An Appeal to the People in Behalf of Their Rights as Authorized Interpreters of The Bible

by Catharine E. Beecher

Author of “Common Sense Applied to Religion,” “Domestic Economy,” “Domestic Receipt-Book,” “Letters to the People on Health and Happiness,” “Physiology and Calisthenics,” Etc., Etc.

New York

Harper & Brothers, Publishers

1860

Contents

TO The Editors of the Secular Press, THE TRUE TRIBUNES OF THE PEOPLE, CALLED OF GOD IN BEHALF OF THE COMMONWEALTH TO DEFEND LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND THE RIGHT OF ALL TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE FOR THEMSELVES, UNRESTRAINED BY ANY ECCLESIASTICAL POWER, THIS VOLUME IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED.

Chapter I. Introduction.

There is an obvious crisis approaching, in the religious world, on questions of the highest moment. In past time such periods of change have been preceded by a slow and silent preparation, in which multitudes have been led into the same course of thought and feeling. Then, as the crisis approached, some efficient leader lifted the last stone which sustained the protecting dyke, and rode on the summit of the in-rushing tide to notoriety and influence. Thus it was in the day of Luther, in the day of Wesley, and at other periods of religious movement.

At the present time there are indications of a great impending change, which has been preceded by a long course of unobserved preparation. But it is believed that, in this case, it is not to be exhibited, like former ones, by leaders forming new sects and parties, amid more or less of conflict and commotion, but by the agency of the people, and by a healthful, quiet process, which, like leaven, shall gradually assimilate surrounding particles till the whole be leavened.

The matter involved is the great question of questions, to each individual for himself, and to every [pg 002] parent and educator for their children: “What must we do to be saved?”

It is the object of this volume to show that the answer to this great question has, for ages, been involved in mystery and difficulty by means of a philosophical theory to account for the “origin of evil,” which, in the fifth century, was forced on the people by popes and ecclesiastical councils, and which has been sustained by persecution ever since—that this theory is the basis of a system of religious doctrine incorporated into creeds and churches, which is so contrary to the moral sense of humanity, that theologians have failed to render it consistent and satisfactory, even to themselves—that the people are endowed with principles of common sense by which they can educe from the works of God a system of natural religion far superior, which system is briefly set forth, and also the tendencies of the two opposing systems—that both systems are so incorporated into church creeds, and into theological teachings, that they are a compound of contradictions, and all the great religious controversies have been efforts to eviscerate the false system from the true, while through the long conflict, it is theologians who have proved the noble confessors and martyrs for truth—that it is impossible to establish the claims of the Bible, or of any other writings, as revelations from the Creator, when the Augustinian theory is made a part of their teachings; so that the real question for the people, is “Bible or no Bible”—that the leading theological teachers of the chief sects in this country have virtually conceded that this theory is sustained neither by common sense nor the Bible; and, finally, that the people are about [pg 003] to cast off this dogma, which for ages has darkened the way to eternal life, and by applying the principles of common sense to the Bible, thus establish its agreement with the system of natural religion herein set forth.

In conclusion, the indications of the predicted change are set forth as they are manifested in the present position of theologians—of the parochial clergy—of the church—of educational interests—of women—of “Young America”—and of the religious and secular press.

Chapter II. The Augustine Theory of the Origin of Evil.

The theory in question was introduced into the Christian church, as an article of faith, in the fifth century, chiefly by the influence of Augustine, an African bishop.

To understand how it was brought about, it is needful to bear in mind the distinction between facts and the philosophical theories that explain the how and the why of these facts.

Christ and his Apostles taught the fact that all men are sinners, and the way to escape from sin and its penalties. As, at first, Christianity prevailed chiefly among the uneducated, it was not till some three or four hundred years after Christ, that the philosophy of these facts agitated the churches. Augustine was a man of powerful mind and great learning, and with [pg 004] other philosophers, speculated as to “the origin of evil,” or the why and the how all men came to be sinners.

By the aid of a few misinterpreted passages in the Bible, the following theory was introduced and mainly by Augustine.

The Augustinian Theory.

The Creator has proved his power to make minds with such “a holy nature” that they will have no propensity to sin, by creating the minds of angels and of Adam on this pattern. Adam having this holy nature, with no propensity to sin, did sin, and, as a penalty, or in consequence, all his posterity commence existence without this holy nature, and with such a depraved nature that every moral act is sin and only sin until God regenerates each mind. This favor is bestowed only on a certain “elect” number, whose salvation was purchased by the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ.

The rest of the race, after death, are to continue an existence of hopeless torment in hell.

This depraved nature is the “origin of evil;” that is to say, it is the cause of all the sin and consequent misery of our race in time and through eternity. It is what is meant by the terms “total depravity,” and “original sin” as used by theologians.

At first the pope and the church councils refused this theory, but eventually, the Augustinian party triumphed; Pelagius and his followers were persecuted and driven out of the church, and thus this dogma was established as a leading feature in all the creeds and confessions of both Catholic and Protestant churches.

So thoroughly has it been adopted that, since the time of Pelagius, there has been little discussion among the great Christian sects on the theory itself. These disputes have chiefly related to certain questions connected with this dogma, which will next be noticed.

Chapter III. Questions Connected with the Augustinian Theory.

In discussing the topics of this chapter it is needful to refer to certain religious sects and parties of this country in their relations to the subject.

The first class may be denominated the old school Calvinists, embracing the Old School Presbyterian churches, the Reformed Dutch and most of the Baptist denominations.

Their views are ably presented by the theologians of Princeton and their quarterly, and by the Baptist theologians of the Newton Theological Seminary and the Baptist periodicals.

The second class may be called the new school Calvinists, embracing Congregational and New School Presbyterian churches. These are ably represented in New England by the Andover and New Haven Theological Seminaries and their respective quarterlies; and out of New England, by the Theological Seminaries of Union and Lane, and their quarterly at Philadelphia.

The third class are the Arminian sects, including the Methodists and Episcopalians, whose views are ably presented in their quarterlies and other periodicals in New York and Philadelphia.

In what does the depraved nature transmitted from Adam consist?

In seeking a definite and clear answer to the question, what is the depraved nature transmitted from Adam, we find so much vagueness and mistiness, that it will be needful to state first what it is not, and then it will be more easy to approximate to the affirmative reply.

We find, then, that theologians teach that this depraved nature does not consist in any of those constitutional powers and faculties of mind, of which God is the author. For they maintain that all that God has made is perfect and right, and that he is not the creator of that which is the cause or origin of sin, inasmuch as this would make him “the author of sin,” which they expressly deny. This depraved nature, then, is something which God did not create. This is what is affirmed when theologians say that they do not teach a “physical depravity” which demands “physical regeneration” on the part of God.

Then on the positive side, we find that this depraved nature is something that mind can be created without, for God made the angels and Adam without it.

It is something which does not prevent sinful action, for Adam sinned before it existed.

It is something which God can at any time remedy, at least to some extent, by regeneration.

It is something which makes every moral act of [pg 007] every human being sin and only sin until regeneration takes place.

It is something which man created himself, either in Adam, or by Adam, or before Adam.

It is something which man never can or never will rectify, so that he is entirely dependent on God for the remedy.

It is something which most theologians describe as “a bias,” or “a tendency,” or “a propensity,” or “an inclination,” or “a proclivity” to sin, while its opposite is called a holy nature which was created by God, and which consists in a bias, tendency, propensity, inclination or proclivity to holiness.

According to this, God created the holy nature of angels and our first parents, and man caused the depraved nature of all of Adam's posterity.

Some theologians attempt to define it as an unbalanced state of the faculties, while holiness consists in the perfect balance of the faculties. This balanced state of the faculties conferred at his creation on Adam has been withheld from all his descendants by a constitution formed by God in consequence of Adam's sin. Some theologians define this depravity as like a habit. Others hold that it is a state of the will, sometimes called a disposition or ruling purpose.

Some theologians teach that the presence of God's Spirit, in the soul of man is indispensable to its right action, and that his depraved nature is the result of the “deprivation” of God's Spirit, which was bestowed on Adam, and is withheld from his descendants on account of his first sin. According to this view, a holy mind is one which enjoys the presence of God's Spirit, and a depraved mind is one that is deprived of it.

Ability and Inability.

The next question connected with the Augustine theory is in regard to man's power or ability to obey God.

The old school Calvinists hold that man has no power of any kind to obey any of God's laws acceptably until his depraved nature is regenerated by God, and also that he has no power to do any thing that has any tendency to secure regeneration. Every act and feeling is sin and only sin from birth to regeneration.

The new school Calvinists hold that man has full power to obey all that God requires, but that owing to his depraved nature, he never will perform a morally right act in a single instance, until regenerated, nor will he do any thing that has any promise, or encouragement from the Word of God, as tending to secure regeneration. He is as entirely dependent on God as if he had no power of any kind. And as the inability, whether natural or moral, is all owing to the depraved nature consequent on Adam's sin, the fact that man has power to do what he never will do, only adds to the misery of the condition thus entailed.

The Arminian sects agree in the fact that the sin of Adam entailed such a depraved nature to all the race, as more or less incapacitates for right moral action until regeneration takes place.

The Episcopal Arminians hold to the Catholic view that baptism in part remedies the effects of Adam's sin, so that by the use of the means afforded by a ministry regularly transmitted from the Apostles, the unregenerate can gain eternal life.

The Methodist Arminians hold that depravity consists [pg 009] in the “deprivation” of God's Spirit which was given to Adam, and that the death of Christ has so availed, that man now has some measure of this Spirit restored before regeneration, so that all men have power, by the use of certain appointed means of grace, to gain regeneration.

The main point where the Calvinists and Arminians differ is, that the Arminians teach that man has an appointed mode for gaining regeneration, and the Calvinists teach that he has not.

What is Regeneration?

The next question is, in what does that great change consist which is called regeneration, and which is indispensable to salvation from eternal woe?

The old school Calvinists say it is a new nature created by God which naturally acts right, in place of a depraved nature which naturally acts wrong and only wrong. With this new nature man has power to obey God acceptably, and without it he has no power of any kind.

The new school Calvinists say that regeneration is a change of the depraved nature of man by God, attended by a choice or ruling purpose to obey God in all things made by man himself. They teach also that man can and ought to make this choice without any help from God in changing his depraved nature, and yet, owing to this evil nature, he never will do so till God changes it. Meantime God points out no certain way of obtaining this indispensable aid from him.[1]

The Arminians teach that regeneration consists either in the implanting of a new nature by baptism, and [pg 010] the use of other means of grace, or in the restoration of God's Spirit which was withdrawn from man on account of Adam's sin, and in some degree restored by Christ's death.

What must we do to be saved?

The next question for a race thus mournfully ruined is, “What must we do to be saved?”

In reply, the old school Calvinist says, you can do nothing at all. Whoever is saved will be regenerated by God, without reference to any unregenerate doings. It is all decided not by man in any way, but by the “decrees” and “election” of God.

The new school Calvinist says, You can do all that God requires, so as to be perfect in every thought, word and deed, from the beginning of moral action to the close of life, but you certainly never will feel or do a single thing that is right and acceptable until regenerated; nor will you ever do any thing to which any promise is offered by God as that which will secure his interference to regenerate. It is all decided, not by man, but by the “decrees” and “election” of God.

The Arminians say you can obtain regeneration and eternal life, by the use of the means of grace set forth in the Bible and by “the Church.”

True virtue, or right moral action.

The next question is, what is true virtue, or right moral action?

By moral action is meant the act of mind in choosing, in distinction from intellectual and other acts of mind.

The Calvinists, both old and new school, teach that [pg 011] true virtue, or right moral action in man, is choosing to obey God's laws after regeneration takes place. Previous to regeneration, every choice is sin and has no moral goodness or rectitude. Thus truth, honesty, justice, self-denial for the good of others, obedience to parents, are all sin in an unregenerate mind, and true virtue in the regenerate mind.

The Antinomian Calvinist goes so far as to claim that every choice of a regenerate mind is right and holy, just as every choice of the unregenerate is sin. Thus the practice of the most hideous vices and crimes becomes virtue in the regenerate.

But all other Calvinists maintain that after regeneration we can and do sin, though previous to this change no truly virtuous act is ever performed.

The Arminians hold that true virtue consists in obeying God's laws, without reference to the question of regeneration. They do not hold, as do all Calvinists, that all the doings of the unregenerate are sinful, and thus have no promise or encouragement in the Bible as having an influence to secure regeneration.

Chapter IV. The Difficulties Involved in the Augustinian Theory.

The difficulties involved in the Augustinian theory of “the origin of evil,” result from these facts. Our only idea of a benevolent being is that wherever he has the power to produce either happiness or misery, [pg 012] he prefers to make happiness. Our only idea of a malevolent being is that wherever he has this power he prefers to make misery.

Consequently, the affirmation that all the sin and misery of man is the result of a depraved nature which the Creator has power both to prevent and to remove, conveys no other idea than that God prefers to make misery when he has power to make happiness, and thus is a malevolent being.

If God would make all minds perfectly holy, as theologians claim he has power to do, all sin would cease. He chooses not to do so, but rather to perpetuate the depraved nature transmitted from Adam, which is “the origin of all evil.”

Now all classes of theologians who hold to the depravity of man's nature consequent on Adam's sin, agree that this is the cause or origin of all sin and its consequent suffering.

They all agree, also, that God has proved his power to make a perfectly holy nature in the case of angels and of Adam, and that in consequence of the first sin of Adam, every human mind begins to exist with a depraved nature, according to a constitution of things instituted by God.

They all agree that God can regenerate every human mind, and that this boon is withheld, not for want of power, but for want of will on the part of God.

The difficulty that they have to meet is this—How can the Creator, having done thus, be regarded as any other than a malevolent being, the malignant and hateful “author of sin,” and all its consequent sufferings?

The following exhibits the several modes of attempting to meet this question.

The Catholic Method.

The first mode of meeting this difficulty is called that of mystery and sovereignty. It is simply saying that there is no explanation to be given. It is a mystery that God as a sovereign does not choose to explain, and it must be submitted to in uncomplaining silence.

This is the Catholic mode which has been perpetuated by many Protestants. It is the same method as is adopted in defending the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

All who do not resort to the Catholic mode of mystery and sovereignty, endeavor to relieve the Creator from the charge of being the author of sin by maintaining that man made his own depraved nature.

This they set forth in the following ways:

Mode of Augustine and of President Edwards.

Augustine, the father of this dreadful system, maintained that all men had a common nature in Adam, which was ruined by his act, after God had made this common nature perfect. That is to say, every human soul existed as a part of Adam, and thus his act was the act of each and of all. This act vitiated the common nature of all, and thus Adam and each of his posterity caused the depravity of their common nature. And thus, though God had the power to create each mind as perfect as he created Adam's, still he is not the author of sin.

President Edwards, the great New England theologian, [pg 014] taught that all the minds of our race so existed in Adam, and were so one with his mind, that when he chose to eat the forbidden fruit, all his descendants chose to do so too, and thus each man ruined his own nature, and God is not the author of the evil.

The Princeton Mode.

The theologians of Princeton set forth the following as the mode in which man caused his own depraved nature:

God created Adam with a perfectly holy nature. Adam sinned and ruined his own nature. God had previously “made a covenant with Adam, not only for himself, but for all his posterity, or in other words, Adam having been placed on trial, not only for himself, but also for his race, his act was in virtue of this relation regarded (by God) 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 in the world. The sin of Adam therefore ruined us; and the intervention of the Son of God for our salvation is an act of pure, sovereign, and wonderful grace.”

The above is extracted from a standard writer of the Princeton Theological Seminary, and expresses the views of the Old School Presbyterian church in this matter.

It is simply saying that man made his own depraved nature, inasmuch as God regarded Adam's act as our act when it was not, being performed before we existed, and that he punished us by withdrawing from us, as he did from Adam, and thus our nature becomes ruined and totally depraved.

The Constitutional Transmission Mode.

The next way in which man is made to be the author of his own nature is called the constitutional transmission mode. It is as follows:

God made Adam with a perfectly holy mind, and then Adam sinned and ruined his own nature. In consequence of this act, God established such a constitution of things that Adam transmitted his depraved nature to all his posterity, just as bodily diseases are transmitted from parents to children.

In this way man is said to be the author of his own depraved nature, meaning, by man, Adam.

In this case it is conceded that God had power to make such a constitution of things as that all human minds would begin existence, as Adam did, with perfectly holy minds, and that instead of this, he chose that such a depraved nature should be transmitted to all as would insure universal sin. And yet it is claimed that by this mode, man, and not God, is shown to be “the author of sin.”

This is the mode adopted by most of the Andover and New Haven theologians.

Dr. Edward Beecher, in his work “The Conflict of Ages,” advocates the idea that man ruined his own nature in a preëxistent state before Adam. But the evidence of this has not yet been presented.

Thus all who do not take the Catholic mode of mystery and sovereignty maintain that man made his own depravity of nature, either in or by or before Adam.

Condition of infants.

The most difficult point of all, is the probable condition [pg 016] of infants after death. On the Augustinian theory they all have been ruined in nature by Adam's sin, and when they die, go with this depraved nature to their final state. Augustine acquired the name of “durus pater” (cruel father) because he was consistent with his theory and taught that these little ones, if unbaptized, were doomed to endless torments.

But as humanity and common sense have gained ground this hideous tenet has passed away, and few are now found who do not sacrifice consistency to humanity, and allow that in spite of their total depravity, all infants go directly to heaven and are forever blessed. Formerly some would confine this favor to the “elect infants,” others to the infants of “elect parents,” but few are found at this day who venture to teach that God sends even one new-born being to eternal misery for Adam's sin.

The difficulties not removed but rather increased by these methods.

But the difficulties involved in the Augustine theory do not lie in the mode by which it came to pass that all men begin existence with depraved natures, but in the fact, that God, having power to create all minds as perfect as Adam's, and also the power to regenerate all, has chosen not to do so, and thus has preferred the consequent sin and misery to the happiness resulting from making perfect minds.

This grand difficulty stands entirely unrelieved by the above methods. Nay more, they all serve but to increase a sense of the folly and enormity of the awful result, and to present our Maker as the cruel cause of [pg 017] all our miseries, and the fullest and most awful realization of our idea of a perfectly malevolent being.[2]

Illustration of the Augustinian Theory.

The following illustrates the case, though but very imperfectly, inasmuch as any finite temporal evils are as nothing compared to the eternal torments to which are assigned all of our race, whose ruined nature is not regenerated before death.

A father places a poison in the way of his wife, forbids her to taste it, but knows she will do so and that the consequence will be that all his children will be born blind.

Then he places the children thus deprived of sight, in a dreadful morass filled with savage beasts and awful pitfalls, with a narrow and difficult path of escape, which it is certain no one will ever find without sight. The consequence is, that a large part of his children sink into the pitfalls and perish.

Then he justifies himself in these ways. To some he says, I have a right to treat my children as I please, and I allow no one to question me on the matter. All that I do is right and benevolent, and you must not inquire how or why.

To all the rest he says, I am not the author of this evil, it is the mother of the children who took the poison when I forbade her to do so. She either made herself blind by taking the poison, and then transmitted the evil to her children as a hereditary boon, or she had “a common nature” with her children and ruined all together, or they all “sinned in her” and [pg 018] became blind before they were born. And so I am not “the author of sin” in this matter.

To intelligent persons not educated in the belief of the above theory of Augustine, and of these modes of explaining the difficulties connected with it, this account of the matter will seem so incredible and monstrous that they will demand evidence that the preceding statements are true. In the next chapters this evidence will be presented.

Chapter V. The Augustinian Theory in Creeds.

The preceding chapters have presented the Augustinian theory of “the origin of evil,” and certain questions connected with it which have been debated by theologians; also the difficulties involved in the theory, and the modes of meeting these difficulties.

The next aim will be to verify these statements by extracts from the creeds and theologians of the great Christian sects.

Creed of the Catholic Church.

It is well known that the Catholic organization preceded that of the Protestant sects. It is also well known that this church maintains that the decisions of her pope and councils are infallible.

The following extracts, then, from the decisions of the celebrated Councils of Trent at the period of the Reformation, exhibit the theory of Augustine incorporated as a part of the Roman Catholic creed:

Extract from a decree of the Council of Trent.

“Infants derive from Adam that original guilt which must be expiated in the laver of regeneration in order to obtain eternal life. Adam lost the purity and righteousness which he received from God, not for himself only but also for us.”

The catechism of the Council of Trent says:

“The pastor, therefore, will not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam, but justly descended from him, their source and cause, to all posterity. Hence a sentence of condemnation was pronounced against the human race immediately after the fall of Adam.”

John Calvin.

The celebrated John Calvin, one of the greatest Protestant theologians at the period of the Reformation, wrote a complete system based on the Augustinian theory. This system has been perpetuated in all the various sects which from him are named Calvinistic. The following extract gives his views on this subject:

John Calvin.

“It is a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through all parts of the soul, which, in the first place, exposes us to the wrath of God, and then produces in us those works which the Scripture calls the works of the flesh.”

Of infants, he says:

“They bring their condemnation with them from their 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 inclosed in themselves; nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin; therefore they can not but be odious and abominable to God. Whence it follows that it is properly considered sin before God, because there could not be liability to punishment without sin.”

“The corruption of nature precedes and gives rise to all sinful acts, and is in itself deserving of punishment.”

Westminster Assembly.

The Westminster Assembly represented the Calvinistic sects of Great Britain near the period of the Reformation.

The confession of faith and catechisms prepared by them have ever since been received as a true statement of the system of religious doctrine, as held by the Presbyterian, Congregational, and Calvinistic Baptist denominations in Great Britain and America. The following presents the Augustinian theory, as contained in their creed:

“A corrupted nature was conveyed from our first parents to all their posterity. 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 transgressions. 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 subject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal and eternal.”

The Episcopalians.

The following from the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England presents the same doctrine, as held by the Episcopalians of Great Britain and America:

“Original sin is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered in the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil—and this infection of nature doth remain in the regenerated.”

“The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he can not turn and prepare himself (by his own natural strength and good works) to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us; that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.”

The Methodists.

In the Methodist Quarterly Review for July, 1857, the editor, in speaking of the works of Arminius, says, p. 345, “Our denomination, whose creed agrees so completely with the teachings of this learned, accomplished and holy man, is bound to maintain the freshness of his precious memory.”

Arminius.

In the same article are the following extracts from the works of Arminius, which, on so good authority, may be received as the views of the Methodist churches on this topic:

“The will of man, with respect to true good, is not only wounded, bruised, crooked and attenuated, but is likewise captivated, destroyed and lost, and has no powers whatever, except such as are excited by grace.

“Adam, by sinning, corrupted himself and all his posterity, and so made them obnoxious to God's wrath.”

“Infants have rejected the grace of the gospel in their parents and forefathers, by which act they have deserved to be deserted by God. For I would like to have proof adduced how all posterity could sin in Adam against law, and yet infants, to whom the gospel is offered in their parents and rejected, have not sinned against the grace of the gospel.”

“For there is a permanent principle in the covenant of God, that children should be comprehended and adjudged in their parents.”

Watson, the leading Arminian theologian, says 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 doctrine, as is often done, as exclusively Calvinistic.”

Various Protestant doctrines.

The following extracts from the creeds of various European bodies of Protestant Christians show the same doctrine. The Synod of Dort was a great council of Protestant divines at the period of the Reformation. It contained representatives from most of the large bodies of Protestants in Europe. The following gives their views on this subject:

Synod of Dort.

“Therefore all men are conceived in sin and born the children of wrath, disqualified for all saving good, propense to evil, dead in sins, 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.”

Confession of Helvetia.

“We take sin to be that natural corruption of man derived or spread from those our parents unto us all; through which we, being not only drowned in evil concupiscences and clean turned away from God, but prone to all evil, full of all wickedness, distrust, contempt and hatred of God, can do no good of ourselves—no, not so much as think of any.”

Confession of Belgia.

“We believe that, through 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 whole nature, and an hereditary evil wherewith even the very infants in their [pg 023]mother's womb are polluted: the which also, as a most noisome root, doth branch out most abundantly all kinds of sin in men, and is so filthy and abominable in the sight of God, that it alone is sufficient to the condemnation of all mankind.”

Confession of Bohemia.

“Original sin is naturally engendered in us and hereditary, wherein we are all conceived and born into this world.... Let the force of this hereditary destruction be acknowledged and judged of by the guilt and fault involved, by our proneness and declination to evil, by our evil nature, and by the punishment which is laid upon it.

“Actual sins are the fruits of original sin, and do burst out within, without, 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.”

French Confession (Protestant).

“Man's nature is become altogether defiled, and being blind in spirit and corrupt in heart, hath utterly lost all his original integrity. We believe that all the offspring of Adam are infected with this contagion, which we call original sin, that is a stain spreading itself by propagation. 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.”

Moravian Confession.

“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.”

The preceding is sufficient to establish the unanimous agreement of Catholic and Protestant creeds and [pg 024] confessions in maintaining the Augustinian theory of the depraved nature of all mankind consequent on the sin of Adam, as it has been set forth in the preceding chapters.

Chapter VI. Modes of Meeting Difficulties by Theologians.

Having presented the Augustinian theory, as it is set forth in both Catholic and Protestant creeds, the next object will be to verify the statements of the preceding chapters as to the modes of meeting difficulties adopted by theologians.

The first extract will show that Augustine taught that all men had a common nature in Adam, so that his choosing to eat the forbidden fruit was the act of each and all human minds which were existing in or with him at that time. And thus that it was man and not God that caused our depravity of nature.

The extract introduced to verify the above was written to St. Jerome, who taught that all minds commenced their first existence at or near the birth of each. This Augustine denied, and the passage shows not only that he taught a common nature which was ruined in Adam, but also that all unbaptized infants go to endless punishment for the sin thus committed in Adam ages before they were born.

Augustine's Mode.

“How can so many thousands of souls which leave the bodies of unbaptized infants be with any equity condemned, if they were [pg 025]newly created and introduced into these bodies for no previous sins 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 can not say that God either makes souls sinful by compulsion, or punishes 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?”

Thus Augustine supposed that he escaped the charge of making God the author of sin by teaching that God created all the souls of the race in Adam, so that Adam's sin ruined the nature of himself and his posterity all at one stroke, while it made it right and just to send all unbaptized infants to eternal misery.

The next extract is introduced to verify the statement made as to the Princeton mode of making man the author of his own depraved nature. This mode is the one adopted by most theologians of the Old School Presbyterian church. It is thus set forth by Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, in his Commentary on Romans:

Princeton Mode.

“The great fact in the apostle's mind was, that God regards and treats all men, from the first moment of their existence, as out of fellowship with himself, 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 his favor, and withholds the influences of the Spirit. Why is this? 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 antecedent [pg 026]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 offense 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 being 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; was the ground of the withdrawing of the divine favor from the whole race. 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 must, therefore, be for the offense of one man that judgment has come upon all men to condemnation.”

Constitutional Transmission Mode.

Dr. Dwight's system of theology is regarded as the fairest exhibition of the theological opinions of the majority of the New England Congregational clergy.

While the Catholic mode, as taught by Dr. Woods so many years at Andover, is probably adopted by many, the views of Dr. Dwight, and his successor, Dr. Taylor, on the point under consideration, are taught now both at the Andover and New Haven seminaries, and probably are adopted by the great majority of the clergy in the Congregational and New School Presbyterian denominations.

These theologians maintain that man is the author of his own depraved nature in this way. Adam sinned and ruined his own nature, and then, in consequence of this sin, God instituted such a constitution [pg 027]of things, that this ruined nature has been transmitted to all his posterity, after the same manner as bodily diseases are transmitted from parent to child. This constitution also was established when God had the power to bestow on each human mind the same “holy nature” which he gave to Adam. The following from Dr. Dwight sustains this statement:

“The corruption of mankind exists in consequence of the apostacy of Adam. By means of the offense 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, became sinners.”

That is to say, God having the power to make all men with minds as perfect as Adam's before his fall, on account of Adam's sin constituted a state of things that would insure the universal sinfulness of the whole race.

Dr. Taylor, the successor of Dr. Dwight as head of the New Haven school of divines, teaches thus:

“Men are entirely depraved by nature. I do not mean that their nature is in itself sinful, nor that their nature is the physical or efficient cause of their sinning; but I mean that their nature is the occasion or reason of their sinning—that such is their nature, that in all the appropriate circumstances of their being they will sin and only sin.”

He further states:

“That sin is by nature owing to propensities to inferior good, with a difference between Adam's mind and ours (though we can not assert that in which this difference may consist); that our propensities are the same in kind, though different in degree, from those of Adam; that perhaps this distinction may consist in mental [pg 028]differences—or in superior tendencies, compared with Adam's, to natural good, and less tendency to the highest good.”

Thus, on account of the first sin of the first pair, God constituted such a state of things, that instead of perfect minds, such as God gave to the angels and to Adam, all men receive such “a nature” as insures “sin and only sin,” until regeneration takes place.

The next extracts will verify the statements made as to the mode adopted by Catholic theologians.

Catholic Mode.

The Catholic mode is that of mystery and sovereignty, and is based on the assumption that the mind of man, being utterly depraved, has no capacity to judge of what is right and wrong.

According to this, the most abominable and horrible crimes are to be considered virtues if God should commit them, or should teach us that they are so.

Among the most distinguished of the Catholic theologians is the learned Abelard, who teaches thus:

“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? 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.’ Now 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 any thing 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.”

Another celebrated Catholic theologian, “the good Pascal,” thus disparages our natural sense of justice as “wretched,” and of no account before this awful doctrine.

“What can be more contrary to the rules of our wretched justicethan to damn eternally an infant incapable of volition, for an offense in which he seems to have had no share, and which was committed six thousand years before he was born? Certainly nothing strikes us more rudely than this doctrine; and yet without this mystery, the most incomprehensible of all, we are incomprehensible to ourselves.”

Thus it is seen that Pascal concedes it as a truth that infants are to be eternally damned for offenses in which they “seem to have no share,” and that our sense of justice, which revolts from it, is “wretched.”

The Andover Theological Seminary was the first one established in New England for educating ministers, and for nearly half a century Dr. Woods filled the leading theological chair. The following is introduced, from the Conflict of Ages, to verify the statement that the Catholic mode of mystery and sovereignty was the method adopted by him in training the clergy of New England on this subject.

“He [Dr. Woods] 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.’ He also teaches that God inflicts this ‘tremendous calamity’ on 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 this proceeding just to Adam's posterity? What have they done, before they commit sin, to merit pain and death? What have they done to merit the evil of existing without original righteousness, and with a nature prone [pg 030]to sin? 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. It is a doctrine which is not to be brought for trial to the bar of human reason. Mere natural reason, mere philosophy or metaphysical sagacity transcends its just bounds, and commits a heinous sacrilege, when it attacks this primary article of our faith, and labors to distort it, to undermine it, or to expose its truth or its importance to distrust.’ ”

The preceding serves to establish the correctness of the writer's statements as to the modes of meeting difficulties adopted by theologians.

In the next chapter we shall see that none of these methods prove satisfactory even to theologians themselves.

Chapter VII. Theologians Themselves Concede the Augustinian Dogmas Indefensible.

Although each theologian claims that the mode of meeting difficulties adopted by his school is satisfactory, yet as each maintains that all other modes are unavailing, it comes to pass that a majority of theologians declare each attempt to make the Augustinian dogma consistent with the moral sense of humanity an utter failure.

It has been shown that the Catholic mode is not to attempt to defend the dogma. It is “decreed” by [pg 031] “the church,” which is the only infallible interpreter of God's Word, to be in the Bible, and it is to be received, like the doctrine of transubstantiation, as an inscrutable mystery. This is the mode also adopted by Dr. Woods and many other Protestants.

The following from the Princeton theologians presents their protest against this Catholic method. They perceive that if they allow it in this case, they have no excuse for denying the validity of the Catholic defense of transubstantiation. And so they proceed to claim that imputing to children sins that they never committed, and thus involving them in endless misery, is the true mode, while the Catholic one is vain.

The Princeton Mode against the Catholic Mode.

The Princeton Reviewers, in opposing the Catholic mode, as defended by Dr. Woods, say:

“How is it to be reconciled with the divine character that the fate of unborn millions should depend on an act over which they had not the slightest control, and in which they had no agency? This difficulty presses the opponents of the doctrine (of imputation) more heavily than its advocates. God 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.

“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 all?”

That is to say, they affirm interrogatively that imputing [pg 032] sins to innocent beings that they never committed, as the ground of penal inflictions, is a better defense of God from the charge of being the author of sin and of cruel injustice than the Catholic mode of sovereignty and mystery. At the same time they discard the constitutional transmission mode of Andover and New Haven.

The following from President Edwards the younger, gives the argument of a constitutional transmission divine against the imputation mode.

The Transmission Mode against the Imputation Mode.

“The common doctrine has been, that Adam's posterity, unless saved by Christ, are damned 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 the same way it may be proved just to damn a man without any sin at all, either personal or imputed. We need only to resolve it into a sovereign constitution of God.”

The Andover and New Haven theologians regard both the Catholic and the Princeton modes as utterly unsatisfactory, and offer instead the mode of constitutional transmission as relieving the difficulties.

But Dr. Woods thus argues the case against them, and appeals powerfully to “intelligent and candid men:”

Dr. Woods in behalf of the Catholic Mode against the Constitutional Transmission Mode.

“And is there not just as much reason to urge this objection against the theory just named? Its advocates hold that God [pg 033]brings the whole human race into existence without holiness, and with such propensities and in such circumstances 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 concerned, 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 with the justice 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 sinners at first, or knowingly places us in such circumstances that we shall certainly become sinners, and that very soon? 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? Is not one of these states of mankind fraught with as many and as great evils as the other? What ground of preference then would any man have?...

“Let intelligent, candid men, who do not believe either of these schemes, say whether one of them is not open to as many objections as the other.”

The idea of a preëxistence of the race before Adam, is not held by any denomination.

Thus it appears that whenever any person claims that each of these attempts to make the Augustine theory, as held by the great Christian sects, consistent with the moral sense of humanity is an utter failure, [pg 034] he is sustained by a majority of the most learned and acute theologians of our age and nation.

Chapter VIII. The Augustinian Theory Contrary to the Moral Sense of Mankind.

Having presented evidence that both Catholics and Protestants of Europe and America unite in holding the Augustinian theory of the origin of evil, and also that theologians themselves find it indefensible, the next aim will be to present a portion of the evidence to show that this system is at war with the moral feelings and common sense of mankind.

There are remains of the writings of those who were the opposers of this theory in the time of Augustine, which show the strong emotions called forth at that remote period by the introduction of this doctrine.

The following is from one of the theologians of that day, addressed to the author of the theory:

Julian 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 righteousness, 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? 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 [pg 035]priest and most learned orator, thou fabricatest something more mournful and frightful than the brimstone in the valley of Amsanctus. God himself, say you, 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 have neither a good nor an evil will.”

The following is from the celebrated Dr. Watts, whose sacred lyrics endear his name to the Christian world:

Dr. Watts.

“This natural propagation of sinful inclinations from a common parent, by a law of creation, seems difficult to be reconciled with the goodness and justice of God. 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 powerful law and order of creation, which 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 propensities 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.

“If it could be well made out that the whole race of mankind are partakers of sinful inclinations, and evil passions, 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 could be vindicated in making and maintaining such a dreadful law or order of propagation through six thousand 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.”

The following was written by an American divine at the time of the commencement of the conflict in this country between the Old and New School Calvinists. At that time this theory of a depraved nature was accompanied, even in pulpit teachings, by the assumption of man's total inability to do any thing to gain salvation, and that Christ died, not for all men, but only for “the elect.”

Dr. Whelpley.

“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, and is subversive of all possible conceptions of justice. I hesitate not to say, that no scheme of religion ever propagated 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 Sadder, the fables of the Zendavesta, all give place to this; Rabbinical legends, Brahminical vagaries, all vanish before it.”

“The whole of their doctrine, then, amounts to this: that a man is in the first place condemned, incapacitated, and eternally reprobated for the sin of Adam; in the next place, that he is condemned over again for not doing what he is totally and in all respects unable to do; and in the third place that he is condemned, 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.”

The elder President Adams at first designed to enter the clerical profession, but was deterred by doctrinal difficulties, of which he thus writes:

John Adams.

“If one man, or being, out of pure generosity, and without any expectation of return, is about to confer any favor or emolument [pg 037]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 a servant; and the obligation to gratitude is equally strong upon the benefited being. The mode of bestowing 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 circumstances 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 or bodies, or by a supernatural 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 delegation, or representing all of us, is not in the least diminishing the injury and injustice, but only changing the mode of conveyance.”

The celebrated Dr. Channing was educated a Calvinist. The following exhibits his views on this subject, after embracing Unitarianism:

Dr. Channing.

He says of such views:

“They take from us our Father in heaven, and substitute a stern and unjust Lord. Our filial love and reverence rise up against them. We say, touch any thing but the perfections of God. Cast no stain on that 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 [pg 038]which makes existence a curse, and wraps the universe in gloom. If I and my beloved friends and my whole race have come from the hands of our Creator wholly depraved, irresistibly propense to all 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 do I think that nothing remains but to mourn in anguish of heart; then existence is a curse, and the Creator is——. O, my merciful Father! I can not 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 callest 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!”

The following is from the pen of a celebrated writer educated in the Baptist denomination, who finally became a Universalist:

John Foster.

“I acknowledge my inability (I would say it reverently) to admit this belief together with a belief in the divine goodness—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, can not mean a quality foreign to all human conceptions of goodness. It must be something 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 worshiping an ‘unknown God.’ But, if so, how would all our ideas be confounded while contemplating him bringing, of his own sovereign will, a race of creatures into existence in such a condition that they certainly will and must—must by their nature and circumstances—go wrong and be miserable, unless prevented by especial grace, which is the privilege of only a small 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.

“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 successive, innumerable crowds carried on in 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 sovereignty, to apply the only adequate power, the withholding of which consigns them inevitably to their doom; to see them passing through a short term of moral existence (absurdly sometimes denominated a probation) under all the world's pernicious influences, with the addition of the malign and deadly one of the great tempter and destroyer, to confirm and augment the inherent depravity, on their speedy passage to everlasting woe;—I repeat, I am, without pretending to any extraordinary depth of feeling, amazed to conceive what they contrive to do with their sensibility, and in what manner they maintain a firm assurance of the divine goodness and justice.”

The following is the experience of the author of the Conflict of Ages:

Dr. Edward Beecher.

“If any one would know the full worth of the privilege of living under, worshiping, 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 rationally seen but a God selfish, dishonorable, unfeeling. No such person can ever believe that God issuch; 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 doctrine of native depravity may have been examined and pronounced insufficient, and the question may urgently press itself upon the mind, Is not the present system a malevolent one? and of it no defense may appear.

“Who can describe the gloom of him who looks on such a prospect? 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 [pg 040]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 can not sincerely worship the only God whom he sees. His distress is not on his own account. He feels that God has redeemed and regenerated him; but this gives him no relief. He feels as if he could not be bribed by the offer of all the honors of the universe to pretend to worship or praise a God whose character he can not defend. He feels that he should infinitely 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 for ever 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.”

The following is from the Rev. Albert Barnes, a leading New School Calvinistic divine, and the author of a very popular Commentary on the Bible:

“That the immortal mind should be allowed to jeopard its infinite welfare, and that trifles should be allowed to draw it away from God and virtue and heaven; that any should suffer for ever—lingering on in hopeless despair amidst infinite torments, without the possibility of alleviation and without end; that since God can save men and will save a part, he has not purposed to save all; that on the supposition that the atonement is ample, and that the blood of Christ can cleanse from all and every sin, it is not in fact applied to all; that, in a word, a God who claims to be worthy of the confidence of the universe, and to be a being of infinite benevolence, should make such a world as this, full of sinners and sufferers, and then, when an atonement has been made, he did [pg 041]not save all the race, and put an end to sin and woe for ever;—these and kindred difficulties meet the mind when we think on this great subject. And they meet us whenever we endeavor to urge our fellow-sinners to be reconciled to God. On this ground they hesitate. These are real and not imaginary difficulties. They are probably felt by every mind that has ever reflected on the subject; and they are unexplained, unmitigated, unremoved.”

“I have never known a particle of light thrown on these subjects that has given a moment's ease to my tortured mind; nor have I an explanation to offer, or a thought to suggest, that would be of relief to you. I trust other men, as they profess to do—understand this better than I do, and that they have not the anguish of spirit which I have; but I confess, when I look on a world of sinners and of sufferers, upon death-beds and grave-yards, upon the world of woe filled with hosts to suffer for ever; when I see my friends, my parents, my family, my people, my fellow-citizens; when I look upon a whole race, all involved in this sin and danger, and when I see the great mass of them wholly unconcerned, and when I feel that God only can save them and yet that he does not do it—I am struck dumb. It is all dark, dark, dark to my soul, and I can not disguise it.”

This is but a brief specimen of the shuddering protest which has arisen in all ages and from all sects, against this stern and awful dogma, and which has poured its most powerful records from the shivering hearts of theologians themselves.[3]

Chapter IX. The Principles of Common Sense Defined.

The preceding extracts exhibit a portion of the evidence to prove that the Augustinian system is contrary [pg 042] to the moral sense of mankind, and that theologians have failed, by their own concessions, to render it consistent and satisfactory even to themselves.

The next attempt will be to show that the people are endowed with principles of common sense, by the aid of which they can educe from the works of the Creator, independently of any revealed Word, a system of religion far superior to the one based on the Augustinian theory.

Our first aim will be to designate what is intended by “the principles of common sense.”

It is claimed, then, that there are certain truths, the belief of which exists in every rational human mind. This belief, in some cases, as all must allow, results from the constitution of mind given by the Creator, and not from any instruction or knowledge gained by other modes. Of this class is the belief of every mind in its own existence, and also the belief in the existence of other things beside ourselves.

There are other truths universally believed by every rational mind, where there may be room for question as to whether this belief is acquired or the result of constitutional organization. But this question is waived, as of little practical consequence for the present purpose of this work.

The fact on which the name and classification of these truths rests is, that the belief in them is common to all rational minds, and is regarded as so indispensable to true rationality, that whenever any person shows by words and actions that a belief in any one of these truths does not exist, he is regarded as deranged, that is to say, his reason is said to be more or less destroyed.

This, therefore, is the test by which we are to distinguish these principles of common sense from all other knowledge. They are truths which are believed by all rational persons, so that the disbelief of any one of them, evinced in words and actions, is universally regarded as proof of a deranged mind. In such cases, a man, in common parlance, would be said to have “lost his mind,” or to have “lost his reason;” inasmuch as he is lacking in some of those peculiar features which constitute man a rational being.

In this work the question is also waived as to the number of truths which are to be included in this class. In regard to certain of them there can be no dispute. Of those involving any discussion, there probably will be no occasion to speak in this work. The writer does not claim that the common people, or that metaphysicians, when they speak of “common sense,” always refer to what is here designated by this term.

All that the writer claims is that there are certain truths, the belief of which is common to all minds, either as the result of constitutional organization or of acquired knowledge; and that these can be classified by this test, viz., that men universally talk and act as if they believed them, and when they cease to do so, are regarded as more or less insane.

Moreover, it is claimed that it is proper to call them principles of common sense, because they are that kind of sense which is common to the whole race, and also they are often referred to, both by metaphysicians and by the common people, by this term.

In the following chapters it will be shown that by the application of these principles, a system of natural religion can be gained from the works of the Creator [pg 044] by the same methods that men employ in all the ordinary concerns of life, and that thus we are as fully qualified to gain religious knowledge and peace as we are to secure temporal comfort and prosperity.

Chapter X. Common Sense Applied to Gain the Existence of God.

Having explained what is intended by the principles of common sense, the next attempt will be to apply certain of these principles to gain a system of natural religion; meaning by this term that religion which may be gained from the works of the Creator independently of any revealed Word.

In all systems of religion the first article relates to the existence and character of the Deity to be worshiped and obeyed. The first principle of common sense to guide us in this inquiry is this:

Every change has a producing cause.

In the widest sense of the word, cause signifies something as an antecedent, without which a given change will not occur, and with which it will occur. This is the leading idea in every use of this word.

Then there are two classes of causes; the first are necessary or producing causes, and the second occasional causes.

A producing cause is an antecedent which produces a given change.

Occasional causes are those circumstances which are indispensable to the action of producing causes.

Thus, fire applied to powder is the producing cause of an explosion, while the placing of the two together is the occasional cause of it.

The idea of a producing cause is one which probably is gained when we first discover that our own will moves our own limbs and other things around us. When we will to move a thing, and find the intended change follows our volition to move it, then we can not help believing that our own mind produced this change. At the same time we gain the idea of power to produce this change, and the belief also that the thing changed had no power to refrain from the change.

Our only mode of defining the idea of a producing cause, of power and of want of power, is to refer to occasions when, by willing, we cause changes, and thus become conscious of the existence and nature of these ideas by experience.

So also we have no mode of defining our sensations but by stating the occasions in which we are conscious of them. For instance, whiteness is the sensation we have when we look at snow, and blackness is the sensation we have when we look at charcoal.

The same idea of causation and power in ourselves which we have when we make changes by our will, we always connect with any thing which by experiment and testimony we find, in given circumstances, to be an invariable antecedent of a given change. Our minds are so made, that whenever we find an invariable antecedent of a given change, we can not help believing that this antecedent produced the change, just as we believe our own will produces changes in our bodies and in things around us. And if any person [pg 046] were to talk and act as if lie did not believe this, be would be regarded as having “lost his reason.”

Moreover, whenever men, by frequent experiments, find that a given change is invariably preceded by a certain antecedent, they can not help believing that the antecedent has power to produce this change, and that the thing changed has no power to do otherwise. This idea of power and want of power always exists whenever men find an invariable antecedent to some change. It is by finding what are thus invariably connected as antecedents and consequents that men learn what are causes, and what are effects, and what are the powers of things around us.

Here, then, we have these as principles of common sense believed by all men, viz.:

1. Every change (in matter or mind) has a producing cause as an antecedent.

2. Every invariable antecedent of an invariable sequent is a producing cause, and the thing changed has no power to refrain from that change.

3. A producing cause, in appropriate circumstances, has power to make a given change.

Now every man, however unlearned, can judge for himself whether these principles of common sense exist in his own mind, as here set forth. For example, let any person take a magnet and discover, day after day, that when it is placed near a piece of iron it draws it to itself; let him find also, by testimony from others, that this is invariable and fails in not a single instance, and the inevitable result is a belief that the magnet is the cause of the moving of the iron, just as the mind is the cause of the movement of our bodies. So also there is a belief that the magnet, in given circumstances, [pg 047] has power to move the iron, as our will has power to move our body. So also there is a belief that the piece of iron, in the given circumstances, has no power to refrain from being thus attracted.

We see, then, that it is a universal fact, that when there is a change of any thing, or any new mode of existence, every sane man believes there is some producing cause of this change. Even the youngest child exhibits this principle as a part of its mental organization. And should a person be found who was destitute of a belief in this truth, so that he should talk and act as if things came into existence and were changing places and forms without any causes, he would be called insane, or a man who had “lost his reason.”

Our minds being endowed with this principle, we find the world around us to be a succession of changes which we trace back to preceding causes, until we come to the grand question, “Who, or what first started this vast system of successive changes?” Only two replies are conceivable. The first is that of the Atheist, who, contradicting his own common sense, maintains that, in some past period, all this vast system of organization and changes began to exist without any cause. The other reply is, that there is a great, eternal, self-existent First Cause, who himself never began to be, and who is the author of all finite existences. This being, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, we call God.