that kingdom by
regeneration and atonement his church, and to destroy the
remainder, — how appropriate so to introduce the fallen race
into this world as to shadow forth their ruined state and the
great Redeemer of the church, — the great destroyer of
Satan !
They are already under sentence of condemnation, but he
is to acquit and save the church, and he is one. To typify
these things by similitude and antithesis, Adam, the head
of the race, is one; he sins, and a condemning sentence of
natural death passes on all his race. At last, the second
Adam appears ; he is one ; he perfectly obeys even unto
death, and by his obedience and death a gracious act of
pardon and eternal life come to all connected with him by
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 421
faith. What more appropriate, what in more perfect harmony
with the whole of the connected system of types, than this
view ? In particular the types of the natural creation, even
before Adam had been created or sinned, clearly indicate
the idea of ruin, already caused, to be repaired ; disorder
and confusion, already existing, to be restored to order
and symmetry ; a moral kingdom to be created out of the
elements of chaos. According to the view now given, the
same idea is carried out in the transactions in Eden. By
the sentence of temporal death through Adam, is typically
indicated the fallen condition of the materials of the future
race ; but it is so indicated as to point the eye to a coming
Redeemer, by whom unnumbered millions shall be restored.
Thus we no longer seem to open the history of earth in the
grave-yard of a newly-fallen world, but to hear a voice from
heaven proclaiming aloud, " Millions of souls already fallen
shall rise to endless life, and the reign of confusion and
death shall end. A great . deliverer shall come, through
whom unnumbered hosts of the fallen shall be justified, and
raised to reign on thrones of glory in everlasting life.
This system shall add no new sinner to the universe, but
millions already fallen it shall restore, and of those
who remain unreclaimed it shall forever destroy the malig-
nant power."
The foundation, then, of all the fatal errors which have
sprung out of this passage, is the assigning to the word
death a spiritual sense, and giving a causative power to a
typical sequence, designed merely to illustrate and enforce
truths already evolved and established, and not to be the
foundation of an immense system of scholastic theology.
The depravity of the human race Paul had already fully
and abundantly proved by its own appropriate evidence,
36
422 CONFLICT OF AGES.
and the great system of justification by faith in the Saviour
he had fully unfolded and established.
Enraptured with its glory, the thought strikes his mind,
that, even in the darkest hour, this glorious consummation
was fully before the divine mind, and was most strikingly
foreshadowed even in the opening scene of the great drama.
Through one man a condemning sentence fell on the whole
human race, and has ever since gone into execution, from
age to age. In all lands and over all generations death has
reigned. So, in glorious antithesis, through one has a sen-
tence of acquittal come to all who believe, and a free gift of
divine grace abounding to eternal life. For one oflfence
that sentence came and death reigned, but by this grace
offences innumerable are forgiven and endless life is restored.
All this is merely the amplification and enforcement of
striking truths by typical illustration. It is the very
genius and spirit of Paul. This part of the system he pene-
trated more deeply and illustrated more fully than any of
the sacred writers.
Does any one ask for another example in which Paul
attempts to illustrate and enforce a logical argument by
typical illustration 7 Turn to his epistle to the Galatians.
In ch. 3 and 4 he argues at length the great question of
justification by faith, and the release of Christians from the
Mosaic law ; and, having proved his points logically, he
illustrates and enforces by a type, taken from two wives of
Abraham, — one bond, the other free, — and their two sons,
the bondage of the system of Moses and the freedom of the
system of Christ. In his epistle to the Corinthians and
Ephesians, and especially to the Hebrews, he brings out
from his full stores abundant illustrations of this kind ; so
that nothing can be more after the manner of Paul than to
illustrate in this way.
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 428
And, noWj there is need of no force, no violence ; all ig
free, natural and easy, if we interpret the passage in this
way. Even without a very powerful reason in the nature
of things, this mode of interpretation would commend itself
as the most suitable and natural ; for it grows directly out
of the facts of the case, and out of the spirit of Paul.
But, when we look at the moral aspects of the case, the
evidence is augmented beyond all estimation. If the charac-
ter of God is of any value, if the division of the human
mind and of society against God and itself is any evil, and
if its perfect harmony with God is at all to be desired, then
are we not authorized and required utterly to reject an in-
terpretation at war with every principle of honor and right,
and to adopt one that removes every dark cloud from the
character of God, presents him in his true glory, and pre-
pares the way for a full reunion of the human race to him
in sweet and unmingled love 7
Note on page 420. — Compare these passages witli the remarks in the
last chapter on Heb. 2 : 7—9. 1 Cor. 15 : 27, 28. Eph. 1 : 22, 23.
CHAPTER X.
CASE OF MELCHISEDEC.
By reviewing the argument thus far, it will be seen that
the state of the case is this : That, according to the princi-
ples of equity and honor, the assumption that the sinfulness
and ruined condition of the human race were caused by the
sin of Adam is liable to unanswerable objections ; that it
has held its ground only by the force of a supposed assertion
of God ; but that, on closer examination, it appears that
there is no evidence that God has ever made such an asser-
tion. Of course, the assumption is left defenceless, to en-
counter the full weight of the reprobation of the principles
which it outrages, and to perish before them.
But there may be those whose associations have so long
connected a causative significance with the language concern-
ing Adam, that they cannot at once reduce it to a mere de-
scription of the appearance of things, as presented by a typical
sequence designed for an illustration and foreshadowing of the
coming Messiah. They may even be affected by it as if it
were a kind of irreverent treatment of the word of God,
adapted to enervate its force and empty it of its meaning.
If any feel thus, it can be only because they have with-
out reason based too great consequences on these words, and
have never been accustomed to notice how very common
and how highly approved is this very mode of interpretation
CASE OF MELCHISEDEC. 425
with reference to the language applied to other types. I
will illustrate my meaning by a single case. We will sup-
pose that things had taken such a course that a doctrine
which was regarded of fundamental moment had been
formed concerning Melchisedec, purporting that he was not
a mortal, but a self-existent and eternal person. We will
also suppose that on this doctrine great practical questions
depended.
Here great consequences would depend upon an unsure
basis ; and yet, so far as words are concerned, no doctrine
admits of easier and more irresistible proof Is it not ex-
pressly said of him (Heb. 7 : 3) that he is " without father,
without mother, without genealogy, having neither begin-
ning of days nor end of life, but abiding a priest forever,
like unto the Son of God "7 Is he not, v. 8, contrasted
with men who receive tithes and yet die^ as being one of
whom it is witnessed that he Uveth ? What can be
stronger than this language, so far as the form is concerned 7
And yet, the large majority of the most judicious comment-
ators hold that he was a mortal man, who had a father and
a mother, and was born and lived and died like other men.
On what principles, then, do they interpret this language,
so strong and so definite, so as to consist with these views 7
They adopt this principle, — that, since Melchisedec was a
type of the coming Messiah, the language of Paul concern-
ing him is to be interpreted as having reference to the
aj)pearance of things ^ as providentially ordered. It was
so ordered that there is on record no account of the parents,
birth, genealogy, life or death, of Melchisedec. As wo
look at the picture of him presented by the scripture, none
of these things appear on the canvas, and therefore as a
type he is spoken of as without them. This is but one in-
stance of the great law, that, in speaking of a large part of
126 CONFLICT OF AGES.
the types of the Bible, we regard merely the appearance of
things, and speak accordingly. Even if this view of the
statements of Paul is regarded by any as not correct in the
particular case of Melchisedec, it yet shows how clearly
the great body of interpreters recognize the truth of the
law itself Calvin, in his notes on Heb. 7: 3, states the
principles of interpretation in this case with his usual
brevity and felicity. " No doubt Melchisedec had parents ;
but Paul is not here looking at him as a private indi-
vidual, but as representing Christ. Therefore he allows
himself to see nothing in him except what is recorded in
the scripture. And, since the Holy Spirit introduces a most
distinguished king of that age, and says nothing concerning
his birth, and afterwards made no record of his death,
is it not, as it were, a figurative exhibition of his
eternal existence? But that which was thus shadowed
forth by Melchisedec exists in reality in Christ. There-
fore we should content ourselves with this common-sense
view, — that, whilst the scripture represents Melchisedec to
us as if it were delineating in a picture one who was never
born and never died, it implies that Christ has in reality
neither beginning nor end of existence. Here Melchisedec
is not considered in his private and personal character, but
only as a sacred type of Christ." He repeats the same
principles with reference to verse 8.
Barnes, in his notes, clearly sets forth and defends simi-
lar principles of interpretation. "There was no record
made of the name either of his father, his mother, or any
of his posterity. He stood alone. It is simply said that
such a man came out to meet Abraham, and that is the
first and the last that we hear of him and of his family."
Of the expression, " having neither beginning of days nor
end of life," he says, "The obvious meaning of the phrase
CASE OF MELCHISEDEC. 427
is, that in the records of Moses neither the beginning nor
the close of his life is mentioned. It is not said when he
was born, or when he died ; nor that he loas born, or that
he died.'" Further, he sajs that these facts would lead
those who should read Psalm 110 "to the conclusion that
the Messiah was to resemble Melchisedec hi some such
points as these?'' On v. 8, in which Melchisedec is con-
trasted with priests who die, as one ' • of whom it is wit-
nessed that he liveth," he says. '• the fair and obvious
meaning is, that all the record we have of Melchisedec is,
that he loas alive ; or, as Grotius says, the record is merely
that he lived. We have no mention of his death. From
anything that the record shows, it might appear that he
continued to live on, and did not die.'' Others, as
Kuinoel, refer the assertions of the passage rather to the
origin and close of the priestly life of Melchisedec, as left
without record ; but still they retain the same general prin-
ciple, that the apostle, in speaking of the typical appearance
of things, uses language which is expressive of the reality
of the things represented. Indeed, all who hold that Mel-
chisedec was a man, who was born, lived and died, as
other men, as Stuart, Bloomfield, Macknight, Rosenmiil-
ler, Scott, Henry, Doddridge, and, indeed, the great body of
commentators, are obliged to occupy this ground. Of this
opinion concerning Melchisedec, Stuart says that it "lies
upon the face of the sacred record in Gen. 14 and in Ileb.
7 ; and it is the only one which can be defended on any
tolerable grounds of interpretation."
Notice now the streno-th of this case. How clear is the
verbal statement that Melchisedec had neither father nor
mother, neither beginning of days nor end of life ; and that,
in contrast with dying men, he liveth and abideth a priest
continually. Yet, as he was a type, the main body of com-
i28 CONFLICT OF AGES.
mentators agree that he was a mere mortal man, who was
born and died like all others; and that the language is
taken from and designed to set forth merely the typical
appearance of the recorded events of his Hfe, so as to illus-
trate the great antitype whom God by these providential
arrangements in that early age foreshadowed.
In this case we have, although in another form, a striking
illustration and confirmation of the great principle that sus-
tains my exposition of the passage in Romans. It is that,
in speaking of typical sequences as if they were causative,
we speak according to the appearance of things. On the
same principle we speak of Melchisedec. Hence it is
evident that the same principle is at the bottom ot this
mode of speaking which I have set forth as underlying
other types, and which all men recognize in their common
modes of speech. We have seen how strongly numerous
writers have asserted that the brazen serpent healed those
who looked at it. Yet, in fact, it did not heal them at all ;
it only appeared so to do. Their language, therefore, ex-
presses the typical appearance of the case, as if it were a
reality. It expresses a sequence of apparent causation, as
if it were real causation. The same is true in those numer-
ous cases where sacrifices are said to make atonement for
sins. So. also, in the case of Adam.
Do I, then, evacuate the language concerning Adam of its
proper and scriptural force, when I apply to it this same
all-pervading and divinely-sanctioned principle ? Do I not
rather restore it, from a very injurious perversion, to its
proper and scriptural sense 7 Do I not again bring it into
a true harmony with the general analogy of the word of
God?
Nor on this ground will the language lose its proper
power and influence on the human mind. I'he typical sys-
CASE OF MELCHISEDEC. 429
tern of the Old Testament, bj its appeals to the imagination,
by its illustrative power, and by its prophetic significance, is
peculiarly adapted to interest and affect the mind. All ex-
perience shows it. Place this passage on the same ground
with the sacrifices, the brazen serpent, and other types, and
exclude from it all necessity of solving any absurd and im-
possible problem in morals, metaphysics or natural genera-
tion,— remove from it those dark shadows of injustice which
hang over it as it is commonly understood, — let it stand
simply as an early sublime and beautiful type of the coming
Messiah, — and it will have a joyous fulness of meaning, and
exert a thrilling moral power unknown and unimagined
before. No dense clouds of injustice will darken the
character of God, and involve the universe in lurid shades ;
but the sun of righteousness will be seen, in full-orbed glory,
pouring upon this dark world the refulgent rays of divine
wisdom and of redeeming grace !
CHAPTER XI.
THE COMPLETION OF THE PICTURE.
The training of the mind which fits for typical interpre-
tation has of late very extensively fallen out of use. It
may be a reaction caused by previous indiscretion and
excess. Yet, whatever its cause, it is an evil. It unfits us
for understanding Paul. Though he was a logician, he was
not a mere logician. He had an imagination also, and this
he used in vividly representing to himself the typical pic-
tures of the Old Testament. Upon these he gazed with
delight, just as we gaze on a picture, a statue, or any other
finished product of the fine arts. But his feelings were
deeper than any that such products of human skill can
cause ; for he saw in these pictures the products of divine
skill and foreknowledge, reflecting light even from amid the
darkness of the remotest antiquity upon those glorious pur-
poses of redeeming love, the magnitude and glory of which
filled, enraptured and overwhelmed, his soul. These great
purposes he developed on appropriate occasions by intellect-
ual processes which will bear the scrutiny of the keenest
logical analysis. Hence Paul has ever been the favorite of
logical, generalizing, systematizing minds.
But, when he undertook to pour the illuminating power of
his imagination upon these great truths by means of typi-
cal pictures, it was a process of entirely another kind.
THE COMPLETION OE THE PICTURE. 431
Such pictures were not made for logical analysis, but to be
gazed upon as a whole, and as merely illustrative pictures.
True it is that Paul reasons from these pictures. He did
so in the case of Melchisedec ; but he reasons from them as
from pictures. He reasons that that which, viewed as a
divine combination of acts or events, they foreshadow, must
exist, more fully and perfectly developed, in the antitype.
Calvin, in a happy hour, clearly saw and distinctly announced
these principles in the case of Melchisedec ; but they are
no less true and important in all similar cases. If any man,
then, would be a good interpreter of Paul, he must be able
to conceive of and to reproduce in himself the apostle's men-
tal habits, with reference to typical illustrations. He must
learn to look upon the Old Testament as Paul looked upon
it, and to reproduce in imagination all its scenes and parts
as he reproduced them. Nor must he, as some do, in a
patronizing way defend and excuse it, as the result of his
Rabbinical training, and fitted, perhaps, to benefit the Jews,
although to us, properly enough, it seems strange and un-
worthy of the serious notice of the logical minds of the emi-
nent scholars of the present age. Why should this par-
ticular mode of exercising the imagination be despised as
visionary and devoid of solidity, simply because it cannot be
reduced to the categories and syllogisms of Aristotle ? Has
the European world in general come to the conclusion that
similes, and metaphors, and comparisons, and other rhetori-
cal figures, for purposes of illustration and impression, are
of no practical utility ; and that they are unworthy of the
notice of logical minds, because they cannot be analyzed,
and stated in syllogistic form? Why, then, should that
exercise of the imagination by types, which inspiration has
peculiarly honored and sanctioned, be singled out for rejec-
tion and contempt ? On this subject there must be a reac-
432 CONFLICT OF AGES.
tion. Indeed, it has begun; for Olshansen has well
remarked, that "the elements of forgotten typology are
becoming more and more recognized, and cannot, consist-
ently with truly historical exposition, be overlooked in the
New Testament."
Moreover, in the able work of Fairbairn, — in my opinion
the ablest of the age on this topic, — we see some of the
mature results of this reactionary movement, caused, I can-
not doubt, by the returning influences of the divine spirit,
after the great continental apostasy.
The great thing, in a true interpretation of the passage
under consideration, if we would sympathetically feel the
force of all its parts, is, to reproduce in our minds the typi-
cal picture, upon which Paul gazed as he wrote, and in
which he saw foreshadowed the coming of the second Adam,
the great Redeemer of the human race. We shall then be
able to feel the force of the passage, even in its minutest
details. Let us, then, as completely as in the case of Mel-
chisedec, divest ourselves of the idea that we are approach-
ing the solution of any mere logical problem, and arouse
our imaginations to gaze upon the scenes and persons of
past ages, as they rose before the mind of the inspired
apostle. Having surveyed these, then let us turn and in
the light of them read his words.
The fundamental fact which seems to have risen before
the eye of the apostle was, that death entered this world
not as an event natural and necessary to man, but as a
penalty inflicted by the decision of a judge, in view of a
violated law. The sentence still stood recorded on the
sacred page. He saw accordingly the great ancestor of the
human race, as a condemned criminal, yielding himself up to
the sentence of death. ''Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt
thou return."
THE COMPLETION OF THE PICTURE. 433
In this, however, there was nothing to excite surprise; for
he had, by a definite act, violated a law clearly revealed,
and sanctioned in his hearing with the penalty of death.
But of none of his descendants was it true that they had
in person violated the same law that Adam did, or any
other of the same kind and sanctioned by the same penalty.
Why, then, should the same sentence of death be inflicted
on them 7 They had not sinned after the similitude of his
transgression ; — why, then, should they endure the same
penalty ?
Once more, then, he looks at the sentence in all its parts.
The evils of all kinds therein denounced he sees coming
ever since on all men. The form of the language is as
much adapted to include all men as God's first address to
the new-created pair, which was obviously meant for all
men. What reason, then, is there to doubt that the sen-
tence of death was designed to include all men ] There '.^
none. It is plain that when Adam was sentenced to death
all men were sentenced with him, and through his offence.
It is plain that by the offence of one man judgment came
upon all men to condemnation. Plainly, then, the aspect
of the whole transaction was as if all men were held guilty
of Adam's sin, and punished for it. This is the great typi-
cal picture before his mind, and according to this aspect of
the case he speaks.
But, lo ! on the other hand, he sees a glorious, a divine
personage in human form ; in the midst of trials and tempt-
ations of the utmost intensity, he still is faithful to God.
He is still obedient, yea, even unto death, the death of
the cross. Around him he sees gathered a multitude which
no man can number, of every age and clime. With him
they are one by a new life, — ihe life of faith. Through
this faith they apprehend and receive the pardon even of
37
434 CONFLICT OF AGES.
the greatest sins, and the merits of his obedience in the
infinite and gracious rewards of endless life. This, then, is
the second Adam ; and now his all-embracing thought is, as
all who sustained a material connection with the first Adam
were through his disobedience condemned and sentenced
to death, so through the second Adam all who sustain a
spiritual connection with him shall be pardoned and restored
to endless life.
But, now, lest any Judaizing opponent should suggest
that the law of Moses is the ground of the alleged condem-
nation, he looks upon the picture again, and sees a long
interval during which it did not exist. He sees, moreover,
that during this long period there was no law like that of
Adam, sanctioned by the same penalty, which had been vio-
lated by man, and yet sentence of death came upon them
all. It must, therefore, have come, as before stated, through
the offence of Adam, and the sentence then passed.
The sense of the whole passage I will now endeavor to
set forth in a paraphrase, remarking that I shall substi-
tute for sl7i, sinned, &c., in vs. 12, 19, what has previously
been proved to be their sense, — that is, liability to punish-
ment or a state of condemnation, — and also complete the
comparison in v. 12.
12. Wherefore as by one man that universal subjection
to a condemning sentence for sin, under which men now are,
was introduced into the world, and death thereby as the
threatened penalty, and thus through one man death passed
upon all, because through him all were involved in a com-
mon condemnation as sinners, even so are all who believe
justified and restored to eternal life through Christ.
13. It is of no avail to suggest that this state of condem-
nation has not arisen from the oifence of Adam, but from
the violation of the law of Moses by each man personally ;
THE COMPLETION OF THE PICTURE. 435
for it existed in the world before that law was given, and
such liability to punishment could not be ascribed to men
whilst the law was not in existence on which it depended.
14. And yet death reigned over all men from Adam to
Moses ; even although they had not, as was the case with
Adam, personally broken that original law which threatened
this death as its penalty, or any other like it. It is plain,
therefore, that the sentence condemning them to death did
come on all men through the transgression of that one man,
Adam, who is the type of the coming Redeemer.
15. But how great is the disparity and contrast between
the results of the offence of Adam and the gracious interposi-
tion of Christ ; for, if through the offence of one man the
multitudes of the human race have been sentenced to so
great an evil as death, much more have the forgiving love
of God, and the gracious gifts resulting therefrom through
the one man Jesus Christ, abounded unto the multitudes
of the redeemed.
16. There is also another dissimilitude between the trans-
actions in the case of Adam's sin and the free gift of Christ :
for the condemning sentence took its rise from one offence,
and resulted in condemnation, — but the free gift has respect
to many offences, and results in justification.
17. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one,
much more shall they who receive abundance of grace and
of the gift of righteousness reign in life by one, Jesus
Christ.
18. Therefore, to resume the general view with which I
began, and which I have in some respects modified and
limited, — as by the offence of one judgment came upon all
men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one
the free gift came upon all who believe, unto justification of
life.
436 CONFLICT OP AGES.
19. For as by the disobedience of one man many -were
subjected to a condemning sentence, so by the obedience of
one shall many be justified.
It will be seen that in verse 12 I make the word laiv
refer in both instances to the Mosaic law. Any one can see
that the last clause of the verse can be properly translated
"liability to ^punishment is not imputed when the law does
not exist," that is, before it exists. This is said on the
supposition that the liability in question had been supposed
to spring from a violation of the law of Moses. This would
involve the absurdity of liability to punishment by a law
before it exists. In accordance with this view, De Wette
translates the words i^*^ ovjoi vouov^ ''where the law is
not," and says that the statement of the apostle "is by no
means a universal position," but " is spoken respecting the
time before the law of Moses."
It appears, also, that those " who had not sinned after the
similitude of Adam's transgression " are not a peculiar part
of those who lived before the law. Prof Hodge alleges
that this is intimated by the word " even." But we
often use that word to set forth a striking common charac-
teristic, to be found in all of whom we speak. Thus we say
Christ died for all men, even for his enemies, who had for-
feited all their rights by a guilty rebellion. So, although
not one of those who lived from Adam to Moses had ever
sinned as Adam did, still death reigned even over them.
So the passage was understood by Chrysostom, when he
said that " all men were subjected by Adam to death,
although they did not (like him) eat of the tree."
Let it now be borne in mind that, with reference to con-
demnation through Adam, as truly as in the case of Mel-
chisedec, we are authorized to believe that the ground-
work of the whole passage is typical illustration by a
THE COMPLETION OF THE PICTU^lE. 437
reference solely to the aspect of things as they were provi-
dentially arranged by God to meet the eye, and not to the
real and hidden laws of causation which lie beneath this
aspect.
If any still, through the force of old associations, do not
fully see the propriety and impressiveness of a contrast
between natural death on one side, and spiritual life on
the other, let them look at such comparisons as these :
Aa by the brazen serpent a healing power was exerted
on all who looked to it, so by Christ is a divine energy
exerted to heal all who look to him.
Yet let it not be supposed that there is a perfect cor-
respondence in the two cases. For, if the healing power of
the serpent revealed itself in delivering sinners from natu-
ral death, who merely looked to it by the bodily eye, how
much more shall the healing power of Christ reveal itself,
in averting eternal death and conferring eternal life on
all who, in true faith, look to him by the eye of the
mind ! Or thus,
As beneath the protection of the blood sprinkled upon
their door-posts the children of Israel took refuge, and thus
escaped the ravages of death, even so are the true Israel
of God defended by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ
from the impending perils and the eternal agonies of the
second death.
But how unequal are the things' thus compared ! How
small was the value or the power of the blood of the paschal
lamb ! But, if even this could defend from impending
death, how much more shall the blood of the divine and
eternal Son of God, the true atoning Lamb, who taketh
away the sin of the world, avert the higher perils of true
believers, and exalt them to eternal life ! Or thus,
As Aaron, by the incense which ascended from his c^n-
37*
438 CONFLICT OF AGES.
ser, made atonement for those ancient rebels, whose crimes
had excited the anger of God, and thus averted the aveng-
ing sentence of death, even so Christ by his atonement and
intercession is powerful in every age and clime to atone for
rebellious man, and to avert from all in whose behalf he
interposes the sentence of death.
But how far beneath the great reality was the prophetic
adumbration ! For the intervention of Aaron effected but a
temporary deliverance from the stroke of death ; but the
intercession of our great High Priest in heaven forever
averts the second death, and confers eternal life on all for
whom he intercedes.
In all these cases the comparison proceeds from natural
death in the type to spiritual life in the antitype.
Indeed, the apostle Paul has given us a most striking
typical comparison of this very kind.
'' For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of
a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying
of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot unto
God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the
living God!"
CHAPTER XII
THE ARGUMENT REINFORCED.
In the general statement of the true interpretation of the
passage under consideration, given in the third chapter of
this book, I adopted the view of the Old School party, that
the sense of the passage is judicial, relating to condemna-
tion and justification, and not to the causation of sin or
holiness in the human race ; and also that of the Greek
church, that the death spoken of is simply natural death.
To these I added the position that, in the case of Adam^
the type, the sequence, was not causative, but merely one
of apparent causation for typical purposes.
The truth of the first of these positions has been rendered
so apparent that it needs no further confirmation. But it
■will not be useless to add some additional confirmations of
the other two. For, although the case is at present suffi-
ciently clear, were there no uncommon obstacles to the per-
ception of the truth, yet, considering the power of the
association of idi^as and of habit, and the tenacity with
which the human mind holds on to established opinions, it
is better to err by excess of argument than by a relative
deficiency, — I mean a deficiency in view of the practical
end to be gained. I shall, therefore, subjoin some addi-
tional considerations, of no small weight.
It will be seen that thus far I have gone upon the ground
440 CONFLICT OF AGES.
that it is as consistent with the laws of typical illustration
to understand the word death to mean natural death, as it
is to give it the broad sense which includes the whole
penalty of the divine law. I have also assumed that it is as
consistent with those laws to understand a merely typical
sequence of condemnation by the sin of Adam, as to under-
stand a causative one. Supposing these views to stand on
equal grounds, I have argued in the first case from the facts
of the Old Testament, and in the second from the laws of
equity and honor, revealed by God as his own rule of con-
duct, that we ought to understand natural death and a
merely typical sequence to be set forth in the passage.
But I now add that in neither case do the two modes of
interpretation, in fact, stand on equal grounds, as I shall
proceed to show.
I lay down, then, the position, with reference to the first
of the two points just mentioned, that it is more in accord-
ance with the true laws of typical illustration that there
should be an antithesis of natural death by Adam, and
spiritual life by Christ, than that the idea of death should
be carried into the spiritual and eternal sphere. For the
great idea of the Old Testament typology is to illustrate the
things of the eternal and spiritual sphere by the events of
this life, and of this visible material system.
So Paul expressly states the matter, in the ninth chapter
of Hebrews. The system of types was " of this creation,'^
■xavxi]c, T^5 xrjaeto$ (v. 11). The great realities belonged to
the invisible spiritual system. By the great law of analogy
they were set off one against the other, as the typical and
tlie antitypical. I do not say that the type and the anti-
type are never in the same sphere, for occasionally they
are. But, as a general fact, they are in difierent and ana-
logical spheres.
THE ARGUMENT REINFORCED. 441
Nor has this great law escaped the notice of at least some
of the writers on typology, though they do not seem to have
reflected on its scope. In particular, Eairbairn, to whose
able work I have before referred, has given a very clear
and impressive enunciation of this law. It is the fifth of
his series, and is thus stated :
''Another rule of interpretation arising out of the prin-
ciples already established, and necessary to be borne in
mind if we would give an enlightened and consistent
view of typical symbols and transactions, is, that due
regard must he had to the essential difference between
the nature of type and antitype. For as the exhibition
of divine truth contained in the former was given on a
lower stage, or by means only of carnal and earthly con-
cerns, in applying the elements of truth, so taught, to the
higher, — that is, the spiritual and heavenly concerns of Mes-
siah's kingdom, — what bore immediate respect to the flesh in
the one must be understood as bearing immediate respect to
the soul in the other. — while in the one temporal interests
only appear, their counterpart in the other must be eternal
interests ; in short, the outward, visible, and carnal in the
type, must in the antitype pass into the inward, spiritual
and heavenly."
This rule, he very properly says, enters into "the very
vitals of the subject." He admits of only two exceptions
to it in the New Testament, and he contends that these are
rather apparent than real.
Yet, notwithstanding all this, he is so fully controlled by
the common views of the case of Adam, that he does not see
that he extends his influence into the spiritual and eternal
sphere as truly as that of Christ. According to his own
rule, in the case of Adam, " temporal interests only " ought
to appear; "their counterpart in the other (Christ) must ^^e
442 CONFLICT OF AGES.
eternal interests;" '' in short, the outward, visible and carnal
in the type, must, in the antitype, pass into the inward,
spiritual and heavenly." If we limit the sequences of
Adam's transgression, with the Greek church, to natural
death, then we do observe this law ; but, if we extend them
to thfc lipiritual and eternal sphere, then we violate the law ;
and it is a law which enters into " the very vitals of the
subject. ^^
Nor is this, all : if we thus extend the idea of death,
and give to Adam causative power, it entirely overloads the
type, and destroys the truth of the apostle's comparison.
The power of Adam, in the spiritual sphere, to produce
eternal death, extends to all the race ; and, when we reflect
that, thus far, Christ being judge, the great majority have, in
fact, perished, and that forever, the efiect of the comparison
is that of an anti-climax. Adam has, in fact, destroyed
more than Christ has saved ; and their ruin is as complete
and eternal as is the salvation of those whom Christ saves.
But, if we suppose that Adam has, in fact, ruined no one in
the spiritual sphere, but that the sequence of death, in the
natural sphere, upon his transgression, is a designed anti-
thetic type of eternal life through Christ, then the anti-
type, as it ought, towers above the type in its true spiritual
magnitude and glory.
In addition to this, if death is taken to mean the full and
eternal penalty of God's law, and the sequence is causative,
then the penalty of Adam's act is so enormously dispropor-
tioned to its demerit, that it tends to make the contemplation
unspeakably painful, and to confuse all our ideas of justice
and honor. If a penalty is enormously disproportioned to
an oflence, it loses all its power as a penalty, and produces
reaction and disgust, if not indignation. If a king, because
of some sin of a viceroy, of which his subjects Avcre entirely
THE ARGUMENT REINFORCED. 443
ignorant, should send out his armies, and exterminate, with
extreme torments, every man, woman and child, in the prov-
ince of that viceroy, and then should proclaim that he did
it to show his indignation against sin, in view of its enor-
mous evils, and his fixed purpose to punish it, what rational
human being could be found upon whom such a proceeding
would not react, and rather create abhorrence of the king's
injustice, than of the viceroy's sin '^ And yet there would
not be, in such a transaction, one millionth part of the
horror and the injustice that is involved in the idea of an
utter forfeiture, by all the millions of the human race, of
the favor of God, and their exposure to his frown, and to all
the miseries of endless damnation, by a solitary act of Adam,
of which they had no knowledge, and over which they had
no control, — and which forfeiture actually results in the
endless ruin of the great majority of them. It is not in
the power of human language to express, nor of the human
mind to conceive, the horror and injustice of such a proceed-
ing. What, then, must be the painful and confounding
influence of retaining such a view, on one side of a typical
comparison designed to set forth the glories of redeeming
love ! How must it confuse our ideas of justice and honor !
How dark and gloomy will it render the system which rests
upon it ! With what melancholy shades Avill this passage
of scripture evermore be veiled !
But, represent this system as a remedy for evil already
existing, let it ruin none and save unnumbered millions,
remove from Adam the idea of power efficiently to cause
evil at all, let the judicial sequence of natural death be
ordained as a type to illustrate, by antithesis, eternal life
through Christ, and I do not know any passage in the word
of God which combines higher elements of sublimity, beauty,
and divine glory.
444 CONFLICT OF AGES.
The value of a type depends, not upon the existence of
causative power in the sequence, but upon the fact that God
ordained it to illustrate some great and glorious truth, and
that it does illustrate it. Hence, the sprinkling of the blood
of the paschal lamb, the brazen serpent, the incense of
Aaron, lose none of their value because they were not linked
to their sequences by causative power. What though they
did not, in reality, avert natural death ? It is enough that
God made them appear to do it, for the sake of illustrating
the real power of Christ to avert eternal death. So, what
though it be true that the sin of Adam exerted no power to
injure one individual of the human race? It is enough
that God so arranged events that, apparently, the human
race v»'as sentenced to natural death, through his sin, in
order to make a great, glorious and original type of justifi-
cation and eternal life through the coming Redeemer. In
this way it has its legitimate influence and its full power as
a type. But, the moment you load it down with a causative
power to produce eternal death, you transgress the true
laws of typical analogy, veil its radiance in the dense clouds
of injustice, and utterly destroy its legitimate power.
And now I cannot but feel that I have adduced sufficient
reasons to induce all Christian men, who love the honor of
God and the good of man more than any or all other in-
terests, to reject the common interpretations of this passage,
and to adopt that which I have proposed.
I know full well the strength of the influence of Augus-
tine, and Cfilvin, and Edwards, and of the creeds of the
Reformation. I know the power of national churches, ^f
great denominations, and of great teachers.
But I know, also, that, after all, these things are but
finite, temporary and local. God only is infinite, univerg«kl,
THE ARGUMENT REINFORCED. 445
eternal, all-glorious, and worthy of universal homage and
praise.
Before him the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are
counted as the small dust of the balance. Yea, all nations
in his sight are as nothing, and they are counted to him as
less than nothing, and vanity. He poureth contempt upon
princes ; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. He
bloweth upon them, and they wither, and the whirlwind
taketh them away as stubble.
The question now at issue does not so much concern the
honor of human organizations as the true and unclouded
glory of this great God. I have written as I have, because I
have felt in my inmost soul, and with deep and long-con-
tinued sorrow, that He is deeply dishonored, and the energies
of his kingdom on earth are fatally paralyzed, by the basis
on which his own church has placed his greatest and most
glorious work, the divine work of redeeming love. I have
believed, and therefore have I spoken.
If it were seen to be so, then there would be but one
response from every true child of God. If his honor is at
stake, all else must give way. What are creeds, institutions
or denominations, in comparison with him for whose honor
they are professedly made, and for whom, alone, they avow
a desire to exist 7
But the great turning point of the whole question will
be, Do they, in fact, dishonor him 7
And now, as before him, I ask attention to the following
considerations :
The first, the natural, the intuitive convictions of the
human mind, with reference to the commonly alleged deal-
mgs of God with the human race through Adam, are, that
they are dishonorable and unjust.
That this is so has been confessed by men than whom
38
446 CONFLICT OF AGES.
none are more eminent for intellectual power, and for piety.
Augustine, Calvin, Pascal and Watts, have virtually or
openly confessed it ; Dr. Woods, Dr. Hodge and Haldane,
have virtually or openly confessed the same.
That they are so, in fact, I have evinced by showing that
all efforts to explain and defend them have resulted in incon-
sistent and mutually destructive theories, every one of which
has been, and still is, condemned by some large portion of
the true church of God. So true is this, that Haldane has
declared that all such efforts have but made the case still
worse, and that it is our duty to believe on the naked and
unexplained word of God ; and that this must be the final
authority in the case.
But, in a case like this, are we to take for granted an
interpretation involving such consequences ? Or is it, indeed,
a self-evident interpretation 7 History does not seem to
imply that it is self-evident, and in fact it is not so.
I have shown, in the first place, that the view which I
advocate is, at least, as consistent with the laws of inter-
pretation as any other ; and that from the facts of the Old
Testament, and from the laws of honor and right, there is a
decided preponderance in its favor.
I have next shown that the common interpretations arc
opposed to the prevailing and almost universal laws of
typical analogy ; that they overload the type, and make the
passage untrue ; that they destroy the moral power of God's
displeasure at Adam's sin, by exaggeration ; and that they
imprison, suppress, and do violence to the deepest convic-
tions of the human mind against dishonor and injustice,
which can find no relief till they have been expressed.
I allege that the view which I present is simple, intelli-
gible, eloquent, sublime, beautiful, worthy of God, m
THE ARGUMENT REINFORCED. 447
perfect harmony with the laws of language, and, in particular,
with the laws of typical usage.
But, if these things are so, can any one fail to see what
the conclusion ought to be ?
I know that the result is momentous, but is it more than
God deserves ?
At all events, is it not a duty thoroughly to reconsider
this whole question, until a position can be found that shall
so present the great work of redeeming love as not to reflect
deep dishonor on the character of God?
CHAPTER XIII.
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT.
In the opening chapter of this book I remarked that
practically the whole of the present discussion turns more
upon the interpretation of the last part of the fifth chapter
of Romans than upon any other point. Por, if it had not
been for the belief that this passage teaches such a doctrine
of forfeiture as I have considered and exposed, — a doctrine
which, in the judgment of Pascal, appeared obviously impos-
sible and unjust, — it could never have gained credence or
sustained itself for a single hour ; nor would it have ever
been believed that the sin of Adam did or could in any way
produce the terrific depravity which has been exhibited in
this world ever since his creation and fall.
But, so long as it has been supposed that God has asserted
these things, it has been felt to be a duty to overrule even
those immutable intellectual and moral intuitions which
he has implanted in the soul, rather than to distrust his
word.
The effect of this has been to paralyze the intellectual
and moral energies of Christians to an extent of which no
adequate conception has as yet been formed, and to reduce
them to a state of lamentable captivity and bondage. For,
though not in close confinement, and thus cut off from all
action, yet they have been hemmed in by certain tremendous
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT. - 449
intellectual enclosures, which they have not dared to throw
down or to pass. Moreover, whilst hemmed up Avithin these
limits, they have, of necessity, as I have shown, rather
expended their energy in mutual conflicts, than in assaults
upon their great and common enemy, the god of this
world.
The most direct and obvious cause of this state of things
has been the almost unanimous rejection of preexistence, the
only principle which can give them true liberty, and unite
their energies to bring to a speedy close this spiritual
captivity.
It is for this reason that I have felt it to be indispensable
to enter as thoroughly as I have into the discussion of this
passage, for the sake of developing its true meaning, and of
showing that it does not, as is asserted, exclude preexistence,
but rather presupposes and requires it.
But, now, that old and terrific apparition of divine author-
ity, which has for so many ages frowned darkly before the
church, can no longer be raised to dismay our souls, and to
scare us back into our ancient captivity. Thank God, we
are free ! The wide field of truth is before us, with none to
molest us or to make us afraid ; let us arise at once, and, by
the aid of the divine Spirit, enter and possess it.
The way is now prepared to resume the inquiry proposed
at the end of the last book. Shall the theory of a previous
existence be received as true ? In reply to this, it w^as
answered by its opponents, there is no evidence of its truth ;
it merely shifts the difficulty, but does not remove it ; and
't is inconsistent with the word of God.
The last point having been considered, I shall now
resume the other two. I made a few remarks in reply to
them at the opening of this book, but shall now subject
them to a more full and thorough discussion. In opposi-
38*
450 CONFLICT OF AGES.
tion to preexistence, then, as I have set it forth, it is alleged
that it is a mere theory, entirely devoid of any proof of its
truth.
This remark is not unfrequently made in a manner •which
seems to imply a high regard for truth and evidence, and
a rational fear of adopting unfounded and visionary theories.
It is sometimes, also, presented as if it were a view of the
case so profound and exhausting that nothing more remains
to be said. If, indeed, it were true, such might, in reality,
be the case. But it is apparent that assertion is not argu-
ment, and that it is no legitimate mode of terminating a
discussion to take for granted the very point at issue.
But I will not assume that those who make this remark
intend thus to beg the question. I will assume that they
mean that this is a point that can be known only by
revelation, and that it is not definitely revealed in express
terms in the word of God. If so, then they assume that, if
it is not expressly and verbally revealed, it must ever be a
theory, and admit of no decisive proof
In reply to this, I have already briefly stated that the
most important of all the truths which we hold cannot be
thus, proved.
But such is the importance of this point that it deserves
a more formal and full consideration. I will, therefore,
once more call attention to the real and deepest foundations
of our religious, intellectual and moral systems, and to the
laws of belief upon which they rest.
The great but simple fact, then, with reference to such
fundamental doctrines, is this : That they rest upon cer-
tain IDEAS AND INTUITIVE CONVICTIONS OF OUR OWN
MINDS, TAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE FACTS OF THE
SYSTEM AROUND US.
Thus, since God has made us in his own image, we derive
SURVEl OF THE ARGUMENl. 451
from our own minds the elements of our idea of a personal
God, as a being possessing intellect, emotions and affections,
will, the power of choosing ends, forming plans, and making
laws, a moral nature, and a sense of what is right and
wrong, honorable and dishonorable. We find, also, in our-
selves an intuitive belief of the necessary relation of cause
and effect. Thus made, we examine our own minds and
bodies, and the world around us, and there find facts which
rea^uire an infinite mind, such as we are enabled to conceive
of, through our own minds, as the cause. Thus we arrive
at a rational belief of the being of a God. In the language
of Paul, "The invisible things of him are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead."
So, too, when certain books are presented to us claiming
to be a revelation from this God, we are obliged to rely
upon the same principles for evidence of the truth of their
claims. We see that miracles were wrought by their
authors, or prophecies uttered by them, or doctrines and a
system set forth transcending the intellectual and moral
abilities of man. Such things we refer to God as the only
adequate cause, and believe those to be his messengers
whose claims he attests by such evidences. Till we have
done this, their words have no binding power over us.
But what truths are there so important as the being of a
God and the fact that the Bible is his word ? Are they not
the basis of our whole system of religious belief?
It is plain, then, that there are modes of proof besides
express verbal revelation, and that these are the most power-
ful and trustworthy by which the mind of man can be
influenced. Otherwise, God would not have left the whole
system to rest on them.
Nor is it otherwise in the material system. We fully
452 CONFLICT OF AGES.
believe, without express verbal revelation, the Newtonian
system, based on the law of gravitation. Our evidence lies
in the structure of our minds, and in the facts of the sys-
tem itself By the structure of our minds we are led to
search for the law of the system, and no less are we led by
the same structure to rest in that law which systematizes,
harmonizes and explains, all the facts of the system, and
unites them in one glorious whole. No text of scripture
proves the Newtonian theory. Nay, the popular phrase-
ology of the Bible, as well as of common speech, seems to
oppose it. But, because it unites, explains and harmonizes
all facts, we believe it.
Thus, by reasoning on the great law of causation, we
first ascend from his works to a knowledge of the great first
cause. In the same way we establish the divine authority of
his word, proving by various arguments that it demands
God as its cause or author. Nor do we otherwise establish
the law of gravitation ; for we show that all the facts of the
system demand such a law as their cause.
If, then, it can be sho-wn that the facts of this moral and
physical system, taken as a whole, are such as to demand a
preexistent state in order to explain them, as really and as
much as the facts of the material system demand the law
of gravitation to explain them, or as much as the facts of
the whole system demand God as their cause, then the doc-
trine of a preexistent state can be proved by the highest
possible proof, — proof so clear and so strong that no intel-
ligent being need wish to go beyond it. Let me state a
sinojle course of reasonino;, which of itself would be all-suf-
ficient. The laws of honor and of right are of God; nor
has he ever violated them, nor will he. This is the premise
of an argument powerful enough to revolutionize nations
ani churches, and to shake a world.
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT. 453
Taking, then, this premise, I allege that if the facts and
principles which have been already set forth are true, there
is a brief argument, entirely within our reach, and compre-
hensible by all, which of itself is enough to settle the
question forever.
If the facts which have been stated concerning the ruined
condition of man are true, and if the principles of honor and
right have been truly set forth, and if the only passage that
seems to teach the common doctrine can, in accordance with
the true and well-known laws of typical language, be so in-
terpreted as perfectly to accord with the idea of preexistence,
and if the common theory arrays the principles of honor and
right against the conduct of God, whilst the other exhibits
them as in harmony, then it follows, of absolute necessity,
that the common view is false, and that which I advocate is
true. If the premises are granted, the conclusion is inevi-
table ; and no argument can exceed this in power. The
argument for the being of a God has no superior force.
The proof that the Bible is the word of God is no more
conclusive. The proof of the truth of the Newtonian theory
is not more powerful, although that is regarded as estab-
lished beyond any rational doubt. For the mind of man is
so made that nothing can do such violence to its most
immutable intuitive convictions as the supposition that God
can bring to pass results such as exist in this world in a
mode that is at war with the principles of honor and right.
If there is a mode consistent with those principles, we know,
with the highest and most absolute certainty, that this, and
not the other, is the mode which God has taken.
For my own part, I am satisfied that the premises are
true, and that, therefore, the conclusion is valid. Nor shall
I cease to regard this argument as perfectly conclusive till
the premises are overthrown. But any attempt to do this
i54 CONFLICT OF AGES.
must, I think, prove a failure. For the evidence from
scripture, experience and history, in proof of the statement
concerning the ruined condition of man, is of such immense
power that it admits of no logical reply, and the only real
argument ever urged against it has been the appeal to our
intuitive convictions of honor and right. But the whole
power of that argument is now neutralized by the doctrine
of preexistence, which I have assumed. Moreover, the evi-
dence for the principles of honor and right, which I have
stated, from the intuitive convictions of the human mind,
from the tendencies of regeneration and sanctification, and
from the word of God, is powerful beyond expression, and
can never be answered ; and the only real argument against
them has been an allegation that they were inconsistent
with certain well-known acts of God. But the whole power
of this argument, also, has now been neutralized by the
doctrine of preexistence, which I defend. And, finally, the
interpretation of Rom. 5 : 12 — 19, which regards the
language as denoting, in the case of Adam and his posterity,
merely natural death, and typical sequences, and not
causative, is not only a possible interpretation, but it is the
one which best accords with the well-known laws of typical
language, and with the analogy of the word of God.
But, in addition to this, there is a strong auxiliary argu-
ment in support of the same view in the fact that the results
of all attempts to explain the connection between the sin
of Adam and the ruin of his posterity have been so un-
satisfactory as to create a violent presumption that the idea
is in itself incapable of vindication or defence. On the
other hand, preexistence easily explains all the facts of the
case. I will first illustrate this statement by analogous
cases. It was once held almost universally that the words
" this is my body " were to be taken as denoting a literal
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT. 455
truth, as set forth in the doctrine of transubstantiation. Of
this truth, of course, the scholastic divines felt bound to
produce a philosophical exposition and defence. The result,
as was to be expected, was a violent distortion of philosophy
itself, and fertile crops of absurd and ridiculous results.
The fact is manifest. No exposition and defence of the
dogma in question is extant, that does not lead to absurdi-
ties. Is it not, then, a fair inference that the thing itself is
an absurdity? In like manner, the Romish dogmas of
sacramental regeneration and sanctification, and of the ruin
of all who are not in the E-omish corporation, have never
been, at any time, so expounded and defended as to avoid
either gross absurdities or else a contradiction of most
notorious facts and the most sacred moral principles. Now,
though efforts have been made, and still are made, to base
these things on scripture, is there not in history a proof that
the things alleged are absurd in each case 7
Now, it is worthy of notice, not only that it has been con-
fessed in all ages that any exposition of the influence of
Adam's sin to ruin his race is beset with most formidable
difficulties, but that all attempts to explain it have failed so
completely that not one can be mentioned which has not
been pronounced false by eminent Christians in large num-
bers. Some have resorted to the theory of the transmission
of the corrupted soul from generation to generation. But
this has been almost universally repudiated by the church
in all ages, as leading to materialism, and making the sub-
stance of the soul sinful. Moreover, if it were not so, it
would not in the least help the case on the score of justice
and honor. But, on the theory that God creates the soul, it
may well be asked, Does he create a depraved and polluted
soul ? If not, whence comes its original native depravity 1
Does it come from the body ? What is this but to revive
456 CONFLICT OF AGES.
tlie pernicious Gnostic doctrine, that the origin of sin is
matter, and that to escape from sin we must mortify,
scourge and macerate, the body. If the body is not the
cause, then it may be supposed to lie in God. Does he,
then, as some teach, impute the guilt of Adam's sin to a
new-created soul, and on account of this guilt, and as a
punishment, create it without original righteousness, with-
draw from it supernatural influences, and leave it a mass
of corruption, exposed to a sinful world and to Satan ? Can
this be defended on any known principle of honor and right?
I have already shown that it is confessed that it cannot. No
effort is made to do it. All who allege it retreat to the cover
of mystery. But I am unable to see any mystery in the case.
A new-created being thus treated is by a large portion of the
Christian world regarded as, beyond all reasonable grounds
of doubt, treated dishonorably and unjustly. With such I co-
incide. Is the theory of those any better who say that the
constitution is so changed, before knowledge or action, as in
all cases to lead to sin as soon as moral action commences ;
and that a being with such a constitution is then exposed
to the full power of a sinful world and of Satan? Another
large portion of the Christian world regard this, and very
properly too, as no more honorable and just than the other
alternative. Shall we, then, trace all sin and holiness alike
to the efficient agency of God, and hold that He established
a constitution such that if Adam sinned he would efficiently
cause all his posterity to sin? But, on this' theory, even
Adam could not sin, unless God caused him so to do ; and it
results in this, — that God causes all men to sin, because He
had previously caused Adam to sin. A very large portion
of the Christian world regard this theory as unsatisfactory,
and inconsistent with correct views of man's responsibility
for his sins, and of God's sincere opposition to sin.
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT. 457
Shall we, then, with Edwards, confound all ideas of
personal identity, and insist that God made Adam and all
his posterity one person with respect to liis first sin, and
difierent persons vrith reference to all other sins ? Few,
we think, will engage in so desperate an undertaking.
Shall ;we, then, with Augustine, resort to the idea of a
mysterious unity with Adam, and hold that all men actually
existed in him, sinned in his act. and are guilty of it? For
ages this view was held and defended, just as transubstan-
tiation was, but with equal violence to the intuitive convic-
tions of the human mind. It indicates, indeed, an admission
of the great truth that men ought not to be punished but
for their own acts : it led to forms of speech that seemed
to teach that all men did in reality apostatize from God at
once and together, — and, on this ground, they repelled
charges of injustice ; and it implies one form of preexistence
and action ; but in reaching this result they violated all
laws of personal identity and distinct personal existence,
and involved themselves in unspeakable absurdities. Au-
gustine felt and frankly conceded the difficulties of the sub-
ject, and at times confessed his ignorance. Luther did the
same. So did Turretin. Moehler, after surveying all the
solutions ever oifered, declares them utterly unsatisfactory,
and retreats to mystery. Is there no presumption, in all
this, that this alleged fact is incapable of vindication or
defence ?
Indeed, it is admitted by Prof Hodge that the whole
difficulty lies in the mere fact alleged, and not in any par-
ticular mode of explanation. '' It is on all hands admitted,"
he says, ' ' that the sin of Adam involved the race in ruin.
This is the whole difficulty. How is it to be recon-
ciled with the divine character, that the fate of unborn mil-
lions should d{ nend on an act over which they had not the
39
458 CONFLICT OF AGES.
slightest control, and in wliicli they had no agency ? This
difficulty presses the opponents of the doctrine (of imputa-
tion) more heavily than its advocates." According, then,
to Prof Hodge, the best possible ground of justifying
God in such an arrangement is to represent him as regard-
ing " a?i act over lohich they had not the slightest con-
trol and in lohich theij had no agencij,''^ as being, never-
theless, their act, and as withdrawing from them, on account
of it, all favor, communion and divine influence, and thus
inflicting on them " a form of death which is of all evils
the essence and the snm.^^ Is this, then, the best mode
of justifying God, in a case so momentous? Certainly it is
a hard case, for to many it seems that none can be worse.
I, however, do not regard it as the best. Nevertheless, I do
agree with Prof. H., that all the modes resorted to by those
who reject this are as truly and entirely unsatisfactory.
After all, the great difficulty lies in the idea that untold
millions of new-created minds should in any way be brought
into being by God, for an endless existence, either with
positively depraved natures, or natures so deranged, dis-
ordered and ruined, as certainly to result in depravity so
powerful that nothing but supernatural power can overcome
it; and then, with such natures, be subjected to the highest
power of temptation to evil through corrupt human organ-
izations, and Satanic agency, being moreover from the very
first abandoned by God, and under his infinite displeasure.
This, I say, is the great difficulty ; and no reconciliation of
this with honor and justice in God has ever been efiected,
nor is it, in my judgment, possible to efiect it.
But, in addition to this, the mode in which it is said to
have been efiected by those who ascribe causative power to
the act of Adam is obviously entirely inadequate to effect
such a result ; as much so (or even more) as looking at a
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT. 459
brazen serpent is to heal the bite of a poisonous fiery ser-
pent. For, indeed, it is an astounding fact that is alleged
when we say that one act, done six thousand years ago,
rnade a whole race so wicked that their depravity defies all
but supreme and divine power.
Certainly the theory of baptismal regeneration, or sanctifi-
cation by the Lord's supper, truly viewed, seems far more
rational than the fact alleged in this case. Is it not as possible,
and far more reasonable, that consecrated water should, by a
divine constitution, regenerate the person whom it actually
touches, or the consecrated wafer sanctify the person who
eats it, than that either one act of eating, done six thousand
years ago, or the sin of that one act, should, to this time, and
in all future generations, have power to make the millions
of this world, before action, so unspeakably depraved that
without a supernatural regeneration they must all forever
perish 7 At all events, if one sinful act of eating, at the
beginning of the world, can by any divine constitution be
made the cause of depravity so inconceivably great and all-
pervading, who has a right to say that it is either absurd or
improbable that an act of eating, attended by obedience to
God, should in the eucharist by a divine constitution sanc-
tify the soul and fit it for heaven? Or, even that sanctified
water should, by a divine constitution, wash away sin,
original and actual ? Indeed, Moehler argues, and not un-
reasonably, from the assumed fact that man fell through a
material system, that it is a 'priori probable that God would
restore him through a system of material sacraments.
Speaking of the seven sacraments, he says, " The entangle-
ment of man with the lower world, which since Adam's dis-
obedience hath been subjected to a curse, is revealed in the
most diverse ways. Even so diverse are the ways (that ig^
the sacraments) whereby we are raised up to a world of
460 CONFLICT OF AGES.
a higher order in and by the fellowship with Christ." The
design of the sacraments, he says, is, " to raise humanity
again up to God, as through Adam it had fallen." Again
he says, "As man ignominiously delivered himself over to
the dominion of the lower world, so he needs its mediation
to enable him to rise above it." Certainly it is more
reasonable to suppose man to be raised, through a divine
constitution, by oft-repeated and manifold material sacra-
mental acts, than to suppose all men in all ages to be so
deeply sunk by one act. Hence, if the whole sacramental
system of Rome is rejected as absurd, and the very germ
of the papal despotism, why should another theory, still less
rational, be retained ?
If, now, any one shall say. These things, after all, ought
not to be said ; for they virtually concede that all which
Pelagians, Unitarians and Infidels, have said against the
doctrine of the fall of the human race in Adam is correct,
and it will be received by them with triumph, and be fol-
lowed by the renunciation of the doctrine of human deprav-
ity, and of Christianity itself :
To this I reply, the rejection of the common doctrine of
the fall in Adam is not in any sense a rejection of the doc-
trine of the native depravity and fallen condition of the
human race in its fullest and amplest sense, nor of any doc-
trine of Christianity resting on that basis. Nor does it
touch the scriptural or historical or experimental argu-
ments in favor of that doctrine, or any other doctrine of
Christianity. If all that is said in the Bible concerning
Adam were stricken out, still there would remain a perfectly
full and ample proof of the doctrine of depravity, and of
every other doctrine of the Christian system.
Nor is this all. In all ages the strongest arguments of
the opponents of that doctrine, and of Christianity, have been
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT. 461
derived from the fact that the fall of Adam has been made
its basis and originating cause. They have no real argu-
ments against it ; they never have had, except such as have
been furnished to them by thus making that an essential
part of the doctrine which has no logical connection with it,
and, still more, which furnishes the only real and valid
arguments against it.
Nothing Aveakens a cause so much as to defend it by un-
sound arguments, and to refuse to admit the force of true
and real arguments against it. By placing the doctrine of
human depravity on the basis of the fall in Adam, its oppo-
nents have been enabled to array the truth itself against it,
yea, the highest, most sacred, and most affecting truth that
can be seen or felt by the mind of man. That truth, with-
out which neither the glory of God nor the sacredness of his
government can be seen. Nay, it has led to the crippling
and degradation of the human mind for long ages, by urging
it to do violence to its most sacred and godlike convictions,
by repudiating them as wretched and false.
The doctrine of depravity is a real, a momentous, a
mournful fact. Scripture, history. Christian experience,
unite in its proof If it were not called on to wrestle even
against God and the truth, by an unhappy misadjustment,
it might stand against the world. But how can it ever
universally prevail whilst obliged to contend with the
sacred principles of honor and right, and to resort to theories
indefensible and absurd I
Whether those who have hitherto opposed this cloctrme
will receive these concessions with triumph or otherwise,
has no bearing on the question what is the truth. If, in
ages past, they have, in some important respects, spoken
the truth, and it has been rejected by the advocates of
depravity, that is no reason why we should pei'aist in weak-
39*
462 CONFLICT OF AGES.
ening our cause by doing the same. But I trust that they
will not triumph, but receive such concessions with candor,
and look at the real arguments in favor of the doctrine with
more interest and care, when it is seen that it can be held
in its fullest form, and yet conflict with no principle of
honor and right.
Is there any danger in making the trial of this course 1
The other course has been tried for many long centuries.
What has been the result? Lam^entable division and con-
flict, and theories none of which has yet been able to satisfy
the human mind that it is rational and consistent.
Turn, now, from these conflicting and unsatisfactory
attempts to the simplicity and intelligibleness of the other
theory. It resolves original sin and native depravity into a
well-known result of the laws of the mind, which we call
habit. This is neither a part of the essence nor an original
attribute of the mind. It is a permanent predisposition, or
propensity, to a sinful course of action, caused by repeated
previous action. The Princeton divines have clearly de-
scribed what I mean, in rebutting the charge of teaching
physical regeneration, which had been alleged against them-
selves. They say :
" The main principle, as before stated, which is assumed
by those who make this charge, is, that we can only regard
the soul as to its substance on the one hand, and its actions
on the other. If, therefore, there be any change Avrought
in the soul other than of its acts, it must bo a physical
change. And if any tendency, eithe'r to sin or holiness,
exist prior to choice, it is a positive existence, a real entity.
Thus the charge of physical depravity and physical regen-
eration is fairly made out. We are constrained to confess,
that, if the premises are correct, the conclusions, revolting
as they are, and afiecting, as they do, the fair names of so
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT. 463
Urge a portion of the Christian church, are valid. The
principle itself, however, we believe to be a gratuitous
assumption. It is inconsistent with the common, and, as we
believe, correct idea of habits^ both connatural and ac-
quired. The word ' habit ' (habitus) was used bj the old
writers precisely in the same sense as ' principle ' by
President Edwards (pp. 380-1), or 'disposition' as used
and explained by President D wight. That there are such
habits or dispositions which can be resolved neither into
'■ essential attributes ' nor ' acts,' we maintain to be the com-
mon judgment of mankind. Let us take for illustration an
instance of an acquired habit of the lowest kind, the skill of
an artist. He has a soul with the same essential attributes
as other men ; his body is composed of the same materials ;
and the same law regulates the obedience of his muscular
actions to his mind. By constant practice he has acquired
what is usually denominated skill ; an ability to go through
the processes of his art with greater facility, exactness and
success, than ordinary men. Take this man while asleep or
engaged in any indifferent occupation, — you have a soul and
body not differing in any of their essential attributes from
those of other men. Still there is a difference. What is
it? Must it be either -a real existence, an entity,' an act,
or nothing? It cannot be 'an entity,' for it is acquired,
and it will hardly be maintained that a man can acquire a
new essential attribute. Neither is it an act, for the man
has his skill when it is not exercised. Yet there is cer-
tainly ' something,' which is the ground of certainty that,
when called to go through the peculiar business of his art,
he will do it with an ease and rapidity impossible for com-
mon men. It is as impossible not to admit that this
ground or reason exists, in order to account for the effect,
as it is not to admit the existence of the soul to account for
464 CONFLICT OF AGES.
its exercises. By constant practice, a state of mind and
body has been produced adapted to secure these results, and
which accounts for their character. But this is the defini-
tion of j)7'inciple or habit as given above. A single cir-
cumstance is here wanting which is found in other ' habits,'
and that is, there is not the tendency or proneness to
those particular acts to which this state of mind is adapted.
This difference, however, arises not from any difference in
the ' habits ' themselves, but from the nature of the faculties
in which, so to speak, they inhere. A principle in the will
(in its largest sense, including all the active powers) is not
only a state of mind adapted to certain acts, but prone to
produce them. This is not the case, at least to the same
degree, with intellectual habits. Both classes, however,
come within the definition given by President Edwards and
Dr. D wight : ' A state of mind,' or ' foundation for any
particular kind of exercise of the faculties of the soul.'
The same remarks may be made with regard to habits of a
more purely intellectttal character. A man, by devoting
himself to any particular pursuit, gradually acquires a
fiicility in putting forth the mental exercises which it
requires. This implies no change of essence in the soul ;
and it is not merely an act, which is the result of this prac-
tice. The result, whatever it is. is an attribute of the man
under all circumstances, and not merely when engaged in
the exercises whence the habit was acquired.
'' But to come nearer to the case in hand. We say a
man has a malignant disposition, or an amiable disposition,
"What is to be understood by these expressions? Is it
merely that he often indulges malignant or amiable feelings?
or is it not rather that there is an habitual proneness or
tendency to their indulgence ? Surely the ktter. But, if
m the principle stated above, that we can regard the soui
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT. 465
only as to its substance or its actions, cannot be correct.
For the result of a repetition of acts of the same kind is an
abiding tendency, which is itself neither an act (emanent or
immanent) nor an ' entity.' Here, then, is the soul with its
essential attributes, — an habitual tendency to certain exer-
cises, and the exercises themselves. The tendency is not
an act, nor an active state of the feelings in question ; for it
would be a contradiction to say that a man whose heart was
glowing with parental affection, or filled for the time with
any other amiable feeling, had at the same moment the
malignant feelings in an active state, although there might
exist the greatest proneness to their exercise. We have
seen no analysis of such dispositions which satisfies us that
they can be reduced to acts. For it is essential to the
nature of an act that it should be a matter of consciousness.
This is true of those which are immanent acts of the will, or
ultimate choices (by which a fixed state of the affections is
meant to be expressed), as well as of all others. But a
disposition or principle, as explained above, is not a matter
of consciousness. A man may be aware that he has a cer-
tain disposition, as he is aware of the existence of his soul,
from the consciousness of its acts, but the disposition itself
is not a subject of direct consciousness. It exists when the
man is asleep or in a swoon, and unconscious of anything.
Neither can these habits be, with any propriety, called a
choice, or permanent affection. For in many cases they are
a mere proneness to acts which have their foundation in a
constitutional principle of the mind. Our object at present
is merely to show that we must admit that there are mentai
habits which cannot be resolved either into essential attri-
butes of the soul, fixed preferences, or subordniate acts ; and,
consequently, that those who believe in dispositions prior to
all acts do not necessarily maintain that such dispositions
466 CONFLICT OF AGES.
are of the essence of the soul itself If it be within the
compass of the divine power to produce in us that which by
constant exercise we can produce in ourselves, then a holy
principle or habit may be the result of the Spirit's influence
in regeneration, without any physical change having been
wrought."
This I am willing to adopt as a very satisfactory
description of the origin and nature of that state of mind
which, in my judgment, precedes voluntary action in this
world. Man is born with sinful habits, formed by himself,
deeply fixed, and unconquerable except by divine grace ;
and this is the simple account of the whole matter. Let
it now be noticed that the result at which these able
writers aim is the very thing which is given to them by
preexistence, in perfect consistency with the laws of mind
and the character of God. But that such evil habits
can be concreated is not capable of proof, and is not
probable ; and, even if it were possible, it is not consistent
with the character of God. Moreover, if they were con-
created by God, they ought to be viewed rather in the light
of an evil unjustly inflicted by him upon man, than of de-
pravity for w^hich uian can be justly held accountable. But,
on the view which I present, all of these difficulties disappear.
That man is responsible for habits thus formed, and
that they fill up the proper meaning of such words as a
sinful disposition, bias, taste, inclination, is very clearly
stated by Prof Stuart, in his discussion of the nature of sin,
in the American Biblical Repository for July, 1839.
''It will doubtless be asked here, What, then, — is there
not such a thing as sinful disposition, bias, taste, inclina-
tion in men ? Are we to abandon all expressions of this
sort, so long established by usage, and the common sense of
mankind ?
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT. 467
*' Not at all to abandon them, is my reply. Whenever
a disposition, bias, inclination, propensity, or whatever of
diis nature one may please to name it. is spoken of as being
sinful^ the phraseology evidently may have two different
meanings. In the one case, if by the phraseology in ques-
tion we mean to designate the bias, or inclination, or pro-
pensity to evil, which men have created for themselves by
practically indulging in sin, then these words may be taken
in their natural and proper sense. It is a known law of
our being that the indulgence of forbidden desires and prac-
tices strengthens our propensity to evil. The man, then,
who is guilty of such indulgence, is truly and properly a
sinner, because of his strengthened propensities to evil.
All which he has done to augment these propensities has
been voluntary transgression of God's law ; and for these
propensities, as thus augmented or aggravated, he is alto-
gether accountable as a sinner. They are not only the
evidence of his sin, but, in as much as he has made them
strong and imperious, so far as they have been augmented
and made to become imperious by him, they are themselves
sinful^ because they have been strengthened by voluntary
sinful indulgence. Hence the Scriptures so often speak, and
truly they may speak, of iTTidviihi as being sinful''^
If men are born with such habits, thus formed in a
previous state of being, then for them they are respons-
ible. And it is worthy of notice that the old writers
often call the opposite state produced by regeneration the
habit of love, faith, or of any other Christian grace. Thus,
by the theory of preexistence, a deep foundation is laid for
a thorough doctrine of original sin and total depravity ; and
yet the guilt rests upon man, and God is clear.
Accordingly, this view has so much verisimilitude, that it
has naturally suggested itself to Julius Miiller, a m.an of an
468 CONFLICT OF AGES.
intelligent, far-seeing and candid mind, as the only satisfac-
tory explanation of the matter, on a fair view of the facts of
the case. Of him Professor Edwards says : " As a pro-
found and scientific theologian, he has probably no superioi
among his learned countrymen. His great work is on the
Nature of Sin, and is characterized by profound investiga-
tion, accurate analysis, comprehensive survey of the entire
field, and a systematic arrangement of his materials truly
German." He first establishes the reality of sin, disclosing
its nature and its guilt. He comes to the result that noth-
ing can partake of the nature of sin, or involve guilt, except
the acts of the will, or the results of those acts on the con-
stitution in the form of sinful propensities and habits. He
resolves all actual sin into selfishness, and herein agrees
with Edwards and Hopkins. He then discusses different
theories of the origin of sin, rejecting the idea that it
is either the necessary result of a finite nature, or of the
metaphysical imperfection of man ; or that it results from
the fact that the mind is connected with the material sys-
tem by the body, with its senses and appetites; or that
evil is necessary, in order, by its contrasts, to secure a vital
development of individuals in human life ; and also the
Manichcan theory of a self-existent principle of evil.
He traces tlie origin of sin to the perverted and self-
determined action of free will. He holds that, to originate
character, there must be at the beginning of existence a
power of choice between good and evil, such that, whichever
is chosen, the other might have been chosen. Herein he
agrees with Augustine and his followers. By this power
of choice, a character may be formed such that the prepon-
derance either to good or to evil shall be so strong as to
create a certainty that the opposite will never be chosen.
In this state of preponderance to evil, he finds man from the
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT. 469
very beginning of his development in this -world. He does
not, therefore, come here to form a character, but with one
already formed. The following condensed summary of his
views on this point I take from the abstract of Mr. Robie, in
the Brbliotheca Sacra for May, 1849, p. 253, not having
myself seen the second volume of the work.
''If there were, at the commencement of our conscious
existence, such an individual act as the stepping forth of the
will out of a state of indecision into a sinful purpose, it
would remain as a dark background in the memory. But
who is able to say definitely when and how he for the first
time acted in contradiction to his moral consciousness?
Certainly our recollection, if our attention is directed suffi-
ciently early to this point, goes back further than is gen-
erally supposed ; and many a one will be able to say when,
for example, the first feelings of hatred and revenge were
enkindled within him, and what a tumult they produced in
the soul of the child. But, if we descend deeper into the
shaft of self-recollection, we discover behind these earliest
moments of sin still others by which they were prepared,
and which accordingly must have been of the same sinful
character : and, if we seek to fix these, yet other similar
emotions loom up in our memory, and these again, if we
seek to hold them fast, lose themselves in an uncertain twi-
light. To a pure beginning, to an original determining act,
it is impossible in this way to attain. The earliest sinful
act which presents itself to our consciousness does not
appear as the incoming of an altogether new element into
the youthful life, but rather as the development and mani-
festation of a hidden agency, the awakening of a power
slumbering in the deep. Sin does not then for the first
time exist in us, but only steps forth into light. However
important the epoch of awakening moral consciousness may
40
470 CONFLICT OF AGES.
be, it has a past beliind it, which is not without co-deter-
mining influence upon the conduct of the child in that
crisis.
'' And is it probable that a decision on which depends
the future moral character of an immortal soul would be
intrusted to the weak hand of a child 7 Go back as far as
we may, we do not find formal freedom in this life. From
the earliest period of his existence in this world, the moral
character of man is already determined. On the ground of
a practical empiricism, — that is, a mode of thinking which
seeks for the circumstances and conditions of the moral
actions of men only in what comes under our observation
during this earthly life, — the doctrine of necessity cannot be
refuted.
'' To originate one's own character is an essential con-
dition of personality : and since from the beginning of this
life man's character is already determined, we a.re obliged
to step over the bounds of time to find the source of his
freedom of will, to discover that act of free will by which he
determined himself to a course of sin. Is the moral con-
dition, in which, irrespective of redemption, we find man to
be, one of guilt, and a consequence of his own act ; is there
truth in the testimony of conscience which imputes to us
our sins ; is there truth in the voice of religion that God is
not the author of sin, — then the freedom of man must have
its beo-innino; in a domain out of time. In this domain is
that power of original choice to be sought for which pre-
cedes and preconditions all sinful decisions in time."
We have here the elements of an argument which, if the
premises are sure, is valid. The premises are, sin must
be man's own act, guilt can attach to nothing else. Nor is
God the author of sin. Yet man is, from the beginning of
this life, a sinner, and guilty. This is the testimony of
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT. 471
conscience and of God. Of course he must have sinned
before entering this world.
He reasons again to the same effect, as follo^ys :
" The problem is, to reconcile the guilt of each individual
with the universality of sin in the race, and thus show the
falsity of the conclusion, drawn from that universality, that
Bin is an essential constituent of human nature, or a matter
of metaphysical necessity. On the one side, there is in all
men an innate sinfulness, and, on the other side, wherever
sin is there is guilt ; that is, each individual is, by his own
self-determination, the author of his sin. This would be a
manifest contradiction, if there were not preceding our
earthly development in time an existence of our personality
as the sphere of that self-determination by which our moral
condition from birth is affected. And so, from these unde-
niable facts of human life, we are led to the same idea to
which the examination of human freedom brought us, — the
idea of a mode of existence of created personalities out
of time, and from which their life in time is dependent.
Should we, however, ascribe to all personal creatures in the
timeless state of their being such a perversion of will as is
found in man, we should transfer the same difficult problem
to the sphere in which, we suppose, is found its solution.
But here we are met and relieved by a doctrine which finds
a place in the religious belief of most nations, that a part
of the spirit-world, by their self-determination, founded a
moral state of being in undisturbed harmony with God, and
thus elevated the original purity in which they were cre-
ated to a free holiness ; and that another portion of those
beings entirely and decidedly turned away from God,
whereby for their existence in time every inclination to good
was excluded."
Who does not see that this distinguished divine, who is
472 CONFLICT OF AGES.
confessedly the leader of the German theologians of this
day, was led to take this view by the same mode of reason-
ing that is deemed conclusive with reference to the New-
tonian system 7 The solution which he assigns accounts for
the facts of the case. No other does or can. The object
of his work and his line of argument differ from mine, yet
in this particular I am gratified to see that "we come to com-
mon results.
It is also an encouraging circumstance that Dr. Hodge,
speaking in the name of the Princeton divines, has referred
with approbation to this work of Miiller as one of great
importance, and on the right side of the great question of
original sin. We are thus encouraged to hope that they
will adopt his doctrine, that nothing is sin except acts of
the will or their results in evil habits, and logically follow
it out to its results.
There is another and more extended form of argument,
which requires greater detail and fulness than is con-
sistent with my present limits, if its full power is to be
exhibited. It is the argument taken from the agreement of
the phenomena of the system as a whole with preexistence,
and also from the tendencies of the system to affect human
society, in contrast with the actual effects of the opposite
system. I can but state this argument in outline. Volumes
would be required to do it full justice. But, to prepare the
way, I for the present suspend this line of argument, to
meet the remaining allegation against the theory of preex-
istence.
Note to Second Edition, on p. 467, &c. — On reading the second
volume of Miiller, I find that, though he agrees with me in the fact of the
preexistence of man, yet his views of the state in which he preexisted, the
masons of his sinning, and the influence of sinful habits- do not agree
with. mine.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE ORIGIN OF EVIL.
The remaining allegation against the theory of preexist-
ence is, that it merely shifts the difficulty, but does not
remove it. This is thus stated by Dr. Woods. (Vol. ii.
p. 365.) " This hypothesis, even if admitted to be true,
would still fail of answering the purpose intended.
Although it might furnish some plausible account of our
innate depravity, it would cast no light on the fact of our
having sinned in a previous state, and so would leave the
great difficulty untouched. Why moral evil should ever be
suffered to exist in beings who are entirely dependent on
God and under his control, and how its existence can be
accounted for consistently with the infinite perfections of
God, is a question to which human wisdom, untaught from
above, can give no satisfactory answer."
To tliis there is a reply obvious, simple and conclusive.
The real and great difficulty lies, not in the idea that free
agents should sin, but in the idea that God should bring
man into being with a nature morally depraver? , anterior to
any will, wish, desire or knowledge, of his own, or with a
constitution so deranged and corrupt as to tend to sin with
a power that no man can overcome in himself or in others ;
and that, in addition to this, he should place him in a state
40*
474 CONFLICT OF AGES.
of SO great social disadvantage, and, as the climax, expose
him, so weak, to the fearful wiles of powerful and malignant
spirits. This difficulty preexistence does touch and entirely
remove, by referring the origin of his depravity to his
own action in another state, and showing that the system of
this world is a system of sovereignty established over beings
who have lost their original claims on the justice of God.
If now a difficulty is alleged still to exist as to their
first sinning in a previous state, it is enough to say that
this is not the same difficulty that existed before, but alto-
gether a different one ; that is, how beings, created with an
uncorrupt moral constitution, and in a spiritual system
arranged in the best manner to favor their perseverance in
right, could be led to sin. Suppose, then, that this question
is not answered, and cannot be (although I do not concede
that it cannot) — but suppose it. What then ? It merely
leaves a mysterious fact ; but it does not, as in the former
case, present an alleged fact, which the human mind can see
to be within the range of its faculties, and to be positively un-
just. It therefore removes a dispensation positively unjust,
and, in place of it, presents one that is simplj^ mysterious.
But it resorts to mystery in a proper place. For, since
the past history of the universe is not revealed in detail,
nothing exists to forbid the idea that, whatever were the
circumstances in which men sinned, and whatever were the
reasons of their sinning, still they were such as in the
highest degree to show forth the honor, justice and love of
God, and to throw the whole blame on man. What, then,
if we cannot state exactly these circumstances and reasons?
What if we cannot reconstruct the past history of each
man ? Still we know nothing, and we see nothing, to forbid
a full belief, based on confidence in God, that, in all his
lealings with them, he was honorable and just.
THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. 475
But, if it be said we do still know enough to create a
difficulty, — we do know that all created beings are entirely
dependent on God, and under his control, and it seems
inconsistent with wisdom and justice that he should allow
them to sin, — I reply, this objection assumes as its basis
a theory of the relations of divine power to a system of
free agency which is neither self-evident nor in accord-
ance with the word of God.
It assumes that God, in making and governing a system
of created minds, has, at all stages of progress, absolute
and unlimited power to secure universal holiness, if he will ;
and rejects the supposition of a temporary limitation of
divine power in the earlier stages of his system, in conse-
quence of the necessary liability of finite minds to unbelief
and distrust of God, when exposed to the inevitable trials
which pertain to an infinite system, such as befits God, and
in which alone he can properly act out himself These
opposite views are also connected with two unlike views of
the character of God, which grow out of and accord with
them respectively. On the side of absolute and unlimited
power, it is asserted that the will of God in all things is,
and ever will be, so completely done, that he is entirely
free from all grief, pain or suffering of any kind, from the
sins of his creatures. On the other side, it is held that
God, in reality, has no pleasure at all in the death of him
that dieth, but prefers his eternal life, and is really and
truly grieved by the sins of his creatures ; but that there >»
a temporary limitation of divine power, originating from
the limitation of finite capacities to comprehend God and
his ways, and a consequent liability m the first generations
of creatures to unbelief, distrust and sin, involving a season
of suffering in God, and requiring a full unfolding of truth
476 CONFLICT OE AGES.
in act, until God and his system shall be fully disclosed,
and the occasion of unbelief cease.
The position that God's power of disclosing himself and
his system and plans to his creatures in their earliest gen-
erations is limited, does not diminish but increases our
ideas of the greatness of God ; for his greatness is the cause
of the limitation in question. It is merely the inability of ah
infinite mind to bring itself and its plans down to the level
of a finite mind. Does it exalt our ideas of God, and show
the infinite difference between him and a creature, to assert
that he can put himself and all his plans fully into the
mind of that creature ? Or, does it, on the other hand,
most exalt God to say that he is so vast that no created
mind can fully comprehend him or his plans, and that it is
beyond even his power to destroy the infinite chasm that
separates creator and creature ? But, simple and obvious as
is this idea of the vastness of God and his system, and this
consequent limitation of finite minds, and obvious and satis-
factory as is the solution of the origin of evil which it
furnishes, still it has been much overlooked. The causes
which have blinded the minds of so many to it are, the
inconsiderate ascription to God of the unproved ability to
do all things, in a moral system, by naked power, without
moral and intellectual motives: want of proper reflection
on the disproportion between him and created minds, and
on what is essential in order to act with him in a universal
system, and on the discipline needed to fit created minds for
it, and on the trial involved in such discipline; on the ease
with which a being so vast in the execution of plans which
are infinite and for eternity may be misunderstood, and on
the immediate and fatal effects of a loss of confidence in
God. It has not been sufficiently considered, that, if the
very greatness of God, and the necessary limitation of all,
THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. 477
even the highest created minds, render it impossible for him
to disclose fully either himself or his plans to them, then
that he must try them, by acting in view of what he sees,
not of what they see : that is, he must ever act in view of
considerations unseen and unknown to created minds. He
dwells in light to which no created mind can approach ; and
no eye has seen, or ever will see, but in an infinitely small
degree, all that is involved in the full knowledge of God.
But, when once these things are well considered, they disclose
a satisfactory reason for the origin of evil, and one not dis-
honorable to God; for to annihilate the infinite distance
between himself and a creature is not in his power. He
must act according to his own greatness, and yet under the
limitations created by an utter impossibility of transmitting
into a finite mind a full knowledo;e of all that exists in an
infinite one. Hence, if he will act with finite minds, on an
infinite plan, he must act, at least in the earlier generations,
with a necessary liability of being misunderstood; and, if
his ways are trying, of losing the confidence of those with
whom he acts. But, whoever disbelieves, and distrusts
God and departs from him, departs, of course, from infinite
truth and right; and, though God's vastness forbids him to
disclose this at once, yet the progress of events, in a course
of development, will surely show that such is the fact.
What God needs, then, is not naked power, but calm,
benevolent, tranquil patience and time. In this way, the
progress of events will cover him -yith glory, and his
enemies with shame.
This view is that which accords with the general spirit of
the Bible, and with the views there given of the vastness
of his plans, and of his taking counsel of none. (Is. 40,
Rom. 11.) Their impenetrability to created intellects is no
less clearly set forth. Clouds and darkness are round about
478 CONFLICT OF AGES.
him. The Lord hath said that he would dwell in the thick
darkness. Secret things belong unto him.
Carry back, then, these principles to the early generations,
and we find an ample solution of the origin of evil, inUhe
trial of new-created minds, with uncorrupted moral consti-
tutions, and yet not developed by discipline, and needing
trial to perfect them, as was the case with Christ, who
learned obedience by the things that he suffered, and was
thus perfected. Conceive of them as in trial, distrusting
God, revolting and taking ground against him, and the
system is solved. All else is a system of patient evolution
on the part of God, by which the truth is to be revealed,
and they are to be exposed, and the power and reign of
unbelief are to be forever destroyed, not by direct force,
but by truth and justice.
In this account of the matter we rise entirely above any
solution which the common system of the fall can furnish.
On the other hand, that discountenances this view, even as
respects the first entrance of sin, by representing God as
disowning it in this world. Here, he brings in sin, by the
fall, as an element chosen and desired. He, through one
sin, renders sure the existence of a fallen race, as furnishing
the necessary materials for a system of grace, — such ma-
terials, and so situated, as have been described. In this way
are created the positive difficulties already considered, and
of which there is no reasonable solution.
This, of course, nullifies all theories as to any honorable
solution of the great problem of the primitive origin of
evil; for, if God is such a being that his feelings do not
revolt at introducing moral evil into this world in this way,
then there is no reason to look for any better mode of
gecuring the same result in the first entrance of evil.
It may, indeed, be said that it is of no use at all t€
THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. 479
Speculate as to the origin of evil; it is a thing that cannot
be understood; it is beyond the reach of our faculties, and
to speculate concerning it is presumptuous. Indeed, Dr.
Woods has not hesitated to use the following hard words
on the subject : '• If we should try to make out, by reasoning,
that something like this (that is, preexistence) must be sup-
posed, in order to account for the fact of our depravity
consistently with the justice of God, our reasoning, instead
of proving the fact of a preexistent state, would only prove
our ignorance and presumption.''
Is it, indeed, so ? And will reflecting men be willing to
take such a ground on the most practical and important
of all questions 7 If the great end of this remedial system
is so to justify God and condemn man as to lay a reasonable
foundation for undissembled and intelligent penitence, then
is it not necessary to take up, not merely the fact, but the
origin, of sin ? Are there, in fact, no principles of equity
and honor on this point ? Has the church in all ages been
mistaken in supposing that there are 7 Is it not possible
that men may so misinterpret the Bible as to represent God
as introducing sin dishonorably ? Are we bound to receive
all that any man chooses on such grounds to assert con-
cerning God 7 Is nothing due to the honor of God 7 If
it can be clearly proved that the common theory of the fall
in Adam is at war with God's honor, and that preexistence
is not, because it opens the way for such an origin of evil
as I have described, is there no sound argument in all this 7
So far am I from giving way before such a style of dog-
matic assertion, that I do not hesitate to say that a proper
vindication of God in this matter is one great work both
of this and of future ages.
All that God is doing, in the present dispensation, is but
a part of one great system. We cannot understand this
480 CONFLICT OF AGES.
system, unless we consider its ends, and the adaptation of
means to gain them. One end is, to put down all hostile
power, rule and authority, now arrayed against God
(1 Cor. 15 : 24, 25). This is to be done by exposing the
nature, criminality, and results of the revolt of Satlan
and his followers from God. This implies that it may (be
and must be known that it originated without any good
reason, and from no fault on the part of God ; and that the
creature is to be blamed for its origin, and not the creator ;
and, in order to see this, it must be disclosed, at least in
principle, how and why it did originate.
If its power is to be destroyed by turning the convictions
of intelligent beings against its authors, then it cannot be
destroyed till they are convinced. The same principles
apply in the case of man. The Bible nowhere represents
the conflict between God and his rebellious creatures as one
of mere power. God is to be "justified in his sayings and
overcome when he is judged.^'' It is a strife which is to
be decided not by naked power, but by good conduct ; that
is, by benevolent, honorable, and right conduct.
But, as it is a strife between unequal parties, infinitely
unequal, there is a sentiment of honor in such a case,
imposing the highest responsibilities on him whose power,
knowledge and other advantages, are greatest. We see
the action of this principle clearly developed in this life.
In a moral strife of an elevated, highly-educated clergyman,
of great powers and advantages, with an inexperienced boy,
whilst we should not excuse sin in the boy, yet we should
judge the clergyman by the law, — to whom much is given,
of him, also, is much required.
Especially, if, in such a conflict, the original advantages of
any one, for good conduct, depended not on his own will, but
on that of one in conflict with him, should we make high
THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. 481
demands of honor on the more powerful, not to put his
antagonist into a position of needless weakness and disability.
In physical conflicts, all admit the force of this principle.
If a powerful man should give to a weak antagonist a lead
sword and a paper shield, and arm himself with a steel
sword and a metal shield, would there be any honor in a
victory achieved in such circumstances 1
In this wide universe no thought is so affecting as to
exist for eternity, and to be called on, in a relatively brief
time of trial, to decide the character of that eternity.
In the case of every being who thus exists, the following
things do not depend at all upon his will, but solely on
God's : The fact that he exists; his original constitution and
powers ; his circumstances in the system of God, and the
influences exerted on him by God, by way of statement,
persuasion and motives of all kinds, adapted to secure a
right deportment.
In order to justify God, and to condemn his sinful
creatures, all the sentiments of an honorable mind demand
that it be made to appear that, in all these things, God did
all for his creatures that our highest conceptions of justice,
honor, magnanimity and generosity, demand ; all that was
needed to place them in the most favorable position possible,
all things considered, for good conduct : and that he earnestly
desired their success, -and that their misconduct was against
reason, honor and right, and no less against the feelings and
wishes of God.
If any say that, on such principles, the entrance of moral
evil cannot occur, I reply, the statement is very inconsiderate.
What is the standard of the best possible constitution and
powers ? Is it not an adaptation of the mind to know God,
to commune with him in love, and to act in a system with
him? But this implies, of necessity, vast powers of
41
482 CONFLICT or ages.
conception and emotion, powerful impulses to action, and
great energy of y,^ill. To fit innumerable minds, so consti-
tuted, to act together and with God in an infinite system,
involves, of necessity, trial, just as it did in the case of
Christ, in order properly to develop and perfect them ; and
such trial involves the possibility, and even the dangfer, of
failure through unbelief.
For, as the preserving power, in time of trial, is a belief
of the statements of God as to what is right and wrong,
wise and unwise, and as to the certainty of good or evil, as
law is observed or violated, — and if none but God knows, or
can know, intuitively, all truth, and the full extent and
certainty of good or evil involved, — and if he cannot transfer
his own infinite perceptions to finite minds, then no course
is left but to throw his creatures on faith ; and, if in trial
they will not believe^ but will gain, by trial against law, a
knowledge of good and evil, then to push on the system to
its final results, till the real truth in the case shall be
developed by facts ; God, meantime, enduring with infinite
patience the unbelief and ingratitude of his creatures, till
he has fully acted out his own truth and righteousness, and
they their falsehood and wrong. Thus would God be "jus-
tified in his sayings, and overcome when he is judged."
Such a view of the origin of evil does not imply the neces-
sity of sinning, as a means of moral development. For, under
such a system, multitudes have persevered without sin, and
been confirmed in holiness. Indeed, no one can show that
of the great majority of existing beings this is not true.
The decided probability is that it is true.
Nor, in the case of any, vras there a necessity of falling;
for, though limited in knowledge, still they had che power
to believe God, and so to stand steadfast in obedience. In
t^.c highest exercises of faith there is always a vigorous
THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. 483
exercise of the will ; and it was, before evil entered, in the
power of all to believe, and thus to live. But they dis-
believed, and fell. Of this we see a symbol in the tempta-
tion in Eien. Belief of God and eating of the tree of life
are connected. Disbelief of God, and a determination to
know, by trial, the truth of his statements as to good and
evil, is symbolized by a determination to eat of the tree of
knowledge of good and evil, in view of the denial of danger
and the hope of gain which proceeded from him who well
remembered his own guilty fall.
Such a view of the origin of evil is a full defence of
God. It also shows that, after creation and the entrance
of sin, a system of evolution^ with a well-defined end,
would, of necessity, arise, presenting something to be done
by God, not in the exercise of mere naked power, but in
the practical development of all his excellences, in a
system in which, according to his own words, he is as
really '' tried and proved " as are his creatures^ and
in which in a peculiar and infinite degree he develops
patience, long-sufiering, mercy, grace, self-sacrifice, self-
denial, and forgiving love, and finally overcomes and pros-
trates all his foes by this full development of his real and
infinitely tried and proved excellences, in contrrast with the
unbelief, ingratitude and malevolence, of his enemies.
Not only is this view of the origin of evil better than any
that the common theory of the fall in Adam will allow, but
it is in striking accordance with the general aspects of the
Bible.
That sacred book discloses to us upon its very face a
system of evolution designed fully to bring out the character
of God, and, by so doing, to give him a glorious intellectual
and moral victory over all his foes. But the very nature
of such a system siows t'lat it was not possible for God to
484 CONFLICT OF AGES.
make this disclosure of himself to finite creatures, by
direct power, and without the acting out of principles and
attributes in a system. This is a necessary iijiference from
the infinity of God, and is proved by facts ; for hb now reaches
this result at the expense of much misery and the ruin of
many of his creatures. By this he makes certain principles
so clearly known as to remove all grounds of subsequent
unbelief in coming ages. But, if God, by direct power,
could have made the universe to know these things just as
surely without the facts as with them, then the misery is
superfluous and malevolent.
God, also, in certain cases, has recognized the limitation
of finite minds from which the necessity of such evolution
arises. He says, by Moses, of the Jews, " I said I would
scatter them into corners. I would make the remembrance
of them' to cease from among men, were it not that I feared
the wrath of the enemy, lest their adversaries should behave
themselves strangely, and lest they should say, Our hand
is high, and the Lord hath not done all this ; " that is, lest
I should be misunderstood by limited minds, if I did not
thus disclose myself (Deut. 32: 26, 27.) See, also,
Num. 14 : 15.
We notice, also, that the great end of the system, in all
who are saved, is, in a peculiar and preeminent degree, to
develop and perfect faith. Throughout the whole system
intense energy is concentrated on this point. I infer from
this that here was the weak point where evil first entered,
just as if, when a building had fallen into ruins, we should
infer that the weakness which caused the fall lay just
where the architect was concentrating all his skill to produce
peculiar stirongth in the new building.
So, then, this view falls in with all known laws of mind,
and with the leading facts and character of the system.
THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. 485
On the other hand, to ascribe to God unlimited direct
power to produce, xoithoiit evolution^ any amount of knowl-
edge and faith, in an infinite system, makes the introduction
of evil not so much a mystery as a needless act of malev-
olence. For, what if it does give occasion to God to display
his attributes ? Still, by the supposition, he could have
caused exactly the same knowledge, and belief, and feeling,
concerning them, without any such evolution. And it is a
self-evident truth that it is malevolent to produce results at
the expense of eternal misery that could be produced just
as well without it.
Indeed, although Dr. Woods denies this temporary limita-
tion in the power of God, yet, when he is called to defend
God, in view of the existence of moral evil, he resorts, in
fact, to the same theory. " My answer is, it may, in one way
or another, be the means of making a brighter and more
diversified display of the divine perfections, and thus of
giving the intelligent creation, as a whole, a higher knowl-
edge and enjoyment of God. It may be the means of illus-
trating more clearly the excellence of the law and govern-
ment of God, and of producing ultimately, through his moral
kingdom, a purer and more ardent attachment to his char-
acter and his administration ; so that his intelligent creatures,
by means of the instruction and discipline in this way
a*fforded, may be brought ultimately to a state of higher
perfection and enjoyment than they could attain in any
other way." Now, if God had the direct power to give to
his creatures the knowledge of himself and his law and
administration which is here spoken of, without any devel-
opments, then his creatures could obtain the specified
results of that knowledge in another way, and without
development. They could obtain both the knowledge and
its results by direct divine communication. But Dr
41*
iSQ CONFLICT OF AGES.
\
Woods says that they "could not attaiii them in any
other way." He is sustained in this assertion by the best
of reasons; for, if God could have communicated them
directly, and without such developments of suffering as
exist, and will exist forever, then he is malevolent, as
before shown.
Hence, all of those who agree with Dr. Woods in de-
fending God on the ground that by moral evil and its
results he develops himself and his government as he could
not otherwise do, — and all know how numerous they are, — •
do, in fact, concede, the very principle for which I contend.
Indeed, on this question, there are but two suppositions
possible. Either the limitation of divine power in the
earlier stages of creation, which I advocate, exists, or it
does not exist. If it does not exist, then no man can
defend God against the charge of malevolence. If it does
exist, then there is, as I have shown, a simple and natural
solution of the origin of evil. Out of this first origin
would naturally arise a system like that in this world, for
the redemption of a part of those who had fallen, and the
exposure of the rest ; the whole resulting in a full develop-
ment of God, and the removal of all future occasions of
unbelief
If the limitation in question does not exist, if God has
unlimited power to communicate knowledge and emotion
without development, then there is no reason for the ex-
istence of evil. It discloses nothing that could not be just
as well disclosed without it. It makes no display of the
attributes of God, or of his government, thit could not be
just as perfectly made without it. The sufferings of the
lost are, therefore, so much needless, and worse than need-
less, misery. This view of the case impeaches the character
THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. 487
of God, darkens the whole system, sickens the mind, and
renders non-existence more desirable than life.
But we are not left without inspired testimony on thi^
point. We have seen that, of these opposite systems, one
implies, and the other excludes, the suffering of God. If,
then, the Bible decides the question whether God suffers or
not in consequence of the entrance of evil, it, in so doing,
decides the question which of these systems is true.
But, if anything is prominent and uncontradicted in the
Bible, it is the great doctrine that the entrance of evil has
involved a period of long-continued suffering to God. In-
deed, it is the grand characteristic of the present system,
that all the glorious results to which God is conducting the
universal system have been purchased at the expense of
his own long- continued and patiently-endured sufferings.
In this he gives to the universe the highest possible proof
of pure, disinterested, self-sacrificing love.
These disclosures of the Bible settle the question as to
the origin of evil. They no less clearly prove that the
origin of the sin of man is not to be looked for in this
world.
We do not find here beings with uncorrupted moral con-
stitutions, nor in the most favorable circumstances. We
find nothing which a God. such as the Bible discloses, would
be irresistibly moved to confer on new-created minds, in
whose death he had no pleasure, and whose eternal well-
being he so desired as to be filled with grief at their ruin.
In view of such facts, there is but one conclusion to which
we can rationally come. We see at once that this world is
not the abode of new-created, upright minds. On the other
hand, this is a system of sovereignty towards beings who, by
sin, have forfeited their rights as new-created minds. The
laWiS of honor and right, towards new-created minds, are not
488 CONFLICT OF AGES.
observed in this world, because men are born under a
forfeiture of them, and are " by nature children of wrath."
By thus running back to a previous state, we can reach
a sphere in which those principles were observed towards
new-created minds which consist with the character of God,
as revealed in the Bible ; and, on those principles, we can
account for all the native depravity and entire sinfulness of
man ; and, as no testimony of God confines us to this world
for the origin of human depravity, then, if these things
are so, the character of God and the general principles and
facts of the system prove that sin did not originate here, but
that this dispensation is merely a step in the great system of
exposure, by which God is to be disclosed, truth and holi-
ness vindicated, and error, unbelief and sin, to be exposed,
paralyzed and punished, forever.
CHAPTER XV.
ARGUMENT FROM THE SYSTEM.
I AM now prepared to resume and set forth the argument
from the agreement of thie phenomena of the whole system
with the theory of preexistence, and from a view of its rela-
tions to education and the social system. I have already
said that a full development of this argument will require-
volumes, rather than a chapter in a single volume. But, to
complete the outline of my argument, it is necessary that I
state some of the points involved, and indicate the mode of
their development. I shall state nothing, however, for the
proof of which I am not willing, or rather desirous, to be
held responsible.
I allege, then,
1. That a system based on preexistence is the only one
w^hich admits and requires such principles as explain what
the church of God is, and develops a system of the uni-
verse centring in God and the church, according to the
Scriptures.
2. It is the only system which demands, or even allows,
of a natural and consistent development of that view of God
which is peculiar to the Scriptures, — I mean that view in
which his attributes of patience and long-suffering are pre-
sented as glorious realities, and are not enervated, or rather
490 CONFLICT OF AGES.
annihilated, by the assumption that God ca/inot suffer
which is a doctrine not of the Bible, but of a severe and
unscriptural philosophy.
3. It alone so explains the operation of the material sys-
tem, in the work of redeeming the church, as to unfold the
reasons, laws and use, of its symbolical and typical signifi-
cance, the laws of its action on the mind, and the mode of
making it a powerful agent in the cultivation of holiness, —
and as thus to cut up by the roots the Platonic, Gnostic and
Manichean errors as to this part of God's system.
4. It alone renders possible a system of education that
shall be throughout philosophical and consistent, concealing
none of the maladies of the mind, and furnishing remedies
for them all, so as harmoniously to develop, purify, invigo-
rate and perfect, all the powers of the body and of the mind
in connection.
5. It alone can put an end to that paralysis of social and
religious energy which is produced, as I have sliOAvn, by a
deep and radical division among good men, which is, on the
present system, without any logical remedy.
6. It alone can present to the human mind a God so cor-
related to it in all respects that he shall fill its highest pos-
sible conceptions, and fully evolve and perfect all its powers,
and lead it, by the full influence of his own example, to a
truly humble, unvforldly, self-sacrificing, self-denying life.
7. It alone averts the tendency of free thought, under an
elevated system of education, to Pelagianism, and ultimately
to mere naturalism and infidelity, by rendering a supernat-
ural development the great, fundamental, and truly philo-
sophical law of the system, — thus on this point harmoniz-
ing reason and faith.
8. It alone leads to such an understanding of the doctrine
of future eternal punishments as, connected with the
ARGUMENT FROM THF SYSTEM. 491
previous suffering of God, shall properly throw the moral
sympathies of all holy minds on the side of God, and put an
end. to that reaction which tends so fatally to destroy the
true and indispensable power of that doctrine.
9. It alone leads to those full and consistent views of
God, and that eminent hoHness of the church, which shall
render possible and shall introduce the predicted marriage-
supper of the Lamb.
10. It alone so presents God and his government as to
furnish the logical means of effecting in principle and spirit
a radical destruction of those desj^otic civil and ecclesiastical
organizations in which is the great stronghold of the god of
this world, and which are the chief impediment to the
spread of the gospel, and the conversion of the world.
11. It alone can furnish the logical means of binding
Satan, destroying his kingdom, converting the world, and
reorganizing human society in accordance with the prin-
ciples of the kingdom of God.
It will, I suppose, be admitted that, if these statements
are true, they do furnish all needed evidence of the truth of
preexistence.
But, of course, I cannot expect them to be believed with-
out proof Nor can I, in my present limits, make out a
full defence of them all. But I state them as theses or prop-
ositions essential in order fully to develop my argument,
and which I am willing, at any time and in any proper way,
to defend.
At the same time, I shall not leave them all entirely
without proof, but shall select some of the most fundamen-
tal of them, and proceed to their exposition and defence,
reserving to a future time the completion of the work.
It is obvious that, if these general statements are true,
the doctrine of preexistence not only removes the main
492 CONFLICT OF AGES.
causes of antecedent derangements, but it puts the whole
system into worhing order, and fits it for the present
and future exigences of the church. By this I mean, not
only that it causes the main moving powers of the system
to work together, as already shown, but also that it intro-
duces the principles of harmony into the whole system in
all its parts, thereby rendering possible the unity of the
church, and preparing the way for the final intellectual and
moral victory, which is to be an end of all strife.
It effects this by taking up the great scriptural facta
which have been held without any enlarged and rational
principle of connection, and combining them in a plan, sim-
ple and sublime, growing out of clear and definite principles,
and comprehending the end of the universal system, and its
origin, progress, and final state.
The following great facts lie on the surface of the Bible :
The fall of Satan, and the existence of a kingdom of evil
spirits in conflict with the kingdom of God ; also the existence
of an opposing system, centralized by Christ, designed to
destroy their power and prostrate them forever. The ful-
filment of this great design is said to precede and close the
present dispensation. Another coincident prominent fact is
the redemption of the church through the atonement of
Christ, a work the completion of which also coincides in
time with the prostration of the kingdom of darkness.
Another striking feature of the Bible is that the present
material system was created to be subservient to this end,
and is destined to a future renovation Avhen this dispensa-
tion has closed. Finally, the word of God presents the
church as united to God, at the end of the system, by a
peculiar and eternal covenant ; as sitting down with him
upon his throne, and inheriting all things, and reigning Avith
)iim forever. It declares, moreover, that the great end of
ARGUMENT FEOM THE SYSTEM. 493
all these proceedings is the disclosure of God to present and
future generations of intelligent minds in all ages and all
worlds : and, in accordance with this end, it develops a full,
\yonderful, and in some respects unanticipated and peculiar
character of God.
The existing theories of the fall in Adam have never
allowed all of these great biblical facts to be combined in
any simple, natural and consistent system of the universe,
growing out of clear and definite principles, each part of
which harmonizes with every other, and imparts to it
strength ; but they have rather been arranged in limited
and incomplete systems, always leaving some of the facts
the relation of which to each other and to the great end of
the system of the universe is unknown.
Indeed, all efforts to form a complete system of the uni-
verse have been discouraged by many as adventurous and
profitless. So, indeed, they are, if the system is not law-
fully constructed out of revealed facts. But, if revealed
facts do furnish a simple and sublime system, why reject
it ? Such a system is a natural want of the mind. Towards
it it has tended in all ages. History is full of theories of
the universe. All men, too, at this day, are, in fact, in-
fluenced by theories of the universe of some sort, — even
those who affect to discourage such theories in others.
Such theories may not have been developed by them, and
consciously stated and adopted. They exist rather as those
elevated reservoirs of water, which few visit, but which
nevertheless impel the little streams of water which are
used in the varied business of daily practical life. It would,
indeed, be quite as rational to scout the idea of elevated and
distant reservoirs as expensive and out of the reach of the
community, and to advocate the construction of a mere
system of water-pipes, without a reservoir, for practical use,
42
494 CONFLICT OF AGES.
as to scout and repudiate theories of the universe. The
world is full of them ; their influence is felt on every side.
All men daily use trains of thinking and reasoning that
have flowed from them, even if they have never consciously
seen and adopted them. Those who repudiate them are
often great admirers of Edwards But did he aim at no
system ot the universe ? What is his celebrated and eulo-
gized treatise on God's last end in creation, but his system
of the universe ? What is his '' History of the Work of
Redemption," but that system of the universe historically
exhibited ? In particular, near the close of his general in-
troduction, he states, in five particulars, the great outlines
of that system ; and all of these particulars, so far as they go,
coincide with the view revealed in the Bible.
Moreover, in his " Miscellaneous Observations " relative
to the angels and heaven, he still more fully illustrates
various parts of his system of the universe. So, then,
those who eulogize Edwards ought not to deny and under-
value systems of the universe. In like manner it has been
fashion-able with many to speak of the question of the origin
of evil as a vain and profitless inquiry ; and yet many, not
to say all, of the practical religious systems of the day,
spring directly out of difierent theories as to the origin of
evil. The theory of divine efficiency is at its roots one
theory of the origin of evil and of the universe ; that of im-
putation is another ; and that of the New Haven divines is
still another. And, even if few ascend to these fountain-
heads of thought, still multitudes, in all parts of the land,
are daily drawing and drinking the difierent kinds of water
which flow from them.
It is, therefore, not without reason that Miiller, in hia
great work on sin, says " that this great problem has occu-
pied the spirits not merely of the theologian and philosopher,
ARGUMENT FROM THE SYSTEM. 495
©n account of their calling, but of all to whom there has
been a deep necessity of finding a rational and intelligible
gi-uund of the true significance of human life. And very
PROPERLY so. So Certain as the religious ethical interests
of the human spirit are the absolutely highest, so certainly
must a world-opinion which seeks entirely to avoid the
question concerning the origin of sin, or to put it aside as a
subordinate matter, appear nothing more than in the high-
est degree empty and abstract." (Vol. i. p. 289. Puls-
ford's Translation.) The origin of evil and a system of the
universe, then, are lawful objects of inquiry. Let us, then,
inquire what is that system of the universe which the
doctrine of preexistence derives from the word of God.
A true view of the system of the universe demands two
things as essential.
First, a solution of the intellectual and moral system.
Second, a true view of the relations of the material system
to it.
That theories as to the material system have great power
over the doctrinal development of the moral system, all expe-
rience shows. The facts of greatest interest to be considered
in the moral system are, the origin and progress of moral
evil, and its final subjugation by the dispensations of God.
But no one needs to be told how extensively the doctrine
has prevailed, both in the heathen and Christian world, that
the true cause of the origin of sin is to be found in matter.
It pervades the Platonic philosophy, the various theories of
Gnosticism, the Manichean system, and has also penetrated
the various branches of the Christian church. Indeed,
Isaac Taylor, in his analysis of the ascetic corruptions of
ancient Christianity, does not hesitate to represent this
feature of Gnosticism as their primal source ; and no well-
informed thinker will call in question the correctness of this
496 CONFLICT OP AGES.
judgment. Not only, therefore, is the whole theory of sin
and holiness, of morals and of practical sanctification, vitally
affected by the question of the relation of the material sys-
tem to the intellectual and moral, but the influence of that
relation has extended to the whole theory of the system of
the universe. Indeed, from this quarter, it is possible, by
a single decision, to control the whole system. It is, then,
a matter of the highest practical moment, and not of mere
theory, to come to a correct view of the relation of the
material to the intellectual and moral system of the uni-
verse.
And yet, as we shall soon see, the mere statement of the
system, growing out of preexistence, will so adjust the rela-
tions of the material world, that all conflict and evil influences
from that quarter will cease.
Let us, then, consider in order, first, the solution of the
intellectual and moral system of the universe, and then the
relations to it of the material system.
The natural and scientific solution of any system requires
the discovery of its end, and of the relations of its parts to
that end and to each other. Hence Edwards made God's end
in creation the subject of a special treatise, in which, as I
have said, he gives his system of the universe. He comes
to the conclusion that the union of the church to God is the
final end. In this the system is completed. In this God
rests.
The key to the whole system is, no doubt, to be found in
correct views of the church, and of her union to God. But
the position in which Edwards leaves the matter does not
fully satisfy the mind. Other questions will arise, which he
does not answer. What is the peculiar idea of the church ?
For what great end was she redeemed and united to God 7
Why is her final union to God sp)ken of as a marriage 7
ARGUMENT FROM THE SYSTEM. 497
Till these questions can be answered, the mind does not rest
in the solution of Edwards as full and thorough.
To these questions no satisfactory answer has, as yet,
been given. The common system suggests none, and ad-
mits of none. That which I advocate does. But, before I
produce it, let us consider existing opinions as to the church.
Of all writers on theology, President Edwards the elder
thought and wrote the most on the church in her eternal
relations. Indeed, it is the grand peculiarity of his theology
that it centres around this point. Hence its riches, depth
and power. His history of the work of Redemption, as
well as his essay on the end of God in creation, are so far
correct as they put the union of God and the church in the
centre of all things. But, the mind at once demands.
What is the church, and why this union? Let us, then,
consider some common views on this subject, and some
which Edwards has more fully developed.
1. It is, then, generally conceded that the church consists
of those, and those only, who are redeemed through the
atonement of Christ, and regenerated and sanctified through
tlie gracious influences of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, we
might almost define the component elements of the church
in the words of the apostle Peter, by saying that they are
those of the human race who were " elected according to the
foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of
the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of
Jesus Christ." These in heaven will all sino; the same sons;
of redeeming love, and none can sing this song but those
thus redeemed from this earth.
2. It is also generally held that, through the redemption
of the church, there has been made a peculiar and glorious
development of the divine attributes, the influence of which
is, or is to be, felt throughout the whole intelligent universe.
42*
498 CONFLICT OF AGK;?.
For, although this is a small world, and the human race in
itself is relatively unimportant, yet, as all created beings in
all worlds have a common interest in God, whatever devel-
ops his attributes and character has an interest which ia
universal, and of the highest kind.
3. It is also held that the redemption of the church is
eifected through a severe and widely-extended conflict.
That on the side of God are arrayed legions of angels of
light ; and that against these are arrayed legions of fallen
spirits, under Satan, the original author of evil, and the
great leader of the existing rebellion against God.
4. It is also admitted, by all who credit the Bible, that
when the redemption of the church is completed this con-
flict is brought to a final close. That then all hostile rule,
and authority, and power, shall be put down, and that all
enemies shall be put beneath the Redeemer's feet. (1 Cor.
15: 24, 25.)
5. It is also admitted and taught, at least by Edwards, ,
that the church will not, after her redemption, be merged in
the great mass of holy beings who compose the kingdom of
God, but will remain forever a peculiar and united body,
sustaining peculiar and eternal relations to God and to the
rest of his kingdom. Of this the proof is ample.
6. It is also proved and taught by the same great divine,
that, through the redemption of the church and her union
with Christ, the whole intelligent universe will be brought
together and united under one head in Christ ; and that of
this head, in virtue of her union to Christ, the church shall
compose a part. That, in virtue of this union, the church
shall be exalted with Christ to sit upon his throne; and that,
in consequence of this elevation, her dignity and rank shall
exceed those of the angels, and of all other orders of created
beings. In short, that the church shall be nearest of all
ARGUMENT FROM THE SYSTEM. 499
created beings to Him who sitteth on the throne of the uni-
verse, and shall, in union with Him, rule over that universe
forever. Of this, too, the scriptural proof is ample.
7. In fine, it is held bj him that the church is the ulti-
mate end of God, not merely as a means, but as what he
rejoices in and is satisfied with most directly and properly,
as.the bridegroom rests in and is satisfied with the bride.
In his own words, '' They are those elect creatures, which
must be looked on as the end of all the rest of the creation,
considered with respect to the whole of their eternal dura-
tion, and, as such, made God's end, — and must be viewed as
being, as it were, one with God. They were respected as
brought home to him, united with him, centring most per-
fectly, and, as it were, swallowed up in him, so that his
respect to therm finally coincides, and becomes one and the
same as his respect to himself" For his proof of these
points, see his treatise on '' God's last end in creation."
Such, then, are some of the points which are more or less
generally conceded by intelligent Christians ; and no one
will deny that they present to the mind ideas of inconceiva-
ble magnitude and interest. .Moreover, these views are
sustained, in all their great outlines, by the clear and decisive
testimony of the word of God.
Yet thus far enough has not been stated to satisfy the
rational demands of the mind as to the system of the uni-
verse, and to give it rational repose. Indeed, until a more
full account is given of some intelligible ulterior end of
these proceedings, they have to the mind an aspect of some-
thing exaggerated and incredible.
Why is one part of God's creatures thus made the end
of the creation? Why so valued, honored and exalted
above the rest'? Especially are these feelings excited, if
this union is presented as the ultimate result of all things.
500 CONFLICT OF AGES.
If the holy universe are all created, and God has at length
completed his works of development, so that nothing remains
but to study and adore what he has done, — moreover, if the
scriptural account of heaven and its joys is taken as nothing
but a glowing statement of the enjoyment of the pleasures
of holy society and of worship, and of the study of God's
works, and if only indefinite suggestions are made of un-
known modes of active usefulness, — then the mind is driven
back from the future, as if everything of great interest had
already been done, and as if the mere ends of study, and
enjoyment, and indefinite action, and even of endless worship,
did not open before the mind a future equal to what its
capacities can comprehend and demand. After a long
training on earth to thought, and enterprise, and vigorous
action, it needs some more definite and intelligible field for
the exercise of its powers, and some afiecting and exciting
end of action.
There is one simple idea, naturally flowing from the sys-
tem of preexistence, that will at once effect all this. It is
this : that the work of creating and training intelligent
beings to know and love and serve God is but just begun,
and that the main increase and extension of the universe is
yet to come ; and that by the redemption of the church the
universe of God will be brought into such a state that that
increase can be made without any hazard of any new
entrance of moral evil, and be continued forever, — and
especially that the church, owing to the manner of her
redemption, and her peculiar training, will be prepared to
preside over and to train the successive generations of nen-
created minds as no others can ; and that, for this end, and
also as the resting-place of his own highest and most pecu-
liar affections, she will be united to God, and exalted to
roign with him in the manner that has been described. Also,
ARGUMENT FROM THE SYSTEM. 501
that the relation of this union between the church and God
to this increase, is the reason why it is called a marriage.
Viewed in this light, the redemption of the church, as set
forth in the preceding statements, derived from the word of
God, loses its aspect of an insulated, exaggerated and
incredible transaction. It is at once placed in the centre
of the system, as a simple and rational means for the attain-
ment of ends so definite, so vast, so momentous, so deeply
affecting, that they at once fill and satisfy the mind as
worthy of God, and sujfficient fully to put in requisition,
and that forever, all the affections, intellectual powers, and
attainments of the church. The object, moreover, is one
of surpassing interest to God, and to all other orders of
created minds, forever.
For, if in the redemption of the church God aimed to
prostrate Satan and his hosts, and thus to put the universe
in such a state that an endless increase could be secured,
and also to provide the means of effecting it, and also a
peculiar object of his own eternal affections in their highest
form, then his whole system is not only perfectly explained,
but is seen to involve the highest possible good of the uni-
verse. We see the importance to God, and to the whole
universe, of the redemption of the church. It fully justifies
the use of such means as the incarnation and the atonement.
It shows why God created and governs all things with refer-
ence to this end. It shows why the advent of the day of
the final union of God and the church is an occurrence of
such deep interest to him and to his holy kingdom. It
shows why it is such a crisis in the history of the universe,
— why to it all things have tended from the beginning, and
why from it all things will forever diverge, after the great
work shall be finally completed.
It would be a matt^-^.r of just surprise, in view of all the
502 CONrLICT OF AGES.
statements of the word of God wliicli have been set forth,
that this view of the case has never presented itself and
been adopted, if the common system did not lead the mind
away from it and exclude it, as I shall soon evince.
Yet at one moment the profound and original Bellamy
stood on the very verge of the true solution, and even sug-
gested one of its main features. I refer to the sublime idea
of the future indefinite increase of the kingdom of God, after
the close of this system. But the peculiar relations of the
church to this increase he did not discern, nor its intima-
tion by the analogy of the marriage of the church to God.
Yet the views which he did advance are worthy of record,
as shoAving what ideas a contemplation of God's system as a
whole suggested to his mind, with reference to the ultimate
state of the universe.
He is defending his own doctrine concerning the wisdom
of God in the permission of sin, on the ground that He must,
in all that he does, do what is most for His own glory. To
this his opponent, among other things, replies that " God
might have brought all possible beings into existence at
once, which would have given a greater display of his per-
fections." To this Bellamy answers that, in his opinion,
God knows and has done exactly what was wisest and best
in this matter, and therefore most for His own glory. And
to this he adds :
"How know we if God thinks it best to have a larger
number of intelligences to behold his glory and be happy in
aim, but that he judges it best not to bring them into exist-
ence till the present ' grand drama ' shall be finished at the
day of judgment? That they may, without sharing the
hazard of the present confused state of things, reap the ben-
efit of the whole, through eternal ages ; whilst angels and
saints may be appointed their instructors to lead them into
ARGUMENT FROM THE SYSTEM. 503
the knowledge of all God's ways to his creatures, and of all
their ways to him, from the time of Satan's revolt in heaven
to the final consummation of all things. And as the Jew-
ish dispensation was introductory and preparatory to the
Christian, so this present universe may be introductory and
preparatory to one after the day of judgment, almost infi-
nitely larger. That this will be the case, I do not pretend
so much as to conjecture. But I firmly believe that what
is best on the whole, that infinite wisdom always has done,
and always will do; and here I rest." (Works, vol. ii.
pp. 142—3. New York, 1811.)
This view is brought forward to answer an objection, and
is for this end presented as a hypothesis which no man can
disprove. Bellamy, therefore, saw the rationality of the
idea of endless increase after the day of judgment ; but the
indications in the system that the church was specifically
prepared for that very end, and the manifest intimation of
it in the analogy of marriage, entirely escaped his notice.
If he had compared this sublime suggestion of his with all
that is said in the Bible on the relations of the church to
God, he would have found reason to regard it as more than
a mere supposition, or a conjecture ; he would have found
the facts and the lano;;uao;e of the Bible relative to the
church all tending to this result, fully explained by it, and
incapable of any other satisfactory explanation.
The idea of increase after the day of judgment is also the
basis of Pollok's Course of Time.
Two youthful sons of Paradise are introduced as walking
Ugh on the hills of immortality,
• " Casting oft their eye far through
The pure serene, observant if, returned
From errand duly finished, any came,
Or any, first in virtue now complete.
From other worlds arrived, confirmed in good."
504 CONFLICT OF AGES.
One such they saw approaching the place where they
stood. This place is the residence of God, the centre of the
universe. Of it the poet thus speaks :
"Mountains of tallest stature circumscribe
The plains of Paradise, whose tops, arrayed
In uncreated radiance, seem so pure.
That naught but angel's foot, or saint's elect
Of God, may yenture there to walk ; here oft
The sons of bliss take morn or evening pastime.
Delighted to behold ten thousand worlds
Around their suns revolving in the vast
External space, or listen the harmonies
That each to other in its motion sings.
And hence, in middle heaven remote, is seen
The mount of God in awful glory bright.
Within, no orb create of moon, or star.
Or sun gives light ; for God's own countenance,
Beaming eternally, gives light to all ;
But further than these sacred hills his will
Forbids its flow — too bright for eyes beyond.
This is the last ascent of Virtue ; here
All trial ends, and hope ; here perfect joy.
With perfect righteousness, which to these heights
Alone can rise, begins, above all fall."
Of himself he thus speaks :
" Virtue, I need not tell, when proved, and full
Matured, inclines us up to God and heaven,
By law of sweet compulsion strong and sure ;
As gravitation to the larger orb
The less attracts, through matter's whole domain.
Virtue in me was ripe. — I speak not this
In boast, for what I am to God I owe,
Entirely owe, and of myself am naught.
Equipped, and bent for heaven, I left yon world,
My native seat, which scarce your eye can reach,
Rolling around her central sun, far out,
On utmost verge of light : but first to see
What lay beyond the visible creation.
Strong curiosity my flight impelled."
aiRGUMENT FROM THE SYSTEM. 505
On his way he saw the hell to which had been consigned
the lost of the human race, and, full of wonder and astonish-
ment, pressed on towards Paradise for an explanation. Such
an explanation the youthful sons of Paradise could not give,
and therefore conducted him to another teacher.
" Something indeed ■we heard before.
In passing conversation slightly touched,
Of such a place ; yet rather to be taught,
Than teaching, answer what thy marvel asks,
We need ; for we ourselves, though here, are b'^'
Of yesterday — creation's younger sons.
But there is one, an ancient bard of Earth,
Who, by the stream of life sitting in bliss.
Has oft beheld the eternal years complete
The mighty cu'cle round the throne of God ;
Great in all learning, in all wisdom gi-eat.
And great in song ; whose harp in lofty strain
Tells frequently of what thy wonder craves.
While round him gathering stand the youth of heave
With truth and melody delighted both ;
To him this path directs, an easy path.
And easy flight will bring us to his seat."
The sum of the reply is thus given by the ancient bard :
" The place thou sawst was hell ; the groans thou heardst
The wailings of the damned, of those who would
Not be redeemed, and at the judgment day,
Long past, for unrepented sins were damned.
The seven loud thunders which thou heardst, declare
The eternal wrath of the Almighty God.
But whence, or why they came to dwell in woe.
Why they curse God, what means the glorious mom
Of resurrection, these a longer tale
Demand, and lead the mournful lyre far back
Through memory of sin and mortal man.
Yet haply not rewardless we shall trace
The dark disastrous years of finished Time,
43
606 CONFLICT OF AGES.
Sorrows remembered sweeten present joy.
Nor yet shall all be sad ; for God gave peace,
Much i>eace, on earth, to all who feared his name.**
The narrative of the bard occupies the remaining books
of the poem.
Here, then, as in Bellamy, we have the idea of endless
increase, but the relation of the church to it is not seen.
Indeed, the moral education of the youth of heaven, in
various worlds, is represented as often, if not always, com-
pleted without the knowledge of the history of this world
and of the church. Even some of those in Paradise do not
know enough of it to instruct a new comer.
And yet the poet thus sets forth the result of the history
of this world. At the close of the judgment, and of the
burning of the earth, angels and saints, chanting songg of
praise, ascend with the Redeemer to the eternal gates.
*' Thus sung they God, their Saviour : and themselves
Prepared complete to enter now, with Christ,
Their living Head, into the Holy Place.
Behold ! the daughter of the King, the bride.
All glorious within, the bride adorned.
Comely in broidery of gold I behold.
She comes, apparelled royally, in robes
Of perfect righteousness, fair as the sun.
With all her virgins, her companions fair, —
Into the Palace of the King she comes.
She comes to dwell forevermore ! Awake,
Eternal harps ! awake, awake, and sing ! —
The Lord, the Lord, our God Almighty, reigns ! "
He sees the universal and unchangeable system opening
as a wedding, resulting in the endless covenant union of
God and the church. He also believes in an indefinite
increase and education of new-created minds, and yet sees
ARGUMENT FROM THE SYSTEM. 507
no peculiar relation of the cliurcli to so great a work.
Edwards, also (vol. ii. p. 605), holds that some in heaven
will be a kind of ministers in that society, — ''ministers
to their knowledge and love, and helpers of their joy,
as mmister«5 of the gospel are here;" but he does not
intimate the relation of the church as in a peculiar sense
the teacher of new-created minds, although he notices
that "the glorification of the church, after the last judg-
ment, is represented as the proper marriage of the Lamb."
He also teaches that they possess all things "in their Head,
who has the absolute possession of all, and rules over all,
and disposes all things according to his will ; for by virtue
of their union with Christ, they also shall rule over all.
They shall sit with him in his throne, and reign over the
same kingdom." It is, therefore, the more remarkable that
the idea of an endless increase of new-created minds, to be
educated and trained by the church in coming ages, does not
appear ever to have occurred to the mind of Edwards as
implied in the analogy.
And yet, it is the less to be wondered at, because the
common system tends to lead the mind away from such a
result. In that system the redemption of the church is
looked on as merely a work of divine manifestation, not
growing by any temporary limitation of divine power out of
the antecedent history of the universe, but merely acted out
for the benefit of orders of beings already in existence, who
look on as spectators, just as if the universe were already
nearly or quite infinite, and as if, although the redemp-
tion of the church is an act eminently honorable to God.
yet, in the words of Chalmers, "It is but an ephemeral
doing in the history of intelligent nature ; and that there
remains time enough to him for carrying round the visita-
508 CONFLICT OP AGES.
tions of as striking and peculiar a tenderness over the whole
extent of his great and universal monarchy."
But, if it is the redemption of the church which both marks
and causes the subjugation of moral evil for the universe, and
if it prepares the way for an endless increase of new-created
beings to be trained by the church, then it is not one of
many ephemeral transactions, but is the great event to which
all things tend from the beginning, and from which all
things again diverge through all future ages.
To a king it is not, surely, an ephemeral transaction, when
he obtains and is united to a royal bride, who, during his
life, is to preside with him over his kingdom, and educate
and train his children to be princes in his empire. It is a
peculiar arrangement, which affects his whole life and reign,
and all the interests of his empire, as none other can.
Moreover, it awakens emotions higher and more peculiar
than any other relation or event.
If, then, the final and eternal union of the church to God
is something analogous to this, — if the love by which they
are united is peculiar in its nature and intensity, if the
union opens the way to an endless increase of the family of
God, and if all new-created beings are to be trained by the
church for stations of influence and honor in the kingdom
of God, — then it is a peculiar arrangement, which affects his
whole existence and reign in all future ages and in all
worlds, and all the interests of his empire also, as none
other can. It is the key to the system of the universe.
We now see at once, as before stated, a sufficient reason
why the redemption of the church should be God's great
end during this dispensation, and why he manifests an
interest so peculiar in all pertaining to this result.
But, it may be said, What has preexistence, or the fall in
ARGUMENT FROM THE SYSTEM. 509
Adam, to du with all this ? Why may not the same system
be reached, on either supposition ?
I answer, because such a system as I have developed,
centring in the church, presupposes and rests upon prin-
ciples, with reference to the origin of moral evil, which pre-
existence calls for and admits^ but the opposite view does
not call for, but excludes. And, so long as they are not
called for, but excluded, it is not possible to see any neces-
sity of a church, any crisis calling for her redemption, any-
thing peculiar to be effected by her, any reason for a pecu-
liar union between her and God, any peculiar work for her
to do. Let us once more consider these principles.
I have already stated two theories of the relations of
divine power to a system of free agency : one assuming
that God has absolute and unlimited power at all times to
secure universal holiness, if he will ; the other teaching a
temporary limitation of divine power in the earlier stages
of creation, in consequence of the liability of finite minds to
unbelief and distrust of God, when exposed to the trials
which inevitably pertain to an infinite system, and which
are necessary to their own development and perfection.
These opposite views are also logically connected with two
opposite views of the character of God. One asserting that
the power of God is at all times so unlimited over minds that
his will has been, is, and ever will be, so completely done,
that he is, and ever has been, entirely free from all grief, pain
or suffering of any kind, from the sins of his creatures.
On the other hand, it is held that God in reality, as he
asserts, has never nad any pleasure at all in the revolt and
ruin of any of his creatures, but has been truly grieved at
it, and has altogether preferred their eternal life. But that
a temporary limitation of divine power, in the earlier stages
of creation, owing to the liability of the first generations to
43*
510 CONFLICT OF AGES.
unbelief and sin, has involved a season of trial and suffering
to God, the result of which will be such a full unfolding of
his character and truth in act as shall at length remove
from all future generations the causes and the occasions of
unbelief
On these principles, we see that there never has been any
occasion for God originally to introduce sin of set purpose ;
and that his character and feelings, his sense of honor and
right, are such that he could not do it. All that his own
benevolence and sense of equity and honor would allow him
to do would be to create the first generation of beings with
such powers and faculties as would best fit them to be in
union with himself, at the foundation of an eternal system,
destined ever to increase, and then to subject them to such
a system of probation and education as should be best
adapted to develop, elevate and perfect, their characters.
Even so did Christ, though sinless, learn obedience by suf-
fering ; and thus was he made perfect.
If, then, in consequence of the temporary limitation of his
power, caused by the want of antecedent history and devel-
opments, a part of them distrusted him, and revolted in the
hour of trial, and afterwards, from successive generations,
seduced others to join them, thus organizing and extending
a hostile kingdom, then another step would become neces-
sary to God, and that is, to prepare for himself an order of
beings whose love to him should be so all- comprehending
and immutable that neither trial nor exaltation should ever
lead them to revolt ; and who should be peculiarly prepared
to train others, and who should, therefore, be fit to be with
him at the foundation of an eternal kingdom, and, at the
same time, in the process of preparing these, disclose so
fully, through trial and suffering, his own glorious charac
ARGUMENT FROM THE SYSTEM. 511
ter and truth, as to avert the occasions of unbelief in all
future generations of created beings.
It is obvious, then, that these principles not only explain
"what the church is, and what is her place in the system,
but also shoAY that, from the beginning of the creation, all
things tended to such an issue. In short, that the redemp-
tion of the church and her union to God, as a preparatory
step to the endless increase of the universe, is but a natural
and perfectly intelligible development of the principles
which I have stated.
Of course, the opposite view, which denies these princi-
ples, cannot furnish any such solution of existing facts. On
the other hand, the real existence of such facts as flow from
and are accounted for by these principles, is a strong argu-
ment sustaining; their truth.
But we do find disclosed in the Bible a state of things
exactly corresponding to what would result from such prin-
ciples, and which, in the light of such principles, receives a
glorious and satisfactory solution, disclosing a system wor-
thy of God, and meeting and filling the highest possible
conceptions of the human mind. Is there not, therefore,
the best possible reason to believe that both the principles
and the system are true ?
These presumptions are carried up to an absolute cer-
tainty, when we consider that the God disclosed in the Bible
has the character which is demanded by this system, and is
repudiated by the other.
The character of the God of the Bible is definite and
strongly marked. Among all of his characteristics, none is
more strongly marked than his sensibility to the appropri-
ate causes of pleasure and pain to benevolent, honorable
and upright minds. This sensibility is asserted in every
form of language, and nowhere denied.
512 CONFLICT OF AGES.
He is, thereforej represented as peculiarly sensitive to
the existence and developments of sin. It is at war with
every impulse and desire of his nature. It causes him
great and long-continued suffering. Indeed, the true
energy and the highest glory of his character cannot be
conceived till we understand that such is the fact, and yet
that no impatience, or bitterness, or malignant resentment,
or spirit of unholy revenge, has ever been or ever will
be disclosed. In the midst of the highest trials of his
patience, he is entirely tranquil and self-possessed. He is
the very God of peace. No conception of God presents his
moral power in so striking a light. Moreover, in this view,
God himself being judge, his highest glory lies. Such
is the system of the universe, with respect to God and the
church, which naturally grows out of the doctrine of pre-
existence as I have set it forth, and which evinces its truth
by assigning to God his true character as presented in the
Bible, and taking up and combining in a harmonious and
glorious plan the leading facts of the Bible, — a thing which
the opposing system can never do.
For, in perfect accordance with the doctrine that God has
at all times unlimited power to produce holiness and ex-
clude sin, it represents him as having first, without any
necessity, permitted and ordered its introduction by Satan,
and then deliberately called into existence, in addition, all
the sin that is in this world, by a system designed and
adapted to produce just such an amount of sin. A fallen
race was needed in order to exhibit hia attributes in a work
of redemption; and therefore God arranged a system to
secure such a race, composed entirely of new-created beings,
all of whom should be so affected by the act of the progeni-
tor of the race as either to be born sinners, or else so de-
ranged in their moral constitution that they certainly would
ARGUMENT PROM THE SYSTEM. 513
sin, and be so entirely and deeply depraved that no power
but that of God could bring them into a state of holiness.
All this, too, is effected and rendered sure by an act over
which they had not the slightest control, and in which
they had no part. Certainly, no one can properly describe
this as anything but a plan (to be sure, for alleged benevo-
lent ends) to produce sin on a great scale, and in all the
generations of men.
Out of this sinful race thus produced a church is to be
redeemed ; but, on such principles, what is the church ? for
what end redeemed '? why united to God ? Of what import-
ance is it to the universe ?
Can it at all augment the power of God to arrest the
progress and destroy the sway of moral evil? Not at all.
That was always infinite and unlimited. Can it put the
universe into a state any more favorable for the increase of
new-created beings, to be kept from sinning and perfected
in holiness ? Not at all ; for the power of God to produce
and perfect such was always unlimited. Can it make any
manifestation of God, adapted to control minds, that invests
him with new moral power, that could not otherwise have
been exerted ? Not at all ; for the power of God to control
minds, on this theory, has always been full, infinite and un-
limited. There is, therefore, no occasion for a system
designed to augment that power by removing from it tem-
porary limitations. In short, there is no significance to the
church as the central idea of the system of the universe ;
no satisfactory explanation of the importance to God of her
redemption, nor of his deep interest- in the work, nor of his
amazing sacrifices to effect it, nor of his joy in its com-
pletion.
Nor is this all ; it not only renders it impossible on such
grounds to combine the great facts of the Bible into any
514 CONFLICT OF AGES.
consistent system of the universe, springing out of intelli-
gible principles, and carrying them out into glorious results,
but it represents the great central measure of the system
as founded on a transaction which many, even of its advo-
cates, are constrained to admit, cannot be defended on any
principles of honor and right -vyhich the mind of man was
made to form, but must be shrouded under the veil of faith
and of mystery. How can a proceeding of this kind be
made the part of any intelligible system of the universe 7
How can it exalt our conceptions of God, or do any good,
if it needs to be defended by an appeal to mystery, against
our intuitive convictions of equity and honor, and must be
sustained by bhnd faith rather than sustain faith by its own
power ?
It is important, however, to discriminate the views which
I have presented from others with which they may be con-
founded.
There is a theory which makes the essential nature of
free agency such that the limitation of divine power is not
temporary, and confined to the earlier generations of creat-
ures, but is eternal. Such was the theory of Origen.
Accordingly, he held that, after fallen spirits had been
restored by a material system, and it had been destroyed,
they and others would again fall, and another similar sys-
tem be needed ; and thus that there would be an eternal suc-
cession of such systems, and of redemption through them.
From this view Augustine very properly revolted. But it
is not the necessary or natural development of preexistence,
and is no reason whatever for rejecting it, although Augus-
tine presents it as such. Origen had plainly no idea of the
nature or design of the church. He did not see that God
by her would exclude any future entrance of sin. He based
his theory, as Mosheim has clearly shown, on the false phi-
ARGUMENT FROM THE SYSTEM. 515
losophy of Ammonius Saccas, and not upon the great and
leading facts of the word of God. There is nothing in un-
perverted free agency that cannot be forever controlled by
moral means, after the full disclosure of God has been made
through the redemption of the church : so that moral evil
will never again enter, and no work of redemption, like the
present, ever be needed or undertaken again.
Nor are the views which I have presented to be con-
founded with the opinions of those who apply to this world
the principles which I apply to a previous state. In ex-
plaining the origin of evil in this world, it is alleged by
some that there may be a limitation of divine power such
that God could not exclude evil from a moral system; or, at
least, that he could not exclude it, or the present degree of
it, from the best moral system, because such is the nature
of free agency that, for aught that we can prove, it may
enter. In order so to accord with fiicts as to justify God,
these principles ought to be applied to a system and a state
of things in which God gives to new-created minds the
best constitutions and circumstances. If, in such circum-
stances, evil enters, it implies the limitation assumed; and
this justifies God.
But to the state of things in this world these principles
do not at all apply. The system of this world is obviously
a system of sovereignty towards fallen minds, and not a
system designed to illustrate the principles of equity and
honor towards new-created minds. Men do not enter this
world with the best possible constitutions, and are not placed
in the best possible circumstances. For new-created minds
God could do and ought to do much more than to give tliem
such constitutions and circumstances as are found in this
world. Hence, the principles which can be easily and con-
sistently applied to a preexistent state do not at all apply
516 CONFLICT OF AGES.
to this world. If there is a limitation of God^s power, the
proper place to illustrate that principle is a state in which
new-created beings do receive the best possible constitutions
and are placed in the most favorable circumstances. If out
of such a system sin springs, and a kingdom of evil is
formed, then there would naturally be formed a system of
sovereignty like that in this world, composed of fallen
beings, who had forfeited their original rights.
CHAPTER XVI.
THE MATERIAL SYSTEM.
The union of mind with matter is the great peculiarity
and the great wonder of the present system ; and nothing is
more important than to know why God established this
union, and how he designed it to operate. Surely the
influence on the mind of a material system so vast and
powerful cannot be neutral. If rightly viewed and used,
immense good must result ; if otherwise, immense evil.
Such is the testimony of facts. Platonism and Gnosticism
regarded matter as the cause of sin, and refused to ascribe
it to the original free choice of the mind in a spiritual
sphere. The mind, in itself, is pure and well-disposed, but
is, unfortunately, linked to a degrading and corrupting
material system. Notice now the results : false concep-
tions of holiness and sin, a spurious religious experience,
torpor of the moral sense, an entire perversion and subver-
sion of the system of grace, the introduction and undue
honor of celibacy, penances, bodily austerities and other
ascetic practices, monasteries, nunneries, and a universal
corruption and derangement of the whole social system.
Thus the effect of these and similar systems has been to
turn away the eye from the original entrance of evil in the
spiritual sphere, and to throw off the blame and guilt of sin
44
518 CONFLICT 07 AGES.
from sinners upon the material world, and thus to derange
the entire operation of the system of God.
On the other hand, the doctrine of a preexistent fall, not
only, as I have shown, combines the great facts of the Bible
relating to a spiritual world into a simple and sublime sys-
tem of the universe, growing naturally out of clear and defi-
nite principles, but it also so adjusts the relations of the
material world to it as to remove all the pernicious results
which have been introduced in past ages, by false views of
the relations of the material to the moral system.
It does this in a manner simple, thorough and effectual.
It throws the primitive origin of all moral evil out of this
world, into a spiritual system. It thus at once simplifies
the problem, and accounts for the origin of all moral evil on
the same spiritual principles. It exculpates matter, and
throws the whole responsibility, where it ought to rest, upon
minds. It not only excludes the possibility of ascribing the
origin of sin to this material system, but enables us to show
that it was designed and adapted to aid in the great work
of moral renovation. It was made with the express design
of illustrating, by powerful analogies, the character and
system of God. If properly used, it is adapted to destroy
the moral torpor of the mind by its pungent illustrations,
and to give vividness and power to its conceptions of spiritual
things. The intense and quickening energy of the language
of the Bible is greatly owing to the divine skill with which
this principle is employed. Light, darkness, heat, cold,
summer and winter, seed-time and harvest, day and night,
sickness, health, life, death, marriage, and all the incidents
and affections of the family state, food and raiment, and all
the lawful employments of life, are parts of a material sys-
tem, planned with wisdom so divine, that, if intelligently
used, they arouse and stimulate the torpid soul with a
THE MATERIAL SYSTEM. 519
quickening and renovating energy. Of such materials our
Saviour's parables are framed. From such sources he drew
those short and pungent statements, which, once heard, are
never forgotten, but ever after burn like fire in the soul.
This material world, in all its beauties, in all its sublimity,
in all its powers and terrors, symbolizes God, and both
allures and warns God meanwhile suspends the full action
of his emotions, which man could not endure, and beseeches
him to become holy, to escape those spiritual terrors the
emblems of which surround him on every side. Thus the
whole system is one of mercy, patience and forbearance, on
the part of God, and of wise and powerful adaptation to
renovate the depraved mind of man. The Lord, in wisdom,
founded the earth, and established the heavens ; and wisdom
crieth aloud and uttereth her voice in the streets.
Thus at a blow does this system cut off the very roots of
Platonism, Gnosticism and Manicheism, and of the ascetic
systems and social abuses which have arisen from these
errors, and also the systems of sacramental regeneration
and sanctification, on which the great religious despotisms
of as!;es are based.
On the other hand, the doctrine of the fall in Adam tends
directly to introduce a system of virtual Gnosticism. For,
if, as the church teaches, the soul is created by God, and the
body alone descends from Adam, then it is natural to regard
the body as the cause of sin. And this tendency has devel-
oped itself in extensive results, in the Romish church, in
the Lutheran and in the Calvinistic.
I am aware that the system of divine efficiency, which
teaches that God causes all men to sin by his direct energy,
because Adam sinned, avoids this difficulty, — but it is only
by a peculiar system as to the necessity of divine agency in
all volition, which does not accord with the general and
520 CONFLICT OF AGES.
intuitive (Convictions of man. Moreover, this system fur-
nishes no satisfactory explanation of the redemption of tho
church, and her relations to the universe. For, if no man
can choose except through divine efficiency, and if this effi-
ciency is competent to produce whatever choice God pleases,
then there is no need of any system of development in order
to accumulate moral power such as has been described in
explaining the relations of the redemption of the church to
the universe ; nor is there any valid reason for the exist-
ence of evil, or of redemption at all.
I am also aware that the system of imputation endeavors
to avoid Gnosticism, by ascribing sin to the necessary con-
sequences of God's creating the soul without original right-
eousness, and the withdrawal of supernatural influences from
man as a punishment of the sin of Adam, leaving him to
become necessarily corrupt and depraved. But this does
not at all relieve the matter ; for it virtually destroys the
guilt, and even the nature, of sin, by ascribing it to the
mere fact that a new-created moral agent exists without a
righteousness and a divine influence, the enjoyment of
which does not at all depend on his own will. Even
Augustine has virtually decided that there would be no
criminality if sin were to originate from such a cause.
Moehler also repudiates this theory, as implying that m
a mere finite nature, as such, there is a necessary sinful-
ness. He says, "The question before every other is, to
account for the wounds of the spirit, especially for the per-
versity of the will. Would the spirit of man, because it is
an essence distinct from God, when considered in itself, —
that is to say, as void of the gift of supernatural grace, and
as a bare finite being, — be found in that attitude of opposi-
tion to God in which man is now born ? Then man, merely
as a finite being, would be of himself disposed to sin, and
THE MATERIAL SYSTEM. 521
would not be so merely through the abuse of his freedom."
He saw that if man, merely as a creature, is opposed to
God, then God would be the author of sin.
Hence the most natural and obvious theory of explaining
the fall of Adam has been, in all ages, a reference to the
influence of the material system on the soul ; and thus the
doctrine of the fall in Adam tends strongly and directly to
Gnosticism^ and all its pernicious results.
Hence the extensive tendency to interpret the statements
of Paul, John and others, concerning " the flesh," and " the
body of sin," as referring to the material system, and not to
the internal and original depravity of the spirit. The radi-
cal erroneousness of this interpretation has been thoroughly
exposed by Edwards, Miillerand Moehler; and yet the com-
mon theory of the fall in Adam directly tends to originate
and confirm this Gnostic mode of exposition. Moehler, on -
the supposition that sin is transmitted through the body,
asks, with great force, '' How could the infusion of such a
corporeal poison convey to the soul the germs of all which,
in the most comprehensive sense, constitutes self-seeking, —
to wit, revolt against God, arrogance and envy towards our
fellow-men, vanity and complacency in regard to ourselves ?
If so disordered a spiritual condition, if so distempered a
moral state, could be engendered by the connection of the
soul with the body, it would be then certainly very difficult
to uphold the notion of moral evil."
On the other hand, the doctrine of preexistence teaches
not only that the material system does not cause human
depravity, but that it was created and arranged to aid in the
work of sanctification and redemption. It explains, on this
ground, its analogies to the spiritual system, and its typical
significance ; also the principles of the formation of lan-
guage, and the proper mode of so using the material system
44*
5i:2 CONFLICT OF AGES.
as to produce the highest sanctifying results. It can trans-
form this whole world into a temple of God, and all the
lawful acts and duties of life into a system of worship
through types of higher spiritual things, and the family
state into a little miniature of the universal system.
Having thus constructed that high and copious reservoir
from which the lower systems of thinking, feeling and action
flow, let us look at the quality and the effects of the streams
that flow from it.
Or, to resume our ori<2;inal fio-ure, havino; disclosed the
end and restored to harmonious action the moving powers
of the system, and exhibited the relations of its parts, let
us next look at its practical working in some of its details.
CHAPTER XYII.
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES.
The preceding discussion is an ample defence of the doc-
trine of preexistence against the charge of being a mere
theory, of no practical moment. It has evinced that this
doctrine is not devoid of proof elevated, dignified and logical
in its nature, and certain in its results. It has also shown
that it can do what nothing else is able to effect ; it can
rescue Christianity from its present perilous position with-
out injury, and with great benefit to the depth and power
of all its doctrines. By its present perilous position, I
mean a position in which it has no real defence against the
charge of imputing the highest conceivable injustice and
dishonor to God.
I have often wondered at what has appeared to me
to be a strange temerity among good men on this sub-
ject. One would think that the natural feeling of their
hearts would be to shrink sensitively from even a possibility
of imputing the least dishonor and injustice to God, and
much more so from the fearful hazard of imputing them
to him on the highest conceivable scale. One would think
that, if any portion of scripture seemed to imply such dis-
honor to God, a cautious and thorough investigation of the
laws of interpretation would be first made, to see if another
view of the passage were not possible. And yet this has
624 CONFLICT OF AGES.
not been the case. It has been conceded repeatedly that
the acts ascribed to God, in his dealings with the human
race through Adam, do appear dishonorable and unjust,
according to any principles of equity and honor which God
has made the mind of man to form. And yet, simply on
the basis of Rom. 5 : 12 — 19, and without any adequate
search for a more legitimate mode of interpretation, they
have for ages gone on to ascribe these acts to God. When
I think who God is, and what the redemption of the church
is, and how inconceivable is the injury of basing this great
work on an act of infinite dishonor and injustice, I cannot
but feel that a more hazardous and tremendous risk was
never run by intelligent Christian men.
. Look, for a moment, at the facts of the case. Review the
principles of honor and of right, as I have stated them in
the first book. Weigh well the fulness and power of the
concessions of the truth of these principles made by the
church, from age to age. Think of the great fact that God
has so made the human mind that it cannot but recognize
their truth. Think of the profundity and power of the
feelings which were made to respond to them. Think of
the great fact that God made them to be, beyond compari-
son, the ruling feelings of the soul, and that the principles
to which they respond are at the very basis of his govern-
ment, and then think, if you can, how much dishonor to
God, and evil to man, is involved in placing the whole sys-
tem of Christianity on a basis that, in the utmost conceiva-
ble degree, does violence to all these feelings and principles.
Notice, then, the full confession of the great body of the
church, that the only defence against the charge of doing
this has been the theory that all men had forfeited their
rights as new-created beings, by " an act over lohicJi they
had not the slightest control^ and in which they had no
KESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 525
agency^ ' and which took place before they existed ; and
also the confession of Calvin, that nothing is so remote
from common sense as this defence ; and of Pascal, that
nothing appears so revolting to our reason, and that it
seems to be impossible and unjust; notice, also, that the
great body of the church has decided, and that justly, that
there is no defence of the acts ascribed to God in the plea
of his rights as a sovereign, — and the fearful state of the
case becomes too painfully apparent. And to this the facts
of history, as I have set them forth, correspond.
I do not hesitate, therefore, to say that the human mind
cannot conceive of a more dangerous mode of representing
the acts and defending the character of God than this ; and
unless it can be shown that my interpretation of Rom. 5 :
12 — 19 is erroneous, then still to retain it will, to say
the least, be in the highest degree perilous to religion,
and that in a case of the utmost conceivable moment.
But I am well assured that the erroneousness of my inter-
pretation cannot be shown. And, indeed, there is no reason
to wish that it could be. Who ought to desire to continue
such a mode of representing and defending God, if another
and a better mode is possible, or even conceivable ? What
can be worse than the representations that now exist in the
church, and the pernicious influence of which, for centuries,
I have endeavored at least in part to set forth ?
And, now, is it nothing jjractical that preexistence can
deliver the church at once from such a state of things ? Is
it nothing practical that it places the redemption of the
church on a basis in the highest degree honorable to God ?
Is it nothing practical that it brings experimental, spiritual
and supernatural Christianity, as set forth by Paul, Angus-
tine and Edwards, into sympathy with the principles of
equity and honor, those powerful and all-pervading ele-
526 CONFLICT OF AGES.
ments of humanity, from which it has been alienated, and
the operation of which has so constantly tended to create a
strong repulsion against it ? Is it nothing practical that
the deep misunderstanding of the divine character which it
has always produced should cease ? Is it nothing practical
that the real God of the universe should be seen as he is,
and not with his real feelings of long-suffering, compassion,
sympathy and grief, misrepresented or denied, and his
glories obscured by dark clouds of injustice, changing the
whole universe into a system of sadness and gloom, if not
of horror ?
These are the questions at issue, as I have repeatedly
shown ; and they are real questions, they are practical
QUESTIONS, and not visionary speculations. A God who
was seen and felt to avow and act on the principles of honor
and right which I have laid down, and to manifest the feel-
ings which I have set forth, would exert inconceivable
moral power ; for the mind of man is made to be acted on
by such feelings and principles, clearly apprehended in
such a being as God, with inconceivable energy. There is
no power like it, or to be compared with it. It can agitate
the nations, and shake the globe.
All this power Christianity now loses, and encounters an
e-qual and all-pervading repulsion. This is the great, the
main reason why the energy of Satan on earth is so im-
mense. Here is the secret of his strength ; here is the
hiding of his power.
There is, therefore, a power of emotion in the human
heart hitherto entirely undeveloped on the great scale by
Christianity. As now presented, it can never develop it.
Nay, more, as I have shown, it directly tends, as education
and moral culture increase, to division and paralysis.
Never — I say it confidently — never will Christianity bring
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 527
out the whole power of human emotion in sanctified forms,
till it is based upon preexistence.
To what has been said I would now add that the scrip-
tural exposition of the system of the universe, as centring
in the union of God and the church, inasmuch as it implies
and 13 based on the doctrine of preexistence, still further
takes that doctrine out of the region of mere abstract
speculation, and gives it a practical embodiment
IN THE GREAT CENTRAL MEASURE OF THE KINGDOM OF
God. a measure which is the main subject of the inspired
oracles of God from beginning to end ; for the sake of which
the material system was organized, and to execute which
the providence of God is administered.
There is no way in which principles are so clearly and
surely taught as by a practical embodiment in a working
system. The laws and powers of steam, as well as the prin-
ciples of mechanics, are practically, definitely and clearly
embodied in a steam-engine. When the raging ocean- waves
had swept away Winstanley in the lighthouse which he had
constructed on the Eddystone rocks, it was plain that he
had not embodied in it the principles of architectural
strength which the case required. When Smeaton, after a
second wreck and ruin had occurred, at last constructed a
lighthouse which could defy every wind and wave, then, in
that structure, he did practically reveal, in an embodied
form, what were the laws of architectural strength in such
a case. There is no kind of revelation clearer than this.
In like manner, to illustrate great things by small, the
whole of the present dispensation is a system of sublime
measures, embodying principles and aiming at a glorious
result. The result is an imperishable spiritual structure,
including the universe, under God and the church as the head.
The measures are the formation of the material system, the
528 CONFLICT OF AGES.
introduction of the human race into it, the incarnation of
God, the atonement, the redemption of the church and her
union to God, and the prostration of the empire of Satan.
In all this there is no theory ; it is simplj the actual present
working system of the universe. Such a course of things
is not arbitrary ; it implies principles, it grows out of rea-
sons ; and these principles and reasons are, therefore,
embodied in the system.
Is it not, then, plain, even to a demonstration, that what-
ever is thus embodied is taught with a certainty, definiteness
and power, that nothing can surpass ?
Now, that the idea of preexistence is thus embodied in
the system of the universe, I have undertaken to show ; and
I think that I have shown it. I have considered the char-
acter of God and the system of the universe, not as imagined
in speculation, but as revealed in the inspired oracles. I
have surveyed its parts, and their relations and combina-
tions, and their great end as a whole. And I have asserted
that the great idea of preexistent sin, as I have set it forth,
is clearly and definitely embodied in the system as a whole.
Now, with regard to this mode of reasoning, it will be
conceded, I think, that it is, as I have said, in its nature
elevated and dignified, and, if my doctrine is properly made
out by it, sure and absolute in its results.
To the power of this course of reasoning we are also to
add the argument derived from the fact which I have
proved, that nothing but the assumption of preexistence can
vindicate the character of God, and prevent the great mov-
ing powers of the system from so conflicting with each other
as in a great measure to paralyze the energies of the church,
and afflict her with innumerable evils.
That such modes of reasoning, if legitimately used, must
lead to sure and infallible results, no rational man will
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 529
deny. The only course that remains is to show that my
use of them has not been legitimate.
It is wortb»7, therefore, of the more particular attention,
that the argument against the doctrine of preexistence is not,
like the argument' in its favor, based upon legitimate general
principles, and the intellectual and moral necessities of the
system. It cannot be shown that the doctrine of preexist-
ence tends to any evil. It tends neither to subvert nor to
weaken any fundamental doctrine of the gospel. Nay,
rather, it gives strength to them all. It does not tend to di-
vide or paralyze the church ; on the other hand, it tends to
union and strength. The opposition, then, relies on no
general views, except the allegations, which have been fully
considered and refuted, that it cannot be proved, and that it
does not avail to remove any difficulties. Besides these
allegations, there is nothing except certain alleged positive
statements of the word of God. Of these, I have thoroughly
considered Rom. 5 : 12 — 19, the only one that is adapted
to exert any great power. Besides this, a few incidental
statements are appealed to, with reference to which a few
words are all that is necessary. The assertion in 2 Cor. 5 :
10 "that (at the judgment) everyone shall receive the
things done in his body, according to that he hath done,"
is said to imply that there had been no previous sin, other-
wise that also would be judged.
But, if we sinned and came under a forfeiture in a
previous state, there is no need of an additional judgment,
as to that state. By the supposition, if that state had con-
tinued, we were lost. All our hopes depended on a new
life in this world. Of course, our acts here are +lie only
proper oasis of a decisive judgement.
To this it may be added, that even if there should be, in
fact, a reference to our conduct in our previous sphere of
45
530 CONFLICT OF AGES.
action, it y^ould not conflict with this passage. For the
very foundation of a new probation in this world is to oblit-
erate the memory of a former state, and to speak only of
this life. On this plan, it would be right to assert merely
that we shall be judged for our deeds here, and to say no
more ; neither affirming nor denying anything as to a pre-
vious state.
It is also asserted that God created Adam's spirit when
it entered his body, on the authority of Gen. 2 : 7. But,
even if it were so, and if Adam was made upright, and fell,
it would not follow that the continuance of the race was not
effected by means of spirits who had already fallen. But,
to meet this latter idea, an appeal is made to Zech. 12 : 1,
as proving that God creates the spirits of men as they enter
the body. But the verse, of necessity, teaches no such
thing. A very proper sense of the verse is that God is the
Creator of the spirit of man that is in him, — which would
be the truth, at whatever time God created that spirit.
The stretching forth the heavens, and laying the founda-
tions of the earth, which in that verse are ascribed to God,
were in past time ; and, therefore, Dr. Noyes very properly
translates the three verbs in past time, and thus makes the
creation of spirits a past event, and not one which takes
place daily.
But, even in the case of Adam, the creation of his spirit
is not asserted in the words "God breathed into his nos-
trils the breath of life," but merely the gift of natural
life, — that which unites spirit and body. If natural life
ceases in man, his spirit does not cease to exist, but leaves
his body ; and God can call it back again, and reunite it by
natural life, as in the case of Lazarus. In such a case the
language of Genesis may properly be used ; we may say
God again breathed into him the breath of life ; but, cei-
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 531
tainlj, he did not create his spirit. So as to Adam it is
asserted that God gave bodily life, but not that he then
created his spirit. The apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. 15 : 44 —
49, expressly applies the passage to the life of the body, and
thus sanctions the view which I have taken.
Appeal is also made to the statement that Adam was
created in the image and likeness of God. I have already
said that, if this were true of Adam, even in a moral sense,
it would decide nothing as to his posterity, but would
merely prove that the spirit of Adam was not fallen when
it entered his body. But there is no proof that these words
are to be taken in a moral sense with reference to Adam.
This passage in Genesis has in Paul a divine expositor.
In 1 Cor. 11 : 7, whilst setting forth the typical signifi-
cance of God's creative acts, he asserts that man, as man,
and as the head of the little microcosm, the family, is the
image and glory of God ; and that woman, who represents
the church, is the glory of man. We see, then, that God,
in forming man, and woman, and the family, so did it
as to represent symbolically himself, the church and the
universe, as an infinite fiimily under one head, composed by
the union of God and the church.
It appears, also, from the context of the passage in Gen-
esis, that man, as rational and intelligent, and ruling over
this material system, is also regarded as in the image and
likeness of God. This view is almost exclusively the one
recognized by Augustine and the fathers. And. in this
sense, men and women alike are spoken of as in the image
of God now as much as Adam was. James accordingly says
of men in every generation that they " are made after the
similitude of God" (James 3 : 19). On this ground, also,
the law against murder in all ages is made to rest. ' ' Whoso
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ; for
532 CONFLICT OF AGES.
in the image of God made he man." (Gen. 9:6.) Thia
law is obviously based on a reason that exists in all men,
in all ages. All are in the image of God.
There is also another view in which man is recognized by
Paul as the image of God in a typical sense, and it is
one of great sublimity and interest. At the creation, Adam
and Eve were exalted to be at the head of the universal
new-created system. In this Paul saw a designed type of
the exaltation of Christ and the church above all things, a3
the great and final result of the present moral system of
new-creation. Of this the proof is conclusive. His reason-
ing from the assertion that God put all this natural world
under the feet of man, Ps. 8 : 6, cannot be explained or
defended on any other ground. The Psalmist there refers
to the original creation. The ''all things" spoken of are
" all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the
fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever
passeth through the paths of the sea ; " and these were sub-
jected to man at the time of the creation. And yet Paul
argues from it that all things, God only excepted, are to be
subjected to Christ and to the church in him. On the
principle of reasoning from type to antitype, this reasoning
is sound, but on no other. (See Heb. 2 : 5 — 9. 1 Cor.
15 : 27, 28. Eph. 1 : 22, 23.) I freely admit that man
was made in the image of God to the full extent that is
implied in all these divine testimonies. But no inspired
expositor has ever said that the passage in Genesis has any
reference to the moral image of God. The views which
they have given of the passage are enough to exhaust its
significance, and no man can prove that it was designed to
mean anything else.
If any should inquire whether I do not hold that all men
were originally made in the image of God, I answer, yes, I
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 533
hold it much more consistently and firmly than it is possi-
ble to hold it on the common view. I hold, according to
Ecc. 7: 29, that "God made man (that is, all men) up-
right, and they have sought out many inventions." The
preceding course of remark shows that the only design of
the writer was to throw the guilt of that great and general
corruption, of which he had been speaking, off from God,
upon men. He therefore states of man, meaning all men,
that God made them upright, but they have sought out
many inventions. Here is merely a general fact stated,
without any details of time or manner, and stated solely for
the sake of defending God.
The truth of this statement is much more apparent, on
the supposition of preexistence, than on any other ; for,
according to that, all were created upright, individually;
but, according to the common doctrine, men are no^v v^reated,
but not upright, and, therefore, they never have been up-
right at any time or place. To say that God made all men
upright in Adam, is merely trying to cover up the common
view of the facts of the case with the fig-leaves of words ;
for it is maintained that God creates spirits now, and that
he does not make them upright. Of course, they never
were made upright. Nor is it any better to say that souls
are generated, and not created ; for. at all events, even so
they are not generated upright, and never were upright.
As to the statement that " God saw everything that he
had made, and lo ! it was very good." it would have been
perfectly appropriate in view of a system made to redeem
fallen souls, such as I have set forth. Jhe word good does
not mean holi/j for it includes the newly-organized world,
and animals as well as man. And if it was a material sys-
tem, made to remove existing evils, then, though sinful
spirits were introduced into it, yet still it Avould be true, in
45*
634 CONFLICT OF AGES.
the highest sense, that it was all very good, — that is, per-
fectly adapted, as a system, for the ends for which it was
made. And, in this respect, it was all the better for the
existence of fallen souls in it ; for, on any other supposition,
it could not gain its great end.
But it is asserted that God's intercourse with Adam
implies that he was at first holy, and afterwards fell into
sin. But, in reply to this, it may be very properly alleged
that even if sinful propensity was in Adam and Eve, yet,
before a trial and test, they would naturally be unaware of
it. But, as soon as they were tried, their real character
was disclosed to their own apprehension, and fear and
shame came over them.
As to God's intercourse with Adam, all that we know is,
that he brought the beasts to Adam, and that Adam named
them, and that God made Eve out of his side. But it is
a most significant fact that, on the first trial, both of them
sinned. What proof, then, is there from facts that they were
holy- before ?
The truth concerning this whole portion of scripture is,
that it has been looked at from a wrong point of vision. Its
import is wholly typical. So is it everywhere regarded and
treated in the Scriptures. The common mode of viewing it
has introduced into it the elements of a theological theory,
of human devising, which has entirely oveiiaid and obscured
the true, simple and scriptural view, and is entirely out
of place. Christ, and the church, and sin, and condemna-
tion, and righteousness, and redemption, and the nature and
results of the future system, are here set forth in types.
Moreover, the act of Adam was typical, and not that of
Eve. The sentence which followed the oifence was designed,
as I have shown, to be typical, and to include all the lace.
So was the exclusion from Paradise typical. That the act
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 635
of Adam alone was typical is plain ; for on no other ground
can we explain it that Paul takes no notice, in Rom. 5
(though he does elsewhere), of the fact that the woman first
sinned, and not Adam, and thus sin entered into the world
by her. But as the woman was not the type of Christ, but
Adam, as ruler and head of the race, so it was upon his sin,
and not upon hers, that he regards the sentence of death as
based. If we look upon these transactions as merely typi-
cal, all is plain. If we look on them as causative, then
they naturally lead to all the puzzling questions which
Albert the Great and other scholastic divines have discussed
through weary folio pages ; as, for example, what would have
been the character of the cliildren, if Eve had sinned and
not Adam, or Adam and not Eve, and what would have
been the law of child-birth on various suppositions, &;c
The simple truth, however, is, that God so ordered events
as through Adam to set forth a type of the relations of the
redeemed to Christ.
The doctrine of preexistence has also been opposed on the
ground that infants do not manifest as much intelligence as
they ought, on that supposition. But this is a mere matter
of opinion. No one can say that the nature and effect of
the union of the mind with the body is not such that the
highest created mind would be by it reduced to infancy such
as we see. It would be the very object of such a system to
deliver the mind from the influence of the memory and asso-
ciations of a past existence. To effect a radical change of
character, the proud spirit would be reduced to a state of
weakness and dependence ; all things would be made to
seem new, — new analogical knowledge would be communi-
cated, new motives and hope would be made to open on the
Boul.
An effort has also been made to piove that the fallen
536 CONFLICT OF AGES.
angels and men are different orders of beings, and tliat all
of the fallen angels were condemned without hope, as if this
were fatal to the doctrine that the spirits of men had fallen
in a previous state of existence. But tlis, if true, has no
force, except on the assumption that between the original fall
of Satan and his angels, who kept not their first estate, and
the introduction of man into this world, there was no subse-
quent extension of the kingdom of darkness. Certainly,
those who hold that Satan and his angels have had power
to plunge in ruin the millions of the human race, and who
know that they have so much range as to come with the
sons of God into His presence, as the book of Job teaches
us, ought not to take the ground that these same angels
have not been able in past ages to seduce other orders of
beings from their allegiance to God. But on this point I
have already said enough, in the eighth chapter of the third
book.
Occasionally, also, some one has been found to appeal to
Rom. 9 : 11, where the apostle refers to God's decision
concerning Jacob and Esau before they had been born, or
done good or evil. But in this case the reference is so man-
ifestly to action in this life, that, for the m.ast part, all intel-
ligent opposer^ pass it by as nothing to the purpose ; and
very properly, for the action referred to and denied is man-
ifestly action subsequent to birth.
On surveying this reasoning of opposers, it is striking
how entirely devoid it is of great principles and sublime
vieAYS. All these are against them. Their reasoning is
merely an effort to shut up the mind, by disconnected and
incidental scriptural statements, to a system which in it?
main drift and general influence is, as I have shown, at wai
with moral principle, dishonorable to God, and injurious U
man.
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 587
On the other hand, the view which I present is emhodied
in the great central measures of the system, and is demanded
by its revealed spirit and principles. No incidental passage
has ever been produced against it, or can be, that does not
admit of a legitimate interpretation in perfect coincidence
with it ; and in such a case the main current of principle
and of the system must decide the interpretation in my
favor.
To this I would add that the whole spirit of the Bible is
in sympathy with my views. It is a book the great idea of
which is a supernatural creation, from the very depths of
depravity and satanic power, by almighty sovereign grace.
[t is not possible to conceive of new-created minds as com-
ing, in the manner commonly supposed, into such a state as
IS thus implied, without doing violence to the moral nature,
and exciting compassion for them as wronged. But God
nowhere regards the human race as unfortunate or wronged,
but always as exceedingly guilty. And no man can prop-
erly regard the dictates of his moral nature, and yet come
up to the tone of the Bible on this point, except through the
doctrine of preexistence. Nor will any man otherwise ever
have a consistent view of the depth and power of human
depravit}' in this world, nor of those abysses of wickedness
which our Saviour calls the depths of Satan, and which he
regards as so profound as not to be easily understood.
As to the beneficial intellectual and moral tendencies of
the views which I have advocated I think that there can be
no doubt. Even the mere fact that they may be true will
open, as I have already had cheering occasion to knew, to
manj a tempest-tossed mind a haven of rest. As I have
said in my introductory remarks, they will show that from
the greatest difficulties there is always a possible relief
They also tend poAverfully to diminish the rigor and
538 CONFLICT OF AGES.
acerbity of theological controversy on this subject, and to
effect a change in the intellectual and moral temperament
of the church. They rationally demand such a suspension
of former judgments, on the points at issue, as shall at least
so admit the possibility that the modern churches of Christ
are expending their energies in a fruitless effort to work
effectually with an ill-adjusted system, and that their pain-
ful divisions and alienations on this subject have sprung
from this fact, as shall lead to a new and candid reinvesti-
gation of the whole subject.
They evince, also, that the various parties to this contro-
versy deserve from each other a higher degree of sympathy
and respect, in view of the causes which have led to their
supposed or real errors, than has been conceded. Under an
ill-adjusted system, as I have shown, the best and most hon-
orable impulses of a Christian's mind may lead to real and
injurious errors. The impulses that have led the Old School
divines to the adoption of the idea of a forfeiture in Adam
are honorable impulses, although the result is by so many
regarded, and, as I think, justly, dishonorable to God and
injurious to man. So also the rejection of such a forfeiture,
and of the doctrine of depravity with it, by the Unitarians,
is the natural and logical result of the noblest principles and
impulses of the human mind, as the system now is, though
the result is in the highest degree calamitous and dangerous.
So, too, the impulses of the various classes of divines who
have tried to find a middle ground between these extremes
are honorable, and worthy of our highest sympathy and
respect.
If this should but be duly recognized as the ground of
mutual respect and sympathy, and the certain assurance of
former decisions be for a time suspended, it would be pos-
sible to review the whole ground once more with the pros-
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 539
pect of mutual benefit and progress in the truth. The
character of this discussion in past ages has been, at least
on the surface, too sternly unsympathizing. I say on the
surface; for, after all, Augustine, and Pascal, and others
like them, have had tender hearts, and have had many a
struggle to suppress the impulses of their own honorable
principles and emotions. And yet, under the control, as
they supposed, of divine decisions, they overruled them, and
sternly enforced their convictions. So acting, they could
not afford to be tender, and to yield to their feelings. They
must be unnaturally stern to maintain their ground at all.
Accordingl3^, in the hour of battle who was more stern than
Augustine ? And yet even he, when he opens his heart to
Jerome, reveals the sympathies of a tender spirit, that
sought in vain to find repose for his noblest feelings upon
views which, after all, he felt constrained to adopt and
defend. If those who discuss this question could but afford
to look into each other's hearts, and see and respect the
honorable feelings and impulses that exist there, it would
soon be found that love and mutual sympathy can do what
mere argument can never effect.
At the same time, argument and profound discussion are
necessary, in order to come to any intelligent and harmo-
nious results. For depravity is a reality, as much as bodily
disease ; and the mind cannot be happy till it is healed ;
and yet the principles of honor and right are no less a
reality, and the mind must suffer till they are recognized
and honored in all their legitimate relations both to God
und to man.
But, preeminently, the great want of the age is the
infusion of a new and powerful spirit of sympathy and love
into the discussion of this great question. Nothing else can
so enlarge and give dignity to the intellect. Nothing else
540 CONPLICT OF AGES.
can lead to that candor and patience and comprehension of
views which are indispensable to the profitable discussion of
so vast and momentous a theme. Nothing else can avert
those premature, superficial and passionate committals,
which fatally arrest all progress in true knowledge, and
forever shut up the soul in a narrow circle of predetermined
ideas, without enlargement and without progress.
And does not the time call for such an increase of sym-
pathy and love 1 Is there not an urgent necessity, unknown
before, of a deeper and more powerful development of
Christian experience 7 Can anything else resist the tenden-
cies to Naturalism, Deism, Pantheism and Infidelity, which
on all sides pervade the community 7 A superficial doctrine
of depravity, and a feebly-developed Christian experience,
can never meet the great crisis of the age which is coming
on. The church needs to be strengthened with all might
by the Spirit in the inner man, to be rooted and grounded
in love, and to be able with all saints to comprehend the
height and depth and length and breadth of the love of
Christ, that passeth knowledge, and to be filled with all the
fulness of God. But, without that deep and thorough puri-
fication which results from deep conviction of sin, and self-
loathing in the sight of a holy God, this is impossible.
And now, with all humility, I would say that my deep
mterest in the views Avhich I have presented arises from a
profound conviction of their adaptation, and of their neces-
sity to produce this result. On any other grounds, I
should care for them but little, for this is the great interest
of the age. But a careful observation of the experiences
and the discussions of the present and of past ages has led
me to my present convictions.
I cannot but hope that God, in his providence, is prepar-
ing the way for a more profound and universal conscious-
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 541
Hess cf the deep depravity of man. Experience is proving,
more and more, the superficiality of Pelagianism to disclose
and to heal the deep depravity of the human soul. And I
cannot but joyfully recognize the hand of God in the
fact that the work on Regeneration, by E. H. Sears, of
which I have before spoken, distinctly discards the Pelagian
theory, and adopts a deeper and more radical view. Of
Pelagianism he thus speaks: "May we suggest that it
is a survey of human nature only upon the surface, without
sounding its mystic and troubled deep 7 Hence those who
adopt it so often recede from it, as the mysteries that lie
within successively reveal themselves. Hence a church
formed around this as one of its central principles will sel-
dom retain that class of minds whose habits of thought are
ascetic or introspective, or whose deep and surging sensibil-
ities demand some potent voice to guide and to soothe them,
some light to explain their dark and terrible on-goings.
Its recruits come from the side of the world ; not frop'
those who had before left it, and are passing on to deeper
experiences." These deeper experiences he proceeds to
delineate in a most affecting and impressive way. He utters
an earnest and long-needed warning against the spurious
religionism that springs from the intoxication of pride, in
which "self-contemplation is the highest devotion, and
self- worship the daily ritual." He givps a striking de-
scription of conviction of sin, in the light of the divine law.
" The eternal law shines down through our ^eing, and shows
our desires and aims, in opposition to itb own sanctity. It
is the hatefulness of the selfish will in the presence of the
All-Pure. Doubtless, the revelation is at first humiliating
and painful. In that hour of self-conviction, the burden of
our most inherent corruption hangs heavy on our souls.
Two ideas, for the time, take sole possession of our minds,
4G
542 CONFLICT OP AGES.
and fill the whole scope of our vision. Our inmost self how
alienated ! The divine nature how dazzling and dreadful
in its holiness ! " ^ * * " He who before was complacent
and satisfied with the shows of a seeming morality is
startled and dismayed, as a light from out of himself is let
down through the central places of his being, and reveals
the secret corruption that lurks through all its winding
recesses. How false has been his standard of right, how
low have been his aims, and what impurities have tainted
the springs of his conduct ! ' I thought myself alive with-
out the law,' said the great apostle ; 'but when the com-
mandment came, sin revived, and I died.' When the
eternal law shone forth, the sin that was in me came full
into the range of my consciousness, and instead of spiritual
life I found there a mass of death." * * ''What we
have now described is sometimes called ' conviction of sin.'
^ut it is more than that. Sin pertains only to what is
wrong in our volitions and actions. But now the sources
of s^'n, lying deeper than all volition and action, are shown
to us ; for the vain disguises of our self-love having with-
ered away under the beams of the divine countenance, the
diseased mass whose hidden motions had swayed our voli-
tions and conduct is disclosed, and makes us cry, ' Who shall
deliver us from this body of death 7 ' " (pp. 149, 150.) His
description of the process of regeneration is no less heart-
moving and affecting. I hail these developments of doctrine
with deep and undissembled joy; and that joy is increased by
the sincerity with which they are sanctioned by the Execu-
tive Committee of the American Unitarian Association, as a
clear and strong statement of the practical doctrines of
Christianity, and of a profound religious experience. The
author well says that if any of his reasonings "should not
sound like the traditional utterances of denomination, they
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 54^
may yet be just as worthy of attention ; " a thought whicl
all men would do well to ponder.
Yet, I am not able to agree with the estimable author in
his views of the origin of this depravity of nature that lies
beneath the will, and which he does not regard as properly
sinful. He ascribes it to tradition, by descent from preced-
ing sinful generations. "It is an inherited, disordered
nature impersonated in each individual." " Adam began the
work of the degradation of the species ; the balance between
good and evil began to dip the wrong way ; his successors
kept adding to the weight. Sin became more facile with
every generation, till the scale came heavily down. And
this is THE FALL OF MAN." "With primitive man began
the descending series, and it kept on till the time of Christ.
Then the ascending series began, and it will keep on till it
comes up to the level of that height where began the march
of humanity." But how does this view agree with facts?
Were not men as much, or even more, depraved before the
flood, according to the Bible, than they have been at any time
since ? Will not there be also a revolt immediately after
the millenium 7 Are the children in a long line of holy fam-
ilies in their own consciousness less depraved ? Was it so in.
President Edwards, whose experience we have given ? Yet
he came from a long line of holy ancestry. Moreover, when
I see new-created souls coming under this law, and beginning
an eternal existence in depraved society, as men sink deeper
from generation to generation, I cannot recognize the jus-
tice or honor of God ; I cannot admit that such souls have
ever had a fair probation. I cannot but apply to this point
the remarks of Dr. Watts concerning the law of generation,
which I have quoted on p. 347. I admit that certain
causes of depravity are transmitted by the material system.
But the central elements of a sinful spirit^ pride, nelfish-
6'44 CONFLICT OF AGES.
ness, self-will, envy, and tlie like, do not, in fact, rise and
sink in successive generations ; nor is it reasonable to think
that it Is in the power of matter, or of any law of generation,
to originate or to remove them. Whilst, therefore, I rejoice
in the depth of experience indicated in the work of Mr.
Sears, I cannot accord with his views of the origin of
human depravity, and of its changing scale. Yet I im-
measurably prefer his views to the superficial Pelagianism
which he justly rejects.
But to me nothing seems fully to meet the facts of his-
tory and of the Bible, the conduct of God in so entirely
blaming and condemning man, and the existence of " those
masses of sin and misery," of which Dr. Dewey speaks,
" that overwhelm us with wonder and awe," and of those
" depths of Satan " to which our Saviour refers, but the view
which I have advanced. To my mind, every view is super-
ficial that cannot sound all of these depths, and analyze
history as we find it to the very bottom ; and every view is
at war with the principles of honor and right which under-
takes to go to such depths without preexistence.
The doctrine of the fall in Adam was designed to be the
foundation and defence of a radical doctrine of depravity.
Yet it is, and has been in all ages, the real, great and log-
ical fountain-head of Pelagianism ; and, if we would seek
security from these tendencies, and find a system which, in
all its parts, tends to deep views of depravity, and a pro-
found Christian experience, we must resort to the doctrine
preexistence.
To evince the truth of these statements, let us, for a
moment, suppose the system which I have delineated to be
true, and that the whole Christian community have adopted
it as thoroughly as they have heretofore the doctrine of
the fall in Adam. Let us suppose that the reason, the
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 545
imagination, the association of ideas, have come under its
full power ; and, now, let us inquire to what results the
system would naturally and necessarily tend. We can, in
this way, form some judgment of the power of the indirect
and collateral evidence which sustains its truth ; for a sys-
tem of falsehood cannot tend to produce the effects of truth,
nor a system of truth those of falsehood.
In general, then, I assert that the natural and necessary
effect of a full and firm belief of the system, as I have set it
forth, is to give the deepest views of human depravity and of
original sin, and to make regeneration, or moral renovation,
philosophically the great practical end of both the spiritual
and the material systems, and to concentrate their united
influence, through the various powers of man, upon a pro-
found development of this great change.
I say that it makes regeneration the great practical end
'philosophically. For, if it is believed that the mind has
been so affected by sinful action, previous to birth, as to be
born depraved, and full of sinful tendencies, and disjoined
from God, its true life, — and, if it is believed that this
material system is not the cause of sin, but has been so
framed as by its analogies to illustrate regeneration and
spiritual life, and to aid in producing them, — then there is
nothing in the system to turn away the mind from the great
practical end of Christianity. By the very supposition, the
thing to be done is not to develop the good tendencies of a
new-created mind in its normal state, but to eradicate the
evil tendencies of a sinful mind in a fallen state, and to
new-create it in holiness. And there is nothing which can
logically supplant or supersede this work.
Indeed, this tendency of the system is so obvious that it
has never been denied. For this reason, no doubt, it is
that the Princeton divines recognize Julius Miillcr as clearly
46=*
546 CONFLICT OF AGES.
on the right side of th -' great question at issue. So, also^
in the Bibliotheca .Sacra he is represented as holding
firmly a thorou^' doctrine of original sin. Augustine,
also, saw this rc6iilt very clearly ; and in one of his earlier
works, — that on free-will, — when the first freedom of his
mind had not been influenced by church authority, was
favorably disposed towards this view, and left it optional to
any one who would to adopt it. Hence, Cudworth repre-
sents him ;ts having " a favor and kindness for it, insomuch
that he :j sometimes staggering in this point, and thinks it
to be c great secret whether men's souls existed before their
ge:i''/'ations or no ; and, somewhere, concludes it to b*
;id[. -iter of indifferency, wherein every one may have his
liberty of opening either way without offence."
To me it is highly probable that Augustine would have
adopted the doctrine of preexistence, had it not been for the
influence of certain decisions of the church on the sacra-
mental system, which had sprung from her Gnostic and
ascetic tendencies. Indeed, this is a fair inference from
some of his statements ; for he found great difficulties, as we
have seen, in Jerome's view of the constant creation of new
souls from age to age, and no less in the theory of the gen-
eration of souls ; and not unfrequently he said, especially in
his book on the origin of the soul, that he could not tell
which was the true view. Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons,
and Alcuin of old, took the same ground ; and Doederlein
asserts that Luther, and most other teachers eminent for
wisdom, have coincided with them. This, it will be ob-
served, is a virtual confession that, after all, the question
is not settled that the common view of Rom. 5 : 12 — 19 :s
correct ; for, if it is, the idea of preexistence is excluded, by
a divine decision. How different would have been the
course of events, had Augustine and other leading men,
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 54"^
when the question was first thoroughly discussed, been lef»
unembarrassed by the Gnostic and ascetic dogmas of the
church, which had ah-eady dishonored marriage, exalted
celibacy and monasticism, and laid the foundations of eccle-
siastical despotism in the system of sacramental regenera-
tion and sanctification ! The spirit of these corrupt systems
is opposed to preexistence as I have developed it, since it
is at war with Gnosticism, whilst they imply and are based
upon the origin of sin through the material system, which is
the fundamental principle of Gnosticism. Considering, there-
fore, the powerful Gnostic spirit and tendencies of the age,
^nd the power of church authority, it is not to be wondered
at that Augustine did not succeed in rising above it so far
as to adopt and develop the system of preexistence as I
Lave set it forth, — a system which in its principles anc
spirit would have been utterly at war with Gnosticism ic
every form.
Ow* thing, however, is clear, from this general view : tha?
it has been seen and conceded, in every age, that the doc-
trine of preexistent sin does tend to a deep and thorough
view of depravity and regeneration, and is not to be con-
demned on the ground of any Pelagian or other dangerous
tendencies. The same, however, cannot be truly said of
the common doctrine of the fall in Adam ; for, though it is
meant to be the basis of a deep doctrine of depravity and
regeneration, and is commonly supposed to be such, nev-
ertheless it tends at once, and with great logical power, to
Pelagianism. The reason of this is plain ; for it implies, of
course, a denial of preexistence, and an assertion that man
enters this world as a new-created being. But in this is,
of necessity, contained an unanswerable logical argument
for Pelagianism. For it has been conceded on all hands,
and MOST strongly by the most orthodox, that the laws
548 CONFLICT OF AilES.
of honor and right demand of the Creator to confer on new-
created beings natures in a normal and well-balanced state,
tending to good, and needing only development in a natural
direction. It follows, of course, since God is honorable and
just, that he does confer on all new-born minds such na-
tures ; and this is neither more nor less than Pelagianism.
A more just, natural and logical conclusion was never
drawn from any premises whatever. It is perfectly plain,
therefore, that, in the common doctrine of the fall of Adam,
there are the logical seeds of pure Pelagianism, ready to
spring up at all times. This is the reason why it has
always been so hard to exterminate this dangerous system.
The church has always furnished the premises which led t?
it, and has thus been obliged to meet it at a logical disad-
vantage.
I have show that all this is the result of a false decision,
made nearly fifteen centuries ago, under the overruling
influence of a church deeply sunk in the spirit and the
errors of Gnosticism. Pious as Augustine was, he cmld
not so far rise above the spirit of his age as to introduce a
system the logical development of which would, as I have
shown, have cut up Gnosticism by the roots. Hence,
though he saw the power of preexistence to explain viiginai
sin, and at first looked upon it with favor, he yielded co a
corrupt ecclesiastical influence, and, by the aid of a false
translation, and a false realistic philosophy, he introduced
+hat false decision, concerning the great problem of the for-
feiture of rights by the human race, which has been to
ever) subsequent generation the fountain-head of errors
&:id divisions. There is but one true solution of that prob-
lem possible, and that is through preexistent sin.
Since then, the general views which he introduced have
been sustained against the protests of the principles of
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 649
equity and honor, by the supposed testimony of God, in
Rom. 5 : 12 — 19, although the uniform opinion of the
church for nearly the four preceding centuries had been that
the sentence referred to in that passage was merely natural
death. I cannot but believe, however, that any one who will
candidly consider what I have said on that point will see
that there is no divine testimony to sustain the doctrine of a
forfeiture in Adam, or of a fall in Adam in any way. But.
if this supposed testimony falls away, then, unless we admit
of preexistent sin, we come once more logically to the result
that men, as new-created minds, are in their normal state,
and need only culture and development ; and this is Pela-
gianism, and scientifically ai^d logically at once cuts up the
doctrine of regeneration hy Me roots.
But, on the other hand, the view which I present makes
regeneration the only logical or philosophical end of the
system ; and the laws of honor and right, instead of turning
man from it, impel him towards it with all their energy.
For, if God has not injured man, but has conferred on him
undeserved mercy through this system, then every principle
of honor, as well as of interest, calls on him to yield to the
divine influences, and to comply with the divine injunction
to cast away all his transgressions, and to make to himself
a new heart and a new spirit, lest he die forever.
But this is not the whole strength of the case. For the
view which I present not only unites the reason, and the
dictates of equity and honor, in the great work of regenera-
tion, but it also concentrates the united energies of both the
spiritual and the material systems, through other powerful
faculties of man, upon the great end of regeneration. Man
has not only reason, by which he longs after and delights
to behold a systematic unity of all things, — he not only can
be influenced through his intellectual, logical and moral
550 CONFLICT OF AGES.
powers, — but he is powerfully affected through his imag-
ination, and the association of ideas. The work of morai
renovation can never be carried to its highest point, if these
faculties are arrajed against it, or divided against each
other. But, if we derive sin from Adam through natural
generation, these powers are arrajed against the work of
regeneration. Man finds himself at once bound in a ma-
terial system, which he is obliged to regard as tending to
corrupt the soul, — a system polluting and polluted.
Let any one read the development of this subject by
Turretin, or by Watts, or by Ridgeley, or by Willard, or by
hundreds of others, and see if it is not so. Even if any try
theoretically to disavow it, it comes practically to this issue.
But, if sin comes through generation and the material sys-
tem, then, as in the Romish church, marriage is dishonored,
and the imagination and association of ideas defile and are
defiled. But. if the origin of sin is thrown back into a spirit-
ual state, — if this system is made to aid in regeneration,
if all its analogies, properly understood and used, tend to it.
— then is marriage honored, and the imagination and the
association of ideas are purified at once, and unite their
energies in the great work of moral renovation.
Thus the views which I present alone avert all tenden-
cies to Pelagianism, and make a supernatural regeneration
the great and philosophical end of the system. They also
provide the means of deep and thorough sanctification.
Moreover, they present to the sanctified reason that com-
plete unity of the spiritual and material worlds in one
intelligible system which meets the highest intellectual and
philosophical wants of the mind. They also give a true
system of mental philosophy, based on an investigation of
the normal state of the mind, the nature and laws of unper-
verted free agency, the effects of sin on the faculties, and
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 551
the changes needed to restore the mind to its true and
original harmony and life in God.
So, also, they fully develop the idea of God, so as to
meet the wants of the mind thoroughly regenerated and
purified; — holy and just, yet not an unfeeling and arbitrary
God, but sympathetic, tender, gentle, patient, condescend-
ing, as well as all- wise and all-mighty.
The great end and final result of the system is also one
which deeply interests the feelings and excites the imagina-
tion. It is the redemption of the church, and her eternal
union to God, in infinite love, for the highest and most
benevolent ends. Viewed from this point of vision, what a
history is that of the church ! What tragedies of suffering
does it involve, but how glorious the final result ! It thus
opens the way to pure and perfect emotion, in sympathy
with God and the universe ; for it discloses the great centre
of God's emotion, and brings the mind into sympathy with
him and with his angels, with reference thereto.
It discloses, also, the great centre of spiritual beauty, in
the united loveliness of God and the church. Out of Zion,
the perfection of beauty, God is seen to shine. It thus
explains the analogies of this spiritual beauty, as seen in
the highest beauty of man and woman, and in their union,
and also in nature. It thus purifies, develops and elevates,
the imagination. It also aids, as nothing else can, to sub-
ordinate, control and sanctify, the appetites and the senses.
It employs the association of ideas to link all things to the
glorious and holy ends of the system. In marriage, and in
the family, we are constantly reminded of the glorious
consummation of all things at the close of this dispensation.
The changes of day and night, the revolving seasons, the
varied colors of the landscape, and of morning and evening,
are linked by spiritual associations and analogies to the
552 CONFLICT OF AGES.
universal system. Thus this faculty imparts to all objects
and events of this earthly scene a heavenly color and
radiance.
Thus this dispensation, truly viewed, gives rise to a sys-
tem of education which so trains man- as to sanctify and
unite all his powers, and in no respect to divide the mind
against itself It unites faith and reason, and makes a
supernatural development rational. It sanctifies the world
and life in all their parts.
It exposes, moreover, the delusive nature of those ideas
of progress which are caused by the illusions of pride. It
discloses the true end of this world as a moral hospital, and
makes it apparent that humiliation, confession of sin, and
purification and pardon, are the final results of the truest
and highest progress. Life thus becomes sober, the world
is valuable chiefly for its spiritual ends, and heaven is seen
to be the true and only home.
It explains God's mode of discipline and culture by
trials varied and severe, and the reasons why He so highly
values the faith and patience, and other graces of his peo-
ple thus produced. It enables Christians to understand for
what glorious ends God is training them, and for what pur-
poses they will be called on to put forth their powers, as
kings and priests to God forever. It thus furnishes the
noblest end, the highest standard, and the most powerful
motives for self-culture ; and makes life, from beginning to
end, a constant system of education for eternity.
^
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11