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

by Catharine Esther Beecher

Sin and Holiness.

The preceding, then, warrants the definition of sin as “the transgression of law,” whether known or unknown. The question of the rectitude of penalties added to the natural consequences of violated laws, is confined to those sins which are attended by a knowledge of law and ability to understand and obey.

These distinctions and definitions are important because a large class of theologians maintain that sin is [pg 150] the voluntary transgression of known law, and make this definition the foundation of their assertion that all men have power to be perfect in conformity to all law, meaning by this all the laws of God that they know and believe. On this theory sin is the transgression of known law, and not of that which is unknown. And on this theory one way to keep children from sin would be to keep them in ignorance of God's laws.

The writer maintains that this limited use is not the common meaning. Mankind do not stop to settle the question whether men were ignorant of what was right, before they decide that they sin. Often such ignorance results from an unwillingness or indolence that prevents attention, and few can decide how far our ignorance of law results from guilty neglect. It is true that when a perfect and innocent inability to know law is proved, the added penalties of statute law are remitted. But still the natural penalties are unremitted.

The word holy in its original use signifies set apart or consecrate to the special service of some deity. Thus the vessels of a temple, the priests and the building are called holy in this sense. In reference to moral acts or choices, this term is used as recognizing the fact that a mind may be voluntarily consecrated or devoted to the service of God by right action, or obedience to his laws. God himself is called holy on the supposition that there are rules of right and wrong in the nature of things, independent of his will, and that his will is conformed to these rules, while men are called holy in reference chiefly to the will or service of their Creator.

In the Creator holiness signifies perfect voluntary conformity to that which is for the best according to the [pg 151] eternal nature of things. In men perfect holiness is perfect conformity of will to the laws or will of God, both absolutely and in motive or intention. A mind is consecrated to God when its ruling purpose is to obey him in all things. In this use of the term holiness in man, is what can not be created, as it is a voluntary act of his own mind.

The question whether Adam was created with “a holy nature,” while his posterity begin existence here with an “unholy nature,” must be settled by a clear definition of the words employed.

If the term “nature” refers to the construction of the mind itself as made by God, a holy nature must signify that organization and combination of the natural powers of mind, which is the best possible for a mind in its appointed place in the best possible system.

If, on the contrary, the term “nature” refers to that character of mind consequent on its own volitions, then a holy nature can be caused or created only by man himself as the sole producing cause of his own volitions, God being the author or cause of this nature only in the sense in which men are causes of voluntary action in other minds, viz., occasional causes by the use of motives or objects that excite desires.

Chapter XXIV. Love to God And Love to Man.

In a former chapter we have noticed the analysis of the principle of love. It is needful to refer to this [pg 152] again, as intimately connected with the question of the right moral action of finite minds.

We have seen that love is a complex exercise, its first element being agreeable emotions in view of certain qualities and actions. Combined with these emotions co-exists a desire of reciprocated regard, that is to say, a desire to be the cause of similar agreeable emotions to the one loved. These are constitutional impulses not at all consequent on any volition or choice, and as the involuntary element of love, are properly called involuntary love. Such love can not be justly demanded except where those qualities are, or can be, perceived which naturally awaken agreeable emotions. In cases where the qualities exist that would naturally awaken affection if noticed, and the want of it is owing to inattention, a proper regard to such qualities can be justly demanded. But this is the only particular in which involuntary love can be made the subject of law and penalties.

But the main element of love, as practically estimated among men, is such a desire of good to the one loved as involves the good willing or voluntary effort to please and gratify. If a friend simply is pleased with our good qualities, and wishes to please us with his naturally agreeable traits in return, it is of little value in comparison with the truer love which is shown in voluntary efforts to please and make happy. This last is the main element of true affection, and properly is called voluntary love or good willing. Theologians express this distinction by the terms the love of complacency and the love of benevolence.

Thus we have gained these definitions:

Involuntary love toward God and toward men consists [pg 153] in agreeable emotions in view of admirable qualities.

Voluntary love toward God and toward men consists in good willing, or the voluntary effort to please and make happy.

To “love our neighbor as ourselves” must refer solely to voluntary love, for we have no regard to our own agreeable qualities in the love of self. Self-love is simply the desire and will to please and gratify self. This then is the kind of love that can properly be demanded of all. Each one can justly be required to will or choose to please and gratify others the same as we do ourselves. Each can be required to estimate the happiness of every other mind as of the same value as his own, and to exercise good willing for others as we do for our own enjoyment. From this primary principle necessarily results the law demanding that the good of the commonwealth shall always take precedence of any individual concern. If we are bound to value the happiness of each mind as equal in value to our own, the inevitable result is that we are to estimate the happiness of many minds as of more value than our own, so as always to make our own enjoyment and wishes subordinate and secondary to the general good.

Still more are we to regard the feelings and wishes of our Creator and Supreme Lord. He has infinite susceptibilities of enjoyment and suffering, and thus whatever retards or promotes his wishes and plans must be of as much more value as his powers of enjoyment and suffering are greater than ours. The love of good willing then should have first reference to God as the one whose will and wishes are of more [pg 154] value than any other being in this relation alone. Still more are we bound to regard his will and wishes as first in value, because his chief end and aim is the most possible happiness to all the creatures he has made. To will to please God as the chief end of our existence is the same as to choose to make the most possible happiness, not only to him, but to all his creatures.

Involuntary love is valuable as rendering it easier and more agreeable to labor for the welfare of others. Those whose interesting traits please us; those who, as children or friends, contribute to our enjoyment, and those who in any way give us pleasure, it is far easier to will for their enjoyment than it is to do so for those who do nothing to please us, and perhaps only give us discomfort, anxiety or disgust.

This exhibits an indirect way of securing the love of good will toward those who neither please us by their agreeable qualities, nor are causes of enjoyment to us in any way. Involuntary affection may be so strongly excited toward one whose qualities or conduct cause delight to self, that the desire to please that friend may become more animating than the desire for any personal gratification. Should such a friend be deeply interested in the happiness of his children, or of any other persons, whose character and conduct may in no way please us, still the desire to gratify such a friend may lead to good willing to those whom he loves, for his sake, in order to please and gratify him.

Thus it is that love to parents tends to produce “peace and good will” among children, who, in their [pg 155] little broils, are restrained by the desire to please their parents, when love to each other fails.

Here we have a view of the importance of right conceptions of God's character, in order to secure the perfect action of finite minds, especially in the first stage of existence.

It has been shown that the rules of right action are to be gained, in many cases, only by long experience and by a course of reasoning. Often, too, general rules (such, for example, as that we are never to lie, even to save life, or for any reason,) must be obeyed when a person can see immediate evil, and no good to self or to any one by obedience. Now it is impossible for a rational mind to choose pure evil. There must be some good in an object to excite desire, or it is impossible to choose it. But pleasurable emotions toward an all-wise Creator, whose benevolence and wisdom excite love, delight, and confidence, may be such that to please him gives abundant motive to obey the rules of right he enjoins when no other good can be perceived except that obedience will please him. And the more we perceive in him that excites admiration, love, and gratitude, the more strength of motive is gained.

It has been shown that a choice or act is virtuous in all relations, when it absolutely is best for all, and when it is done in reference to a rule of rectitude, or because it is right. The motive or reason of a choice decides whether or not it is virtuous.

Now as the Creator's will and the rules of rectitude are the same, when we say that any act, in order to be virtuous, must have reference to God's will, the question comes up, is an act virtuous because it pleases God, or does it please God because it is virtuous? i.e., [pg 156] because it conforms to those rules by which his chief end in creation is secured, and which rest on the eternal nature of things.

The last is the principle here assumed. God's great end is the highest happiness of his creatures. Obedience to his laws is the mode for securing this end; his own actions are right as they conform to this end; and the actions of all his creatures are right only in the same relation.

So God's “glory” consists in the highest happiness of his creatures, which can only be secured by their obedience to his laws.

This makes it clear that choosing as our chief end to obey all the physical, social, and moral laws of God, as learned by experience, is the same as loving God with all the heart, and our neighbors as ourselves. It is also living for God's glory as the chief end; and it is being a truly righteous, virtuous, and pious man.

This distinction between voluntary and involuntary love enables us to discover certain dangers that result for want of such discrimination. Men may conceive of the Creator as desiring to be loved, admired, and glorified, just as selfish conquerors, like Alexander and Napoleon have done. In this view all their aims would be to excite agreeable emotions toward God by the contemplation of his various attributes. And thus they might be so absorbed in the indulgence of such delightful emotions as to become entirely heedless of the wants and the wishes of those around them. This kind of experience would cultivate selfishness instead of benevolence.

On the contrary, choosing to obey all God's laws for happiness-making on the largest scale, and viewing [pg 157] the lovely and glorious attributes of the Creator as means to this end, would induce the only true virtue, while it is the true mode of pleasing our Maker and increasing his enjoyment.

The preceding furnishes the mode of harmonizing a great variety of expressions that may properly be given in answer to the great question, “what must we do to be saved?” as we gain this answer independently of revelation.

The first answer is, “believe in God's teachings—or have faith in God.” This means, take the laws of God as revealed by reason and experience, and obey them, and you shall be saved. It is a practical and not a mere intellectual belief that constitutes this “saving faith.”

The next answer is, “repent,” or “repentance toward God.”

The word repent is used to signify, sometimes, simply remorse or pain for wrong-doing. In another sense it signifies that sorrow for wrong-doing which includes reformation. It is ceasing to disobey law and commencing a life of obedience. It is in this sense that men are saved by repentance.

Another answer is, “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself.” This has been shown to signify, thou shalt choose as the chief end of life to make happiness the right way, that is, by obeying all the physical, social, and moral laws of God. “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.”

Another answer is, “make it thy chief end to glorify God.” Inasmuch as God's glory consists in the exhibition of his character as a benevolent being, all [pg 158] who promote his chief aim by making happiness according to his will, are living to glorify God.

Another answer is, “live a truly virtuous life.” It has been shown that true virtue consists in obedience to the great law of sacrifice by which the lesser personal good is sacrificed to the greater good of all concerned.

Thus faith, repentance, love to God and man, making it our chief end to glorify God, living a virtuous life, all signify one and the same thing, (i.e.,) choosing to find out and to obey all the physical, social, and moral laws of God as our chief end or ruling purpose.

The righteous are those who have formed such a purpose, and who exhibit its results in their daily life.

The wicked are those who have not formed such a purpose, and do not exhibit it in their daily life.

In the common language of every-day life, when a person is intensely interested in any pursuit, it is said to be “his life.” And when a man changes from a vicious to a virtuous course he is said to “begin a new life.”

Thus it would be in agreement with the ordinary use of language to call a new-formed purpose to obey all the laws of God the commencement of a new life. And as the beginning of natural life is the commencement of a life of impulsive choices unregulated by law, the commencement of a life of obedience to law would, by a figure of speech, very naturally be called “a new birth.”

We have seen, in previous pages, that the formation of a ruling principle or governing purpose is sometimes the result of a slow process of educational influences, and sometimes it is a marked and sudden change. In [pg 159] the history of mind we find, as a general rule, that it is the slow process of educational training that secures a virtuous character in childhood, while the more sudden and marked changes are incident chiefly to more advanced life.

The term “regeneration” is used by theologians as meaning the formation of a ruling purpose to love and obey God, by man himself. By some, this change of mind is regarded as in all cases instantaneous, by others as sometimes a gradual and sometimes an instantaneous change.

The preceding still farther exhibits the fact that the whole foundation of religion and of morals rests on the answer to the question, what is true virtue or right voluntary action?

Chapter XXV. Increased Civilization Increases Moral Difficulties.

From the preceding it appears that the more our race advances in civilization, the more numerous and complicated are the laws of God which must first be discovered and then obeyed.

By advance in civilization is signified increase in the capacities of the human mind for varied enjoyments, and increase in the appropriate supply of these capacities. The early history of the race resembles the early period of individual life, when the chief enjoyments are those of the senses. The refined and varied pleasures of taste are but little attained except [pg 160] by cultivation. So also the higher pleasures of the intellect and of the moral nature are dependent on culture.

As every new avenue to enjoyment is opened, and every new capacity developed, there are inevitably resulting difficulties and temptations which, experience soon shows, must be regulated by laws and penalties. From this results the endless multitude of civil and statute laws, in addition to the various domestic and social rules enforced in the family, the school and the neighborhood.

All these laws and rules will be found to be only specific applications of the great law of sacrifice which demands that, in all cases, every mind shall choose what is best for self and best for the whole. The great democratic principle that the majority shall rule is but one mode of applying this general law of sacrifice.

In this aspect we can perceive how it is, that every attempt to develop any faculty of enjoyment in any created mind, and every effort to provide aliment for such developed capacities is right, as in agreement with the grand end designed by the Creator; provided it is done according to the great law of sacrifice disclosed by reason, viz., that individual enjoyment be made subordinate to the general good, and that no greater good be sacrificed for a less, either for self or for the commonwealth.

In this light, music, drawing, painting, sculpture, architecture, the drama, poetry, laughter, all things that impart enjoyment to any mind are right, provided no higher good is sacrificed in enjoying them. Nay, more; all these modes of imparting enjoyment may [pg 161] become positive duties, in cases where they do not interfere with some higher good.

This view of the subject still further illustrates the nature of that inability which exists in all finite minds in discovering and obeying the laws of God.

There are only two conceivable modes by which we can learn these laws; one is by the experience of finite beings; the other is by revelation from the Creator. To learn what is right and wrong by experience involves not only the certainty, but the necessity, as it respects the absolute right, of wrong-doing; for no one, however right the motive or intention may be, can discover what will cause more or less good or evil but by experiments in which the evil as well as the good is detected by experience.

To learn what is right and wrong in all the thousand and million complications of life by revelation, would involve the necessity of a direct revelation every hour of every day, to every individual of the race. But the only conceivable mode by which revelations from God are possible, is by miracles and prophecy, which are interruptions of the ordinary uniformity of nature. It is the fact that the laws of nature are uniform that alone makes miracles possible, so that incessant revelations by miracles would destroy such uniformity, and thus destroy the only conceivable mode of communication from the Creator.

This being so, the only possible method by which mankind can discover what is right and wrong in the greater portion of their actions is by an experience involving, more or less, wrong-doing as a part.

There are general rules of right and wrong which can be communicated both by God and man, but these [pg 162] rules are to be applied by men to the numberless and ever-varying circumstances of life, involving still the same necessity of experience of evil in order to detect the relative amount of good to be gained in the varied courses offered for pursuit to which these rules are to be applied.

Now the grand difficulty, as it respects both God and man, as before shown, is the positive inability of undeveloped mind to understand much of what is right and wrong. This difficulty meets the mature mind as really as it does the infant's; for while many of the general rules evolved by reason and experience are clear, and easily perceived, there are endless varieties of cases in which the application of these rules is a matter of uncertainty. For example, that men are to be honest and speak the truth, are rules universally appreciated. But then come the questions whether this and that thing is honest, or whether in this or that emergency it may not be right to say what is false. The higher men advance in civilization, and the more means and modes of enjoyment are discovered, the more complicated become the questions of right, and the more frequent the temptations to wrong.

All that can be done is to cultivate the conscience and train the reasoning powers of mankind, so that by means of the experience of life, as developed by individuals and communities, regard to the rules of right and wrong shall keep pace with the increasing civilization.

With these distinctions in the mind, we can perceive that sin, in its widest sense, including transgression of unknown law, is inevitable in a perfect system of finite minds, while in the limited sense, as transgression of known law, it is not so.

So also we can see, that without the intervention of the Creator to teach us, it is an impossibility for any human being to live without sin; so that this intervention is impossible except to a limited extent, without an entire change in the eternal nature of things to which God's own will is conformed.

Chapter XXVI. Humility and Meekness.

We have seen that we can learn what is right and wrong only by aid received from the experience of our fellow-beings around us.

But in order to this, there are certain virtues which are both difficult and indispensable. In studying the history of mind, it will be seen that the higher the grade of intellect and the greater its culture, the stronger is the love of intellectual supremacy and the more energetic the pride of opinion. It is a fact which none will dispute, that, as the general rule, having some exceptions, the class of minds most highly endowed by native talent and acquired culture, are most unwilling to take the attitude of learners toward their associates, and still more toward their inferiors in these endowments. When this pride of intellect and of opinion is combined with benevolence of disposition and with sensitiveness of conscience, there is nothing more difficult than to “become as a little child” in learning truth and duty. For the more benevolence and conscientiousness, the greater the unwillingness to be put in the wrong.

And yet, in the smallest sphere of life, between every individual and his neighbors, thousands of questions of right and wrong turn on how our words and actions will affect the happiness of those around; and there is no possibility of settling such questions but by leaving every person at liberty to communicate freely what does, or does not, give them pain or pleasure, and thus teach others how to make happiness and save from pain. In order to this, it is indispensable that every one be made to understand that our chief aim is to make happiness the best and right way, and that for this end we wish to have a perfectly free expression of wishes and opinions. For if it is perceived that irritability and alienation result from such a course, all those around us will conceal their feelings and opinions, and thus, for want of a true knowledge of circumstances, we shall “walk in darkness,” because we are not willing to be told the truths that put us in the wrong or expose our mistakes.

The same free expression of opinion and protest against all wrong, are as indispensable to the discovery of those rules of right and wrong, that are to be evolved from the general experience. Every man, woman and child in the commonwealth, should be perfectly free to set forth their opinions, experience, and reasoning, for the purpose of finding out what is best for the whole. Nor should they be withheld by the fear that such a course would place a parent, a brother, a friend, or a party in the wrong, and expose those dearest to us to blame. For the true happiness of each and all is to be secured by a knowledge of the truth, and often such knowledge can be gained only by exposing the evil results of courses that are [pg 165] pursued by the best and most conscientious persons.

In carrying out this principle, there must be discretion exercised as to time and manner of performing the duty; and there are some limitations to be recognized, which are matters of expediency. For example, a man must seek the best time to expose what is wrong, and he must seek to do it in a manner that will secure the good aimed at with the least possible evil. And if it can be done better by the agency of another, the aid of that other should be invoked.

So in regard to limitations, what is strictly personal should be confined to the party who alone is concerned. What relates solely to the family concerns should be confined to the family. Nor should any wrongs or dissensions be brought before the public except those in which the public welfare is involved.

But with these limitations it is the demand of reason and common sense, that every man, woman and child freely protest against all that they believe to be wrong in opinion or conduct.

In taking such a course, every man's success in discovering and propagating the truth will depend very much on the spirit with which it is attempted. If it is done in a self-sufficient, dictatorial, and denunciatory mode, the inevitable result will be to arouse those passions and prejudices which are most effectual in blinding the mind in discovering truth.

If, on the contrary, it is attempted with the humility, meekness and benevolence which are befitting ignorant, fallible and short-sighted beings, encompassed with such appalling difficulties and dangers, the most favorable of all influences will be exerted to secure a patient and candid attention.

Still, so sensitive are men to all implications of their motives or conduct, so unwilling are they to acknowledge themselves mistaken, that the faithful discharge of the duty of protesting against wrong, will always be attended with more or less of ill-will and bad passions.

In view of the above, if we were to predict what would be the first preliminary teaching of a messenger from the Creator imparting to us the true way of happiness-making, we should say, reasoning from the experience of life, it would read thus:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit;” that is, those who feel their poverty of mind as to the knowledge required for right action.

“Blessed are they that mourn;” that is, those who are troubled by this want.

“Blessed are the meek;” that is, those that can quietly and patiently bear reproof and fault-finding.

“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness;” that is, those who are as earnest to find the right way of happiness-making as the hungry and thirsty are for food and drink.

“Blessed are the happiness-makers.”[9]

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake;” that is, those who are willing to suffer for the right.

Chapter XXVII. The Standard of Right and Wrong Decided by The Risks of Eternity.

It has been shown, that the more the capacities of men are cultivated, and the sources of enjoyment multiplied, the more complicated become the varying questions as to right and wrong moral action, and the more our reasoning powers and our conscience need to be cultivated in order to decide correctly.

Just as fast as men increase in the number and extent of the capacities and resources of enjoyment, will questions of right and wrong multiply, and rules be evolved, every one of which will rest on the grand law of sacrifice, which demands of every individual that he shall give up private feelings and choose what is best for all concerned.

These difficulties and complications are still more increased, if we are to take into account an immortal existence, and the influence which conduct and character in this life may have on a future eternity. What is best for each individual, and what is best for the commonwealth in such vast relations, involve questions far beyond the reach of human capacities, which only infinite wisdom can answer.

In all questions of right and wrong, for individual and for public interests, the degree of danger and risk involved, always is the ruling consideration. The greater the danger of the commonwealth, or of the individual, the greater are the demands for sacrifices [pg 168] on the part of all concerned. What would be right in circumstances of ease and safety, becomes the height of selfishness and crime in hours of peril and suffering.

To illustrate this point on a humble scale, let it be supposed that a vast and dangerous morass is filled with a multitude of travelers, of all ages and all degrees of intelligence, who can press through it to their homes only by difficult, dark, and circuitous paths. In addition to its morasses, pit-falls, swamps and fens, each path is beset with venomous reptiles, and its woods with ferocious beasts, while it is the young and tender who are the special objects of pursuit to these terrific foes. In such a community, and amid such dangers, all decisions of right and wrong, as to what was owed to others or to one's self, would be entirely diverse from what would be demanded were all in their safe homes. Sleepless nights, constant watching, painful toils, incessant vigilance, would be the imperious duty of every one, who could render any service. Amusements and sports, that in other circumstances would be wise and right, would be allowed only just so far as they tended to give relaxation or repose of mind and body to those who needed them, and only for the great end of securing a safe and speedy escape to all.

Now suppose that, in these circumstances, some of the wanderers are taught that there were no such dangers, that the paths were all safe and certain, and that every one of them would sooner or later arrive safely at home.

Others are taught that there probably is some danger and some doubt as to the amount of risks, yet as [pg 169] no one knows much about the matter, on any alternative, it is very wise to be careful and prudent.

Another class are taught that all these terrific dangers do exist; nay more, that it is certain that some are to be lost in pit-falls, some torn with wild beasts, some poisoned to death with venomous reptiles, and some for ever lost in bleak and cold morasses.

Meantime, who should be the lost and who the saved, and the number of the lost, would be entirely dependent on the care, vigilance, labors and sacrifices endured by each, not only for self, but for others.

It can easily be seen, that in these three classes there must be an entirely different standard for deciding all questions of right and wrong. What would be right and wise, in case there is little or no danger, would be folly and crime amid such terrific perils. In one case, each would have little concern or responsibility for any but self; in another case, all benevolent minds would be overwhelmed with anxiety for others as well as for themselves.

This being so, it is claimed that the deductions of reason as to the future immortality of man, and his risks and dangers beyond the grave, are indispensable to deciding multitudes of moral questions of the highest moment, while every person's standard of morality must be regulated by their decision of this question.

Chapter XXVIII. The Destiny of Man in the Future Life.

It has been shown, that the teachings of reason as to the immortality of the soul, and our risks and dangers after death, are indispensable to a true standard of morality, and to the decision of innumerable moral questions of the highest moment.

The next attempt, therefore, will be to set forth what can be learned by reason and experience, independently of revelation, in regard to the future destiny of man.

The first question relates to the existence of the soul after death, and its immortality. Here we have to guide us that great principle of common sense, which regulates mankind in all the practical business of life, viz., things are, and will continue according to past experience, until there is evidence of a change.

By the aid of this, we go forward in all practical affairs, believing that the beings and things around us are continued in existence till we have evidence that they are not. If any man were to talk and act as if every person was destroyed, and every town and village annihilated, as soon as the evidence of his senses failed, he would be deemed one who had “lost his reason.”

This same principle tends to the belief that the soul of man continues to exist after the dissolution of the body. We have no evidence that the separation of soul and body is an event that either injures or destroys [pg 171] the spiritual part. On the contrary, there are many analogies in nature that would lead to the impression that death gives new strength and powers to the disembodied spirit.

This being so, we have the same reason to believe that the soul of man exists after death as we have for believing that our friends are living when they leave us on a journey, and we have no evidence of their death. We can not see them, hear them, or feel them, and yet we believe they are living, we know not exactly where, because we have no evidence of their death. And so, after the dissolution of the body, though all evidence of sense as to the existence of their immaterial part ceases, we believe the same thinking, sentient spirits continue to exist, because we have no evidence that they have ceased to do so.

We have perfect evidence that the body ceases to exist as a body, for it moulders to dust. We have no evidence at all that the soul is either injured or destroyed. Such a thing as the destruction or annihilation of a spirit was never known or heard of from any quarter of earth or heaven.

We therefore conclude, that at the moment of death the soul is still existing with all its powers unchanged.

The same argument goes on still further, and leads to the immortality of the soul. We know of no cause or reason for the destruction of the soul at any future period. We never have known or heard that any soul ever ceased to exist. And so we infer, that the soul will keep on a perpetuated existence, by the same principle as that which leads us to believe the earth and the heavens will remain to future ages.

In regard to the character and condition of departed [pg 172] spirits, again we have the same principle to guide us. Without revelation, the past experience of mind is our sole beacon to give light as to its future destiny.

Our next inquiry, then, is, what does the past experience of mind teach us as to its condition beyond the grave? In pursuing this inquiry, we must recall, in brief forms, some of the points of mental experience set forth in previous chapters.

Some of the most important of these relate to the principle of habit by which the exercise of all our faculties becomes more and more easy by use. This is true of the intellect, by which we gain our knowledge of what will secure the most happiness; of the social nature, by which we give happiness to other minds and receive the same from them; of our moral nature, by which we are guided to justice, equity, and the rule of conscience; of our voluntary nature, by which we regulate all our other powers. Each and all are developed, strengthened, and facilitated in right action, by being exercised according to the laws of God.

The legitimate use of all our faculties induces also not only increased facility, but increased enjoyment. The more the intellect is trained, the more agreeable its exercise. The more our social nature is developed by use, the more its powers are developed and its blessed influence increased. The more our moral nature is exercised, the more vigorous becomes our sense of justice and the sensibilities of conscience, and the more pleasing their exercise. And the more the will is exercised in controlling every other faculty by the rules of rectitude, the more easy and delightful is this power of self-control.

The influence of habit in regard to the great law of sacrifice for the best good of all, is especially to be regarded. Such is its power that, in many cases, self-sacrifices that at first were annoying, or even painful, become sources of the highest and noblest enjoyment.

Another not less important influence of habit is, in regard to those modes of enjoyment which are most important to the commonwealth, and most happifying. The pursuit of these increases both desire and capacity for gratification, while those less important and more dangerous, if made the leading object of pursuit, diminish capacity while desire is increased. Thus the happiness gained in giving and receiving affection, in causing happiness to others, and in rectitude of action, all increase both the desire and the capacity for these important and elevated modes of enjoyments. Nor is there any danger of excess in forming habits in these directions. But the pleasures of the senses and the pursuit of power, honor, and other enjoyments that terminate in self, are liable to excess, and this excess diminishes the capacity for enjoyment, while the ceaseless craving of desire remains.

Thus it appears that a mind that forms habits of happiness-making according to right rules, becomes more and more strongly drawn to that course by finding more and more enjoyment in it, while a mind that pursues as a chief end the enjoyments that terminate in self, constantly loses capacity for such good, and yet the desire for it drives on to vain and cheerless efforts.

Another ominous fact in our mental nature is, the effect of habit in diminishing the control of the voluntary [pg 174] power. When any excessive or illegitimate mode of exercising the faculties becomes a ruling passion, the change of a habit thus formed becomes more and more difficult in exact proportion to the continuous repetition. Even when men see and feel that a habit is formed that increases their sorrow and diminishes their enjoyment, and that another course would render them every way nobler and happier, they find their purposes of change often are powerless. The control of the will continually yields to the force of habit, and so they are hopelessly driven on in their fetal pursuits.

Again, the effect of wrong action on the susceptibilities is as ominous as it is on the power of choice. We have seen that the design of painful emotions is to stimulate to the formation of good habits, and that when this legitimate object is not effected these emotions continually decrease in strength and vividness, so that the designed benefit is lost. Thus fear is designed to induce habits of caution, but if no such habits are the result, danger ceases to excite this emotion, and a man becomes at once fearless and careless. So with sympathy in the sufferings of others; if no habits of benevolent efforts to relieve are induced, that sensibility diminishes, and men become at once unsympathising, hard and cruel. So it is with shame; if it does not lead to habits of honor and duty, the susceptibility continually diminishes. And so it is with remorse; if habits of rectitude are not induced by its emotions, the conscience becomes “seared as with hot iron.”

But the most deteriorating effect of wrong action is seen in regard to that fundamental point of the mental constitution which makes it a source of happiness to [pg 175] be the cause of happiness to others. It is a universal fact that the tendency of disagreeable emotions is to lead to the infliction of pain on others. This propensity to inflict pain on whoever is the cause of pain, when regulated by the rules of rectitude, is the source of justice in the family and state, and leads only to good. But when it is indulged and unregulated, it is the most fearful feature in our mental constitution. The records of history exhibit many monsters of our race, whose mental constitution has become so disordered by habits of fatal indulgence, that all love of happiness-making for others seems destroyed, and the baleful pleasure of tormenting becomes a ruling passion.

Another feature of our mental conformation which directly bears on this subject, is the fact, that all those good qualities and benevolent acts which naturally tend to please and awaken the desire of good to others, may become sources of pain and ill-will. This is the case when the lovely and benevolent traits of other minds are contrasted with opposite traits in self. Thus it is that the selfish, cruel and malignant hate and are powerfully repelled from the generous, just and virtuous, while the good as instinctively fly from the wicked.

The natural result of these features in the nature of mind, is a continual tendency toward a separation of the good and the bad, the righteous and the wicked.

According to the teachings of experience, a mind that forms habits of selfishness and sin is constantly tending to a deterioration of its nature in all directions. And the course of obedience to the grand law of self-sacrifice for the best good of all, becomes more [pg 176] and more difficult and improbable. As the natural result the good are more and more attracted toward each other, and the bad are more and more repelled.

These tendencies, so plainly exhibited here, reasoning from experience, we infer are to continue after death, until the final result must be the entire exclusion of the evil from the good, whenever power exists to compel the separation. This power, all must feel is held and will be exercised by the Author of all minds, whose great plan, so far as reason teaches, can be carried to perfection only by such a consummation.

One point in the history of our race has a mournful pertinence to this question. We find that the improvement and the safety of the great commonwealth is always, more or less, promoted by the ruin of individuals. Multitudes are deterred from evil courses by the miserable end of those who pursue them; so that the good are often preserved by the destruction of the bad.

So, too, we find exhibitions of the fact that minds are utterly ruined, and ruined for ever, so far as we can perceive. The man who has stultified his intellect, ruined his health, seared his conscience, and blunted all his generous and benevolent sensibilities by a course of debauchery, cruelty and crime, is a wreck as total and irretrievable, so far as we can see, as a watch whose springs and pivots are crushed beneath the hammer, or a human body whose every lineament is effaced beneath the rushing locomotive train.

The common language of life expresses such mental facts in precisely the same terms as are applied to physical catastrophes. Thus, a man who is given [pg 177] up to debauchery, intemperance and crime, is said to be a “total wreck”—“entirely destroyed,”—“utterly ruined.”

Add to this the teaching of experience, that when men are bad, the increase of blessings only increases indulgence and crime. At the same time punishment does not tend to reformation. The more men suffer for their folly and guilt, the more hardened they become. The victims of licentiousness and intemperance, though they suffer such miseries, have ever been regarded as the farthest removed from the probabilities of reformation.

Add to all this, the deductions of reason as to the moral nature of the Creator and Governor of all minds. He has power to separate the good and bad; his great design, of which we here see only the tendencies, makes it indispensable to the perfect happiness of the good that they be separated from the bad—a perfectly happy commonwealth can not be attained where the bad form a part—while the sense of justice exists in God on a scale far above ours, demanding added penalties for the known and willful destruction of happiness. He, like his children on earth, feels that craving for retributive justice, which can never rest till the guilty and remorseless monster receives the just recompense for his cruelty and crimes.

These teachings of reason and experience lead to the conclusion, not only that there is to be a grand consummation in which all sin and suffering shall be ended in a perfected commonwealth, but also to the conclusion that those excluded from this community of the good are to continue their existence in sin and its natural results for ever.

That any portion, either of matter or mind, is to be annihilated, can not be inferred from any past experience. All that we can learn are the laws of perpetual succession and change. One single fact of annihilation has never yet been made known to man by any process of reasoning, or any recorded experience.

There is another question in reference to this awful subject, which is of deepest interest. Although the deductions of reason lead to the doctrine of the eventual separation of mankind into two distinct communities, the good and the evil, what are its teachings as to the immediate state of each individual soul after the event of death?

Here, as before, we have only the nature and past history of mind, from which the future is to be deduced. In this world we have found the changes in the character of individuals and of communities to proceed by slow and imperceptible movement. We have nothing in the past to lead to the belief that this slow process of discipline, culture and change may not proceed on for ages. As in this life, multitudes have the impress and direction of character given in early life, so that the first few years determine all their future history in this world, so the career of this short life may fix the future through eternal years. And yet the process of change to the full consummation of character may involve ages.

In studying the works of the Creator, we find that every thing goes forward on a system of developments. Nothing comes into being in full perfection, and unless there is an interruption of the natural tendencies of things, every thing reaches its full and perfected state before its existence ends. And the nobler, larger, [pg 179] and grander the existence, the slower it proceeds to its consummated perfection. The oak and the palm demand centuries ere they reach their perfected prime. The highest grades of animal life are slowest in gaining their full development. The horse, the elephant, and the camel, are going forward to perfection for years after the feebler tribes that started with them have perfected and perished.

Guided, then, by the analogies of experience, we should infer that mind, the noblest work of its Creator's hand—mind, that begins its career in such low and feeble development, is not to form the mournful exception to the general rule.

On the contrary, we infer from all past experience, both of matter and mind, that the soul, when it lays aside its outer covering, proceeds onward in its career of development. And if its period of progressive development is proportioned to its relative value in comparison with all other created things, the fleeting years of this life in relation to the ages previous to its prime, may be but as the first days of puling infancy to the whole career of manhood.

But this subject is imperfectly treated, if we neglect to consider the fact, that the soul, so far as we can perceive, is disembodied at death. We have perfect evidence, that the material part is destroyed, as to its organized existence. We have the same sort of evidence that the soul continues to exist, and will continue to exist, as we have that the sun exists when all evidence of sight ceases. But what is the experience of a disembodied spirit, we have no means of learning. It may be that its powers of knowledge and action are greatly increased, when freed from its earthly prison. [pg 180] If this be so, the experience of this life leads to the inference that its dangers and temptations are increased in exact proportion. Increase of civilization is only increase in sources of knowledge and enjoyment, and each addition brings new temptations, new rules, and the need of new penalties. It may be the same in the future life.

We can suppose the body a veil to hide our mind from another, and that death makes every soul “open and naked,” in all its thoughts and feelings, to every other disembodied spirit. What would be the effect of such a revelation, no one could say. But we should fear rather than hope.

If men are exasperated by words that exhibit only a portion of the scorn, contempt, and disgust felt toward the base and mean, not only by the pure and good, but by the wicked themselves, such a full revelation of all minds to all minds presents a theme for awful forebodings to the guilty. And even the purest might tremble to encounter such an ordeal. But over such terrific conjectures rest the darkness and silence of the grave.

The following, then, are the deductions of reason and experience as to the future condition of our race after death.

The soul, at the dissolution of the body, remains unchanged in its tastes, habits and character. The tendencies indicated in this life are continued indefinitely, and eventually will result in the separation of the good and the bad into two separate communities, the one, being obedient to all the laws of God, will be for ever and perfectly happy, and the other are to reap the natural results of disobedience, and whatever [pg 181] added penalties the best good of the universe may demand.

The final consummation in which this separation will be achieved, may be at the distance of ages, and in the meantime all those minds that have passed, or will pass from this life, are in the same process of culture, discipline, and upward or downward progress, which exists in this life. Whether these advantages and temptations will be greater or less in the disembodied state, we have no data for inference or conjecture.

The conduct and character formed in this life will have an abiding influence on the character and happiness of every mind through eternal ages.[10]

Chapter XXIX. What Must We Do To Be Saved?

We have considered the risks and dangers of the future state, as taught by reason and experience, and also as the foundation of a true standard of morality. We have seen that the true mode of escape from these dangers is the formation of a truly virtuous character, or in other words, it is making it our chief end to obey all the laws of God.

The next question is, what are the teachings of reason and experience as to the most successful modes of securing true virtue, or voluntary obedience to all the laws of God?

This brings up the inquiry as to the causes of voluntary [pg 182] action, and of the power which one mind has of securing right or wrong volitions in another.

In a previous chapter was pointed out the distinction to be recognized between the producing cause and the occasional causes of volition.

Mind itself is the only producing cause of its own volitions. Excited desires, and those objects which excite desire, are the occasional causes of choice.

The question is, in what sense can any being be the cause of virtuous actions, or virtuous character, in another mind?

Here we must recur to the fact that the Creator, as the author of all minds, and of all the things that excite desire, is the cause, in one sense, of all the volitions and of all the characters of all finite minds. It is in this sense that, in the Bible, the Jehovah of the Old Testament says, “I make peace and create evil.” No other being but the Creator can be regarded as the cause of volitions in this sense, viz., as the author of all minds and their circumstances of temptation.

There is a second sense in which the Creator is never the cause of sinful action in any mind. It is this: creating or modifying our susceptibilities, or arranging temptations with the design or intention of producing sinful action. This is established by proving, that the chief end of God is to make the most possible happiness, and that sin is the needless destruction of happiness, resulting from disobedience to the laws of God.

The only sense, then, in which God can be called the author or cause of sinful volitions in the minds of his creatures, is the fact that he is the author of all created minds and of their circumstances of temptation.

In regard to man, there are only two conceivable modes, in which he can be the cause of sinful or virtuous character in other minds.

The first mode is so to combine circumstances of temptation as to affect the most excitable and powerful sensibilities, or to remove those objects and influences that sustain moral principle, or by a long course of training, to form habits and induce principles. The combinations of motive influences that one mind can thus bring to bear on another, as temptations to right or wrong action, are almost infinite.

Another mode is by changing the constitutional susceptibilities. This can sometimes be effected to a certain degree by education, and the formation of habits. It can be still more directly effected through the physical organization. For example, a child may be trained to use coffee, tea, alcohol, or tobacco, till the nervous system is shattered, and then a placid temper becomes excitable, an active nature becomes indolent, and multitudes of other disastrous changes are the result.

When these two modes are employed with the design to induce wrong action, then men are blameable causes of sinful action and character in their fellow men. God, as above shown, never thus causes sin. When these modes are employed with the intention to induce virtuous actions and character, then both God and man are causes of right moral action in mankind.

Thus, it appears, that in the formation of virtuous character and habits, God, educators and self are the three combining causes, each being indispensable to the result, and thus each dependent on the others. God decides the nature and combinations of our susceptibilities [pg 184] and our circumstances of temptation. The educators of mind also modify the susceptibilities, and regulate the temptations. Self, as the producing cause of volition, decides the nature of our own volitions, and thus also coöperates to regulate circumstances of temptation.

The attainment of virtuous character, therefore, depends conjointly on God, man and self. It has been shown that God invariably does the best he can to secure the most perfect action possible in all minds.

The blamable causes of all failure in right and virtuous action are self and the finite educators of self. The unblamable causes are God, educators and self, so far as they are faithful in doing all they can to educate aright.

With these preliminary considerations, we proceed in the inquiry as to those modes which in past experience have been found most successful in securing virtuous character, or voluntary obedience to the laws of God.

The first cause of right moral action is a knowledge of and faith in the physical, social, intellectual and moral laws of God. It is impossible, in the nature of things, that a new-created mind should be possessed of such knowledge and faith. All that is possible, so far as we can learn by reason and experience, is that there should be a slow and gradual development not only of each individual mind, but of the whole race, as each generation, in turn, receives by instruction the experience of the one previous, and transmits it with its own experience to a succeeding generation.

The next thing that has been found efficacious in forming virtuous character is the formation of uniform habits of obedience to parental rule, in the early periods [pg 185] of existence. To secure this, invariable steadiness in government has been found indispensable. If a child finds that sometimes he is to obey and sometimes he is not, there is always a temptation to struggle against law. But if a parent's laws, rewards and penalties are as steady and sure as those of God, in due time the child submits as cheerfully to the domestic rules and commands, as he does to the laws of nature. He is no more tempted to contest parental commands than he is to attempt to stop the flow of a river or the falling of rain. In this way a habit of submission to law is generated, which makes all the future discipline and training of life comparatively easy. A child learns cheerfully to obey a heavenly Father, just in proportion as he thus obeys his earthly parents.

The next thing taught by experience is that children should be instructed as fast as possible in the reasonableness and benevolence of all the laws they are required to obey. Obedience is made easy and sure just in proportion as a child is made to perceive, that such obedience is best for himself and best for all concerned.

The next thing which experience has shown to be most effective in securing obedience to law, is love on the part of the educator, and corresponding love in return from the child. To gain the love of a child an educator must exhibit all lovable traits, and confer benefits, so as to call forth at once admiration, gratitude and affection. This renders it easy to the child to conform to the rules and wishes of one so beloved.

Sympathy with a child in all its trials and in all its enjoyments, still further increases this power of another mind in right guidance.

This sympathetic influence is greatly increased by the power of a virtuous example—especially if this example is exhibited by a beloved friend and benefactor, who would be gratified by thus guiding a dependent mind.

Another influence that tends to secure virtuous action is the bearing of pain and hardships even when it is not voluntary. Those children who are trained in a cold clime and on a hard soil, and who are early trained to hardships, find it far easier to conform to rule, and to bear sacrifices for the general good, than those whose lives have been a course of uninterrupted ease and indulgence.

To these, add the social influences of the example and sympathy of a surrounding community. Where all around are practicing virtuous conduct—where all admire and praise only what is good and right—it is far easier to secure obedience to the rules of rectitude, than where the example and sympathy of surrounding minds are opposed to virtue.

But the most powerful of all influences in securing virtuous action, is the principle of love and gratitude toward some noble benefactor, who saves from some terrible evils at the expense of great personal suffering and sacrifices, and who seeks his reward in the pleasure of redeeming those thus benefited, from the snares and ruin of sin. And the greater the evils averted, and the more severe the suffering on the part of the benefactor, the stronger the influence thus gained to secure virtuous character and action in the one thus rescued.

These are the influences which experience has [pg 187] shown to be most effective in securing virtuous character.

When the question is asked, “What must we do to be saved?” it may be answered in reference to all concerned in the matter; that is to say, “What must self do—What must our fellow-men do—What must the Creator do, to secure obedience to his laws, and thus to save from sin and its penalties?”

In view of the above teachings, each one for himself must seek, first, knowledge of the laws of God, and of their rewards and penalties as discovered by the experience of mankind. In order to do this, each must take all means to gain true teachers, and to receive their teachings in true faith, that is, that practical faith, which includes the purpose of obedience. Each must cultivate the intellect, the reason and the moral sense, in order to judge correctly in receiving and applying the rules of rectitude; each must seek to discover the reasonableness and benevolence of these laws, and form habits of steady obedience; each must seek to discover and rightly to appreciate all the good and lovable qualities of all who institute and administer laws, from the Creator to all subordinate rulers and governors in the domestic and civil state; each must seek the society of those whose sympathy and example would encourage and promote virtuous conduct; and finally, each must make obedience to all the laws of God the chief end or ruling purpose. These are briefly the reply to the great question in relation to self.

We are next to consider this question in relation to what men must do to save others.

Here we are to take into account two subjects previously [pg 188] illustrated; the first is that great law of sacrifice, by which each individual must make his own wishes and welfare subordinate to the higher interests of the great commonwealth; the second is the fact that all questions of right and wrong are dependent on the risks and dangers that threaten the commonwealth. In cases where there is little peril or evil, each individual has little responsibility for others. On the contrary, when all are exposed to terrific dangers and hazards, every individual is bound to think and care as much for the danger of each one as for his own. And just as much as the interests of all are of more value than those of one, so much more should each place the public welfare above that of self.

In a preceding chapter have been exhibited the risks and dangers of our race in reference to the future life. These are such, that without any appeal to revelation, every man of humanity and benevolence must feel that to save his fellow-beings from such dangers should become immediately his leading object of pursuit, his chief end.

In pursuing this as the main object of life, each individual is bound to follow the teachings of experience as to the most successful modes as set forth above. Each one, then, should become a teacher of the laws of God to all who are in ignorance, to the full extent of his power, and set forth all the motives to induce obedience; each should strive to exhibit all those qualities and deeds which will excite admiration, love and gratitude, in order thus to gain influence over other minds and guide them to virtuous conduct. Each should confer benefits and practice self-denying benevolence toward others and thus gain still farther [pg 189] influence. Each should strive to exhibit that example and that sympathy that are so effective in leading others aright.

In regard to those who are the educators of the young, each must strive to maintain that invariable steadiness in governments which is so effective in forming virtuous habits and in rendering obedience to the laws of God more and more easy.

Finally, it should be the aim of each to establish such a community around all who are being trained to virtue, that every social influence shall repress vice and encourage virtue.

Next, we are to consider the great question in reference to the Creator. What then must God do to save our race from sin and its miseries? What would reason and experience teach us to expect he would do to secure obedience to his laws?

In answering this question we must again refer to the causes which experience has shown to be most effective, for we can conceive of no other. We have examined the evidence that the Creator has given to each of his children such a constitution of mind and body, and such circumstances of temptation and trial as is best on the whole, as a part of an infinite system whose results are to develop through eternity. At the same time it has been shown that God is limited, by the eternal nature of things, to a course in which some evil must exist, so that all that is requisite to his character as perfectly benevolent, is that this evil should be reduced by him to its least possible amount.

To suppose that God can impart at creation of each mind all the knowledge of the millions of rules needed [pg 190] for all the myriads of new relations, of myriads of beings through all eternity, is to suppose an impossibility in the nature of things.

If it be maintained that the Creator is not thus limited by the nature of things, but, as theologians teach, could make mind perfect in all needed knowledge as in all other respects, at the first, then we have the greater contradiction involved in the fact, that a perfectly benevolent being chose for his children ignorance and sin in preference to knowledge and virtue.

To say that it may be best to create minds destitute of all needed knowledge when the want insures infinite wrong and suffering, and when there is power to create the knowledge that would insure perfect happiness, is simply a direct contradiction. It is saying that less happiness may be greater than greater happiness. For by “what is for the best” we understand “that which secures the most happiness.” And saying that making misery where there is power to make happiness in its place, is best, means nothing else but the assertion above, that less happiness is greater than greater happiness; or that less is more than most, which is a contradiction, inconceivable and absurd, so that no mind can either comprehend or believe it.

Now, every theologian of every school and of every sect maintains that “God does all things for the best.” Every one who believes in a benevolent Creator does the same. This is simply saying that God does the best possible; that is to say, there is no power that can make a better system than God has made, or administer it with more wisdom or benevolence. He has chosen the best possible and so he can not do any better.

These things being granted, the teachings of experience would lead us to suppose, still farther, that the Creator must do all that is possible to maintain invariable steadiness of government. We can see that this, which is so important in family government, must be still more so in an infinite family. For this end, the natural penalties for wrong doing, must be as invariable as the rewards for well doing.

Again, the Creator must instruct his creatures in his laws and their rewards and penalties to the full extent of his power. That is to say, he must provide well-trained educators of mind, as fast and as fully as is possible in the nature of things, having in view the results of eternal ages to guide his decisions.

Again, to secure voluntary obedience, he must add to the natural rewards and penalties of his laws, the other class of motives which experience has shown to be most effective. Thus, he must present himself to his creatures as a being possessing all those qualities which call forth the delightful emotions of admiration, reverence and love; he must show himself as a constant benefactor, and as one who “does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men.” He must manifest his love to his creatures by word as well as by deed. He must come personally to provide for their wants and cheer them with his care. He must show his tenderness and sympathy in their trials and sorrows as well as in their joys. And if they are exposed to great dangers and evils from which they can be redeemed by self-sacrifice and suffering on his part, this highest and most effective proof of love must be exhibited.[11]

To this must be added, a manifestation of his chief [pg 192]desire, so that when love and gratitude ask, what can we do to please our benefactor in return, the answer shall be, obey his laws, and work and suffer for the good of all, as you see your Heavenly Parent does for you.

Finally, he must bring around each of his creatures the powerful social influence, not only of his own sympathy and example, but those also of a perfect commonwealth, where all shall be perfect as is the Father of all.

This is what we should evolve by the light of reason and experience, as what the Creator must do to save our race. Whether he has done all this, is a question that belongs to that system of religion which we can gain only by revelation from God.[12]

Chapter XXX. How Far Reason and Experience are Sufficient Without Revelation.

The preceding chapters present the system of natural religion, as it may be gained by experience and those principles of reason or common sense with which all men are endowed.

Whether mankind ever have, or ever would, fully evolve this system of religious belief without any aid by revelation from the Creator, is a question which we can not readily decide—inasmuch as the claim of Christianity is, that from the first, our race have been instructed by revelations from God, which have been more or less preserved in traditions and written records. [pg 193] It is certain that the elimination of this system, by unaided humanity, is dependent on the development of both the intellectual and moral powers, just as much so, as the physical discoveries of Newton, Copernicus and Columbus were dependent on the intellectual progress of the race.

In reference to the question of the necessity or importance of revelations from the Creator, it is interesting to examine how far those nations that have been most advanced in intellectual development, have secured this system of common sense, independently of the revelations contained in the Bible—revelations which also have been more or less incorporated by Mohammed into the Koran.

In a brief review of the pagan systems, that of Boodhism occupies the first place, as one which has had longest and largest control over civilized pagandom—one which has been most unimpeded by resistance, and one which now controls one half the human race.

We have seen that the common-sense system teaches an eternally self-existent Creator, perfect in knowledge, wisdom, power and benevolence, administering a perfect system by laws—his chief design being to produce the most possible happiness with the least possible evil. It teaches also, that the right voluntary action of mind, as a part of this system, consists in good willing toward the Creator, toward self, and toward our fellow-beings, according to the laws of God, so as to secure what is best for all concerned—making it imperative that self be made subordinate to the public good. It teaches also, that the most effective mode of securing this right action is, first, by imparting [pg 194] a knowledge of these laws and their sanctions, and thus influencing mind by the motives of hope and fear; next, by the motive influences of love, gratitude, sympathy and example, as mutually exercised by God, our fellow-men and self. Finally, it teaches that all questions as to what is right and wrong, are to be regulated with reference to the risks and dangers of a future life, and not with chief reference to this life alone—and that in this estimate the interests of self are to be made subordinate to those of the commonwealth.

We will now notice how far the system of Boodh corresponds with that of common sense.

This religion[13] is one in which there is no intervention of any supreme God, or any self-existent being, or any Creator; on the contrary, all souls and all the universe exist from eternity. All souls from eternity have gone on transmigrating from one body to another, rising or falling in the scale of existence according to their merit or demerit. Boodh is a general name for a divinity or god. There have been innumerable Boodhs in different worlds and different ages, but in this world only four. These four are beings who have risen by merit through various transmigrations, and then became incarnate in human bodies. At last they were annihilated, none of them being now in existence—so that this world for centuries has been without any God.

The last Boodh of this world was Gaudama. He passed through innumerable transmigrations in four hundred millions of worlds, and attained immense merit. At last, he was born into this world the son of a king, about six hundred years before Christ. [pg 195] The moment he was born he exclaimed, “Now am I the noblest of men; this is the last time I shall ever be born!” He remained forty-five years as Boodh of this world—performed all sorts of meritorious deeds, promulgated excellent laws, and then was annihilated. Ever since, this world has had no God, and will have none for eight thousand years, when the next Boodh is to appear. The first three Boodhs left no laws or sayings. Those of Gaudama, the last Boodh, were reduced to writing A. D. 94, and these are the Bedegat, or Bible of the Boodhists.

These teachings of Gaudama are so obligatory, that disbelief of them is the only crime that incurs eternal punishment.

According to this system, true virtue or rewardable merit, consists in obeying the teachings of Gaudama. These teachings relate first to sins to be avoided. The five general laws are, not to kill, not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to lie, and not to drink intoxicating liquors. These are subdivided so as to include all sins of similar kinds under each head. For example, the first law includes even the killing of animals for food, also capital punishments and war.

Sins are divided into these three classes: first, those of the body, such as killing, theft, fornication, etc.; those of the tongue, as falsehood, harsh language, idle talk, etc.; and those of the mind, as pride, covetousness, envy, heretical thoughts, etc.

These writings of Gaudama strongly denounce the evils of pride, anger, covetousness, and all inordinate appetites. Men are exhorted to avoid excess in perfumes, ornaments and laughter—also strong drink, smoking, opium, night wanderings, bad company, [pg 196] idleness, anger under abuse, flattery to benefactors, annoying jests, and all that leads to strife.

For all such sins the most awful conceivable punishments are to follow in a future state, and for millions of ages.

Rewardable merit is of three kinds:

1. Obedience to all the preceding precepts and prohibitions, and the performance of all duties fairly deducible from them, such as integrity, gentleness, lenity, forbearance, condescension, veneration to parents and love to mankind in general.

2. Alms-giving and votive offerings. This includes feeding priests, building temples and accommodations for priests and for travelers, making roads, tanks and wells, planting fruit and shade trees, feeding criminals and animals, and finally, giving alms to all classes of men in need.

3. Prayers and reading the Bedegat, or religious books. Of this last kind of merit, there are three kinds: the first is the senseless repetition of prayers and reading; the second, reading intelligently; the last, is performing these exercises with strong desires and feelings. Prayers are not addressed to any God, as there is none existing now for this world. Gaudama, at his death, advised that, in addition to obeying his laws, his relics and image should be worshiped, and temples be built to his honor till the next Boodh came.

Votive offerings of fruit, rice and flowers are made to priests or placed in temples. The prayers consist of the repetition of soliloquies that express our liability to bodily evils and to mental suffering, and our inability to escape. Also of protestations of this kind, [pg 197] “I will not lie;” “I will not steal;” “I will not kill,” etc.

There are four Sabbaths or days for public worship each month, when the people go with votive offerings and prayers to the temple of Gaudama, but they have no general united worship.

The Boodhists have a hierarchy very much like the Catholic church, with varied grades and ranks. The priests are required to practice celibacy, and are mainly supported by voluntary gifts from the people.

They reside in buildings erected especially for them, and as celibacy and the avoidance of women are enjoined on all, these establishments very much resemble Catholic monasteries. Few of the priests preach, and only by special request, after which, presents are made to them. They attend funerals only when invited, and then expect presents. Part of them spend some time in teaching novitiate priests, but most of them, regarding work as unprofessional, spend their time in sheer idleness. It is the rule that each priest perambulate the streets every morning till he receives boiled rice enough for his daily wants. The higher class of priests avoid this. In Burmah the priests are at the rate of one to every thirty persons, and they are well supported by the people, and without interference from the government to enforce it.

As to the motives that sustain this religion, there being no God to the Boodhist, all motives arising from relations and regard to him are excluded. All the motives presented appeal to hope of good and fear of evil to self. Those who attain a certain measure of merit in obeying Gaudama's teachings go to some of the celestial regions, according to their attainments. [pg 198] These consist of twenty-six heavens, one above another, which offer various degrees of enjoyment according to merit obtained.

There are eight principal hells; four that torment with cold and four with heat. In the other hells are other sufferings, although not connected with heat and cold. Worms bite, bowels are torn out, limbs are racked, bodies are lacerated, they are pierced with hot spits, crucified head downward, gnawed by dogs, torn by vultures. These are described with minuteness in the Bedegat and often depicted by the native artists in drawings, reminding one of Dante's Inferno illustrated.

For killing a parent or a priest a man will suffer in one of the hells of fire for inconceivable millions of ages. Denying the doctrines of Gaudama incurs eternal suffering in fire. Insulting women, old men or priests, receiving bribes, selling intoxicating drinks and parricide, are punished in the worst hell.

Merit gained by any good conduct in these hells enables the person to rise even to the celestial regions.

The souls of all the universe have existed from eternity, transmigrating for ever, and thus rising and falling in the scale of existence according to the degrees of merit at each birth. This is decided not by any deity but by immutable fate. In passing through these changes the amount of sorrow is incalculable. The Bedegat declares that the tears shed by one soul in its various changes are so great that the ocean in comparison is but a drop. Sorrow is declared to be the inevitable attendant of all existence, and therefore “the chief end,” and the highest reward of Boodhism is, annihilation.

The system of Boodhism commenced about six hundred years before Christ, and has pervaded eastern, central and southern Asia about as long and as fully as Christianity has pervaded Europe. The Burman empire, where this account of that faith was obtained, presents the most favorable results of this system on the character and condition of its votaries.

In China, Buddhism (another name for Boodhism) is the popular religion. With it is associated Confucianism, which is a system of morals and politics instituted by Confucius, B. C. 550, which teaches nothing in regard to any God or a future state. With them co-exist the sect of Laotze, which is a kind of rationalism. Most of the temples and priests are those of Boodh or Budda, but there is no such organized priesthood as in Burmah, nor is this religion maintained by governmental power. It is also considerably modified by the more ancient system of polytheism.

In Thibet and Tartary, the religion of the Grand Lama chiefly prevails, which is one form of Boodhism.

In western India, Brahmanism is in constant warfare with Boodhism, and the two systems are perfectly antagonistic. Brahmanism teaches one eternal deity and three hundred and thirty-three millions of other gods, with hosts of idols representing them; Boodhism has no deity at all, and only one image, that of Gaudama. Brahmanism enjoins sacrifices; Boodhism forbids killing. Brahmanism requires atrocious tortures; Boodhism inculcates fewer austerities than even Popery. Brahmanism makes lying, fornication and theft sometimes commendable, and describes the gods as excelling in such crimes; Boodhism never confounds [pg 200] right and wrong, and never excuses any sin. Brahmanism makes the highest good or chief end of man to be absorption into the supreme deity; Boodhism makes annihilation the highest hope and aim of existence. These two systems, together with Mohammedanism, so prevail in Hindostan that the distinct results of each can never be compared. These are the prevailing religions in the most advanced pagan nations at the present time; and of the two, Boodhism is the best, and probably has been the most fairly tested in Burmah.

In past ages the two most highly developed heathen nations were those of Greece and Rome, and of their religion we have the fullest records. It is not probable that any one will consider their system of religion superior to this now exhibited of modern paganism.

The result is that the most highly developed heathen nations, as yet, have attained but very imperfectly the system of common sense.

No heathen religion ever taught an eternally-existing Creator, perfect in knowledge, wisdom, power and benevolence. None ever taught that the chief end of our Creator is happiness-making on the greatest possible scale. None ever taught that this also is the chief end for which man is created. None ever taught that right moral action, or true virtue, consists in good willing toward the Creator, toward self, and toward our fellow-beings, according to the laws of the Creator, so that every mind shall make the good of self subordinate to the general good. None ever taught that all questions of right and wrong, or what is for the best, are to be decided with reference to the risks and dangers of a future life. None ever presented communion with, and the care, sympathy, sacrifices, and example of a “long-suffering” [pg 201] Creator, as motives to secure virtuous self-sacrifice from his creatures. If all this is taught by revelations from God in the Bible, it is what was never taught by any other religion yet known on earth.

In the history of the heathen world, we find anxious inquiries on these subjects pressing on every thoughtful spirit. Who made this world with its profound and ceaseless sorrows? Are there contending deities, and are the malignant powers in the ascendant? If there be one supreme Creator of all, is he propitious or hostile to a race so guilty as ours? Does he feel any pity or sympathy for our profound ignorance, our infinite sorrows? Can we do any thing to gain his help in our darkness and misery? Where do we go when we die? Does our short and painful span of being end in eternal night, or are we to go on in another career of similar suffering and change? When we lay our beloved ones in the grave, shall we ever meet them again, or is “the only proper utterance of a broken heart, vale, vale, in eternum vale?”

These have been the mournful questionings of every age and every race, while the wisest sages of the wisest nations, without a revelation, have been unable to give any satisfactory reply.

Greece and Rome were the most civilized of all ancient nations, and they give us Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, as their best and wisest men, who most deeply pondered these great questions. Aristotle held to one superior deity, but taught that the stars are true and eternal deities. Cicero leads to the belief of many gods, and approves of worshiping distinguished men as gods. Socrates held to a plurality [pg 202] of deities, and also to transmigration. He held that the common sort of good men will go into the forms of bees, ants, and other animals of a mild and social kind. Plato held to two principles, God and matter, and that God was not concerned either in the creation or government of this world. He argued for the immortality of the soul on the ground of its pre-existence, and concludes some of his speculations thus:

“We can not of ourselves know what will be pleasing to God, or what worship to pay him; but it is needful that a lawgiver be sent from heaven. Such an one do I expect, and O how greatly do I desire to see him, and who he is!”

Chapter XXXI. Augustinian Creeds and Theologians Teach the Common-Sense System.

In the former portion of this work the Augustinian theory, with the system based on it, has been presented as it is taught by creeds and theologians. In contrast with it, has been presented the common-sense system of religion as evolved by reason and experience.

The evidence will now be presented, to show that those who teach the Augustinian system, at the same time teach the main points of the common-sense system; and where the two systems are contradictory, that they teach both sides of the contradiction, at once affirming and denying the same things.

A leading feature of the common-sense system is, that the nature of the human mind is our only guide to the natural attributes of God.

It will now be shown that leading theologians and metaphysicians of the Augustinian school teach the same.

The Calvinistic theologians of New England have been universally acknowledged as among the most acute and profound metaphysicians in the world. At the head of these stands President Jonathan Edwards. In reference to our modes of gaining a knowledge of God, he says:

“If respect to the Divine Being is of any importance, then speculative points are of importance, for the only way we can know what he is, is by speculation.”

Dr. Woods, for near half a century a leading theological teacher of New England, says:

“All our particular conceptions of God may be found to take their rise from the conceptions we form of created intelligences.”

Dr. Emmons, a distinguished New England divine, says of man:

“In the very frame and constitution of his nature he still bears the natural image of his Maker. In a word, man is the living image of the living God, in whom is displayed more of the divine nature and glory than in all the works and creatures of God upon earth.”

Dr. Taylor, the New Haven divine, says:

“The only ultimate source of knowledge, and ultimate umpire of truth, is the knowing mind.”

The celebrated Scotch metaphysician, Sir W. Hamilton, says:

“We can know God only as we know ourselves.”

In proof of this from the Bible, these writers quote from the Apostle James, that “men are made after the similitude of God.”

Another leading feature of the common-sense system is the position, that we can discover the chief end or design of the Creator, by the nature of his works, and that this end is to produce the greatest possible happiness with the least possible evil.

It will now be shown that leading theologians teach the same.

President Edwards, in his Dissertation concerning the end for which God created the world, teaches that

“What God had respect to as an ultimate end of his creating the world, was to communicate of his own infinite fullness of good.”

He teaches that God is in no way dependent on his creatures for happiness, but that his enjoyment consists in outpouring his own good to his vast family.

No one can read that essay without perceiving that, though disconnected passages may make a different impression, the above is a correct statement of the doctrine of that dissertation.

It is supposed that this view has been assented to by most of those American and European theologians who most strenuously defend the Augustinian system.

The end or design of mind being ascertained, its right mode of action is thus determined. Accordingly we shall find that the great New England divines and metaphysicians, though they use different language, [pg 205] all express the same idea in defining true virtue or holiness.

Thus President Edwards taught, as his son states, that

“Every voluntary action which, in its general tendency and ultimate consequence, leads to happiness—happiness in general—happiness on the largest scale—is virtuous; and every such action which has not this tendency, and does not lead to this consequence, is vicious.”

Here let it be noted that President Edwards expressly teaches that it is not voluntary happiness-making, irrespective of the amount, that constitutes virtue; but it is “happiness in general—happiness on the largest scale.” This corresponds exactly with the common-sense system, demanding that happiness-making be on the greatest possible scale, and in order to this, it must be according to law or rules.

Dr. Dwight, whose system of theology is accepted as the most satisfactory exposition of the new school Calvinistic views, teaches that

“True virtue is the love of doing good, or the love of promoting happiness. Its excellence consists in this, that it is the voluntaryand only source of happiness in the universe. God wills our happiness; it is, therefore, right, it is virtuous in us, to seek to promote it both here and hereafter.”

In this case, the language of Dr. Dwight is not so discriminating and clear as that of President Edwards—for he does not show so clearly as does President Edwards that his real meaning is voluntary happiness-making on the largest scale. In this, and all the following quotations from other writers, it is a fact, as gained by their combined expressions, that the distinction [pg 206] made by President Edwards was accepted, and that by the “love of doing good,” or the “love of promoting happiness,” is intended that voluntary love or good willing which seeks not merely some good, but the best good of all.

Dr. Taylor, the distinguished successor of Dr. Dwight, teaches the same doctrine, as is so abundantly manifest in his published writings, that no quotations will be deemed needful.

The Westminster Assembly's Catechism teaches that

“The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever.”

The glory of God can be secured only by true virtue in himself and in his creatures; and if this consists in voluntary happiness-making on the greatest possible scale, then the chief end of man, as taught in that old standard of orthodoxy, is exactly the same as is taught in the system of common sense. Man is to make happiness on the greatest possible scale, guided by the laws of God—and thus doing, he will “glorify God and enjoy him for ever.”

The same theologians also teach that the laws of God are our guide as to what is good and evil, and that true virtue, or right action, is secured only by obeying these laws. They hold, therefore, the doctrine of common sense, that all true virtue consists in voluntary obedience to the will of God as manifested in his natural and revealed laws.

The next point of agreement is in the proposition, that God always has, and always will do what is “for the best”—so that it always is and will be, out of his power [pg 207] to do better—inasmuch as to do better than best, is a contradiction and absurdity. Every theologian, in one form of words or another, maintains that God always has done, and always will do, the best he can, so that he has no power to do better. This being so, it is the same as teaching that the past, present and future existence of sin and misery, is what is inevitable in the best system which God has power to create, so that any change in God's plans, laws, and their results, would imply an act of folly and malevolence on his part.

This does not imply that the sinful conduct of man is what is desired or intended by the Creator—nor does it imply that sin was desired or intended by God as the “necessary means to the greatest good.” Instead of this, it is clear that if it had been possible—i.e., if God had the power—to create all minds with all the knowledge and all the motives that would secure perfect obedience to law from all the race of Adam, there would have been more happiness. The universal obedience of all free agents to all God's laws for making happiness on the greatest possible scale, would secure perfect happiness to all, while every act of disobedience would lessen the amount. To deny this is the same as saying that less happiness is more than the most happiness, which is absurd.

The result is, that sin is not the fault of the Creator, but is the inevitable result of the commencement of finite, ignorant, inexperienced minds, and is what neither God nor man could prevent, in a perfect system of finite, free agents.

At the same time, it is the fault of all free agents who sin when they have adequate knowledge and [pg 208] motives. And it is only sins against known law and appropriate motives which are the proper subject of penalties in addition to the natural consequences of wrong doing.

It is claimed, therefore, that when theologians teach—as all do—that “God orders all things for the best,” they really teach, in another form, the common-sense doctrine as stated above.

Having gained the teachings of leading theologians as to the nature of true virtue or right voluntary action, we also gain their definition of wrong moral action, or sin. In the words of President Edwards, “Every voluntary action which in its general tendency and ultimate consequence leads to happiness—happiness in general—happiness on the largest scale—is virtuous; and every such action which has not this tendency, and does not lead to this consequence, is vicious,” or sinful.

That is to say, every volition that tends to lessen the general happiness, is vicious or sinful, and every violation of God's physical, social and moral laws, has this tendency. Thus the Bible definition of sin is the one accepted by theologians—i.e., “sin is the transgression of law,” without reference to the question whether the law is known or not. True virtue is voluntary obedience to law, and sin is the voluntary transgression of law. These definitions then are a part of the Augustinian system as much as they are of the common-sense system.

The next point of the common-sense system taught by theologians, is that our moral power to obey God—i.e., power to choose according to law instead of impulse—is proportioned to our knowledge of law, [pg 209] and the motives of fear, hope, love and gratitude, as they are employed by God and man.

This doctrine is taught by all theologians, except those who hold that the sin of Adam so ruined the human mind, that there is no power of any kind to obey God, except as he gives new capacities. No quotations will be given to establish this point, because, it is believed, that no one will question it.

No quotations are needed to show that the Augustinian creeds and theologians agree with the common-sense system, in teaching that the soul is immortal—that our destiny in a future state depends on our conduct in this life—that there is to be an eternal separation of the righteous and the wicked, whose immortality will be happy or miserable according to their characters.

Chapter XXXII. Augustinian Creeds and Theologians Contradict the Common-Sense System, and Thus, Also, Contradict Themselves.

The preceding chapter shows the agreement of distinguished Augustinian theologians with the leading points of the common-sense system. We next are to notice the particulars in which these theologians and the Augustinian creeds contradict the common-sense system, and thus, also, contradict themselves.

The grand point, which involves these contradictions, [pg 210] is the dogma that all mankind have a depraved nature consequent on the sin of Adam, which makes it certain that every voluntary act of every human mind is “sin, and only sin,” until this depravity of nature is more or less rectified by the Spirit of God. The opposite of this is the common-sense doctrine that all men have a perfect nature, created by God, which is unchanged and not in any way depraved by the sin of Adam.

As involved in this common-sense view, true virtue consists in the right action of a perfect nature, as it now is. In opposition, Augustinianism teaches that true virtue consists in the right action of a depraved nature after it has been more or less renewed by the Spirit of God.

Common sense claims that the indispensable requisites to secure right voluntary action are, knowledge, training and motives, for which we are dependent on God, on man, and on self, conjointly. In opposition, Augustinianism claims that knowledge, training and motives are of no avail to secure true virtue, until the damage done by Adam's sin to the nature of every human mind, is more or less rectified, and that for this we are entirely dependent on the Spirit of God.

Common sense claims that man, at birth and through life, is entirely unable to obey many of the physical, social and moral laws of God, for want of adequate knowledge, training and motives; but that he is fully able to obey these laws as fast as he has the appropriate knowledge, training and motives, and that before regeneration he does perform truly virtuous acts. Augustinianism, in opposition, claims that man never obeys the laws of God acceptably until the Spirit of [pg 211] God more or less rectifies the depraved nature consequent on Adam's sin, and that previous to this influence of the Spirit, every voluntary act is “sin, and only sin.”[14]

Common sense teaches that the commencement of “a new life” consists, not in the change of the nature of man, but in the commencement of a ruling purpose to obey all the laws of God, which purpose may be an unconscious, gradual process by educational training, or it may be an instantaneous and conscious act. Augustinianism teaches that “regeneration” or the “new birth” consists in the re-creation or change of the nature of mind, so as, more or less, to remedy the depravity consequent on Adam's sin.

Common sense teaches that every volition of every mind, which in act and intention is conformed to the laws of rectitude, is truly virtuous in every proper use of the term, without any reference to the question either of a ruling purpose or a change of nature. Augustinianism teaches that every volition of every mind is sin, and only sin, previous to the act of regeneration accomplished by the Spirit of God.[15]

To illustrate the above by examples, suppose that a child is trained to deny itself, to relieve suffering, or to make others happy. In its earlier efforts this is very [pg 212] difficult, though by practice the principle of habit renders it more and more easy. Common sense teaches that the first act of self-denial for the best good of others, in which the aim or intention is to do right, is truly virtuous. For the thing done is right, and the motive or intention is right. But Augustinianism says no; such an act is “sin, and only sin,” previous to regeneration, though it is true virtue after regeneration.

Again, a young man is trained to abhor meanness and deceit and to suffer any thing rather than to violate his plighted faith. He is brought into an extremity where, by a false statement, he can escape poverty and disgrace to himself and his family. He sacrifices all rather than to violate his word and honor.

If he is not a regenerate man, Augustinianism says this act is not truly virtuous, but is “sin, and only sin.” Common sense says, it is a virtuous act in every sense of the term as used among men.

We have shown by quotations that Augustinian theologians teach that man's nature is the only guide to the nature of God, and, as his work and image, is perfect in construction. At the same time they teach that man's nature is so totally depraved that it never acts morally right, in a single instance, until it is regenerated by God, and that all sin is the natural result of this depravity of nature.

In consequence of this contradictory starting-point, they proceed to other contradictory instruction. For example, in the education of very young children most theologians, of whatever school, teach them that to speak the truth, to obey parents, to deny one's self [pg 213] for the good of others, is right, good and virtuous. They teach that when little children act thus, before regeneration, they not only act virtuously, but that God approves and loves them for it. In doing this, they use the words good, right and virtuous, in the ordinary sense in which men understand these terms.

But at the same time, the same theologians are teaching from the pulpit and the press, that every voluntary act of every child is “sin, and only sin,” previous to regeneration; that there is no good, right and virtuous act in an unregenerated mind, and that God feels no approbation or complacency in such acts or the unregenerated as the above, which are called virtuous, but are really sin.

It is manifest that the educational training of the young must be radically diverse just in proportion as one or the other of these two systems prevails.

On the Augustinian theory, there is no hope of any right moral action, or truly virtuous conduct, until the depraved nature transmitted from Adam is regenerated. On the common-sense theory, every attempt of a parent or educator, and every effort of a child to secure what is best and right with the intention thus to secure it, is truly virtuous, and every repetition is valuable as tending to secure virtuous habits and character.

On the Augustinian theory, religious instruction is only an appointed mode by which God chooses to regenerate a depraved nature. It is a process for securing a new nature from God. On the common-sense theory, religious training is a process for securing the development and right action of mind by the influences [pg 214] of knowledge, training and motives, and without any change of its nature.

It is also clear that these two systems must be very diverse in reference to the interpretations of the Creator's will as gained by reason or by revelations from God.

On the Augustinian theory, mind is so totally depraved as to be incapable of interpreting correctly, either the natural teachings of reason and experience, or the recorded revelations from God. Owing to this, authorized interpreters of God's will are indispensable. This makes the whole human race dependent on a class of men authorized by God to interpret his natural laws and revealed will.

On the contrary, the common-sense theory claims that every mind, in proportion as its powers are cultivated and developed, has the means of discovering the end for which all things are created, and of interpreting the teachings of reason and experience, and also of interpreting any revealed records of God's will.

It thus appears that theologians and creeds that adopt the Augustinian theory contradict themselves mainly in these two points:

First, they teach that man's nature is depraved and that it is not depraved.

Next, that previous to regeneration, men do not perform any truly virtuous acts, and yet that while unregenerated they do perform such acts.

The quotation from creeds and theologians, in preceding chapters, is proof that they teach that man's nature is thus depraved, and that previous to regeneration he never performs a single truly virtuous act. [pg 215] This and the preceding chapter present some of the evidence that they teach the opposite.

The following is submitted as still further evidence of such contradictions.

In the first place, it is allowed by all, that the Augustinian creeds and theologians teach that man, as a race, including every individual, has a depraved nature. The question, then, all turns on the meaning of the word nature, and whether they affirm its depravity in the same sense as they affirm that in nature man is the living image of the living God and our only guide to a knowledge of him.

It is claimed that they do use the word nature in one and the same sense when they affirm that man's nature is and is not depraved. In proof of this we must resort to our lexicographers who have collected the various senses in which mankind use the word nature. And here we must again recognize the fact that the true meaning of every word is settled simply by ascertaining what meaning men attach to it when they use it.

In examining our dictionaries, we shall find that the word nature is used sometimes to signify every thing that God has created; as when it is said, “all nature speaks its Maker's praise.” Sometimes, by a figurative use, the Author of all things is called Nature, as when it is said that “Nature paints the flowers and spreads her repasts.”

No one will claim that either of these is the sense in which the word is used in reference to the nature of the mind of man as a race.

The leading and primary signification of the word nature is that which is intended and understood when [pg 216] we say that “the nature of a design or construction is proof of the character and intention of the author.” It is in this sense that men use the word when they speak of the nature of animals, the nature of trees, and the nature of the soul.

In this use, it has but one signification, and that is, those qualities, powers and faculties which are discovered by experience and observation. Or in other words, when we discover the qualities of a thing, how it acts, and how it is acted upon, we learn its nature.

In regard to all other existences except mind, the only mode of discovering their nature is to ascertain by experience and observation how they invariably appear and act. Thus we decide that it is the nature of water to run down hill by finding that it invariably does so; and that it is the nature of smoke to rise in the atmosphere by observing that it invariably ascends.

Owing to this, mankind often use the word nature as signifying that which is according to ordinary experience. That is to say, the same word is used to express the qualities and powers of things, and also to express that invariable experience by which we learn these qualities and powers. What is according to our ordinary experience we say is according to nature, and what is contrary to ordinary experience is contrary to nature.

Thus it is according to nature for water to run down hill, and it is contrary to nature for it to run up hill.

It is mind, in distinction from matter, which has the power of willing, and this is a power which never is exercised invariably one way or another.

But theologians have practiced this fallacy on themselves [pg 217] and others. They first assume, what is contrary to fact, that mind invariably chooses one way, and that is wrong, from birth to regeneration. This being assumed without proof, they claim that the nature of the human mind is thus proved to be depraved, and totally so.

Having thus, as they imagine, established its depraved voluntary nature, they claim that, like all other things, the mind must act according to its nature, which, being wholly depraved, all its moral acts are consequently depraved.

This is what logicians call arguing in a circle; i.e., they prove that it acts invariably wrong because it is totally depraved, and it is totally depraved because it acts invariably wrong.

But common sense denies the starting assumption; i.e., the invariably wrong volitions of every mind from birth to regeneration. On the contrary, it is claimed that every choice which secures enjoyment without violating law, is right, and that whenever a mind chooses what is right, with the intention to act right, the choice is a truly virtuous act, and that all men make such choices very often before regeneration.

Whatever is according to ordinary experience in the qualities and action of mind, is said to be according to its nature. It is according to the nature of mind, then, sometimes to choose what is good, right and virtuous, and at other times to choose what is evil and wrong, according to its knowledge, temptations and habits. Such a case never was known as a mind that invariably chose wrong.

In view of the preceding, it is maintained that the word nature, as applied to mind, as settled by lexicographers, [pg 218] is always used to signify the same as its constitutional powers and faculties, and that this is the sense in which it is employed when we say “the nature of a construction or design is proof of the character and intention of the author.”

We are now prepared to show that theologians use the word nature in this same sense when they affirm that it is totally depraved, and when, at the same time, they teach that it is the image of God, and our only guide to his nature and character.

We shall first present the evidence that they use the word in this sense, when they teach that every human mind is so depraved in nature that from birth to regeneration every moral act is sin, and only sin.

The first item of evidence is the fact that all the other meanings of the word, in our dictionaries, except this, can be shown to be not the ones in which theologians use the word in reference to men as a race, so that this use is the only one remaining. They must use it in this sense, as the only one left, all others being necessarily excluded.

Again, the mode by which they attempt to prove that man has a depraved nature, shows that they use the word in this sense. For they exhibit the wrong action, or sinful feelings and conduct of the race, as the chief proof. Their argument is this: the nature of a thing is proved by its qualities, how it acts, and how it is acted upon. The human mind invariably acts depraved, therefore its nature is depraved. No one will deny that theologians always present the wicked feelings and conduct of children and of men as the proofs of a depraved nature.

It is true, that in doing this they misstate facts, and [pg 219] maintain that all the actions of men are sin, and only sin. This contradicts experience and common sense, which affirm that the human mind sometimes acts right and sometimes wrong, from the first; showing that the nature of mind is such that it naturally acts right as well as wrong. But this attempt proves that they used the word in the sense here stated.

Again: that theologians use the word in this sense, is manifest from their attempts to relieve the character of God from the charge of being “the author of sin.” They can not deny that the nature of a contrivance proves the character and intention of the author, and that, if God is the author of man's depravity by a wrong construction or nature of mind, it would be proof that he is the author of all the sin resulting from it, and thus a depraved character.

Instead of denying this use of the term, they allow it, and then try to make man himself the author of this depraved nature, either by, or in, or before Adam. That is, they allow that man's mind is wrong in construction, but claim that he himself is the author of this wrong.

Again: that theologians use the word nature in this sense, is proved by their description of the depravity intended by them. When they are urged to point out what the depraved nature of man consists in, they always state something which shows it to be wrong in construction, and which is exhibited in the wrong action of mind.

There are these following methods of describing this depravity, viz.:

1. It is called a bias, propensity, or inclination to sin.

2. It is called an unbalanced state of the faculties.

3. It is called a habit of sinning formed in a pre-existent state.

4. It is called a wrong combination, or proportion, in the mental faculties.

5. It is called a state resulting from the deprivation of God's Spirit.

It will now be shown that each and all of these equally involve the idea of that malformation or wrong construction which proves its author depraved.

The first is the most common method. On this view, it is claimed that the minds of angels and of Adam were constructed with such a bias or tendency to good as secured their perfect action for a given period. The mind of man, on the contrary, begins existence here so constructed that it has a contrary bias to evil; so that it never, in a single instance, chooses right till regenerated.

The angels and Adam had a holy nature, meaning a bias, which God created. Mankind have a contrary bias, which is a depraved nature, and of this, man is the author, either in, or by, or before Adam. And they all allow, that if God had created this depraved bias, or depraved nature, he would be “the author of sin.”

The second mode is, the claim that man's depravity consists in an unbalanced state of his faculties or propensities. The angels and Adam were created by God with the proper balance, and this is the holy nature made by God. Man is born with an unbalanced state of the faculties, and this was created by man himself, either by, or in, or before Adam. Now the balance of the faculties is as much a part of the construction of mind as any thing else, and if God created this depraved, he is proved to be depraved.

The third mode is, the claim that the depravity of man's mind consists in a habit of sinning. On this view, God created man's mind aright, in all respects, in a preëxistent state. In this normal condition of mind, every propensity was toward not only good, but to the best good, while there was sufficient knowledge of right created also, to save from all mistakes of judgment as to what is best and right. In this perfect state some minds began to sin, and thus formed a habit of sinning, and were then sent into this world to be reformed.

Here it is plain, that the depravity intended is depravity of construction. For habit, as men use the term, expresses the fact that repetition in the use of any faculty increases its power. It is a change in the constitutional construction of mind induced by use. For example, a child has little constitutional power of mind to reason or to calculate figures. By use, this deficiency of construction is modified.

Habit, then, modifies the constitutional organization of mind.

This mode of describing the depravity of mind teaches the misconstruction of constitutional organization as much as all the others, but it furnishes another mode by which it was induced, so as to make man the author in a way that is comprehensible, and not absurd.[16]

The fourth mode is the claim that the depravity of the human mind consists in the disparities, or varieties, of constitutional organization.

It has been shown that such disparities, as parts of a vast system in which the best good of the whole is the best good of each part, are indispensable to the perfect construction of mind in relation to that system.

But the depravity claimed is, that which is common to every mind, and is so total that not a single mind, however highly endowed, ever, even in one case, acts virtuously till regenerated. Thus the best in mental construction are as totally depraved as the worst. At the same time, it is clear that it is constitutional malformation that is taught, and nothing else.

The fifth mode of describing the depravity of mind is that it consists in the deprivation of God's Spirit.

The result of this deprivation is thus described by Dr. Hodge, of the Princeton Calvinist school of divines:

“In consequence of this withdrawal we begin to exist in moral darkness, destitute of a disposition to delight in God.”

Arminius, the chief theologian of the Methodists, describes it thus:

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

Thus the presence of God's Spirit in Adam's mind, according to Dr. Hodge, insured a “disposition” to delight in God, which was lost by its withdrawal. According to Arminius, this withdrawal so affected the whole race, that “in respect to the true good” the will of man has no powers whatever, except such as are excited by grace—that is, by a measured return of God's Spirit, withdrawn for Adam's sin, which return was purchased by Christ's death.

It is clear, that it is the powers and faculties of mind that are meant here, in this explanation of the depravity of man's nature.

Thus it is shown that every attempt to explain what depravity consists in, by theologians, results in their teaching a constitutional malformation, which proves the author of the construction to be depraved.

We will now present the evidence, that theologians contradict themselves, and deny that they use the word nature in the sense of constitutional organization or construction, and maintain that they use it in some other sense.

In all creeds and all theological teachings, the authors expressly disclaim that they maintain any thing which makes God “the author of sin.” And they allow, that making God the creator of a depraved nature, would make him the author of sin. Therefore, to escape the difficulty, they claim that God is the author of one nature, which is perfect and in his own image, and that there is another nature which man himself made, either by, or in, or before Adam, which is depraved. Then when they are driven to identify the nature that God made and the nature that man made, they are again at fault. Man really has but one nature, and that is the nature which is discovered by his qualities and actions, as learned by experience. There is no other nature conceivable, and no other idea that men ever attach to the word when applied to the mind or soul of man. Therefore, theologians really do use it in the sense which they deny, for there is no other.

Again, theologians deny that they teach “physical depravity” and “physical regeneration,” and the only intelligible sense of this disclaimer is, that they do not teach depravity of construction and the reformation of this depravity of construction. But, as before shown, when they describe the depravity and regeneration, [pg 224] they make out what actually is physical depravity and physical regeneration, and nothing else.

Again, when they attempt to describe what they mean, one class of theologians—i.e., new school Calvinists—teach that the whole depravity consists in a want of “right willing.” And this is exactly what the common-sense system teaches—i.e., that the depravity of man is in the wrong action and not in the wrong construction of mind. And yet when they are charged with holding the Pelagian doctrine of perfect mental construction, they deny it, and say they teach depravity of nature.

As an example of this, is presented the following extract from the writings of Dr. Bennet Tyler, the president of a theological seminary established to sustain the New England theology of the President Edwards' type, in opposition to the supposed Pelagian innovations of the New Haven theologians:

“God has endowed you with understanding to perceive the rule of duty, with conscience to feel obligation, and with will to choose between good and evil. Possessing these powers, you are complete moral agents, and have all the ability to obey the commands of God that you ever will have, or ever can have—we do not mean that all the powers and faculties of his (man's) soul are so impaired that he could not do his duty if he would, but that he will not do his duty when he can.”

In reading the above, one would suppose that there was nothing wrong at all in the construction of the human mind, and that the whole difficulty consisted in not willing aright—that is, that the depravity is not in a wrong nature, but in the wrong action of a perfect nature. And yet, at the time of this writing, the author was the leader of an effort to oppose this very [pg 225] doctrine, which was supposed to be taught by the New Haven divines.

In a recent work by the chief theological teacher of the leading Baptist Seminary,[17] we find similar contradictory statements. He thus writes:

“Regeneration is not only characterized by the sacred writers as a creative act, by which the subject of it becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus, and a generation from above, by which the soul is brought into new spiritual life; but also a washing, a bathing, effected by the Holy Ghost, by which the polluted soul is cleansed; as an illumination, by which it is filled with the knowledge of God, and qualified to appreciate spiritual things. The eye of conscience is cleared, the desires and affections are renewed and flow into new channels, and the selfish views, prejudices and motives, which formerly reigned in the soul, are superseded by faith, love and hope, resting in Christ, and leading to every good work. The entire spirit is readjusted morally, its aspirations, tendencies and relations to God are rectified, and it enters, so to speak, upon a new life.”

In this passage, regeneration is called “a creative act” changing the conscience, the desires, the views, the prejudices and the motives—so that “the entire spirit is readjusted,” and all its “aspirations, tendencies and relations to God are rectified.” It is not in the power of language to express a change in the faculties and constitutional elements of mind more entirely than this; and yet the very next paragraph reads thus:

“But all this pertains to the moral condition of the soul, affording no evidence that its essence has been changed; that any faculty or constitutive element has been added, any fresh vigor or new principle of existence infused.”

But the most remarkable illustration of self-contradiction among theologians, involved in every attempt to maintain a depraved nature consequent on Adam's sin, is found in the teachings of Dr. Taylor, the leader of the New Haven school of divines.

In his Concio ad Clerum, in 1828, one aim probably was, to meet the charges against himself, of teaching the Pelagian tenet, that man's depravity consists, not in nature, but in action. In reference to this he writes thus:

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

Again—

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

In the above extract, it is as clear as language can make it, that Dr. Taylor taught, in 1828, that in men sin by nature is owing to propensities to inferior good, which are “different from Adam's,” who was created perfect, and that this is “the occasion or reason” of their sinning, and that “such is their nature, that in all appropriate circumstances of their being, they will sin, and only sin.” This must mean the construction of [pg 227] mind. He does not claim to describe, certainly, what this difference is between the nature of Adam and that of his descendants; but he maintains that while Adam's nature was not so created by God at first, the nature of all his descendants is so depraved, that, as the result, they “sin, and only sin,” till regenerated.

But, in contradiction to this, is presented the extract below, sent by Dr. Taylor to the author, in a letter in which he was attempting to show that he did not teach the depravity of man in his constitutional faculties. And he claims that what he thus writes is what he has “always taught:”

“I have always taught that man, after the fall of Adam, was as truly created in God's image as was Adam; that Christ was tempted in all points like as we are; that the stronger are our inferior propensities, if we govern them, as we can, by the morally right act of the will, the greater is the moral excellence of the act. I do not maintain that man has full power to change his depraved nature without divine aid—for I have never supposed that he has a depraved nature in any sense, or a corrupt nature, much less a sinful nature, to be changed; but rather, that in nature he is like God. In discussions I have always opposed the use of language by your father and Mr. Barnes, of a corrupt nature not sinful.”

Now it is not possible to make these two extracts any thing other than exact contradictions. For in one he teaches that men are so totally depraved in nature, that “in all the appropriate circumstances of their being they will sin, and only sin.”

In the other, he says of man, “I have never supposed that he has a depraved nature, in any sense, or a corrupt nature, much less a sinful nature, to be changed; but rather that in nature he is like God.”

If it is asked, “How is it possible that a man, at [pg 228] once so honest and so acute, can thus contradict himself and not perceive it?” it may be replied, that he has done it no more than does every other theologian and every creed that teaches at once, that the nature of man is so depraved at birth that every moral act is sin, and only sin, till regeneration—and yet, that God, the Creator of all minds, is not the author of the sin resulting from such a depraved nature.

And theologians are not peculiar in self-contradictions. Every error is a contradiction to some principle of common sense. Thus it is a fact, that, as all men believe and maintain, by a necessity of nature, the principles of common sense, every false principle or error which they defend, is a flat contradiction to some of their other declarations on other occasions. Meantime, it is the great mission of all free and fair discussion to bring men to see their own inconsistencies, and to forsake all which are shown to be contrary to reason and common sense.

Chapter XXXIII. The Augustinian Theory Not In The Bible.

In the preceding chapters it is shown that theological creeds and teachings maintain the common-sense system, and at the same time the contradictory Augustinian system. In other words, it is shown that the Augustinian theologians contradict at once our common sense, our moral sense, and themselves.

It will next be shown that the Augustinian theory is not contained in the Bible, and that theologians conflict with each other in regard to this point also.

There is only one passage in the Bible which was ever claimed by any one as teaching a depraved nature consequent on Adam's sin. That passage is Romans v., from the 12th to the 19th verse:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift. For the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

In this passage these things are taught:

1. By one man sin entered and death by sin, and so [i.e., by one man] death passed on all men, for that all have sinned.—Verses 12, 13, 14.

2. Through the offense of one many have died.—Verse 15.

3. The judgment was by one to condemnation.—Verse 16.

4. By one man's offense death reigned by one.—Verse 17.

5. By the offense of one, judgment came on all to condemnation.—Verse 18.

6. By one man's disobedience many were made sinners.—V. 19.

There are three modes of interpreting this passage, and the question all turns on whether the death spoken of is natural death or spiritual.

Interpretation of the Apostolic Age.

The first interpretation is that of the Apostolic age and onward to the time of Augustine. It is briefly this:

Adam is a type of Christ, and as by Adam's sin natural death came on all who are his natural children, (for they all, like Adam, have sinned and suffer death as the consequence,) so by one man, Christ, spiritual life comes to all who are Christ's spiritual children.

This simply teaches that Adam as the head of a sinning race, who suffer death in consequence of his sin and their own, is an emblem or type of Christ, the head of a holy family, who by him receive spiritual life. Condemnation and natural death come from sinning, both to Adam and to all the children brought into being by him. Justification and spiritual life come from Christ to all whom he has caused to become his spiritual children.

For abundant proof that this was the interpretation of this passage, from the apostles to the time of Augustine, the author refers to Dr. E. Beecher's Conflict of Ages, book v., chapter 2.

Augustinian Interpretation.

The Augustinian interpretation is this: The sin of Adam caused a depraved nature and consequent spiritual death to all his descendants. So also the obedience [pg 231] and death of Christ have purchased or caused a holy nature and spiritual life to all who are regenerated.