i N ;i 
 

 LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 Mrs. SARAH P. WALS WORTH. 
 
 Received October, 1894. 
 Accessions No. ti Class No. 
 
 
 \J 
 
THE 
 
 y xf 
 
 CONFLICT OF AGES; 
 
 O R 
 
 THE GREAT DEBATE 
 
 MORAL RELATIONS OF GOD AND MAN, 
 
 BY 
 
 EDWARD BEECHER, D. D. 
 
 \ \ 
 
 i B. WALSWORTH; AiBIOH, E I, 
 
 Why judge ye not, even of yourselves, what is right ? JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PHILLIPS, SAMPSON AND COMPANY. 
 1853. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by 
 
 EDWARD BEECHER, 
 In the Clerk s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts 
 
 Stereotyped by 
 
 HOBART A ROBBINS, 
 
 BOSTON. 
 
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 have 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 careful 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 centuries, 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 
 reorganizing human society ; for this work is not to be done, even in 
 part, 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 conclusions 
 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 prayer 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 guidance, 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, 1853. 
 \ 
 
SUMMARY VIEW OF THE CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. Nature of the conflict. End and compass of 
 the work, 1 8 
 
 BOOK I. 
 
 THE CONFLICT IN ITS PRINCIPLES. 
 
 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 IL PRESUMPTIVE ARGUMENT. 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 MOVING POWERS OF CHRISTIANITY. 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, 1618 
 
 CHAPTER IV. THE PRINCIPLES or HONOR AND OP 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. STATEMENT OF MORAL PRINCIPLES. The obliga 
 tions of great and powerful minds to inferior and feeble minds. 
 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, . . . 31 41 
 
 CHAPTER VI. ORTHODOX AUTHORITIES. How far the princi 
 ples above stated have been recognized by the church. Testimony 
 of Turretin, of the Princeton divines, of Dr. Watts, of 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 human depravity and ruin. 
 Certain facts are obvious. Statement of them by Unitarian 
 
 1* 
 
VI SUMMARY VIEW OF THE CONTENTS. 
 
 divines Dr. Burnap, Pres. Sparks, Prof. Norton, Dr. Dewey. 
 
 Their theory. Need of a deeper view virtually conceded, . . 51 60 
 
 CHAPTER VIE. RADICAL VIEW OF THE RUIN OF MAN. 
 Necessity of depth and thoroughness. Points involved iu a 
 full view. Statements of Calvin. Synod of Dort. Confession 
 of Helvetia. Confession of the Waldenses. French Confes 
 sion. The Church of England. Confession of Belgia. Con 
 fession of Augsburg. Moravian confession. The Westminster 
 divines. Exposition and remarks, 61 71 
 
 CHAPTER IX. SOCIAL AND OKGANIC 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, 8385 
 
 CHAPTER II. EXPERIENCES CHARACTERIZED. Caused by the 
 predominance, in diiferent minds, of contending parts of the 
 system. Resulting in reactions. Six enumerated, 86 88 
 
 CHAPTER III. 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, 98101 
 
 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 
 Abelard, 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 
 are at war with the word of God, 102 115 
 
SUMMARY VIEW OF THE CONTENTS. VII 
 
 CHAPTER VI. SECOND EXPERIENCE ; OB, THE PHILOSOPHY OF 
 UNITARIAN 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 VII. 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 VIII. 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 REACTION. 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 XI. THE FOURTH EXPERIENCE; OR, THE PHILOS 
 OPHY OF NEW SCHOOL THEOLOGY. Both moving powers are 
 retained, but the facts 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 XII. 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 not 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 has been presented, 184 191 
 
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 EL METHOD OF PROCEDURE. Two supposable 
 modes of solution. The adoption of the second, 196 198 
 
 CHAPTER III. STATE OF THE HUMAN 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, 203210 
 
 CHAPTER V. THE MISADJUSTMENT. Great power of a small 
 misadjustment. The misadjustment stated. Its extensive and 
 injurious influence. It is a mere 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 
 
 CHAPTERVII. THE SYSTEM AS ADJUSTED. It gives a rad 
 ical view 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, 227233 
 
 CHAPTER VIH. THE KINGDOM OF FALLEN SPIRITS. Import 
 ance of this part of the general system. Effects 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 earth. Statements from Dr. Hitchcock ; J. 
 P. Smith ; Babbage. Elevated point of vision, 234 241 
 
 CHAPTER IX. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CASE. 
 Original state of all new-created beings. The entrance of evil. 
 The course of events. The final results, 242 245 
 
 CHAPTER X. A PRESUMPTION REBUTTED. It is alleged that 
 this view has been considered and found insufficient. The 
 allegation denied. The case stated. Illustration from the 
 course of opinon with reference to the Copernican system. 
 Extract from Whewell, 246252 
 
 BOOK IV. 
 
 HISTORICAL OUTLINE AND ESTIMATE OF THE CONFLICT. 
 
 CHAPTER 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 the field, 253 258 
 
SUMMARY VIEW OF THE CONTENTS. IX 
 
 CHAPTER II. THE POINT OF VISION. Intellectual power and 
 greatness of Augustine. Relations of present discussions to 
 him. Views of Prof. Shedd, E. H. Sears, and others, concern 
 ing him. He is the point of vision, 259 264 
 
 CHAPTER III. 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 
 dangerous results, 265277 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 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, 289296 
 
 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 HUMAN 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 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 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 Anselm, . . 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 XI. SECOND RESULT OF DENYING A FORFEITURE 
 
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, Dwight, 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, 340348 
 
 CHAPTER XH. 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 birth is 
 still the basis of their systems, and is not properly solved or 
 defended. Calvinists, Lutherans, Arminians and Romanists, 
 here stand on common ground, 349 355 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 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 OP 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 death spoken of is natural death, as the primi 
 tive church contended. The sequence is merely typical, and 
 not causative. Explanation of this statement, 374 378 
 
 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 speech natural and universal. Case of miracles. Ex 
 tract from Dr. Smalley. Use of illustrative comparisons, . . 379 383 
 
 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 the 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 VI. APPLICATION 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. Illustration 
 of the type. Results, 393398 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 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 VHI. IMPORT OF 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 vieAV. Moral arguments irre 
 sistible, 419423 
 
 CHAPTER X. CASE OF MELCIHSEDEK. 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 : 1219, thus viewed, 424429 
 
 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 XII. THE ARGUMENT REINFORCED. General rule. 
 The type is in the natural sphere; the antitype, in the spiritual. 
 Appeal to Scripture. Rule of Eairbairn. 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 appeal, 439 447 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. SURVEY OF THE GENERAL ARGUMENT. 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 Mailer, . .448 472 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. THE ORIGIN OP 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 of 
 the argument. Preexistence unites in a sublime system the 
 great scriptural facts, and harmonizes the action of all the 
 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 universe. Future in 
 crease of the universe. Analogy of Marriage. Hypothesis 
 of Bellamy. View of Pollok and of Chalmers. Inadequacy 
 of all other systems. Point of the argument. Discrimina 
 tions, 489516 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. TFIE MATERIAL SYSTEM. Importance of 
 its relations to doctrine and practice. Errors caused by false 
 views of it. Preexistence eradicates them. Tendency of the 
 common doctrine to Gnosticism, 517 522 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 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 
 istence. Origin of the present state of things from ancient 
 ecclesiastical Gnosticism. 7. Beneficial effects of the doctrine 
 of preexistence will disclose themselves in all departments of 
 life, .523552 
 
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 efforts have not been abun- 
 1 
 
2 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 dantly 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 MOKAL 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, arid of the Puritans. By the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 6 
 
 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 
 cause, 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 inisadjustment 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 we 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 will 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 a,s 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, li The sun shall be no more thy light by day ; 
 
8 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee ; 
 but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, arid 
 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 I. 
 
 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 w/ould repudiate the traditional 
 
10 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 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 1 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. Affect 
 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 can 
 
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 
 giate 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 filled 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 efforts 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 
 has been, in various ways, a vast amount of mental suffer- 
 
PRESUMPTIVE ARGUMENT. 13 
 
 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, or 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, riot 
 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 familiar 
 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 
 
14 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 given to the 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 other 
 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? 
 
 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 
 rf 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 OF 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, through 
 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 
 engaged 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 
 2* 
 
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 ia 
 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 efforts, 
 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. 
 
 rected 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 arid 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 
 1 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 different 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." Again, " When 
 the Gentile contemplated the law written within him as a 
 commandment inscribed by God himself upon his heart, he 
 
24 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 might 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 shall 
 soon have occasion to make, is often regarded and treated 
 as an improper and dangerous species of rationalizing. Of 
 this we may see striking illustrations before we close this 
 discussion. I deem it therefore important nay, essential 
 to show that the position which I shall hereafter assume is 
 not 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 ever 
 adduced, or can adduce, any evidence of its truth ? It is 
 most pernicious ; for it destroys that which Tholuck so 
 impressively calls " the bond of relationship between God 
 and man." Indeed, it would subvert the very foundations 
 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 own I 
 
THE PRINCIPLES 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. No 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 time 
 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 incjuiry, 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. 
 
TUB 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. v 
 
 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 
 facts 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: 14, 19, 22, 25, 29, and 33: 11, 
 1720. 
 
 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 <-> decide. But, so far as there is a liability of 
 
 3* 
 
30 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 this kind, it is plainly removed 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 minds, than 
 has been in stating and proving the ruined condition of man, 
 is, probably, the reason that no public formularies 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 it has in soma 
 way intuitive perceptions of honor 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 
 
32 CONFLICT OF AGE.5. 
 
 most touching 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 1 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 ? 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 ? Is not this the dividing 
 line between the divine and the satanic spirit? When, in 
 this world, those who have gained wealth, knowledge and 
 power, separate themselves in feeling and sympathy from 
 the poor, ignorant arid 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 ? Ought not the spirit of God to be entirely 
 the reverse of this ? Is it not ? Could he be honorable or 
 righteous if it were not so? Does any one allege his right, 
 as creator, to do as he will with his creatures ? Within 
 certain limits, he has this right. But creation gives no 
 right to the creator to disregard or to undervalue the well- 
 
STATEMENT OF MORAL PRINCIPLES. CO 
 
 being of creatures, or to treat them contrary to the laws 
 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, on 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 ary 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 arid the feeblest of all his creatures. 
 
 2. No man, unless compelled by some supposed neces 
 sity, would ever think of denying that the principles of 
 
34 CONFLICT OF 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. 35 
 
 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 confirmed it by his approval. "With 
 reference to this point, Dr. Alexander, therefore, well says, 
 u 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 father 
 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 
 
86 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 aifects their prospects for eternity than the 
 constitutional powers and propensities with which they begin 
 their existence, the dictates of honor and right demand that 
 God shall confer on them such original constitutions as 
 shall, in their natural and proper tendencies, favorably 
 affect 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 
 affects his prospects for eternity. If his original constitu 
 tion is such that it naturally tends towards evil with great 
 
STATEMENT OF MORAL PRINCIPLES. 37 
 
 power, and thus creates 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 ? 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 ? 
 
 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 which 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 placed them, that all things were, on 
 4 
 
38 CONFLICT 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 arid 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 ? 
 Does not the Bible ascribe to him all those traits from 
 which all the principles that have been stated may be 
 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?" He laments, saying, concerning 
 the lost. " 0, that thou hadst known the things that belong 
 
STATEMENT OF MORAL PRINCIPLES. 39 
 
 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/ 3 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 brother, 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 
 ings increase, the Christian becomes more and more unlike 
 God? 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 love 
 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? 
 
CHAPTER 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. 
 
 V 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 ? 
 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 <3ase 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 HlM WHO IS THE AUTHOR OF 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 AVOULD BE CHARGEABLE UPON GOD, as 
 
 before proved." (L. 9, Q. 7, $ 3.) 
 
 As to the fallen angels, he says : t 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, $ 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 reply to Dr. J. Taylor. In consid- 
 
ORTHODOX AUTHORITIES. 45 
 
 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 holiness ; 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 Moth- 
 
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 ? 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 God 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. 
 " Is it not necessary," they say, " that a moral being shall 
 have a probation before his fate is decided? " 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 fair 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 u 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 views of the 
 
48 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 effect? 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 afford 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 iionor and right. Indeed, the strength of their 
 statements rather exceeds my own. 
 
ORTHODOX AUTHORITIES. 49 
 
 I shall not at this time add any further evidence that the 
 principles 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 holding the views 
 which have been set forth concerning the obligations 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, 
 thy 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 them. 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 ppwers of Christianity 
 5 
 
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 Reformers 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 might, through an abuse of 
 freedom, fall into sin, the greater part w r ould 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 strange 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, of 
 fraud 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 
 lowing 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. 58 
 
 " The sinfulness of mankind has been demonstrated by 
 the prevalence of wars, 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. 
 
 11 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. 
 
 11 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 
 pressions 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 laws and courts and prisons and punishments. 
 Their very purpose is to restrain man from sin, and to 
 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 conflagrations we 
 behold by night lighted 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 fact, 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 what is present and material." These state- 
 merits 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 which 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 
 following language : 
 
 " 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 
 difference 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 influence 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 wisdom 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 ho 
 who submits the moral part of his nature to the animal is 
 degrading himself, and destroying his best capacities for 
 enjoyment ? 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 we contend intrinsically diffi 
 cult to be understood ? 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 i.ot travel 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 
 decided. In a professed and formal statement of the 
 Unitarian 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 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, 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. 16 18.) 
 What can be more explicit than this testimony to the deep 
 and general depravity of our race ? 
 
 It ought, however, 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 words. They regard such an idea as highly dishonor 
 able to God, and as diminishing, or even annihilating, 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 limited, 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 the 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. the 
 
60 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 human race has come into a fallen and ruined state, even 
 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 RUIN Ol 1 MAN. 
 
 IT is a principle of common seiise, 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, 
 t> 
 
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 what 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 
 J kind. They have conceived of the human mind as a kind 
 
RADICAL VIEW OF TIIE 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 life 
 to cause them to germinate, spring up, and bear fruit. 
 
 The highest statements on these points were 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 stated 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 the 
 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. n. 1, 8.) 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 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. ir. 1, 8.) He also states, in general, that the cor 
 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. 
 n. 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, n. 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. 
 
 From 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, propense 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, 
 in. & 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 drowned 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* 
 
66 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 proneness and declination to evil, by 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 offspring 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. 1 * * * (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." * * u 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 
 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 
 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. 17*5.) 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 Adam s fall, subject to God s wrath, and eter 
 nal death, and that very corruption of man 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 
 
68 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 a,re 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 " A corrupted 
 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- 
 torinus Strigelius, and was also defended by Spangenberg. 
 Moehler also regards this as the logical result of the 
 original statements of Luther and his followers on original 
 
RADICAL VIEW OF THE RUIN OF MAN. 69 
 
 sin. 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 hi 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 view 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, which 
 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 realities 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 AND ORGANIC RELATIONS OF MAN. 
 
 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 to 
 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. 73 
 
 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 inwrought 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. Burnap has thus spoken, with great 
 truth and eloquence : 
 
 " Society, from the same causes, is as capable of becom 
 ing 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 ? 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. 
 
 RELATIONS OF MAN TO INVISIBLE ENEMIES. 
 
 WE have seen the 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, live 
 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. 77 
 
 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, belie ved> by some of the most 
 devoted Christians ever seen 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: 13.) 
 
 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. 
 
 SUCH, 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 1 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 r? 
 
80 CONFLICT OF AUKs. 
 
 is at present adjusted, there 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 divine revelation ; 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 principles 
 of justice 1 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 life in the highest degree improb 
 able ? 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. 
 
 Finally ; all attempts to harmonize these opposing powers 
 have hitherto failed, and, as the system is at present ad 
 justed, ever must fail. For, since each has in itself radical 
 truth, which is sustained by 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 II. 
 
 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, primarily, 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 for 
 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 
 of secondary consequence, and therefore adapted to excite 
 but little feeling. They involve all that man holds dear for 
 two worlds, all that he can conceive of personal good or evil. 
 Nay, more ; they involve not merely individual 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 will 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, sc 
 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. 85 
 
 supreme importance, that it shall compel all that seems to 
 be at war with it to give way, and summon the powers of 
 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, who 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 experiences which have sprung 
 from the conflicting operations of these 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 tbat feeling sense of the 
 
EXPERIENCES CHARACTERIZED. 87 
 
 sacredness and momentous importance of the 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 of 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 modify 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 
 affection 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 Action ; 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 effort 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, which 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 such 
 8* 
 
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 fever, 
 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 
 benevolence, 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 FIRST 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 
 by 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 we look into his expe 
 rience, we shall see that God had prepared him for it, by 
 eradicating 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 
 arid 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, 
 pride, hypocrisy and deceit, left in my heart. 1 
 
 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 sins 
 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, arid in my 
 mouth, i 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. 
 Vnd it appears to me that, were it not for free grace, 
 
 Hed and raised to the infinite height of all the fulness 
 
94 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 and glory of the great Jehovah, and the arm of his power 
 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 fo* 
 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 holiness 
 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 ? 
 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 very 
 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 Review 
 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 rise. 
 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. 99 
 
 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? Do they not explicitly deny "any mysterious 
 union with Adam, any confusion of our identity with his " ? 
 (Theol. Ess., i. 136.) Is not God, therefore, truly the 
 immediate creator of every man, at least, so far as the 
 spirit is concerned? 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 good, 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 ? 
 
 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 as new-created beings, and have fallen 
 
100 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 under the just displeasure of God; and that the existence 
 in 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 j 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 
 bound 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 l 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. 1 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 ? 
 
 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 liable 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 ? 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. n. 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 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 to sin?" (Vol. n. 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 ? 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 ? 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. u 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 ? 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 
 this 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 reasoning, or to remove the objections 
 which unsanctified 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, 
 and commits a heinous sacrilege, when it attacks this pri 
 mary article of our faith, and labors to distort it, to under- 
 
THE REACTION IRRESISTIBLE. 105 
 
 mine it, or to expose its truth or its importance to distrust." 
 (Woods, vol. n 328.) 
 
 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 7 
 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 ? 
 
 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 race had a probation, through Adam as a representative ; 
 
106 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 ? 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 
 commencing 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, 
 arid 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 existence^ as out of fellowship 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 his favor, 
 and withholds the influences of the Spirit. 
 
 11 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 
 
 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 OP AGES. 
 
 must, therefore , be for the offence of one man that judgment 
 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 was not our act. It is conceded that 
 we had not sinned in any sense ; we 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 his 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." (Prin. Rev., April, 
 1851, p. 318.) 
 
 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 ? 
 
 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 
 as 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 by both, as really against those principles ? Dr. 
 Woods concedes that they are "contrary to the dictates of 
 our minds " (vol. ir. p. 315), but attempts to weaken tlio 
 force of the concession by calling them "fallible minds." 
 But if our intuitive decisions are fallible in one case, why 
 not in another ? 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 ? 
 
 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 our wretched justice than to damn eternally an 
 infant, incapable of volition, for an offence in which lie 
 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 our 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 1 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, 1 1 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 binding 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 right?" 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 who 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 stand 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 rule 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 
 
114 CONFLICT 01? 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, l 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 
 
THE 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 be 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. 
 
 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 which 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 
 
 state 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 ? 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 : 
 
 u 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 : 
 
 11 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. 7 
 
 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 were 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 affected 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 grows 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 
 so 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 offences 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 sufferings of the created universe can expiate, 
 which nothing but the sufferings of an infinite being can 
 purge away. In this condition of human nature Trin- 
 ilarianism finds a sphere of action for its different 
 persons." 
 
 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. 
 
 stern and unjust Lord. Our filial love and reverence rise 
 up against them. We say to the Trinitarian, 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 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: 
 
 1 1 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 propense to al! 
 
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 hearty 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 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." (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 propense 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. 
 C banning ? 
 
 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 ? 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 ray 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. 
 
 11 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 prepense 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, a,s 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 offence of the child 
 who brings into life this ceaseless tendency to unmingled 
 crime exposes him to the sentence of everlasting damna- 
 
THE SECOND EXPERIENCE. 125 
 
 tion. Now, according to the plainest principles of morality, 
 we maintain that a natural constitution of the mind un 
 failingly disposing 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." (l. 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 we 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 offer praise where we do not discover worth. 
 a principle which challenges our supreme homage for 
 supreme goodness, and which absolves us from guilt when 
 we 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, especiallj 
 
128 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 after it has been so educated and elevated as to feel the 
 generous and honorable spirit 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. Others 
 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 subject 
 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 us for it by a penalty great beyond con 
 ception, rejecting us from his fellowship, and giving us a 
 
THE SECOND KXPEill EXl E. 129 
 
 nature depraved before knowledge or choice, they find nc 
 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 performing 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 OF DR. CHANNING 
 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 ? Dr. 
 Dewey confesses that the extent of human depravity "is a 
 oroblem that he cannot solve, and that there are shadows 
 -ipon the world that we cannot penetrate, masses of sin and 
 misery that overwhelm us with wonder and awe." Let any 
 (nan study the interior history of governments in all ages ; 
 )f 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 ? Is it the habit of society 
 to meditate on the great purposes for which each human 
 being was framed? Has society yet learned man s relation 
 to God, his powers, his perils, his immortality ? Are these 
 
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 7 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 tfrose great truths in regard 
 to human nature on which Christian love is built, and with 
 out which we 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 " 1 
 
 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-comprehending, 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 ? 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 religious 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 
 
 teaches 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. Fraternal 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 
 \vho 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 
 
186 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 action of a race whose original constitutions, as they 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 I 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 and 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 efforts. 
 
 He did not, indeed, despair ; but most of his hopes lay in 
 the uncertain future. In 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- 
 
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 
 tfirow 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 meditation 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 tc 
 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. 189 
 
 to imply no dishonor in God, then will that great revo 
 lution be attained the hope of which Dr. Channing was 
 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 facts 
 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 
 >f one died for all, then 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- 
 lent of the experience of the inspired writers, an expo- 
 ience 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 every 
 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 change, 
 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. 
 
 \s 
 
 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. 
 Dewey 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 power of such a being to sin intentionally. Man has 
 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 implies 
 previous erring" 
 
 The essential principle of this defence of God, in view of 
 the conceded and fearful sinfulness of man, is, that God has 
 given to nun 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 whole of Dis 
 course XXI.) 
 
 In another place he makes the following clear and ex 
 plicit statements : 
 
 u 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 # 
 
144 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 Hegelian school, that sin, though 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. 
 
 u 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 inci 
 dent to human nature, but one of the appointed means 
 of its development and 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 : " Bat it doss 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 will 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. 
 
 THIRD EXPERIENCE; OR, PHILOSOPHY OP 
 ORTHODOX UNIVERSALISM. 
 
 WE now come to a third and most interesting experience. 
 It is one which results from holding unmodified, and with 
 full faith and deep sensibility, 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. Ryland, 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, u 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 the 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 with 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 arid 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 and 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? 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 ? 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 
 diiferent 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 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 worshipping an unknown God. But, if 
 so, how would 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 their 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 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 pass 
 ing through a short term of mortal existence (absurdly 
 sometimes denominated & probation), under all the worlds 
 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 pre 
 tending 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" 
 
 In these passages we cannot but notice the clear and 
 eloquent manner in which he combines the three great ele 
 ments which 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 relief somewhere 
 from such a state of things. Channing 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 multitudes" 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 the 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 : u 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- 
 f pathy, and not severity, is due to all such minds, even if 
 they fall into error, when struggling under the painful 
 
THIRD EXPERIENCE. 155 
 
 pressure of a system involving truths 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 efforts of men to find relief from the conflict which 
 exists between them arid 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. 
 
 A 
 
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 
 v, 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 Grod 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 
 alike by good and bad, as is the burning of material fire,, 
 or the tortures of the inquisition. Such physical tortures 
 could be 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 ict. 
 
 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 AGES. 
 
 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 believe the word of God as to its future 
 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 eifort 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 was 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 tc 
 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 
 repentance 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. 168 
 
 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 views. 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 OF AGES. 
 
 Briefly stated, then, their 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 
 odious 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" 
 
 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 vagaries, 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 single act of his, before any one of them existed, is 
 
166 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 repugnant to that reason which God has given us ; is sub 
 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 light 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 are directly adapted to call into exercise some 
 of the deepest arid 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 during 
 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 REACTION. 169 
 
 V 
 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 
 the 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 this view the Old School 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 which 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 differ 
 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. 
 Nettle ton to Dr. Woods. (Memoir, pp. 2914.) 
 
 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 humap 
 
172 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 depravity, and the 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 sinner 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 will 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. 173 
 
 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. 
 Nor are such sentiments and feelings confined to Dr. Net- 
 tleton. Many sympathize with him. Dr. Woods, in his 
 lectures recently published, has enforced similar views. 
 The same is true of the writers in the last series of the 
 Panoplist. On this ground we explain their 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 the 
 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 act, 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 fact, 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 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 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 all ? " 
 
 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 REACTION. 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 new- 
 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 have 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 new-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 
 stitution 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 
 
176 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 3ase 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 ? Is this a fair trial ? " 
 
 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, c 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." 
 
 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 
 a fair probation in Adam. God (they say) 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 
 
 demnation in Adam, would have felt it impossible to justify 
 God in bringing men into existence with depraved natures. 
 Speaking of Mark, they 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 RECONCILED WITH GOD S JUSTICE 
 
 WITHOUT THE ADMISSION OF THE FORMER." 
 
 This theory, it is interesting to notice, leads to modes of 
 speech which seern 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 who 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- 
 srcised, 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 facts 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 1 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 with the principles of Dr. Watts, 
 Wesley, and the Reformers, that it is dishonorable and un- 
 
THE REACTION. 179 
 
 just (if there has been 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 moral corruption and ruin upon the whole human 
 race merely on account of one offence of their common 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 race 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 with 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 thev 
 ** t $ 
 
 will when he appoints them for us. Now, how can ouif- 
 merciful Father voluntarily place us, while feeble, helpless 
 infants, in such circumstances as he knows beforehand wilj 
 be the certain occasion of our sin and ruin ? * * % 
 What difference does it make, either as to Goxl s character 
 or the result of his proceedings, whether he constitutes 113 
 
180 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 sinners at first, or knowingly places us in such circum 
 stances 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. 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 ? And have we not as much occasion to resist 
 and overcome our amiable sensibilities in one case as in the 
 other?" (Woods, vol. n. pp. 359361.) 
 
 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 such 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 ruin 
 
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 
 10 
 
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 very 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, which 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 fall 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 will again earnestly and decidedly react, and thus 
 the conflict will be eternal. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 OR, THE ECLIPSE OF 
 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 apposvr j >ost mysteriously awful 
 economy, overspread by? !.:/ .ind 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 faithful 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" The whole of the present dis 
 pensation appeared to him " a most mysteriously awful 
 economy, overspread by a lurid and dreadful shade" 
 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 
 most confounding and appalling contemplation" 
 
 His biographer, J. E. Ryland, represents him as having 
 here " advanced within the awful shadow 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 difficulty 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 
 not 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 will earnestly struggle 
 against coming into such a state. Yet, if the system logi 
 cally leads 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 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 sov 
 ereignty 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 mortal existence (absurdly 
 sometimes denominated a probation) under all the worlds 
 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 firm 
 assurance of the Divine goodness and justice." 
 
 We are now prepared to see what are the causes of the 
 experience which we are considering, when it is fully de 
 veloped. They are these : to have, from Christian experience 
 and from the word of God, a conviction of the radical facts 
 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 and 
 the Bible, render impossible the adoption of the Unitarian 
 theory ; that the tbeory 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 Channing 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 OP AGES. 
 
 did reason or scripture afford me any satisfactory grounds 
 whatever for anticipating 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- satisfy ing 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 ? 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 him ; 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 the 
 word and spirit of that God ; and asks, could he thus have 
 trained me, if he were not good, honorable and full of love ? 
 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 Avhole 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, the 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 suffering 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 and 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 present purpose to show that the solution which I shall 
 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 would 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 last 
 
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 which we may suppose that 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 
 itself. We are obliged to resort to the latter mode in order 
 to prove the being of a God, and the divine origin and 
 inspiration of his word. It cannot, therefore, be an unsafe 
 mode of proceeding, since it is at the basis of all our belief 
 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, though 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 true, and obligatory 
 upon God as well as upon men. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 STATE OF THE HUMAN MIND, 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 me* 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 PROBLEM. 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 power 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 affection, 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 
 Go!. 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, 
 arid lead to a dislike of the truth itself, however stated and 
 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 harmony. Let us 
 proceed to consider the essential elements of harmony 
 among such minds. First of all, then, I remark, that, in 
 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 illustrate 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 of 
 Satanic agency. Others, retaining it in name, on various 
 grounds drop many of its doctrines. To a truly benevo 
 lent, logical and well-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 arid 
 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 emotions 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 
 sin, penitence and self-abasement before God. Any views 
 which permanently obstruct this channel will cause a rise 
 in the 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 powder 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 powers. 
 
 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 holiness 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 OF AGES. 
 
 nion with God. It also renders peculiar manifestations of 
 divine favor safe to the Christian, since it increases the 
 depth of his humility 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 
 blind 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 
 saint, 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 mourning 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 ; to 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 
 w r ith 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 
 sufferings of his subjects? 
 
 Would not the very fact of her own moral renovation 
 her love, tenderness, sympathy, and sensitive honor fit 
 her for keener suffering 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. 
 
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. 
 
 How, then, can a harmony and reconciliation be effected 
 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. 
 
 V 
 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 fatal misadjustment of the system of Christianity, the 
 effects 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 ar 
 
212 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 NEW-BORN beings, is plain enough ; that they are, there 
 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 1 Did not Joshua cause it to 
 stand still ? Such was the reasoning of good men, even so 
 late as the time of Turretin. On this point Dr. Hitchcock 
 
 il 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 earth, so that they could 
 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 
 
THE 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 ? Rather 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 unrefutcd 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 ? 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 effect 
 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 ? 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 ? 
 
 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? 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 holy, 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 through 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. 
 
 ages, 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 assumed, 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. 
 
 Nor is it because this assumed truth is clearly revealed ; 
 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 Las 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 
 ire new-created beings. 
 
 But, if they are new-created beings, then all the demands 
 )f 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 OF 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 
 &re at once and of necessity misadjusted 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 ruin. 
 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 been to 
 19* 
 
222 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 justify God in his dealings with man by shewing 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 effectual 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 by 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 ? 
 
 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 <T 
 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 effeminate 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 original rights as new--created 
 
THE READJUSTMENT. 225 
 
 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 highest and most sacred 
 
226 CONFLICT OF 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 judgment 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 with 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 the 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 world 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 which it is the 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 tho system ; and to the necessity of 
 presenting to a mind thus purified a God whom it could 
 consistently love. 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 relld- 
 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 be 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 
 words " 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 powerful 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 best 
 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 
 
230 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 loveliness 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. r 
 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 tho 
 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 estate, 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 ? 
 <S But, if this world is but a moral hospital of the universe, 
 if in it are collected, for various great and public ends, the 
 diseased of past ages, the fallen of all preceding generations 
 of creatures, then we are at one* 3 relieved from su-jli 
 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 grade 
 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 well 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 return 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 the 
 kind of original sin which they seem to establish is identic.il 
 with the finite character of the nature and consciousness of 
 man, which is a matter of necessity. Thus, the idea of s!:i 
 and responsibility is destroyed, and a doctrine introdu.-c-il 
 
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 is 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. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 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, which 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 
 
 ;his world, viewed from 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. s/ 
 
 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 fall 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 original 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 arc in a position to know that, v 
 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 was 
 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 the (f 
 rocks is thus stated by Dr. Hitchcock: 
 
236 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 11 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 remains 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 his 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, mostly 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 spec es ; and 
 
THE KINGDOM OF HOSTILE SPIRITS. 
 
 the conclusion seems irresistible, that they must have lived 
 and died before the creation of the present species. Indeed, 
 so different 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 beer? 
 worn away, by the slow action of the ocean, more 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 V the age of the world, 
 
238 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 cannot be true, and hence be led to discard the Bible, if he 
 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? 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 been 
 
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, Bonn s edition. Of another form 
 ation he says, " Ages innumerable must have rolled over 
 the world, 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 His 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, wiles and temptation, 
 from age to age. Moreover, the final destruction of this 
 kingdom, by a system of moral exposure, may be one of the 
 great 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 this purpose the Son of God was mani- 
 
240 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 fcsted, that he might destroy the works of the devil." 
 c 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 as 
 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 OF HOSTILE SPIRITS. 241 
 
 I aim to show that by the proposed readjustment of the 
 system the whole aspect of the doctrine concerning a king 
 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. 
 
 2 1 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE CASE. 
 V 
 
 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 their constitution and circumstances 
 were fully met, and that, since in those circumstances they 
 sinned, the fault was entirely their own, and not at all 
 God 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. 248 
 
 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, then 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 OF 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. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 A PRESUMPTION REBUTTED. 
 
 I HAVE already expressed my views as to the antecedent 
 course of speculation in the church on the subject of pre- 
 existence. But, as references may still be made to it, in 
 order to prejudice 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 
 mental 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 w T hich 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 truo 
 centre of the celestial motions, depends primarily upon the 
 consideration that such a supposition explains very simply 
 
248 CONFLICT OF AtfES. 
 
 and completely all the 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 find, in the 
 earliest times of astronomy, and at various succeeding 
 periods, such a system spoken of by astronomers, and 
 maintained by some as true, though rejected by the 
 majority, and by the principal writers." 
 
 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 
 work, 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 countries. ^ 
 
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 proof of the feebleness and 
 servility of intellect in the stationary period^ that, till the 
 period of Copernicus, no 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 this doctrine. We 
 learn from Archimedes that it was held by his contempo 
 rary, Aristarchus. Aristarchus of Samos, says he, 
 1 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. l All things, 
 says he, tend to the centre of the earth, and rest there, 
 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 
 facilitate 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 question had been suc 
 ceeded by indistinct views and rhetorical forms of speech. 
 If there were any good mathematicians and good ob 
 servers at this period, they were employed in cultivating 
 and verifying the Hipparchian theory. 
 
 1 i 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 opinion, however, was rejected by sub 
 sequent philosophers among the Hindoos. 
 
 l 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 of 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 ktiowl- 
 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 was the heliocentric 
 theory, and for the same reason. Eminent divines have 
 never thoroughly considered its scriptural relations, and 
 undertaken and thoroughly executed the problem of develop- 
 
252 CONFLICT OF AC.E3. 
 
 ing the system to which it belongs, so ns 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 
 the 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 effort 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 
 first state of existence, and that the fall of x\dam 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 the 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 debates 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 and America. 
 
 8. The Socinian controversy on these prints, 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 EnglisX 
 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, in 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 effort to state thoroughly the 
 entire ruin of man, 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 efforts, 
 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, intensity and power, of the 
 feelings 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 which 
 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 Pelagianisin 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, u the most important, and the most preg 
 nant with 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 principles, 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 whole of this 
 great theological conflict occurred during the fifth century, 
 in the eminently 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 greatness 
 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 A3ES. 
 
 In an able article on THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN, 
 in the Christian Review for January, 1852, of which Pro 
 fessor Shedd, of Auburn, is the author, there is an open 
 and avowed return to the fundamental positions of Augus 
 tine, as essential in order to maintain 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 The 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 
 doctrine 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 
 
 of 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 
 of 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 
 sees 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 toward 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 
 Review he says : 
 
 1 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. 
 1 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 public." 
 
 The Puritan 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 
 
 thoroughly 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 Anselm 
 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 A(JES. 
 
 each successive age. In addition to this, it ought 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 ability. 
 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 ever 
 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 last 
 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 ever 
 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 OF AGES. 
 
 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 with 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 say that 
 they 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, was ever denied. On the other hand, 
 it was universally maintained. But the sirifulness 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 Pelagianisrn 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 from 
 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, n. 573.) The 
 great idea of his experience, the same eminent historian 
 states to be, to determine "how far man might advanc*. 
 
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 happene 
 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 Christiana 
 were exposed. The nature and form of these attacks I sha, 
 now more particularly consider. One of the most important 
 proceeded from the Gnosticsr 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 known, 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 
 assertions, 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 hardening 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 ? 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 that 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 1 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 child, 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 holiness," &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~ideaofa 
 true and real free agency. 
 
 Of the fathers, up to the death of Origen, or the year 
 254, Hagenbach says : 
 
 11 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, which, however, cannot 
 constrain any man to trespass." 
 
 In the preceding passage, I think, however, that the 
 statement would have been more correct if he had said that 
 some, 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 Augustine, 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 > ovs and the n >v x^l 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 to 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 own unbelief." (Cat. IV. 19, 21, and xvi. 
 28.) Properly to understand these views of the Greek 
 fathers, we must consider against what errors they were 
 aimed, and remember that even 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 reverenti il 
 purpose to defend God against all charges of violating the 
 principles of equity and honor ; but it is no less obvious that 
 they tend 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 was 
 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 Pelagianism, 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 ? 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 that 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 bo 
 
EARLY THEOLOGICAL SPECULATIONS. 275 
 
 I 
 
 said of the case of Edwards, moral, intellectual and refined 
 from his youth up, and surrounded by 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 
 prevailing doctrinal system, and that the change of doctrine 
 effected by Augustine introduced a deeper style of Chris 
 tian experience. A striking 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 Christian world, and developed itself in the form of 
 monastic institutions. The tendency of this ascetic system, 
 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 sufficient account of the want, at that time, of a 
 deep Christian experience of the same kind which charac- r^ 
 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 
 reaction 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 
 
276 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 great reaction which was developed by the agency of that 
 eminent master-spirit, through whom the channels of a pro 
 found Christian experience were disclosed and deepened for 
 all coming ages. 
 
 All that Pelagius, 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 before 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. But he did not differ from 
 them in teaching that all men are free agents, with full 
 power to obey the law 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 
 the 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 upon 
 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 
 uormal and uufallen 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 find 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 : 
 
 R v TT ^ Cha P- V 111 - PP- 141146. 
 Book II. J * XI * 181 _ 183> 
 
 T? V TTT $ Cha P- V - PP- 215217. 
 
 Book III. J v vn 229-233. 
 
 TI v TV f Cha P- m - PP- 272277. 
 Book IV. J * x. 335-337. 
 
 24 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE MOUNTAIN-TOP; OR, 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 
 
 t 
 
AUGUSTINE AND HIS EXPERIENCE. 279 
 
 preceded it, it was a great advance, and it has effected a ^ 
 great work for God and for humanrty. 
 
 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 flf 
 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 
 fc 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 reasoner, 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 un : on 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 C;m 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 l the servile 
 will in opposition to the Pelagians ! The ecstasies also, of 
 which 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. 28"J 
 
 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. But 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 1 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 
 of such analogies ? This would condemn the greater part 
 of 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 is, in fact, 
 no more material, no more sensual, than those of which I 
 
AUGUSTINE AND HIS EXPERIENCE. 
 
 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, Lord. * * But what do I love, when I love 
 thee ? Not beauty of bodies, nor the fair harmony of time, 
 nor the brightness of the light 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 of these I 
 love, when I love my God ; and yet I love a kind of light, 
 and melody, and fragrance, and food, and embraces, when I 
 love my God ; the light, 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 beareth 
 not away; and there is fragrance which breathing dis- 
 perseth not, and food is tasted which eating diminisheth 
 not, and there 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 ? 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 quickenest my thoughts, I loved Thee not. * * Too 
 late loved I thee, thou beauty of ancient days, yet ever 
 new ! too late I loved thee ! * * Thou didst call and 
 ehout, 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. When 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." * * " Fain 
 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 afflicted by con 
 scious tendencies to pride. Augustine, in like manner, 
 calls this " his daily furnace," the constant affliction of his 
 soul. 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, 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 his heart, he earnestly sought the se*arching 
 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 ? Or that, from age to age, they should light their 
 lamps at his fire ? 
 
 There is in the Agamemnon of ^Eschylus a beautiful and 
 brilliant 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 Citheeron 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 ^Egiplanctus huge, swift-shooting spreads 
 The lengthened line of light. Thence onwards waves 
 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 Idsean fire 
 Derives its birth. Rightly in order thus 
 Each to the next consigns the torch, that fills 
 The bright succession." 
 
 To complete the 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 fail- 
 probation, in which they had full power, by their own free 
 will, to secure a permanent confirmation in holiness and 
 eternal life. These principles were 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 effect, and then 
 what the beneficence of his grace and the judgment of his 
 justice could effect. 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 : 
 
 1 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 he 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." (Ib.) He ascribes to him u 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 : l 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, c 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 rea 
 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 with 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, bo- 
 cause he refused to persevere, truly it was his fault, whos* 
 
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 : 
 
 1 l If this aid had been wanting either to an angel or to 
 men, when they were first created, their fall would have 
 involved no guilt, 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, which is akin to the divine." (Neander, n. 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 them 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 possibilities 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 in 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- 
 tiriian 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 God, 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 with 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. 
 
frj-^> 
 
 \t^ 
 
 CHAPTER v. 
 
 AUGUSTINE S THEORY OF RECONCILIATI ,^ v 
 
 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 preoxistence 
 of men ; and that they had sinned ea,ch separately, and in 
 his 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 preexisted, enjoyed their rights 
 
298 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 and forfeited them : and this language reacted through hia 
 imagination on his feelings, and gave him relief. By 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 they 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 t 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. 1 (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 fact 
 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 or 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 by 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 fall was 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, since 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. n. 265). " In 
 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 power 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 
 thing verbal. He regarded 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. 
 
AUGUSTINE S THEORY OF RECONCILIATION. 301 
 
 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 pree x- 
 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 original 
 sin, and also all the doctrines which grow out of it, were 
 made to rest. 
 
 26 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 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 OF THE HUMAN MIND. 303 
 
 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 diifers 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 ? 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 x*-\-x= 7 as given by inspira 
 tion. It is not likely that they would ever reach any 
 satisfactory results ; for the equation is absurd and impos 
 sible. 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 new-created minds are 
 the clearest and the most momentous realities in the universe 
 of God. And is it to be supposed that such rights can be 
 forfeited at all before the existence of the mind, by the 
 
304 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. n. 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. 305 
 
 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. The 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 course of thought has afterwards rolled on 
 26* 
 
306 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 in disregard of them for subsequent centuries under the 
 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 vantage-ground 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 fact. 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 which I have not as 
 yet given 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, WITHOUT 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, the 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. 809 
 
 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 Bretsclmeider, 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? 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 listen 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 
 
812 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 which 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 neAY 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 truly, so that, though it is 
 not our personal sin, it is yet our real sin, for which we 
 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 will. 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, coagent 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 there 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 grounds 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 
 
816 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 
 imputed to his posterity because it is their sin in reality, 
 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 
 true a sense as it was Adamts" " 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 ? Does God deal with men as sinners while they are not 
 
DIFFERENT MODES OF SOLUTION. 317 
 
 truly such I He also maintains that this view is not con 
 trary to 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 affairs 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 arid 
 in reality those of his posterity, but are only regarded 
 as such, and that this is the uniform doctrine of the 
 Reformers. 
 
 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 coagent 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, 
 afterwards 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- 
 censis Ecclesise 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 peccatum et personale ? 
 
 " Dicitur enim duobus modis peccatum personale et nat 
 urale. Et naturale est cum quo nascimur, et quod ab 
 Adam trahimus, in quo omnes peccavimus. In ipso enim 
 erat ariima mea, specie non persona, non individua sed com- 
 muni natura,. Nam omnis humanae 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 peccavimus 
 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 substantiae est etiam personae, 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 differ 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 my individual nature, but 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. 321 
 
 sin. For a personal sin is one which I, who am, commit, 
 but this substance which 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, by 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 difficulty 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 
 tine 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 be 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 nature" (Ep. 
 186, c. 6.) "In Adam all have sinned, as all were 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 
 sin of nature is in each individual less criminal than his 
 
322 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 personal sin is a truly Augustinian idea ; for, though 
 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 the whole apostate creature 
 has deserved ; and no individual endures so much as the 
 whole mass deserves to suifer, but God has arranged all, 
 in measure, weight and number, and suffers no one to 
 endure any evil which he does not deserve." (Op. Imp. n. 
 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. 1 (De Civ. Dei, xin. 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 saya. " The whole of human nature was so in Adam 
 
DIFFERENT MODES OF SOLUTION. 323 
 
 that no part of it was without him." Neander adds, "He 
 therefore distinguishes peccatum naturale from peccatum 
 personate. * * 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 which 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 can be, 
 and, in my judgment, are 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 School 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 inflict 
 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 all new-created beings upright moral constitu 
 tions and tendencies, if they have not previously 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 far 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 1 colt! so stupid, so 
 stubborn, so intractable ; so prone to evil ; averse to good. 
 Did His hands form and fashion us thus ? No wiser or 
 better than men at present are ? 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 
 
 11 Could the holy and blessed God originally design and 
 frame a whole world 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, would 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 
 framed 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 
 have 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 
 minds. 
 
 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. 
 
328 CONFLICT OP AGES. 
 
 could liscover no reason to rest in the doctrine of a for 
 feiture, except on the assumption that all human souls 
 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 wandered at. It is a difficulty &o 
 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 obligation 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 first sin." 
 That is. a new-created mind is punished for a sin which 
 it did not commit, by being created devoid of righteousness, 
 28* 
 
830 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 and yet is criminal for not having that righteousness the 
 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 satisfactory 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 " the 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, when 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, w r e land at once arid 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 which, 
 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 Reformation, 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 his 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 humar. 
 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- 
 
FIRST RESULT OF DENYING A FORFEITURE. 835 
 
 festing it in all the 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 Pelagians. 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 pcwer- 
 
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, 
 by 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 rights 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 
 which 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 well 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 w r as 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 
 
338 CONFLICT 04 AGES. 
 
 expressed in its prayers and in all its liturgical forms." 
 (n. 599.) 
 
 And yet the principles for which 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 ? 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 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." 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 OF DENYING A FORFEITURE. 339 
 
 those of Julian. Hence he said, " 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 anything but the perfections of God. Cast no 
 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 mourning 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 we 
 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 
 sin, could, for that sin and upon no other account, be justly 
 
SECOND RESULT OF DENYING A FORFEITURE. 341 
 
 brought under God s- displeasure and curse, we cannot 
 understand. But, on the contrary, we do understand, 
 and by our faculties must necessarily judge, according 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 be 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.) 
 
 l 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 unjust 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 which is not, is not), then God understands it to be 
 BO 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 reality of things, and the 
 perceptions of all minds, including that of God himself. 
 29* 
 
342 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 At the close of his last statement, he says, very much in 
 the spirit of Julian of Eclanum, "And 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 
 
 I.). Hence it all " depends on God s sovereign constitu 
 tion.^ This he proves by the consideration that preserva 
 tion or upholding of objects, or persons, is a mere series of 
 new momentary 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, u 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 a way 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. Shedd. yet he eulogizes this reasoning of Edwards as 
 profound and true. Nevertheless, it appears 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 ? 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 
 
 Y 
 
 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. m. 318.) 
 
 Again, All that is asserted as what the Scripture 
 teaches on this head is, that, by a divine constitution, 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 effected 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 followers of Mr. Edwards relieve themselves, by hold 
 ing that, though 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 Adam s sin : as though they were individually 
 guilty of his identical transgression." (Vol. I. 487.) 
 
 Dr. D wight 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." lt 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, hi 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 form. In the train of these the 
 majority of the divines of New England have followed, as 
 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 : 
 some, as we have seen, resolving it into no natural causes, 
 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. 347 
 
 these things consistent with the demands of the great laws 
 of honor and right in reference to new-created minds ? 
 These laws have been stated, and we see that they have been 
 held for ages, as the intuitive moral perceptions of the mind. 
 Are they not so 1 If they are, if new-created minds have 
 rights, and there has 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 
 his creatures. Does any one resort to the law of genera 
 tion ? This is a mere ordinance of God. The question still 
 arises, 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 with 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 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 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 ; paid, 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 preexistence 
 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 preexistence, 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 whether 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 the other a fair ^portunity 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 Semipelagians, 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 has 
 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, will 
 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 human 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 further 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 being 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 Arminius, in which he is followed by Wesley, Wat 
 son, and other leading divines of the Methodist denomina 
 tion. By these divines the same view is 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 fall. Arminius, 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. List. vol. n. 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. 
 
 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 that 
 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 highest degree 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* 
 
354 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 divine grace man will surely perish. It follows that man is 
 as truly wronged as 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 the 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. 35*5 
 
 created minds, before they are born into this 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 long as it rests on such an alleged 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 Arinin- 
 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." v^ 
 
 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 
 as 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 
 
358 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. Many 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 THE CONFLICT. 359 
 
 Nothing, in fact, can be conceived of which 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 ev^r 
 for a moment admitted that the real reigning 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 
 
3C)0 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 God, or from a regard to the decisions of a church supposed 
 to be infallible, 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 
 
 world under the influence of the opinions of the existing 
 generation, 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 different minds will impel 
 them in different 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 with 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 the 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 will be repudiated by which the opposition has been 
 produced. 
 
 Now, all the wide field of history which I have sketched 
 is but a collection of instructive illustrations of these tenden- 
 
362 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 cies of the mind under the common system ; and, after ages 
 of 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 
 destroy or render unmeaning the great facts as to the ruin of 
 man, or else that theory will be renounced by which those 
 principles have been arrayed in opposition to these facts. 
 
 Thus have the reality of the alleged conflict, its causes, 
 and 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 
 book 
 
BOOK V. 
 
 THE ARGUMENT. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE MODE OF PROCEEDING. 
 
 WHEN it is asserted, as has been stated, that the doc 
 trine 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 ? 
 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. 
 ch. 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 
 
304 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 proved that there is a God, and that the Bible is his 
 inspired word ? 
 
 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 are those statements ? Are they those which 
 
THE MODE OF PROCEEDING. 365 
 
 teach merely the fact that men are born depraved, and are 
 by 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 preexistcnt 
 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 that 
 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 PROCEEDING. 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 : 1219. 
 
 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: 1219. 
 
 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 1 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. 369 
 
 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 w T hich 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 
 
370 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 teach that, 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 bis 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 efficiency 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 of being, but by the sin of Adam. 
 
 The interpretation 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, 5 
 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 AGES. 
 
 The second exposition, or that of those who derive the 
 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 that, 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 resulted 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 view. 
 
 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. 373 
 
 in proof of this statement, from Justin Martyr. Athena- 
 goras, Tatian. Theophilus Antioch., Clemens Alex., 
 Origen, Athanasius, 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 was 
 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 
 Theodoras 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 fathers 
 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 weakened 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 the sanction of universal authority. 
 32 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE TRUE INTERPRETATION OF ROM. 5: 1219. 
 
 WE have considered some of the various modes in which 
 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 or.ly 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 
 Adam 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 follows 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 
 
376 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 death coming on all men through 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 
 
 So important a position will, of course, demand a radical 
 investigation. Such an investigation will require us to 
 consider two questions : 
 
 1. Is the sequence in this case, whatever it may be, one 
 merely typical ? 
 
 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 7 
 
 To this I have replied that it is not, by any necessity of 
 the case. I admit that the language 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 INTERPRETATION. 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 the 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* 
 
878 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 
 scripture 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. 
 
 USB OF LANGUAGE IN DESCRIBING SEQUENCES 
 OF APPARENT CAUSATION. 
 
 V 
 
 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, without 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 was 
 turned into blood, thunder and hail were brought from 
 heaven, and swarms of locusts were summoned to devour 
 the land. So also they sny that by the rod of Moses the 
 Red Sea was divided, and water was brought from the flinty 
 rock. 
 
380 CONFLICT OF 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 walls of Jericho were thrown down. 
 
SEQUENCES OF APPARENT CAUSATION. 381 
 
 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 Marah. 
 
 As an example of the general usage in question, we will 
 quote Dr. Smalley : "The Red Sea was divided by 
 Moses rod, and the river Jordan by Elijah s mantle. It 
 was by smiting the flinty 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, what 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 
 
382 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 numerous quotations to illustrate and prove these 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 ivhich 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. 
 
 USB 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 would 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 real 
 causation. 
 
 In this case the same laws of language exist as in any 
 
APPARENT CAUSATION IN TYPES. 385 
 
 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 
 sins 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 arid 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 
 
 OQ 
 
 00 
 
886 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 make atonement for sins, to confer the pardon of sins, &c. ; 
 the very modes of expression that are used in describing the 
 effects of the efficient 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, Turrctin, 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 rebellions, nay, all their sins, does he mean 
 
APPARENT CAUSATION IN TYPES. 387 
 
 only infirmities and sins of ignorance ? No sane man can 
 believe it." He shows that the sins for which these sacri 
 fices were offered 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 effects 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. xvni. 
 $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 
 
388 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 the law." The existence of some such specially exempted 
 cases he admits. 
 
 Yet, 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 efficiency 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) ; i i 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. 889 
 
 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 and incense are said to atone for sin, 
 does the language ever mislead an intelligent reader 1 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, effected 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 power 
 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 infancy, 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- insufficient 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 power to save equally with their more highly-gifted 
 brethren." " As each sufferer must himself look to the 
 brazen serpents/or his cure, so must every repenting sinner 
 believe (in Christ) for salvation." Yet he well knew, for 
 so he says, that the healing efficacy was not in the serpent, 
 but in God. Newton says, " From guilt and condemnation 
 there is no relief, till we can look to Jesus, as the wounded 
 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 to 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 
 him" Calvin says, " 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 sight 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 ? 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, to 
 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 for 
 purposes of typical illustration. 
 
 2. That these, in common with all other sequences of 
 apparent causation, are both in scriptural and in common 
 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, been shown, 
 and will more fully be shown. The inference is self-evident. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 APPLICATION OF THE PRECEDING PRINCIPLES 
 TO ROM. 5: 1219. 
 
 I COME now to apply the principles which 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 
 world, 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 grace ? 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 the 
 obedience of one shall many be made righteous." 
 
 So far as the 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 sinned ; 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 ncivxes ^/HU^TOV may have that 
 sense, and so does Professor Stuart. Storr and Bloomfield 
 adopt it. Knapp also gives to the word afiaQria (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 sinful 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 bj 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 (jvnos iov ^illovroi^ 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 this world by many heads. But, if he had 
 done so, then it w r ould 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. 397 
 
 whose highest favors should be peculiarly 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, flowing 
 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. 
 
 34 
 
398 CONFLICT OF 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 who 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 this passage; " the very point and pith of the com 
 parison " are not this, that, as the sin of Adam was thb 
 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 was the 
 cause or occasion of all men 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 and treated 
 as sinners" 
 
 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 AUTHOEITIES. 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 we 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 
 Paul is here immediate//)/ 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 sense 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 may, 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 (^gTJ?xfl) eoro/mi.), which ex 
 presses the same idea as the English version of the passage ; 
 I shall bear the blame to my father forever, that is, I 
 shall always be regarded as a sinner. The same phrase 
 34* 
 
i02 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, eaojuut 
 eyu xcn, x. T. 1. aaagTMkoi.} In Job 9 : 29, If I be wicked 
 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 Observationes, 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, a/ua^niM, 
 to bear the blame of sin, Rom. 5 : 12, coll. v. 19, ubi 
 *,wttgrwA5$ xaTfcrratf?/* . Ita Lxx. et ^rC 1 , Gen. 44 : 32. 
 
 His argument on the expression were made simiers (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 
 uftugjiu.) 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 right 
 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, l 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 
 (%aiecricifr>j(Tat>} rendered were made, 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 appointing to office, Luke 12 : 14 Acts 7 : 10, &c. 
 &c. ; or in that of making a person or thing something. 
 In this case it may be rendered simply they are. i 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 offence 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 verses 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 as 
 teaching, not the acknowledged truth that men are 
 actual sinners, but that they have been treated as sinners 
 on account of one man" 
 
 3. The connection of v. 12 with those which follow 
 demands this interpretation; for vs. 18, 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 attempts." 
 
APPEAL TO AUTHORITIES. 405 
 
 6. Scripture and experience confirm this interpretation. 
 
 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. <fcc. (Flatt 
 renders these words 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.) Zacharise, 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 : c 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, c The ques 
 tion is not here immediately about the propagation of a 
 corrupted nature to all men, and of the personal sins 
 
406 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 committed by all men, but of universal guilt (Strafwiir- 
 digkeit, liability 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 corruption of 
 nature, nor the actual sins of men and their liability on 
 account of them, is either questioned or denied ; but the 
 simple statement is, that on account of the sin of Adam 
 all men 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 for that or because all 
 have sinned. (He 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 man many died ; that the 
 sentence was from one, and by one man sinning to con 
 demnation ; and that by the sin of one death reigned by 
 one. Therefore, the apostle doth expressly teach us that 
 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 men 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 own individual actual transgres 
 sions, is the ground and reason of the subjection of all 
 men 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 ? May 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 death, 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 sitij 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 whom 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 sin, to sin and to be 
 made sinners , 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 old and gen 
 erally-acknowledged ground, I do not feel that I 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 
 offence 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 
 euch circumstances that they all sin, and thus incur death 31 
 (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). 
 11 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 point 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, who, 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 differ from this view of Dr. Emmons. True, they 
 deny God s direct efficiency in causing sinful volitions 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. 
 6 : 1219. 
 
 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. 
 
 8. 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 introduce 
 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. 413 
 
 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. 
 11 For since by 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 merely 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 was 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 OF THE WORD DEATH. 417 
 
 I am now prepared to advance another step, and to say 
 that, even if the words sin, to sin, and to wake 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, 
 by 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 : 2333. 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 untc 
 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. 
 Tims 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 OP 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 ha? 
 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 offence 
 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. 8 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 ; sc 
 that nothing can be more after the manner of Paul than to 
 illustrate in this way. 
 
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 423 
 
 And, now, there is need of no force, no violence ; all is 
 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 with the remarks in the 
 last chapter on Heb. 2 : 79. 1 Cor. 15 : 27, 28. Eph. 1 : 22, 23. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 1 
 
 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"? Is he not, v. 8, contrasted 
 with men who receive tithes and yet die, as being one of 
 whom it is witnessed that he liveth ? What can be 
 stronger than this language, so far as the form is concerned ? 
 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 ? 
 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 
 appearance 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 we 
 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 
 86* 
 
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 ,n 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 was born, or that 
 he died." Further, he says that these facts would lead 
 those who should read Psalm 110 "to the conclusion that 
 the Messiah was to resemble Melchisedec in 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 was 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 w T as a man, who was born, lived and died, as 
 other men, as Stuart, Bloomfield, Macknight, Rosenmul- 
 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 Heb. 
 7 ; and it is the only one which can be defended on any 
 tolerable grounds of interpretation." 
 
 Notice now the strength 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- 
 
28 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 mentators agree that he was a mere mortal man, who was 
 born and died like all others; and that the lan^ua^e is 
 
 7 O O 
 
 taken from and designed to set forth merely the typical 
 appearance of the recorded events of his life, 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 ? 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. The typical sys- 
 
CASE OF MELCHISEDEC. 429 
 
 tern of the Old Testament, by 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 T)ld 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 OF THE PICTURE. 431 
 
 Such pictures were not made for logical analysis, but to be 
 ga.zed 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 emir 
 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 1 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 Olshausen has well 
 remarked, that u 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 ? They had not sinned after the similitude of his 
 transgression ; why, then, should they endure the same 
 penalty 1 
 
 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 I* 
 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, the life of faith. Through 
 this faith they apprehend and receive the pardon even of 
 37 
 
434 CONFLICT OF AGES. v 
 
 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 sin, 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 offence 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 gra,cious 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 OF AGES. 
 
 19. For as by the disobedience of one man many T?ere 
 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 law 
 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 ^ oWo vtuov, "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 these 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 PlOTUilE. 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 inipressiveness of a contrast 
 between natural death on one side, and spiritual life on 
 the other, let them look at such comparisons as these : 
 
 As 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 cen- 
 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. 
 
 l 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 ideas 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," 
 TuvTrjt T$S xnaetos (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 
 the anti typical. 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 different 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, Fairbairn, 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 w r e would give an enlightened and consistent 
 view of typical symbols and transactions; is, that due 
 regard must be had to the essential difference between 
 the nature of type and antitype. For as the exhibition 
 of divine truth contained in tke 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 be 
 
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 the spiritual 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 effect 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 offence, 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 were 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 will 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 OP 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 1 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 was 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 Calvin, and Edwards, and of the creeds of the 
 Reformation. I know the power of national churches, of 
 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, universal. 
 
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 ? 
 
 But the great turning point of the whole question will 
 be, Do they, in fact, dishonor him ? 
 
 And now, as before him, I ask attention to the following 
 considerations : 
 
 The first, the natural, the intuitive convictions of the 
 \mman mind, with reference to the commonly alleged deal 
 ings 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 arid 
 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? 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 othei . 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 are 
 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, k 
 
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. 
 
 k 
 
 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. For, 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 within 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 Jback 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 was 
 answered by its opponents, 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. 
 
 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- 
 
450 CONFLICT OP 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 
 
SURVE1 OF THE ARGUMEN1. 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 
 require 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 OP 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 shown 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 
 single course of reasoning, 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 
 and 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 
 eondition 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 
 
454 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 fir^t 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 OP 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 Romish 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 ? 
 
 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 ? 
 Does it come from the body 1 What is this but to revive 
 
456 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 the 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 arid 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 his first sin, and 
 different persons with 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 offered, 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 depend on an act over which they had not the 
 39 
 
458 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 slightest control, and in which 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 " an act over which they had not the slightest con 
 trol, and in which they had no agency " 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 sum" 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 effected, 
 nor is it, in my judgment, possible to effect it. 
 
 But, in addition to this, the mode in which it is said to 
 have been effected 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, 
 made 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 ? 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 is, 
 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 weakens 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 ? 
 
 Whether those who have hitherto opposed this doctrine 
 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 persist 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, arid yet conflict with no principle of 
 honor and right. 
 
 Is there any danger in making the trial of this course ? 
 The other course has been tried for many long centuries. 
 What has been the result ? Lamentable 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 wrought 
 in the soul other than of its acts, it must be a physical 
 change. And if any tendency, either 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 affecting, as they do, the fair names of so 
 
SURVEY OF THE ARGUMENT. 463 
 
 large 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 by 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 
 1 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 principle 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 intellectual character. A man, by devoting 
 himself to any particular pursuit, gradually acquires a 
 facility 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 latter. But, if 
 so, the principle stated above, that we can regard the sou/ 
 
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 s 
 constitutional principle of the mind. Our object at present 
 is merely to show that we must admit that there are mental 
 habits which cannot be resolved either into essential attri 
 butes of the soul, fixed preferences, or subordinate acts ; and, 
 consequently, that those who believe in dispositions prior to 
 all acts do not necessarily maintain that such dispositions 
 
4G6 CONFLICT OP 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 which man 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 
 this 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 Im&viiiu 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 Muller, a man of ail 
 
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 superior 
 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 
 Manichean theory of a self-existent principle of evil. 
 
 He traces the 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 BibUotheca 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 behind 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 ? 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 beginning 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 follows : 
 " 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 
 sin 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 ? 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 argues with me in the fact of the 
 preexistence of man, yet his views of the state in which he preexisted, the 
 reasons of his sinning, and the influence of sinful habits- do not agree 
 with mine. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. 
 
 V/ 
 
 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 this 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 depraved, 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 simply 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 
 dealings 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 is 
 a temporary limitation of divine power, originating from 
 the limitation of finite capacities to comprehend God and 
 his ways, and a consequent liability in 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 OF 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 an 
 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 5 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 knowledge 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 with 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, in the 
 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 
 securing the same result in the first entrance of evil. 
 
 It may, indeed, be said that it is of no use at all te 
 
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 ? 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 ? Is it not possible 
 that men may so misinterpret the Bible as to represent God 
 as introducing sin dishonorably 1 Are we bound to receive 
 all that any man chooses on such grounds to assert con 
 cerning God ? Is nothing due to the honor of God 1 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 ? 
 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 Satan 
 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 ? 
 
 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 COXILICT OF AGES. 
 
 conception and emotion, powerful impulses to action, and 
 great energy of will. 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 danger, 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 docs 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, was there a necessity of falling ; 
 for, though limited in knowledge, still they had the power 
 to believe God, and so to stand steadfast in obedience. In 
 the 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 Eden. 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-suffering, 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 contrast 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 shows that 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 inference from 
 the infinity of God, and is proved by facts ; for he 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 strength 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, without 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 
 afforded, 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* 
 
486 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 Woods says that they "could not attain 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, that 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 this 
 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 
 laws 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 the 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 
 which 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 alloAvs, 
 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 cannot 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 shown, 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, unworldly, 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 THE 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 holiness 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 despotic 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 working 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 w r ay 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 facts 
 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 when 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 with 
 him forever. It declares, moreover, that the great end of 
 
ARGUMENT FROM 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, 
 wonderful, 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 
 fashionable 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 different 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 different kinds of water 
 which flow from them. 
 
 It is, therefore, not without reason that Miiller, in hia 
 great work on sin, says u that this great problem has occu 
 pied the spirits not merely of the theologian and philosopher, 
 
ARGUMENT FROM THE SYSTEM. 495 
 
 on account of their calling, but of all to whom there has 
 been a deep necessity of finding a rational and intelligible 
 ground of the true significance of human life. AND VERY 
 
 D O 
 
 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 OF AGES. 
 
 judgment. Not only, therefore, is the whole theory of sin 
 and holiness, of morals and of practical sanctification, vitally 
 aifected 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 
 loes not answer. What is the peculiar idea of the church ? 
 For what great end was she redeemed and united to God ? 
 Why is her final union to God spoken of as a marriage ? 
 
 1 
 
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 
 the 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 sing the same song 
 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* 
 
493 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 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 is 
 universal, and of the highest kind. 
 
 3. It is also held that the redemption of the church is 
 effected through a severe and widely-extended conflict. 
 That on the side of God are arrayed legions of angels of 
 light ; and that against these arc 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 by 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 them 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 affecting 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 arid to train the successive generations of new- 
 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 
 reign 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 sufficient 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 matter of just surprise, in view of all the 
 
502 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 statements of the word of God which 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 showing 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 
 him, but that he judges it best not to bring them into exist 
 ence till the present c 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 FFxOM 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. u. 
 pp. 1423. 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 language 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 
 high 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 venture 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." 
 
ARGUMENT 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 but 
 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 circle round the throne of God ; 
 Great in all learning, in all wisdom great, 
 And great in song ; whose harp in lofty strain 
 Tells frequently of what thy wonder craves, 
 While round him gathering stand the youth of heaven, 
 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 morn 
 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 
 
506 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 Sorrows remembered sweeten present joy. 
 Nor yet shall all be sad ; for God gave peace, 
 Much peace, 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 songa 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 ! 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 church to so great a work. 
 Edwards, also (vol. n. 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 ministers 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 OF AGES. 
 
 fcions 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 do 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 had 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 
 n 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 show 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, therefore, represented as peculiarly sensitive to 
 tlie 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 his 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 FROM 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 which 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 ? 
 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 blind faith rather than sustain faith by its own 
 power ? 
 
 It is important, however, to discriminate the views which 
 I have presented from others w T ith 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 facts 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 them 
 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 MATBKIAL SYSTEM. 
 
 v 
 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 OF 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 ages 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 the 
 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 in 
 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 preexistencc 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* 
 
522 CONFLICT or 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 original figure, having 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 XVII. 
 
 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 
 
524 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 which they 
 had not the slightest control, and in which they had no 
 
RESULTS 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 practical 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, Augus 
 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 1 
 
 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 
 equal 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 is 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 Eddy stone 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 simply 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 
 
KESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 529 
 
 deny. The only course that remains is to show that my 
 use of them has not been legitimate. 
 
 It is worthy, 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 arid 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 the only 
 proper basis 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 would 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. 581 
 
 tainly, 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 family 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 u 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.) This 
 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, as 
 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 maxle 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^ Created, 
 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. The word good does 
 not mean holy, 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 would be true, in 
 45* 
 
534 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 overlaid 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 offence was designed, 
 as I have shown, to be typical, and to include all the race. 
 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 children, 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 
 soul. 
 
 An effort has also been made to prove that the fallen 
 
536 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 angels and men are different orders of beings, and that 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 this, 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 most part, all intel 
 ligent opposers 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 
 views. 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 its 
 main drift and general influence is, as I have shown, at war 
 with moral principle, dishonorable to God, and injurious to 
 man. 
 
RESULTS AND PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 537 
 
 On the other hand, the view which I present is embodied 
 in the great central measures of the system, and is demanded 
 by its revealed spirit arid 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. 
 It 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 
 depravity 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 know, to 
 many 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 powerfully 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 aiford to be tender, and to yield to their feelings. They 
 must be unnaturally stern to maintain their ground at all. 
 Accordingly, 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 
 and 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 CONFLICT 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 ? Can anything else resist the tenden 
 cies to Naturalism, Deism, Pantheism and Infidelity, which 
 on all sides pervade the community ? 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 
 interest in the views which 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 
 
 ness of 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 from 
 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 gives a striking de 
 scription of conviction of sin, in the light of the divine law. 
 " The eternal law shines down through our being, and shows 
 our desires and aims, in opposition to its 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, 
 46 
 
542 CONFLICT OF 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. 
 But it is more than that. Sin pertains only to what is 
 wrong in our volitions and actions. But now the sources 
 of sin, 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, i Who shall 
 deliver us from this body of death ? " (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. 543 
 
 may yet be just as worthy of attention ; " a thought which 
 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 ? 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. 847. I admit that certain 
 causes of depravity are transmitted by the material system. 
 But the central elements of a sinful spirit, pride, selfish- 
 
<)44 CONFLICT OF AGES. 
 
 ness, self-will, envy, and the 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 
 
UESULT3 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 
 affect 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 Mil Her as clearly 
 46* 
 
546 CONFLICT or AGES. 
 
 on the right side of the great question at issue. So, also, 
 in the Bibllotheca Sacra he is represented as holding 
 firmly a thorough doctrine of original sin. Augustine, 
 also, saw this result 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 as having u a favor and kindness for it, insomuch 
 that he is sometimes staggering in this point, and thinks it 
 to be a great secret whether men s souls existed before their 
 generations or no ; and, somewhere, concludes it to be a 
 matter 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 is 
 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 AXD PRACTICAL TENDENCIES. 547 
 
 when the question was first thoroughly discussed, been left 
 unembarrassed by the Gnostic and ascetic dogmas of the 
 church, which had already 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, 
 and 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 
 have set it forth, a system which in its principles and 
 spirit would have been utterly at war with Gnosticism in 
 every form. 
 
 One thing, however, is clear, from this general view : that 
 it has been seen and conceded, in every age, that the doc 
 trine of pre existent 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 AGES. 
 
 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 to 
 it, and has thus been obliged to meet it at a logical disad 
 
 vantage. 
 
 I have shown 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 could 
 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 original 
 sin, and at first looked upon it with favor, he yielded to a 
 corrupt ecclesiastical influence, and, by the aid of a false 
 translation, and a false realistic philosophy, he introduced 
 that false decision, concerning the great problem of the for 
 feiture of rights by the human race, which has been to 
 every subsequent generation the fountain-head of errors 
 and 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. 549 
 
 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 and logically at once cuts up the 
 doctrine of regeneration by the 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 OP AGES. 
 
 powers, but he is powerfully affected through his imag 
 ination, and the association of ideas. The work of moral 
 renovation can never be carried to its highest point, if these 
 faculties are arrayed against it, or divided against each 
 other. But, if we derive sin from Adam through natural 
 generation, these powers are arrayed 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. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 
 
 OCT 3 W 8 
 
 JUL 7 2003 
 
 _r*iAtr*tV^ 
 
 
 2QJi w 
 
 
 
 
 RF.C D LD 
 
 
 MAR 3 R-1? M 
 
 
 FIHn fi.x QQ 1/C m 
 
 
 j ;. \ t 8 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OCT i 2 1967 
 
 
 
 
 >*- *. ^ 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 : " W-GPf, 
 
 
 N tee. 
 
 Mtil< 
 
 REC D LD Jl>L 
 
 1370-8AM2 2 
 
 
 LD 21-95w-7, 37 
 
The con 
 
 I-CT: or s.ges 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES