fjfY REESE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. Received Accessions No. Ofr A THEODICY; OB, VINDICATION OF THE DIVINE GIMY, AS MANIFESTED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE MORAL WORLD. BY ALBERT TAYLOR BLEDSOE, LL. D., PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA. NEW YORK: PHILLIPS & HUNT. CINCINNATI: CRANSTON & STQWE. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by CARLTCTN & PHILLIPS, 3&L& & in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New- York. TO professor lames | v CaWl, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, THIS VOLUME IS INSCRIBED BY ONE WHO ENTERTAINS A HIGH ADMIRATION OF HIS INTELLECTUAL POWERS AND LEARNING, AS WELL AS OF HIS CHARACTER AS A CHRISTIAN GENTLEMAN. INTRODUCTION. OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A THEODICY .......^AGK 9 I. The failure of Plato, and other ancient philosophers, to construct a theodicy, not a ground of despair II II. The failure of Leibnitz not a ground of despair 13 III. The system of the moral universe not pvrposely involved in obscurity to teach us a lesson of humility 10 IV. The littleness of the human mind a ground of hope 21 V. The construction of a theodicy not an attempt to solve mysteries, but to dissipate absurdities 24 .VI. The spirit in which the following work has been prosecuted, and the relation of the author to other systems 25 PART I. THE EXISTENCE OF MORAL EVIL, OR SIN, CONSISTENT WITH THE HOLI- NESS OF GOD 31 CHAPTER I. THE SCHEME OF NECESSITY DENIES THAT MAN is RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SIN 83 I. The attempts of Calvin and Luther to reconcile the scheme of necessity with the responsibility of man 34 II. The manner in which Hobbes, Collins, and others, endeavour to reconcile necessity with free and accountable agency 41 III. The sentiments of Descartes, Spinoza, and Malebranche, concerning the relation between liberty and necessity 45 IV. The views of Locke, Tucker, Hartley, Priestley, Helvetius, and Diderot, with respect to the relation between liberty and necessity 50 | V. The manner in which Leibnitz endeavours to reconcile liberty and neces- sity 54 g VL The attempt of Edwards to establish free and accountable agency on the basis of necessity The views of the younger Edwards, Day, Chalmers, Dick, D'Aubigne, Hill, -Shaw, and M'Cosh, concerning the agreement of liberty and necessity 61 YTT. The sentiments of Hume. Brown. Comte, and Mill, in relation to the antagonism between liberty and necessity 72 VIII. The views of Kant and Sir William Hamilton in relation to the antagonism between liberty and necessity 78 6 CONTENTS. IX. The notion of Lord Kames and Sir James Mackintosh on the same subject PAGE 81 X. The conclusion of Moehler, Tholuck, and others, that all speculation on such a subject must be vain and fruitless 83 XI. The true conclusion from the foregoing review of opinions and argu- ments 34 V'MAPTER II. THE SCHEME OF NECESSITY MAKES GOD THE AUTHOR OF SIN 86 I. The attempts of Calvin and other reformers to show that their system of necessity does not make God the author of sin 87 II. The attempt of Leibnitz to show that the scheme of necessity does not make God the author of sin 98 III. The maxims adopted and employed by Edwards to show that the scheme of necessity does not make God the author of sin 98 IV. The attempts of Dr. Emmons and Dr. Chalmers to reconcile the scheme of necessity with the purity of God 110 CHAPTER III. THE SCHEME OF NECESSITY DENIES THE REALITY OF MORAL DISTINC- TIONS 113 I. The views of Spinoza, in relation to the reality of moral distinctions 113 II. The attempt of Edwards to reconcile the scheme of necessity with the reality of moral distinctions 114 DTI. Of the proposition that " The essence of the virtue and vice of dispo- sitions of the heart and acts of the will lies not in their cause, but in their nature" 126 IV. The scheme of necessity seems to be inconsistent with the reality of moral distinctions, not because we confound natural and moral necessity, but because it is really inconsistent therewith.... 129 CHAPTER IV. THE MORAL WORLD NOT CONSTITUTED ACCORDING TO THE SCHEME OF NECESSITY 132 I. The scheme of necessity is based on a false psychology 132 II. The scheme of necessity is directed against a false issue 142 IDT. The scheme of necessity is supported by false logic 149 IV. The scheme of necessity is fortified by false conceptions 154 V. The scheme of necessity is recommended by false analogies 1GO VI. The scheme of necessity is rendered plausible by a false phraseology 162 VII. The scheme of necessity originates in a false method, and terminates in a false religion 164 CHAPTER V. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE HUMAN WILL AND THE DIVINE AGENCY 166 I. General view of the relation between the divine and the human power... 1G6 II. The Pelagian platform, or view of the relation between the divine and the human power. 171 III. The Augustinian platform, or view of the relation between the divine agency and the human 176 TV. The views of those \vho, in later times, have symbolized with Augustine... 178 V. The danger of mistaking distorted for exalted views of the divine sovereignty 180 CONTENTS. 7 f H4P1 Ea VI. THE EXISTENCE OF MORAL EVIL, OR SIN, RECONCILED WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD PAGE 182 I. The hypothesis of the soul's preexistence 182 II. The hypothesis of the Mauicheaus 183 III. The hypothesis of optimism 185 IV. The argument of the atheist The reply of Leibnitz and other theists The insufficiency of this reply 189 V. The sophism of the atheist exploded, and a perfect agreement shown to subsist between the existence of sin and the holiness of God 192 VI. The true and only foundation of optimism 199 VII. The glory of God seen in the creation of a world which he foresaw would fall under the dominion of sin 203 VIII. The little, captious spirit of Voltaire, and other atheizing minute philosophers 209 JHAPTER VII. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED 211 I. Itmay be objected that the foregoing scheme is " new theology" 211 II. It may be imagined that the views herein set forth limit the omnipotence of God 213 HI. The foregoing scheme, it may be said, presents a gloomy view of the universe 216 IV. It may be alleged, that in refusing to subject the volitions of men to the power and control of God, we undermine the sentiments of humility and submission 218 V.- The foregoing treatise may be deemed inconsistent with gratitude to God 222 VI. It may be contended, that it is unfair to urge the preceding difficulties against the scheme of necessity; inasmuch as the same, of as great, diffi- culties attach to the system of those by whom they are urged 223 PART II. f THE EXISTENCE OF NATURAL EVIL, OR SUFFERING, CONSISTENT WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD 231 CHAPTER I. GOD DESIRES AND SEEKS THE SALVATION OF ALL MEN 233 I- The reason why theologians have concluded that God designs the salva- tion of only a part of mankind 235 II- The attempt of Howe to reconcile the eternal ruin of a portion of man- kind with the sincerity of God in his endeavours to save them 237 HI. The views of Luther and Calvin respecting the sincerity of God in his endeavours to save those who will finally perish 242 CHAPTER II. NATURAL EVIL, OR SUFFERING, AND ESPECIALLY THK SUFFERING OF IN- FANTS, RECONCILED WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD 243 I. All suffering not a pvnishment for sin 245 II- The imputation of sin not consistent with the goodness of God 250 HI. The imputation of sin not consistent with human, much less with the divine goodness 259 IV. The true ends, or final causes, of natural evil 204 V. The importance of harmonizLig reason and revelation 272 8 CONTENTS. CHAPTER III. THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST RECONCILED WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD 276 I. The sufferings of Christ not unnecessary PAGE 276. IL The sufferings of Christ a bright manifestation of the goodness of God.... 279 III. The objections of Dr. C'hanning, and other Unitarians, against the doc- trine of the atonement 286 CHAPTER IV. THE ETERNAL PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED RECONCILED WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD 294 L The false grounds upon which the doctrine of the eternity of future punish- ment has been placed 295 II. The unsound principles from which, if true, the fallacy of the eternity of future punishment may be clearly inferred 297 in. The eternity of future punishment an expression of the divine goodness 30] CHAPTER V. THE DISPENSATION OF THE DIVINE FAVOURS RECONCILED WITH THE GOODNESS OF GoD 312 I. The unequal distribution of favours, which obtains in the economy of natural providence, consistent with the goodness of God 312 II. The Scripture doctrine of election consistent with the impartiality of the divine goodness 317 III. The Calvinistic scheme of election inconsistent with the impartiality and glory of the divine goodness 323 IV. The true ground and reason of election to eternal life shows it to be consistent with the infinite goodness of God 330 COHCLUSIOH. A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES AND ADVANTAGES OF THE FORE- GOING SYSTEM 335 I. SUMMARY OF THE FIRST PART OF THE FOREGOING SYSTEM 337 I. The scheme of necessity denies that man is the responsible author of sin. 338 II. The scheme of necessity makes God the author of sin 340 III. The scheme of necessity denies the reality of moral distinctions 341 IV. The moral world not constituted according to the scheme of necessity... 343 V. The relation between the human agency and the divine 344 VI. The existence of moral evil consistent with the infinite purity of God.... 345 II. SUMMARY OF THE SECOND PART OF THE FOREGOING SYSTEM 355 I. God desires the salvation of all men 355 II. The sufferings of the innocent, and especially of infants, consistent with the goodness of God 357 III. The sufferings of Christ consistent with the divine goodness 359 IV. The eternity of future punishment consistent with the goodness of God. 360 V. The true doctrine of election and predestination consistent with the goodness of God 361 VI. The question submitted 364 INTRODUCTION. OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A THEODICY. Introduction. OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A THEODICY. HOY,, '/nder the government of an infinitely perfect Being, evil could have proceeded from a creature of his own, has ever been regarded as the great difficulty pertaining to the intellectual system of the universe. It has never ceased to puzzle and per- plex the human mind. Indeed, so great and so obstinate has it seemed, that it is usually supposed to lie beyond the reach of the human faculties. We shall, however, examine the grounds of this opinion, before we exchange the bright illusions of hope, if such indeed they be, for the gloomy forebodings of despair. SECTION L The failure of Plato and other ancient philosophers to construct a Theodicy, not a ground of despair. The supposed want of success attending the labours of the past, is, no doubt, the principal reason which has induced so many to abandon the problem of evil in despair, and even to accuse of presumption every speculation designed to shed light upon so great a mystery. But this reason, however specious and imposing at first view, will lose much of its apparent force upon a closer examination. In every age the same reasoning has been employed to repress the efforts of the human mind to overcome the difficulties by which it has been surrounded ; yet, in spite of such discourage- ments, the most stupendous difficulties have gradually yielded to the progressive developments and revelations of time. It was the opinion of Socrates, for example, that the problem of 12 INTRODUCTION. the natural world was unavoidably concealed from mortals, and that it was a sort of presumptuous impiety, displeasing to the gods, for men to pry into it. If Newton himself had lived in that age, it is probable that he would have entertained the same opinion. It is certain that the problem in question would then have been as far beyond the reach of his powers, as beyond those of the most ordinary individual. The ignorance of the earth's dimensions, the manifold errors respecting the laws of motion, and the defective state of the mathematical sciences, which then prevailed, would have rendered utterly impotent the efforts of a thousand Newtons to grapple with such a prob- lem. The time was neither ripe for the solution of that problem, nor for the appearance of a Newton. It was only after science had, during a period of two thousand years, multiplied her re- sources and gathered up her energies, that she was prepared for a flight to the summit of the world, whence she might behold and reveal the wonderful art wherewith it hath been constructed by the Almighty Architect. Because Socrates could not con- ceive of any possible means of solving the great problem of the material world, it did not follow, as the event has shown, that it was forever beyond the reach and dominion of man. We should not then listen too implicitly to the teach era of despair, nor too rashly set limits to the triumphs of the human power. If we may believe "the master of wisdom," they are not the true friends of science, nor of the world's progress. " By far the greatest obstacle," says Bacon, " to the advancement of the sciences, is to be found in men's despair and idea of impossi- bility." Even in the minds of those who cultivate a particular branch of knowledge, there is often an internal secret despair of finding the truth, which so far paralyzes their efforts as to prevent them from seeking it w T ith that deep earnestness, without which it is seldom found. The history of optics furnishes a most impressive illustration of the justness of this remark. Previous to the time of Newton, no one seemed to entertain a real hope that this branch of knowledge would ever assume the form and clearness of scientific truth. The laws and properties of so ethereal a sub- stance as light,' appeared to elude the grasp of the human intel- lect ; and hence, no one evinced the boldness to grapple directly with them. The whole region of optics was involved in miste, OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A THEODICY. 13 and those who gave their attention to this department of knowl- edge, abandoned themselves, for the most part, to vague gen- eralities and loose conjectures. In the conflict of manifold opin- ions, and the great variety of hypotheses which seemed to pro- mise nothing but endless disputes, the highest idea of the science of optics that prevailed, was that of something in relation to light which might be plausibly advanced and confidently main- tained. It was reserved for Newton to produce a revolution in the mode of treating this branch of knowledge, as well as that of physical astronomy. Not despairing of the truth, he sternly put away " innumerable fancies flitting on all sides around him," and by searching observation and experiment, brought his mind directly into contact with things themselves, and held it steadily to them, until the clear light of truth dawned. The consequence was, that the dreams of philosophy, falsely so called, gave place to the clear realities of nature. It was to the unconquerable hope, no less than to the profound humility of Newton, that the world is indebted for his most splendid discoveries, as well as for that perfect model of the true spirit of philosophy, which combined the infinite caution of a Butler with the unbounded boldness of a Leibnitz. The lowliest humility, free from the least shadow of despair, united with the loftiest hope, without the least mixture of presumption, both proceeding from an in- vincible love of truth, are the elements which constituted the secret of that patient and all-enduring thought which conducted the mind of Newton from the obscurities and dreams envelop- ing the world below into the bright and shining region of eter- nal truths above. In our humble opinion, Newton has done more for the great cause of knowledge, by the mighty impulse of hope he has given to the powers of the human mind, than by all the sublime discoveries he has made. For, as Maclaurin says : " The variety of opinions and perpetual disputes among philosophers has induced not a few of late, as well as in former times, to think that it was vain labour to endeavour to acquiie certainty in natural knowledge, and to ascribe this to some un- avoidable defect in the principles of the science. But it has appeared sufficiently, from the discoveries of those who have consulted nature, and not their own imaginations, and particu- larly from what we learn from Sir Isaac Newton, that the fault has lain in philosophers themselves^ and not in philosophy " 1 4 INTRODUCTION. We are persuaded the day will come, when it will be seen that the despair of scepticism has been misplaced, not only with regard to natural knowledge, but also in relation to the great problems of the intellectual and moral world. It is true, that Plato failed to solve these problems ; but his failure may be easily accounted for, without in the least degree shaking the foundations of our hope. The learned Kitter has said, that Plato felt the necessity imposed upon him, by his system, to reconcile the existence of evil with the perfections of God ; but yet, as often as he approached this dark subject, his views be- came vague, fluctuating, and unsatisfactory. How little insight he had into it on any scientific or clearly defined principle, is obvious from the fact, that he took shelter from its difficulties in the wild hypothesis of the preexisterice of souls. But the impotency of Plato's attempts to solve these difficulties, may be explained without the least disparagement to his genius, or without leading us to hope for light only from the world's pos- session of better minds. In the first place, such was the state of mental science when Plato lived, that it would have been impossible for any one to reconcile the existence of evil with the perfections of God. It lias been truly said, that " An attention to the internal opera- tions of the human mind, with a view to analyze its principles, is one of the distinctions of modern times. Among the ancients scarcely anything of the sort was known." Robert Hall. Yet without a correct analysis of the powers of the human mind, and of the relations they sustain to each other, as well as to ex- ternal objects and influences, it is impossible to shed one ray of light on the relation subsisting between the existence of moral evil and the divine glory. The theory of motion is " the key to nature." It was with this key that Newton, the great high- priest of nature, entered into her profoundest recesses, and laid open her most sublime secrets to the admiration of mankind. In like manner, the true theory of action is the key to the intel- lectual world, by which its difficulties are to be laid open and its enigmas solved. Not possessing this key, it was as impossi- ble for Plato, or for any other philosopher, to penetrate the mystery of sin's existence, as it would have been, without a knowledge of the laws of motion, to comprehend the stupendous problem of the material universe. OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A THEODICY. 15 Secondly, the ancient philosophers laboured under the in- superable disadvantage, that the sublime disclosures of revela- tion had not been made known to the world. Hence the ma- terials were wanting out of which to construct a Theodicy, or vindication of the perfections of God. For if we could see only so much of this world's drama as is made known by the light of nature, it would not be possible to reconcile it with the char- acter of its great Author. No one was more sensible of this defect of knowledge than Plato himself; and its continuance was, in his view, inconsistent with the goodness of the divine Being. Hence his well-known prediction, that a teacher would be sent from God to clear up the darkness of man's present destiny, and to withdraw the veil from its future glory. The facts of revelation cannot, of course, be logically assumed as verities, in an argument with the atheist ; but still, as we shall hereafter see, they may, in connexion with other truths, be made to serve a most important and legitimate function in exploding his sophisms and objections. SECTION IL The failure of Leibnitz not a ground of despair. It is alleged, that since Leibnitz exhausted the resources of his vast erudition, and exerted the powers of his mighty intel- lect without success, to solve the problem in question, it is in vain for any one else to attempt its solution. Leibnitz, himself, was too much of a philosopher to approve of such a judgment in relation to any human being. He could never have wished, or expected to see " the empire of man, which is founded in the sciences," permanently confined to the boundaries of a single mind, however exalted its powers, or comprehensive its attain- ments. He finely rebuked the false humility and the disguised arrogance of Descartes, in affirming that the sovereignty of God and the freedom of man could never be reconciled. " If L>es- cartes," says he, " had confessed such an inability for himself alone, this might have savoured of humility ; but it is other- wise, when, because he could not find the means of solving this difficulty, he declares it an impossibility for all ages and for all minds." We have, at least, the authority and example of Leibnitz, in favour of the propriety of cultivating this depart- I 16 INTRODUCTION. ment of knowledge, with a view to shed light on the great problem of the intellectual world. His failure, if rightly considered, is not a ground for despond- ency. He approached the problem in question in a wrong spirit. The pride of conquering difficulties is the unfortunate disposition with which he undertook to solve it. His well-known boast, that with him all difficult things are easy, and all easy things difficult, is a proof that his spirit was not perfectly adapted to carry him forward in a contest with the dark enigmas of the universe. Indeed, if we consider what Leibnitz has actu- ally done, we shall perceive, that notwithstanding his wonder- ful powers, he has rendered many easy things difficult, as well as many difficult things easy. The best way to conquer diffi- culties is, if we may j udge from his example, not to attack them directly, and with the pride of a conqueror, but simply to seek after the truth. If we make a conquest of all the truth, this will make a conquest of all the difficulties within our reach. It is wonderful with what ease a difficulty, which may have re- sisted the direct siege of centuries, will sometimes fall before a single inquirer after truth, who had not dreamed of aiming at its solution, until this seemed, as if by accident, to offer itself to his mind. If we pursue difficulties, they will be apt to fly from us and elude our grasp ; whereas, if we give up our minds to an honest and earnest search after truth, they will come in with their own solutions. The truth is, that the difficulty in question has been increased rather than diminished by the speculations of Leibnitz. This has resulted from a premature and extreme devotion to system a source of miscarriage and failure common to Leibnitz, and to most others who have devoted their attention to the origin of evil. On the one hand, exaggerated views concerning the divine agency, or equally extravagant notions on the other, re- specting the agency of man, have frequently converted a seem- ing into a real contradiction. In general, the work of God has been conceived in such a relation to the powers of man, as to make the latter entirely disappear; or else the power of man has been represented as occupying so exalted and independent a position, as to exclude the Almighty from his rightful dominion over the moral world. Thus, the Supreme Being has generally been shut out from the affaire and government of the world by OF THE POSSIBILITY OP A THEODICY. 17 one side, and his energy rendered so all-pervading by the other, as really to make him the author of evil. In this way, the dif- ficulties concerning the origin and existence of evil have been greatly augmented by the very speculations designed to solve them. For if God takes little or no concern in the affairs and destiny of the moral world, this clearly seems to render him re- sponsible for the evil which he might easily have prevented ; and, on the other hand, if he pervades the moral world with his power in such a manner as to bring all things to pass, this as clearly seems to implicate him in the turpitude of sin. After having converted the seeming discrepancy between the divine power and human agency into a real contradiction, it is too late to endeavour to reconcile them. Yet such has been the case with most of the giant intellects that have laboured to reconcile the sovereignty of God and the moral agency of man. It will hereafter be clearly seen, we trust, that it is not possible for any one, holding the scheme of a Calvin, or a Leibnitz, or a Descartes, or an Edwards, to show an agreement between the power of God and the freedom of man ; since according to these systems there is an eternal opposition and conflict between them. It is no ground of despair, then, that the mighty minds of the past have failed to solve the problem in question, if the cause of their failure may be traced to the errors of their own systems, and not to the inherent difficulties of the subject. Those who have endeavoured to solve the problem in ques- tion have, for the most part, been necessitated to fail in conse- quence of having adopted a w r rong method. Instead of begin- ning with observation, and carefully dissecting the world w r hich God has made, so as to rise, by a clear analysis of things, to the general principles on which they have been actually framed and put together, they have set out from the lofty region of universal abstractions, and proceeded to reconstruct the world for themselves. Instead of beginning with the actual, as best befits the feebleness of the human intellect, and working their way up into the great system of things, they have taken their position at once in the high and boundless realm of the ideal, and thence endeavoured to deduce the nature of the laws and phenomena of the real world. This is the course pursued by Plato, Leibnitz, Hobbes, Descartes, Edwards, and, indeed, most of those great thinkers who have endeavoured to shed light on 18 INTKODUCTION. the problem in question. Hence each has necessarily become " a sublime architect of words," whose grand and imposing sys- tem of shadows and abstractions has but a slight foundation in the real constitution and laws of the spiritual world. Their writings furnish the most striking illustration of the profound aphorism of Bacon, that "the usual method of discovery and prc of, by first establishing the most general propositions, then applying and proving the intermediate axioms according to these, is the parent of error and tfo calamity of every science" He who would frame a real model of the world in the under- standing, such as it is found to be, not such as man's reason has distorted, must pursue the opposite course. Surely it cannot be deemed unreasonable, that this course should be most diligently applied to the study of the intellectual world ; especially as it has wrought such wonders in the province of natural knowl- edge, and that too, after so many ages had, according to the former method, laboured upon it comparatively in vain. Be- cause the human mind has not been able to bridge over the impassable gulf between the ideal and the concrete, so as to effect a passage from the former to the latter, it certainly does not follow, that it should forever despair of so far penetrating the apparent obscurity and confusion of real things, as to see that nothing which God has created is inconsistent with the eternal, immutable glory of the ideal : or, in other words, be- cause the real world and the ideal cannot be shown to be connected by a logical dependency, it does not follow, that the actual creation and providence of God, that all his works and ways cannot be made to appear consistent with the idea of an absolutely perfect being and of the eternal laws according to which his power acts: that is to say, because the high a priori method, which so magisterially proceeds to pronounce what must fo, has failed to solve the problem of the moral world, it does not follow, that the inductive method, or that which cau- tiously begins with an examination of what w, may not finally rise to the sublime contemplation of what ought to ~be / and, in the light of God's own creation, behold the magnificent model of the actual universe perfectly conformed to the transcendent and unutterable glory of the ideal. OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A THEODICY. 19 SECTION IIL The system of the moral universe not purposely involved in obscurity to teach us a lesson of humility. But the assertion is frequently made, that the moral govern- ment of the world is purposely left in obscurity and apparent confusion, in order to teach man a lesson of humility and sub- mission, by showing him how weak and narrow is the human mind. We have not, however, been able to find any sufficient reason or foundation for such an opinion. As every atom in the universe presents mysteries which baffle the most subtle research and the most profound investigation of the human intellect, we cannot see how any reflecting mind can possibly find an additional lesson of humility in the fact, that the system of the universe itself is involved in clouds and darkness. Would it not be strange, indeed, if the mind, whose grasp is not suf- ficient for the mysteries of a single atom, should be really hum- bled by the conviction that it is too w r eak and limited to fathom the wonders of the universe? Does the insignificance of an egg-shell appear from the fact that it cannot contain the ocean ? The truth is, that the more clearly the majesty and glory of the divine perfections are displayed in the constitution and government of the world, the more clearly shall we see the greatness of God and the littleness of man. No true knowledge can ever impress the human mind with a conceit of its own greatness. The farther its light expands, the greater must be- come the visible sphere of the surrounding darkness ; and its highest attainment in real knowledge must inevitably terminate in a profound sense of the vast, unlimited extent of its own ig- norance. Hence, w r e need entertain no fear, that man's humil- ity will ever be endangered by too great attainments in science. Presumption is, indeed, the natural offspring of ignorance, and not of knowledge. Socrates, as we have already seen, endeav- oured to inculcate a lesson of humility, by reminding his con- temporaries how far the theory of the material heavens w^as be- yond the reach of their faculties. And to enforce this lesson, he assured them that it was displeasing to the gods for men to attempt to pry into the wonderful art wherewith they had con- structed the universe. In like manner, the poet, at a much 20 INTRODUCTION. later period, puts the following sentiment into the mouth of an angel : M To ask or search, I blame thee not ; for heaven Is as the book of God before thee set, Wherein to read his wondrous works, and learn His seasons, hours, or days, or months, or years : This to attain, whether heaven move or earth, Imports not if thou reckon right ; the rest From man or angel the great Architect Did wisely to conceal, and not divulge His secrets, to be scann'd by them who ought Rather admire ; or, if they list to try Conjecture, he his fabric of the heavens Hath left to their disputes, perhaps to move His laughter at their quaint opinions wide Hereafter." All this may be very well, no doubt, for him by whom it was uttered, and for those who may have received it as an everlast- ing oracle of truth. But the true lesson of humility was taught by Newton, when he solved the 'problem of the world, and re- vealed the wonderful art displayed therein by the Supreme Architect. Never before, in the history of the human race, was so impressive a conviction made of the almost absolute nothingness of man, when measured on the inconceivably mag- nificent scale of the universe. No one, it is well known, felt this conviction more deeply than Newton himself. "I have been but as a child," said he, " playing on the sea-shore ; now finding some pebble rather more polished, and now some shell rather more agreeably variegated than another, while the im- mense ocean of truth extended itself unexplored before me." It is, indeed, strangely to forget our littleness, as well as the limits which this necessarily sets to the progress of the under- standing, to imagine that the Almighty has to conceal anything with a view to remind us of the weakness of our powers. In- deed, everything around us, and everything within us, brings home the conviction of the littleness of man. There is not a page of the history of human thought on which this lesson is not deeply engraved. Still we do not despair. We find a ground of hope in the very littleness as well as in the great ness of the human powers. OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A THEODICY. 21 SECTION IV. The littleness of the hvman mind a ground of hope. "We would yield to no one in a profound veneration for the great intellects of the past. But let us not be dazzled and blinded by the splendour of their achievements. Let us look at it closely, and see how wonderful it is this thing called the human mind. The more I think of it, the more it fills me with amazement. I scarcely know which amazes me the more, its littleness or its grandeur. Now I see it, with all its high powers and glorious faculties, labouring under the ambiguity of a word, apparently in hopeless eclipse for centuries. Shall I therefore despise it ? Before I have time to do so, the power and the light which is thus shut out from the world by so piti- ful a cause, is revealed in all its glory. I see this same intelli- gence forcing its way through a thousand hostile appearances, resisting innumerable obstacles pressing on all sides around it, overcoming deep illusions, and inveterate opinions, almost as firmly seated as the very laws of nature themselves. I see it rising above all these, and planting itself in the radiant seat of truth. It embraces the plan, it surveys the work of the Su- preme Architect of all things. It follows the infinite reason, and recognises the almighty power, in their sublimest manifes- tations. I rejoice in the glory of its triumphs, and am ready to pronounce its empire boundless. But, alas ! I see it again baffled and confounded by the wonders and mysteries of a single atom ! I see this same thing, or rather its mightiest representatives, with a Newton or a Leibnitz at their head, in full pursuit of a shadow, and wasting their wonderful energies in beating the air. They have measured the world, and stretched their line upon the chambers of the great deep. They have weighed the sun, moon, and stars, and marked out their orbits. They have de- termined the laws according to which all worlds and all atoms move according to which the very spheres sing together. And yet. when they came to measure " the force of a moving body," they toil for a century at the task, and finally rest in the amazing conclusion, that " the very same thing may have two measures widely different from each other 1" Alas ! that the same mind, 22 INTRODUCTION". that the same god-like intelligence, which has measured worlds and systems, should thus have wasted its stupendous energies in striving to measure a metaphor ! When I think of its grandeur and its triumphs, I bow with reverence before its power, and am ready to despair of ever seeing it go farther than it has already gone ; but when I think of its littleness and its failures, I take courage again, and de- termine to toil on as a living atom among living atoms. The glory of its triumphs does not discourage me, because I also see its littleness ; nor can its littleness extinguish in me the light of hope, because I also see the glory of its triumphs. And surely this is right ; for the intellect of man, so conspicuously combining the attributes of the angel and of the worm, is not to be despised without infinite danger, nor followed without in- finite caution. Such, indeed, is the weakness and fallibility of the human mind, even in its brightest forms, that we cannot for a moment imagine, that the inherent difficulties of the dark enigma of the world are insuperable, because they have not been clearly and fully solved by a Leibnitz or an Edwards. On the contrary, we are perfectly persuaded that in the end the wonder will be, not that such a question should have been attempted after so many illustrious failures, but that any such failure should have been made. This will appear the more probable, if we con- sider the precise nature of the problem to be solved, and not lose ourselves in dark and unintelligible notions. It is not to do some great thing it is simply to refute the sophism of the atheist. If God were both willing and able to prevent sin, which is the only supposition consistent with the idea of God, says the atheist, he would certainly have prevented it, and sin would never have made its appearance in the world. But sin has made its appearance in the world ; and hence, God must have been either unable or unwilling to prevent it. JSTow, if we take either term of this alternative, we must adopt a con- clusion which is at war with the idea of a God. Such is the argument of the atheist ; and sad indeed must be the condition of the Christian world if it be forever unable to meet and refute such a sophism. Yet, it is the error involved in this sophism which obscures our intellectual vision, and causes 30 perplexing a darkness to spread itself over the moral order - OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A THEODI and beauty of the world. Hence, in grappling with the sup- posed great difficulty in question, we do not undertake to re- move a veil from the universe we simply undertake to remove a sophism from our own minds. Though we have so spoken in accommodation with the views of others, the problem of the moral world is not, in reality, high and difficult in itself, like the great problem of the material universe. We repeat, it is simply to refute and explode the sophism of the atheist. Let this be blown away, and the darkness whicl} seems to overhang the moral government of the world will disappear like the mists of the morning. If such be the nature of the problem in question, and such it will be found to be, it is certainly a mistake to suppose that "it must be entangled with perplexities while we see but in part."* It is only while we see amiss, and not while we see in part, that this problem must wear the appearance of a dark enigma. It is clear, that our knowledge is, and ever must be, exceedingly limited on all sides; and if we must understand the whole of the case, if we must comprehend the entire extent of the divine government for the universe and for eternity, before we ca'n remove the difficulty in question, we must necessarily despair of success. But we cannot see any sufficient ground to support this oft-repeated assertion. Because the field of our vision is so exceedingly limited, we do not see why it should be forever traversed by apparent inconsistencies and contradictions. In relation to the material universe, our space is but a point, and our time but a moment ; and yet. as that inconceivably grand system is now understood by us, there is nothing in it which seems to conflict with the dictates of rea- son, or with the infinite perfections of God. On the contrary, the revelations of modern science have given an emphasis and a sublimity to the language of inspiration, that " the heavens de- clare the glory of the Lord," which had, for ages, been con- cealed from the loftiest conception of the astronomer. Nor did it require a knowledge of the whole material universe to remove the difficulties, or to blast the objections which atheists had, in all preceding ages, raised against the perfections of its divine Author. Such objections, as is well known, were raised before astronomy, as a science, had an existence. Lucre- Johnson's Works, vol. iv, p. 286. 24 INTRODUCTION. tins, for example, though he deemed the sun, moon, and stars, no larger than they appear to the eye, and supposed them to revolve around the earth, undertook to point out and declaim against the miserable defects which he saw, or fancied he saw, in the system of the material world. That is to say, he under- took to criticise and find fault with the great volume of nature, before he had even learned its alphabet. The objections of Lucretius, which appeared so formidable in his day, as well as many others that have since been raised on equally plausible grounds, have passed away before the progress of science, and now seem like the silly prattle of children, or the insane babble of madmen. But although such difficulties have been swept away, and our field of vision cleared of all that is painful and perplexing, nay, brightened with all that is grand and beautiful, we seem to be farther than ever from comprehending the whole of the case from grasping the amazing extent and glory of the material globe. And why may not this ultimately be the case also in relation to the moral universe ? Why should every at- tempt to clear up its difficulties, and blow away the objections of atheism to its order and beauty, be supposed to originate in presumption and to terminate in impiety? Are we so much the less interested in knowing the ways of God in regard to the constitution and government of the moral world than of the material, that he should purposely conceal the former from us, while he has permitted the latter to be laid open so as to ravish our minds ? We can believe no such thing ; and we are not willing to admit that there is any part of the creation of God in which omniscience alone can cope with the atheist. SECTION V. The construction of a Theodicy, not an attempt to solve mysteries, "but to dissipate absurdities. - As we have merely undertaken to refute the atheist, and vin- dicate the glory of the divine perfections, so it would be a grievous mistake to suppose, that we are about to pry into the holy mysteries of religion. No sound mind is ever perplexed by the contemplation of mysteries. Indeed, they are a source of positive satisfaction and delight. If nothing were dark, if all around us, and above us, were clearly seen, the truth OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A THEODICY. 25 itself would soon appear stale and mean. Everything truly great must transcend the powers of the human mind ; and hence, if nothing were mysterious, there would be nothing worthy of our veneration and worship. It is mystery, indeed, which lends such unspeakable grandeur and variety to the scenery of the moral world. Without it, all would be clear, it is true, but nothing grand. There would be lights, but no shadows. And around the very lights themselves, there would be nothing soothing and sublime, in which the soul might rest and the im- agination revel. Hence it is no part of our object to pry into mystery, but to get rid of absurdity. And in our humble opinion, this would long since have been done, and the difficulty in question solved, had not the friends of truth incautiously given the most power- ful protection to the sophism and absurdity of the atheist, by throwing around it the sacred garb of mystery. SECTION VI. The spirit in which the following work has leen prosecuted, and the relation of the author to other systems. In conclusion, we offer a few remarks in relation to the man- ner and spirit in which the following work lias been undertaken and prosecuted. In the first place, the writer may truly say, that he did not enter on the apparently dark problem of the moral world with the least hope that he should be able to throw any light upon it, nor with any other set purpose and de- sign. He simply revolved the subject in mind, because he was by nature prone to such meditations. So far from having aimed at things usually esteemed so high and difficult with a feeling of presumptuous confidence, he has, indeed, suffered most from that spirit of despondency, that despair of scepticism, against which, in the foregoing pages, he has appeared so anxious to caution others. It has been patient reflection, and the reading of excellent authors, together with an earnest desire to know the truth, which has delivered him from the power of that spirit, and conducted him to what now so clearly seems " the bright and shining light of truth." It was, in fact, while engaged in meditation on the powers and susceptibilities of the human mind, as well as on the rela- 26 INTKODUCTION. tions they sustain to each and to otlier things, and not in any d rect attempt to elucidate the origin of evil, that the first clear li ^ht appeared to dawn on this great difficulty : and in no other way, he humbly conceives, can the true philosophy of the spiritual world ever be comprehended. For, as the laws of matter had first to be studied and traced out in relation to bodies on the earth, before they could be extended to the heavens, and made to explain its wonderful mechanism ; so must the laws and phenomena of the human mind be correctly analyzed and clearly defined, in order to obtain an insight into the intellectual system of the universe. And just in pro- portion as the clouds and darkness hanging over the phe- nomena of our own minds are made to disappear, will the intel- lectual system of the world which God " has set in our hearts," become more distinct and beautiful in its proportions. For it is the mass of real contradictions and obscurities, existing in the little world within, which distorts to our view the great world without, and causes the work and ways of God to appear so full of disorders. Hence, in proportion as these real contradictions and obscurities are removed, will the mind become a truer microcosm, or more faithful mirror, in which the image of the universe will unfold itself, free from the apparent disorders and confusion which seem to render it unworthy of its great Author and Euler. Secondly, the relation which the writer sustains to other sys- tems, has been, it appears to himself, most favourable to a suc- cessful prosecution of the following speculations. Whether at the outset of his inquiries, he was the more of an Arminian or of a Calvinist, he is unable to say ; but if his crude and imper- fectly developed sentiments had then been made know r n, it is probable he would have been ranked with the Arminians. Be this as it may, it is certain that he was never so much of an Arminian, or of anything else, as to imagine that Calvinism admitted of nothing great and good. On the contrary, he has ever believed that the Calvinists were at least equal to any other body of men in piety, which is certainly the highest and noblest of all qualities. And besides, it was a constant delight to him to read the great master-pieces of reasoning which Cal- vinism had furnished for the instruction and admiration of mankind. By this means he came to believe that the scheme OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A THEODICY. 27 of the Arminians could not be maintained, and his faith in it was gradually undermined. But although he thus submitted his mind to the dominion of Calvinism, as advocated by Edwards, and earnestly espoused it with some exceptions ; he never felt that profound, internal satisfaction of the truth of the system, after which his rational nature continually longed, and which it struggled to realize. He certainly expected to find this satisfaction in Calvinism, if anywhere. Long, therefore, did he pass over every portion of Calvinism, in order Jo discover, if possible, how its foundations might be rendered more clear and convincing, and all its parts har- monized among themselves as well as with the great undeniable facts of man's nature and destiny. While engaged in these inquiries, he has been more than once led to see what appeared to be a flaw in Calvinism itself ; but without at first perceiving all its consequences. By reflection on these apparent defects ; nay, by protracted and earnest meditation on them, his sus- picions have been confirmed and his opinions changed. If what now so clearly appears to be the truth is so or not, it is certain that it has not been embraced out of a spirit of oppo- sition to Calvinism, or to any other system of religious faith whatever. Its light, whether real or imaginary, has dawned upon his mind while seeking after truth amid the foundations of Calvinism itself ; and this light has been augmented more by reading the works of Calvinists themselves, than those of their opponents. These tilings are here set down, not because the writer thinks they should have any weight or influence to bias the judgment of the reader, but because he wishes it to be understood that he entertains the most profound veneration for the great and good men whose works seem to stand in the way of the follow- ing design to vindicate the glory of God, and which, therefore, he will not scruple to assail in so far as this may be necessary to his purpose. It is, indeed, a matter of deep and inexpressible regret, that in our conflicts with the powers of darkness, we should, however undesigneclly, be weakened and opposed by Christian divines and philosophers. But so it seems to be. and we dare not cease to resist them. And if, in the following attempt to vindicate the glory of God, it shall become neces- sary to call in question the infallibility of the great founders of 28 INTRODUCTION'. human systems, this, it is to be hoped, will not "be deemed an unpardonable offence. Thus has the writer endeavoured to work his way through the mingled lights and obscurity of human systems into a bright and beautiful vision of the great harmonious system of the world itself. It is certainly either a sublime truth, or else a glorious illusion, which thus enables him to rise above the apparent disorders and perturbations of the world, as constituted and governed by the Almighty, and behold the real order and harmony therein established. The ideal creations of the poet and the philosopher sink into perfect insignificance beside the actual creation of God. Where clouds and darkness once appeared the most impenetrable, there scenes of inde- scribable magnificence and beauty are now beheld with inex- pressible delight ; the stupendous cloud of evil no longer hangs overhead, but rolls beneath us, while the eternal Reason from above permeates its gloom, and irradiates its depths. We now behold the reason, and absolutely rejoice in the contemplation, of that which once seemed like a dark blot on the world's design. In using this language, we do not wish to be understood as laying claim to the discovery of any great truth, or any new principle. Yet we do trust, that we have attained to a clear and precise statement of old truths. And these truths, thus clearly defined, we trust that we have seized with a firm grasp, and carried as lights through the dark places of theology, so as to expel thence the errors and delusions by which its glory has been obscured. Moreover, if we have not succeeded, nor even attempted to succeed, in solving any mysteries, prop- erly so called, yet may we have removed certain apparent contradictions, which have been usually deemed insuperable to the human mind. But even if the reader should be satisfied beforehand, that no additional light will herein be thrown on the problem of the moral world, yet would we remind him, that it does not neces- sarily follow that the ensuing discourse is wholly unworthy of his attention : for the materials, though old, may be presented in new combinations, and much may be omitted which has disfigured and obscured the beauty of most other systems. Although no new fountains of light may be opened, yet may OF THE POSSIBILITY OF # A THEODICY. 20 the vision of the soul be so purged of certain films of error as to enable it to reflect the glory of the spiritual universe, j ust as a single dew-drop is seen to mirror forth the magnificent cope of heaven with all its multitude of stars. We have sought the truth, and how far we have found it, no one should proceed to determine without having first read and examined. We have sought it, not in Calvinism alone, nor in Arminianism alone, nor in any other creed or system of man's devising. In every direction have we diligently sought it, as our feeble abilities would permit ; and yet, we hope, it will be found that the body of truth which we now have to offer is not a mere hasty patchwork of superficial eclecticism, but a living and organic whole. By this test we could wish to be tried ; for, as Bacon hath well said, " It is the harmony of any philosophy in itself that giveth it light and credence." And in the application of this test, we could also wish, that the reader would so far forget his sectarian predilections, if he have any, as to permit his mind to be inspired by the immortal words of Milton, which we shall here adopt as a fitting conclusion of these our present remarks : "Truth, indeed, came once into the world with her divine Master, and was a perfect shape most glorious to look on ; but when he ascended, and his apostles after him were laid asleep, then straight arose a wicked race of deceivers, who, as that story goes of the Egyptian Typhon, with his conspirators, how they dealt with the good Osiris, took the virgin, Truth, hewed her lovely form into a thousand pieces, and scattered them to the four winds. From that time ever since the sad friends of Truth, such as durst appear, imitating the careful search that Isis made for the mangled body of Osiris, went up and down gathering up limb by limb still as they could find them. We have not yet found them all, nor ever shall do, till her Master's second coming; he shall bring together every joint and mem- ber, and shall mould them into an immortal feature of loveli- ness and perfection. Suffer not these licensing prohibitions to stand at every place of opportunity, forbidding and disturbing them that Continue seeking, that continue to do our obsequies to the torn body of our martyred saint. We boast our light ; but if we look not wisely on the sun itself, it smites us into dark- ness. Who can discern those planets that are oft combust, and 30 INTRODUCTION. those stars of brightest magnitude, that rise and set with the sun, until the opposite motion of their orbs bring them to such a place In the firmament, where they may be seen morning or evening ? The light which we have gained was given us, not to be ever staring on, but by it to discover onward things more remote from our knowledge. It is not the unfrocking of a priest, the unmitring of a bishop, and the removing him from off the Presbyterian shoulders, that will make us a happy nation ; no, if other things as great in the Church, and in the rule of life, both economical and political, be not looked into and reformed, we have looked so long upon the blaze that Zuinglius and Calvin have beaconed up to us, that we are stark blind. There be who perpetually complain of schisms and sects, and make it such a calamity that any man dissents from their maxims. It is their own pride and ignorance which causes the disturbing, who neither will hear with meekness, nor can convince, yet all must be suppressed which is not found in their Syntagma. They are the tremblers, they are the dividers of unity, who neglect and permit not others to unite those dissevered pieces which are yet wanting to the body of truth. To be still searching what we know not, by what we know, still closing up truth to truth as we find it, (for all her body is homogeneal and proportional,) this is the golden rule in theology as well as in arithmetic, and makes up the best harmony in a Church ; not the forced and outward union of cold, and neutral, and inwardly-divided minds." PART I. THE EXISTENCE OF MORAL EVIL, OR SIN, CONSISTENT WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. What Time this World's great Workmaist >,r did cass, To make all things such as we now behold, It seems that he before his eyes had plast A goodly patterne, to whose perfect mould He fashion'd them as comely as he could, That now so fair and seemly they appear, As naught may be amended anywhere. That wondrous patterne, wheresoe'er it be, Whether in earth laid up in secret store, Or else in heav'n, that no man may it see With sinful eyes, for feare it to defltvre, Is perfect Beau;e. 8 A THEODICY PART I. CHAPTEK I. THE SCHEME uF NECESSITY DENIES THAT MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SIN. Ye, who live, Do so each cause refer to Heaven above, E'en as its motion, of necessity, Drew with it all that moves. If this were so, Free choice in you were none ; nor justice would There should be joy for virtue, woe for ill. DANTE. THE doctrine of necessity has been, in all ages of the world, the great stronghold of atheism. It is the mighty instrument with which the unbeliever seeks to strip man of all accountability, and to destroy our faith and confidence in God, by tracing up the existence of all moral evil to his agency. "The opinion of necessity," says Bishop Butler, " seems to be the very basis in which infidelity grounds itself." It will not be denied that this opinion seems, at first view, to be inconsistent with the free agency and accountability of man, and that it appears to im- pair our idea of God by staining it with impurity. Hence it has been used, by the profligate and profane, to excuse men for their crimes. It is against this use of the doctrine that we in- tend to direct the force of our argument. But here the question arises : Can we refute the argument against the accountability of man, without attacking the doc- trine on which it is founded ? If we can meet this argument at all, it must be either by showing that no such consequence flows from the scheme of necessity, or by showing that the scheme itself is false. "We cannot meet the sceptic, who seeks 3 34 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, to excuse his sins, and to cast dishonour on God, and expose his sophistry, unless we can show that his premises are unsound, or that his conclusions are false. We must do the one or the other of these two things ; or, whatever we may think of his moral sensibility, we must acknowledge the superiority of his reason and logic. After long and patient meditation on the subject, we have been forced to the conclusion, that the only way to repel the argument of the sceptic, and cause the intrin- sic lustre of man's free-agency to appear, is to unravel and ro.fute the doctrine of necessity. If we could preserve the scheme of necessity, and at the same time avoid the consequences in question, we may fairly con- clude that the means of doing so have been found by some of the illustrious advocates of that scheme. HOW T , then, do they vindicate their own system ? How do they repel the frightful consequences which infidelity deduces from it? This is the first question to be considered ; and the discussion of it will occupy the remainder of the present chapter. SECTION" I. The attempts of Calvin and Luther to reconcile the scheme of necessity with the responsibility of man. Nothing can be more unjust than to bring, as has often been done, the unqualified charge of fatalism against the great Pro- testant reformers. The manner in which this odious epithet is frequently used, applying it without discrimination to the bright- est ornaments and to the darkest specimens of humanity, is cal- culated to engender far more heat than light. Indeed, under this very ambiguous term, three distinct schemes of doctrine, widely different from each other, are set forth ; schemes which every can- did inquirer after truth should be careful to distinguish. The first is that scheme of fatalism which rests on the fundamental idea that there is nothing in the universe besides matter and local mo- tion. This doctrine, of course, denies the spirituality of the Divine Being, as w r ell as of all created souls, and strikes a fatal blow at the immutability of moral distinctions. It is unneces- sary to say, that in such a sense of the word, neither Calvin nor Luther can be justly accused of fatalism ; as it is well known that both of them maintained the spirituality of God, as well a& the reality of moral distinctions prior to all human laws. Chapter 1.) WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 35 The second scheme of fatalism rises above the first in point of dignity and purity of character. It proceeds on the idea that all things in heaven and earth are bound together by " an implexed series and concatenation of causes:" it admits the existence of God, it is true, but yet it regards him as merely the greatest and brightest link in the adamantine universal chain of necessity. According to this scheme, as well as to the former, the very idea of moral liberty is inconceivable and impossible. This portentous scheme was perfectly understood and expressly repudiated by Calvin. In reference to this doctrine, which was maintained by the ancient Stoics, he says : " That dogma is falsely and maliciously charged upon us. For we do not, with the Stoics, imagine a necessity arising from a perpetual con- catenation and intricate series of causes contained in nature ; but we make God the Arbiter and Governor of all things, who, in his own wisdom, has, from all eternity, decreed w^hat he would do, and now by his own power executes what he decreed." Here we behold the nature of the third scheme, which has been included under the term fatalism. It recognises God as the great central and all-controlling power of the universe. It does not deny the possibility of liberty ; for it recognises its actual existence in the Divine Being. " If the divine w r ill," says Calvin, " has any cause, then there must be something ante- cedent, on which it depends ; which it is impious to suppose." According to Calvin, it is the uncaused divine will which makes the " necessity of all things." He frequently sets forth the doctrine, that, from all eternity, God decreed whatever should come to pass, not excepting, but expressly including, the de- liberations and " volitions of men," and by his own power now executes his decree. As we do not w r ish to use opprobrious names, we shall characterize these three several schemes of doc- trine by the appellations given to them by their advocates. The first we shall call, " materialistic fatalism ;" the second, " Stoical fatalism ;" and the third we shall designate by the term, " ne- cessity" "Widely as these schemes may differ in other respects, they have one feature in common : they all seem to bear wdth equal stringency on the human will, and deprive it of that freedom which is now conceded to be indispensable to render men ac- countable for their actions. If our volitions be produced by a 36 MOKAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, series of causes, according to the Stoical notion of fate, or by the omnipotence of God, they would seem to be equally neces- sitated and devoid of freedom. Hence, in attacking one of these schemes at this point, we really attack them all. We shall first consider the question, then, How does Calvin attempt to reconcile his doctrine with the accountability of man ? How does he show, for example, that the first man was guilty and justly punishable for a transgression in which he succumbed to the divine omnipotence ? If a man is really laid under a necessity of sinning, it would certainly seem impossible to conceive that he is responsible for his sins. Nay, it would not only seem impossible to conceive this, but it would also appear very easy to understand, that he could not be responsible for them. In order to remove this difficulty, and repel the attack of his opponents, Calvin makes a distinction between " co-action and necessity." " ]STow, when I assert," says he, " that the will, being deprived of its liberty, is necessarily drawn or led into evil, I should wonder if any one considered it as a harsh expression, since it has nothing in it absurd, nor is it unsanctioned by the custom of good men. It offends those who know not how to distinguish between necessity and compulsion."* Let us see, then, what is this distinction between necessity and compulsion, or co-action, (as Calvin sometimes calls it,) which is to take off all appear- ance of harshness from his views. "We are not to imagine that this is a distinction without a difference ; for, in truth, there is no distinction in philosophy which may be more easily made, or more clearly apprehended. It is this : Suppose a man w r ills a particular thing, or external action, and it is pre- vented from happening by any outward restraint ; or suppose he is unwilling to do a thing, and he is constrained to do it against his will ; he is said to labour under compulsion or co- action. Of course he is not accountable for the failure of the consequence of his will in the one case, nor for the consequence of the force imposed on his body in the other. This kind of necessity is called co-action by Calvin and Luther ; it is usually denominated " natural necessity " by Edwards and his followers ; though it is also frequently termed compulsion, or co-action, by them. Institutes, b. ii, c. iii. Chapter L] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 37 Tliis natural necessity, or co-action, it is admitted on all hands, destroys accountability for external conduct, wherever it ob- tains. Indeed, if a man is compelled to do a thing against his will, this is not, properly speaking, his act at all ; nor is it an omission of his, if he wills to do a thing, and is necessarily pre- vented from doing it by external restraint. But it should be observed that natural necessity, or co-action, reaches no deeper than the external conduct; and can excuse for nothing else. As it does not influence the will itself, so it cannot excuse for acts of the will. Indeed, it presupposes the existence of a volition, or act of the will, whose natural consequences it coun- teracts and overcomes. Hence, if the question were Is a man accountable for his external actions, that is, for the motions of his body, we might speak of natural necessity, or co-action, with propriety ; bat not so when the question relates to internal acts of the will. All reference to natural necessity, or co-action, in relation to such a question, is wholly irrelevant. No one doubts, and no one denies, that the motions of the body are controlled by the volitions of the mind, or by some external force. The advocates for the inherent activity and freedom of the mind, do not place them in the external sphere of matter, in the passive and necessitated movements of body : they seek not the living among the dead. But to do justice to these illustrious men, they did not attempt, as many of their followers have done, to pass off this freedom from external co-action for the freedom of the will. Indeed, neither of them contended for the freedom of the will at all, nor deemed such freedom requisite to render men accountable for their actions. This is an element which has been wrought into their system by the subsequent progress of human knowl- edge. Luther, it is well known, so far from maintaining the freedom of the mind, wrote a work on the " Bondage of the Human Will," in reply to Erasmus. " I admit," says he, " that man's will is free in a certain sense ; not because it is now in the same state it was in paradise, but because it was made free originally, and may, through God's grace, 'become so again"* And Calvin, in his Institutes, has written a chapter to show that "man, in his present state, is despoiled of freedom of will, and subjected to a miserable slavery." He " was endowed c Scott's Luther and Ref., vol. i, pp. 70, 71. 38 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part 1, with free will," says Calvin, " by which, if he had chosen, he might have obtained eternal life."* Thus, according to both Luther and Calvin, man was by the fall despoiled of the free- dom of the will. Though they allow a freedom from co-action, they repudiate the idea of calling this a freedom of the will. " Lombard at length pronounces," says Calvin, "that we are not therefore possessed of free-will, because we have an equal power to do or to think either good or evil, but only because we are free from constraint. And this liberty is not diminished, although we are corrupt, and slaves of sin, and capable of doing nothing but sin. Then man will be said to possess free-will in this sense, not that he has an equally free election of good and evil, but because he does evil voluntarily, and not by con- straint. That indeed, is true ; but what end could it answer to deck out a thing so diminutive with a title so superb ?"f Truly, if Lombard merely meant by the freedom of the will, for which he contended, a freedom from external restraint, or co-action, Calvin might well contemptuously exclaim, " Egregious liberty !" It w r as reserved for a later period in the history of the Church to deck out this diminutive thing with the superb title of the freedom of the will, and to pass it off for the highest and most glorious liberty of which the human mind can form any conception. Ilobbes, it will be hereafter seen, was the first w r ho, either designedly or unde- signedly, palmed off this imposture upon the world. It is a remarkable fact, in the history of the human mind, that the most powerful and imposing arguments used by the early reformers to disprove the freedom of the will have been as confidently employed by their most celebrated followers to establish that very freedom on a solid basis. It is well known, for example, that Edwards, and many other great men, have employed the doctrine of the foreknowledge of God to prove philosophical necessity, without which they conclude there can be no rational foundation for the freedom of the will. Yet, in former times, this very doctrine was regarded as the most for- midable instrument with which to overthrow and demolish that very freedom. Thus Luther calls the foreknowledge of God a thunderbolt to dash the doctrine of free-will into atoms. And Institutes, b. i, c. xv. t Ibid., b. ii, c. ii. t Ibid. Chapter LJ WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 39 who can forbear to agree with Luther so far as to say, that if the foreknowledge of God proves anything in opposition to the freedom of the will, it proves that it is under the most absolute and uncontrollable necessity ? It clearly seems, that if it proves anything in favour of necessity, it proves everything for which the most absolute necessitarian can contend. Accordingly, a distinguished Calvinistic divine has said, that if our volitions be foreseen, we can no more avoid them " than we can pluck the sun out of the heavens."* But though the reformers were thus, in some respects, more true to their fundamental principle than their followers have been, we are not to suppose that they are free from all incon- sistencies and self contradiction. Thus, if " foreknowledge is a thunderbolt" to dash the doctrine of free-will into atoms, it destroyed free-will in man before the fall as well as after. Hence the thunderbolt of Luther falls upon his own doctrine, that man possessed free-will in his primitive state, with as much force as it can upon the doctrine of his opponents. He is evi dently caught in the toils he so confidently prepared for his adversary. And how many of the followers of the great re- former adopt his doctrine, and wield his thunderbolts, without perceiving how destructively they recoil on themselves ! Though they ascribe free-will to man as one of the elements of his pris- tine glory, yet they employ against it in his. present condition arguments which, if good for anything, would despoil, not only man, but the whole universe of created intelligences nay, the great Uncreated Intelligence himself of every vestige and shadow of such a power. It is a wonderful inconsistency in Luther, that he should so often and so dogmatically assert that the doctrine of free-will falls prostrate before the prescience of God, and at the same time maintain the freedom of the divine will. If foreknowledge is incompatible with the existence of free-will, it is clear that the will of God is not free ; since it is on all sides conceded that all his volitions are perfectly foreseen by him. Yet in the face of this conclusion, which so clearly and so irresistibly follows from Luther's position, he asserts the freedom of the divine will, as if he were perfectly unconscious of the self-contradiction in which he is involved. " It now then follows," says he, " that Dick's Theology. 40 MOKAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part 1 free-will is plainly a divine term, and can be applicable to none but the Divine Majesty only."* . . . He even says, If free- will "be ascribed unto men, it is not more properly ascribed, than the divinity of God himself would be ascribed unto them ; which would be the greatest of all sacrilege. Wherefore, it becomes theologians to refrain from the use of this term altogether, whenever they wish to speak of human ability, and to leave it to be applied to God only."f And we may add, if they would apply it to God, it becomes them to refrain from all such arguments as would show even such an application of it to be absurd. In like manner, Calvin admits that the human soul possessed a free-will in its primitive state, but has been despoiled of it by the fall, and is now in bondage to a "miserable slavery." But if the necessity which arises from the power of sin over the will be inconsistent with its freedom, how are we to reconcile the freedom of the first man with the power exercised by the Almighty over the wills of all created beings ? So true it is, that the most systematic thinker, who begins by denying the truth, will be sure to end by contradicting himself. In one respect, as we have seen, Calvin differs from his fol- lowers at the present day ; the denial of free-will he regards as perfectly reconcilable with the idea of accountability. Al- though our volitions are absolutely necessary to us, although they may be produced in us by the most uncontrollable power in the universe, yet are we accountable for them, because they are our volitions. The bare fact that we will such and such a thing, without regard to how we come by the volition, is suf- ficient to render us accountable for it. We must be free from tin external co-action, he admits, to render us accountable for our external actions ; but not from an internal necessity, to ren- der us accountable for our internal volitions. But this does not seem to be a satisfactory reply to the difficulty in question. We ask, How a man can be accountable for his acts, for his voli- ions, if they are caused in him by an infinite power ? and we are told, Because they are his acts. This eternal repetition of the fact in which all sides are agreed, can throw no light on the point about which we dispute. We still ask, How can a man be responsible for an act, or volition, which is necessitated Bondage of the Will, sec. xxvi. | Chapter L] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 41 to arise in liis mind by Omnipotence ? If any one should reply, with Dr. Dick, that we do not know how he can be account- able for such an act, yet we should never deny a thing because we cannot see how it is; this would not be a satisfactory answer. For, though it is certainly the last weakness of the human mind to deny a thing, because we cannot see how it is ; yet there is a great difference between not being able to see Jww a thing is, and being clearly able to see that it cannot be anyhow at all, between being unable to see how two things agree together, and being able to see that two ideas are utterly repugnant to each other. Hence we mean to ask, that if a man's act be necessitated in him by an infinite, omnipotent power, over which he had, and could have, no possible control, can we not see that he cannot be accountable for it? We have no difficulty whatever in believing a mystery ; but when we are required to embrace what so plainly seems to be an ab- surdity, we confess that our reason is either weak enough, or strong enough, to pause and reluctate. SECTION II. The manner in which Holies, Collins, and others, endeavour to reconcile necessity with free and accountable agency. The celebrated philosopher of Malmsbury viewed all things as bound together in the relation of cause and effect ; and he was, beyond doubt, one of the most acute thinkers that ever advo- cated the doctrine of necessity. From some of the sentiments expressed towards the conclusion of " The Leviathan," which have, not without reason, subjected him to the charge of atheism, we may doubt his entire sincerity when he pretends to advo- cate the doctrine of necessity out of a zeal for the Divine Sove- reignty and the dogma of Predestination. If he hoped by this avowal of his design to propitiate any class of theologians, he must have been greatly disappointed ; for his speculations were universally condemned by the Christian world as atheistical in tlnjir tendency. This charge has been fixed upon him, in spite of his solemn protestations against its injustice, and his earnest endeavours to reconcile his scheme of necessity with the free- agency and accountability of man. "I conceive," says Ilobbes, "that nothing taketh beginning 42 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, from itself, but from the action of some other immediate agent without itself. And that therefore, when first a man hath an appetite or will to something, to which immediately before he had no appetite nor will, the cause of his will is not the will itself, but something else not in his own disposing ; so that it is out of controversy, that of voluntary actions the will is the neces- sary cause, and by this which is said, the will is also caused by other things whereof it disposeth not, it followeth, that volun- tary actions have all of them necessary causes, and therefore are necessitated." This is clear and explicit. There is no con- troversy, he truly says, that voluntary actions, that is, external actions proceeding from the will, are necessitated by the will. And as according to his postulate, the will or volition is also caused by other things of which it has no disposal, so they are also necessitated. In other words, external voluntary actions are necessarily caused by volitions, and volitions are necessarily caused by something else other than the will ; and consequently the chain is complete between the cause of volition and its effects. How, then, is man a free-agent? and how is he accountable for his actions? Hobbes has not left these questions unanswered ; and it is a mistake to suppose, as is too often done, that his argument in favour of necessity evinces a design to sap the foundations of human respon- sibility. He answers these questions precisely as they were answered by Luther and Calvin more than a hundred years before his time. In order to solve this great difficulty, and establish an agreement between necessity and liberty, he insists on the dis- tinction between co-action and necessity. Sir James Mackin- tosh says, that " in his treatise de Servo Arbitrio against Eras- mus, Luther states the distinction between co-action and neces- sity as familiar a hundred and fifty years before it was proposed by Hobbes, or condemned in the Jansenists."* According to his definition of liberty, it is merely a freedom from co-action, or ex- ternal compulsion. " I conceive liberty," says he, " to be rightly Progress of Ethical Philosophy, note 0. Indeed, this distinction appears quite as clearly in the writings of Augustine, as it does in those of Luther, or Calvin, or Hobbes. He repeatedly places our liberty and ability in this, that we can " keep the commandments if ive will," which is obviously a mere freedom from external co-action. See Part ii, ch. iv, sec. 2. Chapter L] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 43 defined in this manner : Liberty is the absence of all the impedi- ments to action that are not contained in the nature and intrinsical qualities of the agent : as for example, the water is said to de- scend freely, or to have liberty to descend by the channel of the river, because there is no impediment that way ; but not across, because the banks are impediments; and though the water cannot ascend, yet men never say it wants liberty to ascend, but the faculty or power, because the impediment is in the nature of the water and intrinsical." According to this definition, though a man's volitions were thrown out, not by himself, but by some irresistible power working within his mind, say the power of the Almighty, yet he would be free, provided there were no impediments to prevent the external effects of his volitions. This is the liberty which water, im- pelled by the power of gravity, possesses in descending the channel of a river. It is the liberty of the winds and waves of the sea, which, by a sort of metaphor, is supposed to reign over the dominions of a mechanical and materialistic fate. It is the most idle of all idle things to speak of such a liberty, or rather, to use the word in such a sense, when the controversy relates to the freedom of the mind itself. What has such a thing to do with the origin of human volitions, or the nature of. moral agency? Is there no difference between the motion of the body and the action of mind ? Or is there nothing in the uni- verse of God but mere body and local motion ? If there is not, then, indeed, we neither have nor can conceive any higher liberty than that which the philosopher is pleased to allow us to possess ; but if there be mind, then there may be things in heaven and earth which are not dreamed of in his philosophy. The definition which Collins, the disciple of Hobbes, has given of liberty, is the same as that of his master. " I contend," says he, " for liberty, as it signifies a power in man to do as he wills or pleases." The doing here refers to the external action, which, properly speaking, is not an act at all, but merely a change of state in the body. The body merely suffers a change of place and position, in obedience to the act of the vi ill ; it does not act, nor can it act, because it is passive in its nature. To do as one wills, in this sense, is a freedom of the body from co-action ; it is not a freedom of the will from internal neces- sity. Collins says this is " a valuable liberty," and he says 44 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, truly ; for if one were thrown into prison, he could not go wherever he might please, or do as he might will. But the imprisonment of the body does not prevent a man from being a free-agent. He also tells us truly, that " many philosophers and theologians, both ancient and modem, have given defini- tions of liberty that are consistent with fate and necessity " But then, their definitions, like his own, had no reference to the acts of the mind, but to the motions of the body ; and it is a grand irrelevancy, we repeat, to speak of such a thing, when the question relates, not to the freedom of the body, but the freedom of the mind. Calvin truly says, that to call this exter- nal freedom from co-action or natural necessity a freedom of the will, is to decorate a most diminutive thing with a superb title ; but the philosopher of Malmsbury, and his ingenious dis- ciple, seem disposed to confer the high-sounding title and empty name on us, in order to reconcile us to the servitude and chains in which they have been pleased to bind us. This idea of liberty, common to Hobbes and Collins, which Mackintosh says w r as familiar to Luther and Calvin at least a hundred and thirty years before, is in reality of much earlier origin. It was maintained by the ancient Stoics, by whom it is as clearly set forth as by Ilobbes himself. The \vell-known illustration of the Stoic Chrysippus, so often mentioned by Leib- nitz and others, is a proof of the correctness of this remark : " Suppose I push against a heavy body," says he : " if it be square, it will not move ; if it be cylindrical, it will. "What the difference of form is to the stone, the difference of disposition is to the mind." Tims his notion of freedom was derived from matter, and supposed to consist in the absence of friction ! The idea of liberty thus deduced from that which is purely and per- fectly passive, from an absolutely necessitated state of body, was easily reconciled by him with his doctrine of fate. Is it not strange that Mr. Hazlitt, after adopting this defini- tion of liberty, should have supposed that he allowed a real freedom to the will ? "I prefer exceedingly," says he, " to the modern instances of a couple of billiard-balls, or a pair of scales, the illustration of Chrysippus." We cannot very well see, how the instance of a cylinder is so great an improvement on that of a billiard-ball ; especially as a sphere, and not a cylinder, is free to move in all directions. Chapter L] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 45 The truth is, we must quit the region of dead, inert, passive matter, if we would form an idea of the true meaning of the term liberty, as applied to the activity of living agents. Mr. 1 Fazlitt evidently loses himself amid the ambiguities of language, when he says, that " I so far agree with Hobbes and differ from Locke, in thinking that liberty, in the most extended and ab- stracted sense, is applicable to material as well as voluntary agents" Still this very acute writer makes a few feeble and ineffectual efforts to raise our notion of the liberty of moral agents above that given by the illustration of Chrysippus in Cicero. " My notion of a free agent, I confess," says he, " is not that represented by Mr. Hobbes, namely, one that when all things necessary to produce the effect are present, can never- theless not produce it ; but I believe a free-agent of whatever kind is one which, where all things necessary to produce the effect are present, can produce it ; its own operation not being hindered by anything else. The body is said to be free when it has the power to obey the direction of the will ; so the will may be said to be free when it has the power to obey the dic- tates of the understanding."* Thus the liberty of the will is made to consist not in the denial that its volitions are produced, but in the absence of impediments which might hinder its operations from taking effect. This idea of liberty, it is evi- dent, is perfectly consistent with the materialistic fatalism of Hobbes, which is so much admired by Mr. Hazlitt. SECTION III. The sentiments of Descartes, Spinoza, and MalebrancTie, concerning the rela- tion between liberty and necessity. No one was ever more deeply implicated in the scheme of necessity than Descartes. "Mere philosophy," says he, "is enough to make us know that there cannot enter the least thought into the mind of man, but God must will and have willed from all eternity that it should enter there." His argu- ^_ ment in proof of this position is short and intelligible. " God," says he, " could not be absolutely perfect if there could happen anything in this world which did not spring entirely from him." Hence it follows, that it is inconsistent with the absolute per- c Literary Remains, p. 65. 46 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, fections of God to suppose that a being created by him could put forth a volition which does not spring entirely from him, and not even in part from the creature. Yet Descartes is a warm believer in the doctrine of free- will. On the ground of reason, he believes in an absolute pre- destination of all things ; and yet he concludes from experience that man is free. If we ask how these things can hang to- gether, he replies, that we cannot tell ; that a solution of this difficulty lies beyond the reach of the human faculties. Now, it is evident, that reason cannot "make us know" one thing, and experience teach another, quite contrary to it ; for no two truths can ever contradict each other. Those who adopt this mode of viewing the subject, generally remind us of the feeble- ness of human reason, and of the necessary limits to all human speculation. Though, as disciples of Butler, we are deeply im- pressed with these truths, yet, as disciples of Bacon, we do not intend to despair until we can discover some good and sufficient reason for so doing. It seems to us, that the reply of Leibnitz to Descartes, already alluded to, is not without reason. "It might have been an evidence of humility in Descartes," says he, " if he had confessed his own inability to solve the difficulty in question ; but not satisfied with confessing for himself, he does so for all intelligences and for all times." But, after all, Descartes has really endeavoured to solve the problem which he declared insoluble ; that is, to reconcile the infinite perfections of God with the free-agency of man. lie struggles to break loose from this dark mystery ; but, like the charmed bird, he struggles and flutters in vain, and finally yields to its magical influence. In his solution, this great luminary of science, like others before him, seems to suffer a sad eclipse. " Before God sent us into the world," says he, " he knew exactly what all the inclinations of our wills would be ; it is he that has implanted them in us ; it is he also that ha& disposed all things, so that such or such objects should present themselves to us at such or such times, by means of which lie has known that our free-will would determine us to such or such actions, and he has willed thai it should be so ; ~but lie hat> not willed to constrain us thereto" This is found in a letter to the Princess Elizabeth, for whose benefit he endeavoured to reconcile the liberty of man with the perfections of God. It Chapter!.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 47 brings us back to the old distinction between necessity and co-action. God brings our volitions to pass ; lie wills them ; they " spring entirely from him ;" but we are nevertheless free, because he constrains not our external actions, or compels us to do anything contrary to our wills ! We cannot suppose, how- ever, that this solution of the problem made a very clear or deep impression on the mind of Descartes himself, or he would not, on other occasions, have pronounced every attempt at the solution of it vain and hopeless. In his attempt to reconcile the free-agency of man with the divine perfections, Descartes deceives himself by a false analogy. Thus he supposes that a monarch "who has forbidden duelling, and who, certainly knowing that two gentlemen will fight, if they should meet, employs infallible means to bring them to- gether. They meet, they light each other : their disobedience of the laws is an effect of their free-w T ill ; they are punishable." " What a king can do in such a case," he adds, " God w r ho has an infinite power and prescience, infallibly does in relation to all the actions of men." But the king, in the supposed case, does not act on the minds of the duellists ; their disposition to disobey the laws does not proceed from him ; whereas, accord- ing to the theory of Descartes, nothing enters into the mind of man which does not spring entirely from God. If we sup- pose a king, who has direct access to the mind of his subject, like God, and who employs his power to excite therein a mur- derous intent or any other particular disposition to disobey the law, we shall have a more apposite representation of the divine agency according to the theory of Descartes. Has anything ever been ascribed to the agency of Satan himself which could more clearly render him an accomplice in the sins of men ? From the bosom of Cartesianism two systems arose, one in principle, but widely different in their developments and ulti- mate results. WQ allude to the celebrated schemes of Spinoza and Malebranche. Both set out with the same exaggerated view of the sublime truth that God is all in all ; and each gave a diverse development to this fundamental position, to this cen- tral idea, according as the logical faculty predominated over the moral, or the moral faculty over the logical. Father Male- branche, by a happy inconsistency, preserved the great moral interests of the world against the invasion of a remorseless logic. 48 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, Spinoza, on the contrary, could follow out his first principle almost to its last consequence, even to the entire extinction of the moral light of the universe, and the enthronement of "blind power, with as little concern, with as profound composure, as if he were merely discussing a theorem in the mathematics. " All things," says he, " determined to such and such actions, are determined by God ; and, if God determines not a thing to act, it cannot determine itself."* From this proposition he drew the inference, that things which are produced by God. could not have existed in any other manner, nor in any other order, f Thus, by the divine power, all things in heaven and earth are bound together in the iron circle of necessity. It required no great logical foresight to perceive that this doctrine shut all real liberty out of the created universe ; but it did require no little moral firmness, or very great moral insensi- bility, to declare such a consequence with the unflinching auda- city which marks its enunciation by Spinoza. He repeatedly declares, in various modes of expression, that " the soul is a spiritual automaton," and possesses no such liberty as is usually ascribed to it. All is necessary, and the very notion of a free- will is a vulgar prejudice. "All I have to say," he coolly remarks, "to those who believe that they can speak or keep silence in one word, can act by virtue of a free decision of the soul, is, that they dream with their eyes open.";]: Though he thus boldly denies all free-will, according to the common notion of mankind ; yet, no less than Hobbes and Collins, he allows that the soul possesses " a sort of liberty." " It is free," says he, in the act of affirming that " two and two are equal to four ;" thus finding the freedom of the soul which he is pleased to allow the world to possess in the most perfect type of neces- sity it is possible to conceive. But Spinoza does not employ this idea of liberty, nor any other, to show that man is a responsible being. This is not at all strange ; the wonder is, that after having demonstrated that " the prejudice of men concerning good and evil, merit and demerit, praise and blame, order and confusion, beauty and deformity," are nothing but dreams, he should have felt bound to defend the position, that we may be justly punished for our ** Ethique, premiere partie, prop. xxvi. f Ibid., prop, xxxiv. J EtJiique, Des Passions, prop, ii and Scholium. Chapter I.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GODJ offences by the Supreme Ruler of the world. Hi's -defence of this doctrine we shall lay before the reader without a word of comment. " Will you say," he replies to Oldenburg, " that God cannot be angry with the wicked, or that all men are worthy of beat'tude? In regard to the first point, I perfectly agree that God cannot be angry at anything which happens according to his decree, but I deny that it results that all men ought to be happy ; for men can be excusable, and at the same time be deprived of beatification, and made to suffer a thousand ways. A horse is excusable for being a horse, and not a man ; but that prevents not that he ought to be a horse, and not a man. He who is rendered mad by the bite of a dog, is surely excusable, and yet we ought to constrain him. In like manner, the man who cannot govern his passions, nor restrain them by the fear of the laws, though excusable on account of the infirmity of his nature, can nevertheless not enjoy peace, nor the knowledge and the love of God ; and i^ is necessary that he should perish."* It was as difficult for Father Malebranche to restrain his indignation at the system of Spinoza, as it was for him to ex- pose its fallacy, after having admitted its great fundamental principle. This is well illustrated by the facts stated by M. Sais- set : " When Mairan," says he," still young, and having a strong passion for the study of the ' Ethique,' requested Malebranche to guide him in that perilous route ; we know with what urgency, bordering on importunity, he pressed the illustrious father to show him the weak point of Spinozism, the precise place where the rigour of the reasoning failed, the paralogism con- tained in the demonstration. Malebranche eluded the question, and could not assign the paralogism, after which Mairan so ear- nestly sought : ' It is not that the paralogism is in such o." such places of the Ethique, it is everywhere.'"! In this impa- tient judgment, Father Malebranche uttered more truth than lie could very well perceive ; the paralogism is truly everywhere, because this whole edifice of words, " this frightful chimera," is really assumed in the arbitrary definition of the term sub- stance. We might say with equal truth, that the fallacy of Malebran die's scheme is also everywhere ; for although it stops CEuvres de Spinoza, tome ii, 350. f Introduction to the " CEuvres de Spinoza," by M. Saisset. 4 50 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part 1, short of the consequences so sternly deduced by Spinoza, it sets out from the same distorted view of the sovereignty and domin- ion of God, from which those consequences necessarily flow. Spinoza, who had but few followers during his lifetime, has been almost idolized by the most celebrated savans of modern Germany. Whether this will ultimately add to the glory of Spinoza, or detract from that of his admirers, we shall leave the reader and posterity to determine. In the mean time, we shall content ourselves with a statement of the fact, in the language of M. Saisset : " Everything," says he, " appears extraordinary in Spinoza ; his person, his style, his philosophy ; but that which is more strange still, is the destiny of that philosophy among men. Badly known, despised by the most illustrious of his con- temporaries, Spinoza died in obscurity, and remained buried during a century. All at once his name reappeared with an extraordinary eclat ; his works were read with passion ; a new world was discovered in them, with a horizon unknown to our fathers ; and the god of Spinoza, which the seventeenth century had broken as an idol, became the god of Lessing, of Goethe, of Novalis." "The solitary thinker whom Malebranche called a wretch, Schleiermacher reveres and invokes as equal to a saint. That 4 systematic atheist,' on whom Bayle lavished outrage, has been for modern Germany the most religious of men. ' God-intoxi- cated,' as Novalis said, c he has seen the world through a thick cloud, and man has been to his troubled eyes only a fugitive mode of Being in itself.' In that system, in fine, so shocking and so monstrous, that ' hideous chimera,' Jacobi sees the last word of philosophy, Schelling the presentiment of the true philosophy." SECTION IV. The views of LocTce, TucJcer, Hartley, Priestley, ffelvetius, and JDiderot, with respect to the relation between liberty and necessity. Locke, it is well known, adopted the notions of free-agency given by Hobbes. "In this," says he, "consists freedom, viz., in our being able to act or not to act, according as we shall choose or will."* And this notion of liberty, consisting in a Book ii, chapters 21, 27. Chapter L] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 51 freedom from external co-action, has received an impetus and currency from the influence of Locke which it would not other- wise have obtained. Neither Calvin nor Luther, as we have seen, pretended to hold it up as the freedom of the will. This was reserved for Hobbes and his immortal follower, John Locke, who has, in his turn, been copied by a host of illustrious disciples who would have recoiled from the more articulate and consistent development of this doctrine by the philosopher of Malmsbury. It is only because Locke has enveloped it in a cloud of inconsistencies that it has been able to secure the ven- eration of the great and good. It is remarkable, that although Locke adopted the definition of free-will given by Hobbes, and which the latter so easily reconciled with the omnipotence and omniscience of God ; yet he expressly declares that he had found it impossible to recon- cile those attributes in the Divine Being with the free-agency of man. Surely no such difficulty could have existed, if his definition of free-agency, or free-will, be correct ; for although omnipotence itself might produce our volitions, we might still be free to act, to move in accordance with our volitions. But the truth is, there was something more in Locke's thoughts and feelings, in the inmost working of his nature, with respect to moral liberty, than there was in his definition. The inconsist- ency and fluctuation of his views on this all-important subject are fully reflected in his chapter on power. Both in Great Britain and France, the most illustrious suc- cessors of Locke soon delivered themselves from his incon- sistencies and self-contradictions. Hartley was not in all re- spects a follower of Locke, it is true, though he admitted his definition of free-agency. u It appears to me," says Hartley, " that all the most complex ideas arise from sensation, and that reflection is not a distinct source, as Mr. Locke makes it." By this mutilation of the philosophy of Locke, it was reduced back to that dead level of materialism in which Hobbes had left it,, and from which the former had scarcely endeavoured to raise it. Hence arose the rigid scheme of necessity, for which Hartley is so zealous an advocate. In reading his treatise on the " Mechanism of the Human Mind," we are irresistibly com- pelled to feel the conviction that the only circumstance which prevents the movements of the soul from being subjected to 52 MORAL EVII CONSISTENT [Part 1, mathematical calculation, and made a branch of dynamics, is the want of a measure of the force of motives. If this want were supplied, then the philosophy of the mind might be, ac- cording to his view of its nature and operations, con verted into a portion of mechanics. Yet this excellent man did not im- agine for a moment that he upheld a scheme which is at war with the great moral interests of the world. He supposes it is no matter how we come by our volitions, provided our bodies be left free to obey the impulses of the will ; this is amply suf- ficient to render us accountable for our actions, and to vindicate the moral government of God. Tims did he fall asleep with a specious, but most superficial dream of liberty, which has no more to do with the real question concerning the moral agency of man than if it related to the winds of heaven or to the waves of the sea. Accordingly this is the view of liberty which he repeatedly holds up as all-sufficient to secure the great moral interest of the human race. His great disciple, Dr. Priestley, pursues precisely the same course. " If a man," says he, " be wholly a material being, and the power of thinking the result of a certain organization of the brain, does it not follow that all his functions must be regulated by the laws of mechanism, and that of consequence his actions proceed from an irresistible necessity?" And again, he ob- serves, " the doctrine of necessity is the immediate result of the materiality of man, for mechanism is the undoubted consequence of materialism."* Priestley, however, allows us to possess free- will as defined by Hobbes, Locke, and Hartley. Helvetius himself could easily admit such a liberty into his unmitigated scheme of necessity, but he did not commit the blunder of Locke and Hartley, in supposing that it bore on the great question concerning the freedom of the mind. "It is true," he says, " w r e can form a tolerably distinct idea of the word liberty, understood in its common sense. A man is fret who is neither loaded with irons nor confined in prison, nor in- timidated like the slave with the dread of chastisement : in this sense the liberty of man consists in the free exercise of his power ; I say, of his power, because it would be ridicule us to mistake for a want of liberty the incapacity we are under to pierce the clouds like the eagle, to live under the water like the Disquisitions and Introduction, p. 5. Chapter!.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 53 whale, or to become king, emperor, or pope. "We have so far a sufficiently clear idea of the word. But this is no longer the case when we come to apply liberty to the will. What must this liberty then mean 2 We can only understand by it a free power of willing or not willing a thing : but this power would imply that there may be a will without motives, and conse- quently an effect without a cause. A philosophical treatise on the liberty of the will would be a treatise of effects without a cause."* In like manner, Diderot had the sagacity to perceive that the idea of liberty, as defined by Locke, did not at all come into conflict with his portentous scheme of irreligion, which had grounded itself on the doctrine of necessity. Having pro- nounced the .term liberty, as applied to the will, to be a word without meaning, he proceeds to justify the infliction of punish- ment on the same grounds on which it is vindicated by Hobbes and Spinoza. " But if there is no liberty," says he, " there is no action that merits either praise or blame, neither vice nor virtue, nothing that ought to be either rewarded or punished. What then is the distinction among men ? The doing of good and the doing of evil ! The doer of ill is one who must be destroyed, not punished. The doer of good is lucky, not virtu- ous. But though neither the doer of good nor of ill be free, mar is, nevertheless, a being to be modified ; it is for this reason the doer of ill should be destroyed upon the scaffold. From thence the good effects of education, of pleasure, of grief, of grandeur, of poverty, &c. ; from thence a philosophy full of pity, strongly attached to the good, nor more angry with the wicked than with the whirlwind which fills one's eyes with dust." " Adopt these principles if you think them good, or show me that they are bad. If you adopt them, they will reconcile you too with others and with yourself: you will neither be pleased nor angry with yourself for being what you are. Reproach others for nothing, and repent of nothing, this is the first step to wisdom. Besides this all is prejudice and false philosophy." Though these consequences irresistibly flow from the doctrine of necessity, yet the injury resulting from them would be far less if they were maintained only by such men as Helvetius and Diderot. It is when such errors receive the sanction of Helvetius on the Mind, p. 44. M MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT {Part 1, Christian philosophers, like Hartley and Leibnitz, and are rec- ommended to the human mind by a pious zeal for the glory of God, that they are apt to obtain a frightful currency and be- come far more desolating in their effects. "The doctrine of necessity," says Hartley, "has a tendency to abate all resent- ment against men: since all they do against us is by the ap- pointment of God, it is rebellion against him to be offended with them" SECTION v. The manner in which Leibnitz endeavours to reconcile liberty and necessity. Leibnitz censures the language of Descartes, in which he ascribes all the thoughts and volitions of men to God, and com- plains that he thereby shuts out free-agency from the world. It becomes a very curious question, then, how Leibnitz himself, who was so deeply implicated in the scheme of necessity, has been able to save the great interests of morality. He does not, for a moment, call in question "the great demonstration from cause and effect " in favour of necessity. It is well known that he has more than once compared the human mind to a balance, in w T hich reasons and inclinations take the place of weights ; he supposes it to be just as impossible for the mind to depart from the direction given to it by " the determining cause," as it is for a balance to turn in opposition to the influence of the greatest weight. Nor is he pleased with Descartes's appeal to consciousness to prove the doctrine of liberty. In reply to this appeal, he says : "The chain of causes connected one with another reaches very far. Wherefore the reason alleged by Descartes, in order to prove the independence of our free actions, by a pretended vigorous internal feeling, has no force.* We cannot, strictly speaking, feel our independence ; and we do not always per- ceive the causes, frequently imperceptible, on which our reso- lution depends. It is as if a needle touched with the loadstone were sensible of and pleased with its turning toward the north. '- Mr. Stewart says : " Dr. Hartley was, I believe, one of the first (if not the first) who denied that our consciousness is in favour of our free-agency." Stewart's Works, vol. v, Appendix. This is evidently a mistake. In the above passage, Leibnitz, with even more point than Hartley, denies that our conscious- ness is in favour of free-agency. Chapter L] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 55 For it would believe that it turned itself, independently of any other cause, not perceiving the insensible motions of the mag- netic matter."* Thus, he seems to represent the doctrine of liberty as a mere dream and delusion of the mind, and the iron scheme of necessity as a stern reality. Is it in the power of Leibnitz, then, any more than it was in that of Descartes, to reconcile such a scheme with the free-agency and accountability of man ? Let us hear him and determine. Leibnitz repudiates the notion of liberty given by Hobbes and Locke. In his "Nouveaux Essais sur L'Entendement Humain," a work in which he combats many of the doctrines of Locke, the insignificance of his idea of the freedom of the will is most clearly and triumphantly exposed. Philalethe, or the representative of Locke, says: ''Liberty is the power that a man has to do or not to do an action according to his will" Theophile, or the representative of Leibnitz, replies : " If men understood only that by liberty, when they ask whether the will is free, their question would be truly absurd." And again : " The question ought not to be asked," says Philalethe, " if the will is free : that is to speak in a very improper manner : but if man is free. This granted, I say that, when any one can, by the direction or choice of his mind, prefer the existence of one action to the non-existence of that action and to the contrary, that is to say, when he can make it exist or not exist, according to his will, then he is free. And we can scarcely see how it could l)e possible to conceive a being more free than one who is capable of doing what he wills." Theophile rejoins: "When we reason concerning the liberty of the will, we do not demand if the man can do what he wills, but if he has a sufficient inde- pendence in the will itself; we do not ask if he has free limbs or elbow-room, but if the mind is free, and in what that free- dom consists, "f . Essais de Theodicee, p. 99. f " Hobbes defines a free-agent," says Stewart, " to be 'he that can do if he will, and forbear if he will.' The same definition has been adopted by Leibnitz, by Collins, by Gravezende, by Edwards, by Bonnet, and by all later necessitari- ans." The truth is, as we have seen, that instead of adopting, Leibnitz has very clearly refuted, the definition of Hobbes. Mr. Harris, in his work entitled " The Primeval Man," has also fallen into the error of ascribing this definition of liberty to Leibnitz. Surely, these very learned authors must have forgotten, that Leib- nitz wrote a reply to Hobbes, in which he expressly combats his views of liberty. 56 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part i, Having thus exploded the delusive notion of liberty which Locke had borrowed from Hobbes, Leibnitz proceeds to take what seems to be higher ground. He expressly declares, that in older to constitute man an accountable agent, he must be free, not only from constraint, but also from necessity. In the adoption of this language, Leibnitz seems to speak with the ad- vocates of free-agency ; but does he think with them ? The sound is pleasant to the ear ; but what sense is it intended to convey to the mind? Leibnitz shall be his own interpreter. " All events have their necessary causes," says Hobbes. " Bad," replies Leibnitz : " they have their determining causes, by w r hich we can assign a reason for them ; but they have not necessary causes." Now does this signify that an event, that a volition, is not absolutely and indissolubly connected with its " determin- ing cause?" Is this the grand idea from which the light of liberty is to beam on a darkened and enslaved world ? By no means. We must indulge no fond hopes or idle dreams of the kind. Yolition is free from necessity, adds Leibnitz ; because u the contrary could happen without implying a contradiction" This is the signification which he attaches to his own language ; and it is the only meaning of which it is susceptible in accord- ance with his system. Thus, Leibnitz saw and clearly exposed the futility of speaking about a freedom from co-action or re- straint, when the question is, not whether the body is untram- melled, but whether the mind itself is free in the act of willing. But he did not see, it seems, that it is equally irrelevant to speak of a freedom from a mathematical necessity in such a connexion ; although this, as plainly as the other sense of the word, has no conceivable bearing on the point in dispute. If a volition were produced by the omnipotence of God, irresistibly acting on the human mind, still it would not be necessary, in the sense of Leibnitz, since it might and would have been dif- ferent if God had so willed it ; the contrary volition implying no contradiction. Is it not evident, that to suppose the mind may thus be bound to act, and yet be free because the contrary act implies no contradiction, is merely to dream of liberty, anc to mistake a shadow for a substance ? As the opposite of a volition implies no contradiction, says Leibnitz, so it is free from an absolute necessity; that is to say, it might have, been different, nay, it must have been dif Chapter!.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 57 ferent, from what it is, provided its determining cause had been different. The same thing may be said of the motions of matter. "We may say that they are also free, because the oppo- site motions imply no contradiction ; and we only have to vary the force in order to vary the motion. Hence, freedom in this sense of the word is perfectly consistent with the absolute and uncontrolled dominion of causes over the will ; for what can be more completely necessitated than the motions of the body ? The demand of his own nature, which so strongly impelled Leibnitz to seek and cling to the freedom of the mind, as the basis of moral and accountable agency, could not rest satisfied with so unsubstantial a shadow. After all, he has felt con- strained to have recourse to the hypothesis of a preestablished harmony in order to restore, if possible, the liberty which his scheme of necessity had banished from the universe. It is no part of our intention to examine this obsolete fiction ; we merely wish to show how essential Leibnitz regarded it to a solution of the difficulty under consideration. " I come now," says he, u to show how the action of the will depends on causes ; that there is nothing so agreeable to human nature as this depend- ence of our actions, and that otherwise we should fall into an absurd and insupportable fatality ; that is to say, into the Mo- hammedan fate, which is the worst of all, because it does away with foresight and good counsel. However, it is well to explain how this dependency of our voluntary actions does not prevent that there may be at the bottom of things a marvellous spon- taneity in us, which in a certain sense renders the mind, in its resolutions, independent of the physical influence of all other creatures. This spontaneity, lut little known hitherto, which raises our empire over our actions as much as it is possible, is a consequence of the system of pre established harmony" Thus, in order to satisfy himself that our actions are really free and independent of the physical influence of other creatures, lie has recourse to a fiction in which few persons ever concurred with him, and which is now universally regarded as one of the vaga- ries and dreams of philosophy. If we are to be saved from an insupportable fate only by such means, our condition must indeed be one of forlorn hopelessness. Before we take leave of Leibnitz, there is one view of the difficulty in question which we wish to notice, not because it is 58 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, peculiar to him, but because it is very clearly stated and con- fidently relied on by him. It is common to most of the advo- cates of necessity, and it is exceedingly imposing in its appear- ance and effect. " Men of all times," says he, " have been troubled by a sophism, which the ancients called the 'rohon paresseusej because it induces them to do nothing, or at least to concern themselves about nothing, and to follow only the present inclination to pleasure. For, say they, if the future is necessary, that which is to happen will happen whatever I may do. But the future, say they, is necessary, either because the Divinity foresees all things, and even preestablishes them in governing the universe ; or because all things necessarily come to pass by a concatenation of causes."* Leibnitz illustrated the fallacy of this reasoning in the following manner : " By the same reason (if it is valid) I could say If it is WTitten in the archives of fate, that poison will kill me at present, or do me harm, this will happen, though I should not take it ; and if that is not written, it will not happen, though I should take it ; and, consequently, I can follow my inclination to take whatever is agreeable with impunity, however pernicious it may be ; which involves a manifest absurdity. . . . This objection staggers them a little, but they always come back to their reasoning, turned in different points of view, until we cause them to comprehend in what the defect of their sophism consists. It is this, that it is false that the event will happen whatever we may do ; it will happen, because we do that which leads to it ; and if the event is WTitten, the cause which will make it happen is also written. Thus the connexion (liaison) of effects and their causes, so far from establishing the doctrine of a necessity prejudicial to prac- tice, serves to destroy it."f The same reply is found more than once in the course of the same great work ; and it is employed by all necessitarians in defence of their system. But it is not a satisfactory answer. It overlooks the real difficulty in the case, and seeks to remove an imaginary one. The question is. not whether a necessary connexion between our volitions and their effects is a discouragement to practice, but whether a neces- sary connexion between our volitions and their causes is so. It is very true, that no man would be accountable for his exter- nal actions or their consequences, if there were no fixed relation Essais de Theodicee, pp. 5, 6. f I(I M P- 8 - Chapter L] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 59 between these and his volitions. If, when a man willed one thing, another should happen to follow which he did not will, of course he would not be responsible for it. And if there were no certain or fixed connexion between his external actions and their consequences, either as they affected himself or others, he certainly would not be responsible for those consequences. This connexion between causes and effects, this connexion between volitions and their consequences, is indispensable to our account- ability for such consequences. But for such a connexion, noth- ing could be more idle and ridiculous than to endeavour to do any- thing ; for we might will one thing, and another would take place. But must the same necessary connexion exist between the causes of our volitions and the volitions themselves, before we can be accountable for these volitions, for these effects ? This is the question. Leibnitz has lost sight of it, and deceived him- self by a false application of his doctrine. The doctrine of necessity, when applied to volitions and their effects, is indis- pensable to build up man's accountability for his external conduct and its consequences. But the same doctrine, when applied to establish a fixed and unalterable relation between the causes of volition and volition itself, really demolishes all responsibility for volition, and consequently for its external results. Leibnitz undertook to show that a necessary connexion between volition and its causes does not destroy man's account- ability for his volitions ; and he has shown, what no one ever doubted, that a necessary connexion between volition and its effects does not destroy accountability for those effects ! Strange as this confusion of things is, it is made by the most celebrated advocates of the doctrine of necessity ; which shows, we think, that the doctrine hardly admits of a solid defence. Thus Ed- wards, for example, insists that the doctrine of necessity is so far from rendering our endeavours vain and useless, that it is an indispensable condition or prerequisite to their success. In illustration of this point, he says : "Let us suppose a real and sure connexion between a man having his eyes open in the clear daylight, with good organs of sight, and seeing ; so that seeing is connected with opening his eyes, and not seeing with his not opening his eyes ; and also the like connexion between such a man attempting to open his eyes and his actually doing it : the supposed established connexion between these antecedents and 60 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT LPart L, consequents, let the connexion be never so sure arid necessary, certainly does not prove that it is in vain for a man in such circumstances to attempt to open his eyes, in order to seeing ; his aiming at that event, and the use of the means, being the effect of his will, does not break the connexion, or hinder the success." " So that the objection we are upon does not lie against the doctrine of the necessity of events by a certainty of connexion and consequence : on the contrary, it is truly forcible against the Arminian doctrine of contingence and self-determination, which is inconsistent with such a connexion. If there be no connexion between those events wherein virtue and vice con- sist, and anything antecedent ; then there is no connexion between these events and any means or endeavours used in order to them : and if so, then those means must be in vain. The less there is of connexion between foregoing things and fol- lowing ones, so much the less there is between means and end, endeavours and success ; and in the same proportion are means and endeavours ineffectual and in vain." In like manner, Dr. Chalmers, in his defence of the doctrine of necessity, has in all his illustrations confounded the con- nexion between a volition and its antecedent, with the relation between a volition and its consequent. To select one such illustration from many, it would be idle, says he, for a man to labour and toil after wealth, if there were no fixed connexion between such exertion and the accumulation of riches. We reply to all such illustrations, It is true, there must be a fixed connexion between our endeavours or voluntary exer- tions and their consequences, in order to render such endeavours or exertions of any avail, or to render us accountable for such consequences. But it should be forever borne in mind, thai the question is not whether a fixed connexion obtains between our volitions and their sequents, but whether a necessary con- nexion exists between our volitions and their antecedents. The question is, not whether the will be a power which is often fol- lowed by necessitated effects ; but whether there be a power behind the will by which its volitions are necessitated. And this being the question, what does it signify to tell us, th&t the will is a producing power? We deny that volitions and their antecedents are necessarily connected ; and our opponents re Chapter!.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 61 fute us by showing that volitions and their sequents are thus connected ! We deny that A and B are necessarily connected ; and this position is overthrown and demolished by showing that B and C are thus connected ! Is it not truly wonderful that such men as a Leibnitz, an Edwards, and a Chalmers, should, in their zeal to maintain a favourite dogma, commit so great an oversight, and so grievously deceive themselves ? SECTION VI. The attempt of Edwards to establish free and accountable agency on the basis of necessity The views of the younger Edwards, Day, Chalmers, Dick, D^Aubigne, Hill, Shaw, and M'Cosh, concerning the agreement of liberty and necessity. The great metaphysician of New-England insists, that his scheme, and his scheme alone, is consistent with the free- agency and accountability of man. But how does he show this ? Does he endeavour to shake the stern argument by which all things seem bound together in the relation of cause and effect ? Does he even intimate a doubt with respect to the perfect co- herency and validity of this argument? Does he once enter a protest against the doctrine of the Stoics, or of the materialistic fatalists, according to which all things in heaven and earth are involved in an "implex series of causes?" He does not. On the contrary, he has stated and enforced the great argument from cause and effect, in the strongest possible terms. He contends that volition is caused, not by the will nor the mind, but by the strongest motive. This is the cause of volition, and it is impossible for the effect to be loose from its cause. It is an inherent contradiction, a glaring absurdity, to say that mo- tive is the cause of volition, and yet admit that volition may, or may not, follow motive. This is to say, indeed, that motive is the cause, and yet that it is not the cause, of volition ; which is a contradiction in terms.* So far from saying anything, then, to extricate the volitions of men from the adamantine circle of necessity, he has exerted his prodigious energies to fasten them therein. Hence the question arises, Has he left any room for the in- troduction of that freedom of the mind, which it is the great object of his inquiry to establish upon its true foundations? Inquiry, part ii, sec. viii. 62 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT LPart 1, The liberty for which he contends, is, after all his labours, pre- cisely that advocated by Hobbes and Collins, and no other. It is a freedom from co-action, and not from necessity. But ho is entitled to speak for himself, and we shall permit him so to do : " The plain and obvious meaning of the word freedom and liberty," says he, " in common speech, is the power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one, has, to do as he pleases. Or, in other words, his being free from hinderance or impediment in the way of doing or conducting in any respect as he wills. And the contrary to liberty, whatever name we call it by, is a per- son being hindered, or unable to conduct as he will, or being necessitated to do otherwise." Here, it will be seen, that liberty, according to this notion of it, has no relation to the manner in which the will arises, or comes into existence; if one's external conduct can only follow his will, he is free. " There are two things," says he, " contrary to what is called liberty in common speech. One is constraint, otherwise called force, compulsion, and co-action' w T hich is a person being ne- cessitated to do a thing contrary to his will. The other is re- straint which is, his being hindered, and not having power to do according to his will. But that which has no will cannot be the subject of these things." This definition, it is plain, pre- supposes the existence of a volition ; and liberty consists in the absence of co-action. It has no relation to the question as to how we come by our volitions, whether they are put forth by the mind itself without being necessitated, or whether they are necessarily produced in us. It leaves this great fundamental question untouched. On this subject his language is perfectly explicit. There is nothing in Kames, nor Collins, nor Crombie, nor Hobbes, nor any other writer, more perfectly unequivocal. " But one tiling more," says he, " I would observe concerning what is vulgarly called liberty, namely, that power and opportunity for one to do and conduct as he will, or according to his choice, is all that is meant by it, without taking into the meaning of the word anything of the cause of that choice, or at all considering how the person came to have such a volition, or internal habit and bias; whether it was determined by some internal ante- cedent volition, or whether it happened without a cause; whether it were necessarily connected with something foregoing, Chapter I.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 63 or not connected. Let the person come by his choice any Iww, yet, if he is able, and there is nothing in the way to hinder his pursuing and executing his will, the man is perfectly free ac- cording to the primary and common notion of freedom" Now this is all the definition of liberty with which his " Inquiry " furnishes us ; and this, he says, is " sufficient to show what is meant by liberty, according to the common notion of mankind, and in the usual and primary acceptation of the word." It is easy to see, that there is no difficulty in reconciling liberty, in such a sense, with the most absolute scheme of ne- cessity or fatalism the world has ever seen. Let a man come by his volition ANY now ; let it be produced in him by the di- rect and almighty power of God himself; yet, "he is perfectly free," provided there is no external co-action to prevent his volition from producing its natural effects ! President Day is not pleased with the definition contained in the " Inquiry ;" and in this particular we think he has dis- covered a superior sagacity to Edwards. But his extreme anxiety to save the credit of his author has betrayed him, it seems to us, into an apology which will not bear a close ex- amination. "On the subject of liberty or freedom," says he, " which occupies a portion of the fifth section of Edwards's first book, he has been less particular than was to be expected, considering that this is the great object of inquiry in his work. His explanation of what he regards as the proper meaning of the term is applicable to the liberty of outward action, to what is called by philosophers external liberty." " This is very well as far as it goes. But the professed object of his book, accord- ing to the title-page, is an inquiry concerning the freedom of the will, not the freedom of the external conduct. We natu- rally look for his meaning of this internal liberty. "What he has said, in this section, respecting freedom of the will, has rather the appearance of evading such a definition of it as might be considered his own."* Now, is it possible that Presi- dent Edwards has instituted an inquiry into the freedom of the will, and written a great book in defence of it, and yet has evaded giving his own definition of it? If so, then he may have demolished the views of others on this subject, but he has certainly not established his own in their stead ; and hence, for Day's Examination of Edwards on the Will, sec. v, pp. 80, 81. t>4 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, aught we know, he really did not believe in the freedom of the will at all ; and, for all his work shows, there may be no such freedom. For how is it possible for any man to establish his views of the freedom of the will, if he is not at sufficient pains to explain his meaning of the terms, and forbears even to give his own definition of them ? But the truth is, the author of the " Inquiry " has placed il beyond all controversy, that he has been guilty of no such omission or evasion. He has left no room to doubt that the def- inition of liberty, which he says is in conformity " with the Common notion of mankind," is his own. He always uses this definition when he undertakes to repel objections against his scheme of necessity. " It is evident," he says, " that such a providential disposing and determining of men's moral actions, though it infers a moral necessity of those actions, yet it does not in the least infringe the real liberty of mankind, the only liberty that common sense teaches to be necessary to moral agency, which, AS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED, is not inconsistent with such necessity."* He defines liberty in the very words of Collins and Hobbes, to mean the power or opportunity any one has " to do as he pleases ;" or, in other words, to do " as he wills?\ This definition, he says, is according to the primary and com- mon notion of mankind ; and now he declares, that " this is the only liberty common sense teaches is necessary to moral agency." It is very strange that any one should have read the great work of President Edwards without perceiving that this is the sense in which he always uses the term when he undertakes to repel the attacks of his adversaries. To select only one instance out of many, he says, " If the Stoics held such a fate as is repug- nant to any liberty, consisting in our doing as we please, I ut- terly deny such a fate. If they held any such fate as is not consistent with the common and universal notions that mankind have of liberty, activity, moral agency, virtue, and vice, I dis- claim any such thing, and think I have demonstrated the scheme I maintain is no such scheme.":}: Thus he always has recourse to this definition of liberty, consisting in the power or oppor- tunity any one has "to do as he pleases," or, in other words, " as he wills," whenever he attempts to reconcile his doctrine with the moral agency and accountability of man, or to vindi- Inquiry, part iv, sec. 9. f Ibid. J Ibid., sec. 7. Chapter I.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 65 cate it against the attacks of his opponents. We must suppose then, that Edwards has given his own definition of liberty in the Inquiry, or we must conclude that he defended his system by the use of an idea of liberty which he did not believe to be coirect; that when he alleged that he "had demonstrated" his doctrine to be consistent with free-agency, he only meant with a false and atheistical notion of free-agency. We are not surprised that President Day does not like this definition of liberty; but we are somewhat surprised, we con- fess, that such an idea of liberty should be so unhesitatingly adopted from Edwards, and so confidently set forth as the highest conceivable notion thereof, by Dr. Chalmers. He does not seem to entertain the shadow of a doubt, either that the definition of liberty contained in the Inquiry is that of Ed- wards himself, or that which is fully founded in truth. He freely concedes, that " we can do as we please," and supposes that the reader may be startled to hear that tin's is " cordially admitted by the necessitarians themselves !" But this concession he easily reconciles with the tenet of necesr sity. " To say that you can do as you please," says he, " is just to affirm one of those sequences which take place in the phenom- ena of mind a sequence whereof a volition is the antecedent, and the performance of that volition is the consequent. It is a sequence which no advocate of the philosophical necessity is ever heard to deny. Let the volition ever be formed, and if it point to some execution which lies within the limits we have just adverted to, the execution of it will follow."* Thus, his notion of liberty makes it consist in the absence of external im- pediments, which might break the connexion of. a volition and its consequent, and not in the freedom of the will itself from the absolute dominion of causes. Such an idea of free-will, it must be confessed, is very well adopted by one who intends to maintain " a rigid and absolute predestination" of all events. The manner in which Edwards attempts to reconcile the freo- agenyy and accountability of man with the great argument from the law of causation, or with his doctrine of necessity, is, as we have seen, precisely the same as that adopted by Hobbes. There is not a shade of difference between them. It is, indeed, easy to demonstrate that liberty, according to this definition of Institutes of Theology, vol. ii, part iii, chap, i. 6 66 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, it, is not inconsistent with necessity; and it is just as easy to demonstrate, that it is not inconsistent with any scheme of fate that has ever been heard of among men. The will may be ab- solutely necessitated in all its acts, and yet the body may be free from external co-action or natural necessity ! But though there is this close agreement between Hobbea and Edwards, there are some points of divergency between Edwards and Calvin. The former comes forward as the advo- cate of free-will, the latter expressly denies that we have a free- will. Calvin admits that we may be free from co-action or compulsion ; but to call this freedom of the will, is, he con- siders, to decorate a most " diminutive thing with a superb title." And though this is all the freedom Edwards allows us to possess, yet he does not hesitate to declare that his doctrine is perfectly consistent with " the highest degree of liberty that ever could be thought of, or that ever could possibly enter into the heart of man to conceive." The only liberty we possess, according to all the authors re- ferred to, is a freedom of the body and not of the mind. Though the younger Edwards is a strenuous advocate of his father's doctrine, he has sometimes, without intending to do so, let fall a heavy blow upon it. lie finds, for instance, the fol- lowing language in the writings of Dr. West, " he might have omitted doing the thing if he would," and he is perplexed to ascertain its meaning. " To say that if a man had chosen not to go to a debauch, (for that is the case put by Dr. West,) he would, indeed, have chosen not to go to it, is too great trifling to be ascribed to Dr. West." " Yet to say," he continues, " that the man could have avoided the external action of going, &c., if he would, would be equally trifling ; for the question before us is concerning the liberty of the will or mind, and not the body." The italics are his own. It seems, then, that in the opinion of the younger Edwards it is very great trifling to speak of the power to do an external action in the present controversy, because it relates to the will w mind, and not to the body. Wo believe this remark to be perfectly just, and although it was aimed at the antagonist of President Ed\vards, it falls with crushing weight on the doctrine of President Edwards him- self. Is it not wonderful that so just a reflection did not occur to the younger Edwards, in relation to the definition Chapter I.I WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 67 of liberty contained in the great work he had undertaken to defend ? We have now seen how some of the early reformers, and some of the great thinkers in after-times, have endeavoured to reconcile the scheme of necessity with the free-agency and accountability of man. Before quitting this subject, however, we wish to adduce a remarkable passage from one of the most correct reasoners, as well as one of the most impressive writers that in modern times have advocated the doctrines of Calvinism. " Here we come to a question," says he, " which has engaged the attention, and exercised the ingenuity, and perplexed the wits of men in every age. If God has foreordained whatever comes to pass, the whole series of events is necessary, and human liberty is taken awaj. Men are passive instruments in the hands of their Maker ; they can do nothing but what they are secretly and irresistibly impelled to do ; they are not, there- fore, responsible for their actions ; and God is the author of sin." After sweeping away some attempts to solve this diffi- culty, he adds : " It is a more intelligible method to explain the subject by the doctrine which makes liberty consist in the power of acting according to the prevailing inclination, or the motive which appears strongest to the mind. Those actions are free which are the effects of volition. In whatever manner the state of mind which gave rise to volition has been produced, the liberty of the agent is neither greater nor less. It is his will alone which is to ~be considered, and not the means by which it has been determined. If God foreordained certain actions, and placed men in such circumstances that the actions would cer- tainly take place agreeably to the laws of the mind, men are nevertheless moral agents, because they act voluntarily and are responsible for the actions which consent has made their own. Liberty does not consist in the power of acting or not acting , ~but in acting from choice. The choice is determined by some- thing in the mind itself, or by something external influencing the mind ; but whatever is the cause, the choice makes the action free, and the agent accountable. If this definition of liberty be admitted, you will perceive that it is possible to reconcile thefreedorr* of the will with absolute decrees ; but tee have not got rid, of every difficulty" Now this definition of liberty, it is obvious, is precisely the same as that given by 68 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, President Edwards, and nothing could be more perfectly adapted to effect a reconciliation between the freedom of the will and the doctrine of absolute decrees. How perfectly it shapes the freedom of man to fit the doctrine of predestination ! It is a fine piece of workmanship, it is true ; but as the learned and candid author remarks, we must not imagine that we have "got rid of every difficulty." For, "Z>y this theory" he con- tinues, " human actions appear to ~be as necessary as the motions of matter according to the laws of gravitation and attraction and man seems to l>e a machine, conscious of his movements, and consenting to them, J)ut impelled by something different from himself"* Such is the candid confession of this devoted Calvinist. We have now seen the nature of that freedom of the will which the immortal Edwards has exerted all his powers to recommend to the Christian world ! " Egregious liberty !'' exclaimed Calvin. " It merely allows us elbow-room," says Leibnitz. " It seems, after all, to leave us mere machines," says Dick. " It is trifling to speak of such a thing," says the younger Edwards, in relation to the will. " Why, surely, this cannot be what the great President Edwards meant by the freedom of the will," says Dr. Day. He certainly must have evaded his own idea on that point. Is it not evident, that the house of the necessitarian is divided against itself ? Necessitarians not only refute each other, but in most cases each one contradicts himself. Thus the younger Edwards says, it is absurd to speak of a po\ver to act according to our choice, when the question relates, not to the freedom of the body, but to the freedom of the mind itself. He happens to see the absurdity of this mode of speaking when he finds it in his adver- sary, Dr. West ; and yet it is precisely his own definition of freedom. " But if by liberty," says he, " be meant a power of willing and choosing, an exemption from co-action and natural necessity, and power, opportunity, and advantage, to execute our own choice / in this sense we hold liberty."f Tims he returns to the absurd idea of free-will as consisting in " elbow- room," which merely allows our choice or volition to pass into effect. Dr. Dick is guilty of the same inconsistency. Though Lectures on Theology, by the late Rev. John Dick, D. D. f Dissertation, p. 41. Chapter L] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 69 lie admits, as we have seen, that this definition of liberty does not get rid of every difficulty, but seems to leave us mere "machines;" yet he has recourse to it, in order to reconcile the Calvinistic view of divine grace with the free-agency of man. "The great objection," says he, "against the invinci- bility of divine grace, is, that it is subversive of the liberty of the will."* But, he replies, " True liberty consists in doing what we do with knowledge and from choice" Yet as if unconscious that their greatest champions were thus routed and overthrown by each other, we see hundreds of minor necessitarians still fighting on with the same weapr as, perfectly unmindful of the disorder and confusion which reigns around them in their own ranks. Thus, for example, D'Au- bign says, " It were easy to demonstrate that the doctrine of the reformers did not take away from man the liberty of a moral agent, and reduce him to a passive machine." Now, how does the historian so easily demonstrate that the doctrine of necessity, as held by the reformers, does not deny the liberty of a moral agent ? Why, by simply producing the old effete notion of the liberty of the will, as consisting in freedom from co-action ; as if it had never been, and never could be, called in question. "Every action performed without external re- straint," says he, " and in pursuance of the determination of the soul itself, is a free action."f This demonstration, it is needless to repeat, would save any scheme of fatalism from reproach, as well as the doctrine of the reformers. The scheme of the Calvinists is defended in the same man- ner in Hill's Divinity : " The liberty of a moral agent," says he, " consists in the power of acting according to his choice ; and those actions are free, which are performed without any external compulsion or restraint, in consequence of the deter- mination of his own mind." " According to the Calvinists," says Mr. Shaw, in his Exposition of the Confession of Faith, " the liberty of a moral agent consists in the power of acting according to his choice ; and those actions are free which are performed without any external compulsion or restraint, in con- sequence of the determination of his own inind."^ Such, if we may believe these learned Calvinists, is the idea of the freedom Dick's Lectures, vol. ii, p. 157. f History of the Reformation, b. v. \ Hill's Divinity, ch. ix, sec. iii. 70 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, of the will which belongs to their system. If this be so, then it must be conceded that the Calvinistic definition of the free- dom of the will is perfectly consistent with the most absolute scheme of fatality which ever entered into the heart )f man to conceive. The views of M'Cosh respecting the freedom of the will, seem, at first sight, widely different from those of other Calvinists and necessitarians. The freedom and independence of the will is certainly pushed as far by him as it is carried by Cousin, Cole- ridge, Clarke, or any of its advocates in modem times. " True necessitarians," says he, " should learn in what way to hold and defend their doctrine. Let them disencumber themselves of all that doubtful argument, derived from man being supposed to be swayed by the most powerful motive."* Again: "The truth is," says he, "it is not motive, properly speaking, that determines the working of the will ; but it is the will that imparts the strength to the motive. As Coleridge says, ' It is the man that makes the motive, and not the motive the man.' "f According to this Calvinistic divine, the will is not determined by the strongest motive; on the contrary, it is self-active and self-determined. " Mind is a self-acting substance," says he ; " and hence its activity and independence." In open defiance of all Calvinistic and necessitarian philosophy, he even adopts the self-determining pow T er of the will. " Nor have neces- sitarians," says he, " even of the highest order, been sufficiently careful to guard the language employed by them. Afraid of making admissions to their opponents, we believe that none of them have fully developed the phenomena of human sponta- neity. Even Edwards ridicules the idea of the faculty or power of will, or the soul in the use of that power determining its own volitions. Now, we hold it to be an incontrovertible fact, and one of great importance, that the true determining cause of every given volition is not any mere anterior incitement, but the very soul itself, by its inherent power of will.";}; Surely, the author of such a passage cannot be accused of being afraid to make concessions to his opponents. But this is not ail. If possible, he rises still higher in his views of the lofty, not to Bay god-like, independence of the human will. " We rejoice," The Divine Government, Physical and Moral, b. iii, ch. i, sec. iii. f Id., b. iii, ch. i, sec. ii. J Ibid. Chapter LI WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 71 says lie, " to recognise such a being in man. We trust that we are cherishing no presumptuous feeling, when we believe him to be free, as his Maker is free. We believe him, morally speaking, to be as independent of external control as his Ore ator must ever be as that Creator was when, in a past eternity, there was no external existence to control him."* Yet, strange as it may seem, Mr. M'Cosh trembles at the idea of " removing the creature from under the control of God ;" and hence, he insists as strenuously as any other necessitarian, that the mind, and all its volitions, are subjected to the domin- ion of causes. " We are led by an intuition of our nature," says he, " to a belief in the invariable connexion between cause and effect ; and we see numerous proofs of this law of cause and effect reigning in the human mind as it does in the exter- nal world, and reigning in the will as it does in every other department of the mind."f Again : " It is by an intuition of our nature that we believe this thought or feeling could not have been produced without a cause ; and that this same cause will again and forever produce the same effects. And this intuitive principle leads us to expect the reign of causation, not only among the thoughts and feelings generally, but among the wishes and volitions of the soul.":): Kow here is the question, How can the soul be self-active, self-determined, and yet all its thoughts, and feelings, and voli- tions, have producing causes ? How can it be free and inde- pendent in its acts, and yet under the dominion of efficient causes ? How can the law of causation reign in all the states of the mind, as it reigns over all the movements of matter, and yet leave it as free as was the Creator when nothing beside him- self existed ? In other words, How is such a scheme of necessity to be reconciled with such a scheme of liberty? The author replies, We are not bound to answer such a question nor are we. As we understand it, the very idea of liberty, as above set forth by the author, is a direct negative of his doctrine of necessity. But although he has taken so much pains to dissent from his necessitarian brethren, and to advocate the Arrninian notion of free-will, Mr. M'Cosh, nevertheless, falls back upon the old Calvinistic definition of liberty, as consisting in a freedom from The Divine Government, Physical and Moral, b. iii, ch. i, sec. ii. f Ibid. | Ibid. Ibid. 72 MOKAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, external co-action, in order to find a basis for human respon- sibility. It may seem strange, that after all his labour in laying the foundation, he should not build upon it ; but it is strictly true. " If any man asserts," says he, " that in order to respon- sibility, the will must be free that is, free from physical restraint ; free to act as he pleases we at once and heartily agree with him ; and we maintain that in this sense the will is free, as free as it is possible for any man to conceive it to be." And again : "If actions do not proceed from the will, but from something else, from mere physical or external restraint, then the agent is not responsible for them. But if the deeds proceed from the will, then it at once attaches a responsibility to them. Place before the mind a murder committed by a party through pure physical compulsion brought to bear on the arm that inflicts the blow, and the conscience says, here no guilt is attachable. But let the same murder be done with the thorough consent of the will, the conscience stops not to inquire whether this consent lias been caused or no"* Thus, after all his dissent from Edwards, he returns precisely to Edwards's definition of the freedom of the will as the ground of human responsibility ; after all his strictures upon " necessitarians of the first order," he falls back upon precisely that notion of free-will which was so long ago condemned by Calvin, and exploded by Leibnitz, and which relates, as we have so often seen, not to acts of the will at all, but only to the external movements of the body. SECTION VII. The sentiments of Hume, Brown, Comte, and Mill, in relation to tlie antag- onism between liberty and necessity. Mr. Hume has disposed of the question concerning liberty and necessity, by the application of his celebrated theory of cause and effect. According to this theory, the idea of power, of efficacy, is a mere chimera, which has no corresponding reality in nature, and should be ranked among the exploded prejudices of the human mind. " One event follows another," says he ; " but we never can observe any tie between them. They seem conjoined, but never connected. ."f The Divine Government, Physical and Moral, b. iii, ch. i, sec. ii. t Hume's Works, Liberty and Necessity. Chapter!] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 73 We shall not stop to examine this hypothesis, which has been so often refuted. We shall merely remark in passing, that it owes its existence to a false method of philosophizing. Its author set out with the doctrine of Locke, that all our ideas are derived from sensation and reflection ; and because he could not trace the idea of power to either of these sources, he denied its existence. Hence we may apply to him, with peculiar force, the judicious and valuable criticism which M. Cousin has bestowed upon the method of Locke. Though Mr. Hume undertakes, as his title-page declares, to introduce the inductive method into the science of human nature, he departed from that method at the very first step. Instead of beginning, as he should have done, by ascertaining the ideas actually in our minds, and noting their characteristics, and proceeding to trace them up to their sources, he pursued the diametrically opposite course. He first determined and fixed the origin of all our ideas ; and every idea which was not seen to arise from this preestablished origin, he declared to be a mere chimera. He thus caused nature to bend to hypotheses ; instead of anat- omizing and studying the world of mind according to the inductive method, he pursued the high a priori road, and recon- structed it to suit his preestablished origin of human knowledge. This was not to study and interpret the work of God " in the profound humiliation of the human soul ;"* but to re-write the volume of nature, and omit those parts which did not accord with the views and wishes of the philosopher. In the pithy language of Sir William Hamilton, he " did not anatomize, but truncate." If this doctrine be true, it is idle to talk about free-agency, for there is no such thing as agency in the world. It is true, there is a thing which we call volition, or an act of the mind ; but this does not produce the external change by which it is followed. The two events co-exist, but there is no connecting tie between them. " They are conjoined, but not connected/' In short, according to this scheme, all things are equally free, and all equally necessary. In other words, there is neither freedom nor necessity in the usual acceptation of the terms, and the whole controversy concerning them, which has agitated the learned for so many ages, dwindles down into a mere empty Bacon. 74 MOKAL EVIL CONSISTENT parti, and noisy logomachy. Indeed, this is the conclusion to which Mr. Hume himself comes ; expressly maintaining that the con- troversy in question has been a dispute about words. We are not to suppose from this, however, that he forbears i > give a definition of liberty. His idea of free-agency is precisely that of Hobbes, and so many others before him. " By liberty," says he, " we can only mean a power of acting or not acting accord- ing to the determination of the will : that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may ; if we choose to move, we also may."* Such he declares is all that can possibly be meant by the term liberty and hence it follows that any other idea of it is a mere dream. The coolness of this assumption is admirable ; but it is fully equalled by the conclusion which follows. If we will ob- serve these two circumstances, says he, and thereby render our definition intelligible, Mr. Hume is perfectly persuaded " that all mankind will be found of one opinion with regard to it." If Mr. Hume had closely looked into the great productions of his own school, he would have seen the utter improbability, that necessitarians themselves would ever concur in such a notion of liberty.f If Mr. Hume's scheme were correct, it would seem that nothing could be stable or fixed ; mind would be destitute of energy to move within its own sphere, or to bind matter in its orbit. All things would seem to be in a loose, disconnected, and fluctuating state. But this is not the view which he had of the matter. Though he denied that there is any connecting link Of Liberty and Necessity. f Although Mr. Hume gives precisely the same definition of liberty as that ad- vanced by Hobbes, Locke, and Edwards, he had the sagacity to perceive that this related not to the freedom of the will, but only of the body. Hence he says, " In short, if motives are not under our power or direction, which is confessedly the fact, we can at bottom have NO LIBERTY." We are not at all surprised, therefore, at the reception which Hume gave to the great work of President Edwards, as set forth in the following statement of Dr. Chalmers, concerning the appendix to the " Inquiry." " The history of this appendix," says he, " is curious. It has only been subjoined to the later editions of his work, and did not accompany the first impression of it. Several copies of this impression found their way into this country, and created a prodigious sensation among the members of a school then in all its glory. I mean the metaphysical school of our northern metropolis, whereof Hume, and Smith, and Lord Kames, and several others among the more conspicuous infidels and semi-infidels of that day, were the most distinguished members. They triumphed in the book of Edwards, as that which set a conclu- sive seal on their principles," &c. Institutes of Theology, vol. ii, ch. ii. Chapter!] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 75 among events, yet lie insisted that the connexion subsisting among them is fixed and unalterable. " Let any one define a cause," says he, " without comprehending, as part of the defini- tion, a necessary connexion with its effect; and let him show distinctly the origin of the idea expressed by the definition, and I shall readily give up the whole controversy."* This is the philosopher who has so often told us, that events are " conjoined, not connected." The motives of volition given, for example, and the volition invariably and inevitably follows. How then, may we ask, can a man be accountable for his volitions, over w T hich he has no power, and in which he exerts no power? This question has not escaped the attention of Mr. Hume. Let us see his answer. He admits that liberty " is essential to morality. "f For " as actions are objects of our moral sentiment so far only as they are indications of the internal character, passions, and affections, it is impossible that they can give rise either to praise or blame, when they proceed, not from these principles, but are derived altogether from external violence." It is true, as we have seen, that if our external actions, the motions of the body, proceed not from our volitions, but from external violence, w r e are not responsible for them. This is conceded on all sides, and has nothing to do with the question. But suppose our external ac- tions are inevitably connected with our volitions, and our voli- tions as inevitably connected with their causes, how can we be responsible for either the one or the other? This is the ques- tion which Mr. Hume has evaded and not fairly met. Mr. Hume's notion about cause and effect has been greatly extended by its distinguished advocate, Dr. Thomas Brown; whose acuteness, eloquence, and elevation of character, have given it a circulation which it could never have received from the influence of its author. Almost as often as divines have occasion to use this notion, they call it the doctrine of Dr. Brown, and omit to notice its true atheistical paternity and origin. The defenders of this doctrine are directly opposed, in regard to a fundamental point, to all other necessitarians. Though they deny the existence of all power and efficacy, they still hold that human volitions are necessary ; while other necessitarians ground their doctrine on the fact, that volitions are produced by Of Liberty and Necessity. f Ibid. V6 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, the most powerful, the most efficacious motives. They are not only at war with other necessitarians, they are also at war with themselves. Let us see if this may not be clearly shown. According to the scheme in question, the mind does not act upon the body, nor the body upon the mind; for there is no power, and consequently no action of power, in the universe. Now, it is known that it was the doctrine of Leibnitz, that two substances so wholly unlike as mind and matter could not act upon each other ; and hence he concluded that the phenomena of the internal and external worlds were merely " conjoined, not connected" The soul and body run together to use his own illustration like two independent watches, without either ex- erting any influence upon the movements of the other. Thus arose his celebrated, but now obsolete fiction, of a preestablished harmony. Now, if the doctrine of Hume and Brown be true, this sort of harmony subsists, not only in relation to mind and body, but in relation to all things in existence. Mind never acts upon body, nor mind upon mind. Hence, this doctrine is but a generalization of the preestablished harmony of Leib- nitz, with the exception that Mr. Hume did not contend that this wonderful harmony was established by the Divine Being. Is it not wonderful that so acute a metaphysician as Dr. Brown should not have perceived the inseparable affinity between his doctrine and that of Leibnitz ? Is it not wonderful that, instead of perceiving this affinity, he should have poured ridicule and contempt upon the doctrine of which his own was but a gener- alization ? Mr. Mill, another able and strenuous advocate of Mr. Hume's theory of causation, has likewise ranked the pre- established harmony of Leibnitz, as well as the system of occa- sional causes peculiar to Malebranche, among the fallacies of the human mind. Thus they are at war with themselves, as well as w r ith their great coadjutors in the cause of necessity. M. Oomte, preeminently distinguished in every branch of science", has taken the same one-sided view of nature as that which is exhibited in the theory under consideration ; but he does not permit himself to be encumbered by the inconsistencies observable in his great predecessors. On the contrary, he boldly carries out his doctrine to its legitimate consequences, denying the existence of a God, the free-agency of man, and the reality of moral distinctions. *W^j Stor Chapter L] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 77 Mr. Mill also refuses to avail himself of the notion of liberty entertained by Hobbes and Hume, in order to lay a foundation for human responsibility. He sees that it really cannot be made to answer such a purpose. He also sees, that the doc- trine of necessity, as usually maintained, is liable to the objec- tions urged against it, that "it tends to degrade the moral nature of man, and to paralyze our desire of excellence."* In making this concession to the advocates of liberty, he speaks from his own " personal experience." The only way to escape these pernicious consequences, he says, is to keep constantly before the mind a clear and unclouded view of the true theory of causation, which will prevent us from supposing, as most necessitarians do, that there is a real connecting link or influ- ence between motives and volitions, or any other events. So strong is the prejudice (as he calls it) in favour of such connec- tion, that even those who adopt Mr. Hume's theory, are not habitually influenced by it, but frequently relapse into the old error which conflicts with the free-agency and accountability of man, and hence an advantage which their opponents have had over them. These remarks are undoubtedly just. There is not a single writer, from Mr. Hume himself, down to the present day, who has been able either to speak or to reason in conformity with his theory, however warmly he may have embraced it. Mr. Mill himself has not been more fortunate in this respect than many of his distinguished predecessors. It is an exceedingly difficult thing, by the force of speculation, to silence the voice of nature within us. If it were necessary we might easily show, that if we abstract "the common prejudice," in regard to causation, it will be as impossible to read Mr. Mill's work on logic, as to read Mr. Hume's writings themselves, without per- ceiving that many of its passages have been stripped of all logical coherency of thought. The defect which he so clearly sees in the writings of other advocates of necessity, not except- ing those who embrace his own paradox in relation to cause and effect, we can easily perceive in his own. The doctrine of causation, under consideration, annihilates one of the clearest and most fundamental distinctions ever made in philosophy ; the distinction between action and passion, between Mill's Logic, pp. 522, 523. f 8 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part i, mind and matter. Matter is passive, mind is active. The very first law of motion laid down in the Principia, a work so much admired by M. Comte and Mr. Mill, is based on the idea that matter is wholly inert, and destitute of power either to move itself, or to check itself when moved by anything ah extra. This will not be denied. But is mind equally passive ? Is there nothing in existence which rises above this passivity of the material world? If there is not, and such is the evident conclusion of the doctrine in question, then all things flow on in one boundless ocean of passivity, while there is no First Mover, no Self-active Agent in the universe. Indeed, Mr. Mill has expressly declared, that the distinction between agent and patient is illusory.* If this be true, we are persuaded that M. Comte has been more successful in delivering the world from the being of a God, than Mr. Mill has been in relieving it from the difficulties attending the scheme of necessity. SECTION VIII. The views of Kant and Sir William Hamilton in relation to the antagonism between liberty and necessity. "To clear up this seeming antagonism between the mecha- nism of nature and freedom in one and the self-same given action, we must refer," says Kant, "to what was advanced in the critique of pure reason, or what, at least, is a corollary from it, viz., that the necessity of nature which may not consort with the freedom of the subject, attaches simply to a thing standing under the relations of time, i. e., to the modifications of the acting subject as phenomena, and that, therefore, so far (i. e., as phenomena) the determinators of each act lie in the foregoing elapsed time, and are quite beyond his power, (part of which are the actions man has already performed, and the phenomenal character he has given himself in his own eyes,) yet, e contra, the self-same subject, being self-conscious of itself as a thing in itself, considers its existence as somewhat detached from the conditions of time, and itself, so far forth, as only determinable by laws given it by its own reason."f Kant has said, that this " intricate problem, at whose solution centuries have laboured," is not to be solved by "a jargon of Mill's Logic, book ii, chap, v, sec. 4. | Metaphysics of Ethics. Chapter!.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 79 words." If so, may we not doubt whether he has taken the best method to solve it? His solution shows one thing at least, viz., that he was not satisfied with any of the solutions of his predecessors, for his is wholly unlike them. Kant saw that the question of liberty and necessity related to the will itself, and not to the consequences of the will's volitions. Hence he was compelled to reject those weak evasions of the difficulty of reconciling them, and to grapple directly with the difficulty itself. Let us see if this was not too much for him. Let us see if he has been able to maintain the doctrine of necessity, holding it as a "demonstrated truth," and at the same time give the idea of liberty a tenable position in his system. If we would clear up the seeming antagonism between the mechanism of nature and freedom in regard to the same voli- tion, says he, we must remember, that the volition itself, as standing under the conditions of time, is to be considered as subject to the law of mechanism: yet the mind which puts forth the volition, being conscious that it is a thing somewhat detached from the conditions of time, is free from the law of mechanism, and determinable by the laws of its own reason. That is to say, the volitions of mind falling under the law of cause and effect, like all other events which appear in time, are necessary ; while the mind itself, which exists not exactly in time, is free. We shall state only two objections to this view. In the first place, it seems to distinguish the mind from its act, not modally, i. e., as a thing from its mode, but numerically, i. e., as one thing from another thing. But who can do this? Who regards an act of the mind, a volition, as anything but the mind itself as existing in a state of willing? In the second place, it requires us to conceive, that the act of the mind is necessitated, while tl;e mind itself is free in the act thus necessi- tated. But who can do this ? On the contrary, who can fail to see in this precisely the same seeming antagonism which Kant undertook to remove ? To tell us, that volition is necessi- tated because it exists in time, but the mind is free because it does not exist in time, is, one would think, a very odd way to dispel the darkness which hangs over the grand problem of life. It is to solve one difficulty merely by adding other difficulties to it. Hence, the world will never be much wiser, we are inclined to suspect, with respect to the seeming antagonism 80 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, between liberty and necessity, in consequence of the specula- tions of the philosopher of Konigsberg, especially since his great admirer, Mr. Coleridge, forgot to fulfil his promise to write the history of a man who existed in " neither time nor space, but a-one side." Though Kant made the attempt in his Metaphysics of Ethics to overcome the speculative difficulty in question, it is evident that he is not satisfied with his own solution of it, since he has repeatedly declared, that the practical reason furnishes the only ground on which it can be surmounted. " This view of Kant," says Knapp, " implying that freedom, while it is a postulate of our practical reason, (i. e., necessary to be assumed in order to moral action,) is yet inconsistent with our theoretical reason, (i. e., incapable of demonstration, and contrary to the conclu- sions to which the reflecting mind arrives}) is now very gener- ally rejected."* In regard to this point, there seems to be a perfect coin- cidence between the philosophy of Kant and that of Sir William Hamilton. "In thought," says the latter, "we never escape determination and necessity."f If the scheme of necessity never fails to force itself upon our thought, how are we then to get rid of it, so as to lay a foundation for morality and accountability? This question, the author declares, is too much for the speculative reason of man ; and being utterly baffled in that direction, we can only appeal to the fact of consciousness, in order to establish the doctrine of liberty. " The philosophy which I profess," says he, " annihilates the theoretical problem How is the scheme of liberty, or the scheme of necessity, to be rendered comprehensible ? by showing that both schemes are equally inconceivable ; but it establishes liberty practically as a fact, by showing that it is either itself an immediate datum, or is involved in an immediate datum of consciousness."^: We shall hereafter see, why the scheme of necessity always riveted the chain of conviction on the thought of Sir William Hamilton, and compelled him to have recourse to an appeal to conscious- ness in order to escape its delusive power. Knapp's Theology, p. 520. f Reid's Works, note, p. 611. \ Id., p. 599, note. Chapter LI WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD 81 SECTION IX. The notion of Lord Kames and Sir James Mackintosh on the same subject. Lord Kames boldly cut the knot which philosophy had failed to unravel for him. Supposing the doctrine of necessity to be settled on a clear and firm basis, he resolved our feelings of liberty into "a deceitful sense" which he imagined the Al- mighty had conferred on man for wise and good purposes. He concluded that if men could see the truth, in regard to the scheme of necessity, without any illusion or mistake, they would relax their exertions in all directions, and passively submit to the all-controlling influences by which they are surrounded. But God, he supposed, out of compassion for us, concealed the truth from our eyes, in order that we might be induced to take care of ourselves, by the pleasant dream that we really have the power to do so. We shall not stop to pull this scheme to pieces. We shall only remark, that it is a pity the philosopher undertook to counteract the benevolent design of the Deity, and to expose the cheat and delusion by which he intended to govern the world for its benefit. But the author himself, it is but just to add, had the good sense and candour to renounce his own scheme ; and hence we need dwell no longer upon it. It remains at the present day only as a striking example of the frightful contor- tions of the human mind, in its herculean efforts to escape from the dark labyrinth of fate into the clear and open light of nature. Sir James Mackintosh, though familiar with the speculations of preceding philosophers, was satisfied with none of their solu- tions of the great problem under consideration, and conse- quently he has invented one of his own. This solution is founded on his theory of the moral sentiments, which is peculiar to himself. This theory is employed to show how it is, that although we may come by our volitions according to the scheme of necessity, yet we do not perceive the causes by which they are necessarily produced, and consequently imagine that we are free. Thus, the "feeling of liberty," as he calls it, is resolved into an illusory judgment, and the scheme of necessity is exhibited in all its adamantine strength, " It seems impossi 6 82 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, ble," says lie, " for reason to consider occurrences otherwise than as bound together by the connexion of cause and effect ; and in this circumstance consists the strength of the necessitarian system."* We shall offer only one remark on this extraordinary hypoth- esis. If the theory of Sir James were true, it could only show, that although our volitions are necessarily caused, we do not perceive the causes by which they are produced. But this fact has never been denied : it has always been conceded, that we ascertain the existence of efficient causes, excepting the acts of our minds, only by means of the effects they produce. Both Leibnitz and Edwards long ago availed themselves of this undisputed fact, in order to account for the belief which men entertain in regard to their internal freedom. "Thus," says Edwards, " I find myself possessed of my volitions before I can see the effectual power and efficacy of any cause to produce them, for the power and efficacy of the cause are not seen hut by the effect, and this, for aught I know, may make some imagine that volition has no cause" We shall see hereafter that this is a very false account of the genesis of the common belief, that we possess an internal freedom from necessity ; but it is founded on the truth which no one pretends to deny, that external effi- cient causes can only be seen by their effects, and not by any direct perception of the mind. It was altogether a work of supererogation, then, for Sir James Mackintosh to bring forth his theory of moral sentiments to establish the possibility of a thing which preceding philosophers had admitted to be a fact. It requires no elaborate theory to convince us that a thing might exist without our perceiving it, when it is conceded on all sides, that even if it did exist, we have no power by which to perceive it. With this single remark, we shall dismiss a scheme which resolves our conviction of internal liberty into a mere illusion, and which, however pure may have been the intentions of the author, really saps the foundation of moral obligation, and destroys the nature of virtue. * Progress of Ethical Philosophy, p. 275. JiiApterL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 83 SECTION X. T\e conclusion of Mozhler, Tholuck, and others, that all speculation on sucfi a subject must be vain and fruitless. Considering the vast wilderness of speculation which exists on the subject under consideration, it is not at all surprising that many should turn away from every speculative view of it with disgust, and endeavour to dissuade others from such pursuits. Accordingly Moehler has declared, that " so often as, without regard to revelation, the relation of the human spirit to God hath been more deeply investigated, men have found themselves forced to the adoption of pantheism, and, with it, the most arrogant deification of man"* And Tholuck spreads out the reasoning from effect to cause, by which all things are referred to God, and God himself only made the greatest and brightest link in the chain ; and assuming this to be an unanswerable ar- gument, he holds it up as a dissuasive from all such speculations. He believes that reason necessarily conducts the mind to fatalism. We cannot concur with these celebrated writers, and we would deduce a far different conclusion from the speculations of necessitarians. This sort of scepticism or despair is more common in Germany than it is in this country ; for there, spec- ulation pursuing no certain or determinate method^ has shown itself in all its wild and desolating excesses. But it is sophistry, and not reason, that leads the human mind astray; and we believe that reason, in all cases, is competent to detect and expose the impositions of sophistry. We do not believe that one guide which the Almighty has given us, can, by the legiti- mate exercise of it, lead us to a different result from that of another guide. We are persuaded that if reason seems to force us into any system which is contradicted by the testimony of our moral nature, or by the truths of revelation, this is unsound speculation : it is founded either on false premises, or else springs from false conclusions, which reason itself may correct, either by pointing out the fallacy of the premises, or the logical incoherency of the argument. We do not then intend t(. abandon speculation, but to plant it, if we can, on a better foundation, and build it up according to a better method. Moehler 's Symbolism, p. 117. 84 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, SECTION XL The true conclusion from the foregoing review of opinions and arguments. All the mighty logicians we have yet named have yielded to "the demonstration" in favour of necessity, but we do not know that one of them has ever directed the energies of his mind to pry into its validity. They have all pursued the method so emphatically condemned by Bacon, and the result has verified his prediction. " The usual method," says he, " of discovery and proof by first establishing the most general pro- positions, then applying and proving the intermediate axioms according to these, is the parent of error and the calamity of every science."* They have set out with the universal law of causality or the principle of the sufficient reason, and thence have proceeded to ascertain and determine the actual nature and processes of things. We may despair of ever being able to determine a single fact, or a single process of nature, by rea- soning from truisms; we must begin in the opposite direction and learn " to dissect nature," if we would behold her secrets and comprehend her mysteries. By pursuing this method it will be seen, and clearly seen, that " the great demonstration " which has led so many philo- sophers in chains, is, after all, a sophism. We have witnessed their attempts to reconcile the great fact of man's free-agency with this boasted demonstration of necessity. But how inter- minable is the confusion among them ? If a few of them concur in one solution, this is condemned by others, and not unfre- quently by the very authors of the solution itself. We entertain too great a respect for their abilities not to believe, that if there had been any means of reconciling these things together, they would long since have discovered them, and come to an agree- ment among themselves, as well as made the truth known to the satisfaction of mankind. But as it is, their speculations are destitute of harmony are filled with discordant elements. In- stead of the clear and steady light of truth, illuminating the great problem of existence, we are bewildered by the glare of a thousand paradoxes ; instead of the sweet voice of harmony, reaching and calling forth a response from the depths of the c Novum Organum, book i, aph. 69. Chapter!.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 85 human soul, the ear is stunned and confounded with a frightful roar of confused sounds. "We shall not attempt to hold the scheme of necessity, and reconcile it with the fact of man's free-agency. We shall not undertake a task, in the prosecution of which a Descartes, a Leibnitz, a Locke, and an Edwards, not to mention a hundred others, have laboured in vain. But we do not intend to aban- don speculation. On the contrary, we intend to show, so clearly and so unequivocally that every eye may see it, that the great boasted demonstration in favour of necessity is a pro- digious sophism. We intend to do this; because until the mental vision be purged of the film of this dark error, it can never clearly behold the intrinsic majesty and glory of God's creation, nor the divine beauty of the plan according to which it is governed. 80 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, CHAPTEK H. THE SCHEME OF NECESSITY MAKES GOD THE AUTHOR OP SIN. I told ye then he should prevail, and speed On his bad errand ; man should be seduced, And flatter'd out of all, believing lies Against his Maker ; no decree of mine Concurring to necessitate his fall, Or touch'd with slightest moment of impulse His free-will, to her own inclining left In even scale. MILTON. THE scheme of necessity, as we have already said, presents two phases in relation to the existence of moral evil ; one relating to the agency of man, and the other to the agency of God. In the preceding chapter, we examined the attempts of the most learned and skilful advocates of this scheme to reconcile it with the free-agency and accountability of man. We have seen how ineffectual have been all their endeavours to show that their doctrine does not destroy the responsibility of man for his sins. It is the design of the present chapter to consider the doctrine of necessity under its other aspect, and to demonstrate that it makes God the author of sin. If this can be shown, it may justly lead us to suspect that the scheme contains within its bosom some dark fallacy, which should be dragged from its hiding-place into the open light of day, and exposed to the abhorrence and detestation of mankind. In discussing this branch of our subject, we shall pursue the c yurse adopted in relation to the first ; for if the doctrine of necessity does not make God the author of sin, we may con- clude that this has been shown by some one of its most profound and -enlightened advocates. If the attempts of a Calvin, and an Edwards, and a Leibnitz, to maintain such a doctrine, and yet vindicate the purity of God may be shown to be signal failures, we may well doubt whether there is a real agreement between these tenets as maintained by them. Nay, if in order to vin- dicate their system from so great a reproach, they have been Chapter IL1 WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 87 compelled to adopt positions which are clearly inconsistent with the divine holiness, and thus to increase rather than to diminish the reproach ; surely their system itself should be more than suspected of error. We shall proceed, then, with this view, to examine their speculations in regard to the agency of God in itc* connexion with the origin and existence of moral evil. SECTION I. The attempts of Calvin and other reformers to show that the system of neces- sity does not make God the author of sin. Most of the advocates of divine providence have endeavoured to soften their views, so as to bring them into a conformity with the common sentiments of mankind, by supposing that God merely permits, without producing the sinful volitions of men. But Calvin rejects this distinction with the most positive disdain. " A question of still greater difficulty arises," says he, "from other passages, where God is said to incline or draw Satan himself and all the reprobate. For the carnal under- standing scarcely comprehends how he, acting by their means, and even in operations common to himself and them, is free from any fault, and yet righteously condemns those whose ministry he uses. Hence was invented the distinction between doing and permitting ; because to many persons this has ap- peared an inexplicable difficulty, that Satan arid all the impious are subject to the power and government of God, so that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and uses their crimes for the execution of his judgments. The modesty of those who are alarmed by absurdity, might perhaps be excusa- ble, if they did not attempt to vindicate the divine justice from all accusation by a pretence utterly destitute of any foundation in truth"* Here the distinction between God's permitting and doing in relation to the sins of men, is declared by Calvin to be utterly without foundation in truth, and purely chimerical. So, in various other places, he treats this distinction as " too veak to be supported." " The will of God," says he, " is the supreme and first cause of things;" and he quotes Augustine \\ ith approbation to the effect, that " He does not remain an idle spectator, determining to permit anything; there is an Institutes, book i, chap, xviii. 88 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, intervention of an actual volition, if I may be allowed the expression, which otherwise could never be considered a cause."* According to Calvin, then, nothing ever happens in the uni- verse, not even the sinful volitions of men, which is not caused by God, even by " the intervention of an actual volition " of the supreme will. It is evident that Calvin scorns to have any recourse to a permissive will in God, in order to soften down the stupendous difficulties under w r hich his system seems to labour. On the contrary, he sometimes betrays a little impatience with those who had endeavoured to mitigate the more rugged features of what he conceived, to be the truth. " The fathers," says he, "are sometimes too scrupulous on this subject, and afraid of a simple confession of the truth."f He entertains no such fears. He is even bold and rigid enough in his consistency to say, "that God often actuates the reprobate by the interposi- tion of Satan, but in such a manner that Satan himself acts his part by the divine impulse."^: And again, he declares that by means of Satan, "God excites the will and strengthens the efforts" of the reprobate. Indeed, his great work, whenever it touches upon this awful subject, renders it perfectly clear that Calvin despises all weak evasions in the advocacy of his stern doctrine. It has been truly said, that Calvin never thinks of " deducing the fall of man from the abuse of human freedom." So far is he from this, indeed, that he seems to lose his patience with those who trace the origin of moral evil to such a source." " They say it is nowhere declared in express terms," says Calvin, " that God decreed Adam should perish by his defection ; as though the same God, whom the Scriptures represent as doing whatever he pleases, created the noblest of his creatures with- out any determinate end. They maintain, that he was possess- ed of free choice, that he might be the author of his own fate, but tl-at God decreed nothing more than to treat him according to his desert. If so weak a scheme as this be received, what will become of God's omnipotence, by which he governs all things according to his secret counsel, independently of every person or thing besides."! The fall of man, says Calvin, was Institutes, book i, chap. xvi. | W., book ii, chap. iv. J Id., book i, chap, xviii. 8 Id., book iii, chap, xxiii. || Id., book iii, chap, xxiii, sec. 4, 7. Chapter II.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 89 decreed from all eternity, and it was brought to pass by the omnipotence of God. To suppose that Adam was the author of his own fate and fall, is to deny the omnipotence of God, and to rob him of his sovereignty. Now, if to say that God created man, and then left his sin to proceed wholly from himself, be to rob God of his omnipo- tence, and to affirm that he made man for no determinate end, the same consequences would follow from the position that God created Satan, and then left his sin and rebellion to proceed wholly from himself. Bat, strange as it may seem, the very thing which Calvin so vehemently denies in regard to man, he asserts in relation to Satan ; and he even feels called upon to make this assertion in order to vindicate the divine purity against the calumny of being implicated in the sin of Satan ! " But since the devil was created by God," says he, " w T e must remark, that this wickedness which we attribute to his nature is not from creation, but from corruption. For whatever evil quality he has, he has acquired by his defection and fall. And of this Scripture apprizes us ; but, believing him to have come from God, just as he now is, we shall ascribe to God himself that which is in direct opposition to him. For this reason, Christ declares, that Satan, ' when he speaketh a lie, speaketh of his own;' and adds the reason, 'because he abode not in the truth.' When he says that he abode not in the truth, he certainly implied that he had once been in it ; and when he calls him the father of a lie, Tie precludes his imputing to God the depravity of his nature, which originated wholly from him- self. Though these things are delivered in a brief and rather obscure manner, yet they are abundantly sufficient to vindicate the majesty of God from every calumny."* Thus, in order to show that God is not the author of sin, Calvin assumes the very positions in regard to the rebellion of Satan which his opponents have always felt constrained to adopt in regard to the transgres- sion of man. What then, on Calvin's own principles, becomes of the omnipotence of God? Does this extend merely to man and not to Satan? Is it not evident that Calvin's scheme in regard to the sin of the first man, is here most emphatically condemned out of his own mouth? Does lie not here endorse the very consequence which his adversaries have been accus- Institutes, book i, chap, xiv, sec. 16. 90 MOKAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, tomed to deduce from his scheme of predestination, namely, that it makes God the author of sin ? Tliis scheme of doctrine, it must be confessed, is not without its difficulties. It clothes man, as . he came from the hand of his Maker, with the glorious attributes of freedom ; but to what end? Is this attribute employed to account for the introduc- tion of sin into the world ? Is it employed to show that man, and not God, is the author of moral evil ? It is sad to reflect that it is not. The fall of man is referred to the direct " omnip- otence of God." The feeble creature yields to the decree and power of the Almighty, who, because he does so, kindles into the most fearful wrath and dooms him and all his posterity to temporal, spiritual, and eternal death. Such is the doctrine which is advanced, in order to secure the omnipotence of God, and to exalt his sovereignty. But is it not a great leading feature of deism itself, that it exalts the power of God at the expense of his infinite moral perfections ? So we have under- stood the matter; and hence, it seems to us, that Christian divines should be more guarded in handling the attribute of omnipotence. " The rigid theologians," says Leibnitz, " have held the greatness of God in higher estimation than his good- ness, the latitudinarians have done the contrary ; true ortho- doxy has these two perfections equally at heart. The error which abases the greatness of God should be called anthropo- morpMsm, and despotism that which divests him of his good- ness."* If Calvin's doctrine be true, God is not the author of sin, inasmuch as he made man pure and upright ; but yet, by the same power which created him, has he plunged him into sin and misery. Now, if the creation of man with a sinful nature be inconsistent with the infinite purity of God, will it not be difficult to reconcile with that purity the production of sin in man, after his creation, by an act of the divine omnipotence ? If we ask, How can God be just in causing man to sin, and then punishing him for it ? Calvin replies, That all his dealings with us " are guided by equity."f We know, indeed, that all his ways are guided by the most absolute and perfect justice; and this is the very circumstance which creates the difficulty. The more clearly we perceive, and the more vividly we realize, Theodice, p. 365. f Institutes, book i, chap. xiv. Chapter II.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 91 the perfection of tlie divine equity, the more heavily does the difficulty press upon our minds. This assurance brings us no relief; we still demand, if God be just, as in truth he is, how can he deal with us after such a manner ? The answer we ob- tain is, that God is just. And if this does not satisfy us, we are reminded that " it is impossible ever wholly to prevent the petulance and murmurs of impiety."* We seek for light, and, instead of light, we are turned off with reproaches for the want of piety. We have not that faith, we humbly confess, which. " from its exaltation looks down on these mists with contempt ;"f but we have a reason, it may be " a carnal understanding," which longs to be enlarged and enlightened by faith. Hence, it cannot but murmur when, instead of being enlarged and en- lightened by faith, it is utterly overwhelmed and confounded by it. And these murmurings of reason, which we can no more prevent than we could stop the heavings of the mighty ocean from its depths, are met and sought to be quelled with the re- buke, " Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God ?" We reply not against God, but against man's interpretation of God's word ; and who art thou, O man, that puttest thyself in the place of God ? " Men," saith Bacon, " are ever ready to usurp the style, ' Non ego, sed Dominus ;' and not only so, but to bind it with the thunder and denunciation of curses and anathe- mas, to the terror of those who have not sufficiently learned out of Solomon, that the * causeless curse shall not come.' " In relation to the subject under consideration, the amiable and philosophic mind of Melancthon seems to have been more consistent, at one time, than that of most of the reformers. " He laid down," says D'Aubigne, " a sort of fatalism, which might lead his readers to think of God as the author of evil, and which consequently has no foundation in Scripture : ' since whatever happens,' said he, ' happens by necessity, agreeably to divine foreknowledge, it is plain our will hath no liberty whatever.' " It is certainly a very mild expression to say, that the doctrine of Melancthon might lead his readers to think of God as the author of evil. This is a consequence which the logical mind of Melancthon did not fail to draw from his own scheme of necessity. In his commentary on the Epistle to the "Romans, in the edition of 1525, he asserted " that God wrought Institutes, book iii, ch. xxiii. | Id., book i, ch. xviii. 92 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, all tilings, evil as well as good ; that he was the author of Da- vid's adultery, and the treason of Judas, as well as of Paul's conversion." This doctrine was maintained by Melancthon on practical aa well as on speculative grounds. It is useful, says he, in its tendency to subdue human arrogance ; it represses the wisdom and cunning of human reason. We have generally observed, that whenever a learned divine denounces the arrogancy of reason, and insists on an humble submission to his own doc- trines, that he has some absurdity which he wishes us to em- brace; he feels a sort of internal consciousness that human reason is arrayed against him, and hence he abuses and vilifies it. But reason is not to be kept in due subordination by any such means. If sovereigns would maintain a legitimate author- ity over their subjects, they should bind them with wise and wholesome laws, and not with arbitrary and despotic enact- ments, which are so well calculated to engender hatred and re- bellion. In like manner, the best possible way to tame -the refractory reason of man, and hold it in subjection, is to bind it with the silken cords of divine truth, and not fetter it with the harsh and galling absurdities of man's invention. Melancthon himself furnished a striking illustration of the justness of this remark ; for although, like other reformers, he taught the doctrine of a divine fatality of all events, in order to hum- ble the pride of the human intellect, his own reason afterward rebelled against it. He not only recanted the monstrous doctrine which made God the author of sin, but he openly combatted it. In the writings of Beza and Zwingle there are passages, in relation to the origin of evil, more offensive, if possible, than any we have adduced from Calvin and Melancthon. The mode in which the reformers defended their common doctrine was, with some few exceptions, the same in substance. They have said nothing which can serve to dispel, or even materially les- sen, the stupendous cloud of difficulties which their scheme spreads over the moral government of God. Considering the condition of the Church, the state of human knowledge, and, in short, all the circumstances of the times in which the reformers lived and acted, it is not very surprising that they should have fallen into such errors. The corruptions Chapter II.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 93 of human nature, manifesting themselves in the Romish Church, had so extravagantly exalted the powers of man, and especially of the priesthood, and so greatly depressed or obscured the sov- ereignty of God, that the reformers, in fighting against these abuses, were naturally forced into the opposite extreme. It is not at all wonderful, we say, that a reaction, which shook the very foundations of the earth, should have carried the authors of it beyond the bounds of moderation and truth. They would have been more than human if they had not fallen into some such errors as these which we have ascribed to them. But the great misfortune is, that these errors should have been stereo- typed and fixed in the symbolical books of the Protestant Churches, and made to descend from the reformers to their children's children, as though they were of the very essence of the faith once delivered to the saints. This is the misfortune, the lamentable evil, which has furnished the Romish Church with its most powerful weapons of attack ;* which has fortified the strongholds of atheism and infidelity ; and which has, be- yond all question, fearfully retarded the great and glorious cause of true religion. If we would examine the most elaborate efforts to defend these doctrines, or rather the great central dogma of necessity from which they all radiate, we must descend to later times ; we must turn our attention to the immortal writings of a Leib- nitz and an Edwards. SECTION II. The attempt of Leibnitz to show that the scheme of necessity does not make God the author of sin. Tliis philosopher employed all the resources of a sublime genius, and all the stores of a vast erudition, in order to main- tain the scheme of necessity, and at the same time vindicate the purity of the Divine Being. That subtle and adroit sceptic, M. Bayle, had drawn out all the consequences of the doctrine of necessity in opposition to the free-agency of man, and to the holiness of God. Leibnitz wrote his great " Essais de Theodicee," for the purpose of refuting these conclusions of Bayle, as well as those of all other sceptics, and of reconciling his system with See Moehler's Symbolism. 94 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, the divine attributes. In the preface to his work he says, "We show that evil has another source than the will of God; and that we have reason to say of moral evil, that God only permits it, and that he does not will it. But what is more important, we show that God can not only permit sin, but even concur therein, and contribute to it, without prejudice to his holiness; although, absolutely speaking, he might have prevented it." Such is the task which Leibnitz has undertaken to perform ; let us see how he has accomplished it. " The ancients," says he, " attributed the cause of evil to mat- ter ; but where shall we, who derive all things from God, find the source of evil ?"* He has more than once answered this question, by saying that the source of evil is to be found in the ideas of the divine mind. " Chrysippus," says he, " has reason to allege that vice comes from the original constitution of some spirits. It is objected to him that God has formed them; and he can only reply, that the imperfection of matter does not per- mit him to do better. This reply is good for nothing ; for matter itself is indifferent to all forms, and besides God has made it. Evil comes rather from forms themselves, but abstract ; that is to say, from ideas that God has not produced by an act of his will, no more than he has produced number and figures ; and no more, in one word, than all those possible essences which we regard as eternal and necessary ; for they find themselves in the ideal region of pc-ssibles ; that is to say, in the divine under- standing. God is tVen not the author of those essences, in so far as they are only possibilities ; but there is nothing actual, but what he discerned and called into existence ; and he has permitted evil, because it is enveloped in the best plan which is found in the region of possibles ; that plan the supreme wis- dom could not fail to choose. It is this notion which at once satisfies the wisdom, the power, and the goodness of God, and yet leaves room for the entrance of evil."f In reading the lofty speculations of Leibnitz, we have been often led to wonder how one, whose genius was so great, could have permitted himself to rest in conceptions which appear so vague and indistinct. In the above passage we have both light and obscurity ; and we find it difficult to determine which pre- dominates over +he other. We are clearly told that God is not c Theodicee, p. 85. fid., p. 264. Chapter IL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 95 the author of evil, because this proceeds from abstract forms which were from all eternity enveloped in his understanding, and not from any operation of his will. But how does evil proceed from abstract forms ; from the ideal region of the pos- sible ? Leibnitz does not mean that evil proceeds from abstract ideas, before they are embodied in the creation of real moral agents. Why then did God create beings which he knew from all eternity would commit sin ? and why, having created them, did he contribute to their sins by a divine concourse ? This is coming down from the ideal region of the possible, into the world of real difficulties. According to the philosophy of Leibnitz, God created every intelligent being in the universe with a perfect knowledge of its whole destiny ; and there is, moreover, a concourse of the divine will with all their volitions. Now, here we are in the very midst of the concrete world, and here is a difficulty which cannot be avoided by a flight into the ideal region of the pos- sible. How can there be a concourse of the divine will with the human will in one and the same sinful volition, without a stain upon the immaculate purity of God? How can the Father of Lights, by an operation of his will, contribute to our sinful volitions, without prejudice to his holiness? Tliis is the problem which Leibnitz has promised to solve ; and we shall, with all patience, listen to his solution. The solution of this problem, says he, is effected by means of the " privative nature of evil." We shall state this part of his system in his own words : " As to the physical concourse," says he, " it is here that it is necessary to consider that truth which has made so much noise in the schools, since St. Augus- tine has shown its importance, that evil is a privation, whereas the action of God produces only the positive. This reply passes for a defective one, and even for something chimerical in the minds of many men ; but here is an example sufficiently anal- ogous, which may undeceive them." " The celebrated Kepler, and after him M. Descartes, have spoken of the natural inertia of bodies, and that we can con- sider it as a perfect image, and even as a pattern of the original limitation of creatures, in order to make us see that privation is the formal cause of the imperfections and inconveniences which are found in substance as well as in actions. Suppose that the 96 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, current of a river carries along with it many vessels which have different cargoes, some of wood, and others of stone ; somo more, and some less. It will happen that the vessels which are more heavily laden will move more slowly than the others, provided there is nothing to aid their progress . . . Let us com- pare the force which the current exercises over the vessels and what it communicates to them, with the action of God, who produces and preserves whatever is positive in the creature, and imparts to them perfection, being, and force ; let us com- pare, I say, the inertia of matter with the natural imperfection of creatures, and the slowness of the more heavily laden vessel with the defect which is found in the qualities and in the actions of the creature, and we shall perceive that there is nothing so just as this comparison. The current is the cause of the move- ment of the vessel, but not of its retardation ; God is the cause of the perfection in the nature and the actions of the creature, but the limitation of the receptivity of the creature is the cause of the defect in its actions. Tims the Platonists, St. Augustine, and the schoolmen, have reason to say that God is the material cause of evil, which consists in what is positive, and not the formal cause of it, w r hich consists in privation, as we can say that the current is the material cause of the retardation, without being its formal cause ; that is to say, is the cause of the swift- ness of the vessel, without being the cause of the bounds of that swiftness. God is as little the cause of sin, as the current of the river is the cause of the retardation of the vessel."* Or as Leib- nitz elsewhere says, God is the author of all that is positiveln our volitions, and the pravity of them arises from the necessary imperfection of the creature. We have many objections to this mode of explaining the origin of moral evil, some few of which we shall proceed to state. 1. It is a hopeless attempt to illustrate the processes of the mind by the analogies of matter. All such illustrations are better adapted to darken and confound the subject, than to throw light upon it. If we would know anything about the nature of moral evil, or its origin, we must study the subject in the light of consciousness, and in the light of consciousness alone. Dugald Stewart has conferred on Descartes the proud distinction of having been the first philosopher to teach the Thfeodicee, pp. 89, 90. Chapter II.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 97 true method according to which the science of mind should be studied. " lie laid it down as a first principle," says Stewart, " that nothing comprehensible by the imagination can be at all subservient to the knowledge of mind ; and that the sensible images involved in all our common forms of speaking concern- ing its operations, are to be guarded against with the most anxious care, as tending to confound in our apprehensions, two classes of phenomena, which it is of the last importance to dis- tinguish accurately from eacli other."* 2. The privative nature of evil, as it is called, is purely a figment of the brain ; it is an invention of the schoolmen, which has no corresponding reality in nature. When Adam put forth his hand to pluck the for- bidden fruit, and ate it, he committed a sinful act. But why was it sinful ? Because he knew it was wrong ; because his act was a voluntary and known transgression of the command of God. Now, if God had caused all that was positive in this sinful act, that is, if he had caused Adam to will to put forth his hand and eat the fruit, it is plain that he would have been the cause of his transgression. Nothing can be more chimerical, it seems to us, than this distinction between being the author of the substance of an act, and the author of its pravity. If Adam had obeyed, that is, if he had refused to eat the forbid- den fruit, such an act would not have been more positive than the actual series of volitions by which he transgressed. 3. If what we call sin, arises from the necessary imperfection of the creature, as the slowness of a vessel in descending a stream arises from its cargo, how can he be to blame for it ; or, in other words, how can it be moral evil at all ? And, 4. Leibnitz has certainly committed a very great oversight in this attempt to account for the origin of evil. He explains it, by saying that it arises from the necessary imperfection of the creature which limits its receptivity ; but does he mean that God cannot communicate holiness to the creature ? Does he mean that God endeavours to communicate holiness, and fails in consequence of the necessary imperfection of the creature ? If so, what becomes of the doctrine which he everywhere advances, that God can very easily cause virtue or holiness to exist if he should choose to do so ? If God can very easily cause this to exist, as Leibnitz contends he can, notwithstanding the necessary iinper- Progress of Ethical Philosophy, p. 114. 7 98 MORAL EVII CONSISTENT [Part I, fection of the creature, why has he not done so ? Is it not evident, that the philosophy of Leibnitz merely play s over the surface of this great difficulty, and decks it out with the orna- ments of fancy, instead of reaching down to the bottom of it, and casting the illuminations of his genius into its depths \ SECTION IIL The maxims adopted and employed by Edwards to show that the scheme of does not make God the author of sin. "This remarkable man," says Sir James Mackintosh, "the metaphysician of America, was formed among the Calvinists of New-England, when their stern doctrine retained its vigor- ous authority. His power of subtle argument, perhaps un- matched, certainly unsurpassed among men, was joined, as in some of the ancient mystics, with a character which raised his piety to fervour." It is in his great work on the will, as well as in some of his miscellaneous observations, that Edwards, has put forth the powers of his mind, in order to show that the scheme of necessity does not obscure the lustre of the divine per- fections. "With the exception of the Essais de Theodicee of Leibnitz, it is perhaps the greatest effort the human mind has ever made to get rid of the seeming antagonism between the scheme of necessity and the holiness of God. According to the system of Edwards, as well as that of his opponents, sin would not have been committed unless it were permitted by God. But in the scheme of Edwards, the agency of God bears a more intimate relation to the origin and exist- ence of sin than is implied by a bare permission of it. " God," says he, disposes "the state of events in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow."* And this occurrence of sin, in consequence of his disposing and ordering events, enters into his design. For Edwards truly says, that " If God disposes all events, so that the infallible existence of the events is decided by his providence, then, doubtless, he thus orders and decides things knowingly and on design. God does not do what he does, nor order what he orders, accidentally and unawares, either without or Reside Inquiry, p. 246. Chapter II.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 99 his intention." Tims, we are told, that God so arranges and disposes the events of his providence as to bring sin to pass, and that he does so designedly. This broad proposition is laid down, not merely with reference to sin in general, but to cer- tain great sins in particular. " So that," says Edwards, " what these murderers of Christ did, is spoken of as what God brought to pass or ordered, and that by which he fulfilled his own word." According to Edwards, then, the events of God's providence are arranged with a view to bring all the sinful deeds of men "certainly and infallibly" to pass, as well as their holy acts. Now, here the question arises, Is this doctrine consistent with the character of God? Is it not repugnant to his in- finite holiness? We affirm that it is; Edwards declares that it is not. Let us see, then, if his position does not involve him in insuperable difficulties, and in irreconcilable contra- dictions. Edwards supposes that some one may object : " All that these things amount to is, that God may do evil that good may come; which is justly esteemed immoral and sinful in men, and therefore may be justly esteemed inconsistent with the per- fections of God." This is a fair and honest statement of the objection; now let us hear the reply. "I answer," says Edwards, " that for God to dispose and permit evil in the man- ner that has been spoken of, is not to do evil that good may come ; for it is not to do evil at all." It is not to do evil at all, says he, for the Supreme Ruler of the world to arrange events around one of his creatures in such a manner that they will certainly and infallibly induce him to commit sin. "Why is not this to do evil ? At first view, it certainly looks very much like doing evil ; and it is not at once distinguishable from the temp- tations ascribed to Satanic agency. Why is it not to do evil, then, when it is done by the Almighty ? It is not to do evil, says Edwards, because when God brings sin certainly and infallibly to pass, he does so " for wise and holy purposes." This is his answer: "In order to a thing's- being morally evil, theie must be one of these two things belonging to it: either it must be a thing unfit and unsuitable in its own nature, or it must have a bad tendency, or it must be done for an evil end. But neither of these things can be attributed to God's ordering 100 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, and permitting such events as the immoral acts of creatures for good ends."* Let us examine this logic. We are gravely told, that God designedly brings the sinful acts of men to pass by the use of most certain and infallible means ; but this is not to do evil, because he has a good end in view. His intention is right ; he brings sin to pass for " wise and holy purposes." Let us come a little closer to this doctrine, and see what it is. It will not be denied, that if any bein^ should bring sin to pass without any end at all, except to secure its existence, this would be a sinful agency. If any being should, knowingly and designedly, bring sin to pass in another, without any " w^ise and holy purposes," all mankind will agree in pronouncing the deed to be morally wrong. But precisely the same deed is not wrong in God, says Edwards, because in his case it proceeds from " a wise and holy purpose," and he has " a good end in view." That is to say, the means, in themselves considered, are morally wrong ; but being employed for a wise and holy purpose, for the attainment of a good end, they are sanctified ! This is precisely the doctrine, that the end sancti- fies the means. Is it not wonderful, that any system should be so dark and despotic in its power as to induce the mind of an Edwards, ordinarily so amazing for its acuteness and so exalted in its piety, to vindicate the character of God upon such grounds ? The defence of Edwards is neither more nor less than a play on the term evil. When it is said, that " w r e may do evil that good may come ;" the meaning of the maxim is, that the means in such a case and under such circumstances ceases to be evil. The maxim teaches that " we may do evil," that it is lawful to do evil, with a view to the grand and glorious end to be attained by it. Or, in other words, that it is right to do what would otherwise be morally evil, in order to accomplish a good end. If Edwards had considered the other form of the same odious maxim, namely, that " the end sanctifies the means," he would have found it impossible to evade the force of its application to his doctrine. He could not have escaped from the difficulty of his position by a play upon the word evil. He would have seen that he had undertaken to justify the conduct of the Father of Lights, by supposing it to be governed by the most corrupt . Inquiry, part iv, sec. ix. Chapter IL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 101 maxim of the most corrupt system of casuistry the world has ever seen. What God does, says Edwards, is not evil at all ; hecanse his purpose is holy, because his object is good, his intention is right. In like manner, the maxim says, that when the end is good and holy, " it sanctifies the means." The means may be impure in themselves considered, but they are rendered pure by the cause in which they are employed. This doctrine has been immortalized by Pascal, in his "Provincial Letters;" and we cannot better dismiss the subject than with an extract from the "Provincial Letters." "I showed yon," says the Jesuitical father, "how servants might, w T ith a safe conscience, manage certain troublesome messages ; did you not observe that it is simply taking off their intention from the sin itself, and fixing it on the advantage to be gained."* On this principle, stealing, and lying, and murder, may all be vindicated. " Caramuel, our illustrious defender," says the Jesuit, " in his Fundamental Theology," enters into the examination of many new questions resulting from this principle, (of directing the inten- tion,) as, for example, whether the Jesuits may kill the Jansen- ists ? " Alas, father !" exclaimed Pascal, " this is a most sur- prising point in theology! I hold the Jansenists already no better than dead men by the doctrine of Father Launy." " Aha, sir, you are caught ; for Caramuel deduces the very opposite conclusion from the same principles." " How so ?" said Pascal. "Observe his words, n. 1146 and 1147, p. 547 and 548. The Jansenists call the Jesuits Pelagians ; may they be killed for BO doing? No for this plain reason, that the Jansenists are no more able to obscure the glory of our society, than an owl can hide the sun; in fact, they promote it, though certainly against their intention occidi non possunt, quia nooere non potuerum.'' "Alas, father," says Pascal, "and does the exist- ence of the Jansenists depend solely upon their capacity of injuring your reputation ? If that be the case, I am afraid they are not in a very good predicament ; for if the slightest proba- bility should arise of their doing you any hurt, they may be despatched at once. You can perform the deed logically and in form ; for it is only to direct your intention right, and you Insure a quiet conscience. What a blessedness for those who Letter viL 102 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, can endure injuries to know this charming doctrine! But, on the other hand, how miserable is the condition of the offending party ! Really, father, it would be better to have to do with people totally devoid of all religion, than with those \vho have received instructions so far only as to this point, relative to directing the intention. I am afraid the intention of the mur- derer is no consolation to the wounded person. He can have no perception of this secret direction poor man ! he is conscious only of the Uow he receives; and I am not certain whether he would not be less indignant to be cruelly massacred by peo- ple in a violent transport of rage, than to be devoutly killed for conscience' sake." Now, we submit it to the candid reader, whether the reasoning here ascribed to the Jesuit by Pascal, is not exactly parallel with that on which Edwards justifies the procedure of the Almighty ? If God may choose sin and bring it to pass, without contracting the least impurity, because his intention is directed aright, to a wise and good end, may we not be permitted to imitate his example ? And again, if God thus employs the creature as an instrument to accomplish his wise and holy purposes, why should he pour out the vials of his wrath upon him for having yielded to the dispensations of his almighty power ? In order to save his doctrine from reproach, Edwards has invented a distinction, which next demands our attention. "There is no inconsistence," says he, " in supposing that God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet that it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. I believe there is no person of good understanding who will venture to say, he is certain that it is impossible it should be best, taking in the whole compass and extent of existence, and all consequences in the endless series of events, that there should be such a thing as moral evil in the world. And if so, it will certainly follow, that an infinitely wise Being, w T ho always chooses what is best, must choose that there should be such a thing. And if so, then such a choice is not evil, but a wise and holy choice. And if so, then that Providence which is agreeable to such a choice, is a wise and holy Providence. Men do will sin as sin, and so are the authors and actors of it ; they love it as sin, and for evil ends and purposes. God does not will sin as sin, or for the sake of anything evil ; though it be his pleasure so to order Chapter TT.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 103 things that, he permitting, sin will come to pass, for the sake of the great good that by his disposal shall be the consequence. His willing to order things so that evil should come to pass for the sake of the contrary good, is no argument that he does not hate evil as evil ; and if so, then it is no reason why he may not reasonably forbid evil as evil, and punish it as such."* Here we are plainly told, that although God hates sin as sin, yet, all things considered, he prefers that it should come to pass, and even helps it into existence. But man loves and commits evil as such, and is therefore j ustly punishable for it. There are several serious objections to this extraordinary dis- tinction. It is not true that men love and commit sin as sin. Sin is committed, not for its own sake, but for the pleasure which attends it. If sin did not gratify the appetites, or the passions, or the desires of men, it would not be committed at all ; there would be no temptation to it, and it would be seen as it is in its own loathsome nature. Indeed, to speak with philosoph- ical accuracy, sin is never a direct object of our affections or choice ; we simply desire certain things, as Adam did the for- bidden fruit, and we seek our gratification in them contrary to the will of God. This constitutes our sin. The direct object of our choice is, not disobedience, not sin, but the forbidden thing, the prohibited gratification. We do not love and choose the disobedience, but the thing which leads us to disobey. This is so very plain and simple a matter, that we cannot but wonder that honest men should have lost sight of it in a mist of words, and built up their theories in the dark. Secondly, the above position, into which Edwards has been forced by the exigencies of his doctrine concerning evil, is directly at war with the great fundamental principle on which his whole system rests, namely, that the will is always deter- mined by the greatest apparent good. For how is it possible that men should commit sin as sin, and for its own sake, if they never do anything except what is the most agreeable to them ? How is it possible that they pursue moral evil merely as moral evil, and yet pursue it as the greatest apparent good? If it should be said that men love sin merely as sin, and therefore it pleases them to choose it for its own sake, this reply would bo without foundation. For, as we have already seen, there is no Inquiry, part iv, sec. ix. 104 MOKAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, such principle in human nature as the love of sin as such, or for its own sake ; and consequently sin can never delight or please the human mind as it is in itself. And, besides, it is self-con- tradictory ; for the question is, How can a man commit sin for its own sake on account of the pleasure it affords him ? It wruld be an attempt to explain an hypothesis which denies the veiy fact to be explained by it. In the third place, if the philosophy of Edwards be true, no good reason can be assigned why men should restrain themselves from the commission of sin : for, all things considered, God pre- fers the sin which actually exists, and infallibly brings it to pass. He prefers it on account of the great good he intends to educe from it. Why then should we not also prefer its exist- ence ? God is sovereign ; he will permit no more sin than he can and will render subservient to the highest good of the uni- verse ; and so much as is for the highest good he will bring into existence. Why, then, should we give ourselves any concern about the matter ? Why should we fear that there may be too much sin in the world, or why should we blame other men for their crimes and oifences ? The inference which we have just mentioned as necessarily flowing from the doctrine of Edwards, has actually been drawn by some of the most illustrious advocates of that doctrine. Thus says Hartley, as we have already seen, " since all men do against us is by the appointment of God, it is rebellion against him to be offended with them." This is so clearly the logical inference from the doctrine in question, that it is truly wonderful how any one can possibly fail to perceive it. We are told by Leibnitz and Edwards, that we should not presume to act on the principle of permitting sin in others, or of bringing it to pass, on account of the good that we may educe from it ; because such an affair is too high for us. But, surely, we need have no weak fears on this ground ; for although it may be too high for us, they do not pretend that it, is too high for God. He will allow no more sin to make its appearance in the woi'ld, say they, than he will cause to redound to the good of the universe. He prefers it for that reason, and why should we not respond, amen! to his preference? Why should we give ourselves any concern about sin? May we not follow our own inclinations, leaving sin to take its course, and rest quietly Chapter II.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 105 in Providence ? To tins question it will be replied, as Calvin and Edwards repeatedly reply, that the revealed, and not the secret, will of God is the rule of our duty. We do not obj ect to this doctrine ; we acknowledge its perfect propriety and cor- rectness : but it is no reply to the consequence we have deduced from the philosophy of Edwards. It only shows that his philos- ophy leads to a conclusion which is in direct opposition to reve- lation. So far from objecting that any should turn from the philosophy of Edwards to revelation, in order to find reasons why evil should not be committed by us, we sincerely regret that such a departure from a false philosophy, and return to a true religion, is not more permanent and universal. The doctrine of Edwards on this subject destroys the harmony of the divine attributes. It represents God as having two wills ; or, to speak more correctly, it represents him as having pub- lished a holy law for the government of his creatures, which he does not, in all cases, wish them to obey. On the contrary, he prefers that some of them should violate his holy law ; and not only so, but he adopts certain and infallible means to lead them to violate and trample it under foot. It is admitted by Ed- wards, that in this sense God really possesses two wills ; but he still denies that this shows any inconsistency in the nature of God. Edwards says, that the will of God does not oppose sin in the same sense in which it prefers sin, and that, therefore, there is no inconsistency in the case. But let us not deceive ourselves by words. Is it true, that sin is opposed by what is called the revealed will of God, by his command ; and yet that it is, all things considered, chosen by his secret and working will? He commands one thing, and yet works to bring another to pass ! He prohibits all sin, under the awful penalty of eternal death, and yet secretly arranges and plans things in such a manner as to secure the commission of it ! We have already seen one of these defences. God "hates sin as it is in itself;" and hence he prohibits it by his command. "Yet it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all its consequences ;" and hence his secret will is bent on bringing it into existence. There is no inconsistency here, says Ed- wards, because the divine will relates to two different objects; namely, to "sin considered simply as sin," and to "sin con- sidered in all its consequences." We do not care whethei 106 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, the two propositions contradict each other or not; it is abun- dantly evident, as we have seen, that it makes God choose that which he hates, even sin itself, as the means of good. It makes the end sanctify the means, even in the eye of the holy God. This doctrine we utterly reject and infinitely abhor. "We had rather have " our sight, hearing, and motive power, and what not besides, disputed, and even torn away from us, than suffer ourselves to be disputed into a belief," that the holy God can choose moral evil as a means of good. We had rather believe all the fables in the Talmud and the Koran, than that the ever- blessed God should, by his providence and his powder, plunge his feeble creatures into sin, and then punish them with ever- lasting torments for their transgression. We know of nothing in the Pantheism of Spinoza, or in the atheism of Hobbes, more revolting than this hideous dogma. The great metaphysician of New-England has made a still further attempt to vindicate the dogma in question. " The Arminians," says he, "ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and law of God ; because we say he may decree one thing and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another. However, if they will call this a contradiction of wills, w r e know that there is such a thing ; so that it is the greatest absurdity to dispute about it. We and they know it was God's secret will, that Abraham should not sacrifice his son Isaac ; but yet his command was, that he should do it."* Such is the instance produced by this acute divine, to show that the secret will of God may prefer the very thing which is condemned by his revealed will or law ; and on the strength of it, he is bold to say, " We know it, so that it is the greatest absurdity to dispute about it" We have often seen this passage of Scripture produced by infidels, to show that the Old Testament contains unworthy representations of God. If Edwards had undertaken to refute the infidel ground in relation to this passage, he might have done so with very great ease : but then he would at the same time have refuted himself. The Scriptural account of God's commanding Abraham to offer up his son Isaac, was long ago Edwards's Works, vol. vii, p. 406. Chapter II.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 107 employed by the famous infidel Hobbes to show that there are two wills in God. This argument of Hobbes has been refuted by Leibnitz. " Hobbes contends," says Leibnitz, "that God wills not always what he commands, as when he commands Abra- ham to sacrifice his son :" and he replies, that " God, in com- manding Abraham to sacrifice his son, willed the obedience, and not the action, which he prevented after having the obedience ; for that was not an action which merited in itself to be willed : but such is not the case with those actions which he positively wills, and which are indeed worthy of being the objects of his will ; such as piety, charity, and every virtuous action which God commands, and such as the avoidance of sin, more repug- nant to the divine perfections than any other thing. It is incom- parably better, therefore, to explain the will of God, as we have done it in this work."* It is evident that Leibnitz did not relish the idea of two wills in God ; and perhaps few pious minds would do so, if it were presented to them by an atheist. But there was too close an affinity between the philosophy of Leibnitz and that of Hobbes, to permit the former to furnish the most satisfactory refutation of the argument of the latter. This command to Abraham does not show that there ever was any such contrariety between the revealed and the decretal wills of God, as is contended for by Hobbes and Edwards. God intended, as we are told, to prove the faith of Abraham, in order that it might shine forth and become a bright example to all succeeding ages. For this purpose he commanded him to take his only son, whom he loved, and go into the land of Moriah, and there offer him up as a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains. Abraham obeyed without a murmur. After several days travelling and preparation, Abraham has reached the appointed place, and is ready for the sacrifice. His son Isaac is bound, and laid upon the altar; the father stretches forth his hand to take the knife and slay him. But a voice is heard, saying, " Lay not thine hand on the lad ; neither do thou anything unto him." Now, the conduct of Abraham on this memorable occasion, is one of the most remarkable exhibitions of confidence in the wisdom and goodness of God, which the history of the world has furnished. It deserves to be held up to the admiration of mankind, and to be celebrated in all ages Theodicee, p. 327. 108 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, of the world. We sincerely pity the man, who is so taken up with superficial appearances, or who is so destitute of sympathy with the moral greatness and beauty of soul manifested in this simple narrative, that he can approach it in a little, captious, sneering spirit, rather than in an attitude of profound admira- tion. But our business, at present, is not so much with the laughing sceptic as with the grave divine. What evidence, then, does this story furnish that the secret will of God had anything to do with the simple but sublime transaction which it records? God commanded Abraham to repair to the land of Moriah with his son Isaac ; but are we informed that his secret will was opposed to the patriarch's going thither, or that it opposed any obstacle to his obedience? Are we told that God so arranged the events of his providence as to render the disobedience of Abraham, in any one partic- ular, certain and infallible ? We cannot find the shadow of any such information in the sacred story. And is there the least intimation, that when Abraham was commanded to stay the uplifted knife, the secret will of God was in favour of its being plunged into the bosom of his son? Clearly there is not. Where, then, is the discrepancy between the revealed and the secret wills of God in this case, which we are required to see ? Where is this discrepancy so plainly manifested, that we abso- lutely know its existence, so that it is the height of absurdity to dispute against it ? If there is any contrariety at all in this case, it is between the revealed will of God in commanding Abraham to offer up his son, and his subsequently revealed will to desist from the sacrifice. It does not present even a seeming inconsistency between his secret will and his command, but between two portions of his revealed will. This seeming inconsistency between the command of God and his countermand, in relation to the same external action, has been fully removed by Leibnitz ; and if it had not been, it is just as incumbent on the abettors of Edwards's scheme to explain it, as it is upon his opponents. If God had commanded Abraham to do a thing, and yet exerted his secret will to make him violate the injunction, this would have been a case in point : but there is no such case to be found in the word of God. It may not be improper, in this connexion, to quote the fol- Chapter H.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. d LSE if v? Cr 7 lowing judicious admonition of Howe : "Take veecp says he, " that we do not oppose the secret and revealed wSOT- God to one another, or allow ourselves so much as to imagine an oppo- sition or contrariety between them. And that ground being once firmly laid and stuck to, as it is impossible that there can be a will against a will in God, or that he can be divided from himself, or against himself, or that he should reveal anything to us as his will that is not his will, (it being a thing inconsist- ent with his nature, and impossible to him to lie,) that being, I say, firmly laid, (as nothing can be firmer or surer than that,) then measure all your conceptions of the secret will of God by his revealed will, about which you may be sure. But never measure your conceptions of his revealed by his secret will ; that is, by what you may imagine concerning that. For you can but imagine while it is secret, and so far as it is unrevealed."* " It properly belongs," says Edwards, " to the supreme abso- lute Governor of the universe, to order all important events within his dominions by wisdom ; but the events in the moral world are of the most important kind, such as the moral actions of intelligent creatures, and the consequences. These events will be ordered by something. They will either be disposed by wisdom, or they will be disposed by chance ; that is, they will be disposed by blind and undesigning causes, if that were pos- sible, and could be called a disposal. Is it not better that the good and evil which happen in God's world should be ordered, regulated, bounded, and determined by the good pleasure of an infinitely wise being, than to leave these things to fall out by chance, and to be determined by those causes which have no understanding and aim ? .... It is in its own nature fit, that wisdom, and not chance, should order these things."f In our opinion, if there be no other alternative, it is better that sin should be left to chance, than ascribed to the high and holy One. But why must sin be ordered and determined by the supreme Ruler of the world, or else be left to chance ? Has the great metaphysician forgotten, that there may be such things as men and angels in the universe ; or does he mean, witli Spinoza, to blot out all created agents, and all subordinate agency, from existence ? If not, then certainly God may refuse to be the author of sin, without leaving it to blind chance, HOWP'S Works, p. 1142. f On the Will, part iv, sec. ix. 110 VORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, which is incapable of such a thing. He may leave it, as we conceive he has done, to the determination of finite created intelligences. If sin is to come into the world, as come it evi- dently does, it is infinitely better, we say, that it should be left to proceed from the creature, and not be made to emanate from God himself, the fountain of light, and the great object of all adoration. It is infinitely better that the high and holy One should do nothing either by his wisdom or by his decree, by his providence or his power, to help this hideous thing to raise its head amid the inconceivable splendours of his dominion. Such speculations as those of Edwards and Leibnitz, in our opinion, only reflect dishonour and disgrace upon the cause they are intended to subserve. It is better, ten thousand times better, simply to plant ourselves upon the moral nature of man, and the irreversible dictates of common sense, and annihilate the speculations of the atheist, than to endeavour to parry them off by such invented quibbles and sophisms. They give point, and pungency, and power to the shafts of the sceptic. If we meet him on the common ground of necessity, he will snap all such quibbles like threads of tow, and overwhelm us with the floods of irony and scorn. For, in the memorable words of Sir William Hamilton, " It can easily be proved by those who are able and not afraid to reason, that the doctrine of necessity is subversive of religion, natural and revealed." To perceive this, it requires neither a Bayle, nor a Hobbes, nor a Hume ; it only requires a man who is neither unable nor afraid to reason. SECTION IV. The attempts of Dr. Emmons and Dr. Chalmers to reconcile the scheme of with the purity of God. As we have dwelt so long on the speculations of President Edwards concerning the objections in question, we need add but a few remarks in relation to the views of the above-men- tioned authors on the same subject. The sentiments of Dr. Emmons on the relation between the divine agency and the sin- ful actions of men, are even more clearly defined and boldly expressed than those of President Edwards. The disciple is more open and decided than the master. "Since mind can- not act/' says he, " any more than matter can move, without a Chapter II.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. Ill divine agency, it is absurd to suppose that men can be left to the freedom of their own will, to act, or not to act, independ- ently of a divine influence. There must be, therefore, the exercise of a divine agency in every human action, without which it is impossible to conceive that God should govern moral agents, and make mankind act in perfect conformity to his designs." 4 ' " He is now exercising his powerful and irresistible agency upon the heart of every one of the human race, and producing either holy or unholy exercises in it."f " It is often thought and said, that nothing more was necessary on God's part, in order to fit Pharaoh for destruction, than barely to leave him to himself. But God knew that no external means and motives would be sufficient of themselves to form his moral character. He determined therefore to operate on his heart itself, and cause him to put forth certain evil exercises in view of certain external motives. When Moses called upon him to let the people go, God stood by him, and moved him to refuse. When the people departed from his kingdom, God stood by him and moved him to pursue after them with increased malice and revenge. And what God did on such particular occasions, he did at all times.":): It is useless to multiply extracts to the same effect. Could language be more explicit, or more revolt- ing to the moral sentiments of mankind ? If God is alike the author of all our volitions, sinful as well as holy, one wonders by what sort of legerdemain the authors of the doctrine have contrived to ascribe all the glory and all the praise of our holy actions to God, and at the same time all the shame and condemnation of our evil actions to ourselves. In relation to the holy actions of men, all the praise is due to God, say they, because they were produced by his power. Why is not the moral turpitude of their evil actions, then, also ascribed to God, inasmuch as he is said to produce them by his irresistible and almighty agency ? We are accountable for our evil acts, say Dr. Emmons and Calvin, because they are volun- tary. Are not our moral acts, our virtuous acts, also voluntary ? Certainly they are ; this is not denied ; and yet we are not allowed to impute the moral quality of the acts to the agent in such cases. This whole school of metaphysicians, indeed, from Calvin down to Emmons, can make God the author of our evil Emmons's Works, vol. iv, p. 372. f Ib id., P- 388 - I K>id., P- 327 112 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, acts, by an exertion of his omnipotence, and yet assert that because they are voluntary we are justly blameworthy and punishable for them ; but though our virtuous acts are also voluntary, they still insist the praiseworthiness of them is to be ascribed exclusively to Him by whom they were produced. The plain truth is, that as the scheme originated in a particular set purpose and design, so it is one-sided in its views, arbitrary in its distinctions, and full of self-contradictions. The simple fact seems to be, that if any effect be produced in our minds by the power of God, it is a passive impression, and is very absurdly called a voluntary state of the will. And even if such an impression could be a voluntary state, or a voli tion, properly so called, we should not be responsible for it, because it is produced by the omnipotence of God This, we doubt not, is in perfect accordance with the universal con- sciousness and voice of mankind, and cannot be resisted by the sophistical evasions of particular men, how great soever may be their genius, or exalted their piety. We shall, in conclusion, add one more great name to the list of those who, from their zeal for the glory of the divine omnipo- tence, have really and clearly made God the author of sin. The denial of his scheme of "a rigid and absolute predes- tination," as he calls it, Dr. Chalmers deems equivalent to the assertion, that " things grow up from the dark womb of non- entity, which . omnipotence did not summon into being, and which omniscience could not foretell." And again, " At this rate, events would come forth uncaused from the womb of non- entity, to which omnipotence did not give birth, and which omniscience could not foresee."* Now all this is spoken, be it remembered, in relation to the volitions or acts of men. But if there are no such events, except such as omnipotence gives birth to, or summons into being, how clear and how irresistible is the conclusion that God is the author of the sinful acts of the creature ? It were better, we say, ten thousand times better, that sin, that monstrous birth of night and darkness, should grow up out of the womb of nonentity, if such were the only alternative, than that it should proceed from the bosom of God. Institutes of Theology, vol. ii, chap. iii. Chapter III.-} WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 11* CHAPTEK III. THE SCHEME OF NECESSITY DENIES THE REALITY OF MORAL DISTINCfiONa Our voluntary service He requires, Not our necessitated ; such with him Finds no acceptance, nor can find ; for how Can hearts, not free, be tried whether they serve Willing or no, who will but what they must By destiny, and can no other choose ? MILTON. IN the preceding chapters we have taken it for granted that there is such a thing as moral good and evil, and endeavoured to show, that if the scheme of necessity be true, man is absolved from guilt, and God is the author of sin. But, in point of fact, if the scheme of necessity be true, there is no such thing as moral good or evil in this lower world ; all distinction between virtue and vice, moral good and evil, is a mere dream, and we really live in a non-moral world. This has been shown by many of the advocates of necessity. SECTION I. The views of Spinoza in relation to the reality of moral distinctions. It is shown by Spinoza, that all moral distinctions vanish before the iron scheme of necessity. They are swept away as the dreams of vulgar prejudice by the force of Spinoza's logic ; yet little praise is due, we think, on that account, to the superiority of his acumen. The wonder is, not that Spinoza should have drawn such an inference, but that any one should fail to draw it. For if our volitions are necessitated by causes over which we have no control, it seems to follow, as clear as noonday, that they cannot be the objects of praise or blame cannot be our virtue or vice. So far is it indeed from requiring any logical acuteness to perceive such an inference, that it demands, as we shall see, the very greatest ingenuity to keep from per- ceiving it. Hence, in our humble opinion, the praise which has oeen lavished on the logic of Spinoza is not deserved. His superior consistency only shows one of two things 8 114 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, either that he possessed a stronger reasoning faculty than his great master, Descartes, or a weaker moral sense. In our opinion, it shows the latter. If his moral sentiments had been vigorous and active, they would have induced him, no doubt, either to invent sophistical evasions of such an inference, or to reject the doctrine from which it flows. If a Descartes, a Leibnitz, or an Edwards, for example, had seen the conse- quences of the scheme of necessity as clearly as they were seen by Spinoza, his moral nature would have recoiled from it with such force as to dash the premises to atoms. If any praise, then, be due to Spinoza for such triumphs of the reasoning power, it should be given, not to the superiority of his logic, but to the apathy of his moral sentiments. For our part, greatly as we admire sound reasoning and consistency in specu- lation, we had rather be guilty of ten thousand acts of logical inconsistency, such as those of Edwards, or Leibnitz, or Des- cartes, than to be capable of resting in the conclusion to which the logic of Spinoza conducted him that every moral distinc tion is a vulgar prejudice, and that the existence of moral good ness is a dream.* SECTION II. The attempt of Edwards to reconcile the scheme of necessity with the reality of moral distinctions. It would not be difficult to see, perhaps, that a necessary holiness, or a necessary sin, is a contradiction in terms, if we would only allow reason to speak for itself, instead of extorting testimony from it by subjecting it to the torture of a false logic. For what proposition can more clearly carry its own evidence along with it, than that whatever is necessary to us, that what- ever we cannot possibly avoid, is neither our virtue nor our fault ? What can be more unquestionable, than that we can be neither to praise nor to blame, neither justly rewardable nor punishable for anything over whose existence we have no power * Empb.atically as this conclusion is stated by Spinoza, and harshly as it is thrust by him against the moral sense of the reader, he could not himself find a perfect rest therein. Nothing can impart this to the reflective and inquiring mind but truth. Hence, even Spinoza finds himself constrained to speak of the duty of love to God, and so forth ; all of which, according to his own conclusion, is irrelative nonsense. Chapter III.] \YITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 115 or control ? Yet this question, apparently so plain and simple in itself, has been enveloped in clouds of metaphysical subtilty, and obscured by huge masses of scholastic jargon. If, on this subject, we have wandered in the dim twilight of uncertain speculation, instead of walking in the clear open day, this has been, it seems to us, because we have neglected the wise admoni- tion of Barrow, that logic, however admirable in its place, was not designed as an instrument "to put out the sight of our eyes." It shall be our first object, then, to pull down and destroy "the invented quibbles and sophisms" which have so long darkened and confounded the light of reason and conscience in relation to the nature of moral good and evil, to dispel the clouds which have been so industriously thrown around this subject, in order that the bright and shining light of nature may, free and unobstructed, find its way into our minds arid hearts. We say, then, that there never can be virtue or vice in the / ' breast of a moral agent, prior to his own actings and doings. On the contrary, it is insisted by Edwards, that true virtue or holiness was planted in the bosom of the first man by the act of creation. "In a moral agent," says he, "subject to moral obligations, it is the same thing to be perfectly innocent, as to be perfectly righteous. It must be the same, because there can no more be any medium between sin and righteousness, or between being right and being wrong, in a moral sense, than there can be a medium between straight and crooked in a natural."* This is applied to the first man as he came from the hand of the Creator, and is designed to show that he was created with true holiness or virtue in his heart. According to this doctrine, man was made upright, not merely in the sense that he was free from the least bias to evil, or that he possessed all the powers requisite to moral agency, but in the sense that true virtue or moral goodness was planted in his nature by the act of creation. If this be so, the doctrine of a necessary holi- ness must be admitted ; for surely nothing can be more neces- sary to us, nothing can take place in which we have less to do, than the act by which we are created. This then is the question which we intend to examine : Original Sin, part ii, chap, i, sec. i. lie MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, whether that which is concreated with a moral agent, can be his virtue or his vice? Whether, in other words, the dispo- sitions or qualities which Adam derived from the hand of God, partook of the nature of true virtue or otherwise? Edwards assumes the affirmative. To establish his position, he relios upon two arguments, which we shall proceed to examine. The first argument is designed to show, that unless true vir- tue, or moral goodness, had been planted in the nature of man by the finger of God, it could never have found its way into the world. To give this argument in his own words, he says : " It is agreeable to the sense of men in all nations and ages, not only that the fruit or effect of a good choice is virtuous, but that the good choice itself, from whence that effect proceeds, is so ; yea, also, tL j antecedent good disposition, temper, or affection of mind, from whence proceeds that good choice, is virtuous. Tli is is the general notion not that principles derive their goodness from actions, but that actions derive their goodness from the principles whence they proceed ; so that the act of choosing what is good is no further virtuous, than it proceeds from a good principle, or virtuous disposition of mind ; which supposes that a virtuous disposition of mind may be before a virtuous act of choice ; and that, therefore, it is not necessary there should first be thought, reflection, and choice, before there .can be any virtuous disposition. If the choice be first, before the existence of a good disposition of heart, what is the charac- ter of that choice ? There can, according to our natural notions, be no virtue in a choice which proceeds from no virtuous prin- ciple, but from mere self-love, ambition, or some animal appe- tites ; therefore, a virtuous temper of mind may be before a good act of choice, as a tree may be before its fruit, and the fountain before the stream which proceeds from it."* Thus, he argues, if there must be choice before a good disposition, or virtue, according to our doctrine, then virtue could not arise at all, or find its way into the world. For all men concede, says he, that every virtuous choice, or act, must proceed from a vir- tuous disposition ; and if this must also proceed from a virtuous act, it is plain there could be no such thing as virtue or moral goodness at all. The scheme which teaches that the act must precede the principle, and the principle the act, reduces the Original Sin, part ii, ch. i, sec. i. Chapter III.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 1 1 7 very existence of virtue to a plain impossibility. He shows virtue to be possible, and escapes the difficulty, by referring it to the creative energy of the Divine Being, by which the prin- ciple of virtue, he contends, was planted in the mind of the first man. This argument is plausible ; but it will not bear a close exam- ination. It might be made to give way, in various directions, before an analysis of the principle on which it is constructed ; but we intend to demolish it by easier and more striking argu- ments. If we had nothing better to oppose to it, we might indeed neutralize its effect by a counter-argument of Edwards himself, which we find in his celebrated work on the will. He there says, that the virtuousness of every virtuous act or choice depends upon its own nature, and not upon its origin or cause. If we must refer every virtuous act, says he, to something in us that is virtuous as its antecedent, we must like- wise refer that antecedent to some other virtuous origin or cause ; and so on ad injmitum. Thus we should be compelled to trace virtue back from step to step, until we had quite driven it out of the world, and excluded it from the universality of things.* Now this argument seems just as plausible as that which we have produced from the same author, in his work on Original Sin. Let us lay them together, and contemplate the joint result. According to one, the character of every virtuous act depends upon the virtuousness of the principle or disposition whence it proceeds ; according to the other, it depends upon its own nature, and not at all upon anything in its origin, or cause, or antecedent. According to one, we must trace every virtuous act to a virtuous principle, and the virtuous principle itself to the necessitating act of God ; according to the other, we must look no higher to determine the character of an act than its own nature ; and if we proceed to its origin or cause to deter- mine its character, we shall find no stopping-place. We shall not trace it up to God, as before, but we shall banish all virtue quite out of the world, and exclude it from the universality of things According to one argument, there can be no virtue in the world, unless it be caused to exist, in the first place, by the necessitating, creative act of the Almighty ; and according to the other, the virtuousness of every virtuous act, depends upon Inquiry, part iv, sec. i. 118 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, its own nature, and is wholly independent of the question respecting its origin or cause. The solution of these incon- sistencies and contradictions, we shall leave to the followers and admirers of President Edwards.* But we have something better, we trust, to oppose to Presi- dent Edwards than his own arguments. If his logic be good for anything, it will prove that God is the author of sin as well as of virtue. For it is as much the common notion of mankind that every sinful act must proceed from a sinful disposition or principle, as it is that every virtuous act must proceed from a virtuous disposition or principle ; and hence, according to the logic of Edwards, a sinful disposition or principle must have pre- ceded the first sinful act ; that an antecedent sinful disposition or principle could not have been introduced by the act of the creature, and consequently it must have been planted in the bosom of the first man by the act of the Creator. This argu- ment, we say, just as clearly shows that sin is impossible, or that it must have been concreated with man, as it shows the same thing in relation to virtue. If we maintain his argument, then, we must either deny the possibility of moral evil or make God the author of it. After having laid down principles from which the impossi- bility of moral evil may be demonstrated, it was too late for Edwards to undertake to account for the origin of sin. Accord- ing to his philosophy, it can have no existence ; and hence we are not to look into that philosophy for any very clear account of how it took its rise in the world. Indeed, this point is hur- ried over by Edwards in a most hasty and superficial manner, They are accustomed to boast, that no man ever excelled Edwards in the reductio ad alsurdum. But we believe no one has produced a more striking illus- tration of his ability in the use of this weapon, than that which we have just adduced. For if we contend, that every act is to be judged according to its own nature, whether it be good or evil, he will demonstrate, that we render virtue impossible, and exclude it entirely from the world. On the other hand, if we shift our position, and contend that no act is to be judged according to its own nature, but according to the goodness or badness of its origin or cause, he will also reduce this position, diametrically opposite though it be to the former, to precisely the same absurdity ; namely, that it excludes all virtue out of the world, and banishes it from the universality of things ! Surely, this reductio ad ab~ surdum is a most formidable weapon in his hands ; since he wields it with such destructive fury against the most opposite principles, and seems himself scarcely less exposed than others to its force. Chapter III.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 119 in which lie seems conscious of no little embarrassment. In his great work on the will he devotes one page and a half to tin's subject; and the greater part of this small space is filled up with the retort upon the Arrninians, that their scheme is en- cumbered with as great difficulties as his own ! He lets the truth drop in one place, however, that " the abiding principle and hatyt of sin" was " first introduced by an evil act of the creature."* Is it possible? How could there be an evil act which did not proceed from an antecedent evil principle or dis- position ? What becomes of the great common notion of man- kind, on which his demonstration is erected ? But we must allow the author to contradict himself, since he has now come around to the truth, that an evil act of the creature may and must have preceded the existence of moral evil in the world. If an intel- ligent creature, however, as it came from the hand of God, can introduce a " principle of sin by a sinful act," why should it be thought impossible for such a creature to introduce a principle of virtue by a virtuous act? The truth is, that a virtuous act does not require an antecedent virtuous disposition or principle to account for its existence ; nor does a vicious act require an antecedent vicious principle to ac- count for its existence. In relation to the rise of good and evil in the world, the philosophy of Edwards is radically defective ; and no one can discuss that subject on the principles of his phi- losophy without finding himself involved in contradictions and absurdities. If his psychology had not been false, he might have seen a clear and steady light where he has only beheld difficulties and confusion. As we have already seen, and as we shall still more fully see, Edwards confounds the power by which we act with the susceptibility through which we feel: the will with the emotive part of our nature. Every one knows that we may feel without acting ; and yet feeling and acting, suffering^ and doing, are expressly and repeatedly identified in his writ- ings. Having merged the will in sensibility, he regarded vir- tue and vice as phenomena of the latter, and as evolved from its bosom by the operation of necessitating causes. Hence his views in relation to the nature of moral good and evil, as well as in relation to their origin, became unavoidably dark and uonfused. Inquiry, part iv, sec. x. 120 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, If we only bear in mind the distinction between the will and the sensibility, we may easily see how either holiness or sin might have taken its rise in the bosom of the first man, without supposing that either a holy or a sinful principle was planted there by the hand of the Creator. If we will only carry the light of this distinction along with us, it w r ill be no more diffi- cult to account for the rise of the first sin in the boom of a spotless creature of God, than to account for any other volition of the human mind. The first man, by means of his intelli- gence, could contemplate the perfection of his Creator, and, doing so, he could not but feel an emotion of admiration and delight. But this feeling was not his virtue. It was the natural and the necessary result of the organization which God had given him. He was also so constituted, that certain earthly objects were agreeable to him, and excited his natural appetites and desires. These appetites and desires were not sinful, nor was the sensibility from whose bosom they were evolved : they were the spontaneous workings of the nature which God had bestowed upon him. But his will was free. He could turn his mind to God, or he could turn it to earth. He did the latter, and there was no harm in this. But he listened to the voice of the tempter ; he fixed his mind on the forbidden fruit ; he saw it was pleasant to the eye ; he imagined it was good for food, and greatly to be desired to make one wise. Neither the possession of the intellect by which he perceived the beauty of the fruit, nor of the sensibility in which it excited so many pleasurable emotions, w r as the sin of Adam. They were given to him by the Author of every good and perfect gift. His will was free. It was not necessitated to act by his desires. But yet, in direct opposition to the known will of God, he put forth an act of his own free mind, his own unnecessitated will, and plucked the forbidden fruit to gratify his desires. This was his sin this voluntary transgression of the known will of God. On the jther hand, if he had resisted the temptation, and instead of voluntarily gratifying his appetite and desire, had preserved his allegiance to God by acting in conformity witl, his will, this would have been his virtue. He would have acted in con- formity with the rule of duty, and thereby gratified a feeling of love to God, instead of the lower feelings of his nature. Thus, by observing the distinction between the will and the Chapter IIL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 121 sensitive part of our nature, we may easily see how either holi- ness or sin might have arisen in the bosom of the first man, though he had neither a holy nor a sinful principle planted in his nature by the hand of the Creator. We may easily see that he had all the powers requisite to moral agency, and that 1 e was really capable of either a holy or a sinful act, without any antecedent principle of holiness or sin in his nature. We have now said enough, we think, to show the fallacy of Edwards'o first great argument in favour of a necessary holiness. We have seen, that we need not suppose the existence of a virtuous principle in the first man, in order to account for his first virtuous act, or to render virtue possible. We might point out many other errors and inconsistencies in which that argu- ment is involved; but to avoid, as far as possible, becoming prolix and tiresome, we shall proceed to consider his second argument in favour of a necessary or concreated holiness. His second argument is this: "Human nature must have been created with some dispositions a disposition to relish some things as good and amiable, and to be averse to others as odious and disagreeable ; otherwise it must be without any such thing as inclination or will ; perfectly indifferent, without preference, without choice, or aversion, towards anything as agreeable or disagreeable. But if it had any concreated dis- positions at all, they must be either right or wrong, either agreeable or disagreeable to the nature of things. If man had at first the highest relish of things excellent and beautiful, a disposition to have the quickest and highest delight in those things which were most worthy of it, then his dispositions were morally right and amiable, and never can be excellent in a higher sense. But if he had a disposition to love most those things that were inferior and less worthy, then his dispositions were vicious. And it is evident there can be no medium between these." It is thus that Edwards seeks and finds virtue in the emotion, and not in the voluntary element of man's nature. The natural concreated disposition of Adam, he supposes, was morally right in the highest sense of the word, because he was so made as to relish and delight in the glorious perfections of the divine nature. Our first answer to this is, that it is contradicted by the reason and moral j udginent of mankind in general, and, in 122 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, particular, by the reason and moral judgment of Edwards himself. It is agreeable to the voice of human reason, that nothing can be OUT virtue, in the true sense of the word, which was planted in us by the act of creation, and in regard to the pro- duction of which we possessed no knowledge, exercised no agency, and gave no consent. And if we listen to the language of Edwards, when the peculiarities of his system are out of the question, we shall find that -this moral judgment was as agree- able to him as it is to the rest of mankind. For example : human nature is created with a disposition to be grateful for favours ; and this disposition, according to Edwards, must either be agreeable or disagreeable to the nature of things, that is, it must be either morally right or wrong in the highest sense of the word. There can be no medium between these two it must partake of the nature of virtue or of vice. Now, which of the terms of this alternative does Edward? adopt \ Does Ije pronounce this natural disposition our virtue or our vice 1 We do not know what Edwards would have said, if this question had been propounded to him in connexion with the argument now under consideration ; but we do know what he has said of it in other portions of his works. This natural concreated disposi- tion is, says he, neither our virtue nor our vice ! " That in- gratitude, or the want of natural affection, " says he, " shows a high degree of depravity, does not prove that all gratitude and natural affection possesses the nature of true virtue or saving grace."* " We see, in innumerable instances, that mere nature is sufficient to excite gratitude in men, or to affect their hearts with thankfulness to others for favours received."f " Gratitude being thus a natural principle, ingratitude is so much the more vile and heinous ; because it shows a dreadful prevalence of wickedness, which even overbears and suppresses the bettei principles of human nature. It is mentioned as a high degree of wickedness in many of the heathen, that they were without natural affection. Rom. ii, 31. But that the want of gratitude, or natural affection, is evidence of a great degree of vice, is no argument that all gratitude and natural affection has the nature of virtue or saving grace." Here, as well as in various other places, Edwards speaks of Religious Affections, part iii, sec. ii. f Ibid. Chapter IK.1 WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 123 gratitude and other natural affections as the better principles of our nature ; to be destitute of which he considers a horrible deformity. But, however amiable and lovely, he denies to these natural affections, or dispositions, the character of virtue ; be- cause they are merely natural or concreated dispositions. They are innocent ; that is, they are neither our virtue nor our vice, but a medium between moral good and evil. Nothing can be more reasonable than this, and nothing more inconsistent with the logic of the author. Such is the testimony of Edwards him- self, when he escapes from the shadows of a dark system, and the trammels of a false logic, and permits his own individual mind, in the clear open light of nature, to work in full unison with the universal mind of man. According to the author's own definition of " true virtue," it " is the beauty of those qualities and acts of the rniiid that are of a moral nature, i. e., such as are attended with desert of praise or blame" Surely, Adam could have deserved no praise for the qualities bestowed on him by the act of creation ; and hence, according to the author's own definition, they could not have been his virtue. In regard to the " new creation " of the soul, Edwards contends that all the praise is due to God, and no part of it to man ; because the whole work is performed by divine grace, without human cooperation. Now, we admit that if the whole work of regeneration is performed by God, then man is not to be praised for it ; that is to say, it is not his virtue. Here again the author sets forth the true principle; but how does it agree with his logic in relation to the first man? Was not his creation wholly and exclusively the work of God ? If so, then all the praise is due to God, and no part of it to man. But, according to the author's own definition, when there is no praise- worthiness there is no virtue ; and hence, as Adam deserved no praise on account of what he received at his creation, so such endowments partook not of the nature of true virtue. But we have a still more fundamental objection to the argu- ment in question. It proceeds on the supposition that true vir- tue consists in IU\QYQ feeling. This view of the nature of virtue is admirably adapted to make it agree and harmonize with the scheme of necessity ; but it is not a sound view. If an object is calculated to excite a certain feeling or emotion in the mind, that feeling or emotion will necessarily arise in view of such 124 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT IPart I, object. If the glorious perfections of the divine nature, for ex- ample, had been presented to the mind of Adam, no doubt he would have been necessarily compelled to " love, relish, and delight in them." But this feeling of love and delight, thua necessarily evolved out of the bosom of his natural disposition, however exquisite and enrapturing, would not have been his virtue or holiness. It would have been the spontaneous and irresistible development of the nature which God had given him We may admire it as the most beautiful unfolding of that na 'ture, but we cannot applaud it as the virtue or moral goodness of Adam. We look upon it merely as the excellency and glory of the divine w r ork of creation. We could regard the glory of the heavens, or the beauty of the earth, with a sentiment of moral approbation, as easily as we could ascribe the character of moral goodness to the noble qualities with which the Al- mighty had been pleased to adorn the nature of the first man. The beautiful feeling or emotion of love is merely the blossom which precedes the formation of true virtue in the heart. Tin's consists, not in holy feelings, as they are called, but in holy exercises of the will. It is only when the will, in its workings, coalesces with a sense of right and a feeling of love to God, that the blossom gives place to the fruit of virtue. A virtuous act is not a spontaneous and irresistible emotion of the sensi- bility ; it is a voluntary exercise and going forth of the will in obedience to God. It is a strange error which makes virtue consist in "the spontaneous affections, emotions, and desires that arise in the mind in view of its appropriate objects." If these necessarily arise in us, " and do not wait for the bidding of the will,"* how can they possibly be our virtue? how can they form the objects of moral approbation in us? Yet is it confidently asserted, that the denial of such a doctrine " stands in direct and palpa- ble opposition to the authority of God's word."f The word of God, we admit, says that holiness consists in love ; but does it assert that it consists in the feeling of love merely ? or in any feeling which spontaneously and irresistibly arises in the mind? If the Scripture had been written expressly to refute such a moral heresy, it could not have been more pointed or explicit. Holiness consists in love. But what is the meaning of the Dr. Woods. | Ibid. Chapter III.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 125 term love, as set forth in Scripture? We answer, "This is the love of God," that we " keep his commandments." " Let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth." " Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man who built his house upon a rock." " He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." Here, as well as in innumerable other places, are we told that true love is not a mere evanescent feeling of the heart, but an inwrought and abiding habit of the will. It is not a suffering, it is a doing. The most lively emotions, the most ecstatic feelings, if they lead not the will to action, can avail us nothing; for the tree will be judged, not by its blossoms, but by its fruits. If we see our brother in distress, we cannot but sympathize with him, unless our hearts have been hardened by crime. The feeling of compassion will spontaneously arise in our minds, in view of his distress ; but let us not too hastily imag- ine therefore that we are virtuous, or even humane. We may possess a tender feeling of compassion, and yet the feeling may have no corresponding act. The opening fountain of compas- sion may be shut up, or turned aside from its natural course, by a wrong habit of the will ; and hence, with all our weeping tenderness of feeling, we may be destitute of any true humanity. We may be merely as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. " Whoso hath this world's goods, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bo\vels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him ?" It is this loving in work, and not in feeling merely, which the word of God requires of us ; and when, at the last day, all nations, and kindreds, and tongues, shall stand before the throne of heaven, we shall be judged, not according to the feelings we have experienced, but according to the deeds done in the body. Hence, the doctrine which makes true virtue or moral goodness consist in the spontaneous and irresistible feelings of the heart, " stands in direct and palpable opposition to the authority of God's word/' Feeling is one thing ; obedience is another. This counter- feit virtue or moral goodness, which begins and terminates in feeling, is far more common than true virtue or holiness. Whu can reflect, for instance, on the infinite goodness of God, with- out an emotion or feeling of love ? That man must indeed be 126 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [.Part i, uncommonly hard-hearted and sullen, who can walk out on a fine day and behold the wonderful exhibitions of divine good- ness on all sides around him, without being. warmed into a feel- ing of admiration and love. "When all nature is music to the ear and beauty to the eye, it requires nothing more than a freedom from the darker stains and clouds of guilt within, to lead a sympathizing heart to the sunshine of external nature, as it seems to rejoice in the smile of Infinite Beneficence. The heart may swell with rapture as it looks abroad on a happy universe, replenished with so many evidences of the divine goodness ; nay, the story of a Saviour's love, set forth in elo- quent and touching language, may draw tears from our eyes, and the soul may rise in gratitude to the Author of such bound- less compassion ; and yet, after all, we may be mere sentiment- alists in religion, whose wills and whose lives are in direct oppo- sition to all laws, both human and divine. Infidelity itself, in such moments of deep but transitory feeling, may exclaim with an emotion known but to few Christian minds, "Socrates died like a philosopher, but Jesus Christ like a God," and its iron nature still retain " the unconquerable will." We may now safely conclude, we think, that the mists raised by the philosophy and logic of Edwards have not been able to obscure the lustre of the simple truth, that true virtue or holi- ness cannot be produced in us by external necessitating causes. Whatsoever is thus produced in us, we say, cannot be our virtue, nor can we deserve any praise for its existence. This seems to be a clear dictate of the reason of man ; and it would so seem, we have no doubt, to all men, but for certain devices which to some have obscured the light of nature. The princi- pal of these devices we shall now proceed to examine. SECTION III. Of the proposition that " The essence of the virtue and vice of dispositions of the heart and acts of the will, lies not in their cause, but in their nature." For the sake of greater distinctness, we shall confine our attention to a single branch of this complex proposition ; namely, that the essence of virtuous acts of the will lies not in their Inquiry of President Edwards, part iv, sec. 1. Chapter IIL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 127 cause, but their nature. Our reasoning in relation to this point, may be easily applied to the other branches of the propo- sition. We admit, then, that the essence of a virtuous act lies in its nature. If this means that the nature of a virtuous act lies in its nature, or its essence lies in its essence, it is certainly true ; and even if the author attached different ideas to the terms essence and nature, we do not care to search out his meaning ; as we may very safely admit his proposition, whatever may be its signification. We are told by the editor, that the whole proposition is very important on account of " the negative part," namely, that "the essence of virtue and vice lies not in their cause" We are also willing to admit, that the essence of every- thing lies in its own nature, and not in its cause. But why is this proposition brought forward ? What purpose is it designed to serve in the philosophy of the author ? This question is easily answered. He contends that true vir- tue may be, and is, necessitated to exist by powers and causes over which we have no control. If we raise our eyes to such a source of virtue, its intrinsic lustre and beauty seem to fade from our view. The author, indeed, endeavours to explain why '.t is, that the scheme of necessity seems to be inconsistent with the nature of true virtue. The main reason is, says he, because we imagine that the essence of virtue and vice consists, not in their nature, but in their origin and cause. Hence this per- suasion not to busy ourselves about the origin or cause of vir- tue and vice, but to estimate them according to their nature. We are fully persuaded. If any can be found who will assert " that the virtuousness of the dispositions or acts of the will, consists not in the nature of these dispositions or acts of the will, but wholly in the origin or cause of them," we must deliver them up to the tender mercies of President Edwards. Or if any shall talk so absurdly as to say, " that if the dispo- sitions of the mind, or acts of the will, l>e never so good, yet if the cause of the disposition or act be not our virtue, there is nothing virtuous or praiseworthy in it," we have not one word to say in his defence ; nor shall we ever raise our voice in favour of any one, who shall maintain, that " if the will, in its inclina- tions or acts, ~be never so Ijad, yet, unless it arises from something that is our vice or fault, there is nothing vicious or blame- 128 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part 1, worthy in it." For we are firmly persuaded, that if the acts of the will be good, then they are good ; and if they be bad, then they are bad ; whatever may have been their origin or cause. We shall have no dispute about such truisms as these. We insist, indeed, that the first virtuous act of the first man was so, because it partook of the nature of virtue, and not because it had a virtuous origin or cause in a preceding vir- tuous disposition of the mind. But, in his work on Original Sin, Edwards contends otherwise. He there contends, that no act of Adam could have been virtuous, unless it had proceeded from a virtuous origin or cause in the disposition of his heart ; and that this could have had no existence in the world, unless it had proceeded from the power of the Creator. Thus he looked beyond the nature of the act itself, even to its origin and cause, in order to show upon what its moral nature de- pended ; but now he insists that we should simply look at its own nature, and not to its origin or cause, in order to determine this point. He ascends from acts of the will to their origin or cause, in order to show that virtue can only consist with the scheme of necessity ; and yet he denies to us the privilege of ascending with him, in order to show that the nature of virtue cannot at all consist with the scheme of necessity ! We admit that the virtuousiiess of every virtuous act lies, not in its origin or cause, but in itself. But still we insist that a virtuous act, as well as everything else, may be traced to a false origin or cause that is utterly inconsistent with its very nature. A horse is undoubtedly a horse, come from whence it may ; but yet if any one should tell us that horses grow up out of the earth, or drop down out of the clouds, we should certainly understand him to speak of mere phantoms, and no real horses, or we should think him very greatly mistaken. In like manner, when we are told that virtue may be, and is, necessitated to exist in i,s by causes over which we have no control ; that we may be to praise for any gift bestowed upon us by the divine power ; we are con- strained to believe that he has given a false genealogy of moral goodness, and one that is utterly inconsistent with its nature. Nor can we be made to blink this truth, which so perfectly ac- cords, as we have seen, with the universal sentiment of mankind, by being reminded that moral goodness consists, not in its origin or cause, but in its own nature. Virtue is always virtue, we Chapter III.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 129 freely admit, proceed from what quarter of the universe it may ; yet do we insist that it can no more be produced in us by an extraneous agency than it can grow up out of the earth, or drop down out of the clouds of heaven. That which is produced in us by such an agency, be it what it may, is not our virtue, nor is any praise therefor due to us. . To mistake such effects or passive impressions for virtue, is to mistake phantoms for things, shadows for substances, and dreams for realities. SECTION IV. The scheme of necessity seems to be inconsistent with the reality of moral dis- tinctions, not because we confound natural and moral necessity, but because it is really inconsistent therewith. Let us then look at this matter, and see if we are really so deplorably blinded by the ambiguity of a word, that we cannot contemplate the glory of the scheme of moral necessity as it is in itself. The distinction between these two things, natural and moral necessity, is certainly a clear and a broad one. Let us see, then, if we may not find our way along the line of this distinc- tion, without that darkness and confusion by which our judg- ment is supposed to be so sadly misled and perverted. It is on all sides conceded, that natural necessity is inconsist- ent with the good or ill desert of human actions. If a man were commanded, for example, to leap over a mountain, or to lift the earth from its centre, he would be justly excusable for the non- performance of such things, because they lie beyond the range of his natural power. " There is here a limit to our power," as Dr. Chalmers says, " beyond which we cannot do that which we please to do ; and there are many thousand such limits."* This is natural necessity, in one of its branches. It circumscribes and binds our natural power. It limits the external sphere beyond which the effects or consequences of our volitions cannot be projected. It reaches not to the interior sphere of the will itself, and has no more to do with its freedom than has the in- fluence of the stars. "We may please to do a thing, nay, we may freely will it, and yet a natural necessity may cut off and prevent the external consequence of the act. Again, if by a superior force, a man's limbs or external * Institutes of Theology, part iii, chap. i. 9 130 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT (Part I, bodily organs should be used as instruments of good or evil, without his concurrence or consent, he would be excusable for the consequences of such use. This is the other branch of natu- ral necessity. It is evident that it has no relation to the freedom or to the acts of the will, but only to the external movements of the body. It interferes merely with that external freedom of bodily motion, about which we heard so much in the first chapter of this work, and which the advocates of necessity have, for the most part, so industriously laboured to pass off upon the world for the liberty of the will itself. As this natural neces- sity, then, trenches not upon the interior sphere of the will, so it merely excuses for the performance or non-performance of external actions. It leaves the great question with respect to man's accountability for the acts of the will itself, from which his external actions proceed, wholly untouched and undeter- mined. Far different is the case with respect to moral necessity. This acts directly upon the will itself, and absolutely controls all its movements. Within its own sphere it is conceded to be " as absolute as natural necessity,"* and " as sure as fatalism."! It absolutely and unconditionally determines the will at all times, and in all cases. Yet we are told that we are accounta- ble for all the acts thus produced in us, because they are the acts of our own wills ! Nothing is done against our wills, as in the case of natural necessity ; (they should rather say, against the external effects of our wills ;) but our wills always follow, and we are accountable therefor, though they cannot but fol- low. Moral necessity is not irresistible, because this implies re- sistance, and our wills never resist that which makes us willing. It is only invincible ; and invincible it is indeed, since with the mighty, sovereign power of the Almighty it controls all the thoughts, and feelings, and volitions of the human mind. Now we see this scheme as it is in itself, in all its nakedness, just as it is presented to us by its own most able and enlightened de- fenders. And seeing it thus removed from all contact with the scheme of natural necessity, we ask, whether agents can be justly held accountable for acts thus determined and controlled by the power of God, or by those invincible causes which his omnipotence marshalleth ? President Edwards. f Dr. Chalmers. Chapter III.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 131 We speak not of external acts ; and hence we lay aside the whole scheme of natural necessity. We speak of the acts of the will ; and we ask, if these be not free from the dominion of moral necessity, from necessitating causes over which we have no control, can we he accountable for them? Can we be to praise or to blame for them ? Can they be our virtue or our vice ? These questions, we think, we may safely submit to the impartial decision of every unbiassed mind. And to such minds we shall leave it to determine, whether the scheme of moral necessity has owed its hold upon the reason of man to a dark confusion of words and things, or whether its glory has been obscured by the misconception of its opponents ? In conclusion, we shall simply lay down, in a few brief propo- sitions, what we trust has now been seen in relation to the nature of virtue and vice : 1. No necessitated act of the mind can be its virtue or its vice. 2. In order that any act of the will should partake of a moral nature, it must be free from the dominion of causes over which it has no control, or from whose influence it cannot depart. 3. Virtue and vice lie not in the passive state of the sensibility, nor in any other necessitated states of the mind, but in acts of the will, and in habits formed by a repetition of such free voluntary acts. Whatever else may be said in relation to the nature of virtue and of vice, and to the distinction between them, these things appear to be clearly true ; and if so, then the scheme of moral necessity is utterly 'nconsistent with their existence, and saps the very foundation >f all moral distinctions. 132 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT JPart I, CHAPTEK IY. THE MORAL WORLD NOT CONSTITUTED ACCORDING TO THE SCHEME OP NECESSITY. I made him just and right ; Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall. Such I created all the ethereal powers And spirits, both them who stood and them who fail'd ; Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell. MILTON. \\ T E have already witnessed the strange inconsistencies into which the most learned and ingenious men have fallen, in their attempts to reconcile the doctrine of necessity with the account- ability of man, and the glory of God. Having involved them- selves in that scheme, on what has appeared to them conclusive evidence, they have seemed to struggle in vain to force their way out into the clear and open light of nature. They have seemed to torment themselves, and to confound others, in their gigantic efforts to extricate themselves from a dark labyrinth, out of which there is absolutely no escape. Let us see, then, if we may not refute the pretended demonstration in favour of necessity, and thereby restore the mind to that internal satis- faction which it so earnestly desires, and which it so constantly seeks in a perfect unity and harmony of principle. SECTION I. The scheme of necessity is based on a false psychology. There are three great leading faculties or attributes of the human mind; namely, the intelligence, the sensibility, and the will. By means of these w r e think, ^KQ, feel, and we act. Now, the phenomena of thinking, feeling, and acting, will bo found, on examination, to possess different characteristics ; of which wo must form clear and fixed conceptions, if we would extricate the philosophy of the will from the obscurity and confusion in which it has been so long involved. Let us proceed then to examine them, to interrogate our consciousness in relation to them. Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 133 Suppose, for example, that an apple is placed before me. I fix my attention upon it, and consider its form: it is round. This judgment, or decision of the mind, in relation to the form of the apple, is a state of the intelligence. It does not depend on any effort of mine, whether it shall appear round to me or not: I could not possibly come to any other conclusion if I would : I could as soon think it as large as the globe as believe it to be square, or of any other form than round. Hence this judgment, this decision, this state of the intelligence, is neces- sitated. The same thing is true of all the other perceptions or states of the intelligence. M. Cousin has truly said : " Undoubt- edly different intellects, or the same intellect at different periods of its existence, may sometimes pass different judgments in regard to the same thing. Sometimes it may be deceived ; it will judge that which is false to be true, the good to be bad, the beautiful to be ugly, and the reverse : but at the moment when it judges that a proposition is true or false, an action good or bad, a form beautiful or ugly, at that moment it is not in the power of the intellect to pass any other judgment than that it passes. It obeys laws it did not make. It yields to motives which determine it independent of the will. In a word, the phenomenon of intelligence, comprehending, judging, know- ing, thinking, whatever name be given to it, is marked with the characteristic of necessity."* Once more I fix my attention on the apple : an agreeable sensation arises in the mind; a desire to eat it is awakened. This desire or appetite is a state of the sensibility. Whether I shall feel this appetite or desire, does not depend upon any effort or exertion of my will. The mind is clearly passive in relation to it ; the desire, then, is as strongly marked with the characteristic of necessity, as are the states of the intelligence. The same is true of all our feelings ; they are necessarily deter- mined by the objects in view of the mind. There is no con- troversy on these points ; it is universally agreed that every state of the intelligence and of the sensibility is necessarily determined by the evidence and the object in view of the mind. It is not, then, either in the intelligence or in the sensibility that we are to look for liberty. But once more I fix my attention on the apple : the desire is Psychology, p. 247. 134 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, awakened, and I conclude to eat it. Hitherto I have done nothing except in fixing my attention on the apple. I have experienced the judgment that it is round, and felt the desire to eat it. But now I conclude to eat it, and I make an effort of the mind to put forth my hand to take the apple and eat it. It is done. Now here is an entirely new phenomenon ; it is an effort, an exertion, an act, a volition of the mind. The name is of no importance ; the circumstances under which the phenomenon arises have called attention to it, and the precise thing intended is seen in the light of consciousness. Let us look at it closely, and mark its characteristic well, being careful to see neither more nor less than is presented by the phenomenon itself. We are conscious, then, of the existence of an act, of a voli- tion : everybody can see what this is. We must not say, as the advocates of free-agency usually do, that when we put forth this act or volition we are conscious of a power to do the con- trary ; for this position may be refuted, and the foundation on which we intend to raise our superstructure undermined. We are merely conscious of the existence of the act itself, and not even of the power by means of which we act ; the existence of the power is necessarily inferred from its exercise. This is the only way in which we know it, and not from the direct testi- mony of consciousness. Much less if we had refused to act, should we have been conscious of the power to withhold it; much less again are we conscious of the power to withhold the act, as we do not in the case supposed exercise this power. But certainly we are conscious of the act itself; all men will con- cede this, and this is all our argument really demands. Here then we are conscious of an act, of an effort, of the mind. Look at it closely. Is the mind passive in this act? No ; we venture to answer for the universal intelligence of man. If this act had been produced in us by a necessitating cause, would not the mind have been passive in it? In other words, would it not have been a passive impression, and not an act, not an effort of the mind at all ? Yes ; we again venture to answer for the unbiassed reason of man. But it is not, we have seen, a passive impression ; it is an act of the mind, and neiice it is not necessitated. It is not necessitated, because it is not stamped with the characteristic of necessity. The universal reason of man declares that the will has not necessarily yielded Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 135 like the intelligence and the sensibility, to motives over which it had no control. It does not bear upon its face the mark of any such subjection "to the power and action" of a cause. It is marked with the characteristic, not of necessity, but of liberty. We would not say, with Dr. Samuel Clarke, that " action and liberty are identical ideas ;" but we will say, that the idea of action necessarily implies that of liberty ; for if we duly reflect on the nature of an act we cannot conceive it as being necessi- tated. This consideration furnishes an easy and satisfactory solution of a problem, by which necessitarians are sadly per- plexed. They endeavour in various ways to account for the fact that we believe our volitions to be free, or not necessarily caused. Some resolve this belief and feeling of liberty into a deceitful sense ; some imagine that we are deceived by the ambiguities of language ; and some resort to other methods of explaining the phenomenon. "It is true," says President Edwards, " I find myself possessed of my volitions before I can see the effectual power of any cause to produce them., for the power and efficacy of the cause is not seen but by the effect ; and this, for aught 1 know, may make some imagine that volition has no cause, or that it produces itself." But this is not a satisfactory account of the imagination, as he would term it. We also find ourselves possessed of our judgments and feelings before we perceive the effectual power of the cause which produces them. Why then do we refer these to the operation of a necessary cause, and not our volitions ? If the power and efficacy of the cause is seen only by the effect in the one case, it is only seen in the same manner in the other. Why then do we differ in our conclusions with respect to them? Why do we refer the judgment and the feeling to necessary causes, and fail to do the same in relation to the volition ? The reason is obvious. The mind is passive in judging and feeling, and hence these phenomena necessarily demand the operation of causes to account for them ; but the mind is active in its voli- ti^m, and this necessarily excludes the idea of causes to pro- duce them. The mind clearly perceives, by due reflection, and at all times sees dimly, at least, that an act or volition is different in its nature from a passive impression or a produced effect; and hence it knows and feels that it is exempt from the power and efficacy of a producing cause in its volitions. This fact of 1 30 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, our consciousness it is not in the power of sophistry wholly to conceal, nor in the power of human nature to evade. Hence we carry about with us the irresistible conviction that we aie free; that our wills are not absolutely subject to the dominion of causes over which we have no control. Hence we see and know that we are self-active. Having completed our analysis, in as far as our present pur- pose demands, we may proceed to show that the system of necessity is founded on a false psychology, on a dark confusion of the facts of human nature. It is very remarkable that all the advocates of this system, from Hobbes down to Edwards, will allow the human mind to possess only two faculties, the under- standing and the will. The will and the sensibility are expressly identified by them. Locke distinguished between will and de- sire, between the faculty of willing and the susceptibility to feel- ing ; but Edwards has endeavoured to show that there is no such distinction as that for which Locke contends. We shall not arrest the progress of our remarks in order to point out the manner in which Edwards has deceived himself by an appeal to logic rather than to consciousness, because the threefold dis- tinction for which we contend is now admitted by necessitarians themselves. Indeed, after the clear and beautiful analysis by M. Cousin, they could not well do otherwise than recognise this threefold distinction ; but they have done so, we think it will be found, without perceiving all the consequences of such an ad- mission to their system. It is an admission which, in our opinion, will show the scheme of necessity to be insecure in its foundation, and disjointed in all its parts. With the light of this distinction in our minds, it will be easy to follow and expose the sophistries of the necessitarian. He often declaims against the idea of liberty for which we contend, on the ground that it would be, not a perfection, but a very great imperfection of our nature to possess such a freedom. But in every such instance he confounds the will with one of the passive susceptibilities of the mind. Thus, for example, Collins argues that liberty would be a great imperfection, be- cause "nothing can be more irrational and absurd than to be able to refuse our assent to what is evidently true to us, and to assent to what we see to be false." Now, all this is true, but it Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 137 is not to the purpose ; for no one contends that the intelligence is free in assenting to, or in dissenting from, the evidence in view of the mind. No rational being, we admit, could desire en cli a freedom ; could desire to be free, for example, from the conviction that two and two make four. M. Lamartine, we are aware, expresses a very lively abhorrence of the mathematics, because they allow not a sufficient freedom of thought because they exercise so great a despotism over the intellect. But the circumstance which this flowery poet deems an imperfection in the mathematics, every enlightened friend of free-agency will regard as their chief excellency and glory. The same error is committed by Spinoza : " We can consider the soul under two points of view," says he, " as thought and as desire." Here the will is made to disappear, and we behold only the two susceptibilities of the soul, which are stamped with the characteristic of necessity. Where, then, will Spinoza find the freedom of the soul ? Certainly not in the will, for this has been blotted out from the map of his psychology. Accordingly he says : " The free will is a chimera of the species, flattered by our pride, and founded upon our ignorance." He must find the freedom of the soul then, if he find it at all, in one of its passive susceptibilities. This, as we have already seen, is exactly what he does ; he says the soul is free in the affirmation that two and two are four ! Tims he finds the liberty of the soul, not in the exercises of its will, of its active power, but in the bosom of the intelligence, which is absolutely necessitated in all its deter- minations. In this particular, as well as in most others, Spinoza merely reproduces the error of the ancient Stoics. It was a principle with them, says Hitter, " that the will and the desire are one with thought, and may be resolved into it."* Thus, by the .an- cient Stoics, as well as by Hobbes, and Spinoza, and Collins, and Edwards, the will is merged in one of the passive elements of the mind, and its real characteristic lost sight of. " By the freedom of the soul," says Hitter, " the Stoics understood simply that assent which it gives to certain ideas."f Tims the ancient Stoics endeavoured to find the freedom of the soul, where Spi- noza and so many modern necessitarians have sought to find it, in the passive, necessitated states of the intelligence. This was History of Ancient Philosophy, vol. iii, p. 555. f Ibid. 138 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, indeed to impose upon themselves a mere shadow for a sub- stance, a dream for a reality. " By whatever name we call the act of the will," says Fd- wards, " choosing, refusing, approving, disapproving, liking, disliking, embracing, rejecting, determining, directing, com- manding, forbidding, inclining or being averse, being pleased or displeased with all may be reduced to this of choosing."* Thus, in the vocabulary and according to the psychology of this great author, the phenomena of the sensibility and those of the will are identified, as well as the faculties themselves. Pleasing and willing, liking and acting, are all one with him. His psychology admits of no distinction, for example, between the pleasant impression made by an apple on the sensibility, and the act of the will by which the hand is put forth to take it. " The will and the affections of the soul," says he, " are not two faculties ; the affections are not essentially distinct from the will, nor do they differ from the mere actings of the will and inclination, but only in the liveliness and sensibility of exer- cise.'^ And again, " I humbly conceive that the affections of the soul are not properly distinguished from the will, as though there were two faculties.":): And still more explicitly, " all acts of the will are truly acts of the affections." Is it not strange, that one who could exhibit such wonderful discrimination when the exigences of his system demanded the exercise of such a power, should have confounded things so clearly distinct in their natures as an act of the will and an agreeable impression made on the sensibility ? It is not possible for any mind, no matter how great its powers, to see the nature of things clearly when it comes to the contemplation of them with such a confusion of ideas. Even President Edwards is not exempt from the common lot of hu- manity. His doctrine is necessarily enveloped in obscurity. We can turn it in no light without being struck with its incon- sistencies or its futility. He repeatedly says, the will is always determined by the strongest affection, or appetite, or passion ; that is, by the most agreeable state of the sensibility. But if the w T ill and the sensibility are identical, as his language expressly makes them ; or if the states of the one are not dis- y President Edwards's Works, vol. ii, p. 16. f Id., vol. v, pp. 10, 11. t Id., vol. iv, p. 82. Ibid. Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 139 tinguishable from the states of the other, then to say that the will is always determined by the sensibility, or an act of the will by the strongest affection of the sensibility, is to say that a thing is determined by itself. It is to say, in fact, that the will is always determined by itself; a doctrine against which he uniformly protests. Kay, more, that an act of the will causes itself : a position which he has repeatedly ascribed to his oppo- nents, and held up to the derision of mankind. It is very remarkable, that Edwards seems to have been con- scious, at times, that he laid himself open to the charge of such an absurdity, when he said that the will is determined by the greatest apparent good, or by what seems most agreeable to the mind. For he says, " I have chosen rather to express myself thus, that the will always is as the greatest apparent good, or as what appears most agreeable, than to say the will is deter- mined by the greatest apparent good, or by what seems most agreeable ; because an appearing most agreeable to the mind, and the mind's preferring, seem scarcely distinct" We have taken the liberty to emphasize his words. Now here he tells us that the " mind's preferring," by which word he has explained himself to mean willing,* is scarcely distinct from " an appearing most agreeable to the mind." Here he returns to his psychology, and identifies the most agreeable impression made on the sensibility with an act of the will. He does not like to say, that the act of the will is caused by the most agree- able sensation, because this seems to make a thing the cause of itself. In this he does wisely ; but having shaped his doctrine to suit himself more exactly, in what form is it presented to us ? Let us look at it in its new shape, and see what it is. The will is not determined by the greatest apparent good, because a thing is not determined by itself; but the will is always as the gi eatest apparent good ! . Thus the absurdity of saying a thing is determined by itself is avoided ; but surely, if an appearing most agreeable to the mind is not distinct from the mind's act- ing, then to say that the mind's acting is always as that which appears most agreeable to it is merely to say, that the mind's acting is always as the mind's acting ! or, in other words, that a thing is always as itself ! Thus, his great fundamental propo- Inquiry, p. 17. 140 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, sition is, in one form, a glaring absurdity ; and in the other, it is an insignificant truism ; and there is no escape from this dilemma except through a return to a better psychology, to a sounder analysis of the great facts of human nature. When Edwards once reaches the truism that a thing is always as itself, he feels perfectly secure, and defies with unbounded confidence the utmost efforts of his opponents to dislodge him. " As we observed before," says he, " nothing is more evident than that, when men act voluntarily, and do what they please, then they do what appears most agreeable to them ; and to say otherwise, would be as much as to affirm, that men do not choose what appears to suit them best, or what seems most pleasing to them ; or that they do not choose what they prefer which brings the matter to a contradiction" True ; this brings the matter to a contradiction, as he has repeatedly told us ; for choosing, and preferring, or willing, are all one. But if any one denies that a man does what he pleases when he does what he pleases ; or if he affirms that he pleases without pleasing, or chooses without choosing, or prefers without preferring, we shall leave him to the logic of the necessitarian and the phy- sician. We have no idea that he will ever be able to refute the volumes that have been written to confound him. Presi- dent Edwards clearly has the better of him ; for he puts " the soul in a state of choice," and yet affirms that it " has no choice." He might as well say, indeed, that " a body may move while it is in a state of rest," as to say that " the mind may choose without choosing," or without having a choice. He is very clearly involved in an absurdity ; and if he can read the three hundred pages of the Inquiry, without being convinced of his error, his case must indeed be truly hopeless. Edwards is far from being the only necessitarian who has fallen into the error of identifying the sensibility with the will ; thus reducing his doctrine to an unassailable truism. In his famous controversy with Clarke, Leibnitz has done the same thing. " Thus," says he, " in truth, the motives comprehend all the dispositions which the mind can have to act voluntarily ; for they include not only reasons, but also the inclinations and passions, or other preceding impressions. Wherefore if the mind should prefer a' weak inclination to a strong one, it would act against itself, and otherwise than it is disposed to act" Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 141 Now is it not wonderful, that so profound a thinker, and so acute a metaphysician, as Leibnitz, should have supposed that he was engaged in a controversy to show that the mind never acts otherwise than it acts; that it never acts against itself? Having reduced his doctrine to this truism, he says, this " shows that the author's notions, contrary to mine, are superficial, and appear to have no solidity in them, when they are well con- sidered." True, the notions of Clarke were superficial, and worse than superficial, if he supposed that the mind ever acts contrary to its act, or otherwise than it really acts. But Clarke distinguished between the disposition and the will. In like manner Thummig, the disciple of Leibnitz, has the following language, as quoted by Sir William Hamilton : " It is to philosophize very crudely concerning mind, and to image everything in a corporeal manner, to conceive that actuating reasons are something external, which make an impression on the mind, and to distinguish motives from the active principle itself" Now this language, it seems, is found in Thummig's defence of the last paper of Leibnitz (who died before the con- troversy was terminated) against the answer of Clarke. But, surely, if it is a great mistake, as the author insists it is, to dis- tinguish motives from the active principle itself; then to say that the active principle is determined by motives, is to say that the active principle is determined by itself. And having reached this point, the disciple of Leibnitz finds himself planted precisely on the position he had undertaken to overthrow, namely, that the will is determined by itself. And again, if it be wrong to distinguish the motive from the active principle itself, then to say that the active principle never departs from the motive, is to affirm that a thing is always as itself. The great service which a false psychology has rendered to the cause of necessity is easily seen. For having identified an act of the will with a state of the sensibility, which is univer- sally conceived to be necessitated, the necessitarian is delivered from more than half his labours. By merging a phenomenon or manifestation of the will in a state of the sensibility, it seems to lose its own characteristic, which is incompatible with the scheme of necessity, and to assume the characteristic of feeling, which is perfectly reconcilable with it; nay, which demands the scheme of necessity to account for its existence. Thus, the 142 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, system of necessity is based on a false psychology, on which it has too securely stood from the earliest times down to the present day. But the stream of knowledge, ever deepening and widening in its course, has been gradually undermining the foundations of this dark system. SECTION II. The scheme of necessity is directed against a false issue. As we have seen in the last section, the argument of the necessitarian is frequently directed against a false issue ; but the point is worthy of a still more careful consideration. We shall never cease to admire the logical dexterity with which the champions of necessity assail and worry their adver- saries. They have said, in all ages, that "nothing taketh beginning from itself;" but who ever imagined or dreamed of so wild an absurdity? It is conceded by all rational beings. Motion taketh not beginning from itself, but from action ; action taketh not beginning from itself, but from mind ; and mind taketh not beginning from itself, but from God. It is false, however, to conclude that because nothing taketh beginning from itself, it is brought to pass " by the action of some immediate agent without itself." The motion of body, as we have seen, is produced by the action of some immediate agent without itself; but the action of mind is produced, or brought to pass, by no action at all. It taketh beginning from an agent, and not from the action of an agent. This distinction, though so clearly founded in the nature of things, is always overlooked by the logic of the necessitarian. They might well adopt the language of Bacon, that the subtilty of nature far surpasseth that of our logic. Hobbes was content to rest on a simple statement of the fact, that nothing can produce itself; but it is not every logician who is willing to rely on the inherent strength of such a posi- tion. Ask a child, Did you make yourself? and the child will answer, No. Propound the same question to the roving savage, or to the man of mere common sense, and he will also answer, No. Appeal to the universal reason of man, and the same emphatic No, will come up from its profoundest depths. But your redoubtable logicians are not satisfied to rely on such testi- Chapter IV. I WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 143 mony alone : they dare not build on such a foundation unless it be first secured and rendered firm by the aid of the syllogistic process. I know " I did not make myself," says Descartes, " for if I had made myself, I should have given myself every perfection." Now this argument in true syllogistic form stands thus : If I had made myself, I should have endowed myself with every perfection ; I am not endowed with every perfec- tion ; therefore I did not make myself. Surely, after so clear a process of reasoning, no one can possibly doubt the proposi- tion that Descartes did not make himself! In the same way we might prove that he did not make his own logic : for if he had made his logic, he would have endowed it with every pos- sible perfection ; but it is not endowed with every possible per- fection, and therefore he did not make it. But President Edwards has excelled Descartes, and every other adept in the syllogistic art, except Aristotle in his physics, in his ability to render the light of perfect day clearer by a few masterly strokes of logic. He has furnished the reason why some persons imagine that volition has no cause of its existence, or " that it produces itself." Now, by the way, would it not have been as well if he had first made sure of the fact, before he undertook to explain it ? But to proceed : let us see how lie has proved that volition does not produce itself, that it does not arise out of nothing and bring itself into existence. He does this in true logical form, and according to the most approved methods of demonstration. He first establishes the general position, that no existence or event whatever can give rise to its own being,* and he then shows that this is true of volition in particular, f And having reached the position, that volition does not arise out of nothing, but must " have some antecedent" to introduce it into being; he next proceeds to prove that there is a necessary connexion between volition and the antecedents on which it depends for existence. This com- pletes the chain of logic, and the process is held up by his fol- lowers to the admiration of the world as a perfect demonstra- tion Let us look at it a little more closely, and examine the nature and mechanism of its p'.rts. If the huge frame of the earth, with all its teeming popula- tion and productions, could rise up out of nothing, he argues, 9 Inquiry, part i, sec. iii. f Id., part i, sec. iv. 144 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, and bring itself into being without any cause of its existence, then we could not prove the being of a God. All this is very true. For, as he truly alleges, if one world could thus make itself, so also might another and another, even unto millions of millions. The universe might make itself, or come IE to existence without any cause thereof, and hence we could never know that there is a God. But surely, if any man imagined that even one world could create itself, it is scarcely worth while to reason with him. It is not at all likely that he would be frightened from his position by such a reductio ad absurd um. We should almost as soon suspect a sane man of denying the existence of God himself, as of doubting the pro- position that " nothing taketh beginning from itself." Having settled it to his entire satisfaction, by this and other arguments, that no effect whatever can produce itself, he then proceeds to show that this proposition is true of volitions as well as of all other events or occurrences. " If any should imagine," says he, " there is something in the sort of event that renders it possible to come into existence without a cause, and should say that the free acts of the will are existences of an exceeding different nature from other things, by reason of which they may come into existence without previous ground or reason of it, though other things cannot; if they make this objection in good earnest, it w T ould be an evidence of their strangely forget- ting themselves; for it would be giving some account of the existence of a thing, when, at the same time, they would main- tain there is no ground of its existence."* True, if any man should suppose that a volition rises up in the world " without any ground or reason of its existence," and afterward endeavour to assign a ground or reason of it, he would certainly be strangely inconsistent with himself; but we should deem his last position, that there must be a ground or reason of its exist- ence, to be some evidence of his coming to himself, rather than of his having forgotten himself. But to proceed with the argu- ment. "Therefore I would observe," says he, "that the par- ticular nature of existence, be it never so diverse from others, can lay no foundation for that tLing coming into existence with- out a cause ; because, to suppose this, would be to suppose the particular nature of existence to be a thing prior to existence, Inquiry, pp. 51. 55. Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 145 without a cause or reason of existence. But that which in any respect makes way for a tiling coming into being, or for any manner or circumstance of its first existence, must be prior to existence. The distinguished nature of the effect, which is something belonging to the effect, cannot have influence back- ward to act before it is. The peculiar nature of that thing c.illed volition, can do nothing, can have no influence, while it is not. A nd afterward it is too late for its influence : for then the thing has made sure of its existence already without its help."* After all this reasoning, and more to the same effect, we are perfectly satisfied that volition, no matter what its nature may be, cannot produce itself; and that it must have some ground or reason of its existence, some antecedent with- out which it could not come into being. We shall not do justice to this branch of our subject, if we leave it without laying before the reader one or two more speci- mens of logic from the celebrated Inquiry of President Edwards, lie is opposing " the hypothesis," he tells us, "of acts of the will coming to pass without a cause." Now, according to his defini- tion of the term cause, as laid down at the beginning of the section under consideration, it signifies any antecedent on which a thing depends, in whole or in part, for its existence, or which constitutes the reason why it is, rather than not.f His doctrine is, then, that nothing ever comes to pass without some " ground or reason of its existence," without some antecedent which is necessary to account for its coming into being. And those who deny it are bound to maintain the strange thesis, that something may come into existence without any antecedent to account for it ; that it may rise from nothing and bring itself into existence. It is against this thesis that his logic is directed. " If it were so," says he, " that things only of one kind, vL., acts of the will, seemed to come to pass of themselves ; and it were an event that was continual, and that happened in a course whenever were found subjects capable of such events; this very thing would demonstrate there was some cause of them, which made such a difference between this event and others. For contingency is blind, and does not pick and choose a par- ticular sort of events. Nothing has no choice. This no-cause, which causes no existence, cannot cause the existence which Inquiry, p. 55. t Id - P- W. 10 146 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, comes to pass to be of one particular sort only, distinguished from all others. Thus, that only one sort of matter drops out of heaven, even water ; and that this comes so often, so con- stantly and plentifully, all over the world, in all ages, shows that there is some cause or reason of the falling of water out of the heavens, and that something besides mere contingency had a hand in the matter."* We do not intend to comment on this passage ; we merely wish to advert to the fact, that it is a laboured and logical effort to demolish the hypothesis that acts of the will do not bring themselves into existence, and to show that there must be some antecedent to account for their coming into being. We shall only add, "it is true that nothing has no choice ;" but who ever pretended to believe that nothing puts forth volitions ? that there is no mind, no motive, no ground or reason of volition ? Is it not wonderful that the great metaphy- sician of New-England should thus worry himself and exhaust his powers in grappling with shadows and combatting dreams, which no sane man ever seriously entertained for a moment ? " If we should suppose non-entity to be about to bring forth," he continues, " and things were coming into existence without any cause or antecedent on which the existence, or kind or manner of existence depends, or which could at all determine whether the things should be stones or stems, or beasts or angels, or human bodies or souls, or only some new motion or figure in natural bodies, or some new sensation in animals, or new idea in the human understanding, or new volition in the will, or anything else of all the infinite number of possibles, then it certainly would not be expected, although many millions of millions of things were coming into existence in this manner all over the face of the earth, that they should all be only of one particular kind, and that it should be thus in all ages, and that this sort of existences should never fail to come to pass when there is room for them, or a subject capable of them, and that constantly whenever there is occasion."f Now all these wordy are put together to prove that non-entity cannot bring forth effects, at least such effects as we see in the world ; for if non- entity brought them forth, that is, to come to the point in dis- pute, if non-entity brought forth our volitions, they would not be always of one particular sort of effects. But they are of one Inquiry, p. 54. f Id., p. 65. Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 147 particular sort, and hence there must be some antecedent to account for this uniformity in their nature, and they could not have been brought forth by nonentity ! Surely if anything can equal the fatuity of the hypothesis that nonentity can bring forth, or that a thing can produce itself, it is a serious attempt to refute it. How often, while poring over the works of neces- sitarians, are we lost in amazement at the logical mania which seems to have seized them, and which, in its impetuous efforts to settle and determine everything by reasoning, leaves reason itself neither time nor opportunity to contemplate the nature of things themselves, or listen to its own most authoritative and irreversible mandates. But lest we should be suspected of doing this great metaphy- sician injustice, we must point out the means by which he has so grossly deceived himself. According to his definition of motive, as the younger Edwards truly says, it includes every cause and condition of volition. If anything is merely a condi- tion, without which a volition could not come to pass, though it exerts no influence, it is called a cause of that volition, and placed in the definition of motive. And if anything exerts a positive influence to produce volition, this is also a cause of it, and is included in the same definition. In short, this definition embraces every conceivable antecedent on which volition in any manner, either in whole or in part, either negatively or positively, depends. Thus the most heterogeneous materials are crowded together under one and the same term, the most dif- ferent ideas under one and the same definition. Is it possible to conceive of a better method of obscuring a subject than such a course ? When Edwards merely means a condition, why does he not say so ? and when he means a producing cause, why does he not use the right word to express his meaning? If he had carried on the various processes of his reasoning with some one clear and distinct idea before his mind, we might have expected great things from him ; but he has not chosen to do so. It is with the term cause that he operates, against the ambiguities of which he has not guarded himself or his reader. "Having thus explained what I mean by cause," says he, " 1 assert that nothing ever comes to pass- without a cause." "We have seen his reasoning on this point. He labours through page after page to establish his very ambiguous proposition, in 148 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT LPart 1, a sense in which nobody ever denied it ; unless some one has affirmed that a thing may come into being without any ground or reason of its existence, may arise out of nothing and help itself into existence. Having sufficiently established his funda- mental proposition in this sense, he proceeds to show that every effect and volition in particular, is necessarily connected with its cause. "It must be remembered," says he, "that it has been already show r n, that nothing can ever come to pass with- out a cause or a reason ;"* and he then proceeds to show, that kC the acts of the will must be connected with their cause." In this part of his argument, he employs his ambiguous proposi- tion in a different sense from that in which he established it. In the establishment of it he only insists that there must be some antecedent sufficient to account for every event ; and in the application of it he contends, that the antecedent or cause must produce the event. These ideas are perfectly distinct. There could be no act of the mind unless there were a mind to act, and unless there were a motive in view of which it acts ; but it does not follow that the mind is compelled to act by motive. But let us see how he comes to this conclusion. " For an event," says he, " to have a cause and ground of its existence, and yet not be connected with its cause, is an incon- sistency. For if the event be not connected with its cause, it is not dependent on the cause : its existence is, as it were, loose from its influence, and may attend it or may not"-\ " Depend- ence on the influence of a cause is the very notion of an effect." J Again, " to suppose there are some events which have a cause and ground of their existence, that yet are not necessarily con- nected with their cause, is to suppose that they have a cause which is not their cause. Tims, if the effect be not necessarily connected with the cause, with its influence and influential cir- cumstances, tli en, as I observed before, it is a thing possible and supposable that the cause may sometimes exert the same influ- ence under the same circumstances, and yet the effect not fol- low" He has much other similar reasoning to show that it is absurd and contradictory to say that motive is the cause of volition, and yet admit that volition may be loose from the nfluence of motive, or that " the cause is not sufficient to pro. the effect."] In all this he uses the term in its most nar- Inquiry, p. 77. f Ibid. J Ibid. Id., p. 78. || Id., p. 79. Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 149 row and restricted sense. It is no longer a mere antecedent or antecedents, which are sufficient to account for the existence of the phenomena of volition ; it is an efficient cause which pro- duces volitions. Thus he establishes his ambiguous proposition in one sense, and builds on it in another. He explains the term cause to signify any antecedent, in order, he tells us, to present objection to his doctrine, when he alleges that nothing *ever comes to pass without some cause of its existence ; and yet, when he applies this fundamental proposition to the con- struction of his scheme, he returns to the restricted sense of the word, in which it signifies, "that which has a positive efficacy or influence to produce a thing." It is thus that the great scheme of President Edwards is made up of mere words, having no intrin- sic coherency of parts, and appearing consistent throughout, only because its disjointed fragments seem to be united, and its huge chasms concealed by means of the ambiguities of language. SECTION IIL The scheme of necessity is supported l)y false logic. One reason why the advocates of necessity deceive themselves, as well as others, is, that there is great want of precision and distinctness in their views and definitions. We are told by them that the will is always determined by the strongest motive ; that this is invariably the cause of volition. But what is meant by the term cause f We have final causes, instru- mental causes, occasional causes, predisposing causes, efficient causes, and many others. Now, in which of these senses is the word used, when we are informed that motive is the cause of volition? On this point we are not enlightened. Neither Leibnitz nor Edwards is sufficiently explicit. The proposition, as left by them, is vague and obscure. Leibnitz inclined to the use of the word reason, because he car- ried on a controversy with Bayle and Hobbes, who were atheists ; though he frequently speaks of a chain of causes which embrace human volitions.* While Edwards, who opposed the Armini- ans, generally employs the more rigid term cause though he, too, frequently represents motive as " the ground and reason " of volition. The one softens his language, in places, as he con- * Theodicee. i50 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I. tends with those who had rendered themselves obnoxious to the Christian world by an advocacy of the doctrine of necessity in connexion with atheistical sentiments. The other appears to prefer the stronger expression, as he puts forth his power against antagonists whose views of liberty were deemed subversive of the tenets of Calvinism. But the law of causality, as stated by Edwards, and the principle of the sufficient reason, as defined and employed by Leibnitz, are perfectly identical. When we are told that motive is the cause of volition, it is evident we cannot determine whether to deny or to assent to the proposition, unless we know in what sense the term cause is used. We might discuss this perplexed question forever, by the use of such vague and indefinite propositions, without pro- gressing a single step toward the end of the controversy. We must bring a more searching analysis to the subj ect, if we hope to accomplish anything. We must take the word cause or reason, in each of its significations, in order to discover in what particulars the contending parties agree, and in what particu- lars they disagree, in order to see how far each party is right, and how far it is wrong. This is the only course that prom- ises the least prospect of a satisfactory result. If we mean by the cause of volition, that which wills or exerts the volition, there is no controversy ; for in this sense the advo- cates of necessity admit that the mind is the cause of volition. Thus says Edwards : " The acts of my will are my own ; i. e., they are acts of my will."* It is universally conceded that it is the mind which wills, and nothing else in the place of it ; and hence, in this sense of the word, there is no question but that the mind is the cause of volition. But the advocates of necessity cannot be understood in this sense ; for they deny that the mind is the cause of volition, and insist that it is caused by motive. The term cause is very often used to designate the condition of a thing, or that without which it could not happen or come to pass. Thus we are told by Edwards, that he sometimes uses " the word cause to signify any antecedent" of an event, " whether it has any influence or not," in the production of such ovent.f If this be the meaning, when it is said that motive is the cause of volition, the truth of the proposition is conceded by the advocates of free-agency. In speaking of arguments and Inquiry, p. 277. f W- PP- 50, 51. Chapter IV/1 WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 151 motives, Dr. Samuel Clarke says : " Occasions indeed there may be, and are, upon which that substance in man, wherever the self-moving principle resides, freely exerts its active power."* Herein, then, there is a perfect agreement between the con- tending parties The fact that the mind requires certain con- ditions or occasions, on which to exercise its active power, does not at all interfere with its freedom ; and hence the advocates :>f free-agency have readily admitted that motives are the occa- sional causes of volition. We must look out for some other meaning of the term, then, if we would clearly and distinctly fix our minds on the point in controversy. We say that an antecedent is the cause of its consequent, when the latter is produced by the action of the former. For example, a motion of the body is said to be caused by the mind ; because it is produced by an act of the mind. This seems to be what is meant by an " efficient cause" It is, no doubt, the most proper sense of the word ; and around this it is that the con- troversy still rages, and has for centuries raged. The advocates of necessity contend, not only that volition is the effect of motive, but also that " to be an effect implies pas- siveness, or the being subject to the power and action of its cause. "f Such precisely is the doctrine of Edwards, and Col- lins, and Hobbes. In this sense of the word it is denied that motive is the cause of volition, and it is affirmed that mind is the cause thereof. Thus, says Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his reply to Collins, " T is the self-moving principle, and not at all the reason or motive, which is the physical or efficient cause of action ;" by which we understand him to mean volition, as that is the thing in dispute. Now, when the advocates of free- agency insist that motive is not the efficient cause of volition, and that mind is the efficient cause thereof, we suppose them to employ the expression, efficient cause^ in one and the same sense in both branches of the proposition. This is the only fair way of viewing their language ; and if they wished to be undei stood in any other manner, they should have taken the pains to explain themselves, and not permit us to be misled by an ambiguity. Here the precise point in dispute is clearly pre- sented ; and let us hear the contending parties, before we pro- ceed to decide between them. Remarks upon Collins's Philosophical Inquiry. f Inquiry, p. 198. 152 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part 1, You are in error, says the necessitarian to his opponents, in denying that motive, and in affirming that mind, is the efficient cause of volition. For if an act of the mind, or a volition, is caused by the mind, it must be produced by a preceding act of the mind, and this act must be produced by another preceding act of the mind, and so on ad inftnitum which reduces the . matter to a plain impossibility. Now, if the necessitarian has not been deceived by an unwarrantable ambiguity on the part of his adversary, he has clearly reduced his doctrine to the absurdity of an infinite series of acts : that is to say, if the advo- cate of free-agency does not depart from the ordinary meaning of words, when he affirms that mind is the efficient cause of volition ; and if he does not use these terms " efficient cause" in different senses in the same sentence, then we feel bound to say that he is fairly caught in the toils of his adversary. But we are not yet in condition to pass a final judgment between the parties. The necessitarian contends that " volition, or an act of the mind, is the effect of motive, and that it is subject to the power and action of its cause."* The advocate of free-will replies, If we must suppose an action of motive on the mind to account for its act, we must likewise suppose another action to account for the action of motive ; and so on ad inftnitum. Thus the necessitarian seems to be fairly caught in his own toils, and entrapped by his own definition and arguments. Our decision (for the correctness of which we appeal to the calm and impartial judgment of the reader) is as follows : If the term cause be understood in the first or the second seuse above mentioned, there is no disagreement between the con- tending parties ; and if it be understood in the third sense, then both parties are in error. If, in order to account for an act of the mind, we suppose it is caused by an action of motive, we are involved in the absurdity of an infinite series of actions ; and on the other hand, if we suppose it is caused by a preced- ing act of the mind itself, we are forced into the same absurdity. Hence, we conclude, that an act of the mind, or a volition, is not produced by the action of either mind or motive, but takes its rise in the world without any such efficient cause of its exist- ence. Edwards 's Inquiry, p. 178. Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 153 Each party lias refuted his adversary, and in the enjoyment of his triumph he seems not to have duly reflected on the de- struction of his own position. Both are in the right, and both are in the wrong ; but, as we shall hereafter see, not equally so. If we adopt the argument of both sides, in so far as it is true, we shall come to the conclusion that action must take its rise somewhere in the universe without being caused by pre- ceding action. And if so, where shall we look for its origin I in that which by nature is endowed with active power, or in that which is purely and altogether passive ? We lay it down, then, as an established and fundamental position, that the mind acts or puts forth its volitions without being efficiently caused to do so, without being impelled by its own prior action, or by the prior action of anything else. The conditions or occasions of volition being supplied, the mind itself acts in view thereof, without being subject to the power or action of any cause whatever. All rational beings must, as we have seen, either admit this exemption of the mind in willing from the pow r er and action of any cause, or else lose themselves in the labyrinth of an infinite series of causes. It is this exemption which constitutes the freedom of the human soul. We are now prepared to see, in a clear light, the sophistical nature of the pretended demonstration of the scheme of neces- sity. " It is impossible to consider occurrences," says Sir James Mackintosh, otherwise than as bound together in " the relation of cause and effect." Now this relation, if we interpret it according to the nature of things, and not according to the sound of words, is not one, but two. The motions of the body are caused by the mind, that is, they are produced by the action of the mind ; this constitutes one relation : but acts of the mind are caused, that is, they are produced by the action of nothing ; and this is a quite different relation In other words, the motions of body are produced by preceding action, and the acts of the mind are not produced by preceding action. Hence, the first are necessitated, and the last are free : the first come under " the relation of cause and effect," and the last come under a very different relation. The relation of cause and effect connects the most remote conse- quences of volition with volition itself; but when we reach voli- 154 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, tion, there a new relation arises : it is the relation which sub- sists between an agent and its act. We may trace changes in the external world up to the volitions or acts of mind,' and per- ceive no diversity in the chain of dependencies ; but precisely at this point the chain of cause and effect ceases, and agency begins. The surrounding circumstances may be conditions, may be occasional causes, may be predisposing causes, but they are not, and cannot be, producing or efficient causes. Here, then, the iron chain terminates, and freedom commences. In the ambiguity which fails to distinguish between " the relation of cause and effect," and the relation which volition bears to its antecedents, " consists the strength of the necessitarian system." Let this distinction be clearly made and firmly borne in mind, and the great boasted adamantine scheme of necessity will resolve itself into an empty, ineffectual sound. Hence, if we would place the doctrine of liberty upon solid grounds, it becomes necessary to modify the categories of M. Cousin. All things, says he, fall under the one or the other of the two following relations: the relation between subject and attribute, or the relation between cause and effect. This last category, we think, should be subdivided, so as to give two relations ; one between cause and effect, properly so called, and the other between agent and action. Until this be done, it will be impossible to extricate the phenomena of the will from the mechanism of cause and effect. We think we might here leave the stupendous sophism of the necessitarian ; but as it has exerted so wonderful an influence over the human mind, and obscured, for ages, the glory of the moral government of God, we may w^ell be permitted to pursue it further, and to continue the pursuit so long as a fragment or a shadow of it remains to be demolished. SECTION IV. The scheme of necessity is fortified by false conceptions. One of the notions to which the cause of necessity owes much of its strength, is a false conception of liberty, as consist- ing in " a power over the determinations of the will." Hence it is said that this power over the will can do nothing, can cause no determination except by acting to produce it. But accord Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 155 ing to this notion of liberty, this causative act cannot be free unless it be also caused by a preceding act; and so on ad infinitutn. Such is one of the favourite arguments of the necessitarian. But in truth the freedom of the mind does not consist in its possessing a power over the determinations of its own will, for the true notion of freedom is a negative idea, and consists in the absence of every power over the determinations of the will. The mind is free because it possesses a power of acting, over which there is no controlling power, either within or witinut itself. It must be admitted, it seems to us, that the advocates of free-agency have too often sanctioned this false conception of liberty, and thereby strengthened the cause of their opponents. Cudworth, Clark, Stuart, Coleridge, and Reid, all speak of this supposed power of the mind over the determinations of the will, as that which constitutes its freedom. Thus says Reid, for example : " By the liberty of a moral agent, I understand a power over the determinations of his own will." Now, it is not at all strange that this language should be conceived by necessitarians in such a manner as to involve the doctrine of liberty in the absurd consequence of an infinite series of acts, since it is so understood by some of the most enlightened advo- cates of free-agency themselves. " A power over the determi- nations of our will," says Sir William Hamilton, " supposes an act of the will that our will should determine so and so ; for we can only exert power through a rational determination or volition. This definition of liberty is right. But the question upon ques- tion remains, (and this ad infinitum) have we a power (a will) over such anterior will ? and until this question be definitively answered, which it never can, we must be unable to conceive the possibility of the fact of liberty. But, though inconceivable, this fact is not therefore false." True, we are unable to con- ceive the possibility of the fact of liberty, if this must be con- ceived as consisting in a power over the determinations of the will ; but, in our humble opinion, this definition of liberty is not right. It seems more correct to say, that the freedom of the will consists in the absence of a power over its determina- tions, than in the presence of such a power. There is another false conception which has given great apparent force to the cause of necessity. It is supposed that 156 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, the states of the will, the volitions, are often necessitated by the necessitated states of the sensibility. In other words, it is sup- posed that the appetites, passions, and desires, often act upon the will, and produce its volitions. But this seems to be a very great mistake, which has arisen from viewing the subtle operations of the mind through the medium of those mechanical forms of thought that have been derived from the contempla- tion of the phenomena of the material world. In truth, the .feelings do not act at all, and consequently they cannot act upon the will. It is absurd, as Locke and Edwards well say, to ascribe power, which belongs to the agent himself, to the properties of an agent. Hence, it is absurd to suppose that our feelings, appetites, desires, and passions, are endowed with power, and can act. They are not agents they are merely the properties of an agent. It is the mind itself which acts, and not its passions. These are but passive impressions made upon the sensibility ; and hence, " it is to philosophize very crudely concerning mind, and to image everything in a corporeal man- ner," to conceive that they act upon the will and control its determinations, just as the motions of body are caused and controlled by the action of mind.* This conception, however, is not peculiar to the necessitarian. It has been most unfortunately sanctioned by the greatest advo- cates of free-agency. Thus says Dr. Reid, in relation to the appetites and passions : " Such motives are not addressed to the rational powers. Their influence is immediately upon the will." " When a man is acted upon by contrary motives of this kind, he finds it easy to yield to the strongest. They are like two forces pushing him in contrary directions. To yield to the strongest he needs only be passive" If this be so, how can Dr. Eeid maintain, as he does, that " the determination was made by the man, and not by the motive?" To this assertion Sir WiLiam Hamilton replies: "But was the man determined by no motive to that determination? Was his specific volition to this or to that without a cause ? On the supposition that the sum of the influences (motives, dispositions, tendencies) to voli- tion A is equal to 12, and the sum of counter volition B, equal to 8 can we conceive that the determination of volition A should not be necessary ? We can only conceive the voli See Examination of Edwards on the Will. Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 157 tion B to be determined by supposing that the man creates (calls from nonexistence into existence) a certain supplement of influences. But this creation as actual, or in itself, is incon- ceivable ; and even to conceive the possibility of this inconceiv- able act, we must suppose some cause by which the iran is determined to exert it. We thus in th&ught, never escape determination and necessity. It will be observed that I do not consider this inability to notion any disproof of the fact of free- will." It is true, that if w r e suppose, according to the doctrine of Sir William and Dr. Reid, that two counter influences act upon the will, the one being as 12 and the other as 8, then the first must necessarily prevail. But if this supposition be correct, we are not only unable to conceive the fact of liberty, we are also able to conceive that it cannot be a fact at all. There is a great dif- ference, we have been accustomed to believe, between being unable to conceive how a thing is, and being able to conceive that it cannot be anyhow at all : the first would leave it a mere mystery, the last would show it to be an absurdity. In the one case, the thing would be above reason, and in the other, con- trary to reason. Now, to which of these categories does the fact of liberty, as left by Sir William Hamilton, belong? Is it a mystery, or is it an absurdity ? Is it an inconceivable fact, or is it a conceived impossibility ? It seems to us that it is the latter ; and that if w r e will only take the pains to view the phenomena of mind as they exist in consciousness, and not through the medium of material analogies, we shall be able to untie the knot which Sir William Hamilton has found it neces- sary to cut. The doctrine of liberty, if properly viewed, is perfectly con- ceivable. We can certainly conceive that the omnipotence of God can put forth an act without being impelled thereto by a power back of his own ; and to suppose otherwise, is to sup- pose a power greater than God's, and upon which the exercise of his omnipotence depends. By parity of reason, we should he compelled to suppose another power still back of that, and so on ad infinitum. This is not only absurd, but, as Calvin truly says, it is impious. Here, then, we have upon the throne of the universe a clear and unequivocal instance of a self-active power, a power whose goings forth are not impelled by any 158 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, power without itself. It goes forth, it is true, in the light of the Eternal Reason, and in pursuit of the ends of the Eternal Goodness ; but yet in itself it possesses an infinite fulness, being self-sustained, self-active, and wholly independent of all other powers and influences whatsoever. Now, if such a Being should create at all, it is not difficult to conceive that he would create subordinate agents, bearing his own image in this, namely, the possession of a self-active power. It is not difficult to conceive that he should produce spiritual beings like himself, who can act without being neces- sitated to act, like the inanimate portions of creation, as well as those of an inferior nature. Nor is it more difficult to con- ceive that man, in point of fact, possesses such a limited self- active power, than it is to conceive that God possesses an infinite self-active power. Indeed we must and do conceive this, or else we should have no type or representative in this lower part of the world, by and through which to rise to a contemplation of its universal Lord and Sovereign. We should have a temple without a symbol, and a universe without a God. But God has not thus left himself without witness ; for he has raised man above the dust of the earth in this, that he is endowed with a self-active power, from whence, as from an humble platform, he may rise to the sublime contemplation of the Universal Mover of the heavens and the earth. But for this ray of light, shed abroad in our hearts by the creative energy of God, the nature of the divine power itself would be unknown to us, and its eternal, immutable glories shrouded in impenetrable dark- ness. The idea of an omnipotent power, moving in and of itself in obedience to the dictates of infinite wisdom and good- ness, would be forever merged and lost in the dark scheme of an irnplexed series and concatenation of causes, binding all things fast, God himself not excepted, in the iron bonds of fate. If liberty be a fact, as Sir William Hamilton contends it is, then no such objections can be urged against it as those in which he supposes it to be involved. We are aware of what may be said in favour of such a mode of viewing subjects of this kind, as well as of the nature of the principles from which it takes its rise. But we cannot consider those principles altogether sound. They appear to be too sceptical, with respect Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 159 to the powers of the human mind, and the destiny of human knowledge. The sentiment of Leibnitz seems to rest upon a more solid foundation. " It is necessary to come," says he, " to the grand question which M. Bayle has recently brought upon the carpet, to wit, whether a truth, and especially a truth of faith, can be subject to unanswerable objections. That excel- lent author seems boldly to maintain the affirmative of this question : he cites grave theologians on his side, and even those of Rome, who appear to say what he pretends ; and he adduces philosophers who have believed that there are even philosophi- cal truths, the defenders of which cannot reply to objections made against them" " For my part," says Leibnitz, " I avow that I cannot be of the sentiment of those who maintain that a truth can be liable to invincible objections ; for what is an objection but an argument of which the conclusion contradicts our thesis? and is not an invincible argument a demonstra- tion?" "It is always necessary to yield to demonstrations, whether they are proposed for our adoption, or advanced in the form of objections. And it is unjust and useless to wish to weaken the proofs of adversaries, under the pretext that they are only objections; since the adversary has the same right, and can reverse the denominations, by honouring his arguments with the name of proofs, and lowering yours by the disparaging name of objections."* There is another false conception, by which the necessitarian fortifies himself in his opposition to the freedom of the will. As he identifies the sensibility and the will, so when the indiffer- ence of the latter is spoken of, the language is understood to mean that the mind is indifferent, and destitute of all feeling or emotion. But this is to view the doctrine of liberty, not as it is held by its advocates, but as it is seen through the medium of a false psychology. We might adduce a hundred examples of the truth of this remark, but one or two must suffice. Thus, Collins supposes that the doctrine of liberty implies, that the mind is "indifferent to good and evil;" "indifferent to what causes pleasure or pain ;" " indifferent to all objects, and swaved by no motives." Gross as this misrepresentation of the doctrine of free-agency is, it is frequently made by its opponents. It oc- curs repeatedly in the writings of President Edwards and Presi- Discours de la Conformite de la Foi avec la Raison. 160 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti dent Day.* The freedom of the will, indeed, no more implies an indifference of the sensibility than the power of a bird to fly implies the existence of a vacuum. SECTION V. The scheme of necessity is recommended ty false analogies. It is insisted that there is no difficulty in conceiving of a caused action or volition ; but this position is illustrated by false and deceptive analogies. Thus says an advocate of necessity : " The term passive is sometimes employed to express the rela- tion of an effect to its cause. In this sense, it is so far from being inconsistent with activity, that activity may be the very effect which is produced. A cannonshot is said to be passive, with respect to the charge of powder which impels it. But is there no activity given to the ball ? Is not the whirlwind active when it tears up the forest ?"f Not at all, in any sense pertain- ing to the present controversy. The tremendous power, what- ever it may be, which sets the whirlwind in motion, is active ; the wind itself is perfectly passive. The air is acted on, and it merely suffers a change of place. If it tears up the forest, this is not because it exercises an active power, but because it is body coming into contact with body, and .both cannot occupy the same space at one and the same time. It tears up the forest, not as an agent, but as an instrument. The same is true of the cannonball. This does not act j it merely moves. It does not put forth a volition, or an exercise of power ; it merely suffers a change of place. In one word, there is no sort of resemblance between an act of mind and the motion of body. This has no active power, and cannot be made to act : it is passive, however, and may be made to move. If the question were, Can a body be made to move ? these illustra- tions would be in point ; but as it relates to the possibility of causing the mind to put forth a volition, they are clearly irrel- evant. And if they were really apposite, they would only show that the mind may be caused to act like a cannonball, a whirl- wind, a clock, or any other piece of machinery. This is the only kind of action they serve to prove may be caused ; and See Examination of Edwards on the Will, sec. ix. t President Day on the Will, p. 160. 'Jhapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 161 such action, as it is called, has far more to do with machinery than with human agency. President Edwards also has recourse to false analogies. To select only one instance : " It is no more a contradiction," says he, " to suppose that action may be the effect of some other cause besides the agent, or being that acts, than to suppose that .ife may be the effect of some other cause besides the being that li?os."* Now, as we are wholly passive in the reception of lite, so it may be wholly conferred upon us by the power and agency of God. The very reason why we suppose an act cannot be caused is, that it is a voluntary exercise of our own minds ; whereas, if it were caused, it would be a necessitated passive impression. How can it show the fallacy of this position, to re- fer to the case of a caused life, in regard to which, by universal consent, we do not and cannot act at all ? The younger Edwards asserts, that " to say that an agent that is acted upon cannot act, is as groundless as to say that a body acted upon cannot move." Again : " My actions are mine but in what sense can they be properly called mine, if I be not the efficient cause of them ? Answer : my thoughts and all my perceptions and feelings are mine / yet it will not be pretended that I am the efficient cause of them."f But in regard to all our thoughts and feelings, we are, as we have seen, altogether passive ; and these are ours, because they afe necessarily pro- duced in us. Is it only in this sense that our acts are .ours? Are they ours only because they are necessarily caused to exist in our minds? If so, then indeed we understand these writers; but if they are not merely passive impressions, why resort to states of the intelligence and the sensibility, which are con- ceded to be passive, in order to illustrate the reasonableness of their scheme, and to expose the unreasonableness of the oppo- site doctrine? We admit that every passive impression is caused; but the question is, Can the mind be caused to act? As we lay all the stress on the nature of an act, as seen in the light of consciousness, what does it signify to tell us that another thing, which possesses no such nature, may be efficiently caused ? All such illustrations overlook the essential difference between action and passion, between doing and suffering. Inquiry, p. 203. | Dissertation, p. 181. 11 162 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, SECTION VI. The scheme of necessity is rendered plausible ly a false phraseology. The false psychology, of which we have spoken, has been greatly strengthened and confirmed in its influences by the phraseology connected with it. As Mr. Locke distinguished between will and desire, partially at least, so he likewise distin- guished a preference of the mind from a volition. But Presi- dent Edwards is not satisfied with this distinction. " The instance he mentions" says Edwards, " does not prove there is anything else in willing but merely preferring."* This may be very true ; but is there nothing in willing, in acting, but merely preferring ? This last term, however it may be applied, seems better adapted to express a state of the intelligence, than an act of the will. Two objects are placed before the mind : one affects the sensibility in a more agreeable manner than the other, and therefore the intelligence pronounces that one is more to be desired than the other. This seems to be precisely what is meant by the use of the term preference. One prefers an orange to an apple, for instance, because the orange affects his sensibility more agreeably than the apple ; and the intelli- gence perceiving this state of the sensibility, declares in favour of the orange. This decision of the judgment is what is usually meant by the use of the term preference, or choice. To prefer, is merely to judge, in view of desire, which of two objects is more agreeable. But judging and desiring are, as we have seen, both necessitated states of the mind. Why, then, apply the term preference, or choice, to acts of the will ? Why apply a term, which seems to express merely a state of the intelli- gence, which all concede is necessitated, to an act of the will \ Is it not evident, that by such a use of language the cause of necessity gains great apparent strength ? There is another way in which the language of the necessi- tarian deceives. The- language he employs often represents the facts of nature, but not facts as they would be, if his system were true. Hence, when this system is attacked, its advo- cates repel the attack by the use of words which truly represent nature, but not their errors. This gives great plausibility Inquiry of Edwards, p. 222. Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 163 to their apologies. Thus, when it is objected that the scheme of necesssity " makes men no more than mere machines," they are always ready to reply, " that notwithstanding this doc- trine, man is entirely, perfectly, and unspeakably different from a machine." ' But how ? Is it because his volitions, as they are called, are not necessarily determined by causes ? No. Is it be- cause his will may be loose from the influence of motives? No. Is it because he may follow the strongest motive, or may not fol- low it ? No. Nothing of the kind is hinted. How does the man, then, differ so entirely from a machine? Why, " in that he has reason and understanding, with a faculty of will, and so is capa- ble of volition and choice." True, a machine has no reason or understanding ; but suppose it had, would it be a person ? By no means. We have seen that the understanding, or the intei ligence, is necessarily determined ; all its states are necessitated as completely as the movements of a machine. This constitutes an essential likeness, and it is what is always meant, when it is said that necessity makes men mere machines. But it seems that man also has " a faculty of will, and so is capable of volition or choice."* Yes, he can act. Now this language means something according to the system of nature ; but what does it mean according to the system of necessity ? It merely means that the human mind is susceptible of being necessitated to undergo a change by the "power and action of a cause," which the advocates of that system are pleased to call an act. They never hint that we are not machines, because we have any power by which we are exempt from the most absolute dominion of causes. They never hint that we are not machines, because our volitions, or acts, are not as necessarily produced in us, as the motions of a clock are produced in it. Now, if this scheme were true, there would be no such things as acts or volitions in us : all the phenomena of our minds would be passive impressions, like our judgments and feelings. "When they speak of tlie f will, then, which is capable of volitions, or acts, they deceive by using the language of nature, and not of their false scheme. Edwards's Inquiry, p. 222. J 64 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, SECTION VIL The scheme of necessity originates in a false method, and terminates in a false religion. This system, as we have seen, has been built up, not by an analysis of the phenomena of the human mind, but by means of universal abstractions and truisms. It takes its rise, not from the facts of nature, but from the conceptions of the intellect. In other words, instead of anatomizing the world which God has made so as to exhibit the actual plan according to which it has been constituted, it sets out from certain identical propositions, such as that every effect must have a cause, and proceeds to inform us how the world must have been constituted. This "usual method of discovery and proof," as Bacon says, "by first establishing the most general propositions, then applying and proving the intermediate axioms according to these, is the parent of error and the calamity of every science." Nowhere, it is believed, can a more striking illustration of the truth of these pregnant words be found, than in the method adopted by necessitarians. They begin with the universal proposition, that every effect must have a cause, as a self-evident truth, and then proceed, not to examine and discover how the world is made, but to demonstrate how it must have been constructed. This is not to "interpret," it is to "anticipate" nature. By this high a priori method the freedom of the human mind is demonstrated, as we have seen, to be an impossibility and the accountability of man a dream. Man is not respon- sible for sin, or rather, there is no such thing as moral good and evil in the lower world ; since God, the only efficient foun- tain of all things and events, is the sole responsible author of all evil as well as of all good. Such, as we have seen, are the inevitable logical consequences of this boasted scheme of ne- cessity. But we have clearly shown, we trust, that the grand demon- tration of the necessitarian is a sophism, whose apparent force is owing to a variety of causes : First, it seeks out, and lays its foundation in, a false psychology ; identifying the feelings, or affections, and the will. Secondly, by viewing the opposite scheme through the medium of this false psychology, it reduces Chapter IV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 165 its main position to the pitiful absurdity that a thing may pro- duce itself, or arise out of nothing, and bring itself into exist- ence ; and then demolishes this absurdity by logic ! Thirdly, it reduces itself to the truism, that a thing is always as it is ; and being entrenched in this stronghold, it gathers around itself all the common sense and all the reason of mankind, as well it may, and looks down with sovereign contempt on the feeble attacks of its adversaries. Fourthly, it fortifies itself by a multitude of false conceptions, arising from a hasty applica- tion of its universal truism, and not from a severe inspection and analysis of thin^. Fifthly, it decorates itself in false anal- ogies, and thereby assumes the imposing appearance of truth. Sixthly, it clothes itself in deceptive and ambiguous phrase- ology, by which it speaks the language of truth to the ear, but not to the sense. And, seventhly, it takes its rise in a false method, and terminates in a false religion. These are some of the hidden mysteries of the scheme of necessity ; which having been detected and exposed, we do not hesitate to pronounce it a grand imposition on the reason of mankind. As such, we set aside this stupendous sophism, whose dark shadow has so long rested on the beauty of the world, obscuring the intrinsic majesty and glory of the infinite goodness therein displayed. "We put away and repudiate this vast assemblage of errors, which has so sadly perplexed our mental vision, and so frightfully distorted the real proportions of the world, as to lead philosophers, such as Kant and others, to pronounce a Theodicy impossible. We put them aside utterly, in order that we may proceed to vindicate the glory of God, as manifested in the constitution and government of the moral world. -66 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT (Tart I, CHAPTEE Y. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE HUMAN WILL AND THE DIVINE AGENCY. Thou art the source and centre of all minds, Their only point of rest, eternal Word ! From Thee departing, they are lost and rove At random, without honour, hope, or peace. From Thee is all that soothes the lift of man, His high endeavour and his glad success, His strength to suffer and his will to serve. COWPEB. And God proclaim'd from heaven, and by an oath Confirm'd, that each should answer for himself; And as his own peculiar work should be Done by his proper self, should live or die. POLLOK. TIIE evils of haste and precipitancy in the formation of opinions are, perhaps, nowhere more deplorably exhibited, than in regard to the relation between human and divine agency. Indeed, so many rash judgments have been put forth on this important subject, that the very act of approaching it has come to be invested, in the minds of many persons, with the character of rashness and presumption. Hence the frequent warnings to turn our attention from it, as a subject lying beyond the range of all sober speculation, and as unsuited to the investigation of our finite minds. If this be a wise conclusion, it would be well to leave it to support itself, instead of attempting to bolster it. up with the reasons frequently given for it. SECTION I. General mew of the relation between the divine and the human power. It is frequently said, for example, that it is impossible to reconcile the agency of God with that of man ; because we do not know how the divine power operates upon the human mind. But, if we examine the subject closely, we shall find that the manner in which the Spirit of God operates, is not what we want to know, in order to remove the great difficulty in ques- tion. If such knowledge were possessed in the greatest possible perfection, we have no reason to believe that our insight into Chapter V.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 167 the relation between the human and the divine power would be at all improved. For aught we can see, our notions on this point would remain as dim and feeble as if we possessed no such knowledge. If we could ascertain, however, precisely what is done by the power of man, then we should see whether there be any real inconsistency or conflict between them or not. This is the point on which we need to be enlightened, in order to clear up the difficulty in question ; and on this point the most satisfactory light may be attained. If we must wait to understand the modus operandi of the divine Spirit, before we can dispel the clouds and darkness which his influence casts over the free-agency of man, then must we indeed defer this great mystery to another state of being, and perhaps forever. Those who have looked in this direction for light, may well deplore our inability to see it. But let us look in the right direction : let us consider, not the modus operandi of the divine power, but the effects produced by it, and then, perhaps, we may behold the beautiful harmony subsisting between the agency of God and the freedom of man. The reason why the views of most persons concerning this relation are so vague and indistinct is, that they do not possess a sufficiently clear and perfect analysis of the human mind. The powers and susceptibilities of the mind, as well as the laws which govern its phenomena, seem blended together in their minds in one confused mass ; and hence the relations they bear to each other, and to the divine agency, are as dim and fluctu- ating as an ill-remembered dream. In tins confusion of laws and phenomena, of powers and susceptibilities, of facts and fan- cies, it is no wonder that so many crude conceptions and vague hypotheses have sprung up and prevailed concerning the great difficulty under consideration. In the dim twilight of mental science, which has shown all things distorted and nothing in its true proportions, it is no wonder that the beautiful order and perspective of the moral world should have L>een concealed from our eyes. It was to have been expected, that every atlempt to delineate this order, would, under such circum- stances, prove premature, and aggravate rather than lessen the apparent disorders prevailing in the spiritual world. Ac- cordingly, such attempts generally terminate, either in tho denial of the free-agency of man, or of the sovereignty of God ; 168 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, and those who have maintained both of these tenets in reality, as well as in name, have usually refused to allow themselves to be troubled by the apparent contradictions in which they are involved. "While they recognise the two spheres of the human and of the divine agency, they have left them so shadowy and indistinct, and so distorted from their real proportions, that they have inevitably seemed to clash with each other. Hence, to describe these two spheres with clearness and precision, and to determine the precise point at which they come into contact without intersecting each other, is still a desideratum in the science of theology. We shall endeavour to define the human power and the divine sovereignty, and to exhibit the harmony subsisting between them, in such a manner as to supply, in some small degree at least, this great desideratum which has so long been the reproach of the most sublime of all the sciences. But this is not to be done by planting ourselves upon any one particular platform, and dogmatizing from thence, as if that par- ticular point of view necessarily presented us with every possible phase of the truth. There has been, indeed, so much of this one-sided, exclusive, and dogmatizing spirit manifested in rela- tion to the subject in question, as to give a great appearance of truth to the assertion of an ingenious writer, that inasmuch as different minds contemplate the divine and human agency from different points of view, the predominant or leading idea pre- sented to them can never be the same ; and hence they can never agree in the same representation of the complex whole. The one, says he, " necessarily gives a greater prominence to the divine agency, and the other to the scope and influence of the human will, and consequently they pronounce different judg- ments; just as a man who views a spherical surface from the inside will forever affirm it to be concave, while he who con- templates it from the outside will as obstinately assert that it is convex." But although this has been the usual method of treat- ing the subject in question, such weakness and dogmatizing is self-imposed, and not an inevitable condition of the human mind. We may learn wisdom from the errors of the past, no less than from its most triumphant and glorious discoveries. In the discussion of this subject, it is true that opposite par- ties have confined themselves to first appearances too much, and rested on one-sided views. But are we necessarily tied down to Chapter V.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 169 such inadequate conceptions ? The causes which separate men in opinion, and the obstacles which keep them asunder, are in- deed powerful ; but we hope they do not form an eternal bar- rier between the wise and good. In regard to doctrines so fundamental and so vital as the divine sovereignty and human freedom, it is to be hoped that all good men will some day unite, and perfectly harmonize with each other. As we are rational beings, so we are not tied down to that appearance of things which is presented to one particular point of view. If this were the case, the science of astronomy would never have had an existence. Even the phenomena of that noble science are almost inconceivably different from those pre- sented to the mind of man at his particular point of view. From the small shining objects which are brought to our knowledge by the sense of sight, the reason rises to the true dimensions of those tremendous worlds. And after the human mind has thus furnished itself with the facts of the solar system, it has pro- ceeded but a small way toward a knowledge of the system itself. It has also to deduce the laws of the material world from its first appearances, and, armed with these, it must transport itself from the earth to the true centre of the system, from which its won- derful order and beauty may be contemplated, and revealed to the world. Then these innumerable twinkling points of light, which sparkle in the heavens like so many atoms, become to the eye of reason the stupendous suns and centres of other worlds and systems. If we should judge from first appearances, indeed, if we could not emancipate ourselves from phenomena as they are ex- hibited to us from one particular point of view, then should we never escape the conclusion, that the earth is the fixed centre of the universe, around which its countless myriads of worlds perform their eternal revolutions. But, fortunately, w r e are subject to no such miserable bondage. The mind of man has already raised itself from the planet to which his body is con- fined, and, planting itself on the true centre of the system, has beheld the sublime scheme planned by the infinite reason, and executed by the almighty power of the Divine Architect. Surely the mind which can do, and has done, all this, has the capacity to understand, place it where you will, that although the inside of a sphere is concave, the outside may be convex ; as w r ell as 170 MOKAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, some other things which may perhaps have been placed beyond its power, without due consideration. But in every attempt to emancipate ourselves from first appearances, and to reach a knowledge of the truth, " not as reflected under a single angle," but as seen in all its fulness and beauty, it is indispensable to contemplate it on all sides, and to mark the precise boundaries of all its phases. Hence we shall not plant ourselves on the fact of man's power alone, and, viewing the subject exclusively from thence, enlarge the sphere of human agency to such an extent as to shut the divine agency quite out of the intellectual and moral world. Nor, on the other hand, shall we permit ourselves to become so completely absorbed in the contemplation of the majesty of God, to dwell so warmly on his infinite sovereignty and the littleness of man, as to cause the sphere of human power to dwindle down to a mere point, and entirely disappear. We shall endeavour to find the true medium between these two extreme opinions. That such a medium exists somewhere, will not be denied by many persons. The only question will be, as to where and how the line should be drawn to strike out this medium. In most systems of theology, this line is not drawn at all, but left completely in the dark. "We are shown some things on both sides of this line, but we are not shown the line itself. We are made to see, for example, the fact of human existence as something distinct from God, that we may not err 'with Spinoza, in reducing man to a mere fugitive mode of the Divine Being, to a mere shadow and a dream. And on the other side, we are made to contemplate the omnipotence of God, that we may not 'call in question his sovereignty and dominion over the moral world. But between these two posi- tions, on which the light of truth has thus been made to fall, there is a tract of dark and unexplored territory, a terra incog- nita, which remains to be completely surveyed and delineated, before we can see the beauty of the whole scene. In the attempt to map out this region, to define the precise boun- dary of that imperium in imperio, of which Spinoza and others entertained so great a horror, we should endeavour to follow the wise maxiin of Bacon, " to despise nothing, and to admire nothing." In other words, we should endeavour to " prove all things, Chapter V.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 171 and to hold fast that which is good," without yielding a blind veneration to received dogmas, or a blind admiration to the seductive charms of novelty. Hence, we shall first stand on the same platform with Pelagius, and endeavour to view the subject with his eyes ; to see all that he saw, as well as to cor- rect the errors of his observation. And having done this, we shall then transport ourselves to the platform of Augustine, and contemplate the subject from his point of view, so as to possess ourselves of his great truths, and also to correct the errors of his observation. Having finished these processes, it will not be found difficult to combine the truths of these two conflicting schemes in a complete and harmonious system, which shall exhibit both the human and the divine elements of religion in their true proportions and just relations to each other. SECTION II. The Pelagian platform, or mew of the relation between the divine and the human power. The doctrine of Pelagius was developed from his own per- sonal experience, and moulded, in a great measure, by his oppo- sition to the scheme of Augustine. According to the historian, Neander, as well as to the testimony of Augustine himself, the life of Pelagius was, from beginning to end, one " earnest moral effort." As his character was gradually formed by his own continued and unremitted exertions, without any sudden or violent revolution in his views or feelings, so the great fact of human agency presented itself to his individual consciousness with unclouded lustre. This fact was the great central position from which his whole scheme developed itself. And, as the history of his opinion shows, he was led to give a still greater predominance to this fact, in consequence of his opposition to the system of Augustine, by which it seemed to him to be su in- verted, and the interests of morality threatened. The great fact of free-will, of whose existence he was so well assured by his own consciousness, was so imperfectly interpreted by him, that he was led to exclude other great facts from his sys- tem, which might have been perfectly harmonized with his central position. Thus, as Neander well says, he denied the operation of 172 MOBAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, the divine power in the renovation of the soul,* because he could not reconcile its influence with the free-agency of man. This was the weak point in the philosophy of Pelagius, as it has been in the system of thousands who have lived since his time. To reject the one of two facts, both of which rest upon clear and unequivocal evidence, is an error which has been con- demned by Butler and Burlamaqui, as well as by many other celebrated philosophers. But this error, so far as we know, has been by no one more finely reproved than by Professor Hodge, of Princeton. " If the evidence of the constant revolution of the earth round its axis," says he, " were presented to a man, it would certainly be unreasonable in him to deny the fact, merely because he could not reconcile it with the stability of everything on the earth's surface. Or if he saw two rays of light made to produce darkness, must he resist the evidence of his senses, because he knows that two candles give more light than one? Men do not act thus irrationally in physical investigations. They let each fact stand upon its own evidence. They strive to reconcile them, and are happy when they succeed. But they do not get rid of difficulties by denying facts. "If in the department of physical knowledge we are obliged to act upon the principle of receiving every fact upon its own evidence, even when unable to reconcile one with another, it is not wonderful that this necessity should be imposed upon us in those departments of knowledge which are less within the limits of our powers. It is certainly irrational for a man to reject all the evidence of the spirituality of the soul, because he cannot reconcile this doctrine with the fact that a disease of the body disorders the mind. Must I do violence to my nature in denying the proof of design afforded by the numan body, because I cannot account for the occasional occurrence of de- formities of structure ? Must I harden my heart against all the evidence of the benevolence of God, which streams upon me in a flood of light from all his works, because I may not know how to reconcile that benevolence with the existence of evil ? Must I deny my free-agency, the most intimate of all convic- A different view of the Pelagian doctrine on this point is given by Wiggers, and yet we suppose that both authors are in the right. The truth seems to me, that Pelagius, as usually happens to those who take one-sided views of the truth, has asserted contradictory positions. JkapterV.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD 173 tions, because I cannot see the consistency between the free- ness of an act and the frequency of its occurrence ? May I deny that I am a moral being, the very glory of my nature, because I cannot change my character at will ?"* If this judicious sentiment had been observed by speculatists, it had been well for philosophy, and still better for religion. The heresy of Pelagius, and the countless forms of kindred errors, would not have infested human thought. But this senti- ment, however just in itself, or however elegantly expressed, should not be permitted to inspire our minds with a feeling of despair. It should teach us caution, but not despondency ; it should extinguish presumption, but not hope. For if " we strive to reconcile the facts" of the natural world, "and are happy when we succeed," how much more solicitous should we be to succeed in such an attempt to shut up and seal the very fountains of religious error? Nothing is more wonderful to my mind, than that Pelagius should have such followers as Reimarus and Lessing, not to mention hundreds of others, who deny the possibility of a divine influence, because it seems to them to conflict with the intel- lectual and moral nature of man.f To assert, as these philoso- phers do, that the power of God cannot act upon the human mind without infringing upon its freedom, betrays, as we venture to affirm, a profound and astonishing ignorance of the whole doctrine of free-agency. It proceeds on the amazing supposition that the will is the only power of the human mind, and that volitions are the only phenomena ever manifested therein ; so that God cannot act upon it at all, unless it be to produce volitions. But is it true, that God must do all things within us, or lie can do nothing? that if he produce a change in our mental state, then he must produce all conceivable changes therein ? In order to refute so rash a conclusion, and explode the wild supposition on which it is based, it will b necessary to recur to the threefold distinction of the intelligence, the sensibility, and the will, already referred to. In the perception of truth, as we have seen, the intelligence is perfectly passive. Every state of the intelligence is as com- pletely necessitated as is the affirmation that two and two are The Way of Life, chap, iii, sec. ii. f Knapp's Theology, vol. ii, p. 471. Note by the translator. 174 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, equal to four. The decisions of the intelligence, then, are not free acts ; indeed, they are not acts at all, in the proper sense of the word. They are passive states of the intellect. They are usually called acts, it is true ; and this use of language is, no doubt, one of the causes which has given rise to so many errors and delusions in regard to moral and accountable agency. With, every decision or state of the intelligence, with every per ception of truth by it, there is intimately associated, it is true, an act of the mind, a state of the will, a volition, by which the attention is directed to the subject under consideration ; and it is this intimate association in which the two states or mental phenomena seem blended into one, which has led so many to regard the passive susceptibility, called the intelligence, as an active power, and its states as free acts of the mind. A more correct analysis, a finer discrimination of the real facts of con- sciousness, must prevail on this subject, before light can be let in upon the philosophy of free and accountable agency. The dividing knife must be struck between the two phenomena in question, between an active state of the will and the passive states of the intelligence, and the obstinate association be severed in our imagination, before the truth can be seen otherwise than through distorting films of error. As every state of the intelligence is necessitated, so God may act upon this department of our mental frame without infring- ing upon the nature of man in the slightest possible degree. As the law of necessity is the law of the intelligence, so God may absolutely necessitate its states, by the presentation of truth, or by his direct and irresistible agency in connexion with the truth, without doing violence to the laws of our intellectual and moral nature. Nay, in so acting, he proceeds in perfect conformity with those laws. Hence, no matter how deep a human soul may be sunk in ignorance and stupidity, God may flash the light of truth into it, in perfect accordance with the laws of its nature. And, as has been well said, " The first effect of the divine power in the new, as in the old creation, is light." This is not all. Every state of the sensibility is a passive im- pression, a necessitated phenomenon of the human mind. No matter what fact, or what truth, may be present to the mind, either by its own voluntary attention or by the agency of God, Chapter V.I WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 175 or by the cooperation of both, the impression it makes upon the sensibility is beyond the control of the will, except by refusing to give the attention of the mind to it. Hence, although truth may be vividly impressed upon the intelligence, although the glories of heaven and the terrors of hell may be made to shine into it, yet the sensibility may remain unaffected by them. It may be dead. Hence, God may act upon this, may cause it to melt with sorrow or to glow with love, without doing violence to any law of our moral nature. There is no difficulty, then, in conceiving that the second effect of the divine power in the new creation is " a new heart." Having done all this, he may well call on us to " work out our salvation with fear and trembling, for God worketh in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure." We have seen that the state of the will, that a volition is not necessitated by the in- telligence or by the sensibility ; and, hence, it may " obey the heavenly vision," or it may " resist and do despite to the Spirit of grace." If it obey, then the vivifying light and genial shower have not fallen upon the soul in vain. The free-will coalesces with the renovated intelligence and sensibility, and the man "has root in himself." The blossom gradually yields to the fruit, and the germ of true holiness is formed in the soul. This consists in the voluntary exercise of the mind, in obedience to the knowledge and the love of God, and in the permanent habit formed by the repetition of such exercises. Hence, in the great theandric work of regeneration, we see the part which is per- formed by God, and the part which proceeds from man. This shows an absolute dependence of the soul upon the agency of God. For without knowledge the mind can no more perform its duty than the eye can see without light; and with- out a feeling of love to God, it is as impossible for it to render a spiritual obedience, as it would be for a bird to fly in a vacu- um. Yet this dependence, absolute as it is, does not impair the free-agency of man. For divine grace supplies, and must sup- ply, the indispensable conditions of holiness; but it does not produce holiness itself. It does not produce holiness itself, be- cause, as we have seen, a necessary holiness is a contradiction in terms. Is it not evident, then, that those who assert the impossibility of a divine influence, on the ground that it would lestroy the 176 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, free-agency of man, have proceeded on a wonderful confusion of the phenomena of the human mind ? Is it not evident that they have confounded those states of the intelligence and the sensibility, which are marked over with the characteristics of necessity, with those states of the will which inevitably suggest the ideas of freedom and accountability ? But, strange as it may seem, the philosophers who thus shut the influence of the Divine Being out of the spiritual world, because they cannot reconcile it with the moral agency of man, do not always deny the influence of created beings over the mind. On the contrary, it is no uncommon tiling to see philosophers and theologians, who begin by denying the influence of the Divine Spirit upon the human mind, in order to save the freedom, of the latter, end by subjecting it to the most absolute dominion of facts, and cir cumstances, and motives. SECTION III. The Augustinian Platform, or mew of the relation "between the divine agency and the human. The doctrine of Augustine, like that of Pelagius, was de- veloped from the individual experience and consciousness of its author. The difference between them was, that the sensible experience of the one furnished him with only the human ele- ment of religion, which was unduly magnified by him ; while the divine element was the great prominent fact in the con- sciousness of the other, who accordingly rendered it too exclu- sive in the formation of his views. The one elevated the human element of religion at the expense of the divine ; the other per- mitted the maj esty of the divine to overshadow the human, and cause it to disappear. The causes which induced Augustine to take this sublime but one-sided view of religion may be easily understood. In the early part of his life, he abandoned himself to vicious excesses ; being hurried away, to use a metaphor, by the violence of his appetites and passions. His conscience, no doubt, often re- proved him for such a course of life, and gave rise to many resolutions of amendment. But experience taught him that he could not transform and mould his own character at pleasure. He lacked those views of truth, and those feelings of reverence Chapter V.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 177 and love to God, without which true obedience is impossible. Hence he struggled in vain. He felt his own impotency. He still yielded to the importunities of appetite and passion. Of a sudden, however, he finds his views of divine things changed, and his religious sensibilities awakened. He knows this mar- vellous transformation is not effected by himself. He ascribes it , and he truly ascribes it, to the power of God ; by which he has been brought from a region of darkness to light. Old things had passed away, and all things become new. But now observe the precise manner in which the error of Augustine takes its rise in his mind. He, too, as well as Pela- gius, confounds the passive susceptibility of the heart with a voluntary state of the will. The intelligence and the sensibility are the only elements in his psychology ; the states of them, which are necessitated, constitute all the phenomena of the human mind. Holiness, according to him, consists in a feeling of love to God. He knows this is derived from the divine agency ; and hence he concludes, that the whole work of con- version is due to God, and no part of it is performed by himself. I know, says he, that I did not make myself love God, by which he means a feeling of love ; and this he takes to be true holiness, which has been wrought in his heart by the power of God. " Love is the fulfilling of the law ; but love to God is not shed abroad in our hearts by the law, but by the Holy Ghost." He is sure the whole work is from God, because he is sure that the intelligence and the sensibility are the whole of man. How many excellent persons are there, who, taking their stand upon the same platform of a false psychology, proceed to dogmatize with Augustine as confidently as if the only possible ground of difference from them was a want of the religious experience of the Christian consciousness, by which they have been so eminently blessed. We deny not the reality of their Christian experience ; but we do doubt the accuracy of their interpretation of it. Thus, the complex fact of consciousness, consisting in a state of the sensibility and a state of the will, was viewed from oppo- site points by Pelagius and Augustine. The voluntary phase of it was seen by Pelagius, and hence he became an exclusive and one-sided advocate of free-agency ; the passive side was beheld by Augustine, and hence he became a one-sided and 12 178 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT LPart 1, exclusive advocate of divine grace. If we would possess the truth, and the whole truth, we must view it on all sides, and give a better interpretation of the natural consciousness of the one, as well as the supernatural consciousness of the other, than they themselves were enabled to give. Then shall we not instinctively turn to one-sided views of revelation. Then shall we not always repeat with Pelagius, " Work out your own sal- vation with fear and trembling," nor always exclaim with Augustine, that " God worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure ;" but we shall w r ith equal freedom and readiness approach and appropriate both branches of the truth. SECTION IV. The views of those who, in later times, have symbolized with Augustine. Those divines who have adopted, in the main, the same lead- ing views with Augustine, have generally admitted the fact of free-agency ; but, because they could not reconcile it with their leading tenet, they have, as we have seen, explained it away. The only freedom which they allow to man, pertains, as we have shown, not to the will at all, but only to the external sphere of the body. They have maintained the great fact in words, but rejected it in substance. Though they have seen the absur- dity of rejecting one fact because they could not reconcile it with another, yet their internal struggle after a unity and har- mony of principle has induced them to deny, in reality, what they have seemed to themselves to preserve and maintain. We have seen, in the first chapter of this work, in what manner this has been done by them ; it now remains to take a view of the subject, in connexion with the point under con- sideration. The man who confounds the sensibility with the will should, indeed, have no difficulty in reconciling the divine agency with the human. If the state of the mind in willing is purely passi' e, like a state of the mind in feeling; then to say that it is produced by the power of God, would create no difficulty what- ever. Hence, the great difficulty of reconciling the human with the divine agency, which has puzzled and perplexed so many, should not exist for one who identifies the will with the sensi- bility ; and it would exist for no one holding this psychology, Chapter V.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 179 if there were not more in the operations of his nature than in the developments of his system. Perhaps no one ever more completely lost sight of the true characteristic of the manifesta- tions of the will, by thrusting them behind the phenomena of the sensibility, than President Edwards ; and hence the diffi- culty in question seemed to have no existence for him. So far from troubling himself about the line which separates the human agency from the divine, he calmly and quietly speaks as if such a line had no existence. According to his view, the divine agency encircles all, and man is merely the subject of its influ- ence. It is true, he uses the terms active and actions, as appli cable to man and his exertions ; but yet he regards his very acts, his volitions, as being produced by God. " In efficacious grace," says he, " God does all, and we do all. God produces all, and we act all. For that is what he produces ; namely, our own acts." Now I think Edwards could not have used such lan- guage, if he had attached any other idea to the term act, than what really belongs to it when it is applied, as it often is, to the passive states of the intelligence and the sensibility. An act of the intellect, or an act of the affections, may be produced by the power of God ; but not an act of the will. For, as the Princeton Keview well says, " a necessary volition is an ab- surdity, a thing inconceivable." It is scarcely necessary to add, that in causing all real human agency to disappear before the divine sovereignty, Edwards merely reproduced the opinion of Calvin ; which he endeav- oured to establish, not by a fierce, unreasoning dogmatism, but upon the principles of reason and philosophy. " The apostle," says Calvin, "ascribes everything to the Lord's mercy, and leaves nothing to our wills or exertions"* He even contends, that to " suppose man to be a cooperator with God, so that the validity of election depends on his consent," is to make the " will of man superior to the counsel of God ;"f as if there were no possible medium between nothing and omnipotence. Institutes, b. iii, ch. xxiv. j Ibid. 180 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part L SECTION V. The danger of mistaking distorted for exalted views of the divine sovereignty. There is no danger, it is true, that we shall ever form too exalted conceptions of the divine majesty. All notions must fall infinitely below the sublime reality. But we may proceed in the wrong direction, by making it our immediate aim and object to exalt the sovereignty of God. An object so vast and overwhelming as the divine omnipotence, cannot fail to trans- port the imagination, and to fill the soul with wonder. Hence, in our passionate, but always feeble, endeavours to grasp so wonderful an object, our vision may be disturbed by our emo- tions, and the glory of God badly reflected in our minds. Our utmost exertions may thus end, not in exalted, but in distorted views of the divine sovereignty. Is it not better, then, for feeble creatures like ourselves, to aim simply to acquire a knowledge of the truth, which, we may depend upon it, will not fail to exhibit the divine sovereignty in its most beautiful lights? If such be our object, we shall find, we think, that God is the author of our spiritual views in religion, as well as those genuine feelings of reverence and love, without which obedience is impossible ; and that man himself is the author of the volitions by which his obedience is consummated. This shows the pre- cise point at which the divine agency ceases, and human agency begins ; the precise point at which the sphere of human power comes into contact with the sphere of omnipotence, without intersecting it and without being annihilated by it. It shows at once the absolute dependence of man upon God, without a denial of his free and accountable agency ; and it asserts the latter, without excluding the Divine Being from the affairs of the moral world. It renders unto Caesar the things which arc Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's. At the same time that it combines and harmonizes these truths, it shows the errors of the opposite extremes, and places the doc- trines of human and divine agency upon a solid and enduring basis, by preventing each from excluding the other. In all our inquiries, truth, and truth alone, should be oui grand object. All bv-ends and contracted purposes, all party Chapter V.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 181 schemes and sectarian zeal, will be almost sure to defeat their own objects, by seeking them with too direct and exclusive an aim. These, even when noble and praiseworthy, must be sought and reached, if reached at all, by seeking and finding the truth. Thus, for instance, would we exalt the sovereignty oi God, then must we not directly seek to exalt that sovereignty, but put away from us all the forced contrivances and factitious lights which have been invented for that purpose. It is the light of truth alone, sought for its own sake, and therefore clearly seen, that can reveal the sublime proportions, and the intrinsic moral loveliness, of this awful attribute of the Divine Being. On the other hand, would we vindicate the freedom of man, and break into atoms the iron law of necessity, which is supposed to bind him to the dust, then again must we seek the truth without reference to this particular aim or object. We must study the great advocates of that law with as great earnestness and fairness as its adversaries. For it is by the light of truth alone, that the real position man occupies in the moral world, or the orbit his power moves in, can be clearly seen, free from the manifold illusions of error ; and until it be thus seen, the liberty of the human mind can never be suc- cessfully and triumphantly vindicated. If we would understand these things, then, we must struggle to rise above the foggy atmosphere and the refracted lights of prejudice, into the bright region of eternal truth. 182 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT (.Part I, CHAPTEE VI. THE EXISTENCE OF MORAL EVIL, OR SIN, RECONCILED WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. One doubt remains, That wrings me sorely, if I solve it not. The world, indeed, is even so forlorn Of all good, as thou speakest it, and so swarms With every evil. Yet, beseech thee, point The cause out to me, that myself may see And unto others show it : for in heaven One places it, and one on earth below. DANTE. THEOLOGY teaches that God is a being of infinite perfections Hence, it is concluded, that if he had so chosen, he might have secured the world against the possibility of evil ; and this naturally gives rise to the inquiry, why he did not thus secure it ? "Why he did not preserve the moral universe, as he had created it, free from the least impress or overshadowing of evil ? Why he perhiitted the beauty of the world to become dis- figured, as it has been, by the dark invasion and ravages of sin ? This great question has, in all ages, agitated and disturbed the human mind, and been a prolific source of atheistic doubts and scepticism. It has been, indeed, a dark and perplexing enigma to the eye of faith itself. To solve this great difficulty, or at least to mitigate the stu- pendous darkness in which it seems enveloped, various theories have been employed. The most celebrated of these are the following: 1. The hypothesis of the soul's preexistence ; 2. The hypothesis of the Manicheans; and, 3. The hypothesis of opti- mism. It may not be improper to bestow a few brief remaiks on these different schemes. SECTION I. The hypothesis of the souTs preexistence. Tin's was a favourite opinion with many of the ancient phi- losophers. In the Phsedon of Plato, Socrates is introduced as maintaining it; and he ascribes it to Orpheus as its original Chapter VL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 183 author. Leibnitz supposes that it was invented for the purpose of explaining the origin of evil ;* but the truth seems to be, that it arose from the difficulty of conceiving how the soul could be created out of nothing, or out of a substance so differ ent from itself as matter. The hypothesis in question was also IT aintained by many great philosophers, because they imagined tl at if the past eternity of the soul were denied, this would eliake the philosophical proof of its future eternity, f There can be no doubt, however, that after the idea of the soul's pre- existence had been conceived and entertained, it was very gen- erally employed to account for the origin of evil. But it must be conceded that this hypothesis merely draws a veil over the great difficulty it was designed to solve. The difficulty arises, not from the circumstance that evil exists in the present state of our being, but from the fact that it is found to exist anywhere, or in any state, under the moral administration of a perfect God. It is as difficult to conceive why such a being should have permitted the soul to sin in a former state of existence, even if such a state were an estab- lished reality, as it is to account for its rise in the present world. To remove the difficulty out of sight, by transferring the origin of evil beyond the sphere of visible things, is a poor substi- tute for a solid and satisfactory solution of it. The great problem of the moral world is not to be illuminated by any such fictions of the imagination ; and we had better let it alone altogether, if we have nothing more rational and solid to advance. SECTION' II. The hypothesis of the Manicheans. Though this doctrine is ascribed to Manes, after whom it is called, it is of a far more early origin. It was taught, says Plutarch, by the Persian Magi, whose views are exhibited by him in his celebrated treatise of Isis and Osiris. "Zoroaster," guys he, " thought that there are two gods, contrary to each other in their operations a good and an evil principle. To the former he gave the name of Oromazes, and to the latter that of Arimanius. The one resembles light and truth, the other darkness and ignorance." We do not allude to this theory for Essais de Theodicee. f Cudworth's Intellectual System. 1 84 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part 1, the purpose of combatting it ; we suppose it would scarcely find a respectable advocate at the present day. This, like many other inventions of the great intellects of antiquity, has entirely disappeared before the simple but sublime doctrines of the religion of Jesus. M. Bayle, it is true, has exhausted the resources of his genius, as well as the rich stores of his learning, in order to adorn the doctrine of Manes, and to render it more plausible, if possible, than any other which has been employed to explain the origin and existence of evil. But this was not because he sinceiely believed it to be founded in truth. He merely wished to show its superiority to other schemes, in order that by demolishing it he might the more effectually inspire the minds of men with a dark feeling of universal scepticism. It was decorated by him, not as a system of truth, but as a sacrifice to be offered up on the altar of atheism. True to the instincts of his philosophy, he sought on this subject, as well as on all others, to extinguish the light of science, and manifest the wonders of his power, by hanging round the wretched habitation of man the gloom of eternal despair. Though this doctrine is now obsolete in the civilized world, it was employed by a large portion of the ancient philosophers to account for the origin of evil. This theory does not, it is true, relieve the difficulty it was designed to solve ; but it shows that there was a difficulty to be solved, which would not have been the case if evil could have been ascribed to the Supreme God as its author. If those philosophers could have regarded him as a Being of partial goodness, they would have found no difficulty in explaining the origin and existence of evil ; they would simply have attributed the good and the evil in the world to the good and the evil supposed to pertain to his nature. But they could not do this, inasmuch as the human mind no sooner forms an idea of God, than it regards him as a being of ui limited and unmixed goodness. It has shown a disposition, in all ages, to adopt the most wild and untenable hypotheses, rather than entertain the imagination that evil could proceed from the Father of Lights. The doctrine of Manes, then, as well as the other hypotheses employed to explain the origin of evil, demonstrates how deep is the conviction of the human mind that God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all. Chapter VI.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 185 In searching after the fountain of evil, it turns from the great source of life and light, and embraces the wildest extravagancies, rather than indulge a dark suspicion respecting the goodness of its Maker. SECTION III. The hypothesis of optimism. " The fundamental principle of the optimist is," says Dugald Stewart, "that all events are ordered for the best; and that evils which we suffer are parts of a great system conducted by almighty power under the direction of infinite wisdom and goodness." Leibnitz, who is unquestionably one of the greatest philosophers the world has produced, has exerted all his powers to adorn and recommend the scheme of optimism. We have, in a former chapter, considered the system of Leibnitz ; but we have not denied its fundamental principle, which is so well expressed in the above language of Mr. Stewart. If lie had confined himself to that principle, without undertaking to explain how it is that God orders all things for the best, his doctrine would have been free from objections, except for a want of clearness and precision. Dr. Chalmers has said that the scheme of optimism, as left by Leibnitz, is merely an hypothesis. He insists, however, that even as an hypothesis, it may be made to serve a highly im- portant purpose in theology. " If it be not an offensive weapon," says he, "with which we may beat down and demolish the strongholds of the sceptic, it is, at least, an armour of defence, with which we may cause all his shafts to fall harmless at our feet." This remark of Dr. Chalmers seems to be well founded. The objection of the sceptic, as we have seen, proceeds on the supposition that if a Being of infinite perfections had so chosen, he might have made a better universe than that which actually exists. But we have as good reasons to make suppositions as the sceptic. Let us suppose, then, that notwithstanding the evil which reigns in the world, the universe is the best possible universe that even infinite wisdom, and power, and goodness, could have called into existence. Let us suppose that this would be clearly seen by us, if we only knew the whole of the case ; if we could only view the present condition of man in all 186 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, its connexions and relations to God's infinite plans for the uni- verse and for eternity. In other words, let us suppose, that if we were only omniscient, our difficulty would vanish, and where we now see a cloud over the divine perfections, we should behold bright manifestations of them. This is a mere supposi- tion, it is true, but it should be remembered that the objection in question is based on a mere supposition. When it is asked, why God permitted evil if he had both the power and the will to prevent it ? it is assumed that the prevention of evil is better, on the whole, than the permission of it, and consequently more worthy of the infinite wisdom and goodness ascribed to God. But as this is a mere supposition, which has never been proved by the sceptic, we do not see why it may not be sufficiently answered by a mere supposition. This is an important idea. In many a good old writer, it exists in the dark germ ; in Dr. Chalmers it appears in the expanded blossom. Its value may be shown, and its beauty illustrated, by a reference to the aifairs of human life ; for many of the most important concerns of society are settled and deter- mined by the application of this principle. If a man were on trial for his life, for example, and certain facts tending to establish his guilt were in evidence against him, no enlightened tribunal would pronounce him guilty, provided any hypothesis could be framed, or any supposition made, by which the facts in evidence could be reconciled with his innocence. " Evi- dence," says a distinguished legal writer, "is always insufficient, where, assuming all to be proved which the evidence tends to prove, some other hypothesis may still be true ; for it is the actual exclusion of any other hypothesis which invests mere circumstances with the force of proof."* This is a settled prin- ciple of law. If any supposition can be made, then, which would reconcile the facts in evidence with a man's innocence, the law directs that he shall be acquitted. Any other rule of decision would be manifestly unjust, and inconsistent with the dictates of a sound policy. This principle is applicable, whether the accused bear a good or a bad moral character. As, according to the hypothesis, he might be innocent ; so no tribunal on earth could fairly deter- mine that he was guilty. The hardship of such a conclusion Starkie on Evidence. Chapter VI.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD, 187 would be still more apparent in regard to the conduct of a man whose general character is well known to be good. In such a case, especially, should the facts be of such a nature as to ex- clude every favourable hypothesis, before either truth or justice would listen to an unfavourable decision and j udgment. Such is the rule which human wisdom has established, in 01 der to arrive at truth, or at least to avoid error, in relation to the acts and intentions of men. Hence, is it not reasonable, we ask, that we should keep within the same sacred bounds, when we come to form an estimate of the ways of God ? No one can fairly doubt that the world is replete with the evidences of his goodness. If he had so chosen, he might have made every breath a sigh, every sensation a pang, and every utterance of man's spirit a groan ; but how differently has he constituted the world within us, and the glorious world around us ! Instead of swelling every sound with discord, and clothing every object with deformity, he has made all nature music to the ear and beauty to the eye. The full tide of his universal goodness flows within us, and around us on all sides. In its eternal rounds, it touches and blesses all things living with its power. We live, and move, and have our very being in the goodness of God. Surely, then, we should most joyfully cling to an hypothesis which is favourable to the character of such a Being. Hence, we infinitely prefer the warm and generous theory of the opti- mist, which regards the actual universe as the best possible, to the dark and cold hypothesis of the sceptic, which calls in ques- tion the boundless perfections of God. In the foregoing remarks, we have concurred with Dr. dial mers in viewing the doctrine of Bayle as a mere unsupported hypothesis ; but have we any right to do so ? It has not been proved, it is true ; but there are some things which require no proof. Is not the doctrine of Bayle a tiling of this kind? It certainly seems evident that if God hates sin above all things, and could easily prevent it, he would not permit it to appear in his dominions. This view of the subject recommends itself powerfully to the human mind, which has, in all ages, been worried and perplexed by it. It seems to carry its own evi- dence along with it ; to shake the mind with doubt, and over- spread it with darkness. Hence, we should either expose its fallacy or else fairly acknowledge its power. 188 MOKAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part 1, On the other hand, the theory of Leibnitz, or rather the great fundamental idea of his theory, is more than a mere hypothesis. It rests on the conviction of the human mind that God is in- finitely perfect, and seems to flow from it as a necessary conse- quence. For how natural, how irresistible the conclusion, that if God be absolutely perfect, then the world made by him must be perfect also ! But while these two hypotheses seem to be sound, it is clear that both cannot be so : there is a real conflict between them, and the one or the other must be made to give way before our knowledge can assume a clearly harmonious and satisfactory form. The effects of the hypothesis of the sceptic may be neutralized by opposing to it the hypothesis of the theist. But w r e are not satisfied to stop at this point. We intend, not merely to neu- tralize, but to explode, the theory of the sceptic. We intend to wrest from it the element of its strength, and grind it to atoms. We intend to lay our finger precisely upon the fallacy which lies so deeply concealed in its bosom, and from which it derives all its apparent force and conclusiveness. We shall drag this false principle from its place of concealment into the open light of day, and thereby expose the utter futility, the inherent ab surdity, of the whole atheistical hypothesis, to which it has so long imparted its deceptive power. If Leibnitz did not detect this false principle, and thereby overthrow the theory of Bayle, it was because he held this principle in common with him. We must eliminate this error, common to the scheme of the atheist and to that of the theist, if we would organize the truths which both contain, and present them together in one harmonious and symmetrical system ; into a system which will enable us, not merely to stand upon the defensive, and parry off the attacks of the sceptic, but to enter upon his own territory, and demolish his strongholds ; not merely to oppose his argument by a counter- argument, but to explode his sophism, and exhibit the cause of God in cloudless splendour. This false principle, this concealed fallacy, of which the athe- ist has been so long allowed to avail himself, has been the source of many unsuspected errors, and many lamentable evils. It has not only given power and efficacy to the weapons of the sceptic, but to the eye of faith itself has it cast clouds and darkness over the transcendent glory of the moral government of God. It has Chapter VL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 189 prevented a Leibnitz from refuting the sophism of a Bayle, and induced a Kant to declare a theodicy impossible. It has, indeed, as we shall see, crept into and corrupted the whole mass of re- ligious knowledge ; converting the radiant and clearly-defined body of truth into a dark, heterogeneous compound of conflicting elements. Hence we shall utterly demolish it, that neither a fragment nor a shadow of it may remain to darken and delude the minds of men. SECTION IV. The argument of the atheist The reply of Leibnitz and other theists The insufficiency of this reply. Sin exists. This is the astounding fact of which the atheist avails himself. He has never ceased to contend, that as God has permitted sin to exist, he was either unable or unwilling to prevent it. God might easily have prevented sin, says he, if he had chosen to do so ; but he has not chosen to do so, and therefore his love of virtue is not infinite, his holiness is not unlimited. Now, we deny this conclusion, and assert the infinite holiness of God. This assertion may be true, says Yoltaire, and hence God would have prevented all sin, if his power had not been limited. The only conceivable way, says he, to reconcile the existence of sin with the purity of God, is " to deny his omnipotence." We insist, on the contrary, that the power of God is absolutely without bounds or limits. Though sin exists, we still maintain, in opposition to every form of atheism, that this fact implies no limitation of any of the perfections of God. Before proceeding to establish this position, we shall consider the usual reply of the theist to the great argument of the atheist. " The greatest love which a ruler can show for virtue," says Bayle, " is to cause it, if he can, to be always practised without any mixture of vice. If it is easy for him to procure this advantage to his subjects, and he nevertheless permits vice to raise its head in his dominions, intending to punish it after having tolerated it for a long time, his affection for virtue is not the greatest of which we can conceive ; it is then not infinite" This has been the great standing argument of atheism in all ages of the world. This argument, as held bv the atheists of 190 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, antiquity, is presented by Cudworth in the following words: " Tlie supposed Deity and Maker of the world was either will- ing to abolish all evils, but not able ; or he was able but not willing; or else, lastly, he was both able and willing. This latter is the only thing that answers fully to the notion of a God. Now that the supposed Creator of all things was not thus both able and willing to abolish all evils, is plain, because then there would have been no evils at all left. Wherefore, since there is such a deluge of evils overflowing all, it must needs be that either lie was willing, and not able to remove them, and then he was impotent ; or else he was able and not willing, and then he was envious ; or, lastly, he was neither able nor willing, and then he was both impotent and envious." This argument is, in substance, the same as that presented by Bayle, and relied upon by atheists in all subsequent times. To the argument of Bayle, the following reply is given by Leibnitz : " When we detach things that are connected together, the parts from the whole, the human race from the universe, the attributes of God from each other, his power from his wisdom, we are permitted to say that God can cause virtue to be in the world without any mixture of vice, and even that he may easily cause it to le so."* But he does not cause virtue to exist without any mixture of vice, says Leibnitz, because the good of the whole universe requires the permission of moral evil. How the good of the universe requires the permission of evil, he has not shown us ; but he repeatedly asserts this to be the fact, and insists that if God were to prevent all evil, this would work a greater harm to the whole than the permission of some evil. Now, is this a sufficient and satisfactory reply to the argument of the atheist ? It certainly seems to possess weight, and is entitled to serious consideration. Bayle contends, that as evil exists, the Creator and Governor of the world cannot be absolutely perfect. He should have concluded with me, Leibnitz truly says, that as God is absolutely perfect, the existence of evil is necessary to the perfection of the universe, or is an unavoidable part of the best world that could have been created. It is thus that he neutralizes, without demolishing, the argument of the atheist, and each person is left to be more deeply affected by the argu- Theodicee. Chapter VI.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 191 ment of Leibnitz, or by that of Bayle, as his faith in the unlimited goodness of God is strong or weak. If the theist, by such means, should gain a complete victory, this would be due to the faith of the vanquished, rather than to the superiority of the logic by which he is subdued. To this argument of Leibnitz we may then well apply his own remarks upon another celebrated philosopher. Descartes met the argument of the necessitarian, not by exposing its fallacy, but by repelling the conclusion of it on extraneous grounds. "This was to cut the Gordian knot," says Leibnitz, who was himself a necessitarian, " and to reply to the conclu- sion of one argument, not by resolving it, but by opposing to it a contrary argument; which is not conformed to the laws of philosophical controversy." The reply of Leibnitz to Bayle is clearly open to the same objection. It does not analyze the sophism of the sceptic, or resolve it into its elements, and point out its error ; it merely opposes its conclusion by the presenta- tion of a contrary argument. Hence it is not likely to produce very great effect ; for, as Leibnitz himself says, in relation to this mode of attacking sceptics, " It may arrest them a little, but they will always return to their reasoning, presented in dif- ferent forms, until we cause them to comprehend wherein the defect of their sophism consists." Leibnitz has, then, accord- ing to his own canons of criticism, merely cut the Gordian knot of atheism, which he should have unravelled. He has merely arrested the champions of scepticism " a little," whom he should have overthrown and demolished. His re^ly is not only incomplete, in that it does not expose the sophistry of the atheist ; it is also unsound. It carries in its bosom the elements of its own destruction. It is self-contra- dictory, and consequently untenable. It admits that it is easy for God to cause virtue to exist, and yet contends that, in certain cases, he fails to do so, because the highest good of the universe requires the existence of moral evil. But how is this possible ? It will be conceded that the good of the individual would be promoted, if God should cause him to be perfectly holy and happy. This would be for the good of each and every indi- vidual moral agent in the universe. How, then, is it possible for such an exercise of the divine power to be for the good of all the parts, and yet not for the good of the whole? 192 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, So far from being able to see liow these tilings can hang together, it seems evident that they are utterly repugnant to each other. The highest good of the universe, we are told, requires the permission of evil. What good ? Is it the holiness of moral agents? This, it is said, can be produced by the agency of God, without the introduction of evil, and produced, too, in the greatest conceivable degree of perfection. Why should evil be permitted, then, in order to attain an end, which it is conceded can be perfectly attained without it ? Is there any higher end than the perfect moral purity of the universe, which God seeks to accomplish by the permission of sin ? It certainly is not the happiness of the moral universe ; for this can also be secured, in the highest possible degree, by the agency of the Divine Being, without the permission of moral evil. What good is there, then, beside the perfect holiness and happiness of the universe, to the production of which the existence of moral evil is necessary ? There seems to be no such good in reality. It appeal^ to be a dream of the imagination, a splendid fiction, which has been recommended to the human mind by its horror of the cheerless gloom of scepticism. SECTION" V. The sophism of the atheist exploded, and a perfect agreement shown to subsist between the existence of sin and the holiness of God. Supposing God to possess perfect holiness, he would certainly prevent all moral evil, says the atheist, unless his p'/wer were limited. This inference is drawn from a false premiss ; namely, that if God is omnipotent, he could easily prevent moral evil, and cause virtue to exist without any mixture of vice. This assumption has been incautiously conceded to the atheist by his opponent, and hence his argument has not been clearly and fully refuted. To refute this argument with perfect clearness, it is necessary to show two things: first, that it is no limitation of the divine omnipotence to say that it cannot w r ork contra- dictions ; and secondly, that if God should cause virtue to exist in the heart of a moral agent, he would work a contradiction. We shall endeavour to evince these two things, in order to refute the grand sophism of the sceptic, and lay a solid founda- TT> */"! Chapter VI.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GO% 103 . tion for a genuine scheme of optimism, against which no val objection can be urged. In the first place, then, it is not a limitation of the divine omnipotence to say, that it cannot work contradictions. There will be little difficulty in establishing this point. Indeed, it will be readily conceded ; and if we offer a few remarks upon it, it is only that we may leave nothing dark and obscure behind tin, even to those whose minds are not accustomed to such speculations. As contradictions are impossible in themselves, so to say that God could perform them, would not be to magnify his power, but to expose our own absurdity. When we affirm, that om- nipotence cannot cause a thing to be and not to be at one and the same time, or cannot make two and two equal to five, we do not set limits to it ; we simply declare that such things are not the objects of power. A circle cannot be made to possess the properties of a square, nor a square the properties of a circle. Infinite power cannot confer the properties of the one of these figures upon the other, not because it is less than infinite power, but because it is not within the nature, or province, or dominion of power, to perform such things, to embody such inherent and immutable absurdities in an actual existence. In regard to the doing of such things, or rather of such absurd and inconceivable nothings, omnipotence itself pos- sesses no advantage over weakness. Power, from its very nature and essence, is confined to the accomplishment of such things as are possible, or imply no contradiction. Hence it is beyond the reach of almighty power itself to break up and confound the immutable foundations of reason and truth. God possesses no such miserable power, no such horribly distorted attribute, no such inconceivably monstrous imperfection and deformity of nature, as would enable him to embody absurdities and contradictions in actual existence. It is one of the chief excellencies and glories of the divine nature, that its infinite power works within a sphere of light and love, without the least tendency to break over the sacred bounds of eternal trutn, into the outer darkness of chaotic night I The truth of this remark, as a general proposition, will be readily admitted. In general terms, it is universally acknowl- edged ; and its application is easy where the impossibility is 13 194 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part 1, plain, or the contradiction glaring. But there are things which really imply a contradiction, without being suspected to do so. We may well ask, in relation to such things, why God does not produce them, without being sensible of the absurdity of the inquiry. The production of virtue, or true holiness, in the breast of a moral agent, is a thing of this kind.* This conducts us to our second position ; namely, that if G od should cause virtue to exist in the breast of a moral agent, he would work a contradiction. In other words, the production of virtue by any extraneous agency, is one of those impossible conceits, those inherent absurdities, which lie quite beyond the sphere of light in which the divine omnipotence moves, and has no existence except in the outer darkness of a lawless imagination, or in the dim regions of error, in which the true nature of moral goodness has never been seen. It is absurd, we say, to suppose that moral agents can be governed and controlled in any other way than by moral means. All physical power is here out of the question. By physical power, in con- nexion with wisdom and goodness, a moral agent may be created, and endowed with the noblest attributes. By physical power, a moral agent may be caused to glow with a feeling of love, and armed with an uncommon energy of w r ill ; but such effects, though produced by the power of God, are not the virtue of the moral agent in whom they are produced. This consists, not in the possession of moral powers, but in the proper and obedient exercise of those powers. f If infinite wisdom, and goodness, and power, should muster all the means and appliances in the universe, and cause them to bear with united energy on a single mind, the effect produced, however grand and beautiful, would not be the virtue of the agent in whom it is produced. Nothing can be Lis virtue which is produced by an extraneous agency. This is a dictate of the universal reason and consciousness of mankind. It needs no meta- physical refinement for its support, and no scholastic jargon for its illustration. On this broad principle, then, which is so clearly deduced, not from the confined darkness of the schools, but the open light of nature, we intend to take our stand in opposition to the embattled ranks of atheism. The argument of the atheist assumes, as we have seen, that a See chapter iii. | Compare chap. iii. Chapter VL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 105 Being of infinite power could easily prevent sin, and cause holi- ness to exist. It assumes that it is possible, that it implies no contradiction, to create an intelligent moral agent, and place it beyond all liability to sin. But this is a mistake. Almighty power itself, we may say with the most profound reverence, cannot create such a being, and place it beyond the possibility of sinning If it could not sin, there would be no merit, no vir- tue, in its obedience. That is to say, it would not be a moral agent at all, but a machine merely. The power to do wrong, as well as to do right, is included in the very idea of a moral and accountable agent, and no such agent can possibly exist without being invested with such a power. To suppose such ah agent to be created, and placed beyond all liability to sin, is to suppose it to be what it is, and not what it is, at one and the same time ; it is to suppose a creature to be endowed with a power to do wrong, and yet destitute of such a power, which is a plain con- tradiction. Hence, Omnipotence cannot create such a being, and deny to it a power to do evil, or secure it against the possi- bility of sinning. We may, with the atheist, conceive of a universe of such beings, if we please, and we may suppose them to be at all times prevented from sinning by the omnipotent and irresistible energy of the Divine Being ; and having imagined all this, we may be infinitely better pleased with this ideal creation of our own than with that which God has called into actual existence around us. But then we should only prefer the absurd and contradictory model of a universe engendered in our own weak brains, to that which infinite wisdom, and power, and goodness have actually projected into being. Such a universe, if freed from contradictions, might be also free from evil, nay, from the very possibility of evil ; but only on condition that it should at the same time be free from the very possibility of good. It admits into its dominions moral and accountable creatures, capable of knowing and serving God, and of drinking at the purest fountain of uncreated bliss, only by being involved in ir- reconcilable contradiction. It may appear more delightful to the imagination, before it coines to be narrowly inspected, than the universe of God ; and the latter, being compared with it, may seem less worthy of the infinite perfections of its Author; but, after all, it is but a weak and crazy thing, a contradictious 196 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, and impossible conceit. We may admire it, and make it the standard by which to try the work of God ; but, after all, it is but an " idol of the human mind," and not " an idea of the Di- ine Mir d." It is a little, distorted image of human weakness, and not a harmonious manifestation of divine power. Among all the possible models of a universe, which lay open to the in- finite mind and choice of God, a thing so deformed had no place ; and when the sceptic concludes that the perfections of the Supreme Architect are limited, because he did work after such a model, he only displays the impotency of his own wis- dom, and the blindness of his own presumption. Hence, the error of the atheist is obvious. He does not con- sider that the only way to place all creatures beyond a liability to sin, is to place them below the rank of intelligent and ac- countable beings. He does not consider that the only way to prevent "sin from raising its head" is to prevent holiness from the possibility of appearing in the universe. He does not con sider that among all the ideal worlds present to the Divine Mind, there was not one which, if called into existence, would have been capable of serving and glorifying its Maker, and yet in- capable of throwing off his authority. Hence, he really finds fault with the work of the Almighty, because he has not framed the world according to a model which is involved in the most irreconcilable contradictions. In other words, he fancies that God is not perfect, because he has not embodied an absurdity in the creature. If God, he asks, is perfect, why did he not render virtue possible, and vice impossible? Why did he not create moral agents, and yet deny to them the attributes of moral agents? Why did he not give his creatures the power to do evil, and yet withhold this power from them? He might just as well have demanded, why he did not create matter without dimensions, and circles without the properties of a circle. Poor man ! he cannot see the wisdom and power of God mani- fested in the world, because it is not filled with moral agents which are not moral agents, and w r ith glorious realities that are mere empty shadows ! If the above remarks be just, then the great question, why has God permitted sin, which has exercised the ingenuity of man in all ages, is a most idle and insignificant inquiry. The only real question is, why lie created such beings as men at all ; and Chapter VL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD 107 not why he created them, and then permitted them to sin. The first question is easily answered. The second, though often pro- pounded, seems to be a most unmeaning question. It is unmean- ing, because it seeks to ascertain the reason why God has per- mitted a thing, which, in reality, he has not permitted at all. Having created a world of moral agents, that is, a world en- dowed with a power to sin, it was impossible for him to prevent sin, so long as they retained this power, or, in other words, so long as they continued to exist as moral agents. A universe of such agents given, its liability to sin is not a matter for the will of God to permit; this is a necessary consequence from the nature of moral agents. He could no more deny peccability to such creatures than he could deny the properties of the circle to a circle ; and if he could not prevent such a thing, it is surely very absurd to ask why he permitted it. On the supposition of such a world, God did not permit sin at all ; it could not have been prevented. It would be consid- ered a very absurd inquiry, if we should ask, why God permit- ted two and two to be equal to four, or why he permitted the three angles of a triangle to be equal to two right angles. But all such questions, however idle and absurd, are not more so than'the great inquiry respecting the permission of moral evil. If this does not so appear to our minds, it is because we have not sufficiently reflected on the great truth, that a necessary virtue is a contradiction in terms, an inherent and utter impos- sibility. The full possession of this truth will show us, that the cause of theism has been encumbered with great difficulties, because its advocates have endeavoured to explain the reason why God has permitted a thing, which, in point of fact, he has not permitted. Having attempted to explain a fact which has no existence, it is no w r onder that they should have involved themselves in clouds and darkness. Let us cease then, to seek the reason of that which is not, in order that we may behold the glory of that which is. We have seen that it is impossible for Omnipotence to create inora agents, and yet prevent them from possessing an ability to sin or transgress the law of God. In other words, that the Almighty cannot give agents a power to sin, and at the same time deny this power to them. To expect such things of him, is to expect him to work contradictions ; to expect him to cause 198 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, a thing to be what it is, and not what it is, at one and the same time. Thus, although sin exists, we vindicate the charac- ter of God, on the ground that it is an inherent impossibility to exclude all evil from a moral universe. This is the high, impregnable ground of the true Christian theist. We have already said, that the only real question is, not why- God permitted evil, but why he created beings capable of sin- ning. Such creatures are, beyond all question, the most noble specimens of his workmanship. St. Augustine has beautifully said, that the horse which has gone astray is a more noble creature than a stone which has no power to go astray. In like manner, we may say, a moral agent that is capable of knowing, and loving, and serving God, though its very nature implies an ability to do otherwise, is a more glorious creature than any being destitute of such a capacity. If God had created no such beings, his work might have represented him " as a house doth the builder," but not " as a son doth his father." If he had created no such beings, there would have been no eye in the universe, except his own, to admire and to love his works. Traces of his w r isdom and goodness might have been seen here and there, scattered over his works, provided any eye had been lighted up with intelligence to see them ; but nowhere would his living and immortal image have been seen in the magnifi- cent temple of the world. It will be conceded, then, that there is no difficulty in conceiving why God should have preferred a universe of creatures, beaming with the glories of his own image, to one wholly destitute of the beauty of holiness and the light of intelligence. But having preferred the noblest order of beings, its inseparable incident, a liability to moral evil, could not have been excluded. Hence God is the author of all good, and of good alone ; and evil proceeds, not from him nor from his permission, but from an abuse of those exalted and unshackled powers, whose nature and whose freedom constitute the glory of the moral universe. This, then, is the sublime purpose of God, to give and con- tinue existence to free moral agents, and to govern them ibr their good as well as for his own glory. This is the decree of the Almighty, to call forth from nothing into actual existence, the universe which now shines around us, and spread over it the dominion of his perfect moral law. He does not cause sin. Chapter VI. 1 WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 199 He does not permit sin. He sees that it will raise its hideous head, but he does not say so let it be. No! sin is the thing which God hates, and which he is determined, by all the means within the reach of his omnipotence, utterly to root out and destroy. The word has gone forth, " Offences must needs come, but woe unto the man by whom they come !" His omnipotence is pledged to wipe out the stain and efface the shadow of evil, in as far as possible, from the glory of his creation. But yet, so long as the light and glory of the moral universe is permitted to shine, may the dark shadow of evil, which moral agents cast upon its brightness and its beauty, continue to exist and par- tially obscure its divine perfections. And would it not be un- worthy of the divine wisdom and goodness to remove this par- tial shadow, by an utter extinction of the universal light 1 SECTION VI. The true and only foundation of optimism. Though few have been satisfied with the details of the system of optimism, yet has the great fundamental conception of that system been received by the wise and good in all ages. " The atheist takes it for granted," says Cudworth, " that whosoever asserts a God, or a perfect mind, to be the original of all things, does therefore ipso facto suppose all things to be well made, and as they should be. And this, doubtless, was the sense of all the ancient theologers," &c.* This distinguished philosopher himself maintains, as well as Leibnitz, that the intellectual world could not have been made better than it is, even by a being of infinite power and goodness. "To believe a God," says he, " is to believe the existence of all possible good and perfection in the universe ; it is to believe that things are as they should be, and that the world is so well framed and governed, as that the whole system thereof could not possibly have been better."f But while this fundamental principle has been held by philos- ophers, both ancient and modern, it has been, as we have seen, connected with other doctrines, by which it is contra- dicted, and its influence impaired. The concession which is universally made to the sceptic, that if God is omnipotent, lie Intellectual System, vol. ii, p. 328. f Id., vo1 - P- 149 - 200 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, can easily cause virtue to exist without any mixture of vice, is fatal to the great principle that lies at the foundation of optim- ism. It resolves the whole scheme, which regards the w . rid as the best that could possibly be made, into a loose, vague, and untenable hypothesis. It is true, the good man would infinitely prefer this hypothesis to the intolerable gloom of atheism ; but yet our rational nature demands something more solid and clear on which to repose. Indeed, the warmest sup- porters of optimism have supplied us with the lofty sentiments of a pure faith, rather than with substantial and satisfactory views. The writings of Plato, Leibnitz, Cudworth, and Ed- wards, all furnish illustrations of the justness of this remark. But nowhere is its truth more clearly seen than in the following passage from Plotinus : " God made the whole most beautiful, entire, complete, and sufficient," says he ; " all agreeing friendly with itself and its parts ; both the nobler and the meaner of them being alike congruous thereunto. Whosoever, therefore, from the parts thereof, will blame the whole, is an absurd and unjust censurer. For we ought to consider the parts not alone by themselves, but in reference to the whole, whether they be harmonious and agreeable to the same ; otherwise we shall not blame the universe, but some of its parts taken by them- selves."* The theist, however, who maintains this beautiful sentiment, is accustomed to make concessions by which its beauty is marred, and its foundation subverted. For if God could easily cause virtue to exist without any mixture of vice, it is demon- strable that the universe might be rendered more holy and happy than it is, in each and every one of its parts , and con- sequently in the whole. But if we assume the position, as in truth we may, that a necessary virtue is a contradiction in terms, then we can vindicate the infinite perfections of God, by showing that sin may enter into the best possible world. This great truth, then, that " a necessary holiness is a contradiction in terms," which has been so often uttered and so seldom fol- lowed out to its consequences, is the precise point from which we should contemplate the world, if we would behold the power and goodness of God therein manifested. This is the secret of the world by which the dark enigma of e'vil is to be solved. Cudworth's Intellectual System, vol. ii, p. 338. Chapter VI.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 201 This is the clew, by which we are to be conducted from the dark labyrinth of atheistical doubt and scepticism, into the clear and open light of divine providence. This is the great central light which has been wanting to the scheme of optimism, to convert it from a mere but magnificent hypothesis, into a clearly manifested and glorious reality. God governs everything according to the nature which he has given it. Indeed, it would be as impossible to necessitate true and genuine obedience by the application of power, as it would be to convert a stone into a moral agent by the appli- cation of motives and persuasion. As sin is possible, then, though omnipotence be pledged to prevent its existence, it is clear that it cannot be regarded as a limitation of the divine power. This cuts off the objection of Voltaire, and explodes the grand sophism on which it is based. God hates sin above all things, and is more than willing to prevent it ; and he actu- ally does so, in so far as this is possible to infinite wisdom and power. This refutes the objection of Bayle, and leaves his argument without the shadow of a foundation. God does not choose sin, or permit it as a means of the highest good, as if there could be any higher good than absolute and universal holiness ; but it comes to pass, because God has created a world of moral agents, and they have transgressed his law. This removes the high and holy God infinitely above the contami- nation of all evil, above all contact with the sin of the world, and shows an impassable gulf between the purity of the Cre- ator and the pravity of the creature. By revealing the true connexion of sin with the moral universe, and its relation to God, it clearly shows that its existence should not raise the slightest cloud of suspicion respecting his infinite goodness and power, and thus reconciles the fact of sin's existence with the adorable perfections of the Governor of the world. Jt may be said, that although God could not cause holiness to prevail universally, by the exercise of his power, yet he might employ means and influences sufficient to prevent the occurrence of sin. To tins there are two satisfactory answers. First, it is a contradiction to admit that God cannot necessitate virtue, because such a thing is impossible ; and yet suppose that he could, in all cases, secure the existence of it, without any chance of failure. It both asserts and denies at the same time, 202 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, the idea of a necessary holiness. Secondly, the objection in question proceeds on the supposition, that there are resources in the stores of infinite wisdom and goodness, which might have been successfully employed for the good of the universe, and which God has failed to employ. But this is a mere gra- tuitous assumption. It never has been, and it never can bo proved. It has not even the appearance of reason in its favour. Let the objector show wherein the Almighty could have done more than he has actually done to prevent sin, and secure holi- ness, without attempting violence to the nature of man, and then his objection may have some force, and be entitled to some consideration. But if he cannot do this, his objection rests upon a mere unsupported hypothesis. It is very easy to conceive that more light might have been imparted to men, and greater influences brought to bear on their feelings ; but it will not follow that such additional inducements to virtue would have been good for them. For aught we know, it might only have added to their awful responsibilities, without at all con- ducing to their good. For aught we know, the means employed by God for the salvation of man from sin and misery have, both in kind and degree, been precisely such as to secure the maxi- mum of good and the minimum of evil. Let the sceptic frame a more perfect moral law for the gov- ernment of the world than that which God has established ; let him show where more tremendous sanctions might be found to enforce that law ; let him show how the Almighty might have made a more efficacious display of his majesty, and power, and goodness, than he has actually exhibited to us ; let him refer to more powerful influences, consistent with the free-agency and accountability of man, than those exerted by the Spirit of God ; let him do all this, we say, and then he may have some right to object and find fault. In one word, let him meet the demand of the Most High, " what more could have been done to my vineyard, that I have not done in it," and show it to be without foundation, and then there will be some appearance of reason in his objection. Chapter VI/| WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 203 SECTION VII. The glory of God seen in the creation of a world, which he foresaw woi Id fall under the dominion of sin. It may be said that we have not yet gone to the bottom of Hie difficulty ; that although omnipotence could not deny the capacity to commit sin to a moral agent, yet God could pre- vent moral evil, by refusing to create any being who he fore- knew would transgress his law. As God might have prevented the rise of evil in our world, by refusing to create man, why, it may be asked, did he not do so ? Why did he not, in this way, spare the universe that spectacle of crime and suffering which has been presented in the history of our fallen race ? To this we answer, that God did not choose to prevent sin in this way, but to create the world exactly as he did, though he fore- saw the fall and all its consequences ; because the highest good of the universe required the creation of such a world. We are now prepared to see this great truth in its true light. The highest good of the universe may, no doubt, be promoted in various ways by the redemption of our fallen race, of which we have no conception in our present state of darkness and ignorance. But we are furnished with some faint glimpses of the true source of that admiration and wonder with which the angels of God are inspired, as they contemplate the manifesta- tion of his glory in reconciling the world to himself. The felicity of the angels, and no doubt of all created intelligences, must be found in the enjoyment of God. No other object is sufficiently vast to fill and satisfy the unlimited desires of the mind. And as the character of God must necessarily constitute the chief happiness of his creatures, so every new manifesta- tion of the glory of that character must add to their supreme felicity. Now, if there had been no such thing as .sin, the compassion of God would have been forever concealed from the eyes of his intelligent creatures. They might have adored his purity ; but of that tender compassion which calls up the deepest and most pleasurable emotions in the soul, they could have known abso- lutely nothing. They might have witnessed his love to sinless beings ; but they could never have seen that love in its omnipo- 204 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, tent yearnings over the ruined and the lost. The attribute of mercy or compassion would have been forever locked up and concealed in the deep recesses of the Divine Mind ; and the blessing, and honour, and glory, and dominion, which shall be ascribed by the redeemed unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever, would not have betu heard in the universe of God. The chord which now sends forth the sweetest music in the harmony of heaven, filling its inhabitants with deep and rapturous emotions of sympathy and delight, would never have been touched by the finger of God. How far such a display of the divine character is necessary to the ends of the moral government of God can be known only to himself. We are informed in his word, that it is by the redemption of the world, through Christ, that the ends of his moral government are secured. It pleased the Father, saith St. Paul, that in Christ all fulness should dwell ; and having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. Thus we are told that all things in heaven are reconciled unto God, by the blood of the cross. But it may be asked, How was it possible to reconcile those beings unto God who had never sinned against him, nor been estranged from him ? According to the original, God is not exactly said to reconcile, but to keep together, all things, by the mediation and work of Christ. The angels fell from heaven, and man sinned in paradise ; but the creatures of God are secured from any further defection from him, by the all-controlling display of his character, and by the stupendous system of moral agen- cies and means which have been called forth in the great work of redemption. In this view of the passage in question we are happy to find that we are confirmed by so enlightened a critic as Dr. Mac- knight. In relation to these words, " And by him to reconcile all things," he says, " Though I have translated the anonaraXXd^a. to reconcile, which is its ordinary meaning, I am clearly of opinion that it signifies here to unite simply ; because the good angels are said, in the latter part of the verse, to be reconciled with Christ, who never were at enmity with him. I therefore take the apostle's meaning to be this : ' It pleased the Father, by Christ, to unite all things to Christ, namely, as their Head and Chapter VI.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 205 Governor.' ; (Col. i, 20.) The same sublime truth is revealed in other portions of Scripture, as in the fifteenth chapter of First Cor- inthians, where it is said, that it is the design of God to subject all things to Christ, and exception is made only of Him by 'dinin this universal subjection and dominion is established. The accomplishment of such an object, it will be admitted, is me of unspeakable importance. For no government, however perfect and beautiful in other respects, can be of much value unless it be so constructed as to secure its own permanency. This grand object, revelation informs us, has been attained by the redemption of the world through Christ. But for his work, those blessed spirits now bound together in everlasting society with God, by the sacred ties of confidence and love, might have fallen from him into the outer darkness, as angels and arch- angels had fallen before them. The ministers of light, though having drunk deeply of the goodness of God, and rejoiced in his smile, were not satisfied with their condition, and, striving to better it, plucked down ruin on their heads. So, man in paradise, not content with his happy lot, but vainly striving to raise himself to a god, forsook his allegiance to his Maker, and yielded himself a willing servant to the powers of darkness. But an apostle, though born in sin, having tasted the bitter fruits of evil, and the sweet mercies of redeeming love, felt such confidence in God, that in whatsoever state he was, he could therewith be content. Not only in heaven not only in paradise but in a dungeon, loaded with irons, and beaten with stripes, he could rejoice and give glory to God. This firm and unshaken allegiance in a weak and erring mortal to the throne of the Most High God, presents a spectacle of moral grandeur and sublimity to which the annals of eternity, but for the ex- istence of sin, had presented no parallel. It is by the scheme of Christianity alone that the confidence of the creature in his God has been rendered too strong for the gates of hell to prevail against him. But for this scheme, the moral government of God might have presented scenes of mu- tability and change, infinitely more appalling than the partial evil which we behold in our present state. Or if God had chosen to prevent this, to render it absolutely impossible, by the creation of no beings who he foreknew would rebel against him, this might have contracted his moral empire into the most 206 MOEAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, insignificant limits. Tims, by the creation of the world, God has prepared the way to extend the boundaries of his empire, and to secure its foundations. Christ is the corner-stone of the spiritual universe, by which all things in heaven and earth are kept from falling away from God, its great centre of light and life. No wonder, then, that when this crowning event in the moral government of the universe was about to be accomplished, the heavenly host should have shouted, " Glory to God in the highest !" This view of the subject of moral evil, derived from revela- tion, harmonizes all the phenomena of the moral world with the perfections of God, as well as warms and expands the noblest feelings of the human heart. St. Paul ascribes the stability of all things in heaven to the manifestation of the divine character in the redemption of our fallen race. If this be the case, then those who so confidently assert that God might have preserved the world in holiness, without impairing the free-agency of man, as easily as he keeps the angels from falling, are very much mistaken. This assertion is frequently made ; but, as we con- ceive, without authority either from reason or revelation. It is said by a learned divine, "That God has actually preserved some of the angels from falling ; and that he has promised to preserve, and will, therefore, certainly preserve the spirits of just men made perfect ; and that this has been, and will be, done without infringing at all on their moral agency. Of course, he could just as easily have preserved Adam from fall- ing, without infringing on his moral agency."* This argument is pronounced by its author to be conclusive and " unanswer able." But if God preserves one portion of his creatures from falling, by the manner in which he has dealt with those who have fallen, it does not follow that he could just as easily have kept each and every portion of them from a defection. If a ruler should prevent a part of his subjects from rebellion, by the way in which he has dealt with those who have rebelled, does it follow that he might just as easily have secured obedi- ence in the rebels ? It clearly does not ; and hence there is a radical defect in the argument of these learned divines and the school to which they belong. Let them show that all things in heaven are not secured in their eternal allegiance to God by the Dwight's Sermons, vol. i, pp. 25i-4l2. Dick's Lee., p. 248 Chapter VI.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 207 work of Christ, and then they may safely conclude, that man might have been as certainly and infallibly secured against a defection as angels and just men made perfect. If God binds the spiritual universe to himself, by the display of his un- bounded mercy to a fallen race, it does not follow that he could, by the same means, have preserved that race itself, and every other order of beings, from a defection. For, on this supposi- tion, there would have been no fallen race to call forth his infinite compassion, and send its binding influences over angels and the spirits of just men made perfect. According to the sublime idea of revelation, it is the trans cendent glory of the cross that it exerts moral influences, which have bound the whole intelligent creation together in one har- monious society with God, its sovereign and all-glorious head. For aught we know, the stability of the spiritual universe could not possibly have been secured in any other way ; and hence, if there had been no fall, and no redemption, the grand intel- lectual system which is now so full of confidence and joy, might have been without a secure foundation. We have seen that its foundation could not, from the very nature of things, have been established and fixed by mere power ; for this could not have kept a single moral agent from the possibility of sin- ning, much less a boundless universe of such beings. The Christian believer, then, labours under no difficulty in regard to the existence of evil, which should in the least oppress his mind. If he should confine his attention too narrowly to the nature of evil as it is in itself, he may, indeed, perplex his brain almost to distraction ; but he should take a freer and wider range, viewing it in all its relations, dependencies, and ultimate results. If he should consider the origin of evil exclusively, he may only meet with impenetrable obscurity and confusion, as he endeavours to pry into the dark enigma of the world ; but all that is painful in it will soon vanish, if he will only view it in connexion with God's infinite plans for the good of the universe. He will then see, that this world, with all its wickedness and woe, is but a dim speck of vitality in a bound- less dominion of light, that is necessary to the glory and per- fection of the whole. The believer should not, for one moment, entertain the low view, that the atonement confers its benefits on man alone. 208 MOEAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, The plan of redemption was not an after-thought, designed to remedy an evil which the eye of omniscience had not foreseen ; it was formed in the counsels of infinite wisdom long before the foundations of the world were laid. The atonement was made for man, it is true ; but, in a still higher sense, man was made for the atonement. All things were made for Christ. God, whose prerogative it is to bring good out of evil, will turn the short-lived triumph of the powers of darkness into a glorious victory, and cause it to be a universal song of rejoicing to his great name throughout the endless ages of eternity. Who would complain, then, that he is subject to the evils of this life, since he has been subjected in hope? Everything around us is a type and symbol of our high destiny. All things shadow forth the glory to be revealed in us. The insignificant seed that rots in the earth does not die. It lives, it germinates, it grows, it springs up into the stately plant, and is crowned with beauty. The worm beneath our feet, though seemingly so dead, is, by the secret all-working power of God, undergoing changes to fit it for a higher life. In due time it puts off its form of death, and rises, " like a winged flower," from the cojd earth into a warm region of life and light. In like manner, the bodies we inhabit, wonderfully and fearfully as they are made, are destined to moulder in the grave, and become the food of worms, before they are raised like unto Christ's glorified body, clothed with power and immortality. Nature itself, with all its teeming forms of beauty, must decay, till "pale con- cluding winter comes at last, and shuts the scene." But 'the scene is closed, and all its magnificence shut in, only that it may open out again, as it were, into all the wonders of a new creation. Even so the human soul, although it be subjected to the powers of darkness for a season, may emerge into the light and blessedness of eternity. Such is the destiny of man; and upon himself, under God, it depends whether this high des- tiny be fulfilled, or his bright hopes blasted. " I call heaven and earth this day to witness," saith the Lord, " that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing ; therefore choose Chapter VI.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 209 SECTION VIII. The little, caption spirit of Voltaire, and other atheizing minute philosophers. It will be objected, no doubt, that in the foregoing vindication of the divine holiness, we have taken for granted the Christian scheme of redemption ; but it should be remembered, that we do not propose " to justify the ways of God to man" on deistical principles. We are fully persuaded, that if God had merely created the world, and remained satisfied to look down as an idle spectator upon the evils it had brought upon itself, his character and glory would not admit of vindication ; and we should not have entered upon so chimerical an enterprise. We have attempted to reconcile the government of the world, as set forth in the system we maintain, and in no other, with the per- fections of God ; and whoever objects that this cannot be done, is bound, we insist, to take the system as it is in itself, and not as it is mangled and distorted by its adversaries. We freely admit, that if the Christian religion does not furnish the means of such a reconciliation, then we do not possess them, and are necessarily devoted to despair. Here we must notice a very great inconsistency of atheists They insist that if the world had been created by an infinitely perfect Being, he would not have permitted the least sin or dis- order to arise in his dominions ; yet, when they hear of any interposition on his part for the good of the world, they pour ridicule upon the idea of such intervention as wholly unworthy of the majesty of so august a Being. So weak and w r avering nre their notions, that it agrees equally well with their creed, that it becomes an infinitely perfect Being to do all things, and that it becomes him to do nothing ! Can you believe that an omnipotent God reigns, says M. Voltaire, since he beholds the frightful evils of the world without putting forth his arm to redress them? Can you believe, asks the same philosopher, that so great a being, even if he existed, would trouble himself about the affairs of so insignificant a creature as man ? Such inconsistencies are hardly worthy of a philosopher, wno possesses a wisdom so sublime, and a penetration so profound, as to authorize him to sit in judgment on the order and har- inony of the universe. They are perfectly worthy, however, 14 210 MOKAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part T. of the author of Candidus. The poison of this work consists, not in its argument, but in its ridicule. Indeed, it is not even an attempt at argument or rational criticism. The sole aim of the author seems to be to show the brilliancy of his wit, at the expense of " the best of all possible worlds ;" and it must be confessed that he has shown it, though it be in the worst of all possible causes. Instead of attempting to view the existence of evil in the light of any principle whatever, he merely accumulates evil upon evil ; and when the mass has become sufficiently terrific, with the jeering mockery of a small fiend, he delights in the con- templation of the awful spectacle as a conclusive demonstration that the Ruler of the world is unequal to the government of his creatures. His book is merely an appeal to the ignorance and feelings of the reader, and can do no mischief, except when it may happen to find a weak head in union with a corrupt heart. For what does it signify that the castle of the Baron Thunder- ten-trock was not the most perfect of all possible castles ; does this disprove the skill of the great Architect of the universe? Or what does it signify that Dr. Pangloss lost an eye ; does this extinguish a single ray of the divine omniscience, or depose either of the great lights which God ordained to rule the world ? Lastly, what does it signify that M. Yoltaire, by a horrible abuse of his powers, should have extinguished the light of reason in his soul; does this disprove the goodness of that Being by whom those powers were given for a higher and a nobler purpose ? A fracture in the dome of St. Paul's would, no doubt, present as great difficulties to an insect lost in its depths, as the disorders of this little world presented to the captious and fault-finding spirit of M. Voltaire ; and would as completely shut out the order and design of the whole structure from its field of vision, as the order and design of the magnifi- cent temple of the world was excluded from the mind of this very minute philosopher. Chapter VIL1 WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 2U CHAPTER VII. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. Heaven seeth all, and therefore knows the sense Of the whole beauteous frame of Providence. His judgment of God's kingdom needs must fail, Who knows no more of it than this dark jail. BAXTER. One part, one little part, we dimly scan, Through the dark medium of life's feverish dream ; Yet dare arraign the whole stupendous plan, If but that little part incongruous seem. BEATTIE. THOUGH we have taken great pains to obviate objections by the manner in which we have unfolded and presented our views, yet we cannot but foresee that they will have to run the gaunt- let of adverse criticism. Indeed, we could desire nothing more sincerely than such a thing, provided they be subjected to the test of principle, and not of prejudice. But how can such a thing be hoped for? Is all theological prejudice and bigotry extinct, that an author may hope to have a perfectly fair hear- ing, and impartial decision ? Experience has taught us that we must expect to be assailed by a great variety of cavils, and that the weakest will often produce as great an effect as the strongest upon the minds of sectarians. Hence, we shall endeavour to meet all such objections as may occur to us, provided they can be supposed to exert any influence over the mind. SECTION I. It may ~be objected that the foregoing scheme is " new theology? If nothing more were intended by such an objection, than to put the reader on his guard against the prejudice in favour of novelty, we could not complain of it. For surely every new opinion which comes into collision with received doctrines, should be held suspected, until it is made to undergo the scrutiny to which its importance and appearance of truth may entitle it. No reasonable man should complain of 312 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, such a precaution. Certainly, the present writer should not complain of such treatment, for it is precisely the treatment which he has received from himself. He well remembers, that when the great truths, as he now conceives them to be, first dawned upon his own mind, how sadly they disturbed and perplexed his blind veneration for the past. As he was him- self, then, so ready to shrink from his own views as " now theology," he surely cannot censure any one else for so doing, provided he will but give them a fair and impartial hearing before he proceeds to scout them from his presence. It is true, after the writer had once fairly made the discovery that " old theology " is not necessarily true theology, he could proceed with the greater freedom in his inquiries. He did not very particularly inquire whether Ms or that was old or new, but whether it was true. He felt assured, that if he could only be so fortunate as to find the truth, the defect of novelty would be cured by lapse of time, and he need give himself no very great concern about it. Not many centuries ago, as everybody knows, Galileo was condemned and imprisoned for teaching " new theology." He had the unbounded audacity to put forth the insufferable heresy, " directly against the very word of God itself," that the sun does not revolve around the earth. The Yatican thundered, and crushed Galileo ; but it did not shake the solar system. This stood as firm in its centre, and rolled on as calmly and as majestically in its course, as if the Yatican had not uttered its anathema. Its thunders are all hushed now. Nay, it has even reversed its former decree, and concluded to permit the orbs of light to roll on in the paths appointed for them by the mighty hand that reared this beautiful fabric of the heavens and the earth. Even so will it be, in relation to all sound views pertaining to the constitution and government of the moral world ; and those who may deem them unsound, will have to give some more solid reason than an odious epithet, before they can resist their progress. We do not pretend that they have not, or that they cannot give, more solid reasons for this opposition to what is called ; ' new theology." We only mean, that an objection, which, entirely overlooking the truth or the falsehood of an opinion, appeals to prejudice by the use of an odious name, is unworthy Chapter VIL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 213 of a serious and candid inquirer after truth, and therefore should be laid aside by all who aspire to such a character. SECTION II. It may be imagined that the views herein set forth limit the omnipotence of God. This objection has already been sufficiently answered ; but it may be well to notice it more distinctly and by itself, as it is one upon which great reliance w r ill be placed. It is not deny- ing the omnipotence of God, as all agree, to say that he cannot work contradictions ; but, as we have seen, a necessitated voli- tion is a contradiction in terms. Hence, it does not deny or limit the divine omnipotence, to say, it cannot produce or neces- sitate our volitions. It is absurd to say, that that is a voluntary exercise of power, which is produced in us by the power of God. Both of these principles are conceded by those who will be among the foremost, in all probability, to deny the conclusion which necessarily flows from them. Thus, the Princeton Review, for example, admits that God cannot work contradic- tions; and also that "a necessary volition is an absurdity, a tiling inconceivable." But will it say, that God cannot work a volition in the human mind ? that omnipotence cannot work this particular absurdity? If that journal should speak on this subject at all, we venture to predict it will be seen that it has enounced a great truth, without perceiving its bearing upon the Princeton school of theology. If this objection has any solidity, it lies with equal force against the scheme of Leibnitz, Edwards, and other philosophers and divines, as well as against the doctrine of the foregoing treatise. For they affirm, that God chooses sin as the necessary means of the greatest good ; and that he could not exclude sin from the universe, without causing a greater evil than its per- mission. This sentiment is repeatedly set forth in the Essais de Theodice'e of Leibnitz ; and it is also repeatedly avowed by Ed- wards. Now, here is an inherent impossibility ; namely, the prevention of sin without producing a greater evil than its j or- mission, which it is assumed God cannot work. In other words, when it is asserted, that he chooses sin as the necessary means of the greatest good, it is clearly intended that he cannot secure 214 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, the greatest good without choosing that sin should exist. Hence if the doctrine of this discourse limits the omnipotence of God, no less can be said of that to which it is opposed. But both schemes may be objected to on this ground, and lx>th be set aside as limiting the perfections of God. Indeed, it has been objected against the scheme of Leibnitz, " that it seems to make something which I do not know how to express otherwise than by the ancient stoical fate, antecedent and supe- rior even to God himself. I would therefore think it best to say, with the current of orthodox divines, that God was per- fectly free in his purpose and providence, and that there is no reason to be sought for the one or the other beyond himself."* W e do not know what reply Leibnitz would have made to such an objection ; but we should be at no loss for an answer, were it urged against the fundamental principle of the preceding discourse. We should say, in the first place, that it was a very great pity the author could not find a better way of expressing his objection, " than by the ancient stoical fate, antecedent and superior even to God himself." To say that God cannot work contradictions, is not to place a stoical fate, nor any other kind of fate, above him. And if it is, this impiety is certainly prac- tised by " the current of orthodox divines," even in the author's own sense of the term ; for they all affirm that God cannot work contradictions. If such an objection has any force against the present treatise, it might be much better expressed than by an allusion to " the ancient stoical fate." Indeed, it is much better expressed by Luther, in his vindication of the doctrine of consubstantiation. When it was urged against that doctrine, that it is a mathe- matical impossibility for the same corporeal substance to be in a thousand different places at one and the same time, the great reformer resisted the objection as an infringement of the divine sovereignty : " God is above mathematics," lie exclaimed : " I reject reason, common-sense, carnal arguments, and mathe- matical proofs."f There is no doubt but the orthodox divines of the present day will be disposed to smile at this specimen of Luther's pious zeal for the sovereignty of God ; and although Witherspoon, as quoted in "New and Old Theology," issued by the Presby- terian Board of Publication. f D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, book xiii. Chapter VII.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 215 they may not be willing to admit that God is above all reason and common-sense, yet will they be inclined to think that, in some respects, Luther was a little below them. But while they smile at Luther, might it not be well to take care, lest they should display a zeal of the same kind, and equally pleasant in the estimation of posterity ? In affirming that omnipotence cannot work contradictions, we are certainly very far from being sensible that we place a " stoical fate " above God, or any other kind of fate. "We would not place mathematics above God ; much less would we place him below mathematics. Nor would we say anything which would seem to render him otherwise than "perfectly free in his purpose, or in his providence." To say that he cannot make two and two equal to five, is not, we trust, inconsistent with the perfection of his freedom. If it would be a great imper- fection in mortals, as all orthodox divines will admit, to be able to affirm and believe that two and two are equal to five ; then it would be a still greater imperfection in God, not only to be able to affirm such a thing, but to embody it in an actual creation. In like manner, if it would be an imperfection in us to be able to affirm so great " an absurdity," a thing so " inconceivable " as a " necessary volition ;" then it could not add much to the glory of the Divine Being, to suppose him capable of producing such a monstrosity in the constitution and government of the world. There is a class of theologians who reject every explication of the origin of evil, on the ground that they limit the divine sovereignty ; and to the question why evil is permitted to exist, they reply, " We cannot tell." If God can, as they insist he can, easily cause holiness to shine forth with unclouded, uni- versal splendour, no wonder they cannot tell why he does not do so. If, by a single glance of his eye, he can make hell itself clear up and shine out into a heaven, and fix the eternal glories }f the moral universe upon an immovable foundation, no wonder they can see no reason why he refuses to do so. The only wonder is that they cannot see that, on this principle, there is no reason at all for such refusal, and the permission of moral evil. For if God can do all this, and yet permits sin "to raise its hideous head in his dominions," then there is, and must be, something which he loves more than holiness, or abhors more 216 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, than sin. And hence, the reason why they cannot tell is, in our humble opinion, because they have already told too muck, more than they know. To doubt in the right place, is often the best cure for doubt; and to dogmatize in the wrong place, is often the most certain road to scepticism. SECTION III. The foregoing scheme, it may le said, presents a gloomy view of the universe. If we say that God cannot necessitate our volitions, or neces- sarily exclude all evil from a moral system, it will be objected, that, on these principles, " we have no certainty of the con- tinued obedience of holy, angelic, and redeemed spirits."* This is true, if the scheme of necessity affords the only ground of certainty in the universe. But we cannot see the justness of this assumption. It is agreed on all sides, that a fixed habit of acting, formed by repeated and long-continued acts, is a pretty sure foundation for the certainty of action. Hence, there may be some little certainty, some little stability in the moral world, without supposing all things therein to be necessitated. Perhaps there may be, on this hypothesis, as great certainty therein, as is actually found to exist. In the assertion so often made, that if all our volitions are not controlled by the divine power, but left to ourselves, then the moral world will not be so well governed as the natural, and disorders will be found therein ; the fact seems to be overlooked, that there is actually disorder and confusion in the moral world. If it were our object to find an hypothesis to overturn and refute the facts of the moral world, we know of none better adapted to this purpose than the doctrine of necessity ; but if it be our aim, not to deny, but to explain the phenomena of the moral world, then must we adopt some other scheme. But it has been eloquently said, that "if God could not have prevented sin in the universe, he cannot prevent believers from falling; he cannot prevent Gabriel and Paul from sinking at once into devils, and heaven from turning into a hell. And were he to create new races to fill the vacant seats, they might turn to devils as fast as he created them, in spite of anything that he could do short of destroying their moral agency. He 43 Old and New Theology, p. 38. Chanter VII.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 217 is liable to be defeated in all his designs, and to be as miserable as he is benevolent. This is infinitely the gloomiest idea that was ever thrown upon the world. It is gloomier than hell itself.*' True, there might be a gloomier spectacle in the uni- vei'36 than hell itself; and for this very reason it is, as we have seen, that God has ordained hell itself, that such gloomier spectacle may never appear in the universe to darken its trans- cendent and eternal glories. It is on this principle that we reconcile the infinite goodness of God with the awful spectacle of a world lying in ruins, and the still more awful spectacle of an eternal hell beyond the grave. It is true, there might be a gloomier idea than hell itself; there might be two such ideas. Nay, there might be two such things ; but yet, so far as we know, there is only one. We beg such objectors to consider, there are some things which, even according to our scheme, will not take place quite so fast as they may be pleased to imagine them. It is true, for example, that a man, that a rational being, might take a copper instead of a guinea, if both were presented for his selection ; but although we may conceive this, it does not follow that he will actually take the copper and leave the guinea. It is also true, that a man might throw himself down from the brink of a precipice into a yawning gulf: yet he may, perhaps, refuse to do so. This may be merely a gloomy idea, and may never become a gloomy fact. In like manner, as one world fell away from God, so might another, and another. But yet this imagin- ation may never be realized. Indeed, the Supreme Euler of all things has assured us that it will not be the case ; and in forming our views of the universe, we feel more disposed to look at facts than at fancies. We need not frighten ourselves at " gloomy ideas." There are gloomy facts enough in the universe to call forth all our feairi. Indeed, if we should permit our minds to be directed, not by the reality of things, but by the relative gloominess of i< leas, we should altogether deny the eternity of future torments, itnd rejoice in the contemplation of the bright prospects of the universal holiness and happiness of created beings. We believe, however, that when the truth is once found, it will present the universe of God in a more glorious point of view, than it can be made to display by any system of error whatever. Whether 218 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, the foregoing scheme possesses this characteristic of truth or not, the reader can now determine for himself. He can deter- mine whether it does not present a brighter and more lovely spectacle to contemplate God, the great fountain of all being and all light, as doing all that is possible, in the very nature of things, for the holiness and happiness of the universe, and actually succeeding, through and by the cooperation of his creation, in regard to all worlds but this ; than to view him as possessing the power to shut out all evil from the universe, for time and for eternity, and yet absolutely refusing to do so. But let me insist upon it, that the first and the all-important inquiry is, " What is truth ?" This is the only wise course ; and it is the only safe course for the necessitarian. For no system, when presented in its true colours, is more gloomy and appalling than his own. It represents the great God, who is seated upon the throne of the universe, as controlling all the volitions of his rational creatures by the omnipotence of his will. The first man succumbs to his power. At this unavoidable transgression, God kindles into the most fearful wrath, and dooms both him- self and his posterity to temporal and eternal misery. If this be so, then let me ask the reader, if the fact be not infinitely "gloomier than hell itself?" SECTION IV. It may ~be alleged, that in refusing to subject the volitions of men to the power and control of God, we undermine the sentiments of humility and submission. This objection is often made : it is, indeed, the great prac- tical ground on which the scheme of necessity plants itself. The object is, no doubt, a most laudable one ; but every laud- able object is not always promoted by wise means. Let us see, then, if it be wise thus to assert the doctrine of a necessi- tated agency, in order to abase the pride of man, and teach him a lesson of humility. If we set out from this point of view, it will be found exceed- ingly difficult, if not impossible, to tell when and where to slop. In fact, those who rely upon this kind of argument, often carry it much too far; and if we look around us, we shall find that the only means of escaping the charge of pride, is to swallow Chapter VII.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 219 all the doctrines which the teachers of humility may be pleased to present to us. Thus, for example, Spinoza would have us to believe that man is not a person at all, but a mere fugitive mode of the Divine Being. Nothing is more ridiculous, in his eyes, than that so insignificant a thing as a man should aspire to the rank of a distinct, personal existence, and assume to him- self the attribute of free-will. " The free-will," says he, " is a chimera of the same kind, flattered by our pride, and in reality founded upon our ignorance." Now it may not be very hum- ble in us, but still we beg leave to protest against this entire annihilation of our being. Even M. Comte, who in his extreme modesty, denies the existence of a God, insists that it is nothing but the fumes of pride and self-conceit, the intoxication of vanity, which induces us to imagine that we are free and accountable beings. No doubt he would consider us sufficiently humble and submissive, provided we would only forswear all the light w T hich shines within us and around us, and swallow his atheistical dogmas. But there is something more valuable in the universe, if we mistake not, than even a reputation for humility. But no one will expect us to go so far in self-abasement and humility, as to submit our intellects to all sorts of dogmas. It w r ill be amply sufficient, if we only go just far enough to receive the dogmas of his particular creed. Thus, for example, if you assail the doctrine of necessity, on which, as we have seen, Calvinism erects itself, the Puseyite will clasp his hands, and cry out, " Well done !" But if you turn around and oppose any of his dogmas, then what pride and presumption to set up your individual opinion against " the decisions of the mother Church !"* And he will be sure to wind up his lesson of humil- ity with that of St. Yincentius : " Quod ubique, quod semper, quod db omnibus" Seeing, then, that a reputation foi humility is not the greatest good in the universe, and that the only pos- sibility of obtaining it, even from one party, is by a submission of the intellect to its creed ; would it not be as well to leave such a reputation to take care of itself, and use all exertions to search out and find the truth ? Tell a carnal, unregenerate man, it is said, that though God had physical power to create him, he has not moral power The writer here speaks from personal experience. 220 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part I, to govern him, and you could not furnish his mind with better aliment for pride and rebellion. Should you, after giving this lesson, press upon him the claims of Jehovah, you might expect 1 o be answered, as Moses was by the proud oppressor of Israel : " "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice ? "* He must, indeed, be an exceedingly carnal man, who should draw such an inference from the doctrine in question. But we should not tell him that " God had no moral power to govern him." We should tell him, that God could not control all his volitions ; that he could not govern him as a machine is governed, without destroying his free-agency ; but we should still insist that he possessed the most absolute and uncontrollable power to govern him ; that God can give him a perfe'ct moral law, and power to obey it, with the most stupendous motives for obedience ; and then, if he persist in his disobedience, God can, and w r ill, shut him up in torments forever, that others, seeing the awful consequences of rebellion, may keep their allegiance to him. Is this to deny the power of God to govern his creatures ? But is it not wonderful that a Calvinist should undertake to test a doctrine by the consequences which a " proud oppressor," or " a carnal man," might draw from it ? If we should tell such a man, that God possesses the absolute power to control his volitions, and that nothing ever happens on earth but in perfect accordance with his good will and pleasure, might we not expect him to conclude, that he would then leave the matter with God, and give himself no trouble about it? If we may judge from the practical effect of doctrines, then the authors of the objection in question do not take the best method to inculcate the lesson of humility. They take the pre- cise course pursued by Melancthon, and often with the same success. This great reformer, it is well known, undertook to frame his doctrine so as to teach humility and submission : with this view he went so far as to insist, that man was so insignifi- cant a thing, that he could not act at all, except in so far as he was acted upon by the Divine Being. Having reached this position, he not only saw, but expressly adopted the conclusion, that God is the author of all the volitions of men ; that he was the author of David's adultery as well as of Saul's conversion. Old and New Theology, p. 40. Chapter VII. ] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 221 Now, it is true, if the human mind could abase itself so low as to embrace such a doctrine, it would give a most complete, if not a most pleasing example of its submissiveness. But it can- not very well do so. For even amid the ruins of our fallen nature, there are some fragments left, which raise the intellect and moral nature of man above so blind and so abject a submission to the dominion of error. Hence it was, that Melancthon himself could not long submit to his own doctrine ; and he who had undertaken to teach others humility, became one of the most illustrious of rebels. This suggests the profound aphorism of Pascal : " It is dangerous to make us see too much how near man is to the brutes, without showing him his great- ness. It is also dangerous to make him see his greatness witlv- out his baseness. It is still more dangerous to leave him igno- rant of both. But it is very advantageous to represent to him both the one and the other."* The fact is, that nothing can teach the human intellect a genuine submission but the light of evidence : this, and this alone, can rivet upon our speculative faculty the chains of inevitable conviction, and bind it to the truth. Those who teach error, then, may preach humility with success to the blind and the unthinking ; but wherever men may be disposed to think for themselves, they must expect to find rebels. How many at the present day have begun, like Melancthon, by the preaching of submission, and ended by the practice of rebellion against their own doctrines. It is wonderful to observe the style of criticism usually adopted by the faithful, as one illus- trious rebel after another is seen to depart from their ranks. The moment he is known to doubt a single dogma of the estab- lished faith, the awful suspicion is set afloat, " there is no tell- ing where he will end." Alas ! this is but too true ; for when a man has once discovered that what he has been taught all his life to regard and reverence as a great mystery, is in reality an absurdity and an imposition on his reason, there is no telling where he will end. The reaction may be so great, indeed, as to produce an entire shipwreck of his faith. But in this case, let us not chide our poor lost brother with pride and presump- tion, as if we ourselves were unstained with the same sin. Let us remember, that the fault may be partly our own, as well as Pensees, I. Partie, art. iv, sec. vii. 222 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT his. Let us remember, that the sin of not even every unwar- rantable innovation, is exclusively imputable to the innovator himself. For, as Lord Bacon says, " A froward retention of customs is a great innovator." If those who, some centuries ago, formed the various creeds of the Christian world, were fallible men, and if they permitted serious errors to creep into the great mass of religious truth con- tained in those creeds, then the best way to prevent innovation is, not to preach humility arid submission, but to bring those formularies into a conformity with the truth. For, if the " Old Theology" be unsound, the "New Theology" will have the audacity to show itself. And who, among the children of men, will set bounds to the progress of the human mind, either in the direction of God's word or his work, and say, Hitherto shalt thou come, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? Who will lash the winds into submission, or bind the raging ocean at his feet? SECTION- V. The foregoing treatise may l)e deemed inconsistent with gratitude to God. u Such reflections," it has been urged, " afford as little ground for gratitude as for submission. Why do we feel grateful to God for those favours which are conferred on us by the agency of our fellow-men, except on the principle that they are instru- ments in Ms hand, who, without ' offering the least violence to their wills, or taking away the liberty or contingency of second causes,' hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, and upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth ? On any other ground, they would be worthy of the principal, and He of the secondary praise."* True, if men are " only instruments in Ms hand" we should give him all the praise ; but we should never feel grateful to our earthly friends and benefactors. As we should not, on this hypothesis, be grateful for the greatest benefits conferred on us by our fellow-men ; so, in the language of Hartley, and Belsham, and Diderot, we should never resent, nor censure, the greatest injuries committed by the greatest criminals. But on our principles, while we have infinite ground for gratitude to God, we also have some little room for grati- tude to our fellow-men. Old and New Theology. Chapter VIL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 223 vi. It may le contended, that it is unfair to urge the preceding difficulties against the scheme of necessity ; inasmuch as the same, or as great, difficulties at- tach to the system of those by whom they are urged. This is the great standing objection with all the advocates of necessity. Indeed, we sometimes find it conceded by the ad- vocates of free-agency ; of which concessions the opposite party are ever ready and eager to avail themselves. In the statement of this fact, I do not mean to complain of a zeal which all can- did minds must acknowledge to be commendable on the part of the advocates of necessity. It is a fact, however, that the fol- lowing language of Archbishop Whately, in relation to the difficulty of accounting for the origin of evil, is often quoted by them : " Let it be remembered, that it is not peculiar to any one theological system : let not therefore the Calvinist or the Arminian urge it as an objection against their respective ad- versaries ; much less an objection clothed in offensive language, which will be found to recoil on their own religious tenets, as soon as it shall be perceived that both parties are alike unable to explain the difficulty ; let them not, to destroy an opponent's system, rashly kindle a fire which will soon extend to the no less combustible structure of their own." No one can doubt the justice or wisdom of such a maxim ; and it would be well if it were observed by 'all who may be dis- posed to assail an adversary's scheme with objections. Every such person should first ask himself whether his objection might not be retorted, or the shaft be hurled back with destruc- tive force at the assailant. But although tlie remark of Arch- bishop Whately is both wise and just, it is not altogether so in its application to Archbishop King, or to other Arminians. For example, it is conceded by Dr. Eeid, that he had not found the means of reconciling the existence of moral evil with the perfections of God ; but is this any reason why he should not shrink with abhorrence from the doctrine of necessity which so clearly appeared to him to make God the direct and proper cause of moral evil? ""We acknowledge," says he, "that nothing can happen under the administration of the Deity which he does not permit. The permission of natural and moral evil is a phenomenon which cannot be disputed. To account 2-24 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Parti, for this phenomenon under the government of a Being of in- finite goodness, has, in all ages, been considered as difficult to human reason, whether we embrace the system of liberty or that of necessity." But because he could not solve this diffi- oilty, must he therefore embrace, or at least cease to object against every absurdity which may be propounded to him ? Because he cannot comprehend why an infinitely good Being should permit sin, does it follow that he should cease to protest against making God the proper cause and agent of all moral evil as well as good? In his opinion, the scheme of necessity does this ; and hence he very properly remarks : " This view of the divine nature, the only one consistent with the scheme of necessity, appears to me much more shocking than the permis- sion of evil upon the scheme of liberty. It is said, that it re- quires only strength of mind to embrace it : to me it seems to require much strength of countenance to profess it." In this sentiment of Dr. Reid the moral sense and reason of mankind will, I have no doubt, perfectly concur. For although we may not be able to clear up the stupendous difficulties pertaining to the spiritual universe, this is no reason why we may be permit- ted to deepen them into absurdities, and cause them to bear, in the harshest and most revolting form, upon the moral senti- ments of mankind. The reason why Dr. Reid and others could not remove the great difficulty concerning the origin of evil is, as we have seen, because they proceeded on the supposition that God could create a moral system, and yet necessarily exclude all sin from it. This mistake, it seems to me, has already been sufficiently refuted, and the existence of moral evil brought into perfect accordance and harmony with the infinite holiness of God. But it is strenuously insisted, in particular, that the divine foreknowledge of all future events establishes their necessity ; and thus involves the advocates of that sublime attribute in all the difficulties against which they so loudly declaim. As I have examined this argument in another place,* I shall not dwell upon it here, but content myself with a few additioruil remarks. The whole strength of this argument in favour of necessity arises from the assumption, that if God foresees the future volitions of men, they must be bound together with other Examination of Edwards on the Will. Chapter VIL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 225 tilings according to the mechanism of cause and effect; that is to say that God could not foresee the voluntary acts of men, unless they should be necessitated by causes ultimately connected with his own will. Accordingly, this bold position is usually as- sumed by the advocates of necessity. But to say that God could not foreknow future events, unless they are indissolubly connected together, seems to be a tremendous flight for any finite mind ; and especially for those who are always reminding us of the melancholy fact of human blindness and presumption. Who shall set limits to the modes of knowledge possessed by an infinite, all-comprehending mind? "Who shall tell how God foresees future events ? Who shall say it must be in this or that particular way, or it cannot be at all ? Let the necessitarian prove his assumption, let him make it clear that God could not foreknow future events unless they are necessitated, and he will place in the hands of the sceptic the means of demonstrating, with absolute and uncontrollable cer- tainty, that God does not foreknow all future events at all, that he does not foresee the free voluntary acts of the human mind. For we do know, as clearly as we can possibly know anything, not even excepting our own existence, or the exist- ence of a God, that we are free in our volitions, that they are not necessitated ; and hence, according to the assumption in question, God could not foresee them. If the sceptic could see what the necessitarian affirms, he might proceed from what he knows, by a direct and irresistible process, to a denial of the foreknowledge of God, in relation to human volitions. But fortunately the assumption of the necessitarian is not true. By the fundamental laws of human belief, we know that our acts are not necessitated ; and hence, we infer that as God foresees them all, he may do so without proceeding from cause to effect, according to the method of finite minds. We thus reason from the known to the unknown ; from the clear light of facts around us up to the dark question concerning the possi- bility of the modes in relation to the divine prescience. We would not first settle this question of possibility, we would not say that God cannot foreknow except in one particular way, and then proceed to reason from such a postulate against the clearest facts in the universe. No logic, and especially no logic based upon so obscure a foundation, shall ever be permitted to 226 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part 1, extinguish for us the light of facts, or convert the universal intel- ligence of man into a falsehood. Those who argue from foreknowledge in favour of necessity, usually admit that there is neither before nor after with God. This is emphatically the case with the Edwardses. Hence, fore- knowledge infers necessity in no other sense than it is inferred by present or concomitant knowledge. This is also freely con- ceded by President Edwards. In what sense, then, does present knowledge infer necessity ? Let us see. I know a man is now walking before me ; does this prove that he could not help walking? that he is necessitated to walk? It is plain that it infers no such thing. It infers the necessary connexion, not between the act of the man in walking and the causes impelling him thereto, but between my knowledge of the fact and the existence of the fact itself. This is a necessary connexion between two ideas, or propositions, and not between two events. This confusion is perpetually made in the " great demonstra- tion" from foreknowledge in favour of necessity. It proves nothing, except that the greatest minds may be deceived and misled by the ambiguities of language. This argument, we say, only shows a necessary connexion between two ideas or propositions. This is perfectly evident from the very words in which it is often stated by the advocates of necessity. " I freely allow," says President Edwards, " that foreknowledge does not prove a tiling necessary any more than after-knowledge ; but the after-knowledge, which is certain and infallible, proves that it is now become impossible but that the proposition known should be true." Now, here we have a necessary connexion between the certain and infallible knowl- edge of a thing, and the infallible certainty of its existence ! What has this to do with the question about the will ? If any man has ever undertaken to assert its freedom, by denying the necessary connexion between two or more ideas, propositions, or truths, this argument may be applied to him ; we have nothing to do with it. Again: "To suppose the future volitions of moral agents," says President Edwards, " not to be necessary events ; or, which is the same thing, events which are not impossible but that they may not come to pass ; and yet to suppose that God certainly foreknows them, and knows all things, is to suppose God's Chapter VII.] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 227 knowledge to be inconsistent with itself. For to say, that God certainly, and without all conjecture, knows that a thing will infallibly be, which at the same time he knows to be so ccmtm- gent that it may possibly not be, is to suppose his knowledge inconsistent with itself; or that one thing he knows is utterly inconsistent with another thing he knows. It is the same thing as to say, he now knows a proposition to be of certain infallible truth which he knows to be of contingent uncertain truth." Now all this is true. If we affirm God's foreknowledge to be certain and al the same time to be uncertain, we contradict ourselves. B^t what has this necessary connexion between the elements of the divine foreknowledge, or between our proposi- tions concerning them, to do with the necessary connexion among events ? The question is not whether all future events will cer- tainly come to pass; or, in other words, whether all future events are future events; for this is a truism, which no man in his right mind can possibly deny. But the question is, whether all future events will be determined by necessitating causes, or whether they may not be, in part, the free unnecessitated acts of the human mind. This is the question, and let it not be lost sight of in a cloud of logomachy. If all future events are necessitated, then all past events are necessitated. But if we know anything, we know that all present events are not neces- sitated, and hence, all future events will not be necessitated. We deem it always safer to reason thus from the known to tfte unknown^ than to invert the process. But suppose that foreknowledge proves that all human voli- tions are under the influence of causes, in what sense does it leave them free ? Does it leave them free to depart from the influence of motives ? By no means. It would be a contra- diction in terms, according to this argument, to say that thej are certainly arid infallibly foreknown, and yet that they may possibly not come to pass. Hence, if the argument proves anything, it proves the absolute fatality of all human volitions It leaves not a fragment nor a shadow of m^ral liberty on earth. If this argument prove anything to the purpose, then Luther was right in declaring that "the foreknowledge of God is a thunderbolt to dash the doctrine of free-will into atoms ;" and 228 MORAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part i, Dr. Dick is right in affirming, "that it is as impossible to avoid them " (our volitions) " as it is to pluck the sun out of the firmament."* It either proves all the most absolute necessi- tarian could desire, or it proves nothing. In our humble opinion it: proves the latter. On this point the testimony of Dr. Dick himself is explicit : " Whatever is the foundation of his foreknowledge," says ho, " what he does foreknow will undoubtedly take place. Hence, then, the actions of men are as unalterably fixed from eternity, as if they had been the subject of an immutable decree"\ But to dispel this grand illusion, it should be remembered, that the actions of men will not come to pass because they are fore- known; but they are foreknown because they will come to pass. The free actions of men are clearly reflected back in the mirror of the divine omniscience they are not projected forward from the engine of the divine omnipotence. Since the argument in question proves so much, if it proves anything, we need not wonder that it was employed by Cicero and other ancient Stoics to establish the doctrine of an abso- lute and unconditional fate. "If the will is free," says he, " then fate does not rule everything, then the order of all causes is not certain, and the order of things is no longer certain in the prescience of God ; if the order of things is not certain in the prescience of God, then things will not take place as he foresees them ; and if things do not take place as he foresees, there is no foreknowledge in God." Thus, by a reductio ad absurdum, he establishes the position that the will is not free, but fate rules all things. Edwards and Dick, however, would only apply this argument to human volitions. But are not the volitions of the divine mind also foreknown 1 Certainly they are ; this will not be denied. Hence, the very men who set out to exalt the power of God and abase the glory of man, have, by this argument, raised a dominion, not only over the power of man, but also over the power of God himself. In other words, if this argument proves that we cannot act unless we be first acted upon, and impelled to act, it proves no less in relation to God ; and hence, if it show the weakness and dependence of men, it also shows the weakness and depend- ence of God. So apt are men to adopt arguments which defeat Theology, vol. i, p. 358. f Ibid. Chapter VIL] WITH THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 22'J their own object, whenever they have any other object than the discovery of truth. It is frequently said, as we have seen, that it is a contradic- tion to affirm that a thing is foreknown, or will certainly come to pass, and that it may possibly riot come to -pass. This posi- tion is at least as old as Aristotle. But let it be borne in mind, tli tit if this be a contradiction, then future events are placed, not only beyond the power of man, but also beyond the power of God itself ; for it is conceded on all hands, that God cannot work contradictions. This famous argument entirely overlooks the question of power. It simply declares the thing to be a contradiction, and as such, placed above all power. In other words, if it be absurd or self-contradictory to say, that a future event is foreknown, and, at the same time, might not come to pass, this proposition is true of the volitions of the divine no less than of the human mind ; for they are all alike foreknown. That is to say, if the argument from foreknowledge proves that the volitions of man might not have been otherwise than they are, it proves precisely the same thing in regard to the voli- tions of God. Thus, if this argument proves anything to the purpose, it reaches the appalling position of Spinoza, that noth- ing in the universe could possibly be otherwise than it is. And if this be so, then let the Calvinist decide whether he will join with the Pantheist and fatalist, or give some little quarter to the Arminian. Let him decide whether he' will continue to em- ploy an argument which, if it proves anything, demonstrates the dependency of the divine will as well as of the human; and instead of exalting the adorable sovereignty of God, sub- jects him to the domini6n of fate. PAET II. THE EXISTENCE OF NATURAL EVIL, OR SUFFERING, CONSISTENT WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. The path of sorrow, and that path alone, Leads to the land where sorrow is unknown. o o o o o But He, who knew what human hearts would prore, How slow to learn the dictates of his love, That, hard by nature and of stubborn will, A life of ease would make them harder still, In pity to the souls his grace design'd For rescue from the ruin of mankind, Call'd forth a cloud to darken all their years, And said, " Go, spend them in the vale of tears/* COWPU. PART II. CHAPTEK I. GOD DESIRES AND SEEKS THE SALVATION OF AIL MEN. Love is the root of creation, God's essence. Worlds without number Lie in his bosom, like children : he made them for this purpose only, Only to love, and be loved again. He breathed forth his Spirit Into the slumbering dust, and, upright standing, it laid its Hand on its heart, and felt it was warm with a flame out of heaven. TEGNER. TUE attentive reader has perceived before this time, that one of the fundamental ideas, one of the great leading truths, of the present discourse is, that a necessary holiness is a contradiction in terms, an inherent and utter impossibility. This truth has shown us why a Being of infinite purity does not cause virtue to prevail everywhere, and at all times. If virtue could be necessitated to exist, there seems to be no doubt that such a Being would cause it to shine out in all parts of his dominion, and the blot of sin would not be seen upon the beauty of the world. But although moral goodness cannot be necessitated to exist, yet God has attested his abhorrence of vice and his appro- bation of virtue, by the dispensation of natural good and evil, of pleasure and pain. Having marked out the path of duty for us, he has made such a distribution of natural good and evil as is adapted to keep us therein. The evident design of this ar- rangement is, as theologians and philosophers agree, to prevent the commission of evil, and secure the practice of virtue. The Supreme Ruler of the world adopts this method to promote that moral goodness which cannot be produced by the direct omnipotency of his power. Hence, it must be evident, that although God desires the happiness of his rational and accountable creatures, he does not 234 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT LPart II, bestow happiness upon them without regard to their moral character. The great dispensation of his natural providence, as well as the express declaration of his -word, forbids the inference that he desires the happiness of those who obstinately persist in their evil courses. If we may rely upon such testimony, he desires first the holiness of his intelligent creatures, and next their happiness. Hence, it is well said by Bishop Butler, thai the " divine goodness, with which, if I mistake not, we make very free in our speculations, may not be a bare, single disposi- tion to produce happiness^ but a disposition to make the g'od, the faithful, the honest man happy."* He desires the holiness of all, that all may have life. This great truth is so clearly and so emphatically set forth in revela- tion, and it so perfectly harmonizes with the most pleasing con- ceptions of the divine character, that one is filled with amaze- ment to reflect how many crude undigested notions there are in the minds of professing Christians, which are utterly inconsist- ent with it. " As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live. Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die ?" This solemn asseveration that God desires not the death of the sinner, but that he should turn from his wickedness and live, one would suppose should satisfy every mind which reposes confidence in the divine origin of revelation. And yet, until the minds of men are purged from the films of a false philosophy and secta- rian prejudice, they seem afraid to look at the plain, obvious meaning of this and other similar passages of Scripture. They will have it, that God desires the ultimate holiness and happi ness of only a portion of mankind, and the destruction of all the rest ; that upon some he bestows his grace, causing them to be- come holy and happy, and appear forever as the monuments of his mercy ; while from some he withholds his saving grace, that they may become the fearful objects of his indignation and wrath. Such a display of the divine character seems to be ecpally unknown to reason and to revelation. Butler's Analogy, part i, chap. iL Chapter!] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 235 SECTION I The reason why theologians have concluded that God designs the salxatkn of only a part of mankind. The reason why so many theologians come to so frightful a conclusion is, that they imagine God could very easily cause virtue in the breast of every moral agent, if he would. Hence arises in their minds the stupendous difficulty, " How can God really desire the holiness and happiness of all, since he refuses to make all holy and happy ? Is he really in earnest, in plead- ing with sinners to turn from their wickedness, since he might so easily turn them, and yet will not do it? Is the great God really sincere in the offer of salvation to all, and in the grand preparations he hath made to secure their salvation, since he will not put forth his mighty, irresistible hand to save them ?" Such is the great difficulty which has arisen from the imagina- tion in question, and confounded theology for ages, as well as cast a dark shadow upon the Christian world. It is only by getting rid of this unfounded imagination, this false supposition, that this stupendous difficulty can be solved, and the glory of the divine government clearly vindicated. We have before us Mr. Symington's able and plausible defence of a limited atonement, in which he says, that " the event is the best interpreter of the divine intention." Hence he infers, that as all are not actually saved, it was not the design of God that all should be saved, and no provision is really made for their salvation. This argument is plausible. It is often employed by the school of theologians to which the author belongs, and employed with great effect. But is it sound ? No doubt it has often been shown to be unsound indirectly } that is, by showing that the conclusion at which it arrives comes into conflict with the express declaiations of Scripture, as well as with our notions of the perfections of God. But this is not to analyze the argument itself, and show it to be a sophism. Nor can this be clone, so long as the principle from which the conclusion necessarily follows be admitted. If we admit, then, that God could very easily cause virtue or moral goodness to exist everywhere, we must conclude that " the event is the best interpreter of the divine intention ;" and that the atonement 236 JSTATUKAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, and all other provisions for the salvation of men are limited in extent by the design of God. That is to say, if we admit the premiss assumed by Mr. Symington and his school, we cannot consistently deny their conclusion. Nor could we resist a great many other conclusions which are frightful in the extreme. For if God could easily make all men l oly, as it is contended he can, then the event is the best evi- dence of his real intention and design. Hence he really did not design the salvation of all men. When he gave man a holy law, he really did not intend that he should obey and live, but that he should transgress and die. When he created the world, he really did not intend that all should reach the abodes of eternal bliss, but that some should be ruined and lost forever. Such are some of the consequences which necessarily flow from the principle, that holiness may be caused to exist in the breast of every moral agent. This is not all. We have before us another book, which insists that since the world was created, the law of God has never been violated, because his will cannot be resisted. Hence, it is seriously urged, that if theft, or adultery, or murder, be perpetrated, it must be in accordance with the will of God, and consequently no sin in his sight. " The whole notion of sinning -against God," this book says, "is perfectly puerile." Now all this vile stuff proceeds on the supposition, that " the event is the best interpreter of the divine intention ;" and it rests upon that supposition with just as great security, as does the argument in- favour of a limited atonement. Though we may well give such stuff to the winds, or trample it under foot with infinite scorn, as an outrage against the moral senti- ments of mankind ; yet we cannot meet it on the arena of logic, if we concede that holiness may be everywhere caused to exist, and universal obedience to the divine will secured. The only principle, it clearly seems to us, on which we can reconcile such glaring discrepancies between the express will of God and the event, is, that the event is of such a nature that it is not an object of power, or cannot be caused to exist by the Divine Omnipotence. For his " secret will," or rather his exe- cutive will, is always in perfect harmony with his revealed will. It is from an inattention to the foregoing principle, that theologians have not been able to see and vindicate the sincerity of God, in the offer of salvation to all men. We have examined Chapter!.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 237 their efforts to remove this difficulty, and been constrained to agree with Dr. Dick, that " we may pronounce these attempts to reconcile the universal call of the gospel with the sincerity of God, to be a faint struggle to extricate ourselves from the profundities of theology." But on looking into those solutions again, in which for some years we found a sort of rest, we could clearly perceive why theology had struggled in vain to deliver itself from its profound embarrassments on this subject, as well as on many others. These solutions admit the very principle which necessarily creates the difficulty, and renders a satis- factory answer impossible. Discard this false principle, substi- tute the truth in its stead, and the sincerity of God will come out from every obscurity, and shine with unclouded splendour. SECTION II. The attempt of IToioe to reconcile the eternal ruin of a portion of mankind with the sincerity of God in his endeavours to save them. To illustrate the justness of the remark just made, we shall select that solution of the difficulty in question which has been deemed the most profound and satisfactory. We mean the solu- tion of "the wonderful Howe."* This celebrated divine clearly saw the impossibility of reconciling the sincerity of God with the offer of salvation to all, on the supposition that he does anything to prevent the salvation, or promote the ruin of those who are finally lost. He rejects the scheme of necessity, or a concur- rence of the divine will, in relation to the sinful volitions of men, as aggravating the difficulty which he had undertaken to solve. This was one great step towards a solution. But it still remained to " reconcile God's prescience of the sins of men with the wisdom and sincerity of his counsels, exhortations, and whatsoever means he uses to prevent them." Let us see how he has succeeded in his attempt to accomplish this great object. He admits in this very attempt, " that the universal, continued rectitude of all intelligent creatures had, we may be sure, been willed with a peremptory, efficacious will, if it had been best." He expressly says, that God might have prevented sin from Robert Hall, a profound admirer of Howe, has pronounced his attempt to reconcile the sincerity of God with the universal offer of salvation, to be one of his great master-pieces of thought and reasoning. 238 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, raising its head in his dominions, if he had chosen to do so. " Nor was it less easy," says he, " by a mighty, irresistible hand, universally to expel sin, than to prevent it." Now, having made this concession, was it possible for him to vindicate the sincerity and wisdom of God in the use of means to prevent sin which he foresaw must fail to a very great extent? After having made such an admission, or rather after having assumed such a position, we think it may be clearly shown that the author was doomed to fail ; and that he has deceived him- self by false analogies in his gigantic efforts to vindicate the character of God. He says, for example : " We will, for dis- course's sake, suppose a prince endowed with the gift or spirit of prophecy. This most will acknowledge a great perfection, added to whatsoever other of his accomplishments. And sup- pose this his prophetic ability to be so large as to extend to most events which fall out in his dominions. Is it hereby become unfit for him to govern his subjects by laws, or any way admonish them of their duty ? Hath this perfection so much diminished him as to depose him from his government? It is not, indeed, to be dissembled, that it were a difficulty to determine, whether such foresight were, for himself, better or worse. Boundless knowledge seems only in a fit conjunction with an unbounded power. But it is altogether unimaginable that it should destroy his relation to his subjects ; as what of it were left, if it should despoil him of his legislative power and capacity of governing according to laws made by it ? And to bring back the matter to the Supreme Ruler : let it for the present be supposed only, that the blessed God hath, belonging to his nature, the universal prescience whereof we are discours- ing ; we will surely, upon that supposition, acknowledge it to belong to him as a perfection. And were it reasonable to affirm, that by a perfection he is disabled from government ? or w r ere it a good consequence, ' He foreknows all things lie is therefore unfit to govern the world?' r This way of representing the matter, it must be confessed, is exceedingly plausible and taking at first view ; but yet, if we examine it closely, we shall find that it does not touch the real knot of the difficulty. The cases are not parallel. The prince is endowed with a foreknowledge of offences, which it is not in his power wholly to prevent. Hence it may be perfectly con- Chapter I.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 239 sistent with his wisdom and sincerity, to use all the means in his power to prevent them, though he may see they will fail in some cases, while they will succeed in others. But God, accord- ing to the author, might prevent all sin, or exclude it all from his dominions by "his mighty, irresistible hand." Hence it may not be consistent with his wisdom and sincerity to use means which he foresees will have only partial success, when he might so easily obtain universal and perfect success. It seems evident, then, that this is a deceptive analogy. It over- looks the root, and grapples with the branches of the difficulty. Let it be seen, that no power can cause the universal, continued moral rectitude of intelligent creatures, and then the two cases will be parallel ; and God may well use all possible means to prevent sin and cause holiness, though some of his subjects may resist and perish. Let this principle, which we have laboured to establish, be seen, and then may we entirely dispel the cloud which has so long seemed to hang over the wisdom arid sincerity of the Supreme Ruler of the world. We might offer strictures upon other passages of the solution under con- sideration ; but as the same error runs through all of them, the reader may easily unravel its remaining obscurities and embar- rassments for himself. If holiness cannot be caused by a direct application of power, it follows that there is no want of wisdom in the use of indirect means, or of sincerity in the use of the most efficacious means the nature of the case will admit : but if universal holiness may be caused to exist by a mere word, then indeed it seems to be clearly inconsistent with wisdom to resort to means which must fail to secure it, and with sincerity to utter the most solemn and vehement asseverations that it is the will of God to secure it; for how obvious is the inquiry, If he so earnestly desire it, and can so easily secure it, why does he not do it? In rejecting the principle for which we contend, Howe has paid the usual penalty of denying the truth ; that is, he has contra- dicted himself. " It were very unreasonable to imagine," says he, " that God cannot, in any case, extraordinarily oversway the inclinations and determine the will of such a creature, in a way agreeable enough to its nature, (though we particularly know not, and we are not concerned to know, or curiously to inquire in what way,) and highly reasonable to suppose that in 240 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, many cases lie doth." Here he affirms, that onr wills may be overruled and determined in perfect conformity to our natures, in some way or other, though we know not how. Why, then, does not God so overrule our wills in all cases, and secure the existence of universal holiness ? Because, says he, " it is mani- fest to any sober reason, that it were very incongruous this should be the ordinary course of his conduct to mankind, or the same persons at all times ; that is, that the whole order of intel- ligent creatures should be moved only by inw r ard impulses ; that God' 8 precepts, promises, and com.minations, whereof their nature is capable, should be all made impertinences, through his constant overpowering those that should neglect them ; that the faculties, whereby men are capable of moral government, should be rendered to this purpose, useless and vain and that they should be tempted to expect to be constantly managed as mere machines that know not their own use" What strange confusion and self-contradiction! The wills of men may be, and often are, swayed by the mighty, irresist- ible hand of God, and in a way agreeable to their nature and yet this is not done in all cases, lest men should be governed as mere machines ! The laws, promises, and threatenings of God, are not to be rendered vain and useless in all cases, but only in some cases ! Indeed, if we would escape such incon- sistencies and self-contradictions, we must return to the position that a necessary holiness is a contradiction in terms, that no power can cause it. From this position we may clearly see, that the laws, promises, and comminations ; the counsels, ex- hortations, and influences of God, which are employed to pre- vent sin, are not a system of grand impertinences, are not a vast and complicated machinery to accomplish what might be more perfectly, easily, and directly accomplished without them. We may see, that God really desires the holiness and happiness of all men, although some may be finally lost; that he is in earnest in the great work of salvation ; and when he so solemnly declares that he has no pleasure in the death of the sinner, but would rather he should turn and live, he means precisely what he says, without the least equivocation or mental reservation. This position it is, then, which shows the goodness of God in unclouded glory, and reconciles his sincerity with the final result of his labours. Chapter!.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 241 But we have not yet got rid of every shade of difficulty. For it may still be asked, why God uses means to save those who he foresees will be lost ? why he should labour when he foresees his labour will be in vain? To this we answer, that it does not follow his labour- will be in vain, because some may be pleased to rebel and perish. This would be the case in regard to such j ersons, provided his only object in what he does be to save them ; but although this is one great end and aim of his agency, it doos not follow that it is his only object. For if any perish, it is certainly desirable that it be from their own fault, and not from the neglect of God to provide them with the means of sal- vation. It is his object, as he tells us, to vindicate his own character, and to stop every mouth in regard to the lost, as well as to save the greatest possible number. But this object could not be accomplished, if some should be permitted to perish without even, a possibility of salvation. Hence he gives to all the means, power, and opportunity to turn and live ; and this fact is nearly always alluded to in relation to the finally impeni- tent and lost. Thus says our Saviour, with tears of commiser- ation and pity : " O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate." Now the tears of the Redeemer thus wept over lost souls, and this eloquent vindication of his own and his Father's goodness and compassion, would be a perfect mockery, if salvation had never been placed within their reach, or if their obedience, their real spiritual obedience and submission, might have been secured. But as it is, there is not even the shadow of a ground for suspecting the sincerity o1 the Redeemer, or his being in earnest in the great work of saving souls. Again the impenitent are addressed in the following awful language: "Turn ye at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit upon you, I will make known my words unto you. Because I have called, and ye refused ; I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded ; but ye have set at naught all my counsel and would none of my reproof: I also will laugh at your calamity: I will mock when your fear cometh." Thus the proceeding of the Almighty, in the final rejection of the impenitent, is placed on the ground, that they had obstinately 16 242 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part ill, resisted the means employed for their salvation. This seems to remove every shade of difficulty. But how dark and enigmati- cal, nay, how self-contradictory, would all such language appear, if they might have been very easily rendered holy and happy ! Thus, by bearing in mind that a necessary holiness is a contra- diction, an absurd and impossible conceit, the goodness of God is vindicated in regard to the lost, and his sincerity is evinced in the offer of salvation to all. SECTION III. The mews of Luther and Calvin respecting the sincerity of God in his endeavours to save tJiose who will finally perish. On any other principle, we must forever struggle in vain to accomplish so desirable and so glorious an object. If we pro- ceed on the assumption that holiness may be very easily caused by an omnipotent, extraneous agency, we shall never be able to vindicate the sincerity of the Almighty, in the many solemn declarations put forth by him that he desires the salvation of all men. The only sound, logical inference for such premises, is that drawn by Luther, namely, that when God exhorts the sinner, who he foresees will remain impenitent, to turn from his wickedness and live, he does so merely in the way of mockery and derision; just "as if a father were to say to his child, ' Come,' while he knows that he cannot come."* The representation which Calvin, starting from the same point of view, gives of the divine character, is not more amiable or attractive than that of Luther. He maintains that "the most perfect harmony" exists between these two things : "God's having appointed from eternity on whom he will bestow his favour and exercise his wrath, and his proclaiming salvation indiscriminately to all."f But how does he maintain this posi- tion ? How does he show this agreement ? " There is more apparent plausibilit}^" says he, "to the objection [against pre- destination] from the declaration of Peter, that i the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.' But the second clause furnishes an immediate solution of the difficulty ; for the willingness to come to repent Hagenbach's History of Doctrines, vol. ii, p. 259. f Institutes, book iii, chap, xxiv, sec. xvii. Chapter 1.1 WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 248 ance must be understood in consistence with the general tenor of Scripture."* Now what is the general tenor of Scripture, which is to overrule this explicit declaration that " God is not willing that any should perish ?" The reader will be surprised, perhaps, that it is not Scripture at all, but the notion that God might easily convert the sinner if he would. " Conversion is certainly in the power of God ;" he adds, " let him be asked, whether he wills the conversion of all, when he promises a few individuals to give them l a heart of flesh,' while he leaves them with ' a heart of stone.' " Thus the very clearest light of the divine word is extinguished by the application of a false metaphysics. God tells us that he " is not willing that any should perish :" Calvin tells us, that this declaration must, in conformity with the general tenor of Scripture, be so understood as to allow us to believe that he is not only willing that many should perish, but also that their destruction is preordained and forever fixed by an eternal and immutable decree of God. Nay, that they are, and were, created for the express purpose of being devoted to death, spiritual and eternal. Is this to interpret, or to refute the divine word ? The view which Calvin, from this position, finds himself bound to take of the divine character, is truly horrible, arid makes one's blood run cold. The call of the gospel, he admits, is universal is directed to the reprobate as well as to the elect ; but to what end, or with what design, is it directed to the former? "He directs his voice to them," if we may believe Calvin, "but it is that they may become more deaf; he kindles a light, but it is that they may be made more blind ; he publishes his doctrine, but it is that they may be more besotted ; he applies a remedy, but it is that they may not be healed. John, citing this prophecy, declares that the Jews could not believe, because the curse of God was upon them. Nor can it be disputed, that to such persons as God determines not to enlighten, he delivers his doctrine involved in enigmatical obscurity, that its only effect may be to increase their stupidity. "f In conclusion, we would add that it is this idea of a necessi- tated holiness which gives apparent solidity to the arguments of the Calvinist, and which neutralizes the attacks of their op- ponents. To select only one instance out of a thousand: the Institutes, book iii, chap, xxiv, sec. xvi. f Id., sec. xiii. 244 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT |Part IT. Calvinist insists that if God had really intended the salvation of all men, then all would have been saved ; since nothing lies be- yond the reach of his omnipotence. To this the Arminian cries out with horror, that if God does not desire the salvation of all, but is willing that a portion should sin and be eternally lost, then his goodness is limited, and his glory obscured. In perfect conformity with these views, the one contends for a limited atonement, insisting that it is confined either in its origi- nal design, or in its application, to a certain, fixed, definite num- ber of mankind : while the other maintains, with equal earnest- ness, that such is the goodness of God that he has sent forth his Son to make an atonement for the sins of the whole world. To design and prepare it for all, says the Calvinist, and then apply it only to a few, is not consistent with either the wisdom or goodness of God ; and that he does savingly apply it only to a small number of the human race is evident from the fact that only a small number are actually saved. However the doctrine of a limited atonement, or, what is the same thing in effect, the limited application of the atonement, may be exclaimed against and denounced as dishonourable to God, all must and do admit the fact, that it is efficaciously applied to only a select portion of mankind ; which is to deny and to admit one and the same thing in one and the same breath. Now, in this contest of arms, it is our humble opinion that each party gets the better of the other. Each overthrows the other; but neither perceives that he is himself overthrow!. Hence, though each demolishes the other, neither is convinced, and the controversy still rages. Nor can there ever be an end of this wrangling and jangling while the arguments of the op- posite parties have their roots in a common error. Let the work of Mr. Symington, or any other which advocates a limited atonement, be taken up, its argument dissected, and let the false principle, that God could easily make all men holy if he would, be eliminated from them, and we venture to predict that they will lose all appearance of solidity, and resolve them- selves into thin air.* We do not intend to investigate the subject of a limited atonement in the pres- ent work, because it is merely a metaphysical off-shoot from the doctrine of elec- tion and reprobation, and must stand or fall with the parent trunk. The strength of this we purpose to try in a subsequent chapter. Chapter II.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 245 CHAPTER H. NATURAL EVIL, OR SUFFERING, AND ESPECIALLY THE SUFFERING OF INFANTS RECONCILED WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. Sweet Eden was the arbour of delight ; Yet in his lovely flowers our poison blew : Sad Gethsemane, the bower of baleful night, Where Christ a health of poison for us drew ; Yet all our honey in that poison grew : So we from sweetest flowers could suck our bane, And Christ, from bitter venom, could again Extract life out of death, and pleasure out of pain. GILES FLETCHER. IF, as we have endeavoured to show, a necessary holiness is a contradiction in terms, then the existence of natural evil may be easily reconciled with the divine goodness, in so far as it may be necessary to punish and prevent moral evil. Indeed, the divine goodness itself demands the punishment of moral evil, in order to restrain its prevalence, and shut out the dis- orders it tends to introduce into the moral universe. Nor is it any impeachment of the infinite wisdom and goodness of God, if the evils inflicted upon the commission of sin be sufficiently great to answer the purpose for which they are intended that is, to stay the frightful progress and ravages of moral evil. Hence it was that the sin of one man brought " death into the world, and all our woe." Thus the good providence of God, no less than his word, speaks this tremendous lesson to his intelli- gent creatures : " Behold the awful spectacle of a world lying in ruins, and tremble at the very thought of sin ! A thousand deaths are not so terrible as one sin !" SECTION I. All suffering not a punishment for sin. We should not conclude from this, however, that all suffering or natural evil bears the characteristic of a punishment for moral evil. This seems to be a great mistake of certain theo- logians, who pay more attention to the coherency of their system than 1 to the light of nature or of revelation. Thus, says Dr. 246 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II Dick : " If our antagonists will change the meaning of words, they cannot alter the nature of things. Pain and death are evils, and when inflicted by the hand of a just God, must ~be punishments : for although the innocent may "be harassed and destroyed by the arbitrary exercise of human power, none but die guilty suffer under his administration. To pretend that, although death and other temporal evils have come upon us through the sin of Adam, yet these are not to be regarded as a punishment, is neither more nor less than to say, they mast not be called a punishment, because this would not agree with our system. If we should concede that they are a punishment, we should be compelled to admit that the sin of the first man is imputed to his posterity, and that he was their federal head. AYe deny, therefore, that the labours and sorrows of the present life, the loss of such joys as are left to us at its close, and the dreadful agonies and terrors with which death is often attended, have the nature of a penalty. In like manner, a man may call black white, and bitter sweet, because it will serve his purpose ; but he would be the veriest simpleton who should believe him." Now, we do not deny that the agonies and terrors of death are sometimes a punishment for sin : this is the case in regard to all those who actually commit sin, and sink into the grave amid the horrors of a guilty conscience. But the question is, Do suffering and death never fall upon the innocent under the administration of God ? We affirm that they do ; and also that they may fall upon the innocent, in perfect accordance with the infinite goodness of God. In the first place, we reply to the confident assertions of Dr. Dick, and of the whole school to which he belongs, as follows : To pretend that death and other temporal evils are always punishments, is neither more nor less than to say, "they must be called punishments, because this would agree with our system. If we should concede that they are not a punishment, we should be compelled to admit that the sin of the first man is not imputed to his posterity, and that he was not their federal head. If our antagonists," &c. Surely it is not very wise to use language which may be so easily retorted. Secondly, it is true, the change of a word cannot alter the nature of things ; but it may alter, and very materially too, our Chapter I L] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 247 view of tlie nature of things. Besides, if to refuse to call suf- fering in certain cases a punishment, be merely to change a word, why should so great an outcry be made about it ? Why may we not use that word which sounds the most pleasantly to the ear, and sits the most easily upon the heart ? Thirdly, we do not arbitrarily and blindly reject the term punishment, "because it does not agree with our system." We not only reject the term, but also the very idea and the thing for which it stands. We mean to affirm, that the inno- cent do sometimes suffer under the administration of God ; and that all suffering is not a punishment for sin. The very idea of punishment, according to Dr. Dick himself, is, that it is suffer- ing inflicted on account of sin in the person upon whom it is inflicted ; and hence, wherever pain or death falls under the administration of God, we must there find, says he, either actual or imputed sin. Now, in regard to certain cases, we deny both the name and the thing. And we make this denial, as it will be seen, not because it agrees with our system merely, but because it agrees with the universal voice and reason of man kind, except where that voice has been silenced, and that rea- son perverted, by dark and blindly-dogmatizing schemes of theology. Fourthly, there is a vast difference, in reality, between regard- ing some sufferings as mere calamities, and all suffering as pun- ishment. If we regard all suffering as punishment, then we need look no higher and no further in order to vindicate the character of God in the infliction of them. For, according to this view, they are the infliction of his retributive justice, merited by the person upon whom they fall, and adapted to prevent sin ; and consequently here our inquiries may termin- ate ; just as when we see the criminal receive the penalty due to his crimes. On the other hand, if we may not view all suf- fering as punishment, then must we seek for other grounds and principles on which to vindicate the goodness of God; then must we look for other ends, or final causes, of suffering under the wise economy of divine providence. And this search, as we shall see, will lead us to behold the moral government of the world, not as it is darkly distorted in certain systems of theology, but as it is in itself, replete with light and ineffable beauty. '248 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT |Part II, But before we undertake to show this by direct arguments, let vis pause and consider the predicament to which the greatest divines have reduced themselves, by their advocacy of such an imputation of the sin of one man. Dr. Dick affirms, as we have seen, that every evil brought upon man under the good provi- dence of God, must be a punishment for sin ; and hence, as 'nfants do not actually sin, they are exposed to divine wrath on account of the sin of Adam, which is imputed to them. But is not this imputation, which draws after itself pain and death, also an evil? How has it happened, then, that in the good providence of God, this tremendous evil, this frightful source of so many evils, has been permitted to fall on the infant world ? Must there not be some other sin imputed to justify the inflic- tion of such an evil, and so on ad infinitiim ? Will Dr. Dick carry out his principle to this consequence ? Will he require, as in consistency he is bound to require, that the tremendous evil of the imputation of sin shall not fall upon any part of God's cre- ation, except as a punishment for some antecedent guilt ? No, indeed : at the very second step his great principle, so con- fidently and so dogmatically asserted, completely breaks down under him. The imposition of this evil is justified, not by any antecedent guilt, but by the divine constitution, according to which Adarn is the federal head and representative of the human race. Tims, after all, Dr. Dick has found some princi- ple or ground on which to justify the infliction of evil, beside the principle of guilt or ill-desert. Might there not possibly be, then, such a divine constitution of things, as to bring suffering upon the offspring of Adam in consequence of his sin, without resorting to the dark and enigmatical fiction of the imputation of his transgression ? If there be a divine constitution, as Dr Dick contends there is, which justifies the imputation of moral evil, with all its frightful consequences, both temporal and eter- nal death, may it not be possible, in the nature of things, to suppose a divine constitution to justify suffering without the imputation of sin ? How can the one of these things be so utterly repugnant to the divine character, and the other so per- fectly agreeable to it ? Until this question be answered, we may suspect the author himself of having assumed positions and made confident assertions, " because they agree with his system." Chapter II.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 249 " We say, then," says Dr. Dick, " that by his sin his posterity oecame liable to the punishment denounced against himself. They became guilty through his guilt, which is imputed to them, or placed to their account ; so that they are treated as if they had personally broken the covenant." Thus all the posterity of Aclam, not excepting infants, became justly obnoxious to the "penalty of the covenant of works, death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal." Now, we would suppose that this scheme of imputation is attended with at least as great a difficulty as the doctrine that the innocent do sometimes suffer under the good providence of God. Indeed, the author does not deny that it is attended w T ith difficulties, which have never been answered. In regard to the imputation of sin, he says : " Candour requires me to add, that we are not competent fully to assign the reasons of this dispensation. After the most mature consideration of the subject, it appears mysterious that God should have placed our first parent in such circumstances, that, while he might insure, he might forfeit, his own happiness and that of millions of beings who were to spring from his loins. We cannot tell why he adopted this plan with us and not with angels, each of whom w r as left to stand or fall for himself."* Now, when it is affirmed that the innocent may suffer for wise and good pur- poses, why is all this candour and modesty forgotten ? Why is it not admitted, " It may be so ;" " We cannot tell ?" Why is the fact, of which these writers so often and so eloquently remind us, that the human intellect is a poor, blind, weak thing, quite unfit to pry into mysteries, then sunk in utter oblivion, and a tone of confident dogmatism assumed? Why not act consistently with the character of the sceptic or the dogmatist, and not put on the one or the other by turns, according to the exigencies of a system ? If we ask, why infants are exposed to death, we are told, that it is a punishment for Adam's sin imputed to them. We are told that this must be so ; since " none but the guilty ever suffer under the administration of God," who is not an arbi- trary and cruel tyrant to cause the innocent to suffer. Why then, we ask, does he impute sin to them? To this it is replied, "We cannot tell." No wonder; for if there must always be antecedent guilt to justify God in imposing evil upon his sub- 9 Lectures on Theology, vol. i, p. 458. 250 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, jects, then there can be no reason for such a dispensation for imposing the tremendous evil of the imputation of sin. The aivocates of it themselves have laid down a principle, which shows it to be without a reason. Hence they may well say, " We cannot tell." Thus suffering is justified by the imputation of guilt ; the imputation of guilt by the divine constitution : and the divine constitution, by nothing ! If this is all that c^n be done, would it not have been just as well to have begun, as well as ended, in the divine constitution of things ? But, no ! even the most humble of men must have some explanation, some little mitigation of their difficulties, if it be only to place the world upon the back of an elephant, the elephant upon the back of a tortoise, and the tortoise upon nothing. It seems to be inconceivably horrible to Dr. Dick, and others of his school, that the innocent should ever be made to suffer under the providence of God ; but yet they earnestly insist that the same good providence plunges the whole human race in- fants and all into unavoidable guilt, and then punishes them for it ! To say that the innocent may be made to suffer is mon- strous injustice is horrible ; but to say that they are made sin- ners, and then punished, is all right and proper! To say that the innocent can suffer under the administration of God, is to shock our sense of justice, and put out the light of the divine goodness ; but it is all well if we only say that the punishment due to Adam's sin is made, by the same good administration, to fall upon all his posterity in the form of moral evil, and that then they are justly punished for this punishment ! Ala?, that the minds of the great and the good, born to reflect the light of the glorious gospel of God upon a darkened world, should be so sad. 1 y warped, so awfully distorted, by the inexorable necessities of a despotic system ! SECTION II. The imputation of sin not consistent with the goodness of God. This point has been already indirectly considered, but it is worthy of a more direct and complete examination. It is very remarkable that although Dr. Dick admits he cannot reconcile the scheme of imputation with the character of God, or remove its seeming hardships, not to say cruelty, lie yet positively Chapter II.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 251 affirms that " it is a proof of the goodness of God."* Surely, if the covenant of works, involving the imputation of sin, as ex- plained by Dr. Dick, be a "proof of the divine goodness," it cannot but appear to be too severe. But as this point, on which lie scarcely dwells at all, is more elaborately and fully discussed by President Edwards, we shall direct our attention to him. "It is objected," says Edwards, "that appointing Adam to stand in this great affair as the moral head of his posterity, and so treating them as one with him, is injurious to them." "To which," says he, " I answer, it is demonstrably otherwise ; that such a constitution was so far from being injurious to Adam's posterity any more than if every one had been appointed to stand for himself personally, that it was, in itself considered, attended with a more eligible probability of a happy issue than the latter would have been ; and so is a constitution that truly expresses the goodness of its Author." Now, let us see how this is demonstrated. " There is a greater tendency to a happy issue in such an ap- pointment," says he, " than if every one had been appointed to stand for himself ; especially on these accounts : (1.) That Adam had stronger motives to watchfulness than his posterity w r ould have had ; in that, not only his own eternal welfare lay at stake, but also that of all his posterity. (2.) Adam was in a state of complete manhood when his trial began. "f In the first place, then, the constitution for which Edwards contends is " an ex- pression of the divine goodness," because it presented stronger motives to obedience than if it had merely suspended the eternal destiny of Adam alone upon his conduct. The eternal welfare of his posterity was staked upon his obedience ; and, having this stupendous motive before him, he would be more likely to preserve his allegiance than if the motive had been less power- ful. The magnitude of the motive, says Edwards, is the grand circumstance which evinces the goodness of God in the appoint- ment of such a constitution. If this be true, it is very easy to see how the Almighty might have made a vast improvement in his own constitution for the government of the world. He might have made the motive still stronger, and thereby made the appointment or covenant still better : instead of suspending merely the eternal destiny of the human race upon the conduct Lectures on Theology, p. 453. f Edwards's Works, vol. ii, p. 548. 252 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part H, of Adam, he might have staked the eternal fate of the universe upon it. According to the argument of Edwards, what a vast, what a wonderful improvement would this have been in the divine constitution for the government of the world, and how much more conspicuously would it have displayed the goodness of its Divine Author! Again, the scheme of Edwards is condemned out of his own mouth. If this scheme be better than another, because its mo- tives are stronger, why did not God render it still more worthy of his goodness, by rendering its motives still more powerful and efficacious? Edwards admits, nay, he insists, that God might easily have rendered the motives of his moral govern- ment perfectly efficacious and successful. He repeatedly de- clares that God could have prevented all sin, " by giving such influences of his Spirit as would have been absolutely effectual to hinder it." If the goodness of a constitution, then, is to be determined by the strength of its motives, as the argument of Edwards supposes, then we are bound, according to his princi- ples, to pronounce that for which he contends unworthy of the goodness of God, as being radically unsound and defective. This is emphatically the case, as the Governor of the world might have strengthened the motives to obedience indefinitely, not by augmenting the danger, but by increasing the security of his subjects; that is to say, not by making the penalty more terrific, but by giving a greater disposition to obedience. The same thing may be clearly seen from another point of view. Let us suppose, for instance, that God had established the constitution or covenant, that if Adam had persevered in obedience, then all his posterity should be confirmed in holi- ness and happiness; and that if he fell, he should fall for him- self alone. Would not such an appointment, we ask, have been more likely to have been attended with a happy issue than that for which Edwards contends? Let us suppose again, that after such a constitution had been established, its Divine Author had really secured the obedience of Adam ; w r ould not this have made a " happy issue " perfectly certain ? Why then was not such a constitution established? It would most assuredly have been an infinitely clearer and more beautiful expression of the divine goodness than that of Edwards. Hence, the phi- losophy of Edwards easily furnishes an unspeakably better con- Chapter II.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 253 stitution for the government of the world, than that which haa been established by the wisdom of God ! Is it not evident, that the advocates of such a scheme should never venture before the tribunal of reason at all ? Is it not evident, that their only safe policy is to insist, as they sometimes do, that we do not know what is consistent, or inconsistent, with the attributes of God, in his arrangements for the government of the world ? Is it not evident, that their truest wisdom is to be found in habitually dwelling on the littleness, weakness, misery, and darkness of the human mind, and in rebuking its arrogance for presuming to pry into the mysteries of their system ? The vindication of the divine goodness by Edwards, is, we think it must be conceded, exceedingly weak. All it amounts to is this, that this scheme is an expression of the goodness of God, because, in certain respects, it is better than a scheme which might have been established. So far from showing it to be the best possible scheme, his philosophy shows it might be greatly improved in the very respects in which its excellency is supposed to consist. In other words, he contends that God has displayed his goodness in the appointment of such a constitu- tion, on the ground that he might have made a worse ; though, according to his own principles, it is perfectly evident that he might have made a better ! Is this to express, or to deny, the absolute, infinite goodness of God ? Is it to manifest the glory of that goodness to the eye of man, or to shroud it in clouds and darkness ? Edwards also says, that " the goodness of God in such a con- stitution with Adam appears in this : that if there had been no sovereign, gracious establishment at all, but God had proceeded on the basis of mere justice, and had gone no farther than this required, he might have demanded of Adam and all his pos- terity, that they should have performed perfect, perpetual obedi- ence" The italics are all his own. On this passage, we have to remark, that it is built upon unfounded assumptions. It is frequently sa'd, we are aware, that if it had not been for the redemption of the world by a "sovereign, gracious" dispensation, the whole race of man might have been justly exposed to the torments of hell forever. But where is the proof? Is it found in the word of God ? This tells us what is, what has been, and what will l>e but it is not given to speculate upon what might 254 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, be. For aught we know, if there had been no salvation through Christ, as a part of the actual constitution and system of the world, then there would have been no other part of that system whatever. We are not told, and we do not know, what it would have been consistent with the justice of God to do in relation to the world, if there had been no remedy provided for its restoration. Perhaps it might never have been created at all. The work of Christ is the great sun and centre of the system as it is and if this had never been a part of the original grand design, we do not know that the planets would have been created to wander in eternal darkness. We do not know that even the justice of God would have created man, and permitted him to fall, wandering everlastingly amid the horrors of death, with- out hope and without remedy. We find nothing of the kind in the word of God ; and in our nature it meets with no response, except a wail of unutterable horror. We like not, we confess, those vindications of God's goodness, which consist in drawing hideous, black pictures of his justice, and then telling us that it is not so dark as these. We want not to know whether there might not be darker things in the universe than God's love ; we only want to know if there could be anything brighter, or better, or more beautiful. The most astounding feature of this vindication of the divine goodness still remains to be noticed. We are told that the con- stitution in question is good, because it was so likely to have had a " happy issue." And when this constitution was estab- lished by the sovereign will and pleasure of God, the conduct of Adam, it is conceded, was perfectly foreseen by him. At the very time this constitution was established, its Divine Author foresaw with perfect absolute certainty what would be the issue. He knew that the great federal head, so appointed by him, would transgress the covenant, and bring down the curse of " death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal," upon all his posterity. O, wonderful goodness ! to promise eternal life to the human race on a condition which he certainly foreknew would not be performed! Amazing grace! to threaten eternal death to all mankind, on a condition which he certainly foreknew would be fulfilled ! This cannot be evaded, by asserting that the same difficulty attaches to the fact, that God created Adam foreseeing he Chapter II. J WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 255 would fall. His foreknowledge did not necessitate the fall of Adam. It left him free as God had created him. Life and death were set before him, and he had the power to stand, as well as the power to fall. He had no right to complain of God, then, if, under such circumstances, he chose to rebel, and incur the penalty. But if the scheme of Edwards be true, the descendants of Adam did not have their fate in their own hands. It did not depend on their own choice. It was necessi tatud, even prior to their existence, by the divine constitution which had indissolubly connected their awful destiny, their temporal and eternal ruin, with an event already foreseen. And the constitution binding such awful consequences to an event already foreseen, is called an expression of the goodness of God ! Suppose, for example, that a great prince should promise his subjects that on the happening of a certain event, over which they had no control, he would confer unspeakable favours upon them. Suppose also, that at the same time he should declare to them, that if the event should not happen, he would load them with irons, cast them into prison, and inflict the greatest imaginable punishments upon them during the remainder of their lives. Suppose again, that at the very time he thus made known his gracious intentions to them,- he knew perfectly well that the event on which his favour was suspended would not happen. Then, according to his certain foreknowledge, the event fails, and the penalty of the covenant or appointment is inflicted upon his subjects : they are cast into prison ; they are bound in chains, and perpetually tormented with the greatest of all imaginable evils : not because they had transgressed the appointment or sovereign constitution, but because an event had taken place over which they had no control. Now, who would call such a ruler a good prince? Who could conceive, indeed, of a more cruel or deceitful tyrant ? But we submit it to the candid reader, if he be not more like the prince of pre- destination, than the great God of heaven and earth ? Tins scheme of imputation, so far from being an expression of infinite goodness, were indeed an exhibition of the most frightful cruelty and injustice. It would be a useful, as well as a most curious inquiry, to examine the various contrivances of ingenious men, in order to bring the doctrine of imputation 256 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT jPart II, into harmony with the justice of God. We shall briefly allude to only two of these wonderful inventions, those of Augustine and Edwards. Neither of these celebrated divines supposed that a foreign sin, properly so called, is ever imputed to any one ; but that the sin of Adam, which is imputed to his descend- ants, is their own sin, as well as his.* But here the question arises, How could they make Adam's sin to be the sin of his descendants, many of whom were born thousands of years after it was committed ? Augustine, as is well known, maintained the startling paradox, that all mankind were present in Adam, and sinned in him. In this way, he supposed that all men became partakers in the guilt of Adam's sin, and consequently justly liable to the penalty due to his transgression. Augustine was quite too good a logician not to perceive, that if all men are responsible for Adam's sin, because they were in him when he transgressed, then, it follows, that we are also responsible for the sins of all our ancestors, from whom we are more immediately descended. This follows from that maxim of jurisprudence, from that dic- tate of common-sense, that a rule of law is coextensive with the reason upon which it is based. Hence, as Wiggers remarks : " Augustine thought it not improbable that the sins of ancestors universally are imputed to their descendants."! This conclu- sion is clearly set forth in the extracts made by the translator of Wiggers4 If this scheme be true, we know indeed that we are all guilty of Adam's sin ; but who, or how many of the human race, were the perpetrators of Cain's murder beside him- self, we cannot determine. Indeed, if this frightful hypothesis be well founded, if it form a part of the moral constitution of the world, no man can possibly tell how many thefts, murders, or treasons, he may have committed in his ancestors. One thing is certain, however, and that is, that the man who is born later in the course of time, will have the more sins to answer for, and the more fearful will be the accumulation of his guilt ; as all the transgressions of all his ancestors, from Adam down to his immediate parents, will be laid upon his head. Clearly as this consequence is involved in the fundamental prin- Edwards on Original Sin, part iv, chap, iii, p. 543. f Encheir., c. 46, 47. See also remarks by the American editor and translator. J See p. 284. Chapter II.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 257 ciple of Augustine's theory, the good father could not but reel and stagger under it. " Respecting the sins of the other parents," says he, " the progenitors from Adam down to one's own imme- diate father, it may not improperly be debated, whether the child is implicated in the evil acts and multiplied original faults of all, so that each one is the worse in proportion as he is later ; or that, iii respect to the sins of their parents, God threatens posterity to the third and fourth generation, because, by tJie moderation of his compassion, he does not further extend his anger in respect to the faults of progenitors, lest those on w r hom the grace of regeneration is not conferred, should be pressed with too heavy a burden in their own eternal damnation, if they were compelled to contract by way of origin (originaliter) the sins of all their preceding parents from the commence- ment of the human race, and to suffer the punishment due to them.* Whether, on so great a subject, anything else can or cannot be found, by a more diligent reading and scrutiny of the Scriptures, I dare not hastily affirm. "f Thus does the sturdy logician, notwithstanding his almost in- domitable hardihood, seem to stand appalled before the conse- quences to which his principles would inevitably conduct him. Having followed those principles but a little way, the scene becomes so dark with his representations of the divine justice, that he feels constrained to retrace his steps, and arbitrarily in- troduce the divine mercy, in order to mitigate the indescribable horrors which continually thicken around him. Such hesitation, such wavering and inconsistency, is the natural result of every scheme which places the decisions of the head in violent con- flict with the indestructible feelings of the heart. In his attempt to reconcile the scheme of imputation with the justice of God, Edwards has met with as little success as Augus- tine. For this purpose, he supposed that God had constituted an identity between Adam and all his posterity, whereby the latter became partakers of his rebellion. " i think it would go If God, out of tne abundance of his compassion, imputes the sins of parents only to the third or fourth generation, how has it happened that Adam's trans- gression is imputed to all his posterity, and punished throughout all generations? Is there any consistency, or harmony, in such views respecting the government Of the world ? 1 VViggers's Presentation, note by translator, p. 285. 17 258 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, far toward directing us to the more clear conception and right statement of this affair," says he, in reference to imputation, " were we steadily to bear this in mind, that God, in every step of his proceedings with Adam, in relation to the covenant or constitution established with him, looked on his posterity as being one with him. And though he dealt more immediately with Adam, it yet was as the head of the whole body, and the root of the whole tree ; and in his proceedings with him, he dealt with all the branches as if they had been then existing in their root. From which it will follow, that both guilt, or ex- posedness to punishment, and also depravity of heart, came upon Adam's posterity just as they came upon him, as much as if he and they had all coexisted, like a tree with many branches ; allowing only for the difference necessarily resulting from the place Adam stood in as head or root of the whole. Otherwise, it is as if, in every step of proceeding, every alteration in the root had been attended at the same instant with the same altera- tion throughout the whole tree, in each individual branch. I think this will naturally follow on the supposition of their being a constituted oneness or identity of Adam and his posterity in this affair."* As the sap of a tree, Edwards has said, spreads from the root of a tree to all its branches, so the original sin of Adam descends from him through the generations of men. In the serious promulgation of such sentiments, it is only for- gotten that sin is not the sap of a tree, and that the whole human race is not really one and the same person. Such an idea of personal identity is as utterly unintelligible as the nature of the sin and the responsibility with which it is so intimately associated. Surely these are the dark dreams of men, not the bright and shining lights of eternal truth. Before we lake leave of President Edwards, we would re- mark, that he proceeds on the same supposition with Calvin,f Bates,;); Dwight, Dick, and a host of others, that suffering is always a punishment of sin, and of "sin in them who suffer."] " The light of nature," says Edwards, " or tradition from ancient revelation, led the heathen to conceive of death as in a peculiar manner an evidence of divine vengeance. Thus we have au Edwards on Original Sin, part iv, ch. iii. f Institutes, book ii, ch. i. 1 Divine Attributes. Sermon on Original Sin. || Original Sin, part i, ch. ii. Chapter II.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 259 account, that when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on Paul's hand, they said among themselves, ' ~No doubt, this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the seas, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.' "* We think that the barbarians concluded rashly : it is certain that St. Paul was neither a murderer nor a god. Nor, indeed, if the venomous beast had taken his life, would this have proved him to be a murderer, any more than its falling off into the fire proved him to be a god, according to the rash judgment of the barbarians. Tli ere is a better source of philosophy, if we mistake not, than the rash, hasty, foolish judgments of barbarians. SECTION III. The imputation of sin not consistent with human, much less with the divine goodness. There are few persons whose feelings will allow them to be consistent advocates of the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin. " To many other divines," says Bishop Burnet, " this seems a harsh and inconceivable opinion : it seems repugnant to the justice and goodness of God to reckon men guilty of sin which they never committed, and to punish them in their souls eter- nally for that which is no act of theirs."f It certainly " seems very hard," as the author says, " to apprehend how persons who have never sinned, but are only unhappily descended, should be, in consequence of that, under so great a misery," But how to escape the pressure of this stupendous difficulty is the question. There are many who cannot endure it ; or rather, there are very few who can endure it ; but, as Bishop Burnet says, they find no difficulty in the idea of temporal punishment on account of Adam's sin. "This, they think, is easily enough reconcilable with the notions of justice and goodness, since this is only a temporary punishment relating to men's persons.''^. But do they not sacrifice their logic to their feelings? Let us see. This view of a limited imputation, and a limited punishment, i& not confined to the Church of England. It prevails to a greater or less extent in all denominations. But President Edwards has, we think, unanswerably exposed the inconsistency Original Sin, part i, ch. ii. j Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, article ix, J Ibid. 200 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, of its advocates. " One of them supposes," says he, " that this sin, though truly imputed to INFANTS, so that thereby they are exposed to a proper punishment, yet is not imputed to them in such a degree, as that upon this account they should be liable to eternal punishment, as Adam himself was, but only to tem- poral death, or annihilation; Adam himself, the immediate actor, being made infinitely more guilty of it than his posterity. On which I would observe, that to suppose God imputes, not all the guilt of Adam, but only some little part of it, relieves nothing but his imagination. To think of poor little infants bearing such torments for Adam's sin, as they sometimes do in this world, and these torments ending in death and annihila- tion, may sit easier on the imagination, than to conceive of their suffering eternal misery for it ; but it does not at all relieve one's reason. There is no rule of reason that can be supposed to lie against imputing a sin in the whole of it, which was com- mitted by one, to another who did not personally commit it, but will also lie against its being so imputed and punished in part / for all the reasons (if there be any) lie against the impu- tation, not the quality or degree of what is imputed. If there be any rule of reason that is strong and good, lying against a proper derivation or communication of guilt from one that acted to another that did not act, then it lies against all that is of that nature .... If these reasons are good, all the differ- ence is this : that to bring a great punishment on infants for Adam's sin, is a great act of injustice, and to bring a compara- tively smaller punishment is a smaller act of injustice ; but not, that this is not as truly and demonstrably an act of injustice as the other."* "We hold this to be a solid and unanswerable argument ; and we hold also, that God can no more commit a small act of injustice than a great one. Hence, in the eye of reason, there is no medium between rejecting the whole of the imputation of Adam's sin, and ceasing to object against the imputation of tho whole of it, as inconsistent with the justice and goodness of God. "We may arbitrarily wipe out a portion of it in order to relievo our imagination; but this brings no relief to the calm and passionless reason. It may still the wild tumults of emotion, but it cannot silence the voice of the intellect. "Why not relieve Edwards cm Original Sin, part iv, ch. iii. Chapter II.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 21 both the imagination and the reason ? Why not wipe out the whole dark film of imputation, and permit the glad eye to open on the bright glory of God's infinite goodness ? The wonder is, that when Edwards had carried out his logic to such a conclusion, he did not regard his argument as a per- fect rcductio ad absurdum. The wonder is, that when he had carried out his logic to the position, that it might well consist with the justice of God to impute the whole of Adam's sin to " poor little infants," as he calls them, and then cause them to endure " eternal torments for it," his whole nature did not recoil from such a conclusion with indescribable horror. For our part, highly as we value logical consistency, we should prefer a little incoherency in our reasoning, a little flexibility in our logic, rather than bear even one " poor little infant" on the hard, unyielding point of it into the torments of hell forever. St. Augustine was the great founder of the doctrine of the imputation of sin. But although he did more than any other person to give this doctrine a hold upon the mind of the Chris- tian world, it never had a perfect hold upon his own mind. So far from being able to reconcile it with the divine goodness, he could not reconcile it with his own goodness. For this purpose, he employed the theory that all the posterity of Adam were, in the most literal sense, already in him, and sinned in him in his person ; and that Adam's sin is therefore justly imputed to all his posterity.* He also appeals to revelation. "St. Au- gustine," as Father Almeyda truly says, " and the fathers who follow him, take the fundamental principle of their doctrine (which affirms that infants without baptism will endure eternal pain) from the sentence which the Supreme Judge is to pro- nounce at the last day. We know that the Lord, dividing the human race into two portions, will put the elect on the right hand, and the reprobate on the left ; and he will say to those on the left, Depart into eternal fire. St. Augustine then argues, that infants will not be on the right, because Jesus Christ has p ^sitively excluded all those who shall not "be lorn again of water and of the Holy Spirit : then they will be on the lett ; and thus they will be comprehended in the* damnation of eter- nal fire, which the Lord will pronounce against those who shall See Knapp's Theology, vol. ii, art. ix, sec. 76 ; also Wiggers's Presentation of Augustinisni and Pelagianism, chap, xix, p. 268. 262 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, be on the left side : for having no more than two hands, and only two places and two sentences, since, then, there are infants which God does not favour, it follows that they will be com- prehended in the sentence of the reprobate, which is not only a privation of the sight of God, but also the pain of fire."* Such is the ground, and such the logic, on which St. Augustiue and his followers erected that portentous scheme, that awful speculation, which has so long cast a dark cloud over the glory of the Christian world, and prevented it from reflecting the bright, cheering beams of the divine goodness. But, what ! could St. Augustine find rest in his own views, in his own logic? Did he really banish all non-elect infants into the region of penal fire and everlasting woe ? If he adhered to the literal meaning of the words of revelation, as he under- stood them, he was certainly bound to do so ; but did he really and consistently do it ? Did he really bind the " poor little " reprobate, because it had sinned in Adam, in chains of adamant, and leave it to writhe beneath the fierce inquisitorial fury of the everlasting flames? Did he really extract the vials of such exquisite and unprovoked wrath from the essence of infinite goodness itself? No: this was reserved for the superior logic and the sterner consistency of an iron age. But since it has been extracted, we may devoutly thank Almighty God, that it is now excluded from the hearts of men calling themselves O Christians, and kept safely bottled up in their creeds and con- fessions. St Augustine could not endure the insufferable consequences of his own doctrine. Hence, in writing to his great friend, St. Jerome, he said, " in all sincerity : when I come to treat of the punishment of infants, believe that I find myself in great embarrassment, and I absolutely know not what to reply" Writing against Julian, he adds: " I do not say that those who die without baptism will ~be punished with a torment such that It would be better for them if they had never been born" And again : " Those who, besides original sin which they have con- tracted, have not committed any other, will be subjected to a pain the most mild of all."f Thus by adopting a wrong inter- pretation, the principles of which were but little understood in his time, St. Augustine banished all unbaptized infants from the Harmonie de la Raison et de la Religion. f Ibid., Almeida. Chapter II.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 263 kingdom of light ; but yet he could hardly find it in his heart to condemn them to the outer darkness. He had too great a regard for the word of God, as he understood it, to permit non- elect infants to reign with Christ in heaven ; and, on the other ban 3, he was too severely pressed by the generous impulses of liis nature, nay, by the eternal dictates of truth and goodness, to permit him to consign them really to the "fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Hence, although Christ knew of " but two places," he fitted up a third, to see them in which, was, as Edwards would say, "more agreeable to his imagin- ation." It was the sublime but unsteady genius of St. Augustine that caused this doctrine of the damnation of infants to be received into the Christian world, and find its way into the council of Trent. That celebrated council not only adopted the views of St. Augustine on this subject, but also most perfectly reilected all his hesitation and inconsistency. Widely as its members differed on other points, they all agreed that unbaptized infants should be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. There was but little unanimity however, as to the best method of disposing of them. The Dominicans fitted up a dark, subterraneous cavern for them, in which there is no fire, at least none such as that of the infernal regions, and in which they might be at least as happy as monks. This place was called Lirnbo which, we suppose, is to Purgatory, about what the varioloid is to the smallpox. The Franciscans, more humane in their doctrine, determined that " dear little infants," though they had never felt the sanctifying influences of holy water, should yet reside, not in dark caverns and holes of the earth, but in the sweet light and pure air of the upper world. Well done, noble Fran- ciscan ! we honour thee for thy sweet fancy ! Surely thou wert not, like other monks, made so altogether fierce by dark keeping, that thou couldest not delight to see in God's blessed, beautiful world, a smiling infant! Others insisted, that unbaptized infants would be condemned to become philosophers, and turn out the authors of great dis- coveries. This may seem a terrible damnation to some persons ; but, for our part, if we had been of that famous council, it is likely we should have been in favour of this decree. As the most agreeable punishment we could imagine, we should have 264 NATUKAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, been for condemning them, like the fallen angels of Paradise Lost, to torment themselves with reasonings high, ' Of providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate, Fix'd fate, free-will, foreknowledge absolute." And if any of them had been found to possess no very great aptitude for such speculations, then, rather than they should find u no end in wandering mazes lost," we should have condemned them to turn poets and " build the lofty rhyme." So completely did the spirit of a blind exegesis triumph over the light of reason in the time of Augustine, that even Pelagius and his followers excluded unbaptized infants from the king- dom of heaven, because our Saviour had declared that a man could not enter therein, except he be born of water and of the Spirit. It is true, they did not banish them into " the fire pre- pared for the devil and his angels," nor into Limbo, nor into dark holes of the earth ; on the contrary, they admitted them to the joys of eternal life, but not into the kingdom of heaven.* Thus, the Pelagians brought " poor little infants " as near to the kingdom of heaven as possible, without doing too great violence to the universal orthodoxy of their time. But as we cannot, like the Church of Rome, determine the fate of infants by a decree, we must take some little pains to ascertain how it has been determined by the Supreme Ruler of the world. For this purpose we shall first show, that there is suffering in the world which is not a punishment for sin, and then declare the great ends, or final causes, of all natural evil. SECTION IV. The true ends, or final causes, of natural evil. We have often wondered that grave divines should declaro that there could be no natural evil, or suffering, under the administration of God, except such as is a punishment for sin in the person upon whom it is inflicted. We have wondered, that in declaring none but a tyrant could ever permit the inno- cent to suffer, they have entertained no fears lest they might strengthen the cause of atheism. For if it be impossible to justify the character of God, except on the principle that all Wiggers's Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism, cliap. iv. Chapter II.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 205 suffering is merited on account of sin in the object of it, then it is easy to see, that the atheistical argument against the good- ness of God is unanswerable. The atheist might well say : " Do we not see and know that the whole animal creation suffers? Now for what sin are they punished ? The inferior animals, you will admit, are not capable of committing actual sin, any more than infants are; and Adam was not their federal head arid representative. Hence, unless you can show for what sin they are punished, you must admit that, according to your own principles, God is a tyrant." How Dr. Dick, or Dr. Dwight, or President Edwards, or Calvin, would have answered such an argument, we cannot determine. For although they all assume that there can be no suffering under the good providence of God, except it be a punishment for sin in the object of it, yet, so far as we know, they have not made the most distant allu- sion to the suffering of the inferior animals. Indeed, they seem to be so intently bent on maintaining the doctrine of the impu- tation of sin to infants, that they pay no attention, in the assump- tion of the above position, either to the word of God, or to the great volume of nature spread out before them. But we find the difficulty noticed in a prize essay of three hundred pages, on the subject of native depravity, by Dr. Woods. The author assumes the same ground with Edwards, that all suffering must be justified on the ground of justice ; and hence he finds a real and proper sin in infants, in order to reconcile their sufferings with the character of God. This is the only ground, according to Dr. Woods, on which suffering can be vindicated under the administration of a perfect God. Where, then, is the real and proper sin in the inferior 'animals to justify their sufferings? This difficulty occurs to the distinguished author, and he endeavours to meet it. Let us see his reply. It is a reply which we have long been solicitous to see, and we now have it from one of the most celebrated theologians of the present day. " Some suppose," says he, " that infants suffer as irrational animals do, without reference to a moral law or the principles of a moral government. A strange supposition indeed, that hv,man 'beings should for a time be ranked with beings which are not human, that is, mere animals." He is evidently shocked at such an insult offered to poor little infants. He will not 266 NATUKAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Tart II, i allow us, for one moment, to take the whole race of man, " during the interesting period of infancy, cut them off from their relation to Adam, degrade them from the dignity of hu- man beings, and put them in the rank of brute animals, and then say, they suffer as the brutes do This would be the worst of all theories, the farthest off from Scripture and rea- son, and the most revolting to all the noble sensibilities of man." Now, it is really refreshing to find these allusions to " the dignity of human beings " in a writer of this school ; and especially in Dr. Woods, who has so often rebuked others for their pride, when they have imagined that they were only en- gaged in the laudable enterprise of asserting this very dignity, by raising men from the rank of mere machines. It is so refresh- ing, indeed, to find such allusions in Dr. Woods, that we could almost forgive a little special pleading and bad logic in his at- tempt to vindicate the " dignity of human beings," which should have been an attempt to vindicate the goodness of God. We do not place human beings and brutes in the same rank, except in so far as both are sensitive creatures, and consequently susceptible of pleasure and pain. In this particular, the Crea- tor himself has, to a certain extent, placed them in the same rank, and it is useless to cry out against his appointment. He will not listen to our talk about " the dignity of human beings." He will still leave us, in so far as bodily pain and death are concerned, in the same rank with mere animals. This single point of resemblance between animals and human beings is all that our argument requires ; and the fact that animals do suffer pain and death cannot be denied, or swept away by declama- tion. Let this fact be fairly and openly met, and not merely evaded. Let it be shown how the suffering of mere animals may be reconciled with the infinite goodness of God, and we will undertake to show how the suffering of guiltless " human beings " may be reconciled with it. Nay, we will undertake to show that the suffering of infants may be reconciled with tho divine goodness, on the same, and also on still higher, grounds. We will place their sufferings on a more solid and a more defi- nite foundation, than upon such vague and misty assertions as that they " suffer with reference to a moral law." We do not cut off infants from their relation to Adam ; nor Chapter II.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 267 could we, if we desired to do so, cut them off from their relation to the animal nature which God has given them. It may be a very humiliating thought, it is true, that human beings should ever eat like mere animals, or sleep like mere animals, or suffer like mere animals ; but yet we cannot see how any rebellion against so humiliating a thought can possibly alter the fact. We do not deny, indeed, that a theologian may eat, and sleep, and suffer on higher principles than mere animals do ; but we seriously doubt if infants ever eat, or sleep, or suffer on any higher principles. It may shock the "noble sensibilities" of man that dear little infants should suffer as brutes do, especially when the term Imites is so strongly emphasized; but how it can relieve the case to have the poor little creatures arraigned at the bar of divine justice, and condemned to suffer as male- factors and criminals do, is more than we can possibly compre- hend. To have them thus arraigned, condemned, and punished as criminals, may dignify their sufferings, and render them more worthy of the rank of human beings ; but this is a dignity to which, we trust, they will never aspire. If we are not mistaken, then, the theory for which we con- tend is " not the worst of all theories," nor " the most revolting to the noblest sensibilities of man." It is a worse theory to sup- pose, with Edwards, that they may be arraigned and banished into " eternal misery " for a sin they have not committed, or the possession of a nature they could not possibly have avoided possessing. It is better, we say, to rank the human race " for a time," " during the interesting period of infancy," even with mere animals, than to rank them w r ith the devil and his angels. But, in truth, we rank them with neither ; we simply leave them where God hath placed them, as a connecting link between the animal and the angelic natures. But we may produce many instances of suffering among hu- man beings, which are not a punishment for sin. We might refer to the feeling of compassion, which is always painful, and sometimes w T rings the heart with the most exquisite agony ; and yet this was not planted in our bosom as a punishment for sin, but, as Bishop Butler has shown,* it was ordained by a God of mercy, to teach us a lesson of mercy, and lead us to mitigate the manifold miseries of man's estate. We might also refer to Sermon on Compassion. 268 NATUKAL EVIL CONSISTENT LPart IL an indignation against crime, which, as the same profound thinker has shown in his sermon on resentment, was planted in our natures, not to punish the subject of it, but to insure the punishment of others, that is, of criminals ; and thereby to pre- serve the good order and well-being of the world. This sense of wrong, of injustice, of outrage, by which the soul is so often tortured, is not designed to punish the subject of it, but to pro- mote the happiness and virtue of mankind. We might refer to these, and many other things of the same kind, but it is not necessary to dwell upon particular instances ; for the principle against which we contend may be more directly refuted by an appeal to reason, and to the very authors by whom it is advo- cated ; for, although it is adopted by them, and seems plausible at first view, it is often lost sight of when they lose sight of their system, and they give utterance to another principle more in accordance with the voice of nature. It is evident, that if the government of God requires that no suffering should be inflicted, except as a punishment for sin, then his perfect moral government requires that the punish- ment should, in all cases, be exactly proportioned to the demerit of those upon whom it falls. For, as Butler truly says, "Moral government consists in rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked ; in rendering to men according to their actions, considered as good or evil. And the perfection of moral government consists in doing this, with regard to all intelligent creatures, in exact proportion to their personal merits and demerits."* This will not be denied. Hence, if suffering is distributed by God as a punishment for sin in all cases, as Calvin and his followers assert, then it mus(,, on the same principle, be distributed according to the demerit of men. But is this the case ? Does this necessary consequen ce of this principle agree with fact ? If so, then every vile deed, every wicked outrage, committed by man, should be regarded as an instrument of divine justice, and deserved by those upon whom they fall. The inquisition itself, with all its unutterecl and unutterable horrors, shouid be regarded, not merely as an exhibition of human wickedness and wrath, but also as an engine of divine justice, to crush the martyr on its wheels, because he refuses to lie to his own soul and to his God ! Na- Butler's Analogy, part i, chap. iii. Chapter 11.1 WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 269 tare itself recoils from such a conclusion. Not one of the writers in question would adopt it. Hence, they should not advocate a principle from w T hich it necessarily flows. Indeed, they all argue the necessity of a future state of retri- bution, from the unequal distribution of natural good and evil m this life. But Lord Bolingbroke has refuted this argument b} reasoning from their own principles. He insists that such is the justice of God, that there can be no suffering or natural evil in this life, except such as is proportioned to the demerits of men ; and hence he rejects the argument from the apparent unequal distribution of pleasure and pain in this world in favour of the reality of a future judgment. He resents the imputation that God could ever permit any suffering which is not deserved, as warmly as it is resented by Dr. Dick himself, and proclaims it to be dishonourable to God. All rewards and punishments, says he, are equal and just in this life ; and to say otherwise, is to take an atheistical view of the divine character. Learned divines proceed on the same principle, as we have seen, w T hen they contend for the imputation of sin ; but they forget and overlook it, when they come to prove the future judgment to the infidel. Thus, in their zeal to establish their own peculiar dogmas, they place themselves and their cause in the power of the infidel. But if suffering be not always inflicted, under the admin- istration of God, as a punishment for sin, for what other end is it inflicted ? We answer, it is inflicted for these ends : 1. Even when it is inflicted as a punishment for sin, this is not the only end, or final cause of its infliction. It is also intended to deter others from the commission of evil, and preserve the order of the world. 2. In some instances, nay, in very many instances, it is intended to discipline and form the mind to virtue. As Bishop Butler well says, even while vindicating the moral government of the w r orld : " It is not pretended but that, in the natural course of things, happiness and misery appear to be distributed by other rules, than only the personal merit and demerit of character. They may sometimes be distributed by way of mere discipline. And in his profound chapter on a " State of probation, as intended for moral discipline and im- provement," he shows that they are actually distributed for this purpose. 3. The unavoidable evils of this life, which are not NATURAL EYTL CONSISTENT \?*rt n, brought upon us by our faults, are intended to serve as a foil to set off the blessedness of eternity. Our present light afflictions are intended, not merely to work out for us an exceeding and eternal weight of glory, but also to heighten our sense and enjoyment of it by a recollection of the miseries experienced in this life. They are intended to form but a short and discordant prelude to an everlasting harmony. K they should not prove so in fact, the fault will be our own, without the least im peacli- ment of the beneficent design of the great Author and Ruler of the universe. On these grounds, especially on the first two, we must justify all the natural evil in the world. In regard to the second, Bishop Butler says : " Allurements to what is wrong ; difficulties in the discharge of our duties ; our not being able to act a uni- form right part without some thought and care ; and the oppor- tunities we have, or imagine we have, of avoiding what we dislike, or obtaining what we desire, by unlawful means, when we either cannot do it at all, or at least not so easily, by lawful ones ; these things, that is, the snares and temptations of vice, are what render the present world peculiarly ft to oe a state of discipline to those who will preserve their integrity ; because they render being upon our guard, resolution, and the denial of our passions, necessary to that end." Urns, the temptations by which we are surrounded, the allurements of those passions by which vice is rendered so bewitching, are the appointed means of moral discipline and improvement in virtue. The habit of virtue thus formed, he truly observes, will be firm and fixed in proportion to the amount of temptation we nave gradually overcome in its formation. "Though actions materially virtuous," says he, u which have no sort of difficulty, but are perfectly agreeable to our particular inclinations, may possibly be done only from those particular inclinations, and so may not be any exercise of the principle of virtue, L e., not t e virtuous actions at all ; yet, on the contrary, they may le an exercise of that principle, and, when they are, they havo a ten- dency to form and fix the habit of virtue. But when the exei- cise of the virtuous principle is more continued, oftener repeated, and more intense, as it must be in circumstances of danger, temptation, and difficulty of any kind, and in any degree, this tendency is increased proportionably, and a more confirmed Chapter IL] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 271 habit is the consequence."* The greater the temptation, then, the more fixed will be the habit of virtue, by which it is gradu- ally overcome and subdued. This habit may become so fixed, by a struggle with tempta- tions and difficulties, as to raise the soul above the dangers to which moral agents are exposed. a Virtuous self-government is not only right in itself, but also improves the inward consti- tution or character ; and may improve it to such a degree, that though we should suppose it impossible for particular affections tc be absolutely co-incident with the moral principle, and con- sequently should allow, that //*A creatures as have ken above supposed would forever remain defectMe ; yet their danger of actually demoting from right may be almost infinitely lessened, and they fully fortifad against what remains of it; if that may be called danger ', against which there is an adequate effec- tual security"^ "These several observations," says he, "concerning the active principle of virtue and obedience to God's commands are appli- cable to passive submission or resignation to his win, which is another essential part of a right character, connected with the former, and very much in our power to form ourselves to."* This, then, is the view which we think should be entertained with respect to the natural evils of this life : they are intended by the infinitely wise and good Ruler of the world to detach us from the fleeting things of time and sense, by the gradual formation of a habit of moral goodness, arising from a resist- ance against the influence of such things and firm adherence to the will of God, and to form our character for a state of fixed eternal blessedness. Such is the beneficent design of God in relation to the human race itself. His design in relation to the more magnificent scheme of the moral universe, in thus plant- ing the human race and striving to train it up to virtue and happiness, we have already considered.* We say, then, that it is a principle of the divine government of the world to impose natural evfl or suffering as a means of good. It is objected against this principle, that it is to do evil diat good may come. "To say that Christ was subjected to sufferings? says Dr. Dick, " for the benevolent purpose of con- ferring important benefits upon mankind, is to give the highest Analogy, chap, T. f W, *** * * | P*rt i, ckafL Ti. 272 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part 11, sanction to the principle which is so strongly reprobated in the Scriptures, that evil may be done that good may come." The theology of Dr. Dick, and of his school, does not sufficiently distinguish between natural and moral evil. We are nowheie told in Scripture, that it is wrong to do natural evil, or mflict suffering, that good may come. Every good man acts upon this principle every day of his life. Every act of self-denial, and every infliction of parental discipline, are proofs of the just- ness of this remark. The surgeon who amputates a limb, in order to save the life of his patient, acts upon the same principle. But who ever thought of condemning such conduct ? Who ever reminded him that he should not do evil that good may come ? It is plain, that neither " the sufferings " of Christ, nor any other sufferings imposed for the real good of the world, are liable to any such objection, or come under the condemnation of any such maxim. This objection lies, as we have seen,* against the doc- trine of Edwards and his followers, that moral evil, that sin, may be chosen as the means of good. The high and holy God never commits, or causes others to commit, moral evil that good may come ; but he not only may, but actually does, inflict natural evil in order to promote the good of his creatures. Thus, by applying the language of Scripture to natural evil instead of to moral, Dr. Dick has just exactly inverted the order of things as they actually exist in the constitution and govern- ment of the moral world. SECTION V. The importance of harmonizing reason and revelation. For these reasons, we refuse to justify the sufferings of infants, on the ground that the sin of Adam was imputed to them. A sentiment so dark and appalling but ill accords with the snblime and beautiful spirit of the gospel. It partakes more of the weakness and infirmity of human nature than of the divine nature of Him who "spake as never man spake." The test account which Plato could give of the sufferings of infants was that they had sinned in some former state of existence, for which they are punished in this. St. Augustine and his followers, rejecting such a view, and relying on the literal sense of the Part i. chap. ii. Chapter II.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 273 words of reveiation, advanced the hypothesis that infants sinned, not in a preexistent state, but in Adam ; for which they are justly exposed to pain and death. Others again, not being able to conceive how infants could be really and personally in Adam many thousand years before they were born, so as to sin with him, adopted the hypothesis, that if they had been in his place they would have sinned, and are therefore justly exposed to the penalty due to his transgression ; according to which theory each soul might be made liable to the guilt of infinitely more sin than any finite being could possibly commit. Another age, rising above such dark notions respecting the nature of sin and the justice of God, maintained the hypothesis that Adam's sin was imputed to all his posterity, by which the fearful penalty due to his sin might be justly inflicted upon them. According to a fifth theory, it is clear that " nothing under the empire of Jehovah " can be sin, except a known transgression of the law ; and infants are punished, because, as soon as they come into the world, they knowingly transgress the law of God. They cannot knowingly sin, says a sixth theory ; but still they really transgress the law of God by those little bubbling emo- tions of anger, and so forth, as soon as they come into exist- ence ; and hence, the penalty of sin is inflicted upon them. Such are some of the hypotheses which have been adopted by Christian theologians to reconcile the suffering of infants with the justice and goodness of God. The more we look into them, the more we are amazed that the great lights of the world should have indulged in reveries so wild and so wonderful ; and the more are we convinced, that the speculations of men on these subjects, and the whole theological literature of the world in relation to it, form one of the darkest chapters in the history of the human mind. How unlike are such views respecting the origin and exist- ence of natural evil to the divine simplicity and beauty of the gospel ! " Who did sin, this man or his parents," said the dis- ciples to our Saviour, "that he was born blind?" They made no doubt but that the great evil of natural blindness must haA e been the punishment of some sin ; and merely wished to know whether it were his own sin, committed in some former state of existence, or ,he sin of his parents. Their minds seem to ha7e hung in a state of vacillation between the theory of Plato 18 274 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, and that of imputation. But our Saviour replied : " Neither did this man sin, nor his parents," that he was born blind ; but " that the work of God might be made manifest in him." We thank thee, O blessed Master, for that sweet word ! How delightful is it, after passing through the dark labyrinths of human folly to sit at thy feet and drink in the lessons of heav- enly wisdom ! How pleasant to the soul how inexpressibly cheering is it to turn from the harsh and revolting systems of men, and listen to the sweet accents of mercy as they fall from thy lips ! The groat law of suffering, then, is that it is intended for the benefit of intelligent creatures. This is the case, even when it assumes the character of punishment ; for then it is designed to prevent moral evil. Such a view of natural evil, or suffering, does not give that horrid picture of the world which arises from the sentiment that all pain and death must be a punish- ment for sin. This causes us to see the black scourge of retri- butive justice everywhere, and the hand of fatherly correction nowhere. It places us, not in a school or state of probation, to train us up for a better and brighter world, but in the midst of inquisitorial fires and penal woe. It teaches that all mankind became guilty by the act of one man ; and that for one deed, millions upon millions of human beings are justly obnoxious, not only to temporal and spiritual, but also to eternal death. We are perfectly aware of all the arguments which have been drawn from Scripture in support of such a doctrine ; and we are also perfectly satisfied that they may be most easily arid triumphantly refuted. But at present we do not mean to touch this argument ; we shall reserve it for another work. In the mean time, we must be permitted to express the sentiment, that a system of theology, so profoundly unphilosophical, so utterly repugnant to the moral sentiments of mankind, can never fulfil the sublime mission of true religion on earth. It may possess the principle of life within, but it is destitute of the form of life without. It may convert the individual soul, and lead it up to heaven ; but it has not the radiant form and power of truth, to command the admiration and conquer the intellect of the world. It may elevate and purify the affections, even while it depresses and confounds the understanding ; but it cannot transfigure the whole mind, and change it into its own divine image. Noth- Chapter II.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 275 ing but the most fixed and rooted faith, or the most blind and unquestioning submission, can withstand the fearful blasts and dark impulses of such a system. No wonder, then, that under a system so deplorably deficient in some of the most sublime features of Christianity, infidelity and Pelagianism should so often have sprung up. If we write libels on the divine government, we must expect rebellions and insurrections. This is the natural consequence of the great fundamental heresy which places reason and revelation in opposition to each other. Orthodoxy, as she proudly styles herself, may denounce such rebellions ; but she herself is partly responsible for the fatal consequences of them. Reason and revelation can never be dissevered, can never be placed in violent conflict, without a frightful injury to both, and to the best interests of mankind. Reason must find its own internal power and life in revelation, and revelation must find its own external form and beauty in reason. The perfection and glory of each consists in the living union and consentaneous develop- ment of both. If we teach absurdity, it is worse than idle to enforce sub- mission by arrogant and lordly denunciations of human pride, or of " carnal reason." And we shall always find, indeed, that when a theologian or a philosopher begins by abusing and vili- fying human reason, he either has some absurdity which he wishes us to swallow, or he wishes to be excused from believing anything in particular. Thus, the dogmatism of the one and the scepticism of the other unite in trampling human reason under foot ; the one, to erect an empire of absurdity, and the other, to erect an empire of darkness upon its ruins. It should be the great object of all our labours to effect a reunion and harmony between revelation and reason, whose "inauspicious repudiations and divorces " have so long " disturbed everything in the great family of mankind."* This language of Bacon is applied by him to the empirical and rational faculties of the human mind. 276 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT I Part D, CHAPTEK III. THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST RECONCILED WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. blessed Well of Love ! Flower of Grace ! glorious Morning Starre ! Lampe of Light ! Most lively Image of thy Father's face, Eternal King of Glorie, Lord of Might, Meeke Lambe of God, before all worlds behight, How can we thee requite for all this good ? Or who can prize that thy most precious blood ? SPENSER. IN the preceding chapter we have endeavoured to show that natural evil or suffering is not inconsistent with the goodness of God. "We were there led to see that God, although he never chooses moral evil, often imposes natural evil, or suffering, in order to secure the well-being of the world. Of this general principle, the sufferings and death of Christ are a particular instance ; they are not anomalous, but a striking manifestation of a great principle which pervades the whole economy of divine providence. These sufferings, so far from being incon- sistent with the goodness of God, are a stupendous display of that sublime mercy which is over all his works. To illustrate this position, and clear it of sceptical cavils and objections, is the main object of the present chapter. SECTION I The sufferings of Christ not unnecessary. Because the necessity of Christ's death and sufferings is not manifest at first view, or because the utility of them is not seen, it is concluded by some that they were wholly useless, and con- sequently inconsistent with the infinite goodness ascribed to the Ruler of the world. We shall content ourselves with disposing of this objection in the words of Bishop Butler. "To object against the expediency or usefulness of particular things revealed to have been done or suffered by him," says he, " because we do not see how they were conducive to those ends, is highly absurd. Yet nothing is more common to be met with than this Chapter HI.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 277 absurdity. But if it be acknowledged beforehand, that we are not judges in this case, it is evident that no objection can, with any shad DW of reason, be urged against any particular part of Christ's mediatorial office revealed in Scripture, till it can be shown positively, not to be requisite, or conducive, to the ends proposed to be accomplished ; or that it is in itself unreason- able."* Again : " It is indeed," says he, " a matter of great patience to reasonable men to find people arguing in this manner ; objecting against the credibility of such particular things revealed in Scripture, that they do not see the necessity or expediency of them. For, though it is highly right, and the most pious exer- cise of our understanding, to inquire with due reverence into the ends and reasons of God's dispensations ; yet, when those reasons are concealed, to argue from our ignorance, that such dispensa- tions cannot be from God, is infinitely absurd. The presumption of this kind of objection seems almost lost in the folly of them. And the folly of them is yet greater, when they are urged, as usually they are, against things in Christianity analogous, or like to those natural dispensations of Providence which are matters of experience. Let reason be kept to, and if any part of the Scripture account of the redemption of the world by Christ can be shown to be really contrary to it, let the Scrip- ture, in the name of God, be given up : but let not such poor creatures as we go on objecting against an infinite scheme, that we do not see the necessity or usefulness of all its parts, and call this reasoning ; and what heightens the absurdity in the present case, parts which we are not actively concerned in."f This reply is amply sufficient for such an objection. But although the concession is made, for the sake of argument, it is not true, that we do not see the necessity or usefulness of the sufferings of Christ. For, as the author well says : " What has been often alleged in justification of this doctrine, even from the apparent natural tendency of this method of our redemp- tion its tendency to vindicate the authority of God's laws, and deter his creatures from sin : this has never been answered, and is, I think, plainly unanswerable ; though I am far from think- .ng it an account of the whole of the case." J It is true, we believe, that the position that the great work Butler's Analogy, part ii, chap. v. | Analogy. J Ibid. 278 NATUKAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part H, of Christ was necessary to maintain the authority of God's law, and to deter his creatures from sin, never has been, and never can be refuted. Yet nearly all of the commonly received sys- tems of theology furnish a principle, a false principle, on which this position may be overthrown, and the sufferings of ClHst shown to be unnecessary. For if a necessary holiness be not a contradiction in terms, if God can, as is usually asserted, cause holiness universally to prevail by the mere word of his power, then the work and sufferings of Christ are not necessary to maintain the authority of his law, and deter his creatures from sin. In other words, the sufferings of Christ were " not requi- site to the ends proposed to be accomplished," because, on such a supposition, they might have been far more easily and com- pletely accomplished without them. Those who maintain, then, as most theologians do, that God could easily cause virtue to exist everywhere if he would, really set forth a principle which, if true, would demonstrate the suf- ferings of Christ to be unnecessary, and consequently inconsist- ent with the goodness of God. We must strike at this false principle, and restore the truth that a necessary holiness is a contradiction in terms, an inherent and impossible conceit, if we would behold the sublime significancy and beauty of the stupendous sacrifice of the cross. We shall then behold the necessity of that sacrifice, and see the omnipotent yearnings of the divine love in its efforts to overcome an obstacle, which could not be otherwise surmounted. It is often said, we are well aware, that God might have saved us by a mere word ; but he chose not to do so, preferring to give up his Son to death in order to show his love. But how can such a position be maintained ? If God could save us by a word, how can it display his love to require such immense sufferings in order to save us? If he could accomplish the salvation of all men by a mere word, how does it show his love to make such wonderful preparations for their salvation ; and, after all, permit so large a portion of them to be eternally lost ? If we could save the life of a fellow-being by merely putting forth a hand, would it display our love for him if we should choose to travel all around the earth, and incur incredible hard- ships and sufferings in order to save him ? .Would this display our love, we ask, or our folly ? Is it not evident, then, that the Chapter III.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 279 principle that virtue or holiness might be easily caused to exist everywhere, is utterly repugnant to the glory of revelation ? Is it not evident that it causes the transcendent glory of the cross to disappear, and reduces the whole complicated system of means and appliances for the salvation of the world to a mere idle mockery of the miseries of man's estate ? Does it not show the whole plan of salvation, as conceived and executed by the infinite wisdom of God, to be an awkward and bungling attempt to accomplish an end, which might have been far more easily and perfectly accomplished? And if so, does it not be- come all Christian theologians to expunge this false principle from their systems, and eradicate it from their thoughts ? SECTION II. The sufferings of Clirist a bright manifestation of the goodness of God. The reason why the love of God does not appear to all men in the sacrifice of his Son is, that it is often viewed, riot as it is in itself, but through the distorting medium of false analogies, or of a vague and ill-defined phraseology. Hence it is that the melancholy spectacle is everywhere presented of men, of rational and immortal beings, living and dying in a determined opposi- tion to a doctrine which they have not taken the pains to under- stand, and of whose intrinsic grandeur and glory they have not enjoyed the most remote glimpse. So far from beholding the love of God, which shines forth so conspicuously in the cross of Christ, they see in it only an act of inj ustice and cruelty on the part of God. One source of this error, we have no doubt, is to be found in the use, or rather in the abuse, of the term punishment. In the strict sense of the word, it is not only unjust, but impossible, for God to punish the innocent. The very idea of punishment, ac- cording to the strict sense of the word, implies the notion of guilt or ill-desert in the person upon whom it is inflicted. It is Buffering inflicted on an offender, on account of his real or sup- posed personal guilt. Hence, as God regards all things just as they are in themselves, he cannot possibly look upon the inno- cent as guilty ; and consequently he cannot, in the strict sense of the word, inflict punishment upon them. And when we speak of the punishment of Christ, we merely mean, or should 280 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT LPart II, merely mean, to convey the idea that he suffered, in order to release us from the punishment due to our sins. It would be well, perhaps, if this could always be borne in mind ; for most men are more under the influence and power of words than they are apt to see, or willing to acknowledge. The mere ex- pression, the punishment of the innocent, is apt to awaken associations in the mind which are inconsistent with the dictates of justice; but which the idea of the atonement would never have suggested, if clearly and distinctly viewed in its own clear light, and not through the dark medium of an ill-defined phraseology. Another source of the error in question is to be found in the ambiguity of the term justice. It is frequently said that the atonement is a satisfaction to divine justice ; to which it is replied, that justice requires the punishment of the very indi- vidual who offends, and not of another person in his place. Let us consider this subject. The term justice has two distinct significations, which 1 shall designate by the epithets retributive and administrative. By retributive justice, I mean that attribute which inclines Him to punish an offender merely on account of the intrinsic demerit and hatefulness of his offence ; and which animadverts upon the evil conduct of a moral agent, considered as an indi- vidual, and not as a member of the great family of intelligent beings. This attribute seeks to punish sin merely because it deserves punishment, and not because its punishment is neces- sary to secure the ends of government ; and, supposing sin to exist, it would have its object, even if there were only one ac- countable creature in the universe. The object of public or administrative justice is quite differ- ent. It inflicts punishment, not because it is deserved, but in order to prevent transgression, and to secure the general good, by securing the ends of wise and good government. In the moral government of God, one of the highest objects of this kind of justice, or, if you please, of this phase or manifestation of the divine justice, is to secure in the hearts of its subjects a cordial approbation of the principles according to which they are governed. This is indispensable to the very existence of moral government. The dominion of force, or of power, may be maintained, in many cases, notwithstanding the aversion of Chapter EL] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 281 those who are subject to it; but it is impossible to govern the heart by love while it disapproves and hates the principles to which it is required to submit, or the character of the ruler by whom those principles are enforced. Now, it is very true, that Christ has made a satisfaction to divine justice. This is frequently asserted ; but it is seldom considered, we apprehend, with any very great degree of dis- tinctness, in what sense the term justice should always be understood in this proposition. It cannot properly refer to the retributive justice of God. This requires the punishment of the offender, and of no one else. It accepts of no substitute. And hence, it is impossible to conceive that it can be satisfied, except by the punishment of the offender himself. The object of this sort of justice, as I have said, is personal guilt; and hence, as our Saviour did not become personally guilty, when he assumed our place and consented to die for us, so it is impos- sible to conceive that he became liable to the infliction of the retributive justice of God. And we suppose it is this idea, at which the Socinian vaguely and obscurely aims, when he says, that the justice of God requires the punishment of the trans- gressor alone ; and that it is absurd to suppose it can be satisfied by the substitution of the innocent in his stead. He denies the whole doctrine of satisfaction, because he sees and feels that it is not true according to one meaning of the terms in which it is expressed. In truth and in deed, the sinner is just as guilty after the atonement as he was before ; and he is just as obnoxious to the inflictions of the retributive justice of God. He may be most justly punished ; for as the claims of retributive justice have not been satisfied, so they may be demanded of him without being a second time exacted. He really deserves the wrath of God on account of his sins, although administrative justice has been satisfied ; and hence, when he truly repents and believes, all his sins are freely and graciously remitted. No satisi action is made to retributive justice. It is the administrative justice of God that has been satisfied by the atonement. This merely enforces the punishment of the sinner, as I have said, in order to secure the ends of good government ; and hence, it is capable of yielding and giving place to any expedient by which those ends may be secured. 282 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, In other words, it is capable of being satisfied by whatever method God may be pleased to adopt in order to secure the ends of good government, and to accomplish his own glorious designs, without the punishment of the sinner. All this, as \ve shall see hereafter, has been most gloriously accomplished by the death and sufferings of Christ. God can now be just, and yet the justifier of him that believes. The great obstacles which the administrative justice of God interposes to the forgiveness of sin, having been taken out of the way and nailed to the cross, that unbounded mercy from which the provision of such a Saviour proceeded, can now flow down upon a lost and ruined world in all the fulness and plenitude of its pardoning and sanctifying power. As a general thing, those who undertake to vindicate the sufferings of Christ against objections, rest their defence on the ground that they are a satisfaction to the administrative justice of God. This is seen, not from their express declarations, but from the nature of their arguments and defence ; as if they unconsciously turned to this position as to their stronghold. On the other hand, those who assail the sacrifice of Christ, almost invariably treat it as if it were a satisfaction to the retributive justice of God. Both sides seem to be right, and both wrong. The whole idea of satisfaction to divine justice by a substitute is not absurd, because the idea of satisfaction to retributive justice is so ; nor is the whole justice of God, or the justice of God in every sense of the word, to be conceived of as satisfied by the atonement, because his administrative justice is thus satisfied. When it is thus asserted, then, that the justice of God is satisfied by the atonement ; we should be careful, we think, to observe in what precise sense this propo- sition is true, and in what sense it is false ; in order that we may pursue the clear and shining light of truth, neither dis- tracted by the clamour of words nor enveloped in clouds of logomachy. There is a class of theologians, we are aware, and a very large class, who regard the sufferings of Christ as a satisfaction to the retributive justice of God. J3ut this forms no part of the doctrine which we have undertaken to defend ; and, indeed, we think the defence of such a view of the atonement clearly impossible. It is placed on the ground, that the sins of the Chapter III.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 283 world, or of those for whom Christ died, have been imputed to him ; and hence he really suffers the inflictions of the retri- butive justice of God. The objections to this scheme, which seek to remove the apparent hardships and injustice of the sufferings of the innocent, by the fiction of the imputation of the sins of the guilty, w r e shall not dwell upon here ; as we so fully considered them in the preceding chapter. To our mind they are plainly unanswerable. We would vindicate the suf- ferings of Christ no more than those of infants, on the ground that sin was imputed to him, so as to render them just. On the contrary, we hold them to have been wholly undeserved ; and instead of vindicating them on the ground of stern justice, we vindicate them on the ground of the infinite, unbounded, and overflowing goodness of God. It is easy to see that such a view of the atonement does not in the least degree conflict with the justice of God. It merely teaches, that God has provided for the salvation of the world by the sufferings of Jesus Christ, who was without spot or blemish. Surely we cannot find it in our hearts to object, that the suffer- ings of Christ for such a purpose are not consistent with the j ustice of God, if w r e will only read a single page in the great volume of nature and of providence. It has been said by Bishop Butler, that such an objection " concludes altogether as much against God's whole original constitution of nature, and the whole daily course of divine providence, in the government of the world, i. e., against the whole scheme of theism and the whole notion of religion, as against Christianity. For the world is a constitution, or system, w r hose parts have a mutual refer- ence to each other ; and there is a scheme of things gradually carrying on, called the course of nature, to the carrying on of which God has appointed us, in various ways, to contribute. And when, in the daily course of natural providence, it is appointed that innocent people should suffer for the faults of the guilty, this is liable to the very same objection as the instance we are considering. The infinitely greater importance of that appointment of Christianity which is objected against, does not hinder but that it may be, as it plainly is, an appoint- ment of the very same kind with what the world affords us daily examples of. Nay, if there were any force at all in the objection, it would be stronger, in one respect, against natural 1284 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, providence, than against Christianity ; because, under the former, we are in many cases commanded, and even necessi- tated, whether we will or no, to suffer for the faults of others, whereas the sufferings of Christ were voluntary." Now, how very unreasonable is it in the theist, to object against Christianity, that it represents God as having acted upon a particular principle, i. e., as having appointed the innocent to suffer for the good of the guilty, when we see that he has everywhere recognised and adopted the very same principle in the government of the world ? However remote this principle may appear from the conceptions of man, it is not only found in the volume of inspiration ; it is deeply engraven by the finger of God himself upon every page of the volume of natu- ral providence. And to question the divine original of revela- tion, because it contains such a principle or appointment, while we admit that God created and governs the world, is about as unreasonable as it would be to deny that a letter came from a particular person, because it was clearly written in his hand- writing, and bore evident traces of his peculiarities of style and thought. Let us view this general principle in a particular instance. This will set it in a clear and striking light, and seem to vindi- cate the constitution of the world, as well as the doctrine of the atonement. The principle of compassion has been planted in our bosom by the finger of God. And thus the necessity is laid upon us, by a law of our nature, to suffer on account of the distresses which our fellow-men bring upon themselves by their own crimes and vices ; and we are impelled in various ways to undergo inconvenience and loss, and self-denial and suffering, in order to avert from them the consequences of their own mis- conduct. But have we any reason to complain of this appoint- ment of God ? Certainly not : for if we obey the indications of his will, as seen in this part of the constitution of our nature, by doing all in our power to relieve the distresses of our fellow- men, we shall be infinitely more than repaid for all that we may undergo and suffer. However painful may be the feeling of compassion, we only have to obey its dictates by relieving the distressed to the utmost of our ability, and we shall be more than repaid by the satisfaction and delight which never fail to result from such a course of life ; to say nothing of those infinite Chapter III.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 285 rewards which God has prepared for those who sincerely love and serve him. Just so it is in relation to the sufferings of Christ. Pie was led by his boundless compassion to avert from us the awful consequences of sin, by the agony, and the sufferings, and the death, which he endured upon the cross. And, according to the doctrine of atonement, he is infinitely more than repaid for all this. Though lie suffered in the flesh, and was made a spec- tacle to men and angels, yet he despised the shame, seeing the joy that was set before him. We do confess that we can see no insufferable hardship in all this, nor the least shadow of injustice. One thing is certain, if injustice is exhibited here, it is exhibited everywhere in the providence of God ; and if the doctrine of the atonement were stricken from the scheme of Christianity, the injustice which is supposed to attend it would still continue to overhang and cloud the moral government of God. And hence, if the deist or the Socinian would escape from this frightful spectre of his own imagination, he must bury himself in the most profound depths and most cheerless gloom of atheism. The doctrine in question is frequently misrepresented, and made to appear inconsistent with the justice of God, by means of false analogies. The Socinian frequently speaks of it, as if it were parallel with the proceeding of a human government that should doom the innocent to suffer in place of the guilty. Thus the feeling of indignation that is aroused in the human bosom at the idea of a virtuous man's being sentenced to suffer the punishment due to the criminal is sought to be directed against the doctrine of the atonement. But in vain will such rhetoric be employed to excite indignation and horror against the doc- trine of the cross, in the mind of any person by whom it is at all understood. The cases are not at all parallel. In the first place, no human government has a right to doom a virtuous man to bear the punishment due to the criminal ; and if he were willing to suf- fer in the place of the culprit, no government on earth has a right to accept of such a substitute. The life of the virtuous citizen is the gift of God, and no earthly power has the author- ity to take it for any such purpose. It would be a violation of the will of God for any human government to admit of such a 286 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, substitution. On the contrary, Christ had the power to lay down his life ; and he did so, in perfect accordance with the appointment of God. In submitting to the death of the cross, he did not subvert, he fulfilled the end of his earthly existence. Secondly, it would overthrow the ends of public justice for any human government to permit a good man, the ornament and blessing of society, to die in the room of the criminal, its scourge and plague. The sufferings of the good citizen in such a case would be pure and unmitigated evil. While they would deprive society of his services, they would throw back upon it the burden of one who deserved to die. They would tend to render the punishment of crime uncertain ; they would shock the moral sentiments of mankind, and cover with odium and disgrace the government that could tolerate such a proceeding. But not so in relation to the sufferings of Christ. He assumed, his human nature for the express purpose of dying upon the cross. He died, not to deliver an individual and turn him loose to commit further depredations upon society, but to effect the salvation of the world itself, and to deliver it from all the evils under which it groans and travails in pain. He died for sin- ners, not that they might continue in their sins, but in order to redeem unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works. In the third and last place, the death of a good man is the end of his existence, the entire extinction of his being, in so far as all human government is concerned ; whereas the death of Christ, in relation to the government of God, w r as but the beginning of his exaltation and glory. He endured the cross, despising the shame, in view of the unbounded joy that \vas set before him. The temporal evils which he endured, unut- terably great as they were, if viewed merely in relation to himself, were infinitely more than counterbalanced by the eter- nal satisfaction and delight that resulted from them. SECTION IIL The objections of Dr. Channing, and other Unitarians, against the doctrine of the atonement. It is likewise objected against the doctrine of the atonement, that it obscures the freeness and glory of the divine mercy. It Chapter III.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 287 is supposed to interfere with the freeness of the favour of God, inasmuch as it requires a sacrifice to procure the remission of sin. This point, no less than the former, the Socinian endeavours to establish by means of analogies drawn from the ordinary transactions of life. " I know it is said," says Dr. Channing, "that Trmitarianism magnifies God's mercy, because it teaches that he himself provided the substitute for the guilty. But I reply, that the work here ascribed to mercy is not the most appropriate, nor the most fitted to manifest it and impress it on the heart. This may be made apparent by familiar illustration. Suppose that a creditor, through compassion to certain debtors, should persuade a benevolent and opulent man to pay him in their stead; would not the debtors see a greater mercy, and feel a weightier obligation, if they were to receive a free, gratuitous release ? And will not their chief gratitude stray beyond the creditor to their benevolent substitute ? Or sup- pose that a parent, unwilling to inflict a penalty on a disobedient but feeble child, should persuade a stronger child to bear it ; would not the offender see a more touching mercy in a free forgiveness, springing immediately from a parent's heart, than in this circuitous remission'?" If there were any force in such analogies, they would con- clude quite as much against the scheme of Dr. Channing as against ours. For he maintains that the sinner can obtain for- giveness only by a sincere repentance of his sins. He teaches that God requires the sinner to humble himself, and take up his cross and follow Christ. Now to return to the case of the debtor. Would he not see a greater kindness, "and feel a weightier obligation," if he were to receive a free release, with- out any conditions being imposed upon him, than if it was accompanied by any terms or conditions ? But the analogy is false. However well it might serve some purposes, it is misapplied by Dr. Channing. If a creditor is known to love money, as most men are, and he should never- theless release his debtors ; this would undoubtedly be an exhibition of his kindness. And we might measure the extent of his kindness by the amount of the indebtedness which he had forgiven. But although the creditor, who is the most easily moved by the necessities of his debtor, may be the most com passionate man, it does not follo\v that the governor, who under 288 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, all circumstances, makes the most free and unrestrained use of the pardoning power, is the best ruler. The creditor has a perfect right to release his debtor ; and in so doing, he affects the interest of no one but himself: whereas, by the pardon of offences against public law, the most sacred rights of the com- munity may be disregarded, the protection of law may be removed, and the general good invaded. The penalty of the law does not belong to the supreme executive, as a debt belongs to the creditor to whom it is due ; and hence it cannot always be abandoned at his pleasure. It is ordained, not merely for the ruler, but for the benefit and protection of all who are sub- ject to its control. And hence, although a creditor may show his mercy by releasing his necessitous debtors ; yet the ruler who undertakes to display his mercy by a free use of the par- doning power, may only betray a weak and yielding compassion for the individual, instead of manifesting that calm and enlight- ened benevolence which labours to secure the foundations of wise and good government, and thereby to promote the order and happiness of the governed. This leads me to remark, that the hope and the theology of the Socinian is built upon the most inadequate conceptions of the divine mercy. This is not a weak and yielding thing, as men are so fondly prone to imagine ; it is a universal and inflexible law. The most perfect harmony exists among all the attributes of God ; and as his justice demands the punishment of the sinner, so also doth his mercy. The bosom of God is not, like that of frail mortals, torn and distracted by conflicting principles. Even to the maintenance of his law, that bright transcript of his eternal justice, his mercy is inviolably pledged. Heaven and earth shall sooner pass away, than his mercy shall withdraw from the support of one jot or one tittle of it. It is not only just and holy, and therefore will be maintained with almighty power ; but it is also good, and therefore its immutable foundations are laid in the everlasting and unchanging mercy of God. For the universal good, it will be inexorably enforced against the individual transgressor. God is not slack concerning his promises. He is free from all human weakness. His mind is not limited, like that of man, to be more affected by partial suffering than by that universal disorder and ruin which must Chaptr m.l WITH THE GOODNESS OF GODv ' If TJiN : inevitably result from the unrequited violation of his law. The mind of man is unduly affected by the present and the proxi- mate : but to God there is neither remote nor future. And when, in wisdom and in goodness, he first established and or- dained the law r unto life, he saw the end from the beginning ; and lie can never sacrifice the universal good by setting aside that law in order to avoid partial evil. His mercy to the whole creation makes the same demand as his justice. The execution of divine justice is, indeed, but a manifestation of that mercy which is over all his works ; and which labours, with omnipo- tent energy, to secure the good of all, by vindicating the majesty and glory of that law, upon the preservation of which inviolate the good of all depends. The fire that is not quenched is kindled by the boundless love of God no less than by his justice ; and the very fierceness of its burning is, that it is the " wrath of the Lamb." Let us not be deceived by the vain fancies and the idle dreams which our fond wishes and narrow-minded in- firmities are so apt to beget in us. Let us remember that the mercy of God is united with omniscience ; and that it is to be found only in the bosom of Him whose empire extends to the utmost bounds of the universe, as well as throughout the end- less ages of eternity. In the genuine spirit of Socinian theology, Dr. Channing, in his illustration, has set before us the mercy of God alone ; and that, too, merely in relation to the sinner, and not in relation to his law and government. He entirely overlooks the fact, that it is impossible to exhibit either the justice or the mercy of God in the most affecting manner, except in union with each other. It is frequently said, we are aware, that if God had pardoned the sinner without enforcing the demands of the law, he would have displayed his mercy alone, and not his justice; but in fact this would have been a very equivocal display of mercy. It would have shown only one of two things : either that God regarded the sinner with an eye of compassion, or that he did not regard his sin : either that he was merciful, or that he had no great abhorrence of sin : either that he loved the transgressor, or that he did not hate the transgression. To illustrate this point, let us take the case of Zaleucus, the king of the Locrians. He passed a certain law, with the penalty that every transgressor of it should lose both his eyes. It so 19 200 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part IT, happened that his own son was the first by whom it was vio- lated. Now, any one can see, that although Zaleucus had been a hard-hearted and unfeeling tyrant, he might have par- doned his son, just because he had no regard to the demands of public justice ; or, on the other hand, that he might have inflicted the penalty of the law upon his son to the uttermost, not out of a supreme regard to the law, but because he was destitute of mercy and natural affection. Neither by remitting the whole punishment, nor by inflicting it with rigour, could he have made such a display of his justice and mercy as to make a deep moral impression upon his subjects. In other words, if either of these attributes had been left out in the manifestation, the display of the other must have been exceedingly feeble and equivocal. Both must be seen in union, or neither can be seen in the fulness of its glory. How, then, could Zaleucus have displayed both of these at- tributes in the most perfect and affecting manner? By doing precisely that which he is said to have done. He directed that one of his own eyes should be put out, and one of his son's. Whose heart is not touched by this most affecting display of the tender pity of the father, in union with the stern justice of the iaw-giver? His pity would not allow him to inflict the whole penalty upon his beloved son ; and his high regard for the de- mands of public justice would not permit him to set at naught the authority of the law : and but for the possession and mani- festation of this last trait of character, the mighty strugglings and yearnings of the first could not have burst forth and ap- peared with such overwhelming power and transcendent lustre. Hence, every system of redemption which, like that of the Socinian, leaves out of view the administrative justice of God, does not admit of any very impressive display of his goodness and his mercy. All such illustrations must be imperfect, in some respects, but the one above given conveys a far more adequate view of the atonement than that presented by Dr. Channing. The application of it is easy. Such was the mercy of God, that he could not leave his poor fallen creatures to endure the awful penalty of the law ; and such was his regard for the purity and happiness of the universe, that he could not permit his law to be violated with impunity. If his administrative justice had Chapter IH/| WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 291 not stood in the way, the offer of pardon to the sinner would have cost him merely a word. And hence the length, the breadth, and the depth of his love could not have been mani- fested. But he was the Ruler of the universe, and as such his law stood in the way. He owed it to himself not to permit this to be trampled under foot with impunity, nor its violation to be forgive.!, until he had provided some way in order to secure the high and holy ends for which it had been established. Hence, as it was not possible for God to deny himself, he sent forth his beloved Son, who had been the companion of his bosom and his blessedness from all eternity, to take upon him- self the form of a servant, and by his teaching, and obedience, and sufferings, and death, to vindicate the majesty of the law, and to render it honourable in the sight of the universe. And it is this wonderful union of the goodness and the severity, of the mercy and the j ustice of God, which constitutes the grand moral tendency and glory of the cross. The bourse pursued by the king of the Locrians, in relation to the crime of his son, secured the ends of the law in a much greater degree than they could have been secured by a rigor- ous execution of its penalty upon the person of his son. It evinced a deep and settled abhorrence of crime, and an inflexi- ble determination to punish it. It cut off all hope from his subjects that crime would be permitted to escape with impunity. An3 hence, after such a manifestation of his character as a king, he could permit his son to enjoy the unspeakable blessings of sight, without holding out the least encouragement to the commission of crime. So, likewise, in relation to the sufferings of Christ. These were not, in strictness, the penalty of the law. This was eternal death ; whereas the sufferings of Christ, inconceivably great as they were, were but temporal ; and there can be no proportion between sufferings which know a period, and those which are without end. Hence, as we have already said, he did not satisfy the punitive justice of God. But the sacrifice of Christ answered all the purposes that could have been answered by the rigorous execution of the law ; and it answered them in an infinitely greater degree, than if the human race had been per- mitted to endure it without remedy. God's love to his Son was inconceivably greater than that 292 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, which any creature ever bore to himself or to any other ; and, consequently, by offering him up as a substitute for guilty mortals, in order that he might save them without doing violence to his administrative justice, he manifested the infinite energy of his determination to destroy sin. No account of the indescribable odiousness and deformity of evil, nor of the incon- ceivable holiness of God, could have made so deep an impres- sion of his implacable abhorrence of sin, as is made by the cross upon which his Son was permitted to expire amid the scorn and contempt of his enemies. The human imagination has no power to conceive of a more impressive and appalling enforcement of the great lesson, " Stand in awe, and sin not," than that which is presented to an astonished universe in the cross and passion of the Son of God. And besides, it possesses this other unspeakable advantage, that while it manifests an infinite abhorrence of sin, it displays the most heart-subduing love of the sinner. If Zaleucus had exhausted the penalty of the law upon his son, this would have had little or no tendency to reform his heart, or to induce him to acquiesce in the justness of the law. It would have been more apt to lead him to regard the king as an unfeeling father. But when he was made to see, by the manner in which the king had dispensed the law, that he cherished the warmest feelings of affection for him, there was no cause left for a mur- mur on the part of any, but for the highest admiration on the part of all. Just so in relation to the sufferings and death of Christ. If God had exhausted the fearful penalty of the law upon poor, suffering, and degraded humanity, this would have been well calculated to inspire his creatures with a servile and trembling awe of him. From their limited and imperfect views of the evil of sin, and of the reasons why it should be punished, they would not have been prepared to acquiesce in such tremendous severity. Thus, one of the great ends of God's moral govern- ment would have been subverted : the affections of his creatures would have been estranged from him, through a distrust of his goodness and a dread of his power, instead of having been drawn to him by the sweet and sacred ties of confidence and love. But how different is the case now ! Having given for us his -beloved Son, who is greater than all things, while we Chapter IH."] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 293 were yet enemies, now that we are reconciled to him, we are most firmly persuaded that he will freely give us all things that can possibly conduce to our good. Surely, after such a display of his love, it were highly criminal in us, to permit the least shadow of suspicion or distrust to intercept the sweet, and cheering, and purifying beams of his reconciled countenance. Whatever may be his severity against sin, and whatever terror it may strike into the conscience of evil-doers, we can most cordially acquiesce in its justness : for we most clearly perceive, that the penalty of the law was not established to gratify any private appetite for revenge, but to uphold and secure the highest happiness of the moral universe. 294 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT I Part II, CHAPTER IV. THE ETERNAL PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED RECONCILED WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. And thus, Transfigured, with a meek and dreadless awe, A solemn hush of spirit, he beholds All things of terrible seeming : yea, unmoved Views e'en the immitigable ministers, That shower down vengeance on these latter days. For even these on wings of healing come, Yea, kindling with intenser Deity ; From the celestial mercy-seat they speed, And at the renovating wells of love, Have fill'd their vials with salutary wrath. COLE.HIDGE. HAVING considered the sufferings of the innocent, it no\v becomes necessary to contemplate the punishment of the guilty, in connexion with the infinite goodness of God. This conducts us to the consideration of the most awful subject that ever engaged the attention of a rational being, the never-ending torments of the wicked in another world. Though plausible arguments and objections have been urged against this doctrine, we are perfectly satisfied they will not bear the test of a close examination. They have derived all their apparent force and conclusiveness, it seems to us, from two distinct sources, namely : from the circumstance that this appalling doctrine has been too often placed, by its advocates, upon insecure and untenable grounds ; and from the fact, that the supporters of this doctrine have too often maintained principles from which its fallacy may be clearly inferred. In the defence of this doctrine, then, we shall endeavour to point out, first, the false grounds upon which it has been placed ; secondly, the unsound principles from which its fallacy may be inferred ; and, thirdly, we shall en- deavour to show the means by which it may be clearly and satisfactorily reconciled with the goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the world. Chapter IV.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 295 SECTION L The false grounds upon which the doctrine of the eternity of future ment has been placed. Nothing could be more untenable, it seems to us, than the usual argument in favour of future punishments, which seeks to justify their eternity on the ground that every sinful act, because it is committed against an infinite being, is infinite, and therefore deserves to be visited with endless torments. This argument, which seems but little better than a play on the term infinite, is perhaps calculated to make no impression upon any mind, which is not already fully persuaded of the truth of the doctrine in question. On the other hand, it may be so easily refuted by a multitude of considerations, that it exposes the doctrine, in one of its defences, to the triumphant attacks of its adversaries. We shall not exhaust the patience of the reader by dwelling upon the refutation which may be given of such an argument. We shall dismiss it with a single reply, and that we shall give in the language of John Foster. " A common argument has been that sin is an infinite evil, that is, of infinite demerit, as an offence against an infinite being ; and that, since a finite creature cannot suffer infinitely in measure, he must in duration. But, surely in all reason, the limited, and in the present instance, diminutive nature of the criminal, must be an essential part of the case for judgment. Every act must, for one of its proportions, be measured by the nature and condition of the agent : and it would seem that one principle in that rule of proportion should be, that the offending agent should be capable of being aware of the magni- tude (the amount, if we might use such a word,) of the offence he commits, by being capable of something like an adequate conception of the being against whom it is committed. A per- verse child, committing an offence against a great monarch, of whose dignity it had some, but a vastly inadequate apprehen- sion, would not be punished in the same manner as an offender of high endowments and responsibility, and fully aware of the digiiity of the personage offended. The one would justly be sharply chastised; the other might as justly be condemned to death. In the present case, the offender does or may know that 296 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, the Being offended against is of awful majesty, and therefore the offence is one of great aggravation, ani he will justly be punished with great severity ; but by his extremely contracted and feeble faculties, as the lowest in the scale of strictly rational and accountable creatures in the whole creation, he is infinitely incapable of any adequate conception of the greatness of the Being offended against. He is then, according to the argument, obnoxious to a punishment not in any proportion to his own nature, but alone to that infinity of the supreme nature, which is to him infinitely inconceivable and unknown."* This answer alone, though perhaps not the best which might be made, we deem amply sufficient. Indeed, does not the posi- tion, that a man, a poor, weak, fallible creature, deserves an infinite punishment, an eternity of torments, for each evil thought or word, carry its own refutation along with it ? And if not, what are we to think of that attribute, of justice, which demands an eternity to inflict the infinite pangs due to a single sin ? Is it a quality to inspire the soul with a rational worship, or to fill it with a horror which casteth out love ? Another argument to show the infinite ill-desert of some men, is drawn from the scientia media Dei. It is said, that if God foresaw that if they had been placed in various other circum- stances, and surrounded by other temptations, their dispositions and character would have induced them to commit other sins ; for which they are, therefore, as really responsible as if they had actually committed them. If this be a correct principle, it is easy, we must admit, to render each individual of the human race responsible for a greater number of sins than have ever been committed, or than could ever have been committed by all the actual dwellers upon the face of the earth. Nay, by such a process of multiplication, it would be easy to spread the guilt of a single soul over every point of infinite space, and every moment of eternal duration. But such a principle is more than questionable. To say nothing of its intrinsic deform- ity, it is refuted by the consequences to which it leads. "We want arguments on this subject, that will give the mind, not horrid caricatures of the divine justice, but such views of that sublime attribute as will inspire us with sentiments of admira- tion and love, as well as with a godly fear and wholesome awe. c Letter on the Duration of Future Punishment, pp. 19, 20. Chapter IV.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 29V SECTION IL The unsound principles from which, if true, the fallacy of the eternity of future punishments may ~be clearly inferred. It is a doctrine maintained by Augustine, Calvin, and Luther, as well as by many of their followers, that, in his fallen state, man " is free to evil only." He can do nothing good without the aid of divine grace ; and this, in point of fact, is given to but a very small number of the human race ; at least, efficacious grace is given to but few, so that the greater part of mankind cannot acquire or possess that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. Now, if we take our stand upon this plat- form of doctrine, it will be found utterly impossible, we think, to defend the eternity of future punishments. It was upon this platform that John Foster erected his tre- mendous battery against the doctrine in question; and it is believed, that the more closely the argument is examined, the more clearly it will be seen, that he has either demolished the doctrine which was so obnoxious to his feelings, or else the platform which constituted so essential a part of his own creed. In our humble opinion, " the moral argument," as he calls it, " pressed irresistibly upon his mind ;" because it was drawn from false premises, of whose correctness he seems not to have entertained the shadow of a doubt. He clung to the conclu- sion, when he should have abandoned the premises. But we shall give his own words, and permit the reader to judge for himself. After having endeavoured to impress our feeble powers with " the stupendous idea of eternity," he adds : " Now think of an infliction of misery protracted through such a period, and at the end of it being only commenced, not one smallest step nearer a conclusion, the case just the same if that sum of figures were multiplied by itself; and then think of man, his nature, his situation, the circumstances 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 chastisement, of whatever moral nature we may regard the infliction to be. But still, what is man ? He comes into the world with a nature fatally corrupt, and powerfully tending to 298 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part H, actual evil. He comes among a crowd of temptations adapted to his innate evil propensities. He grows up (incomparably the greater portion of the race) in great ignorance, his judg- ment weak, and under numberless beguilements into error; while his passions and appetites are strong, his conscience unequally matched against their power, in the majority of men, but feebly and rudely constituted. The influence of what- ever good instructions he may receive, is counteracted by a combination of opposite 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 con vinced ? Is it not the plain doctrine of Scripture ? 76' 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 arbi- trary 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 proportion of the collective race ! " Now this creature, thus constituted and circumstanced, passes a few fleeting years on earth, a short, sinful course, in which he does often what, notwithstanding his ignorance and ill-disciplined judgment and conscience, he knows to be wrong, and neglects what he knows to be his duty ; and, consequently, for a greater or less measure of guilt, widely different in dif- ferent offenders, deserves punishment. But ENDLESS PUNISH- MENT ! HOPELESS MISERY, through a duration to which tfie enormous terms above imagined will be absolutely NOTHING ! I acknowledge my inability (I would say it reverently) to admit this belief, together with a belief in the divine goodness, th *. belief that ' God is love,' that his tender mercies are over all his w r orks. Goodness, benevolence, charity, as ascribed in supreme perfection to him, cannot mean a quality foreign to all human conceptions of goodness : it must be something analo- gous in principle to what himself has defined and required as Chapter IV.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 299 goodness in his moral creatures ; that, in adoring the divine goodness, we may not be worshipping an i unknown God.' But, if so, how would all our ideas be confounded, while con- templating him bringing, of his own sovereign will, a race of creatures into existence, in such a condition that they certainly will and must must by their nature and circumstances go wrong, and be miserable, unless prevented by especial grace, which is the privilege of only a small proportion of them, and at the same time affixing on their delinquency a doom of which it is infinitely leyond the highest archangel's faculty to appre- hend a thousandth part of the horror /"* Now, granting the premises, we hold this argument to be un- answerable and conclusive. But is it not wonderful that it did not occur to so acute a mind as Foster's, that the same premises \vould furnish a valid argument against the justice of all pun- ishment, as well as against the justice of eternal punishments? Surely, if the utter inability of man to do good without divine grace is any extenuation, w r hen such grace is not given, it is an entire and perfect exoneration. It is either this, or it is nothing. Such are the inevitable inconsistencies of the best thinkers, when the feelings of the heart are at war with the notions of the head. Instead of analyzing this awful subject, and tracing it down to its fundamental principles, upon which his reason might have reposed with a calm and immovable satisfaction, Foster seems to have permitted his great mind to take root in a creed of man's devising, and then to be swayed by the gusts and counter-blasts of passion. Believing that man "must go wrong," that nature and circumstances impose this dire neces- sity upon him, his benevolence could not contemplate an eter- nity of torments as due to such inevitable sin. It was repelled by " the infinite horror of the tenet." On the other hand, his abhorrence of evil, and sense of justice, shrank with equal vio- lence from the idea that all punishment is unjust; andhencehe could say, " Far be it from us to make light of the demerit of sin, and to remonstrate with the Supreme Judge against a severe chastisement" Thus did his great mind, instead of rest- ing upon truth, perpetually hang in a state of suspense and vacillation between the noblest feelings of his heart and the darkest errors of his creed. Letter, &c., pp. 15-18. 300 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT LPart IL Others, who have adopted the same creed, have endeavoured to extricate themselves from the dilemma in which Foster found himself, not by denying the eternity of future punishments, but by inventing a very nice distinction between the natural and moral inability of man. " He can obey the law," say they, "if he will ;" all that " he wants is the will." All his natural faculties are complete ; only let him will aright, and he is safe. But, after all, the question still remains, How is he to get the will, the good will, in order to render him acceptable to God ? Does he get it from nature is it a part of his birth- right? No: from this he derives a depraved will, "free to evil only." Is it vouchsafed to him from above? Is it a gift from God ? Alas ! to those who are lost, and perish eternally in their sins, the grace of God is never given ! "What does it signify thus to tell them, or to tell the world, that they have the natural ability to obey ; that none of their natural faculties are lost; that they still have understandings, and affections, and wills? What can all these avail them? Is it not the merest mockery to assure them that they really have hearts, and wills, and feelings, if they " must go wrong," if they must put forth the volitions for which they shall be tormented forever ? Upon this distinction we shall not dwell, as we have fully considered it in our " Examination of Edwards on the Will." We shall merely add, that it is not an invention of modern times.* It is at least as old as the age of Augustine. " The Pelagians think," says he, " they know some great thing, when they say, c God would not command what he knew could not 1)6 done ly man? Who does not know this? But he commands what we cannot do, whereby we know what we ought to ask of him. For it is faith which obtains by prayer what the law commands. For true it is that we keep the commandments if we will, (si volumus ;) but as the will is prepared of the Lord, we must seek of him that we may will as much as is sufficient, in order to our doing by volition, (ut volendofaciamus") Truly, we can keep the commandments if we will to do so ; for, as Augustine immediately says, " certain it is, that we will when we will."f But no man can put forth a volition in conformity Robert Hall supposes that Edwards must have found it in Owen. He might have found it in a hundred earlier writers. | Wiggers's Presentation, p. 210 Note by Translator. Chapter IV.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. C01 wfth the commandments, unless it be given him of God, who " causes us to will good ;"* and this is never given to the repro- bate. How, then, can they be justly consigned to eternal tor- ments? How can they be eternally punished for that w r hich they could not possibly avoid? It is no wonder that a Fostei should have shrunk from "the infinite horrors of such a tenet," as seen from this point of view ; the only wonder is, that any one can be found who can possibly endure them. The same distinction, as we have already said, is relied upon by Edwards in order to show that man has an ability to obey the law of God.f Thus we are gravely taught that we are able to obey the law of God ; because if we will to do so, the external act will follow ; and because it is certain that if we will we do really will. But how to will is the question. Can we put forth the requisite volitions ? No one doubts that if we put forth the volition which the law of God requires, we then obey him, whether the external act follow or not; nor that if we will, then we do really will. But all this leaves the great question untouched, Can we put forth the requisite volitions without divine aid? And after this question has been answered in the negative, and we have been told that such aid is not given to the reprobate, all this talk about a natural ability, which must forever prove unavailing, is the merest mockery that ever en- tered into the imagination or the metaphysics of man. How- ever the fact may be disguised by verbal niceties, it as really places eternal life beyond the reach of the reprobate, as is the very sun in the firmament of heaven, and makes eternal death as inevitable to them as is the rising and the setting thereof. SECTION III. The eternity of future punishments an expression of the divine goodness. "We have seen in the first chapter of this part of the present work, that God really and sincerely intended the salvation of all men ; and that if any are lost, it is because it is impossible in the nature of things to necessitate holiness; and that the impenitent, in spite of all the means employed by infinite wisdom and goodness for their salvation, do obstinately work p Wiggers's Presentation, p. 210 Note by Trans, f Freedom of the Will, p. 38. 302 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT LPart H, out their own ruin and destruction. Omnipotence cannot CO*Q- fer holiness upon them ; they do not choose to acquire it ; and hence, they are compelled to endure the awful wages of sin. To those who reject this view of the nature of holiness, the world in which we live must forever remain an inexplicable enigma ; and that to which we are hastening must present still more terrific subjects of contemplation. To their minds the eternal agonies of the lost can never be made to harmonize with the infinite perfections of God, by whom the second death is appointed. "How self-evident the proposition," says Foster, " that if the Sovereign Arbiter had intended the salvation of the race, it must have been accomplished." Having so sum- marily settled this position, that God did not intend the salva- tion of the race, the question which admits of no answer, Why did he not intend it ? might well spread a mysterious darkness over the whole economy of divine providence. It was that darkness, that perplexing and confounding darkness, by which the mighty soul of Foster was oppressed with so many gloomy thoughts, and filled with so many frightful imaginations. For our part, if we could believe that God could easily work holiness in the heart of every creature, and that he does not do so simply because he does not intend their salvation, we should not have attempted to vindicate his perfections. We should have believed in them, it is true ; but we should have been con- strained to confess, that they are veiled in impenetrable clouds and darkness. Hence, if we had not confessed ignorance and inability for all minds and all ages, as so many others have done, we should, at least, have confessed these things for our- selves, and supinely waited for the light of eternity to dispel the awful and perplexing enigmas of time. But we hold no such doctrine ; we entertain no such sentiment. We believe that God, in his infinite, overflowing goodness desires, and from all eternity has desired, the salvation of all men. We believe that salvation is impossible to some, because a necessary holi- ness is impossible, and they do not choose to work out for themselves what cannot be worked out for them, even by omnipotence. It was the bright and cheering light which this truth seemed to cast upon the dark places of the universe, that first inspired us with the thought and determination to produce a theodicy. And it is in the light of this truth, if we mistake Chapter IV.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 308 not, that the infinite love of God may be seen beaming from the eye of hell, as well as from the bright regions of eternal blessedness. This conclusion we shall endeavour methodically 1 3 unfold, and to set in a clear light. In the first place, then, to begin with our fundamental posi tion, the Creator could not necessitate the holiness of the crea- ture. Hence this holiness, after all the means and the ability were given to him, must be left to the will of the creature him- self. All that could be done in such a case was, for God to set life and death before us, accompanied by the greatest of all con- ceivable motives to pursue the one, and to fly from the other ; and then say, " choose ye :" and all this has God actually done for the salvation of all men. Hence, though some should be finally lost, his infinite goodness will be clear. Let us see what objections may be urged against this conclusion. Supposing it granted, that a necessitated virtue is a contra- diction in terms, and that it is indispensably requisite to ordain rewards and punishments in order to prevent sin and secure holiness ; it may still be said that the penalty of eternal death is too severe for that purpose, and is therefore inconsistent with the goodness of God. Indeed, after such a concession, this is the only position which can be taken in opposition to the doc- trine in question. Let us then look at it, and examine the assumption upon which it rests for support. If such punishments be too severe, it must be for one of these two reasons: either because no object can justify the infliction of them, or because the end proposed by the Supreme Ruler is not sufficiently great for that purpose. Let us suppose, then, in the first place, the position to be assumed, that no object can possibly justify the infliction of such awful punishments. Such would be the case, we admit, if such punishments were unjust were not deserved by the per- son upon whom they are inflicted. Hence, it becomes indis- pensable, in order to vindicate the divine benevolence, to show that eternal sufferings are deserved by those upon whom they fall. Otherwise they would be unjust, and consequently un- justifiable ; as the end could never justify the means. We say, then, that eternal sufferings are deserved by the finally impenitent, not because every sinful act carries along with it an infinite guilt, nor because every sinner may be 304 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, imagined to have committed an infinite number of sins, but because they will continue to sin forever. It will be conceded, that if punishment be admissible at all, it is right and proper that so long as acts of rebellion are persisted in, the rewards of iniquity should attend them. It will be conceded, that if the finally impenitent should continue to sin forever, then they for* ever deserve to reap the rewards of sin. But this is one part of the Scripture doctrine of future punishments, that those who endure them will never cease to sin and rebel against the authority of God's law. Foster has attempted a reply to this defence of the doctrine in question, but without success. " It is usually alleged," says he, " that there will be an endless continuance of sinning .... and therefore the punishment must be endless." But " the allegation," he replies, " is of no avail in vindication of the doctrine, because the first consignment to this dreadful state necessitates a continuance of the criminality / the doctrine teaching that it is of the essence, and is an awful aggravation of the original consignment, that it dooms the condemned to maintain the criminal spirit unchanged forever. The doom to sin as well as to suffer, and, according to the argument, to sin in order to suffer, is inflicted as the punishment of the sin committed in the mortal state. Virtually, therefore, the eter- nal punishment is the punishment of the sins of time."* Even according to the principles of Foster himself, the argu- ment is wholly untenable. For he admits, that such is the evil nature of man, such the circumstances around him, and such the influences of the great tempter, he must inevitably go wrong; and yet he holds that he may be justly punished for such transgressions. Now, if every man who comes into the world be doomed to sin, as this author insists he is, and may be justly punished for sins committed in this life, why should he be excused for the sins committed in another state, because he is doomed to commit them ? But this argumentum ad hominem is merely by the way, and has more to do with the consistency of the author, than with the validity of his position. We shall proceed to subject this to a more searching and a more satisfactory test. His argument assumes, that " it is of the essence of the Letter, pp. 21, 22. Chapter IV.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 305 original consignment, that it dooms the condemned to maintain the criminal spirit unchanged forever." This is an unwarrant- able assumption. We nowhere learn, and we are nowhere required to believe, that the guilty are doomed to sin forever, because they have voluntarily sinned in this life ; much less that they are necessitated to sin in order to suffer ! The doc- trine of the eternity of future punishments is not necessarily encumbered with any such ridiculous appendage ; and if any one can be found to entertain so absurd a view of the doctrine, we must lea^e him to vindicate the creation of his own imagination. We do not suppose that the soul of the guilty will continue to sin forever, because it will be consigned to the regions of the lost ; bu* we suppose it will be consigned to the regions of the lost, because, by its own repeated acts of transgression, it has made sure of its eternal continuance in sinning. God dooms no man to sin neither by his power nor by his providence. But it is a fact, against which there will be no dispute, that if a man commit a sin once, he will be still more apt to commit the same sin again, under the same or similar circumstances. The same thing will be true of each and every succeeding repe- tition of the offence ; until the habit of sinning may be so completely wrought into the soul, and so firmly fixed there, that nothing can check it in its career of guilt. Neither the glories of heaven, nor the terrors of hell, may be sufficient to change its course. No amount of influence brought to bear upon its feelings, may be sufficient to transform its will. " There is a certain bound to imprudence and misbehaviour," says But- ler, " which being transgressed, there remains no place for repentance in the natural course of things." And may we not also add, nor in the supernatural course of things either ; and there only remains a certain fearful looking-for of judgment? As this may be the case, for aught we know, nay, as it seenu* so probable that this is the case, no one is authorized to pronounce endless sufferings unjust, unless he can first show that the object of them has not brought upon himself an eternal continuance in the practice of sin. In other words, unless he can first show that the sinner does not doom himself to an eternity of sinning, he cannot reasonably complain that his Creator and Judge dooms him to an eternity of suffering. 20 306 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, But it may be said, that although the sinner may deserve to suffer forever, because he continues to sin forever ; yet it were more worthy the infinite goodness of God, to release him from so awful a calamity. If the sinner deserves such punishment, it is not only just to inflict it upon him, it is a demand of infinite goodness itself that it should be inflicted upon him, provided a sufficiently great good may be attained by such a manifesta- tion of justice. This brings us to the consideration of our second point, namely : Is the object proposed to be accom- plished by the infliction of eternal misery sufficiently great to justify the infliction of so severe a penalty? In other words, Is such a penalty disproportioned to the exigencies of the case ? In his attempt to show, that the infliction of eternal misery is too severe to consist with the goodness of God, Mr. Foster does not at all consider the great ends, or final causes, of penal enactments. He merely dwells upon the terrors of the punish- ment, and brings these into vivid contrast with the weakness and impotency of man in his mortal state. This, it must be con- fessed, is a most one-sided and partial view of so profound a sub- ject ; much better adapted to work upon the feelings than to enlighten the j udgment. All that he seems to have seen in the case, is a poor, weak creature, utterly unable to do any good, subjected to eternal torments for the sins of " a few fleeting years on earth." Hence it was, that " the moral argument," which " pressed so irresistibly on his mind," came in u the stu- pendous idea of eternity." Indeed, according to his theology, there could be no object sufficiently vast, no necessity sufficiently imperious, to justify eternal punishments. The prevention of sin, and the promotion of universal holiness, could not form such an object or constitute such a necessity ; for, according to his creed, all this might have been most perfectly attained by a word. Hence, he was puz- zled and confounded in the contemplation of what appeared to him so much unnecessary evil. " I acknowledge my inability^ said he, " to admit the belief, (the belief in endless punishment,) together with the belief in the divine goodness the belief that 4 God is love,' that c his tender mercies are over all his works/ " As we have already seen from another point of view, we must come out from his theology if we would see the harmony and agreement between these beliefs. We must take our stand on Chapter IV.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 307 the position, that Omnipotence cannot necessitate holiness, ami must have recourse to rewards and punishments to secure it. Otherwise all evil and all suffering will remain an inexplicable enigma ; all rewards and punishments awkward and clumsy CDiitriv inces to attain an end, which might be much better at- tained without them. On this high and impregnable ground the moral argument of Foster loses all its irresistible force, and "the stupendous idea of eternity" presses with all its weight in favour of endless punishment. If temporal punishments are justified on the ground that they are necessary to meet the exigencies and up- hold the interests of temporal governments, surely eternal pun^ ir>hments may be justified on the same ground in relation to an eternal government. The "stupendous idea of eternity" at- taches to the whole, as well as to the part ; and hence nothing can be gained to the cause of Universalism by the introduction of this idea, except in the minds of those who take only a one- sided and partial view of the subject. The spectacle of punishment for a single day, it will be ad- mitted, would be justified on the ground that it was necessary to support for a single day a government ; especially if that government were vast in extent and involved stupendous in- terests. But if suffering for a single day may be justified on such a ground, then the exigencies of such a government for tw r o days would justify a punishment for two days; and so on ad, infinitum. Hence, the doctrine of eternal punishments in common with the eternal moral government of God, is not a greater anomaly than temporal punishments in relation to temporal governments. If we reject the one, we must also reject the other. Indeed, when we consider not only the eter- nal duration, but also t/ie universal extent, of the divine govern.- ment, the argument in question, if good for anything, presses 'with greater force against the little, insignificant governments of men, than against the moral government of God. One reason why Foster was "repelled into doubt by the infinite horrors of the tenet " is, that he merely contemplated the suffer- ings of the guilty, and saw not how those sufferings were con- nected with the majesty and glory of God's universal and eternal empire. It is as if an insect should undertake to set bounds to the punishments which human beings have found necessary 208 NATURAL EYiL CONSISTENT [Part n, to meet the exigencies and uphold the interests of human society. We are told by writers on jurisprudence, that penalties should be proportioned to offences ; but, as has been truly said, how this proportion is to be ascertained, or on what principles it is to be adjusted, we are seldom informed. We are usually left to vague generalities, which convey no definite information, and furnish no satisfactory guidance to our minds. If we can ascer- tain the precise conditions according to which this principle should be adjusted, even by goodness itself, we shall then be the better able to determine whether the eternal suffering of the guilty and impenitent is not a manifestation of the love of God, of that tender mercy which is over all his works. It is a maxim that punishment should be sufficient to accom- plish the great end for which it is imposed, namely, the preven- tion of offences. Otherwise, if it failed to accomplish this object, " it would be so much suffering in waste."* Now, who can say that the penalty of eternal death is not necessary to this end in the moral government of the universe, or that it is greater than is necessary for its accomplishment? Who can say that a punishment for a limited period would have answered that end in a greater or more desirable degree ? Who can say that there would have been more holiness and happiness, with less sin and misery, in the universe, if the punishment of those whom nothing could reclaim had not been eternal ? Who can say that it would be better for the universe, on the whole, if the punishment of sin were limited than if it were eternal ? Until this question, which so evidently lies beyond the range of our narrow facul- ties, be answered, it is presumption to object that eternal pun- ishment is inconsistent with the goodness of God. For aught the objector knows, this very penalty is demanded by infinite goodness itself, in order to stay the universal ravages of sin, and preserve the glory of the moral empire of Jehovah. For aught he knows, the very sufferings of the lost forever may be, n >t only a manifestation of the justice of God, but also a profound expression of that tender mercy which is over all his works. For aught he knows, this very appointment, at which he takes so great offence, may be one of the main pillars in the structure of the intellectual system of the universe ; without which its in- Jeremy Bentham. Chapter IV.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 309 ternal constitution would be radically defective, and its moral government impossible. In short, for aught he knows, his ob- jection may arise, not from any undue or unnecessary severity of the punishment in question, but from his own utter inca- pacity to decide such a point in relation to the universal and eternal government of God. It may be said that this is an appeal to human ignorance, rather than a reply to the argument of the Universalist. Surely, it is good to be reminded of our ignorance, when we undertake to base objections against the doctrines of religion upon assump- tions about the truth of which we know, and, from the nature of the case, must know, absolutely nothing. If the doctrine in question involved any inherent contradictions, or were it clearly at war with the dictates of justice, or mercy, or truth, there might be some reason in our opposition ; but to oppose it be- cause we cannot see how it subserves the highest interests of the universe, seems to be an exceedingly rash and hasty decision ; especially as we see that such a penalty must powerfully tend to restrain the wickedness of men, as well as to preserve un- fallen creatures in their obedience. It is not at all strange that beings with such faculties as we possess, limited on all sides, and far more influenced by feeling than by reason, should be oppressed by the stupendous idea of eternal torments. It absolutely overwhelms the imagination of poor, short-sighted creatures like ourselves. But God, in his plans for the universe and for eternity, takes no counsel of hu- man weakness ; and that which seems so terrible to our feeble intellects may, to his all-seeing eye, appear no more than a dark speck in a boundless realm of light. Surely, if there ever was, or ever could be, a question which should be reduced to the simple inquiry, " What saith the Scripture ?" it is that respecting the future condition of the wicked. It is truly amazing that a mind like Foster's should have put this inquiry so easily aside, and relied with so much confidence upon what he was pleased to call " the moral argument." This argument, as we have seen, is altogether unsound and sophisti- cal. It bases itself upon the prejudices of a creed, and termi- nates in dark conjectures merely. He hopes, or rather he " would wish to indulge the hope, founded upon the divine at- tribute of infinite benevolence, that there will be a period some- 310 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, where in the endless futurity, when all God's sinning creatures will be restored by him to rectitude and happiness." Vain hope ! delusive wish ! How can they be made holy without their own consent and cooperation? And if they could be restored to rectitude and happiness, how can we hope that God would restore them, since he has not been pleased to preserve them in their original state of rectitude and happiness ? But perhaps, says he, there will be, not a restoration of all God's sinning creatures to rectitude and happiness, but an anni- hilation of their existence. Even this conjecture, if true, " would be a prodigious relief;" for "the grand object of interest is a negation of the perpetuity of misery." Suppose, then, that the universe had been planned according to this benevolent wish of Mr. Foster, and that those who could not be reclaimed should, after a very protracted period of suffering, be forever anni- hilated; would this promote the order and well-being of the whole creation? How did Mr. Foster know but that such a provision in the government of the universe would oppose so feeble a barrier to the progress of sin, that scenes of mutability, and change, and ruin, would be introduced into the empire of God, from which his benevolence would shrink with infinite abhorrence? How did Mr. Foster know but that the Divine Benevolence itself would prefer a hell in one part of his domin- ions, to the universal disorder, confusion, and moral desolation which such a provision might introduce into the government of God? Such a conjecture might, it is true, bring a "prodigious relief" to our imagination ; but the government of God is in- tended for the relief of the universe, and not for the relief of our imagination. Others besides the author in question have sought relief for their minds -on this subject, by indulging in vague conjectures respecting the real design of the Supreme Ruler and Judge. Archbishop Tillotson, for example, supposes that although God acl tially threatened to punish the wicked eternally, he does not intend, and is not bound, to carry this threat into execution. This penalty, he supposes, is merely set forth as a terror to evil- doers, in order to promote the good order and well-being of tho world ; and after it has subserved this purpose, the Lawgiver will graciously remit a portion of the threatened penalty, and restore all his sinning creatures to purity and bliss. In reply to Chapter IV.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 311 this extraordinary position, we shall only say that if the Al- mighty really undertook to deceive the world for its own good, it is a pity he did not take the precaution to prevent the arch- bishop from detecting the cheat. It is a pity, we say, that he did not deceive the archbishop as well as the rest of men ; and not suffer his secret to get into the possession of one who has so indiscreetly published it to the whole world. Nothing seems more amazing to us than the haste and pre- cipitancy with which most men dispose of subjects so awful as that of the eternity of future punishments. One would suppose that if any subject in the whole range of human thought should engage our most serious attention, and call forth the utmost exertion of our power of investigation, it would be the dura- tion of punishment in a future life. If that punishment be eternal, it is certainly the most momentous question which ever engaged the attention of man, and is to be lightly disposed of only by madmen.* * On one point we fully concur with Mr. Foster, (see Letter, p. 27 :) " As to religious teachers, if this tremendous doctrine be true, surely it ought to be almost continually proclaimed as with the blast of a trumpet, inculcated and reiterated, with ardent passion, in every possible form of terrible illustration ; no remission of the alarm to thoughtless spirits." But if it be so incumbent on religious teachers, who believe this awful tenet, thus to proclaim it to a perishing world, is it not equally incumbent on them not to speak on such a subject at all until they have taken the utmost pains to form a correct opinion concerning it? If the man who merely proclaims this doctrine in the usual quiet way of preachers, while he sees his fellow-men perishing around, is guilty of criminal neglect, what shall we say of the religious teacher who, without having devoted much time to the investigation of the subject, exerts his powers and his influence to persuade his fellow-men that it is all a delusion, and that the idea of endless misery is utterly inconsistent with the goodness of God? How many feeble outcries and warnings of those who are so terribly rebuked by Mr. Foster, may be silenced and forever laid to rest by his eloquent declamation against the doctrine in question, and how many souls may be thereby betrayed ^and led on to their own eternal ruin ! Yet, wonderful as it may seem, Mr. Fos- ter tells us that his opinion on this awful subject has not been the result of " a protracted inquiry." In the very letter from which we have so frequently quoted, he says : " I have perhaps been too content to let an opinion (or impression) ad- mitted in early life dispense with protracted inquiry and various reading." Now, is this the way in which a question of this kind should be decided, a question which involves the eternal destiny of millions of human beings ? Is it to be de- cided, not by protracted inquiry, but under the influence of an " impression ad- mitted in early life ?" 312 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part TI, CHAPTER Y. THE DISPENSATION OF THE DIYINE FAVOURS RECONCILED WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. God, whose thunder shakes the sky, Whose eye this atom globe surveys, ^o thee, my only rock, I fly ; Thy mercy in thy justice praise. Then why, my soul, dost thou complain ? Why drooping seek the dark recess? *hake off the melancholy chain, For God created all to bless. CHATTEKTON. INT the preceding part, we considered the doctrine of predesti- nation, under the name of necessity, in its relation to the origin of evil. We there endeavoured to show that it denies the re- sponsibility of man, and makes God the author of sin. In the present part, it remains for us to examine the same doctrine in relation to the equality of the divine goodness. If we mistake not, the scheme of predestination, or rather the doctrine of election, which lies at its foundation, is, when rightly under- stood, perfectly consistent with the impartiality and glory of the goodness of God. On this subject we shall now proceed to unfold our views in as orderly and perspicuous a manner as possible. SECTION I. The unequal distribution of favours, which obtains in the economy of natural providejice, consistent with the goodness of God. It has been thought that if the goodness of God were un- limited and impartial, the light and blessings of revelation would be universal. But before we should attach any weight to such an objection, we should first consider and determine two things. First, we should consider and determine how far the unequal diffusion of the light of revelation has resulted from the agency of man, and how far from the agency of God. For, if this in- Chapter V.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 813 equality in the spread of a divine blessing has sprung in any degree from the abuse which free, subordinate agents have made of their powers, either by active opposition, or passive neglect, it is in so far no more imputable to a want of goodness in the Divine Being than is any other evil or disorder which the crea- ture has introduced into the world. In so far, the glory of God is clear, and man alone is to blame. It is incumbent upon those, then, who urge this objection against the goodness of God to show that the evil in question has not resulted from the agency of man. This position, we imagine, the objector will not find it very easy to establish ; and yet, until he does so, his objection very clearly rests upon a mere unsupported hypothesis. Secondly, before we can fairly rely upon the objection in question, we should be able to show, that the agency of God might have been so exerted as to spread the light of revelation further than it now extends, without on the whole causing greater evil than good. Light or knowledge, it should be remembered, is not in itself a blessing. It may be so, or it may not ; and whether it be a blessing or a curse depends, not upon the beneficence of the giver, but upon the disposition and character of the recipient. Before we should presume to indulge the least complaint, then, against the goodness of divine providence, we should be able to produce the nation, whose character for moral goodness and virtue would, on the whole, and in relation to its circumstances, have been improved by the interposition of God in causing the light of truth to shine in the midst of its corruptions. But we are manifestly incompe- tent to deal with a question of such a nature. Its infinite com- plication, as well as its stupendous magnitude, places it entirely beyond the reach of the human mind. So manifold and so multiform are the hidden causes upon which its solution de- pends, that general principles cannot be brought to bear upon it ; and its infinite variety and complication of detail must for- ever baffle the intellect of man. Hence, an objection which pioceeds on the supposition that this question has been solved and determined, is worth nothing. But, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that the unequal diffusion of religious knowledge has proceeded directly from the agency of God. Still the objection against his goodness, in 314 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part 1^ regard to the dispensation of light, would be no greater tlian in relation to all the dispensations of his favour. All the gifts of Heaven health, riches, honour, intelligence, and whatever else comes down from above are scattered among the children of men with the most promiscuous variety. Hence, the unequal distribution of the blessings of the gospel, or rather of its exter- nal advantages, is so far from being inconsistent with the charac- ter of God, that it is of a piece with all his other dispensations : it is so far from standing out as an anomaly in the proceedings of the Divine Being, that it falls in with the whole analogy of nature and of providence. Hence, there is no resting-place between the abandonment of this objection, and downright atheism. Let us see, then, what force there is in this objection, when urged, as it is by the atheist, against the whole constitution and management of the world. It proceeds on the supposition, that if light and knowledge, or any other natural advantage, were bestowed upon one person, it would be bestowed upon all others, and upon all in precisely the same degree. According to his view, there should be no such thing as degrees in knowl- edge, and consequently no such thing as self-development and progress. To select only one instance out of many : the atheist objects, that it is not worthy of infinite wisdom and goodness to provide us with so complicated an instrument as the eye, as a means of obtaining light and knowlege. Why could not this end be attained by a more simple and direct method ? Why leave us, for so great a portion of earthly existence, in com- parative ignorance, to grope out our way into regions of light ? In the eye of reason, there is no end to this kind of object- ing ; and it only stops where the shallow conceit, or wayward fancy, of the objector is pleased to terminate. It is very easy to ask, Why a Being of infinite goodness did not confer light and knowledge upon us directly and at once, without leaving us to acquire them by the tedious use of the complicated means provided by his natural providence. But the inquiry does not stop here. He might just as well ask, Why such a Being was pleased to confer so small an amount of light upon us, and leave us to acquire more for ourselves ? Why not confer it upon us without measure and without exertion on our part? The same interrogation, it is evident, may be applied to every other bless- Chapter V.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 315 ing, as well as to knowledge; and hence the objection of the atheist, when carried out, terminates in the great difficulty, why God did not make all creatures alike, and each equal to himself. On the principle of this objection, the insect should complain that it is not a man ; the man that he is not an angel ; and the angel that he is not a god. Hence, such a principle would exclude from the system of the world everything like a diversity and subordination of parts; and would reduce the whole universe, as a system, to as inconceivable a nonentity as would be a watch, all of whose parts should be made of exactly the same materials, and possessing precisely the same force and properties. In every system, whether of nature or of art, there must be a variety and subordination of parts. Hence, to object that each part is not perfect in itself, without considering its rela- tions and adaptation to the whole, is little short of madness. And what heightens the absurdity in the present case is, that the parts which fall under observation may, for aught we know, possess the greatest perfection which is consistent with the highest good and beauty of the whole. If God has endowed man with the attributes of reason and speech ; if he has scattered around him, with a liberal hand, the multiplied blessings of life ; if, above all, he has made him capable of eternal blessedness, and of an endless progress in glory ; this should warm his heart with the most glowing grati- tude, and tune his tongue to the most exalted praise. And the man, the rational and immortal being, whose high endowments should lead him to murmur and repine at the unequal dispen- sations of the divine bounty, because God has created beings of a higher order than himself, and placed them in a world where no cloud is ever seen, and where no sigh is ever heard, would certainly, to say the very least, be guilty of the most criminal jngratitude. Reason and conscience might well cry out, Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why hast tliQu made me thus ? And God himself might well demand, Is thine eye evil, because I am good ? The case is not altered, if we suppose that the divine favour is unequally bestowed upon different individuals of the same species, instead of the different orders of created beings. The Banie principle o* .risdom and goodness, as Butler remarks, 316 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT |I>arfc II, whatever it may be, which led God to make a difference between men and angels, may be the same which induces him to make a difference between one portion of the human family and another to leave one portion for a season to the dim twi- light of nature, while upon another he pours out the light of revelation. The same principle, it may also be. arlrich gives rise to the endless diversity of natural gifts among the different individuals of the same community, as well as to the different situations of the same individual, in regard to his temporal and eternal interests, during the various stages of his earthly exist- ence. And if this be so, we should either cease to object against the goodness of God, because the same powers and advantages are not bestowed upon all, or we should adopt the atheistical principle, in its fullest extent, which has now been shown to be so full of absurdity. But although we cannot see the particular reasons of such a diversity of gifts, or how each is subservient to the good of the whole ; yet every shadow of injustice will disappear, if we con- sider that God deals with every one, to use the language of Scripture, " according to what he hath, and not according to what he hath not." His bounty overflows, in various degrees, upon his creatures; but his justice equalizes all, by requiring every one to give an account of just exactly as many talents as have been committed to his charge, and no more. In this respect, all the dispensations of divine providence are clearly and broadly distinguished from the Calvinistic scheme of election and reprobation. According to this scheme, the reprobate, or those who are not objects of the divine mercy, have not, and never had, the ability to obey the law of God ; and yet they are 'condemned to eternal death for their failure to obey it. This is to deal with them, not according to what they have, but according to what they have not, and what they could not possibly have. Hence, to reason from one of these cases to the other, from the inequality of gifts and talents ordained by God to a scheme of election and reprobation, as Calvinists uniformly do, is to confound all our notions of just dealing, and to convert the rightful sovereignty of God into frightful tyranny. The perfect justice of this remark will, we trust, be made to appear the more clearly and fully in the course of the following section of the present work. Chapter V.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 317 SECTION II. TJit Scripture doctrine of election consistent with the impartiality of the divine goodness. We have seen that the election of a nation to the enjoym^t of certain external advantages, or the bestowment of superior gifts upon some individuals, is not inconsistent with the perfec- tion of the divine goodness. Beyond the distinctions thus indi- cated, and which so clearly obtain in the natural providence of God, it is believed that the Scriptural scheme of election does not go; and that the more rigid features of the Calvinistic scheme of election and reprobation can be deduced from revela- tion only by a violent wresting and straining of the clear word of God. Let us see if this assertion may not be fully estab- lished. The ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, it is well known, is the portion of Scripture upon which the advocates of that scheme have chiefly relied, from Augustine down to Cal- vin, and from Calvin down to the present day. But, to any impartial mind, we believe, this chapter will not be found to lend the least shadow of support to any such scheme of doctrine. We assume this position advisedly, and shall proceed to give the reasons on which it is based. Now, in the interpretation of any instrument of writing, it is a universally admitted rule, that it should be construed with reference to the subject of which it treats. What, then, is the subject of which the apostle treats in the ninth chapter of Ro- mans? In regard to this point there is no dispute; and, to avoid all appearance of controversy in relation to it, we shall state the design of the apostle, in this part of his discourse, in the words of one by whom the Calvinistic scheme of election is maintained. " With the eighth chapter," says Professor Hodge, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, "the discussion of the plan of salvation, and its immediate conse- quences, was brought to a close. The consideration of the calling of the Gentiles, and the rejection of the Jews, com- mences with the ninth, and extends to the end of the eleventh." Thus, according to the author, "the subject which the apostle had in view," in the ninth chapter, is "the rejection of the 318 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [P*rt 11 Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles." Now, if this be his subject, and if the discussion of the plan of salvation was brought to a close in the eighth chapter, how can the doctrine of election and reprobation, which lies at the very foundation of, and gives both shape and colouring to, the whole scheme of salvation, as maintained by Calvinists, be found in the nintb chapter? How has it happened that such important lights have been thrown upon the plan of salvation, and such funda- mental positions established in relation to it, after its discussion has been brought to a close ? But this only by the way ; we shall hereafter see how these important lights have been ex- tracted from the chapter in question. The precise passage upon which the greatest stress is laid seems to be the following: "The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth ; it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Now, the question is, Does this refer to the election of Jacob to eternal life, and the eternal reprobation of Esau ; or, Does it refer to the selection of the descendants of the former to consti- tute the visible people of God on earth ? This is the question ; and it is one which, we think, is by no means difficult of solution. The apostle was in the habit of quoting only a few words of a passage of the Old Testament, to which he had occasion to refer ; and in the present instance he merely cites the words of the prophecy, " The elder shall serve the younger." But, according to the prophecy to which he refers, it was said to Rebecca, "Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger." Nothing can be plainer, we think, than that this prophecy relates to the descendants of Jacob and Esau, and not to the individuals themselves. This view of the above passage, if it needed further confirma- tion, is corroborated by the fact that Esau did not serve Jacob, and that this part of the prophecy is true only in relation to his descendants. Thus the prophecy, when interpreted by its own express words, as well as by the event, shows that it related to Chapter V.] WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 319 " two nations," to " two manner of people," and not to two individuals. The argument of St. Paul demands tins interpretation. He is not discussing the plan of salvation. The question before him is not whether some are elected to eternal life on account of their works or not ; and hence, if he had quoted & prophecy* from the Old Testament to establish that position, he would have been guilty of a gross solecism, a non sequitur, as plain as could well be conceived. For these reasons, we think there can be but little doubt with respect to the true mennin^ of the passage in question. And besides, this construction not only brings the language of the apostle into perfect coniormity with the providence which God is actually seen to exercise over the world, but also reconciles it with the glory of the divine character. In regard to the meaning of the terms loved and hated, used in the prophecy under consideration, there can be no doubt that the interpretation of Professor Hodge is perfectly just. '" The meaning is," says he, " that God preferred one to the other, or chose one instead of the other. As this is the idea meant to be expressed, it is evident that in this case the word hate means to love less, to regard and treat with less favour. Thus in Gen. xxix, 33, Leah says, she was hated by her hus- band ; while, in the thirtieth verse, tho same idea is expressed by saying, Jacob * loved Rachel more than Leah.' Matt, x, 37. Luke xiv, 26 : c If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother,' &c. John xii, 25." No one will object to this explanation. P>ut how will the language, thus understood, apply to the case of individual elec- tion and reprobation, as maintained by Calvinists ? We can see, indeed, how it applies to the descendants of Esau, who were in many respects placed in less advantageous circumstances than the posterity of Jacob ; but how can God be said to love the elect more than the reprobate ? Can he be said to love the reprobate at all ? If, from all eternity, they have been eter- nally damned for not rendering an impossible obedience, should we call this a lesser degree of love than that which is bestowed upon the elect, or should we call it hate ? It seems, that the commentator feels some repugnance at the idea of setting apart p Surely a very singular doctrine to be found in a prophecy. 320 NATURAL EVIL CONSISTENT [Part II, the individual, before he has " done either good or evil," as an object of hate ; but not at all at the idea of setting him apart as an object of eternal and remediless woe ! " It is no doubt true," says Professor Hodge, " that the pre- diction contained in this passage has reference not only to the relative standing of Jacob and Esau, as individuals, but also to that of their descendants. It may even be allowed that the latter was principally intended in the communication to Re- becca. But it is clear: 1. That this distinction between the two races presupposed and included a distinction between the individuals. Jacob, made the special heir to his father Isaac, obtained as an individual the birthright and the blessing ; and Esau, as an individual, was cut off." This may all be perfectly true ; it is certainly nothing to the purpose. It is true, that Jacob was made the special heir to his father ; but did he thereby inherit eternal life ? The dis- tinction between him and Esau was undoubtedly a personal favour ; the very fact that his descendants would be so highly blessed, must have been a source of personal satisfaction and joy, which his less favoured brother did not possess. But was this birthright and this blessing the fixed and irreversible boon of eternal life? There is not the least shadow of any such thing in the whole record. The only blessings, of a personal or indi- vidual nature, of which the account gives us the least intima- tion, either by express words or by implication, are like those w T ith which God, in his providence, still continues to distinguish some individuals from others. They are not the gift of eternal life, but of certain external and temporal advantages. Hence they throw no light upon the Calvinistic scheme of election and reprobation. To make out this scheme, or anything in support of it, something more must be done than to show that God distinguishes one nation, or one individual, from another, in the distribution of his favours. This is conceded on all sides ; and has nothing to do with the point in dispute. It must also be shown, that the particular favour which he brings home to one by his infinite power, and which he withholds from an- other, is neither more nor less than the salvation of the soul. It must be shown, that the mere will and pleasure of God makes such a distinction among the souls of men, that while some are invincibly made the heirs of glory, others are stamped with Chapter V.I WITH THE GOODNESS OF GOD. 321 tlie seal of eternal death. The inheritance of Jacob, and the casting off of Esau, were, so far as we can see, very different from the awful proceeding which is ascribed to God according to the Calvinistic scheme of election and reprobation. The same remark is applicable to other attempts to show, that God's favour was bestowed upon Jacob, as an individual, in preference to Esau. "As to the objection," says Professor Hodge, " that Esau never personally served Jacob, it is founded on the mere literal sense of the words. Esau did acknowledge his inferiority to Jacob, and was postponed to him on various occasions. This is the real spirit of the passage. This prophecy, as is the case with all similar predictions, has various stages of fulfilment. The relation between the two brothers during life ; the loss of the birthright blessing and promises on the part of Esau ; the temporary subjugation of his descendants to the Hebrews under David ; their final and complete subjugation under the Maccabees ; and especially their exclusion from the peculiar privileges of the people of God, through all the periods of their history, are included." Suppose all this to be true, what relation has it to the election of some individuals to eter- nal life, and the reprobation of others ? We shall not dwell upon other portions of the chapter in question ; for, if the foregoing remarks be just, it will be easy to dispose of every text which may, at first view, appear to sup- port the Calvinistic doctrine of election. We shall dismiss the consideration of the ninth chapter of Romans with an extract from Dr. Mackriight, who, although a firm believer in the Cal- vinistic view of election and reprobation, does not find any sup- port for his doctrine in this portion of Scripture. "Although some passages in this chapter," says he, " which pious and learned men have understood of the election and reprobation of individuals, are in the foregoing illustration interpreted of the election of nations to be the people of God, and to enjoy thain call upon them to do so? Is he really sincere in the use of means for the salvation of all, since he permits so many to hold out in their rebellion and perish ? In other words, if he really and sincerely seeks the salvation of all, why are not all saved? This is confessedly one of the most perplexing and confounding difficulties which attach to the commonly received systems of theology. It constitutes one of those profound obscurities from which, it is admitted, theology has not been able to extricate itself, and come out into the clear light of the divine glory. By many theologians this difficulty, instead of being solved, is most fearfully aggravated. Luther, for example, finds it so great, that he denies the sincerity of God in calling upon sin- ners to forsake their evil ways and live ; and that, as addressed to the finally impenitent, his language is that of mockery and scorn. And Calvin imagines that such exhortations, as well as the other means of ,grace offered to all, are designed, not for the 35$ SUMMARY OF THE FOREGOING SYSTEM. real conversion of those who shall finally perish, but to enhance their guilt, and overwhelm them in the more fearful condemna- tion. If it were possible to go even one step beyond such doc- trines, that step is taken by President Edwards : for he is so far from supposing that God really intends to lead all mon into a conformity with his revealed will, that he contends that God possesses another and a secret will by which, for some good purpose, he chooses their sin, and infallibly brings it to pass. If any mind be not appalled by such doctrines, and chilled with horror, surely nothing can be too monstrous for its credulity, provided only it relate to the divine sovereignty. The Arminian with indignation rejects such views of the divine glory. But does he escape the great difficulty in ques- tion ? If God forms the design, says he, not to save all men, he is not infinitely good ; but yet he admits that God actually re- fuses to save some. Now, what difference can it make whether God's intention not to save all be evidenced by a preexisting design, or by a present reality ? Is not everything that is done by him, or left undone, in pursuance of his eternal purpose and design ? What, then, in reference to the point in question, is the difference between the Arminian and the Calvinist ? Both admit that God could easily save all men if he would / that is, render all men holy and happy. But the one says that he did not design to save all, while the other affirms that he actually refuses to save some. Surely, if we may assume what is con- ceded by both parties, the infinite goodness of God is no more disproved by a scheme of salvation limited in its design, than by a scheme of salvation limited in its execution. Hence, it is admitted by many Arminians themselves, that their own scheme merely mitigates and softens down, without removing, the ap- palling difficulty in question. There are many exceptions to this remark. One of the most memorable of these is the judgment which Robert Hail* pro- nounces concerning the solution of this difficulty by the " Won- derful Howe." This solution, as we have seen, labours under the same defect with those of its predecessors, in that it rejects It is not exactly just to rank Hall among the Arminians. His scheme of doctrine, if scheme it may be called, is, like that of so many others, a hetero- geneous mixture of Calvinism and Arminianism a mixture, and not an organic compound, of the conflicting elements of the two systems SUMMARY OF THE FOREGOING SYSTEM, 357 the truth that a necessary holiness is a contradiction in terms. Instead of following the guidance of this truth, he wanders amid the obscurities of the subject, becomes involved in nu- merous self-contradictions, and is misled by the deceit! ul light of false analogies. We shall not here reproduce his inconsistencies and self- contradictions. We shall simply add, that although he, too, attempts to show why it is for the best that all should not be saved, he frequently betrays the feeble and unsatisfactory nature of the impression which his own reasons made upon his mind. For the light of these reasons soon fades from his recollection ; and, like all who have gone before him, when he comes to con- template the subject from another point of view, he declares that the reasons of the thing he has endeavoured to explain, are hid from the human mind in the profound depths of the divine wisdom. If we would realize, then, that God sincerely desires the sai- vation of all men, we must plant ourselves on the truth, that holiness, which is of the very essence of salvation, cannot be wrought in us by an extraneous force. It is under the guidance of this principle, and of this principle alone, that we can find our way out from the dark labyrinth of error and self-contra- diction, in which others are involved, into the clear and beaiv tiful light of the gospel, that God " will have all men to be saved, and come unto a knowledge of the truth." It is with the aid of this principle, and of this alone, that we may hear the sublime teachings of the divine wisdom, unmingled with the discordant sounds of human folly. SECTION II. The sufferings of the innocent, and especially of infants, consistent with the goodness of God. By the Calvinistic school of divines it is most positively and peremptorily pronounced that the innocent can never suffer under the administration of a Being of infinite goodness. They cannot possibly allow that such a Being would permit one of his innocent creatures to suffer ; but they can very well believe that he can permit them both to sin and to suffer. Is not this to strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel ? 358 SUMMARY OF THE FOREGOING SYSTEM. Having predetermined that the innocent never suffer, they have felt tiie necessity of finding some sin in infants, by which their suffeilngs might be. shown to be deserved, and thereby reconciled with the divine goodness. This has proved a hard task. From the time of Augustine down to the present day, it has been diligently prosecuted ; and with what success, we have endeavoured to show. The series of hypotheses to which this effort has given rise, are, perhaps, as wild and wonderful as any to be foun^. in the history of the human mind. We need not again recount those dark dreams and inventions in the past history of Calvinism. Perhaps the hypothesis of the present day, by which it endeavours to vindicate the suffering of infants, will seem scarcely less astonishing to posterity, than those ex- ploded fictions of the past appear to this generation. According to this hypothesis, the infant w r orld deserves to suffer, because the sin of Adam, their federal head and representative, is imputed to them. It is even contended that this constitution, by which the guilt or innocence of the world was suspended on the conduct of the first man, is a bright display of the divine goodness, since it was so likely to be attended with a happy issue to the human race. Likely to be attended with a happy issue ! And did not the Almighty fore- see and kTow, that if the guilt of the world were made to depend on the conduct of Adam, it would infallibly be attended with a fatal result ? We have examined, at length, the arguments of an Edwards to show that such a divine scheme and constitution of things is a display or manifestation of goodness. Those arguments are, perhaps, as ingenious and plausible as it is possible for the human intellect to invent in the defence of such a cause. When closely examined and searched to the bottom, they cer- tainly appear as puerile and weak as it is possible for the human imagination to conceive. Indeed, no coherent hypothesis can be invented on this sub- ject, so long as the mind of the inventor fails to recognise the impossibility of excluding all sin from the moral system of the universe : for if all sin, then all suffering, likewise, may be excluded ; and we can never understand why either should be permitted ; much less can we comprehend why the innocent should be allowed to suffer. But having recognised this impos- SUMMARY OF THE FOREGOING SYSTEM, 359 sibility, we have been conducted to three grounds, on which, it is believed, the sufferings of the innocent may be reconciled with the goodness of God. First, the sufferings of the innocent, in so far as they are the consequences of sin, serve to show its terrific nature, and tend to prevent its introduction into the world. If this end could have been accomplished by the divine power, such a provision would have been unnecessary, and all the misery of the world only so much " suffering in waste." Secondly, the sufferings of the innocent serve as a foil to set off and enhance the bless- edness of eternity. They are but a short and discordant prelude to an everlasting harmony. Thirdly, difficulties and trials, temptations and wants, are indispensable to the rise of moral good in the soul of the innocent ; for if there were no tempta- tion to wrong, there could be no merit in obedience, and no virtue in the world. Suffering is, then, essential to the moral discipline and improvement of mankind. On the one or the other of these grounds, it is believed that every instance in which suffering falls upon the innocent, or falls not as a pun- ishment of sin, may be vindicated and reconciled with the goodness of God. SECTION" III. The sufferings of Christ consistent with the divine goodness. The usual defences of the atonement are good, so far as they go, but not complete. The vicarious sufferings of Christ are well vindicated on the ground, that they are necessary to cause the majesty and honour of the divine law to be respected ; but this defence, though sound, has been left on an insecure founda- tion ; for it has been admitted that God, by the word of his power, might easily have caused his laws to be universally respected and obeyed. Hence, according to this admission, the sufferings of Christ might have been easily dispensed with, and were not necessary in order to maintain the honour and glory of the divine government. According to this admission, they were not necessary, and consequently not consistent with the goodness of God. Again : by distinguishing between the administrative and the retributive justice of God, and showing that the vica- 360 SUMMARY OF THE FOREGOING SYSTEM. rious sufferings of Christ were a satisfaction to the first, and not to the last, we annihilate the objections of the Socinian. By means of this view of the satisfaction rendered to the divine justice, we think we have placed the great doctrine of the atonement in a clearer and more satisfactory light than usual. We have shown that the vicarious sufferings of the INNOCENT are so far from being inconsistent with the divine justice, that they are, in fact, free from the least shadow or appearance of hardship either to him or to the world. Nay, that they are a bright manifestation of the divine goodness both to himself and to those for whom he suffered ; the brightest manifestation thereof, indeed, which the universe has ever beheld. SECTION IV. The eternity of future punishment consistent with the goodness of God. The genuine Calvinist, if he reason consecutively from some of the principles of his system, can never escape the conclusion that all men will be saved : for so long as he denies the ability of men to obey without the efficacious grace of God, and affirms that this grace is not given to such as shall finally perish, it must follow that their punishment is unjust, and that their eternal punishment were an act of cruelty and oppression greater than it is possible for the imagination of man to con- ceive. It was precisely from such premises, as we have seen, that John Foster denied the eternal duration of future punishment. His logic is good ; but even an illogical escape from such a conclusion were better than the rejection of one of the great fundamental doctrines of revealed religion. By having shown his premises to be false, we demolished the very foundation of his arguments. But, not satisfied with this, we pursued th3se arguments into all their branches and ramifications, and exposed their futility. By these means we have removed the objec- tions and solved the difficulties pertaining to this doctrine of revealed religion. In one word, we have shown that it is not inconsistent with the dictates of reason, or with the principle of the divine goodness. "We have shown that the eternal punishment of the wicked SUMMARY OF THE FOREGOING SYSTEM. 361 is deserved, and therefore demanded by the divine justice ; that they serve to promote the highest moral interests of the universe, and are consequently imposed by the divine goodness itself. We have shown, that in the administration of his eter- nal government, the infliction of an endless punishment is even more consistent with goodness than the use of temporal pun- ishment in the management of a temporal government ; for the Grst, besides being eternal in duration, is unbounded in extent. Thus reason itself, when disenchanted of its strong Calvinistic prejudices and its weak Socinian sentimentalities, utters no other voice than that which proceeds from revelation ; and this it echoes rather than utters. In plainer words, though reason does not prove or establish the eternity of future pun- ishment, it has not one syllable to say against its wisdom, its justice, or its goodness. SECTION V. The true doctrine of election and predestination consistent with the goodness of God. The Calvinists endeavour to support their scheme of elec- tion and predestination by means of analogies drawn from the unequal distribution of the divine favours, which is observable in the natural economy and government of the world. But the two cases are not parallel. According to the one, though the divine favours are unequally distributed, no man is ever required to render an account of more than he receives. Whereas, according to the other, countless millions of human beings are doomed to eternal misery for the non-observance of a law which they never had it in their power to obey. Tin's is to judge them, not according to what they receive, but according to what they receive not, and cannot obtain. It is to call them to give an account of talents never committed to their charge. The difference between the two cases is, indeed, precisely that between the conduct of a munificent prince w^ho bestows his favours unequally, but without making unreason- able demands, and the proceeding of a capricious tyrant who, while he confers the most exalted privileges and honours on one portion of his subjects, consigns all the rest, not more unde- serving than they, to hopeless and remediless destruction ; and 362 SUMMARY OF THE FOREGOING SYSTEM. that, too, for the non-performance of an impossible condition. Is it not wonderful that two cases so widely and so glaringly different, should have been so long and so obstinately con- founded by serious inquirers after truth ? The Calvinistic scheme of predestination, it is pretended, derives support from revelation. The ninth chapter of Romans which, from the time of Augustine down to the present day, has been so confide) itly appealed to in its support, has, as we have seen, no relation to the subject. It relates, not to the election of individuals to eternal life, but of a nation to the enjoyment of external privileges and advantages. This is so plain, that Dr. Macknight, though an advocate of the Calvin- istic dogma of predestination, refuses to employ that portion of Scripture in support of his doctrine. Nor does the celebrated passage of the eighth chapter of the same epistle touch the point in controversy. We might well call in question the Calvinistic interpretation of that passage, if this were necessary ; but we take it in their own sense, and show that it lends no support to their views. The Calvinists themselves being the interpreters, that passage teaches that God, according to his eternal purpose, chose or selected a cer- tain portion out of the great mass of mankind as the heirs of eternal life. Granted, then, that a certain portion of the human race were thus made the objects of a peculiar favour, and pros- pectively endowed with the greatest of all conceivable blessings. But who were thus chosen, or selected ? and on what principle was the election made ? In regard to this point, it is not pre- tended by them that the passage in question utters a single syllable. They themselves being the judges, this Scripture merely affirms that a certain portion of mankind are chosen or elected to eternal life ; while in regard to the ground, or the reason, of their election, it is most perfectly and profoundly silent. Hence it leaves us free to assume the position, that those per- sons were elected or chosen who God foresaw would, by a cooperation with his Spirit, make their calling and election sure. And being thus left free, this is precisely the position in which we choose to plant ourselves, in order to vindicate the divine glory against the awful misrepresentations of Calvin- ism : for, in the first place, this view harmonizes the passage SUMMARY OF THE FOREGOING SYSTEM. 363 in question with other portions of the divine record, and allows us, without the least feeling of self-contradiction, to embrace the sublime word, that God " will have all men to be saved ;" and that if any are not made the heirs of his great salvation, it is because his grace would have proved unavailing to Iliem. Secondly, this view not only harmonizes two classes of seem- ingly opposed texts of Scripture, but it also serves to vindicate the unbounded glory of the divine goodness. It shows that the goodness of God is not partial in its operation ; neither taking such as it leaves, nor leaving such as it takes ; but embracing all of the same class, and that class consisting of all who, by wicked works, do not place themselves beyond the possibility of being saved. Unlike Calvinism, it presents us, not with the spectacle of a mercy which might easily save all, but which, nevertheless, contenting itself with a few only, abandons the rest to the ravages of the never-dying worm. Thirdly, at the same time that it vindicates the glory of the divine mercy, it rectifies the frightful distortion of the divine justice, which is exhibited in the scheme of Calvinism. Accord- ing to this scheme, all those who are not elected to eternal life are set apart as the objects on which the Almighty intends to manifest the glory of his justice. But how is this glory, or his justice, manifested? Displayed, w r e are told, by dooming its helpless objects to eternal misery for the non-performance of an impossible condition! A display of justice this, which, to the human mind, bears every mark of the most appalling cruelty and oppression. A display of justice stamped uith the most terrifie features of its opposite / so that no human mind can see the glory of the one, for the inevitable mairfestation of the other ! No wonder that Calvinists themselves so often fly from the defence of such a display of the divine justice, and hide themselves in the unsearchable clouds and darkness of the divine wisdom. This being of course a display for eternity, and not for time, they may there await the light of another world to clear away these clouds, and reveal to them the great mystery of such a manifestation of the divine justice. But whether that light will bring to view the great mystery of the divine wisdom therein displayed, or the great secret of human folly therein concealed, we can hardly say remains to be seen. 364 SUMMARY OF THE FOREGOING SYSTEM. The view we take presents a glorious display of the divine justice for time as well as for eternity. Fourthly, this view not only shows the justice and the mercy of God, separately considered, in the most advantageous light, but it exhibits the sublime harmony which subsists between them. It presents not, like Calvinism, a mercy limited by jus- tice, and a justice limited by mercy ; but it exhibits each in its absolute perfection, and in its agreement with the other : for, according to this view, the claim of mercy extends to all who may be saved, and that of justice to those who may choose to remain incorrigibly wicked. Hence, the claim of the one does not interfere with that of the other ; nor can we conceive how either could be more gloriously displayed. We behold the infinite amplitude, as well as the ineffable, unclouded splendour of each divine perfection, without the least disturbance or col- lision between them. In the very act of punishment, the tender mercy of God, which is over all his works, concurs, and inflicts that suffering which is demanded by the good of the uni- verse. The torment of the lost, is " the wrath of the Lamb." The glory of the redeemed, is the pity of the Judge. Hence, instead of that frightful conflict which the scheme of Calvinism presents, we behold a reconciliation and agreement among the divine attributes, worthy the great principle of order, and har- mony, and beauty in the universe. SECTION VI. The question submitted. We must now take leave of the reader. We have honestly endeavoured to construct a Theodicy, or to vindicate the divine glory as manifested in the constitution and government of the moral world. We have endeavoured to reconcile the great fundamental doctrines of God and man with each other, as well as with the eternal principles of truth. It has likewise been our earnest aim, to evince the harmony of the divine attributes among themselves, as well as their agreement with the condition of the universe. In one word, we have aimed to repel the objections, and solve the difficulties which have been permitted to obscure the glory of the Divine Being ; whether those diffi- culties and objections have seemed to proceed from the false SUMMARY OF THE FOREGOING SYSTEM. 365 philosophy of his enemies, or the mistaken views and misguided zeal of his friends. How far we have succeeded in this attempt, no Vess arduous than laudable, it is not for us to determine. We shall, therefore, respectfully submit the determination of this point to the calm and impartial judgment of those who may possess both the desire and the capacity to think for themselves. NOTE. IN this work, beginning at page seventy, Dr. M'Cosh is accused of being on both sides of tne great question respecting the freedom of the will, which has been so long debated between Arminians and Calvinists. In the fourth edition of his " Divine Government " he replies, in an appendix, that " it is much easier to assert than to prove this." I have not laboured to show his self-con- tradiction I have simply exhibited his statements on both sides of the ques- tion, and left the reader to determine whether the contradiction does not show itself. Dr. M'Cosh says, "Mr. B. has made his use of some unguarded expressions used in the first edition of this work, but which had disappeared from the later British editions before the Theodicy was published ;* we do not think the statements now made are inconsistent," &c. Now does not this indirectly admit that the statements as before made by him were inconsistent? But what are these " unguarded expressions V" Only two of the expres- sions noticed by me have disappeared from the work of Dr. M. The one is the extract, on page seventy, concluding with the words of Coleridge: "It is the man that makes the motive, and not the motive the man." Now here, let it be remembered, the whole controversy is concerning the relation between motive and the will. Dr. M. says that Necessitarians have erred because they have been " afraid of making admissions to their opponents." He entertains no such fear. He boldly proceeds to adopt the pointed and well-known expression of one of the most distinguished of these opponents ; an expression relating to the very point in controversy, and, if true, decisive of the whole question. Now who could, for one moment, have imagined that in adopting such language Dr. M. was merely putting forth "an unguarded expression?" If it were not his mature and deliberate opinion, I make bold to affirm that it ought to have been so ere it was given to the world. The other position of the author, considered as an unguarded expression, will appear still more wonderful. It relates to the nature of liberty. In the first edition of his work Dr. M. adopted that notion of the freedom of the will which is maintained by President Edwards and other Calvinistic divines. It has been, indeed, called, by a distinguished Calvinist, the Calvinistic idea of moral liberty. (See page 69.) It is discussed at length in the first chapter My strictures were on the only American edition. NOTE. 3C7 of this work, and in section fourteen of my " Examination of Edwards on the Will." When I saw the same idea put forth by Dr. M'Cosh, I supposed that as he was a Calvinistic divine so he had adopted the Calviriistic idea and definition of free-will. I certainly did not imagine for an instant that such a position was merely " an unguarded expression " on his part. I should, indeed, just as aoon have supposed that his whole work, from beginning to end, was made up of "unguarded expressions." Nay, I should as soon have supposed that the same position in President Edwards, though so elaborately wrought out and explicitly laid down by him, was merely an " unguarded expression." Indeed, if we would write on these great themes at all, we should take care how we speak of moral liberty, the very thing in dispute. It will not do to speak in unguarded expressions; and if we adopt the stereotyped definition or idea of any particular school, we should not complain that it is supposed to be our real opinion. It is a little remarkable, I think, that, although it is in this work that Dr. M. is accused of self-contradiction, he notices only certain passages in the ex- amination aforesaid, and attempts no reply to my strictures upon his work. I still think he contradicts himself. Let the reader judge. " Mr. B." says he, " deals much more in the criticism of others than in the exposition of his own system." This is true, and especially in regard to his " Examination." For all that is necessary to establish " his own system" of free-will is to show that the scheme of his opponents is false. In other words, if it be shown that there is no power over the will by which its volitions are determined, then are we free. Hence, to batter down the scheme of necessity is to establish the doctrine of free-will. " In such a subject as the freedom of the will," says Dr. M., " it is easy to start objections, but not so easy to evolve a doctrine free from all difficulties." Hence, even if Mr. B. has not evolved any system of his own, it is to be hoped he has committed no very great sin. It will be time, he thinks, to evolve a system when he can find one which shall be free from contradiction. But I have, according to Dr. M., been singularly unfortunate in having landed myself in many difficulties, although I have evolved no doctrine of my own. Here is one of these many difficulties : " In order to support his theory, he is obliged to strip causation of its very peculiarities to make effect mean simply what is effected," &c. Now, if an effect does not mean what is effected, I should like to know what it does mean. Does it mean something that is not effected V If so, what becomes of Dr. M.'s great principle, that, every effect must have a cause? " See this defective view noticed," says Dr. M., " in Art. Ill, p. 523." On turning to that article we find him saying : " There is something new implied in the very conception of effect it is some- thing effected, something which did not exist before, or put in a new state ' What! is it possible, after all, that an effect w something effected? in its very conception, tomething effected? According to my scheme, says Dr. M., " there can be no guarantee, even in the power of God, against the very saints in glory falling away, or even we use tne language reluctantly in the continuance of the Divine Excellence.** 368 NOTE. This objection has been a thousand times urged against the scheme of Armin- ians. Jt is repeatedly noticed in this volume. (See Part I, chap, vii, sec. 3 ; also Part I, chap, vi, sec. 7 ; and also Part II, chap, ii, sec. 4.) The bare restatement of this objection by Dr. M., who makes no allusion to my answers does not entitle it to further notice. According to Dr. M., Mr. B. says: " We are conscious of action, and a thing which acts cannot be caused." Now here, Dr. M. has not only made his use of this unguarded expression ; he has made the unguarded expression itself. It is not mine. It can nowhere be found in my works ; for I have taken the utmost pains to guard against any and every such blundering expression of my views. It is true, and I admit, that " a thing which acts can be caused." The mind, for example, acts; and yet the mind is caused, vea, it is created by the power of the Almighty. I have never doubted that " a thing which acts can be caused." BuU/?a/ is not the question ; for that is, on all sides, conceded. " The question is," as I have said in my examination, (p. 121,) "can the mind be efficiency caused to act? Or, in other words, has an act of the will not has the mind not has tlie will itself but has an act of the will an efficient cause ? Is each act produced by a preceding act? That is the question which T have put, and put with emphasis, in order that my position might not be misunderstood. I have not only clearly, distinctly, and most emphatically put this precise ques- tion, but I have also accompanied its terms with an elaborate explanation of the precise sense in which they are used by me. But all this is overlooked, and other words are substituted in their place. All my arguments and illus- trations are passed by, and I am made to father a proposition which I have not put forth, and which I utterly repudiate and reject as false. Having done this, Dr. M. may well add, " There is an obvious mistake here, and indeed in his whole view of action and passion. Surely that which is acted on may itself have power of action." Surely, I repeat, it may. The mind, though acted on, not only may have, but it has, a power of action in itself. I know not what mistakes Dr. M. may have discovered in my " whole view of action and passion ;" but I do know that the only mistake therein which he attempts to point out is one of his own creation. He convicts me of a gross blunder, not by quoting my own expressions, but simply by invent- ing an expression for me. He should be more guarded. NOTE. Some of my quotations from Dr. M'Cosh's work will be found in the fourth edition, iu Article VII. of the Appendix. APPENDIX 24 APPENDIX. WHEN I determined to publish the foregoing "THEODICY; OB, VINDICATION OF THE DIVINE GLORY AS MANIFESTED IN THE CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE MORAL WORLD," the learned and accomplished gentleman to whom it was* submitted for examination by the publishers told me plainly that he did not believe it would be in his power to recommend them to pub- lish it, because, in his opinion, no one could write a work on a subject so high, so abstruse, and so difficult that would be read. Alter an examination of the work, however, he advised its publica- tion, and the result has justified his decision. It has passed through many editions, the first three having been issued within four months after its publication, and it has ran the gauntlet of criticism. This, as a general thing, as well as the reception of the work by the public, has been far, very far, more favourable than was anticipated by its author. The leading idea or principle of the work, in particular, has en- countered for less hostile criticism than I had imagined it would have to encounter. For this idea or principle so clearly seems, at first view, to set limits to the Divine Omnipotence, that, in spite of all my pains to guard against such a misconception, I expected it would be very extensively, if not almost universally, assailed with the charge of atheism. Nor would this, however unjust, have been anything new under the sun. An:i\agor.;s, the first among the Greek philosophers to rise to the sublime conception of a God, or a Superintending Mind, was accused of atheism, and condemned to death for the great offence. Truly has it been said by a celebrated writer, "In the persecution of Anaxagoras the e is nothing but wh; ry natural; it oc- curred at" erward in the cu- ^ crates, and it has subsequently occurred a thousand times in the history of mankind as the simple : of outraged con \ ict ions. V icked the rvl of his time: he was tried and condemned for his temerit} as is now universally acknowledged, his sublime vu God and the order of the universe were infinitely more worthy 370 APPENDIX. of a rational being than were the religious notions for attacking which he was tried as an atheist and condemned to death. In like manner, though Cudworth, " at his fir.st essay, penetrated the very darkest recesses of antiquity, to strip atheism of all its dis- guises, and drag up the lurking monster to conviction," yet, however wonderful it may seem, was he accused of atheism it-self. " Though few readers could follow him," says his biographer, " the very slowest were able to unravel his secret purpose to tell the world that he was an atheist in his heart. . . . The silly calumny was believed; the much injured author grew disgusted ; his ardour slackened ; and the rust and far greatest part of his immortal work never appeared." If, then, so many illustrious men, both in the ancient and in the modern world, incurred the charge of atheism simply by their enlightened zeal in the cause of God, how could the obscure author of the work in question hope to escape a similar accusation ? Indeed, the more firmly he was convinced of the cor- rectness of his views, and of their importance to the glory of God, the more confidently he anticipated they would be pronounced atheistical by those whose theological convictions differed from his own. However, although he counted the cost, he has been de- lighted to find it much less than he anticipated. The principal reason of this, perhaps, is the fact that the work was published by a well-known and orthodox religious house, arid that it received, from the very first, the sanction of so many orthodox religious periodicals. " The Methodist Quarterly Review," in its notice of the book, did not hesitate to pronounce it " the best work on the Divine Government ever written ; " and identically the same opin- ion, or at least one equally strong, was expressed by "The Meth- odist Quarterly, South." In various quarters, also, the secular press, as well as periodicals of different religious denominations, both in this country and in Great Britain, have given criticisms on the work in the highest degree gratifying to the author. Nay, authors who are themselves celebrated, both in Europe and America, have expressed opinions of the work which corroborate the most favourable criticisms of the press. For all these favour- able opinions I am most profoundly grateful. There have been, how- ever, a few adverse criticisms, whose tone and temper are more or less violent. Now 1 do not, for one moment, entertain the shadow of a complaint against the authors of any of these adverse criti- cisms or attacks. On the contrary, I thank them from my heart for the opportunity which they have thus afforded me of replying to the objections against my views of God and his all-glorious APPENDIX. 871 universe. Having barely alluded to a few of the favourable criti- cisms, as an offset to those of an opposite character, I shall now proceed to examine in detail the objections of those who have been pleased to favour me with their adverse criticisms. Nothing couM be more natural, or more inevitable, than such objections. Indeed, the author had to combat them in his own mind loner before he met with them from others. When the lead- ? ing idea of his "Theodicy" first dawned on his own mind he was afraid to entertain it himself, lest the taint of some terrible heresy should enter into his soul ; and it was only after long and painful reflection, and a careful examination of all its consequences, that he ventured to embrace that leading idea or principle. After much additional meditation, however, he saw so clearly, as it seemed to him, the transcendent truth of that principle, and the glory of its consequences, that Pie resolved to launch it on the angry sea of theological controversy. Of course, it was destined to encounter opposition in the minds of others as it had done in his own mind; and he was not so weak as to imagine for a moment that others would bestow on their objections the calm, cautious, and impartial consideration which the infinite importance of the subject de- manded. Hence in this paper he proposes to do for these critics what they failed to do for themselves, by showing how their hasty objections melt down and disappear beneath the power of patient reflection. The London "AthensBum" lays great stress on the charge of presumption. It seems to this journal in the highest degree ab- surd that any one at the present day should presume to offer a solution of " the old problem" of evil, at which so many centuries have toiled in vain. Now this objection, it must be admitted, carries great force along with it, and even makes out 9, prima facie case against the author. It must be admitted, on the other hand, that this objection may be just as easily urged by a simpleton as by a sage, by a fool as by a philosopher. Indeed, it may, per- haps, be far more easily urged by the former than by the latter, especially as it disposes of the whole matter without the least ex- ercise of thought or reflection. It enables the facile critic, too, to pass over without notice all that had been said in anticipation of this very charge. The facetious writer in the " AthenaBum," makes himself merry over ' the Professor of Mathematics in the University of Virginia," who has been so absurd as to undertake " the old problem of the moral quadrature of the circle." Now the fact is that the Pro- 372 APPENDIX. fessor of Mathematics in question has never been so weak as to attempt the mathematical quadrature of the circle, much less its moral quadrature. If this very pleasant critic had only read the introduction to the work he assails, he would have seen that in reality its author had not undertaken to solve any problem what- ever ; for, as he there informs the reader, " he did not enter on the apparently dark problem of the moral world with the least hope that he should be able to throw any light upon it, nor with any other set purpose or design. Pie simply revolved the subject in mind, because he was by nature prone to such meditations." (P. 25.) Now, if, in his studies of Plato, and King, and Leibnitz, and Cudworth, it was presumption in him to think of what he was reading, or " simply to revolve in mind" the awful subject of their immortal works, then was the author of "A Theodicy" guilty of presumption. Or if, while revolving this subject in mind, it was presumption to notice the truths which, as he believed, had ap- peared to him, and even to write them down in a book and submit them to the judgment of others, then was the author in question guilty of presumption. But then how has any branch of human knowledge ever been delivered from its obscurities, or had its boundaries enlarged and lighted up, except by precisely that sort of presumption ? Anaxagoras, who, looking above and beyond the religious notions of his day, rose to the sublime conception of the supreme vovg, by whom the universe was "ordered and adorned," was guilty of precisely that sort of presumption, and paid the fearful penalty of his crime. But has not the world owed more to his presumption than to the extreme modesty of all his persecutors ? u It is not I," said he, " who have lost the Athenians ; it is the Athenians who have lost me." But, in point of fact, the Athenians did not lose him, for Socrates rose out of his ashes. The torch kindled by him was seized by his successors, and in the hand of a Socrates, a Plato, and an Aristotle, made to illuminate the civilized world. Who, then, cares about the charge of presumption? The only question is whether the author of "A Theodicy " has given a true, or a false, solution of the stupendous problem of the moral world. If it be false, it is no very great dis- grace to fail in company with a Plato or a Leibnitz; and if it be true, he has still less reason to blush under the rebuke of those who, without once looking into his solution, have the ability to raise the cry of presumption. His solution was submitted, not to the critics of this class, but to those who possess " both the desire and the capacity to think for themselves," (p. 365 ;) and, having received APPENDIX. 873 from so many eminent judges of this description a verdict in his favour, he now leaves the charge of presumption to take care of itself. He abandons it to the tender mercies of the facile and face- tious critic of the London " Athenaeum." This critic, in making himself and his readers merry over "the Professor of Mathematics," calls to his aid, as a matter of course, the devils of Milton. Having quoted, just as if it were something new, the hackneyed passage from u Paradise Lost," the critic continues: "In this Milton showed himself more knowing than Michael Scott, who could think of nothing better than setting his friends to make ropes out of sea sand. But a clever devil would turn all the shores upon earth into cordage long before a clever man, though a Professor of Mathematics into the bargain, would make the slightest progress in settling free will." I agree with the witty critic that Michael Scott might have found far more suitable work for his small friends. If he had only introduced them among philosophers, cracking their stale jokes and sorry gibes at the grave discussions of the greatest question that ever engaged the attention of men or of angels, he would have assigned to them an employment far more suitable to their real character than the innocent occupation of merely making ropes of sand. As it is, this hopeless task of making ropes out of sea sand is a very harmless work for devils, and reminds one, to say the worst of it, of our critic's attempt to manufacture chains of reasoning out of the fleeting fancies of his facetious brain. Now, to tell the plain truth, " the Professor of Mathematics " would infinitely rather argue the great question of "Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute," with the great demons of Milton than with the small critic of the London " AthenaBum." He might have, it is true, just as little hope of converting them to the truth ; but then he would have, at least, an attentive and respectful hearing. For, if any one will consult the passage in question, he will find that the demons referred to by our critic are a most respectable race of great poets and philosophers. They are not of those malignant fiends whose " Vast Typhsean rage more fell Rend up both rocks and hills, and ride the air In whirlwind." On the contrary, they are the " others more mild " who " Retired in a silent valle}', sing With notes angelical, to many a harp, Their own heroic deeds, and hapless fall. Free virtue should enthral to force or chance." 374 APPENDIX. They sing the false song of fate, it is true, but then how divinely do they sing ! In the words of the poet : "Their song was partial; but the harmony (What could it less when spirits immortal sing?) Suspended hell, and took with ravishment The thronging audience." Now who, on such awful themes, would not rather listen to the sublime song of such demons than the small wit of our critic ? The poet thus describes his great philosophers : " In discourse more sweet, (For eloquence the soul, song charms the sense,) Others apart sat. on a hill retired, In thoughts more elevate, and reasoned high Of providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate." The poet truly adds, "Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy;" for these philosophers of the pit were all fatalists. As their char- acters were invariably bad, so they naturally laid their sins on " fate," on " God's decree," and not upon themselves. No wonder, then, that they "found no end in wandering mazes lost;" for, be- ing fast bound in the everlasting coils of error as well as of sin, there was no egress for them into the light and joy of the upper world. But yet, though wandering forever amid the endless mazes of error, sin, and death, their " discourse more sweet " charms " the soul," as the sublime song of the poet " charms the sense." These give us the song, and those the logic, of fate or necessity. Who, then, would not rather listen to the "reasonings high" of su^ch demons, than to the flashy rhetoric of the London "Athenaeum?" We doubt, however, if these demons reasoned much better in favour of necessity than did Spinoza, or Leibnitz, or Edwards, to say nothing of the London "Athenaeum" "Necessity rides logic," says that journal, "and free will rides consciousness ; and consciousness is first and logic nowhere." Now this seems to be one of those smart imitations of Macaulay which occur so frequently in the pages of the "Athenaeum," and which sound more like the crackling of thorns under a pot than the gra\e discourse of philosophers. Necessity does ride logic, it is true; but then, as we have just seen, it rides the logic of devils. Now, it was one great leading object of the author of " A Theodicy" to break the fetters of that false logic, and scatter its fragments to the winds, in order that mortals may no longer ride with devils, or with doctors of divinity "in endless mazes lost." Consciousness is truly first, but logic is, nevertheless, somewhere APPENDIX. 375 and is something. The logic of onr critic may, if he pleases, be nowhere ; and, in my humble opinion, is little better than nothing. But there is a true logic, as well as a false ; a logic which, instead of warring against the light of consciousness, shines all through that transcendent light, and redoubles its effulgence in favor of free-will. For, as there is a logic of hell and of devils, so is there a logic of heaven and of its blessed angels, whose sublime song of freedom and whose still " sweet discourse " of reason infinitely transcend the song of fate and all " reasonings high " of the bot- tomless pit. The echoes of this song, of this divine harmony, are everywhere heard in the great poem of Milton, except among his demons, and its principles are expounded in the preceding work. Let the reader examine and decide for himself. Now, who would have believed it possible that, directly in the face of all our critic has so pleasantly said against the possibility of ever settling the question of free-will, he sets up a method of his own for the settlement of this very question? "There are," says he, " two ways of settling the question, which deserve very differ- ent degrees of attention." Then, after dispatching one of these ways, he proceeds to give the second, which is approved and adopted by himself. "The other explanation," says he, "sins grievously against theology as usually understood. It supposes complete fore-ordinance, but looks forward to a final state in which what appeared evil shall be seen to be on the whole nothing but good, and in which the condition of created beings shall be one of mixed enjoyment and utility. St. Paul is strongly suspected of having held this opinion. . . . The Privy Council having de- cided that a clergyman may hope for such a final restoration without losing his livelihood, it may now be lawful for the gre- garious laity to contemplate as possible what those who dare think for themselves have regarded as the easiest and most probable solution of the difficulty." Such is our critic's short and easy method for solving the absolutely insoluble problem of evil ! Such is his Amoral quadrature of the circle!" Let us look, then, at this wondeiful solution of the wonderful problem, and mark its characteristics. (1.) It is an easy solution. It is unspeakably more easy than the one set forth in " A Theodicy." It took twenty years for the elaboration of this; and that could not have cost its author more than twenty minutes. (2.) It possesses the very great merit of sinning "grievously against theology, as usually understood." Hence, those who hap- 376 APPENDIX. pen to entertain a profound contempt for all orthodox systems of theology, whether Catholic or Protestant, will find this an exceed- ingly easy solution. The simple fact that it sins so egregiously against theology will give it a powerful attraction, if not an irre- sistible charm, to their highly illuminated minds. On the con- trary, those who may happen to retain some little respect for the opinions of the wise and good of all ages will find some little dif- ficulty in the adoption of such a solution of the stupendous prob- lem of evil. They will think twice before they jump to such a conclusion. (3.) This solution is wonderfully adapted to the genius of the present age. In this age, in which all reverence seems to be well nigh lost out of the world, and few things, except egotism and self- conceit, seem to take deep root, the above solution may hope to find many adherents. The opinions of its flippant critics will, no doubt, flow into such a solution, even as the air rushes into a vacuum. (4.) No conscience is required for the adoption of such a solu- tion. Indeed, the less conscience a man has the more easily may he embrace the above solution. Hence, if a clergyman may hold this theory without losing his livelihood, of course the gregarious laity may embrace it without the least danger to their souls. The Privy Council will, of course, throw wide the gates of Para- dise . to all the gregarious bipeds by whom it may be adopted. All, then, who "dare think for themselves" will embrace this solution as " the easiest and most probable," and also as tl the safest " ever vouchsafed to the world. (6.) The above solution saves a great deal of trouble. Solving, as it does, " the old problem " by a single dash of the pen, it spares the sad votaries of truth the old means of thinking and reading and painful meditation in order to comprehend the system of the universe. They can, with the aid of this solution, not only see through the system of the world at a glance, but they can also tell you all about "A Theodicy" without once looking into its pages. Such are a few of the unspeakable advantages which the above solution possesses over all others that have ever been conceived or invented by the ingenuity and wit of man. " Dr. Bledsoe," says our facile critic, " is strong in the opinions of others. He has read much, and gives the minds of many." "Strong in the opinions of others !" No criticism could possibly be further from the truth. " He has given the minds of many," it is true, but the opinions so freely and so fully quoted by him APPENDIX. 377 are opposite to his own views, and are, consequently, combattod by him. Indeed, in the investigation of any great subject it has always been the habit of his mind to read and examine almost exclusively the great works of those most opposed to his own views, and to see that they are fairly and fully represented in his reply to them by the quotation of their own language. This fact is obvious to all who have read his works. How any one, then, can assert in the face of this fact that he is " strong in the opin- ions of others " is more than he can conceive, at least on the sup- position that the critic has read the work he criticises. Can a man be said to be strong in the opinions which he opposes or combats ? If so, then is Dr. Bledsoe strong in the opinions so freely and so fully quoted in his " Theodicy," but not otherwise. Before proceeding to lay his own foundation he aimed to clear the ground of all rubbish and loose material, and hence the appearance of the numerous quotations in his " Theodicy." Our facetious critic, evidently not having read the work, sup- poses that they are brought forward to bolster up the opinion of its author ! The complaint of our critic that he cannot distinguish between what is Dr. Bledsoe's and what belongs to others is an equally unjust criticism. Or, if he cannot distinguish between these two things, it is because he has not read the book or made the effort. The leading idea of his " Theodicy " is Dr. Bledsoe's, and also the consequences to which it leads, as well as the manner in which other principles are coordinated with that leading idea. Now all this is so distinctly claimed in the " Theodicy," is so clearly set forth, and so conclusively established, that " he who runs may read." Why, then, did the critic complain of such a defect in Dr. Bledsoe's work ? Simply because, as the critic says, this " is a frequent fault," and because the imputation of it to Dr. Bledsoe would afford the critic a fine opportunity to get off one of his brilliant coruscations of wit. " We are vexed with a writer," says he, "who loses himself in descriptions of others. We are inclined to imitate Front-de-Bceuf. When the poor priest is explaining what has happened to his abbot, and becomes discursive with, * What saith St. Augustine?' the impatient baron breaks in with, 'What saith the devil?' or, rather, what dost thou say, sir priest?'" Having got off this fine coruscation, the critic then tells exactly what Dr. Bledsoe does say, and proceeds to blow him out of the water. He quotes the leading idea or principle of his " Theodicy," 378 APPENDIX. and then with his usual ease shows that it is merely "the silly- perversion of a logical phrase." Alas for the vanity of all human hopes ! Dr. Bledsoe laboured for twenty long years, and yet, after all, he brought forth only " the silly perversion of a logical phrase ! " Our critic finds this silly perversion of a logical phrase in the proposition that " a necessary holiness is a contradiction in terms." Now this proposition, as understood by our critic, is, it must be conceded, " the silly perversion " of a great truth. But the reader is invited to consider this great truth, not as it is seen in its silly perversion, but as it is spread out, explained, and illu- minated in the pages of " A Theodicy." The great truth, then, that a " necessitated holiness is a contra- diction in terms," is "the precise point from which we should contemplate the world if we would behold the power and good- ness of God therein manifested. This is the secret of the world by which the dark enigma of evil is solved" (" Theodicy," p. 200.) But no one can see from this bare statement (much less from the silly perversion, of our critic) how the great truth is made to solve the enigma of evil, and light up all things, from the highest heavens to the lowest hell, with the boundless glory of God's infinite wis- dom, power, and goodness. If the reader would see this, or com- prehend the full import and illuminating power of the great truth in question, let him take his stand on that truth itself, as it is ex- plained, illustrated, carried out, and guarded on all sides against perversions, and then contemplate the wonderful order, harmony, and beauty of the universe. " Necessary holiness," says our critic, " is not a contradiction in terms ; the terms do not contradict each other. ' Necessary ' is said of that which must have been, * holiness ' of that which is free from sin." Now precisely here is the gross blunder, the silly per- version, of the careless critic. " Holiness is said of that which is free from sin !" Why, the stars of heaven and the stones of earth, the winds of the air and the waves of the sea, are all " free from sin," yet who ever predicated holiness, or virtue, or moral good- ness, of such things ? Their motions too are necessary, but they are not holy, nor virtuous, nor morally good. Though " a neces- sary holiness is a contradiction in terms," yet this cnn be seen only by those who understand the meaning of the terms, and not by those who lose themselves in " silly perversions " of that meaning. Our critic at last, we are glad to perceive, approaches something like a solid argument. " The holiness of God," he urges, a is said APPENDIX. 379 to be necessary." Now, in one sense of the words this is true. The holiness of God is necessary just because he is raised above all temptation to evil, and because there is no greater power in the universe than himself by which his omnipotent will could be turned from its self-appointed course. The idea would, however, be much better expressed by the term certainty than by the word necessity. His holiness is not necessitated. If, indeed, there were any power greater than his own by which his will was determined or necessitated then he would not be free ; he would not be holy ; nay, he would not be God. On the contrary, the power greatei than himself by which his will was coerced or necessitated would be the real, the ruling God of the universe. But there is "no God but the Lord." He alone is absolutely free, and his holiness is absolutely certain. Moving always freely, as it does, in directions prescribed by his infinite wisdom and goodness, his will is holy, just, and good, but it is not necessitated as the human mind is said to be necessitated by the advocates of the scheme of necessity. If it were not free, it could not be holy; and if it did not move in Obedience to the dictates of his infinite wisdom, justice, and mercy, it would not be the will of God. It would, on the contrary, be an unholy thing. In like manner, the assertion that the holiness of man, or of angels, is necessitated, is "a contradiction in terms. It is one of those absurd and impossible conceits, which has no existence in the universe of God, except in the blind logic or the darkened imagination of the necessitarian. Moral goodness, or virtue, or holiness, consists not in the possession of moral powers, but in the free, proper, and obedient exercise of those powers. If infinite wisdom and goodness and power should muster all the means and appliances in the universe, and cause them to bear with united energy on a single mind, the effect produced, however grand and beautiful, would not be the virtue of the agent in whom it is pro- duced. Nothing can be his virtue which is produced by an ex- traneous agency, [any more than any thing could be the holiness of God if it were produced in him by fate, or by any cause ab extra .] This is a dictate of the universal reason and consciousness of mankind. It needs no metaphysical refinement for its support, and no scholastic jargon for its illustration. On this broad prin- ciple, then, which is so clearly deduced, not from the confined darkness of the schools, but from the open light of nature, we in- tend to take our stand in opposition to the embattled ranks of atheism." Now, the appeal is submitted to the reader, if this be 380 APPENDIX. merely " the silly perversion of a logical phrase," or simply the utterance of a great and undeniable truth ? In addition to the charge of presumption, the "Athenaeum" ac- cuses "the Professor of Mathematics" of having set limits to the power of God. Now, this objection was anticipated, and is dis- tinctly answered in the foregoing work, ("Theodicy," Part I, chap, vii, section 11,) an answer upon which, however, our critic has not been pleased to bestow even a passing notice. He found it very easy to repeat the objection ; he would have found it more difficult, perhaps, to refute the answer. Indeed, he seems to have taken but little more pains to understand the work he criticises, and in fact he does understand it but little more than if he were merely a magpie or a parrot. As he has not condescended to notice my reply to the objection which he has merely echoed, so I shall bestow no further attention upon his echo. Though my " Theodicy " sprang, as I was most profoundly con- scious, from a burning and almost consuming zeal for the glory of God, yet was I perfectly aware that the charge of irreligion and atheism would be hurled at the author. I was perfectly aware that this accusation would proceed from two sources, namely, from those whose theological convictions this work might disturb, and from those whose feeble brains might be tortured to follow its severe analysis and close chains of reasoning. I have not been disappointed. For, amid the tierce roar of the artillery of the first class of opponents, I have also heard, in their wildest fury, the pop-guns of the second class of antagonists. Having considered, at too great length already, the principal pop-gun, I now pro- ceed to examine the enemy's artillery. Some fifteen or sixteen years ago it was that a writer in the "Methodist Quarterly Review, South," delivered his broadside against my "Theodicy;" with what effect it will soon be in the power of the reader to judge for himself. It is my intention, first to return his fire, to silence his battery, and then to spike his guns. Indeed, if I had been at all disturbed by his broadside I should have made the attempt long ago, and that, too, of my own motion, without waiting to be solicited to prepare this reply. The distinguished theologian (now a bishop) by whom the "Review" was then edited had, with nearly every eminent man of his de- nomination, most warmly, not to say most enthusiastically, recom- mended the work in question ; and yet he very properly admitted the said article into the pages of his periodical. It was, indeed, but fair and just that the dissentient few should have a hearing APPENDIX. 881 in the very " Review " which had so warmly recommended a work that had proved so obnoxious to them. Long has it been since the author of that work heard the shout of their victory, and even since he had forgotten its dying echoes. It has indeed seemed an age an awful age ; for, in the meantime, the thunder and the shouts of the mo>t awful revolution the world has ever seen have been heard and passed away. The grave charge which the writer of the article in question brings against the author of the " Theodicy," is that he denies the omnipotence of God, and takes ground with the Atheist. The specification under this charge is that the culprit has been so bold as to assert that " God cannot work contradictions." The reviewer is greatly offended that " Dr. Bledsoe should have thus denied the omnipotence of God, and impaled himself on one of the horns of the atheistic dilemma." " It is certainly very bold and rash," says he, "in our author ... to assert that Omnipotence cannot do this or that, it matters not what it may be," and he indignantly demands, " When and where did he learn so fully to comprehend Omnipotence as to make such confident assertions ? " Thus, in the estimation of the reviewer, it is the great heresy of the work in question, and the crying sin of its author, that it actually asserts that " God cannot work contradictions." When and where did he learn to make " such confident assertions ? " such bold, rash, impious, atheistical assertions ? He answers, When he was a very young man, and merely a student of the first lessons of theology. He learned to make this assertion then, and he learned it everywhere ; or, in other words, from all the great teachers of all the orthodox denominations of the Christian world. He told his reviewer that the assertion in question " is universally acknowledged," ("Theodicy," p. 193;) but he found it impossible to put him on his guard. So heated was our critic, indeed, by his burning zeal for the glory of God, and his blind zeal against Atheism, that he could not be restrained from pouring ridicule and contempt on one of the most universally received and most firmly established truisms in the whole range of theological literature. Nay, he not only rejects with impatient and imperial scorn this "universally acknowledged" truism, but he actually treats it as a dangerous novelty, as a first principle and postulate of Atheism, which the author of " A Theodicy " has had the audacity to assert in the face and to the astonishment of the Christian world ! He certainly refutes one assertion, at least, of "A Theodicy;" the assertion, namely, that the truism in 382 APPENDIX. question " will be readily admitted " by every one, (p. 193.) By his passionate denial of this truism he has unfortunately dashed his brains against a rock, and great is the pity, for if he had not done so he might have had some use for them in combatting the less certain principles of " A Theodicy." The heaviest piece of artillery, indeed, can make no more impression on such a rock than the very feeblest of pop-guns. If our reviewer had only recog- nised the assertion in question as a universally accepted truism in theology, and undertaken to refute all the great Christian divines by whom it is accepted, then we might have admired his boldness ; but since, in the plenitude of his power, he has been pleased to treat this very innocent truism as an impious novelty, we cannot but admire his zeal more than his knowledge. Having sufficiently met the reviewer's assertions, it is now high time to proceed with the proof. I begin with the great teachers and divines of the reviewer's own denomination. Watson, in his " Institutes," says : " Where things in themselves imply a contradiction, as that a body may be extended and not extended at the same time, such things, I say, cannot be done by God, because contradictions are impossible in their own nature ; nor is it any derogation from the divine power to say that they cannot be done." 1 " 1 I have, in fact, been more care- ful than Watson to shun, even in appearance, any the least limita- tion of the Divine Omnipotence; for he says that such, things do form " one limitation " of the divine power, whereas I have re- peatedly declared in my "Theodicy" that they constitute no limitation whatever of his power. Thus on page 193 it is said, " It is no limitation of the Divine Omnipotence to say that it can- not work contradictions. There will be little difficulty in estab- lishing this point. Indeed it will be readily conceded / and if we offer a few remarks upon it, it is only that we may leave nothing dark or obscure behind us, even to those whose minds are not ac- customed to such speculations" Then follow the remarks which are intended to show, even to the novice in theology, that the as- sertion in question does not limit the power of God. Since this assertion, however, thus universally received, has been denied by a learned theologian, it may be well to repeat in this place the remarks in question. They are as follows : u As contra- dictions are impossible in themselves, so to say that God could perform them would not be to magnify his power, but only to ex- pose our own absurdity. When we affirm that Omnipotence can- not cause a thing to be and not to be at one and the same time, APPENDIX, 383 or cannot make two nnd two equal to five, we do not set limits to it ; we simply declare that such things are not the objects of power. A circle cannot be made to possess the properties of a square, nor a square the properties of a circle. Infinite power cannot confer the properties of the one of these figures upon the other ; not because it is less than infinite power, but because il is not within the nature or province or dominion of power to perform such things, to embody such inherent and immutable absurdities in an actual existence. In regard to the doing of such things, or rather of such absurd and inconceivable nothings^ Om- nipotence itself possesses no advantage over weakness. Power, from its very nature and essence, is confined to the accomplish- ment of such things as are possible, or imply no contradiction. Hence it is beyond the reach of almighty power itself to break up and confound the immutable foundations of reason and truth. God possesses no such miserable power, no such horribly distorted attribute, no such inconceivably monstrous imperfection and de- formity of nature, as would enable him to embody absurdities and contradictions in an actual existence. It is one of the chief excel- lences and glories of the divine nature that its infinite power works within a sphere of light and love without the least tendency to break over the sacred bounds of eternal truth into the outer darkness of chaotic night." Again, Bishop Burnet, in his " Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles," (pp. 31, 32,) says : "A power of creating must be infinite, since nothing can resist it. If some things are in their own nature impossible, that does not arise from a want of power in God, which extends to every thing that is possible ; but that which is supposed to be impossible of its own nature cannot actually be, otherwise a thing might both b and not be at the same time ; and it is perceptible to every man that this is' impossible," except to the writer in the "Methodist Quarterly Review, South." In the " Princeton Theological Essays" it is said that " God is not hon- oured by attributing to him absurdities and contradictions. Om- nipotence c:m perform whatever is an object of power, but to cause the same thing to be and not to be at the same time is not a pos- sible or conceivable thing." Would our critic, then, seek to honour the great and Almighty God, who built and beautified the uni- verse, by imputing to him the ability to make two and two equal to five, or to make a yardstick or measure with only one end to it ? Would he insist that he can make a circle exactly like a square, or a square exactly like a circle, without changing the 25 384 APPENDIX. form of the figure ? If so, then all that can be said is that, in- stead of magnifying the power of God, he would only display his own weakness. In the " Theological Lectures " of Dr. John Dick, one of the staunchest advocates of the absolute sovereignty of the divine omnipotence that ever lived, it is said, " God cannot work contra- dictions, as make a thing to be and not to be at the same time, to make a part greater than the whole ; to make what is past pres- ent, or what is present future." (Lecture XXIII.) In like manner the immortal Cudworth says : " That which implies a contradic- tion is a nonentity, and therefore cannot be an object of the divine power. . . . Neither is it any derogation at all from the power of God to say that he cannot make a thing to be that which it is not." ( k< Immutable Morality," chap. III.) If it were necessary, ex- tracts to precisely the same effect from all the great teachers of the Christian world might be indefinitely multiplied ; but surely those already adduced are amply sufficient. In reply to the question then, u Where has the author of the 'Theodicy' learned his confident assertion?" he may truly say, Everywhere ! From all the great divines of all orthodox denom- inations ! If he had not learned to make this assertion, indeed, the first gleam of light respecting the order, harmony, anrl beauty of the universe had never visited his poor benighted mind. It is, in fact, the very first letter in the alphabet of those who, pro- foundly conscious of the darkness, the littleness, and the misery of their own minds, would fain spell out the infinite glory of the Divine Mind, as manifested in the constitution and government of the moral world. If our reviewer will not learn this letter it is not because we have not taken the utmost pains and shown the utmost patience in our feeble efforts to impress it upon his mind. He repays our deep solicitude with supercilious scorn and con- tempt. He even makes himself merry at our supposed ignorance and imbecility, and fairly exults that, after reading the great work of Leibnitz, we should straightway go, in spite of his instructions, and hang ourselves on one of the horns of the atheistic dilemma." " What a melancholy suicide," he exclaims, " and for what small cause ! " Poor man ! how sadly his pious soul must have been grieved to see me in such a plight ! for he had never before seen any one, save a vile Atheist, in so pitiable a condition. If he had only seen a Watson, a Burnet, an Alexander, a Dick, and a Cud- worth impaled on precisely the same horn of the same dilemmn,, he might perhaps have borne the spectacle with more composure. APPENDIX. 385 " Leibnitz's showing of this fallacy," says he, "mined the Athe- istic argument, and rendered it quite unnecessary for our author to trouble himself about it. He read the reply of Leibnitz, did appreciate its force, considered it unsatisfactory, and straightway went and hung [hanged ?] himself on the very "horn of the di- lemma" which Leibnitz had so effectually broken. Now if Leib- nitz had so completely " ruined the Atheist argument," and vindi- cated the cause of God, how has it happened that no one ever made the discovery except the reviewer now under consideration ? The usual p'ea has been that we should cease to trouble ourselves with the argument of the Atheist, not because Leibnitz had de- molished it, but because he had exerted his wonderful powers to do so and failed. If, contrary to the opinion of the learned world, Leibnitz has rendered every subsequent attempt to refute the Atheist and reconcile the existence of evil with the glory of God a sheer work of supererogation, is it not incumbent on our re- viewer to show how this has been done by Leibnitz, in order that the rest of mankind may see the sublime truth as well as himself? We insist that he should reveal his grand discovery to the world, and lay mankind under an everlasting obligation to him for so consoling a revelation. But before he undertakes to expound the " Essais de Theodicie," and show how Leibnitz has therein forever "ruined the Atheist argument" and vindicated the glory of God, would it not be well for him to read that great work ? If he will only read that work he will find that Leilmitz, so far from having disputed or denied the assertion or truism in ques- tion, has affirmed it as distinctly and as confidently as any Chris- tian theist whatever, for in that very work Leibnitz asserts, " God can create matter, a man, a circle, or leave them in nothingness, (dans le ne'ant,) bat he cannot produce them without giving them their essential properties" (Essais de Theodicie, Partie ii, 183.) Tims, instead of denying the proposition, or having broken it as " one of the horns of the atheistic dilemma," Leibnitz affirms it as a clear and unquestionable truth. If, then, our author had only read the work about which he talks so learnedly, he would have found that Leibnitz held the very doctrine which he is boldly asserted to have completely demolished. If we may believe our reviewer, in vain did Leibnitz demolish this " horn of the atheistic dilemma ;" for " our author," after reading his work, " was not Fatisfied with his reply," and straightway went and hanged him- self on that very horn. Alas ! how desperately must " our author " have been bent on suicide ! Yet, after all, the simple truth is that 38fi APPENDIX. the proposition or truism under consideration is no horn of any atheistical dilemma that ever had an existence save in the imagin- ation of the reviewer, and that Leibnitz, instead of having at- tempted to refute the proposition, distinctly affirms it as his own. Nor is this all. For if our reviewer had only read the " Ess*ais de Theodicie," he would have learned from Leibnitz himself that the truism which is so obnoxious to him "is the doctrine of an infinity of grave authors." (Partie ii, 183.) It is the doctrine not only of a Watson, a Burnet, an Alexander, a Dick, and a Cud worth, but, according to Leibnitz, " of an infinity of grave authors." The reviewer under consideration says : " Our author lacks, we think, the reverence and modesty of a profound and devout phi- losopher. ' A circle cannot be made to possess the properties of a square, nor a square the properties of a circle. Infinite power cannot confer the properties of one of these figures upon the other, not because it is less than infinite power, but because it is not in the nature or province or dominion of power to perform such things, to embody such inherent and immutable absurdities in an actual existence.' What an air of competency to judge and decide where an arch angel might tremble to be pryingly curious ! " Now all this may be very fine, and the writer by whom it is so eloquently uttered may be a very profound and a very devout philosopher, but still we prefer the company of " an infinity of grave authors" to that of the reviewer before us. Is it necessary, indeed, that a philosopher, in order to be esteemed profound, should be so very modest as to believe that two and two may be equal to five, or that a circle may possess the properties of a square ? If so, then " our author," .it must be confessed, lacks the modesty of a profound philosopher. He is still, it cannot be de- nied, in the conceited shallows of philosophy, and devoutly hopes he may never get so very far into its modest depths as to lose the little common sense with which nature may have endowed him. The philosopher, indeed, who does not know that two and two may not be equal to five should truly be very modest ; but then it would hardly follow that his modesty would be conclusive proof of the profundity of his wisdom and knowledge. As for the other attri- bute of the great philosopher, lie must, it seems to us, possess a " reverence " for absurdity rather than for truth who should be. lieve that two and two may be equal to five, or that a circle may possess the properties of a square. It is true, no doubt, as our reviewer intimates, that frequently " fools rush in where angels fear to tread ;' r but still it can hardly be supposed that an angel, APPENDIX. 387 and much less u an archangel," would tremble at the enunciation of the awful proposition that two and two are necessarily equal to four. Angels may sometimes be, for aught we know, very calm and composed when poor weak mortals tremble. If the piety of deep philosophy consists in denouncing as atheism the simple truisms of " an infinity of grave authors," as well as of Christian theists, then is it to be seriously feared that the devout philoso- pher is mad. In one word, if our critic " possesses the reverence and modesty of a profound and devout philosopher," we are glad that we lack them. He is perfectly welcome to a monopoly of all such admirable qualities. To prove that God can work contradictions if he chooses to do so, the reviewer asks " our author " if he does not know that "men not unfrequently perpetrate contradictions?" Our author does know this, and if he had never known it before, he would have been convinced of the fact by the article before him. He agrees, for once at least, with his learned reviewer, that even " the human mind is capable of contradictions, and sometimes performs them ;" a truth which the article under consideration has most abundantly established both by precept and example. But, then, he has always entertained the suspicion that it was not the power but the weakness of the human mind which gives it such a facility in the " perpetration of contradictions." It would be no very great honour, one would suppose, to attribute to the omnipotence of God that which solely and exclusively results from the weak- ness and blindness of man. Is it not barely possible, indeed, that the weakness which the critic sees in the positions of his author, or ented, and let us hear the con- tending parties before we proceed to decide between them." President Edwards is first heard. " You are in error," says the necessitarian [President Edwards] to his opponents, " in denying that motive and in affirming that APPENDIX. 397 mind is the efficient cause of volition. For if an act of the mind, or a volition, is caused by the mind, [in this sense,] it must be produced by another preceding act of the mind, and this act must be produced by another preceding act of the mind, and so on ad mfinitam, which reduces the matter to a plain impossibility.'* Now, this reasoning of President Edwards is admitted, both in my work on the will and in my ' Theodicy," to show most conclusively that mind is not the efficient cause of volition. The advocate of free-agency is next heard. " The necessitarian," says he, " contends that volition, or an act of the mind, is the effect of motive, and that it is subject to the power and action of its cause" Edwards' 1 Inquiry, p. 178. The advocate of free-will replies, " If we must suppose an action of motive on the mind to account for its act, we must likewise suppose another action to account for the action of motive, and so on ad infinitum. Thus the necessitarian seems to be fairly caught in his own toils, and entrapped by his own definition and arguments." Theodicy, p. 152. . . . "Each party has refuted his adversary, and in the enjoyment of his triumph he seems not to have duly reflected on the destruction of his own position. Both are in the right, and both are in the wrong; but, as we shall hereafter see, not equally so. If we adopt the argument of both sides, in so far as it is true, we shall come to the conclusion that action must take its rise somewhere in the universe, without being caused by preceding action. And if so, where shall we look for its origin ? In that which by nature is endowed with active power, or in that which is purely and altogether passive? " We lay it down, then, as an established and fundamental posi- tion, that the mind acts or puts forth its volitions without being efficiently caused to do so, without being impelled by its own prior action, or by the prior action of any thing else. The conditions or occasions of volition being supplied, the mind itself acts in view thereof, without being subject to the power or action of any cause whatever. All rational beings must, as we have seen, either admit this exemption of the mind in willing from the power and action of any cause, or else lose themselves in the labyrinth of an infinite series of causes. It is this exemption which constitut es the freedom of the human mind." Now all this is lost on Mr. Bocock. The analysis, the definition, and the reasoning, which are intended to disentangle the skein of logomachy respecting the law of cause and effect, are all utterly ignored by him. They have brought light, a clear and satisfying 398 APPENDIX. light, to many readers of the " Theodicy ;" yet Mr. Bocock does not even condescend to notice them. On the contrary, he just seizes upon the conclusion which, without all that goes before and all that follows, must appear strange and unsatisfactory to his readers. He tells them nothing about the manner in which the conclusion has been reached, or the reasoning by which it has been estab- lished; he merely holds up the naked conclusion itself, without even the author's explanation of its meaning, and calls upon his readers to laugh at it ! It is, says he, " one of the most deliberate and measured declarations of the whole book," but he is careful not to let his readers see the analysis, the explanation, and the reasoning by which it is supported. He merely gives the naked conclusion itself, as follows : " Hence we conclude that an act of the mind, or a volition, is not produced by the action of either mind or motive, but takes its rise in the world without any such efficient cause of its existence." That is, without any such efficient cause as is explained in the " Theodicy," and which is there shown to lead to the great absurdity of an infinite series of causes. Mr. Bocock adds, "This is the proposition on which he builds;" but he does not tell on what this proposition is built. Knowing that this proposition, if presented without the author's careful explana- tion, and without all that goes before and all that follows it, would not. be acceptable to his readers, he took the most sure method to carry his point, and to shout victory with success. Does not every body know that volition has an efficient cause? True. In some sense of the words, but not in the author's sense. This sense is not given to his readers. On the contrary, instead of giving the author's sense of his own words, Mr. Bocock puts his own nonsense upon them, and then raves over them, and excites " the indignant contempt" of his readers to his heart's content. But this is to bring the great question down from the high court of reason, and submit it to the low tribunal of ignorance, and preju- dice, and passion. Mr. Bocock is welcome to all the applause he may gain by such means. As he will have Calvinists for his hearers, so he will, no doubt, gain applause as a great champion of Calvinism. But in the end such a course will reflect as little honour on himself as on his sect. We have now seen that the " Theodicy" affirms, as clearly and emphatically as language can possibly affirm, the doctrine that motives are " the antecedents of volitions," are " the grounds and reasons " of their existence, without which they " could not happen or come to pass." We have also seen that it repudiates with APPENDIX. 399 equal clearness and deci-ion, the wild notion that volition "pro- duces itself," or " comes of itself unbidden, and without any parentage," into the universe of God. Yet, in spite of all this, Mr. Bocock makes it deny the first, and affirm the last of the above propositions. By the same method any book may be made to teach any doctrine, even the most wildly absurd doctrines, directly in the face of its most distinct and unequivocal utterances. Having done this with my k< Theodicy," only see how Mr. Bocock rants and raves over its monstrous absurdities ! Beginning with the declaration, " We affirm that the free moral agency above- described is the moral agency of a madhouse, and of no other place, or world, that we know any thing of, that ever did, or can exist," (p. 524,) he goes on ranting and raving for several pages. "No dramatist ever did," says he, "or ever will, indite either tragedy, or comedy, to give correct views of human nature, out of a lunatic asylum, on the principles of moral agency on which the 1 Theodicy ' is built." P. 525. Thus, again, the roar of his raving winds up with the charge of Atheism : u Eve was only acting in accordance with the laws of her nature, in eating the forbidden fruit. In giving her a command not to eat, and threatening her \vith death if she should eat, God did not employ means which had a controlling power over her. The volition to eat 'took its rise in, the world without any controlling power within or without.'' According to Professor Bledsoe, the ' rise in the world ' of that volition was an entirely legitimate and natural phenomenon. It was in perfect accordance with the laws of Eve's created nature, and was, of course, perfectly innocent! According to this theory there seems to be no such thing as moral agency connected with volition, for volitions take their rise in the world independently of considerations of right and wrong. They are, indeed, but the productions of blind, unthinking, undetermined chance! Threats of death, and promises of life, can have no controlling power over them ! Mount Sinai and Mount Calvary are both swept off from the face of the earth, and nothing is left but volitions ' taking their rise in the world without any controlling power either within or without.' What progress has this writer made in escaping from Atheism?" Now, according to the philosophy of the " Theodicy," the mind of Eve was the controlling power in the case of her disobedience. In the opinion of the said writer, however, God is the only con- trolling power in the universe, and he is, consequently, highly in- dignant at the doctrine that his " command not to eat," with the 26 400 APPENDIX. awful threat of death in case of disobedience, had not " a con- trolling power over her." Now, with ail due respect to Mr. Bocock, I think that the command and threat of God did not have a controlling power over her, for the simple reason that they did not control her. Is it not a fact that her own mind did, in con- tempt of the command and threat of God, pluck the forbidden fruit, and bring death into the world? If so, then may we not be allowed to believe this fact, rather than the ridiculous assertion of Mr. Bocock that God did " employ means which had a con- trolling power over her." We assert the contrary, that " they had [not] a controlling power over her," for the sole, simple, all-suffi- cient reason that they did not control her. Is it inconsistent with the divine glory, is it Atheism, to look a simple fact in the face and call it a fact ? If so, then the author of the " Theodicy " fears that he shall never make the least progress " in escaping from Atheism," until he concludes to renounce his reason, and, flying from all the glorious lights of heaven and earth, hide himself in the gloomy cells of Calvinism. If we may believe Mr. Bocock, then Professor Bledsoe holds that "the volition to eat ''took its rise in the world without any controlling power within or without? " The words are under- scored by him ; and, being admirably adapted to his purpose, he repeatedly harps upon them, and holds them up to the scorn and contempt of his readers. These readers may, perhaps, be a little surprised to learn the fact that they are not the words of Professor Bledsoe at all. They can nowhere be found in his "Theodicy." They are, on the contrary, a gross perversion of both the language and the meaning of that book. Now, in order to establish this very heavy charge, it is only necessary to look at what he makes Professor Bledsoe sa} r , and then at what Professor Bledsoe says for himself. He makes Professor Bledsoe say, then, that " ' the volition to eat' took its rise in the world without any controlling power within or without" Or, in other words, that, in regard to volition, there is no controlling power in the universe. " Accord- ing to this theory," says he, " volitions take their ' rise in the world ' independently of considerations of right and wrong. They are, indeed, but the productions of blind, unthinking, undetermin- ing chance. . . . Mount Sinai and Mount Calvary are both swept off from the face of the earth, and nothing is left but volitions taking their rise in the world without any controlling power either within or without." This, of course, is Atheism. God is de- throned. All the glories of heaven, and all the terrors of hell, are APPENDIX. 401 blotted out, and nothing is left in the wide universe but a wild wilderness of \olitions proceeding from the bosom of a "blind, unthinking, nndetermining chance." O how awful! Surely, this vile Atheist, Professor Bledsoe, should be put in the " madhouse," or the " lunatic asylum," for which alone his philosophy is fit ! But, before so severe a sentence is pronounced against him, let us look at what he has himself said, and see how a few plain words will put down this ranting, raving, reviling Calvinist. "The mind is free," says he, u because it possesses a power of acting over which there is no controlling power either within or without itself." P. 155. Now, in the sentence from which Mr. Bocock takes only as much as suits his purpose, it is not said that volition is "without any controlling power within or without." On the contrary, it expressly asserts, in the part carefully kept out of view by Mr. Bocock, that the mind has " a power of acting;" and, according to the uniform and invariable doctrine of the 44 Theodicy," this power is, in regard to volitions, the controlling power. All free acts or volitions proceed from this controlling power of the mind; and, hence, to represent the "Theodicy" as affirming that volitions take their rise " without any controlling power," is a gross perversion of both the express language and meaning of the book in question. It only denies that over this " controlling power of the mind,'' from which volitions proceed, there is a controlling power, by whose acts its own acts are caused. If we suppose, or admit, the existence of such a controlling power within over the controlling power of the mind, then President Edwards has clearly shown there is no escape from the great absurdity of an infinite series of causes. This argument of President Edwards is set forth in the words which immediately preceded those quoted by Mr. Bocock, and which he must have found it very convenient to omit. These omitted words are as follows: "One of the notions to which the cause of necessity owes much of its strength is a false conception of liberty, as consisting of a power over the determinations of the will." Hence it is said that this power over the will can do noth- ing, can cause no determination, except by acting to produce it. But, according to this notion of liberty, this causative act cannot be, unless it be also caused by a preceding act, and so on ad in- finitnm. Such is one of the favourite arguments of the necessi- tarian." Such is, indeed, precisely the argument of President Edwards in his work on the will. Then follow the words quoted by Mr. Bocock. 402 APPENDIX. Admitting the force of the above argument of Edwards, the author of the " Theodicy " rejected the " false conception," and refused to use the language which speaks of a power of the mind over its power or will. He still regarded it, however, as infinitely absurd to consider " volitions " as " taking their rise in the world without any controlling power either within or without ; " for, in fact, they do always arise from the controlling power of the mind itself, which, in view of motives as the grounds and reasons of its acts, are freely put forth ; except, as Aristotle has well declared, when the mind has enslaved itself by the formation of bad habits. Now, as we have already seen, the argument of Edwards applies to his own scheme, as well as to that of his opponents. For, if we must suppose the action of motive to account for the action of mind, then must we also suppose the preceding action of some- thin^ else to account for the action of motive, and so on ad in- o ' finitum. Thus, having accepted the argument of Edwards in its application to the doctrine, or, at least, to the language of Clarke, and Reid, and Stewart, and Coleridge, the very presumptuous author of the " Theodicy " saw no very great harm in applying it to his own scheme. He found the logic of Edwards, indeed, much better than its author had imagined, for it was, in reality, a two- edged sword, which cut both ways instead of one only. If, then, it be the great heresy, nay, the Atheism, of the " Theodicy," that it came finally to rest on the simple conclusion, on the apparently clear and incontestable fact, that volition does take its rise some- where in the universe of mind, without any controlling power over the mind's power of action, the sin of such awful apostasy must be laid on the logic of President Edwards. Mr. Bocock has, it is true, been pleased to ignore the logic of President Edwards, as well as of Professor Bledsoe. But it is here brought forth, and held up as a protecting shield between the poor professor of mathe- matics and the divine wrath of the Rev. John Bocock. This branch of our subject is for the present, and perhaps for ever, dis- missed. The author of the " Theodicy " is not only an " Atheist," he is also a " Pelagian." That is to say, the vile heretic denies the influence of the Divine Spirit within the heart and mind. "He seems," says Dr. Bocock, "heartily to adopt that peculiar mode of mental philosophy, as to the nature of moral agents, which removes the human soul from under divine, influence" etc. P. 519. Again, he says, "The book is equally explicit in deny- ing the efficacy of the other mode of influence over the human APPENDIX. 403 soul, usually ascribed to God, that is, the influence of the Divine Spirit within the heart." P. 519. Now, all that is necessary to dispose of these accusations is simply to produce a few extracts from that chapter of the "book" which treats of the divine influence, and then just laugh all such Calvinistic calumnies to scorn. Take, for example, the following extract : " Nothing is more wonderful to my mind than that Pelagius should have such fol- lowers as Reimarus and Lessing, not to mention hundreds of others, who deny the possibility of a divine influence becanse it seems to them to conflict with the intellectual and moral nature of man. To assert, as these philosophers do, that the power of God cannot act upon the human mind without infringing upon its freedom, betrays, as we venture to affirm, a profound and astonish- ing ignorance of the whole doctrine of free-agency." " Theodicy," p. 173. Now, directly in the face of this most explicit and com- plete repudiation of the doctrine of Pelagius, the writer before us is pleased to ascribe it to the author of the " Theodicy." He is, if we may believe the writer, " a Pelagian " who denies the influ- ence of the Spirit of God ! Nothing could, indeed, be a more direct or more shameless violation of truth. In default of sound pleas for Calvinism, this unscrupulous writer pelts his opponent with odious epithets, a mode of warfare adopted by those only whose malignant passions are as strong as their regard for truth is weak. What care such writers for the contempt of mankind if they can only gain the applause of a sect ! Again, on page 174 of the "Theodicy" it is said: "As every state of the intelligence is necessitated, so God may act on this department of our mental frame without infringing upon the nature of man in the slightest possible degree. As the law of necessity is the law of the intelligence, so God may absolutely necessitate its states by the presentation of truth, or by his direct and irresistible agency in connection with the truth, without doing violence to the laws of our intellectual and moral nature. Nay, in so acting he proceeds in perfect conformity with those laws. Hence, no matter how deep a human soul may be sunk in ignorance and stupidity, God may flash the light of truth into it in perfect accordance with the laws of its nature. And, as has been well said, ' The first effect of the divine power in the new, as in the old, creation is light.' " It' Mr. Bocock had happened to know that these words were quoted from a celebrated Calvinist divine, he would not, perhaps, have had the unblushing hardihood 404 APPENDIX. to look them in the face and cry, Heresy ! a denial of the divine influence ! a vile Pelagian heresy ! But the "Theodicy" (p. 174) continues: "This is not all. Every state of the sensibility is a passive impression, a necessi- tated phenomenon of the human mind. No matter what fact, or what truth, may be present to the mind, either by its own volun- tary attention or by the agency of God, or by the cooperation of both, the impression it makes upon the sensibility is beyond the control of the will, except by refusing to give the attention of the mind to it. Hence, although truth may be vividly impressed on the intelli- gence, although the glories of heaven and the terrors of hell m;iy be made to shine into it, yet the sensibility may remain unaffected by them. It may be dead. Hence, God may act upon this, may cause it to melt with sorrow or to glow with love, without doing violence to any law of our moral nature. There is no difficulty, then, in conceiving that the second effect of the divine power in the new creation is ' a new heart.' " Yet does Mr. Bocock, in profound contempt of truth, look this passage in the face, and assert that the " Theodicy " denies the influence of God on the heart of man ! Though it asserts, in as strong language as possi- ble, that God " creates a new heart " within us, yet Mr. Bocock declares that it denies his influence upon the heart ! He does not condescend to pervert or misrepresent the language of the book, he simply puts into the author's mouth words and sentiments which are utterly arid emphatically repudiated by him. How could he dare to venture on such dishonest tricks ? Did he sup- pose that they would escape detection because his very pious readers would never look into so vile a book as the " Theodicy ? " or if, in spite of his abuse, they should venture to read for them- selves, they would at least tolerate, if not applaud, his pious fraud s^ on the principle that the end sanctifies the means ? Is the con- tempt of mankind nothing to him, if he may only gain the applause of his sect, and stand forth as one of the anointed champions of Calvinism ? Such writers are never satisfied unless you will cause the om- nipotence of God to annihilate the freedom of the human will. You may assert the influence of the Divine Spirit to illuminate the reason, and to renovate the affections, or ''create a new heart," but still you are a vile heretic unless you will make it force the will, and convert the universe of mind into a mere machine. God may give a perfect moral law, and also the power to obey, and yet this is nothing unless he gives, at the same time, the obedience APPENDIX. 405 itself. He may pour the light of divine truth into the reason, or renovate the affections, and " create a new heart ;" but this all this is nothing, unless yon will also admit that lie absolute y necessitates the will. But this is the very doctrine, the monstrous error, which it is the object of the a Theodicy " to refute, so as to vindicate the infinite glory of God against the horrible aspersions of his mistaken friends, as well as of lais malignant enemies. This vindication was no short or easy ta^k. It was the result of twenty years' reading and close reflection. It occupies all the chapters of both parts of my "Theodicy," which was written over, from beginning to end, no less than five times with my own hand, and condensed as much as possible. Yet has our most infallible and omnipotent critic set forth the whole of this vindication in one short sentence! Great man! Wonderful genius ! Surely he could easily put the ocean in an egg-shell, or construct a palace with a single pebble ! Let us see, then, how the poor " Theodicy " Is m.'jde to hide its diminished head in a single sentence. "The solution," says our critic, " which Professor Bledsoe brings is this : * On the supposition of such a world, God did not permit sin at all; it could not have been prevented.'" Now these words, taken by themselves, are a worse representation of my " Theodicy" than i siricfle brick would be of a house, for, so taken and considered, o " they suggest a false sense to the reader. They not only fail to exhibit the dimensions of the work, they utterly falsify the real sense of its fundamental principle. Let us glance, then, at Pro- fessor Bledsoe's solution of the great problem of evil, as it is in his own work, and not as it is diminished and distorted in the " South- ern Presbyterian Review." "The opinion of Necessity," says Bishop Butler, (Analogy, chap vi,) '' seems to be the very basis on which infidelity grounds itsell." It is also the very foundation on which Calvinism grounds itself, and erects its gloomy edifice of cloud-capped metaphysics. It was impossible for even an Edwards, or a Leibnitz, to refute the Atheist, and vindicate the glory of God, because they occupied the same ground with him, or maintained the same fundamental falsehood. Hence, in order to vindicate the glory of God, Profes- sor Bledsoe found it necessary, in the first place, to demolish this common ground of Atheism and Calvinism, and the metaphysical tower of Babel thereon erected by the joint labours of the mistaken friends and the malignant foes of God. To this preliminary por- tion of this work no less than four long and elaborate chapters are devoted. 406 APPENDIX. In the first of these chapters it is clearly shown, unless many readers of the u Theodicy " are greatly mistaken, " that the scheme of necessity denies that man is responsible for the existence of sin." In the same chapter it is also shown that the attempts of Calvin and Luther, as well as of Hobbes and Collins, of all atheizing Cal- vinists, as well as of Calvinizing Atheists, are absolute, total, and ignominious failures. In the second chapter it is demonstrated, at least to the perfect satisfaction of many of its readers, that " the scheme of necessity makes God the author of sin." It is also shown therein that "the attempts of Calvin and other reformers," as well as of Leibnitz, and Edwards, and Chalmers, to rebut this impious consequence of their favourite scheme of necessity, are utter failures are merely sophistical devices to hide the horrible features of the dogma of necessity. It is then shown in the third chapter that " the scheme of neces- sity denies the reality of moral distinctions," and that all the attempts of all the great advocates of that scheme, and especially the great attempt of President Edwards to reconcile it with the reality of such distinctions, are total failures. Thus, by a three- fold reductio ad absurdum, it is shown that the scheme of necessity is false. But this argument, it is evident, is addressed to those only whose sense of sin and of God would indignantly reject the scheme of necessity on account of its consequences. Hence, in order to complete the argument, and effect the entire destruction of the scheme of necessity, it was incumbent on the author of the " Theodicy " to show that it is inherently false, that it is as unten- able in itself as it is horrible in its consequences. Accordingly, this is undertaken in the fourth chapter of the 'Theodicy," in which, in seven several sections, it is shown that the scheme of necessity is based on a " false psychology ;" that it " is directed against a false issue ; " that it u is supported by false logic;" that it'-is fortified by false conceptions;" that it "is recommended by false analysis;" that it u is rendered plausible by a false phraseology ; " and, finally, that it :c originates in a false method, and terminates in a false religion." Having established these seven propositions, the fourth chapter concludes as follows . " These are some of the hidden mysteries of the scheme of necessity; which, having been detected and exposed, we do not hesitate to pronounce it a grand imposition on the reason of man- kind. As such, we set aside this stupendous sophism, [big with so many sophisms,] whose dark shadow has so long rested on the beauty of the world, obscuring the intrinsic glory of the infinite APPENDIX. 407 goodness therein displayed. We put away and repudiate this vast assemblage of errors, which has so sadly perplexed our mental vision, and so frightfully distorted the real proportions of the world as to lead philosophers, such as Kant and others, to pro- nounce a theodicy impossible. We put them aside utterly in order that we may proceed to vindicate the glory of God, as mani- fested in the constitution and government of the moral world." Now, why does the "Southern Presbyterian Review" neglect to notice these four long and elaborate chapters of the work it pretends to examine and review ? They contain the substance of Professor Bledsoe's solution, and yet his solution is set before the readers of the " Review " in question without the least allusion to them ! The patient and the painstaking analysis is wholly over- looked ; the careful and the conscientious argument is treated with silent contempt ; and the conclusion to which they conduct the mind is severed from all that precedes and supports it, and nakedly held up as " Professor Bledsoe's solution." Is there no difference, then, between the solution of a problem and its bare enunciation ? or between a thesis or a theorem, and its demonstration ? The solution which " Professor Bledsoe brings," says Mr. Bocock, " is this : ' On the supposition of such a world (that is, of a moral world or system) God did not permit sin at all ; it could not have been prevented.'" Now, this is not Professor Bledsoe's solution, it is merely his thesis. It is not his demonstration ; it is merely the proposition to be demonstrated. This solution or demonstra- tion nowhere appears, either in whole or in part, in the very candid review of Dr. Bocock. This very prudent critic is, on the contrary, careful not to afford his readers a glimpse, however faint and feeble, of the " solution " which he affects to treat with so much contempt. Utterly ignoring that solution, he merely exhibits the conclusion at which it arrives, just as if, while it holds up every thing else, it is itself upheld by nothing. Nor is this all. The naked conclusion is not only severed from all that precedes and supports it, but it is also most imperfectly represented by Mr. Bocock. If he wished to represent Professor Bledsoe fairly, why does he make him say that " God does not permit sin at all," that "it could not have been prevented" by him? This is only one half of Professor Bledsoe's statement of his thesis, or doctrine, and this half statement, taken by itself, is admirably adapted to shock the mind of every pious reader, and prejudice him against the "Theodicy." Hence it is the never-failing resource of nil the small critics who have attacked that " Vindication of the Divine 408 APPENDIX. Glory." If, indeed, the author of that work was solicitous about any thing, it was not to shock the pious mind by any statement which might even seem to limit the omnipotence of God. Th : s may, however, be very easily done by skilfully selected and partial extracts from his work, as Mr. Bocock has most abundantly proved. The bare statement, for example, that " God cannot pre- vent sin," and therefore does " permit it," is a flagrant instance of this method of gross misrepresentation by the skilful use of partial extracts. I would ask the reader, then, to consider this state- ment as it stands, not in the pages of the theological adversaries of my u Theodicy," but in those of the work itself. I would ask him, before proceeding, under the guidance of Presbyterian re- views and papers, to condemn the work, to examine the chapters in which its foundations are laid, and then read, with calm and judicial fairness, the chapter of twenty-nine pages in which the conclusion is drawn. If he will only do so he will find that this conclusion, stated in a single line, is not the solution which my *' Theodicy " brings to the great problem of evil. He will find, on the contrary, that it is no more like that solution, than a little crooked straw is like a bird's nest. After reviewing, in the chapter last referred to, four several solutions of the problem of evil, I proceed to lay down the conclu- sion of my own. It is, indeed, impossible to do more than partial justice to this conclusion without giving the whole chapter. The following extracts will, however, be amply sufficient to show how very partial, imperfect, and unjust is the representation in and by the " Southern Presbyterian Review." "Supposing God to possess- perfect holiness, (p. 192,) he would certainly prevent all moral evil, says the Atheist, unless his power were limited. This inference was drawn from a false premiss ; namely, that if God is omnipotent he could easily prevent moral evil, and cause virtue to exist without any mixture of vice. This assumption has been incautiously conceded to the Atheist by his opponent, and hence his argument has not been clearly and fully refuted. To refute this argument with perfect clearness it is necessary to show tw r o things: first, that it is no limitation of the divine omnipotence to say that it cannot work contradictions; and, secondly, that if God should cause virtue to exist in the heart of a moral agent he would work a contradiction. We shall en- deavour to evince these two things in order to refute the grand sophism of the atheist, and lay a solid foundation for a genuine scheme of optimism, against which no valid objection can be urged." APPENDIX. Having shown these two things, which it is much easier for a critic to ignore than to refute, I draw the following conclusion : u The argument of the Atheist assumes, as we have seen, that a Being of infinite power could easily prevent sin, and cause holiness to exist. [That is, could easily prevent all sin, and necessarily cause holi- ness to exist every where in its place.] It assumes that it is pos- sible, that it implies no contradiction to create an intelligent moral agent, and place it beyond all liability to sin. But this is a mis- take. Almighty power itself, we may say with the most profound reverence, cannot create such a being and place it beyond the possibility of sinning. If it could not sin, there would be no merit, no virtue, in its obedience. That is to say, it would not be a moral agent at all, but a machine merely. The power to do wrong, as well as to do right, is included in the very idea of a moral and accountable agent, and no such agent can possibly exist without being invested with such a power. To suppose an agent to be created, and placed beyond all liability to sin, is to suppose it to be what it is, and not what it is, at one and the same time ; it is to suppose a creature to be endowed with the power to do wrong, and yet destitute of such a power, which is a plain contradiction. Hence Omnipotence cannot create such a being and deny to it a power to do evil, or secure it against the possibility of sinning. " We may, with the Atheist, conceive of a universe of such beings, if we please, and we may suppose them to be at all times prevented from sinning by the omnipotent and irresistible energy of the Divine Being; and having imagined all this, we may be infinitely better pleased with this ideal creation of our ow T n than with that which God has called into actual existence around us. But then we should only prefer the absurd and contradictory model of a universe engendered in our own weak brains to that with which infinite wisdom and power and goodness have actu- ally projected into being. Such a universe, if freed from contra- dictions, might also be free from evil, nay, from the very possi- bility of evil, but only on condition that it should at the same time be free from the very possibility of good. It admits into its dominions moral and accountable creatures, capable of knowing and serving God, and of drinking at the purest fountain of un- created bliss, only by being involved in irreconcilable contradic- tions. It may appear more delightful to the imagination, before it comes to be more narrowly inspected, than the universe of God ; ami the latter, being compared with it, may seem less worthy of the infinite perfections of its Author; but, after all, it is but a weak 410 APPENDIX. and crazy thing, a contradictious and impossible conceit. W( may admire it, and make it the standard by which to try the work of God ; but, after all, it is but ' an idol of the human mind ' and not an * idea of the divine mind.' It is a little distorted image of human weakness, and not a harmonious manifestation of divine power. Among all the possible models of a universe which lay open to the mind and choice of God, a thing so deformed had no place ; and when the sceptic concludes that the perfections of the Supreme Architect are limited, because he did not work after such a model, he only displays the impotency of his own wisdom, and the blindness of his own presumption. " Hence, the error of the Atheist is obvious. He does not con- sider that the only way to place all creatures beyond a liability to sin, is to place them below the rank of intelligent and accountable beings. He does not consider that the only way to prevent ' sin from raising its head ' is to prevent holiness from the possibility of appearing in the universe. He does not consider that among all the ideal worlds present to the Divine Mind there was not one which, if called into existence, would have been capable of serving and glorifying its Maker, and yet incapable of throwing off his authority. Hence, he really finds fault with the work of the Al- mighty, because he had not framed the world according to a model which is involved in the most irreconcilable contradictions. In other words, he fancies that God is not perfect, because he has not embodied an absurdity in the creature. If God, he asks, is perfect, why did he not render virtue possible and vice impossi- ble? Why did he not create moral agents, and yet deny to them the attributes of moral agents ? Why did he not give his creatures the power to do evil, and yet withhold this power from them ? He might just as well have demanded why he did not create matter without dimensions, and circles without the properties of a circle. Poor man ! He cannot see the wisdom and power of God mani- fested in the world, because it is not filled with moral agents which are not moral agents, and with glorious realities that are mere empty shadows ! " If the above remarks be just, then the great question, Why has God permitted sin? which has exercised the ingenuity of man in all ages, is a most idle and insignificant inquiry. The only real question is, why he created such beings as men at all, and not why he created them and then permitted them to sin. The first ques- tion is easily answered. The second, though often propounded, seems to be a most unmeaning question. It is unmeaning, because APPENDIX. 411 it seeks to ascertain the reason why God has permitted a thing which, in reality, lie has not permitted at all. Having created a world of moral agents, that is, a world endowed with a power to sin, it was impossible for him to prevent sin so long as they retained this power, or, in other words, so long as they continued to exist as moral agents. A universe of such agents given, its lia- bility to sin is not a matter for the will of God to permit; this is a necessary consequence from the nature of moral agents. He could no more deny peccability to such creatures than he could deny the properties of the circle to a circle ; and if he could not prevent such a thing, it is surely very absurd to ask why he permitted it. " On the supposition of such a world, God did not permit sin at all ; it could not have been prevented. It would be considered a very absurd inquiry if we should ask why God has permitted two and two to be equal to four, or why he permitted the three angles of a triangle to be equal to two right angles. But all such ques- tions, however idle and absurd, are not more so than the great inquiry respecting the permission of moral evil. If this does not so appear to our minds, it is because we have not sufficiently reflected on the great truth that a necessary virtue is a contradic- tion in terms, an inherent and utter impossibility. The full pos- session of this truth will show us that the cause of Theism has been encumbered with great difficulties because its advocates have en- deavoured to explain the reason why God has permitted a thing which, in point of fact, he has not permitted. Having attempted to explain a fact which has no existence, it is no wonder that they should have involved themselves in clouds and darkness. Let us cease, then, to seek the reason of that which is not, in order that we may behold the glory of that which is" This extract is long, but less would not have given even a toler- able view of the great leading idea or principle of my " Theodicy." According to this work, the world had not " sufficiently reflected on the great truth that a necessary holiness is a contradiction in terms, an inherent and utter impossibility ; " and had, consequently, remained in clouds and darkness respecting the existence of evil. It is, indeed, the avowed object of this work to bring that great truth to light, and thereby dispel the clouds and darkness around the origin and existence of evil. Yet all this is overlooked by the very candid critic under consideration. Omitting to notice all that precedes and all that follows the great truth in question, though it was all written to elucidate and establish that truth, and apply it to the problem of evil, he merely exhibits the conclusion 412 APPENDIX. which I have drawn from that great unseen truth and calls it my solution ! That is to say, without notice or mention of the theorem, or its demonstration, he exhibits merely the corollary which flows from it, and then laughs that naked and unsupported corollary to scorn! Easy victory! Memorable triumph ! How many critics, in precisely the same way, demolished the doctrine of Copernicus ! Seeing only the conclusion at which he had arrived, and knowing nothing of the demonstration from which it flowed, they laughed to scorn the strange idea that the sun is the fixed centre around which the earth and all the other planets revolve. They could laugh all the more easily and heartily at this apparently absurd conclusion, because they knew nothing of the demonstration on which it rested. The grandest scheme of thought, indeed, that was ever reared by the patient labour of years, may be easily mis- represented and ridiculed in a minute by the most thoughtless and flippant of men. It is certainly easy to misrepresent and ridicule my-" Theodicy," if we may judge from the habit of its Calvinistic adversaries. But who, or where, is the adversary by whom its foundations have been shaken ? It is easy to pick out a phrase here and there, and, detaching this from its place in the body of the work, cry, Absurd, or impious, or monstrous ! But who, or where, is the opponent that has ever grappled with its principles and arguments, or pre- tended to show that they are false? Are all the great champions of Calvinism dead ? Or are they only ashamed, in this enlightened nineteenth century, to come before the world in defence of their dark doctrines? I should certainly not have noticed Mr. Bocock, or the other adversaries above referred to, if abler ones could have been found, or had made their appearance ; and if, after a silence of seventeen years, I have at last replied to them, this is only in deference to the opinion of friends. Let me now sum up and conclude this whole matter. How any one could, without a burning sense of shame, pronounce my "Theodicy" the work of a Pelagian, is more than I am able to conceive. It seems impossible, indeed, that the heresy of Pelagius could be more explicitly or emphatically repudiated than it is in both the language and the doctrines of my " Theodicy." For ex- ample, it is asserted, (p. 178,) "Nothing is more wonderful to my mind than that Pelagius should have such followers as Rei- marus and Leasing, not to mention hundreds of others, who deny the possibility of a divine influence because it seems to them to conflict with the intellectual and moral nature of man. APPENDIX. 413 Yet in the face of all this, and much more to the same effect nay, in profound and unblushing contempt of all this I have been persistently ranked with Reimarus and Lessing, and other one- sided advocates of free-agency, as a follower of Pelagius ! I have been thus maligned and vilified, not by low and mean adversaries of no reputation, but by learned divines the chosen champions of Calvinism and their followers. It is, indeed, the circulation of such utterly unfounded and false misrepresentations which has induced my friends to believe that the truth should be made known, and, if possible, its enemies put to the blush. Nor is this all; for mnny have, with Mr. Bocock, explicitly asserted that my " Theodicy " denies " the influence of the Spirit on the mind and heart of man." So far, however, is this assertion from the truth, that my " Theodicy" does, as we have seen, in the words of a distinguished Calvinistic divine, recognize and affirm the reality of such an influence of the Spirit. "No matter," it asserts, (p. 174,) "how deep a human soul may be sunk in igno- rance and stupidity, God may flash the light of truth into it, in perfect accordance with the laws of its nature. And, as has been well said, ' The first effect of the divine power in the new, as in the old, creature is light.'' 1 It is also asserted (p. 175) that "God may act upon this, (that is, the sensibility,) may cause it to melt with sorrow or to glow with love without doing violence to any Lrw of our moral nature. There is no difficulty, then, in conceiv- ing that the sacred effect of the divine power in a new creation is a new heart." Now, Dr. Dick himself, whose language is here quoted by me, does not go one inch beyond this in his assertion of the influence of the Spirit on the mind and heart of man. Yet, directly in the face of all this, in profound contempt of nil this, have the admirers and followers of Dr. Dick, one of the most rigid and renowned of the champions of Calvinism, unblushingly as- serted tha't my "Theodicy" denies and repudiates the doctrine of the influence of the Spirit on the human heart ! Is it possible, then, for misrepresentation to be more flagrant or more inexcusa- ble than that which has been directed against my "Theodicy?" Or does it speak well for the cause of Calvinism, that, instead of fair argument and honest opposition, it is compelled to resort to such means for its defence? But, however glaring and gross such misrepresentations, the climax of this mode of warfare has yet to be noticed. My " Theodicy " has been actually accused of Atheism, and its author denounced as an Atheist. Although from a burning zeal in the 41-1 APPENDIX. cause ot God, and an unconquerable desire to vindicate his efiory, the book was conceived and written, yet has it been accused of Atheism! Strange and wonderful as such a phenomenon may seem, it is, as I have already said, nothing new under the sun. For although Anaxngoras, as is well known, was the first of the Greek philosophers by whom the sublime idea of a God was truly conceived and set forth, he was reviled and denounced as an Atheist by his benighted and bigoted contemporaries. In like manner Ralph Cudworth, who, in the cause of God, exhausted all the resources of a vast erudition, and exerted all the powers of an unsurpassed genius, was, nevertheless, reviled and calumniated as an Atheist in disguise. Disgusted by the credence which was given to this calumny, in consequence of the never-ceasing activity of his enemies, he abandoned his labours in despair, and left his " Intellectual System of the Universe " an unfinished, but still a magnificent, monument of his zeal in the cause of God. His genius was sublime and his design pure, but, unfortunately, his will was too weak to withstand the storm of vituperation and abuse by which his good name was assailed. His great work, however, has survived the attacks of his enemies, and stands, at this moment, a noble monument to the wisdom and glory of God, as well as to the wickedness and folly of man. In like manner (if I may be permitted to compare small things with great) my "Theodicy" has also survived the vituperation and abuse of its enemies, and, having passed through many editions, has crossed the great seas, and found its way into foreign lands. Having answered his arguments, and exposed his false state- ments, I shall not bestow one word on the scurrility and abuse of the Rev. Mr. Bocock, or of any other metaphysician or theologian of the same school of divines. I shall, on the contrary, henceforth submit, as I have heretofore submitted, my work to the verdict of time and the judgment of the learned world. I can now do so with the greater confidence, since, in spite of all the charges of " ignorance " and " presumption " and u impiety " which have been directed against me the learned world on both sides of the Atlantic has recognized my right to meet and contest, in an open and fair field, the arguments and opinions of Augustine and Calvin, and Leibnitz and Edwards. If, in the face of such fear- ful and overwhelming odds, I have been able to maintain my ground, even for a moment, this has been only because the truth and the providence of God were beneath my feet and around my path. r> f V RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT TO* 202 Main Library LOAN PERIOD 1 HOME USE 2 3 4 5 6 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS ?^^ ALS AN RECHAR GES MAY BE MADE 4 DAYS PRJOR TO DUE DATE ^^ *" "**" DUE AS STAMPED BELOW L p 9 g 1QQQ \l\ w *"''^ s UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 1/83 BERKELEY, CA 94720 U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY