{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_56354/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_56354","id":"gutenberg_56354","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/56354","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Grace (Theology)","Predestination","Religion -- Philosophy"],"text":"An Appeal to the People in Behalf of Their Rights as Authorized\n                        Interpreters of The Bible\n\n                         by Catharine E. Beecher\n\n    Author of \u201cCommon Sense Applied to Religion,\u201d \u201cDomestic Economy,\u201d\n\u201cDomestic Receipt\u2010Book,\u201d \u201cLetters to the People on Health and Happiness,\u201d\n                \u201cPhysiology and Calisthenics,\u201d Etc., Etc.\n\n                                 New York\n\n                      Harper & Brothers, Publishers\n\n                                   1860\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nChapter I. Introduction.\nChapter II. The Augustine Theory of the Origin of Evil.\nChapter III. Questions Connected with the Augustinian Theory.\nChapter IV. The Difficulties Involved in the Augustinian Theory.\nChapter V. The Augustinian Theory in Creeds.\nChapter VI. Modes of Meeting Difficulties by Theologians.\nChapter VII. Theologians Themselves Concede the Augustinian Dogmas\nIndefensible.\nChapter VIII. The Augustinian Theory Contrary to the Moral Sense of\nMankind.\nChapter IX. The Principles of Common Sense Defined.\nChapter X. Common Sense Applied to Gain the Existence of God.\nChapter XI. The People\u2019s Mental Philosophy.\nChapter XII. The Nature of Mind, or Its Powers and Faculties.\nChapter XIII. Nature of Mind.\u2014Regulation of the Thoughts.\nChapter XIV. Nature of Mind.\u2014The Moral Sense, or Moral Susceptibilities.\nChapter XV. The Nature of Mind.\u2014The Will.\nChapter XVI. Constitutional Varieties of the Human Mind.\nChapter XVII. Nature of Mind.\u2014Habit.\nChapter XVIII. The Nature of Mind Our Guide to the Natural Attributes of\nGod.\nChapter XIX. The Nature of Mind Our Guide to the Moral Attributes of God.\nChapter XX. Additional Proof of the Moral Attributes of God.\nChapter XXI. Nature of Mind as Perfect in Construction.\nChapter XXII. Right and Wrong\u2014True Virtue.\nChapter XXIII. Laws and Penalties\u2014Sin and Holiness.\nChapter XXIV. Love to God And Love to Man.\nChapter XXV. Increased Civilization Increases Moral Difficulties.\nChapter XXVI. Humility and Meekness.\nChapter XXVII. The Standard of Right and Wrong Decided by The Risks of\nEternity.\nChapter XXVIII. The Destiny of Man in the Future Life.\nChapter XXIX. What Must We Do To Be Saved?\nChapter XXX. How Far Reason and Experience are Sufficient Without\nRevelation.\nChapter XXXI. Augustinian Creeds and Theologians Teach the Common\u2010Sense\nSystem.\nChapter XXXII. Augustinian Creeds and Theologians Contradict the Common\u2010\nSense System, and Thus, Also, Contradict Themselves.\nChapter XXXIII. The Augustinian Theory Not In The Bible.\nChapter XXXIV. A Reliable Revelation From The Creator Impossible If It\nContains The Augustinian Theory.\nChapter XXXV. Tendencies of the Two Opposing Systems.\nChapter XXXVI. Tendencies of the Two Systems As They Respect the\nCultivation of the Moral and Intellectual Powers.\nChapter XXXVII. Tendencies of the Two Systems in Respect to Individual\nReligious Experience.\nChapter XXXVIII. Tendencies of the Two Systems in Reference to the\nCharacter of God.\nChapter XXXIX. Tendencies of the Two Systems as to Church Organizations.\nChapter XL. Tendencies of the Two Systems in Regard to Humility, Meekness\nand a Teachable Spirit.\nChapter XLI. Tendencies of the Two Systems in Regard to Dogmatism,\nPersecution and Ecclesiastical Tyranny.\nChapter XLII. Tendencies of the Two Systems as Shown in Controversy and\nSects.\nChapter XLIII. Practical Tendencies of the Two Systems.\nChapter XLIV. Tendencies of the Two Systems in the Training of Children.\nChapter XLV. The People Rejecting the Augustinian System.\u2014Position of\nTheologians.\nChapter XLVI. Present Position of the Church.\nChapter XLVII. State of the Pastors of Churches.\nChapter XLVIII. The Position of Popular Education.\nChapter XLIX. The Position of Woman as Chief Educator of Mind.\nChapter L. Present Position of Young America.\nChapter LI. Present Position of the Religious Press.\nChapter LII. The Present Position of the Secular Press.\nChapter LIII. What The People Will Do?\nNote.\nNotes.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                               [Cover Art]\n\n\n\n\n\nTO The Editors of the Secular Press, THE TRUE TRIBUNES OF THE PEOPLE,\nCALLED OF GOD IN BEHALF OF THE COMMONWEALTH TO DEFEND LIBERTY OF\nCONSCIENCE, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND THE RIGHT OF ALL TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE\nFOR THEMSELVES, UNRESTRAINED BY ANY ECCLESIASTICAL POWER, THIS VOLUME IS\nRESPECTFULLY DEDICATED.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThere is an obvious crisis approaching, in the religious world, on\nquestions of the highest moment. In past time such periods of change have\nbeen preceded by a slow and silent preparation, in which multitudes have\nbeen led into the same course of thought and feeling. Then, as the crisis\napproached, some efficient leader lifted the last stone which sustained\nthe protecting dyke, and rode on the summit of the in\u2010rushing tide to\nnotoriety and influence. Thus it was in the day of Luther, in the day of\nWesley, and at other periods of religious movement.\n\nAt the present time there are indications of a great impending change,\nwhich has been preceded by a long course of unobserved preparation. But it\nis believed that, in this case, it is not to be exhibited, like former\nones, by leaders forming new sects and parties, amid more or less of\nconflict and commotion, but by the agency of _the people_, and by a\nhealthful, quiet process, which, like leaven, shall gradually assimilate\nsurrounding particles till the whole be leavened.\n\nThe matter involved is the great question of questions, to each individual\nfor himself, and to every parent and educator for their children: \u201cWhat\nmust we DO to be saved?\u201d\n\nIt is the object of this volume to show that the answer to this great\nquestion has, for ages, been involved in mystery and difficulty by means\nof a _philosophical theory_ to account for the \u201corigin of evil,\u201d which, in\nthe fifth century, was forced on the people by popes and ecclesiastical\ncouncils, and which has been sustained by persecution ever since\u2014that this\ntheory is the basis of a system of religious doctrine incorporated into\ncreeds and churches, which is so contrary to the moral sense of humanity,\nthat theologians have failed to render it consistent and satisfactory,\neven to themselves\u2014that _the people_ are endowed with _principles of\ncommon sense_ by which they can educe from the works of God a system of\nnatural religion far superior, which system is briefly set forth, and also\nthe tendencies of the two opposing systems\u2014that _both_ systems are so\nincorporated into church creeds, and into theological teachings, that they\nare a compound of contradictions, and all the great religious\ncontroversies have been efforts to eviscerate the false system from the\ntrue, while through the long conflict, it is theologians who have proved\nthe noble confessors and martyrs for truth\u2014that it is impossible to\nestablish the claims of the Bible, or of any other writings, as\n_revelations_ from the Creator, when the Augustinian theory is made a part\nof their teachings; so that the real question for the people, is \u201cBible or\nno Bible\u201d\u2014that the leading theological teachers of the chief sects in this\ncountry have virtually conceded that this theory is sustained neither by\ncommon sense nor the Bible; and, finally, that the people are about to\ncast off this dogma, which for ages has darkened the way to eternal life,\nand by applying the principles of common sense to the Bible, thus\nestablish its agreement with the system of natural religion herein set\nforth.\n\nIn conclusion, the indications of the predicted change are set forth as\nthey are manifested in the present position of theologians\u2014of the\nparochial clergy\u2014of the church\u2014of educational interests\u2014of women\u2014of \u201cYoung\nAmerica\u201d\u2014and of the religious and secular press.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. THE AUGUSTINE THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF EVIL.\n\n\nThe theory in question was introduced into the Christian church, as an\narticle of faith, in the fifth century, chiefly by the influence of\nAugustine, an African bishop.\n\nTo understand how it was brought about, it is needful to bear in mind the\ndistinction between facts and the philosophical theories that explain the\n_how_ and the _why_ of these facts.\n\nChrist and his Apostles taught the fact that all men are sinners, and the\nway to escape from sin and its penalties. As, at first, Christianity\nprevailed chiefly among the uneducated, it was not till some three or four\nhundred years after Christ, that the philosophy of these facts agitated\nthe churches. Augustine was a man of powerful mind and great learning, and\nwith other philosophers, speculated as to \u201cthe origin of evil,\u201d or the WHY\nand the HOW all men came to be sinners.\n\nBy the aid of a few misinterpreted passages in the Bible, the following\ntheory was introduced and mainly by Augustine.\n\n\n\n\nThe Augustinian Theory.\n\n\nThe Creator has proved his power to make minds with such \u201ca holy nature\u201d\nthat they will have no propensity to sin, by creating the minds of angels\nand of Adam on this pattern. Adam having this holy nature, with no\npropensity to sin, did sin, and, as a penalty, or in consequence, all his\nposterity commence existence without this holy nature, and with such a\ndepraved nature that every moral act is sin and only sin until God\nregenerates each mind. This favor is bestowed only on a certain \u201celect\u201d\nnumber, whose salvation was purchased by the sufferings and death of Jesus\nChrist.\n\nThe rest of the race, after death, are to continue an existence of\nhopeless torment in hell.\n\nThis depraved nature is the \u201corigin of evil;\u201d that is to say, it is _the\ncause_ of all the sin and consequent misery of our race in time and\nthrough eternity. It is what is meant by the terms \u201ctotal depravity,\u201d and\n\u201coriginal sin\u201d as used by theologians.\n\nAt first the pope and the church councils refused this theory, but\neventually, the Augustinian party triumphed; Pelagius and his followers\nwere persecuted and driven out of the church, and thus this dogma was\nestablished as a leading feature in all the creeds and confessions of both\nCatholic and Protestant churches.\n\nSo thoroughly has it been adopted that, since the time of Pelagius, there\nhas been little discussion among the great Christian sects on the theory\nitself. These disputes have chiefly related to certain questions connected\nwith this dogma, which will next be noticed.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. QUESTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE AUGUSTINIAN THEORY.\n\n\nIn discussing the topics of this chapter it is needful to refer to certain\nreligious sects and parties of this country in their relations to the\nsubject.\n\nThe first class may be denominated the old school Calvinists, embracing\nthe Old School Presbyterian churches, the Reformed Dutch and most of the\nBaptist denominations.\n\nTheir views are ably presented by the theologians of Princeton and their\nquarterly, and by the Baptist theologians of the Newton Theological\nSeminary and the Baptist periodicals.\n\nThe second class may be called the new school Calvinists, embracing\nCongregational and New School Presbyterian churches. These are ably\nrepresented in New England by the Andover and New Haven Theological\nSeminaries and their respective quarterlies; and out of New England, by\nthe Theological Seminaries of Union and Lane, and their quarterly at\nPhiladelphia.\n\nThe third class are the Arminian sects, including the Methodists and\nEpiscopalians, whose views are ably presented in their quarterlies and\nother periodicals in New York and Philadelphia.\n\n\n\n\nIn what does the depraved nature transmitted from Adam consist?\n\n\nIn seeking a definite and clear answer to the question, what is the\ndepraved nature transmitted from Adam, we find so much vagueness and\nmistiness, that it will be needful to state first what it _is not_, and\nthen it will be more easy to approximate to the affirmative reply.\n\nWe find, then, that theologians teach that this depraved nature does not\nconsist in any of those constitutional powers and faculties of mind, of\nwhich God is the author. For they maintain that all that God has made is\nperfect and right, and that he is not the creator of that which is the\ncause or origin of sin, inasmuch as this would make him \u201cthe author of\nsin,\u201d which they expressly deny. This depraved nature, then, is something\nwhich God did not create. This is what is affirmed when theologians say\nthat they do not teach a \u201cphysical depravity\u201d which demands \u201cphysical\nregeneration\u201d on the part of God.\n\nThen on the positive side, we find that this depraved nature is something\nthat mind can be created without, for God made the angels and Adam without\nit.\n\nIt is something which does not prevent sinful action, for Adam sinned\nbefore it existed.\n\nIt is something which God can at any time remedy, at least to some extent,\nby regeneration.\n\nIt is something which makes every moral act of every human being sin and\nonly sin until regeneration takes place.\n\nIt is something which man created himself, either _in_ Adam, or _by_ Adam,\nor _before_ Adam.\n\nIt is something which man never can or never will rectify, so that he is\nentirely dependent on God for the remedy.\n\nIt is something which most theologians describe as \u201ca bias,\u201d or \u201ca\ntendency,\u201d or \u201ca propensity,\u201d or \u201can inclination,\u201d or \u201ca proclivity\u201d _to\nsin_, while its opposite is called _a holy nature_ which was created by\nGod, and which consists in a bias, tendency, propensity, inclination or\nproclivity to holiness.\n\nAccording to this, God created the holy nature of angels and our first\nparents, and _man_ caused the depraved nature of all of Adam\u2019s posterity.\n\nSome theologians attempt to define it as an _unbalanced state of the\nfaculties_, while holiness consists in the perfect balance of the\nfaculties. This balanced state of the faculties conferred at his creation\non Adam has been withheld from all his descendants by a constitution\nformed by God in consequence of Adam\u2019s sin. Some theologians define this\ndepravity as _like_ a habit. Others hold that it is a state of _the will_,\nsometimes called a _disposition_ or _ruling purpose_.\n\nSome theologians teach that the presence of God\u2019s Spirit, in the soul of\nman is indispensable to its right action, and that his depraved nature is\nthe result of the \u201cdeprivation\u201d of God\u2019s Spirit, which was bestowed on\nAdam, and is withheld from his descendants on account of his first sin.\nAccording to this view, a holy mind is one which enjoys the presence of\nGod\u2019s Spirit, and a depraved mind is one that is deprived of it.\n\n\n\n\nAbility and Inability.\n\n\nThe next question connected with the Augustine theory is in regard to\nman\u2019s power or ability to obey God.\n\nThe old school Calvinists hold that man has no power of _any_ kind to obey\nany of God\u2019s laws acceptably until his depraved nature is regenerated by\nGod, and also that he has no power to do any thing that has any tendency\nto secure regeneration. Every act and feeling is sin and only sin from\nbirth to regeneration.\n\nThe new school Calvinists hold that man has full power to obey _all_ that\nGod requires, but that owing to his depraved nature, he never will perform\na morally right act in a single instance, until regenerated, nor will he\ndo any thing that has any promise, or encouragement from the Word of God,\nas tending to secure regeneration. He is as entirely dependent on God as\nif he had no power of any kind. And as the inability, whether natural or\nmoral, is all owing to the depraved nature consequent on Adam\u2019s sin, the\nfact that man has power to do what he never will do, only adds to the\nmisery of the condition thus entailed.\n\nThe Arminian sects agree in the fact that the sin of Adam entailed such a\ndepraved nature to all the race, as more or less incapacitates for right\nmoral action until regeneration takes place.\n\nThe Episcopal Arminians hold to the Catholic view that baptism in part\nremedies the effects of Adam\u2019s sin, so that by the use of the means\nafforded by a ministry regularly transmitted from the Apostles, the\nunregenerate can gain eternal life.\n\nThe Methodist Arminians hold that depravity consists in the\n\u201c_deprivation_\u201d of God\u2019s Spirit which was given to Adam, and that the\ndeath of Christ has so availed, that man now has some measure of this\nSpirit restored before regeneration, so that all men have power, by the\nuse of certain appointed means of grace, to gain regeneration.\n\nThe main point where the Calvinists and Arminians differ is, that the\nArminians teach that man has an appointed mode for gaining regeneration,\nand the Calvinists teach that he has not.\n\n\n\n\nWhat is Regeneration?\n\n\nThe next question is, in what does that great change consist which is\ncalled regeneration, and which is indispensable to salvation from eternal\nwoe?\n\nThe old school Calvinists say it is a new nature created by God which\nnaturally acts right, in place of a depraved nature which naturally acts\nwrong and only wrong. With this new nature man has power to obey God\nacceptably, and without it he has no power of any kind.\n\nThe new school Calvinists say that regeneration is a change of the\ndepraved nature of man by God, attended by a _choice_ or _ruling purpose_\nto obey God in all things made by man himself. They teach also that man\ncan and ought to make this choice without any help from God in changing\nhis depraved nature, and yet, owing to this evil nature, he never will do\nso till God changes it. Meantime God points out no certain way of\nobtaining this indispensable aid from him.(1)\n\nThe Arminians teach that regeneration consists either in the implanting of\na new nature by baptism, and the use of other means of grace, or in the\nrestoration of God\u2019s Spirit which was withdrawn from man on account of\nAdam\u2019s sin, and in some degree restored by Christ\u2019s death.\n\n\n\n\nWhat must we do to be saved?\n\n\nThe next question for a race thus mournfully ruined is, \u201cWhat must we do\nto be saved?\u201d\n\nIn reply, the old school Calvinist says, you can do nothing at all.\nWhoever is saved will be regenerated by God, without reference to any\nunregenerate doings. It is all decided not by man in any way, but by the\n\u201cdecrees\u201d and \u201celection\u201d of God.\n\nThe new school Calvinist says, You _can_ do all that God requires, so as\nto be perfect in every thought, word and deed, from the beginning of moral\naction to the close of life, but you certainly never _will_ feel or do a\nsingle thing that is right and acceptable until regenerated; nor will you\never do any thing to which any promise is offered by God as that which\nwill secure his interference to regenerate. It is all decided, not by man,\nbut by the \u201cdecrees\u201d and \u201celection\u201d of God.\n\nThe Arminians say you can obtain regeneration and eternal life, by the use\nof the means of grace set forth in the Bible and by \u201cthe Church.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nTrue virtue, or right moral action.\n\n\nThe next question is, what is true virtue, or right moral action?\n\nBy _moral action_ is meant the act of mind in _choosing_, in distinction\nfrom intellectual and other acts of mind.\n\nThe Calvinists, both old and new school, teach that true virtue, or right\nmoral action in man, is choosing to obey God\u2019s laws after regeneration\ntakes place. Previous to regeneration, every choice is sin and has no\nmoral goodness or rectitude. Thus truth, honesty, justice, self\u2010denial for\nthe good of others, obedience to parents, are all sin in an unregenerate\nmind, and true virtue in the regenerate mind.\n\nThe Antinomian Calvinist goes so far as to claim that _every_ choice of a\nregenerate mind is right and holy, just as every choice of the\nunregenerate is sin. Thus the practice of the most hideous vices and\ncrimes becomes virtue in the regenerate.\n\nBut all other Calvinists maintain that after regeneration we can and do\nsin, though previous to this change no truly virtuous act is ever\nperformed.\n\nThe Arminians hold that true virtue consists in obeying God\u2019s laws,\nwithout reference to the question of regeneration. They do not hold, as do\nall Calvinists, that all the doings of the unregenerate are sinful, and\nthus have no promise or encouragement in the Bible as having an influence\nto secure regeneration.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN THE AUGUSTINIAN THEORY.\n\n\nThe difficulties involved in the Augustinian theory of \u201cthe origin of\nevil,\u201d result from these facts. Our only idea of a benevolent being is\nthat wherever he has the power to produce either happiness or misery, he\nprefers to make happiness. Our only idea of a malevolent being is that\nwherever he has this power he prefers to make misery.\n\nConsequently, the affirmation that all the sin and misery of man is the\nresult of a depraved nature which the Creator has power both to prevent\nand to remove, conveys no other idea than that God prefers to make misery\nwhen he has power to make happiness, and thus is a malevolent being.\n\nIf God would make all minds perfectly holy, as theologians claim he has\npower to do, all sin would cease. He chooses not to do so, but rather to\nperpetuate the depraved nature transmitted from Adam, which is \u201cthe origin\nof all evil.\u201d\n\nNow all classes of theologians who hold to the depravity of man\u2019s nature\nconsequent on Adam\u2019s sin, agree that this is the cause or origin of all\nsin and its consequent suffering.\n\nThey all agree, also, that God has proved his power to make a perfectly\nholy nature in the case of angels and of Adam, and that in consequence of\nthe first sin of Adam, every human mind begins to exist with a depraved\nnature, according to a constitution of things instituted by God.\n\nThey all agree that God can regenerate every human mind, and that this\nboon is withheld, not for want of _power_, but for want of _will_ on the\npart of God.\n\nThe difficulty that they have to meet is this\u2014How can the Creator, having\ndone thus, be regarded as any other than a malevolent being, the malignant\nand hateful \u201cauthor of sin,\u201d and all its consequent sufferings?\n\nThe following exhibits the several modes of attempting to meet this\nquestion.\n\n\n\n\nThe Catholic Method.\n\n\nThe first mode of meeting this difficulty is called that of _mystery_ and\n_sovereignty_. It is simply saying that there is no explanation to be\ngiven. It is a mystery that God as a sovereign does not choose to explain,\nand it must be submitted to in uncomplaining silence.\n\nThis is the Catholic mode which has been perpetuated by many Protestants.\nIt is the same method as is adopted in defending the Catholic doctrine of\n_transubstantiation_.\n\nAll who do not resort to the Catholic mode of mystery and sovereignty,\nendeavor to relieve the Creator from the charge of being the author of sin\nby maintaining that _man made his own depraved nature_.\n\nThis they set forth in the following ways:\n\n\n\n\nMode of Augustine and of President Edwards.\n\n\nAugustine, the father of this dreadful system, maintained that all men had\na common nature _in_ Adam, which was ruined by his act, after God had made\nthis common nature perfect. That is to say, every human soul existed as a\npart of Adam, and thus his act was the act of each and of all. This act\nvitiated the common nature of all, and thus Adam and each of his posterity\ncaused the depravity of their common nature. And thus, though God had the\npower to create each mind as perfect as he created Adam\u2019s, still he is not\nthe author of sin.\n\nPresident Edwards, the great New England theologian, taught that all the\nminds of our race so existed in Adam, and were so one with his mind, that\nwhen he chose to eat the forbidden fruit, all his descendants chose to do\nso too, and thus each man ruined his own nature, and God is not the author\nof the evil.\n\n\n\n\nThe Princeton Mode.\n\n\nThe theologians of Princeton set forth the following as the mode in which\nman caused his own depraved nature:\n\nGod created Adam with a perfectly holy nature. Adam sinned and ruined his\nown nature. God had previously \u201cmade a covenant with Adam, not only for\nhimself, but for all his posterity, or in other words, Adam having been\nplaced on trial, not only for himself, but also for his race, his act was\nin virtue of this relation _regarded (by God) as our act_. God withdrew\nfrom us as he did from him; in consequence of this withdrawal, we begin to\nexist in moral darkness, destitute of a disposition to delight in God and\nprone to delight in ourselves and in the world. The sin of Adam therefore\nruined us; and the intervention of the Son of God for our salvation is an\nact of pure, sovereign, and wonderful grace.\u201d\n\nThe above is extracted from a standard writer of the Princeton Theological\nSeminary, and expresses the views of the Old School Presbyterian church in\nthis matter.\n\nIt is simply saying that man made his own depraved nature, inasmuch as God\n_regarded_ Adam\u2019s act as our act _when it was not_, being performed before\nwe existed, and that he punished us by withdrawing from us, as he did from\nAdam, and thus our nature becomes ruined and totally depraved.\n\n\n\n\nThe Constitutional Transmission Mode.\n\n\nThe next way in which man is made to be the author of his own nature is\ncalled the _constitutional transmission mode_. It is as follows:\n\nGod made Adam with a perfectly holy mind, and then Adam sinned and ruined\nhis own nature. _In consequence_ of this act, God established _such a\nconstitution of things_ that Adam transmitted his depraved nature to all\nhis posterity, just as bodily diseases are transmitted from parents to\nchildren.\n\nIn this way _man_ is said to be the author of his own depraved nature,\nmeaning, by man, _Adam_.\n\nIn this case it is conceded that God had power to make such a constitution\nof things as that all human minds would begin existence, as Adam did, with\nperfectly holy minds, and that instead of this, he chose that such a\ndepraved nature should be transmitted to all as would insure universal\nsin. And yet it is claimed that by this mode, man, and not God, is shown\nto be \u201cthe author of sin.\u201d\n\nThis is the mode adopted by most of the Andover and New Haven theologians.\n\nDr. Edward Beecher, in his work \u201cThe Conflict of Ages,\u201d advocates the idea\nthat man ruined his own nature in a pre\u00ebxistent state _before_ Adam. But\nthe evidence of this has not yet been presented.\n\nThus all who do not take the Catholic mode of _mystery and sovereignty_\nmaintain that _man made his own depravity of nature_, either _in_ or _by_\nor _before_ Adam.\n\n\n\n\nCondition of infants.\n\n\nThe most difficult point of all, is the probable condition of infants\nafter death. On the Augustinian theory they all have been ruined in nature\nby Adam\u2019s sin, and when they die, go with this depraved nature to their\nfinal state. Augustine acquired the name of \u201c_durus pater_\u201d (cruel father)\nbecause he was consistent with his theory and taught that these little\nones, if unbaptized, were doomed to endless torments.\n\nBut as humanity and common sense have gained ground this hideous tenet has\npassed away, and few are now found who do not sacrifice consistency to\nhumanity, and allow that in spite of their total depravity, all infants go\ndirectly to heaven and are forever blessed. Formerly some would confine\nthis favor to the \u201celect infants,\u201d others to the infants of \u201celect\nparents,\u201d but few are found at this day who venture to teach that God\nsends even one new\u2010born being to eternal misery for Adam\u2019s sin.\n\n\n\n\nThe difficulties not removed but rather increased by these methods.\n\n\nBut the difficulties involved in the Augustine theory do not lie in _the\nmode_ by which it came to pass that all men begin existence with depraved\nnatures, but in _the fact_, that God, having power to create all minds as\nperfect as Adam\u2019s, and also the power to regenerate all, has chosen not to\ndo so, and thus has preferred the consequent sin and misery to the\nhappiness resulting from making perfect minds.\n\nThis grand difficulty stands entirely unrelieved by the above methods. Nay\nmore, they all serve but to increase a sense of the folly and enormity of\nthe awful result, and to present our Maker as the cruel cause of all our\nmiseries, and the fullest and most awful realization of our idea of a\nperfectly malevolent being.(2)\n\n\n\n\nIllustration of the Augustinian Theory.\n\n\nThe following illustrates the case, though but very imperfectly, inasmuch\nas any finite temporal evils are as nothing compared to the eternal\ntorments to which are assigned all of our race, whose ruined nature is not\nregenerated before death.\n\nA father places a poison in the way of his wife, forbids her to taste it,\nbut knows she will do so and that the consequence will be that all his\nchildren will be born blind.\n\nThen he places the children thus deprived of sight, in a dreadful morass\nfilled with savage beasts and awful pitfalls, with a narrow and difficult\npath of escape, which it is certain no one will ever find without sight.\nThe consequence is, that a large part of his children sink into the\npitfalls and perish.\n\nThen he justifies himself in these ways. To some he says, I have a right\nto treat my children as I please, and I allow no one to question me on the\nmatter. All that I do is right and benevolent, and you must not inquire\nhow or why.\n\nTo all the rest he says, I am not the author of this evil, it is _the\nmother_ of the children who took the poison when I forbade her to do so.\nShe either made herself blind by taking the poison, and then transmitted\nthe evil to her children as a hereditary boon, or she had \u201ca common\nnature\u201d with her children and ruined all together, or they all \u201csinned in\nher\u201d and became blind before they were born. And so I am not \u201cthe author\nof sin\u201d in this matter.\n\nTo intelligent persons not educated in the belief of the above theory of\nAugustine, and of these modes of explaining the difficulties connected\nwith it, this account of the matter will seem so incredible and monstrous\nthat they will demand evidence that the preceding statements are true. In\nthe next chapters this evidence will be presented.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. THE AUGUSTINIAN THEORY IN CREEDS.\n\n\nThe preceding chapters have presented the Augustinian theory of \u201cthe\norigin of evil,\u201d and certain questions connected with it which have been\ndebated by theologians; also the difficulties involved in the theory, and\nthe modes of meeting these difficulties.\n\nThe next aim will be to verify these statements by extracts from the\ncreeds and theologians of the great Christian sects.\n\n\n\n\nCreed of the Catholic Church.\n\n\nIt is well known that the Catholic organization preceded that of the\nProtestant sects. It is also well known that this church maintains that\nthe decisions of her pope and councils are _infallible_.\n\nThe following extracts, then, from the decisions of the celebrated\nCouncils of Trent at the period of the Reformation, exhibit the theory of\nAugustine incorporated as a part of the Roman Catholic creed:\n\n\n    _Extract from a decree of the Council of Trent._\n\n    \u201cInfants derive from Adam that original guilt which must be\n    expiated in the laver of regeneration in order to obtain eternal\n    life. Adam lost the purity and righteousness which he received\n    from God, not for himself only but also for us.\u201d\n\n\nThe catechism of the Council of Trent says:\n\n\n    \u201cThe pastor, therefore, will not omit to remind the faithful that\n    the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to\n    Adam, but justly descended from him, their source and cause, to\n    all posterity. Hence a sentence of condemnation was pronounced\n    _against the human race_ immediately after the fall of Adam.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nJohn Calvin.\n\n\nThe celebrated John Calvin, one of the greatest Protestant theologians at\nthe period of the Reformation, wrote a complete _system_ based on the\nAugustinian theory. This system has been perpetuated in all the various\nsects which from him are named _Calvinistic_. The following extract gives\nhis views on this subject:\n\n_John Calvin._\n\n\n    \u201cIt is a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature,\n    diffused through all parts of the soul, which, in the first place,\n    exposes us to the wrath of God, and then produces in us those\n    works which the Scripture calls the works of the flesh.\u201d\n\n\nOf infants, he says:\n\n\n    \u201cThey bring their condemnation with them from their mother\u2019s womb,\n    being liable to punishment, not for the sin of another, but for\n    their own. For although they have not as yet produced the fruits\n    of their iniquity, yet they have the seed inclosed in themselves;\n    nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin; therefore\n    they can not but be odious and abominable to God. Whence it\n    follows that it is properly considered sin before God, because\n    there could not be liability to punishment without sin.\u201d\n\n    \u201cThe corruption of nature precedes and gives rise to all sinful\n    acts, and is in itself deserving of punishment.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nWestminster Assembly.\n\n\nThe Westminster Assembly represented the Calvinistic sects of Great\nBritain near the period of the Reformation.\n\nThe confession of faith and catechisms prepared by them have ever since\nbeen received as a true statement of the system of religious doctrine, as\nheld by the Presbyterian, Congregational, and Calvinistic Baptist\ndenominations in Great Britain and America. The following presents the\nAugustinian theory, as contained in their creed:\n\n\n    \u201cA _corrupted nature_ was conveyed from our first parents to all\n    their posterity. From this original corruption, whereby we are\n    utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and\n    wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.\n    Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the\n    righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its own\n    nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to\n    the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so made subject to\n    death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal and eternal.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nThe Episcopalians.\n\n\nThe following from the Thirty\u2010nine Articles of the Church of England\npresents the same doctrine, as held by the Episcopalians of Great Britain\nand America:\n\n\n    \u201cOriginal sin is the fault and corruption of the nature of every\n    man, that naturally is engendered in the offspring of Adam;\n    whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is\n    of his own nature inclined to evil\u2014and this infection of nature\n    doth remain in the regenerated.\u201d\n\n    \u201cThe condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he can\n    not turn and prepare himself (by his own natural strength and good\n    works) to faith and calling upon God. Wherefore we have _no power_\n    to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace\n    of God by Christ preventing us; that we may have a good will, and\n    working with us when we have that good will.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nThe Methodists.\n\n\nIn the Methodist Quarterly Review for July, 1857, the editor, in speaking\nof the works of Arminius, says, p. 345, \u201cOur denomination, _whose creed\nagrees so completely with the teachings of this learned, accomplished and\nholy man_, is bound to maintain the freshness of his precious memory.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nArminius.\n\n\nIn the same article are the following extracts from the works of Arminius,\nwhich, on so good authority, may be received as the views of the Methodist\nchurches on this topic:\n\n\n    \u201cThe will of man, with respect to true good, is not only wounded,\n    bruised, crooked and attenuated, but is likewise captivated,\n    destroyed and lost, and has _no powers whatever_, except such as\n    are excited by grace.\n\n    \u201cAdam, by sinning, corrupted himself and all his posterity, and so\n    made them obnoxious to God\u2019s wrath.\u201d\n\n    \u201cInfants have rejected the grace of the gospel _in their parents\n    and forefathers_, by which act they have deserved to be deserted\n    by God. For I would like to have proof adduced how all posterity\n    could _sin in Adam_ against law, and yet infants, to whom the\n    gospel is offered _in their parents_ and rejected, have not sinned\n    against the grace of the gospel.\u201d\n\n    \u201cFor there is a permanent principle in the covenant of God, that\n    children should be comprehended and adjudged in their parents.\u201d\n\n\nWatson, the leading Arminian theologian, says that in the doctrine of the\ncorruption of our common nature and man\u2019s natural incapacity to do good,\nthe Arminians and Calvinists so well agree, \u201cthat it is an entire delusion\nto represent this doctrine, as is often done, as exclusively Calvinistic.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nVarious Protestant doctrines.\n\n\nThe following extracts from the creeds of various European bodies of\nProtestant Christians show the same doctrine. The Synod of Dort was a\ngreat council of Protestant divines at the period of the Reformation. It\ncontained representatives from most of the large bodies of Protestants in\nEurope. The following gives their views on this subject:\n\n_Synod of Dort._\n\n\n    \u201cTherefore all men are conceived in sin and born the children of\n    wrath, disqualified for all saving good, propense to evil, dead in\n    sins, the slaves of sin; and without the grace of the regenerating\n    Holy Spirit, they neither are willing nor able to return to God,\n    to correct their depraved nature, or to dispose themselves to the\n    correction of it.\u201d\n\n\n_Confession of Helvetia._\n\n\n    \u201cWe take sin to be that natural corruption of man derived or\n    spread from those our parents unto us all; through which we, being\n    not only drowned in evil concupiscences and clean turned away from\n    God, but prone to all evil, full of all wickedness, distrust,\n    contempt and hatred of God, can do no good of ourselves\u2014_no, not\n    so much as think of any_.\u201d\n\n\n_Confession of Belgia._\n\n\n    \u201cWe believe that, through the disobedience of Adam, the sin that\n    is called original hath been spread and poured into all mankind.\n    Now original sin is a corruption of the whole nature, and an\n    hereditary evil wherewith even the very infants in their mother\u2019s\n    womb are polluted: the which also, as a most noisome root, doth\n    branch out most abundantly all kinds of sin in men, and is so\n    filthy and abominable in the sight of God, that _it alone_ is\n    sufficient to the condemnation of all mankind.\u201d\n\n\n_Confession of Bohemia._\n\n\n    \u201cOriginal sin is naturally engendered in us and hereditary,\n    wherein we are all conceived and born into this world.... Let the\n    force of this hereditary destruction be acknowledged and judged of\n    by the guilt and fault involved, by our proneness and declination\n    to evil, by our evil nature, and by the punishment which is laid\n    upon it.\n\n    \u201cActual sins are the fruits of original sin, and do burst out\n    within, without, privily and openly, by the powers of man; that\n    is, by all that ever man is able to do, and by his members,\n    transgressing all those things which God commandeth and\n    forbiddeth, and also running into blindness and errors worthy to\n    be punished with all kinds of damnation.\u201d\n\n\n_French Confession (Protestant)._\n\n\n    \u201cMan\u2019s nature is become altogether defiled, and being blind in\n    spirit and corrupt in heart, hath utterly lost all his original\n    integrity. We believe that all the offspring of Adam are infected\n    with this contagion, which we call original sin, that is a stain\n    spreading itself by propagation. We believe that this stain is\n    indeed sin, because that it maketh every man (not so much as those\n    little ones excepted which as yet lie hid in their mother\u2019s womb)\n    deserving of eternal death before God. We also affirm that this\n    stain, even after baptism, is in nature sin.\u201d\n\n\n_Moravian Confession._\n\n\n    \u201cThis innate disease and original sin is truly sin, and condemns\n    under God\u2019s eternal wrath all those who are not born again through\n    water and the Holy Ghost.\u201d\n\n\nThe preceding is sufficient to establish the unanimous agreement of\nCatholic and Protestant creeds and confessions in maintaining the\nAugustinian theory of the depraved nature of all mankind consequent on the\nsin of Adam, as it has been set forth in the preceding chapters.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. MODES OF MEETING DIFFICULTIES BY THEOLOGIANS.\n\n\nHaving presented the Augustinian theory, as it is set forth in both\nCatholic and Protestant creeds, the next object will be to verify the\nstatements of the preceding chapters as to the _modes of meeting\ndifficulties_ adopted by theologians.\n\nThe first extract will show that Augustine taught that all men had a\ncommon nature in Adam, so that his choosing to eat the forbidden fruit was\nthe act of each and all human minds which were existing in or with him at\nthat time. And thus that it was man and not God that caused our depravity\nof nature.\n\nThe extract introduced to verify the above was written to St. Jerome, who\ntaught that all minds commenced their first existence at or near the birth\nof each. This Augustine denied, and the passage shows not only that he\ntaught a common nature which was ruined in Adam, but also that all\nunbaptized infants go to endless punishment for the sin thus committed in\nAdam ages before they were born.\n\n\n\n\nAugustine\u2019s Mode.\n\n\n    \u201cHow can so many thousands of souls which leave the bodies of\n    unbaptized infants be with any equity condemned, if they were\n    newly created and introduced into these bodies for no previous\n    sins of their own, but by the mere will of him who created them to\n    animate these bodies, and foreknew that each of them, for no fault\n    of his own, would die unbaptized? Since, then, we can not say that\n    God either makes souls sinful by compulsion, or punishes them when\n    innocent, and yet _are obliged to confess that the souls of the\n    little ones are condemned if they die unbaptized_, I beseech you\n    tell me how can this opinion be defended, by which it is believed\n    that souls are not all derived from that one first man, but are\n    newly created for each particular body?\u201d\n\n\nThus Augustine supposed that he escaped the charge of making God the\nauthor of sin by teaching that God created all the souls of the race _in_\nAdam, so that Adam\u2019s sin ruined the nature of himself and his posterity\nall at one stroke, while it made it right and just to send all unbaptized\ninfants to eternal misery.\n\nThe next extract is introduced to verify the statement made as to the\nPrinceton mode of making man the author of his own depraved nature. This\nmode is the one adopted by most theologians of the Old School Presbyterian\nchurch. It is thus set forth by Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, in his Commentary\non Romans:\n\n\n\n\nPrinceton Mode.\n\n\n    \u201cThe great fact in the apostle\u2019s mind was, that God regards and\n    treats all men, from the first moment of their existence, as out\n    of fellowship with himself, as having forfeited his favor. Instead\n    of entering into communion with them the moment they begin to\n    exist (as he did with Adam), and forming them by his Spirit in his\n    own moral image, he regards them as out of his favor, and\n    withholds the influences of the Spirit. Why is this? Why does God\n    thus deal with the human race? Here is a form of death which the\n    violation of the law of Moses, the transgression of the law of\n    nature, the existence of innate depravity, separately or combined,\n    are insufficient to account for. Its infliction is antecedent to\n    them all; and yet it is of all evils the essence and the sum. Men\n    begin to exist out of communion with God. This is the fact which\n    no sophistry can get out of the Bible or the history of the world.\n    Paul tells us why it is. It is because we fell in Adam; it is for\n    the offense of one man that all thus die. The covenant being\n    formed with Adam, not only for himself but also for his\n    posterity\u2014in other words, Adam having being placed on trial, not\n    for himself only, but also for his race, his act was, in virtue of\n    this relation, REGARDED AS OUR ACT.\n\n    \u201cGod withdrew from us as he did from him; in consequence of this\n    withdrawal, we begin to exist in moral darkness, destitute of a\n    disposition to delight in God, and prone to delight in ourselves\n    and the world. The sin of Adam, therefore, ruined us; was the\n    ground of the withdrawing of the divine favor from the whole race.\n    But such evil was inflicted before the giving of the Mosaic law;\n    it comes on men before the transgression of the law of nature, or\n    even the existence of inherent depravity. It must, therefore, be\n    for the offense of one man that judgment has come upon all men to\n    condemnation.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nConstitutional Transmission Mode.\n\n\nDr. Dwight\u2019s system of theology is regarded as the fairest exhibition of\nthe theological opinions of the majority of the New England Congregational\nclergy.\n\nWhile the Catholic mode, as taught by Dr. Woods so many years at Andover,\nis probably adopted by many, the views of Dr. Dwight, and his successor,\nDr. Taylor, on the point under consideration, are taught now both at the\nAndover and New Haven seminaries, and probably are adopted by the great\nmajority of the clergy in the Congregational and New School Presbyterian\ndenominations.\n\nThese theologians maintain that man is the author of his own depraved\nnature in this way. Adam sinned and ruined his own nature, and then, in\nconsequence of this sin, God instituted _such a constitution __ of\nthings_, that this ruined nature has been transmitted to all his\nposterity, after the same manner as bodily diseases are transmitted from\nparent to child. This constitution also was established when God had the\npower to bestow on each human mind the same \u201choly nature\u201d which he gave to\nAdam. The following from Dr. Dwight sustains this statement:\n\n\n    \u201cThe corruption of mankind exists in consequence of the apostacy\n    of Adam. By means of the offense or transgression of Adam, the\n    judgment or sentence of God came upon all men unto condemnation,\n    because, and solely because _all men in that state of things which\n    was constituted in consequence of the transgression of Adam_,\n    became sinners.\u201d\n\n\nThat is to say, God having the power to make all men with minds as perfect\nas Adam\u2019s before his fall, on account of Adam\u2019s sin _constituted a state\nof things_ that would insure the universal sinfulness of the whole race.\n\nDr. Taylor, the successor of Dr. Dwight as head of the New Haven school of\ndivines, teaches thus:\n\n\n    \u201cMen are entirely depraved by nature. I do not mean that their\n    nature is in itself sinful, nor that their nature is the physical\n    or efficient cause of their sinning; but I mean that their nature\n    is the _occasion or reason_ of their sinning\u2014that such is their\n    nature, that in _all_ the appropriate circumstances of their being\n    they will _sin and only sin_.\u201d\n\n\nHe further states:\n\n\n    \u201cThat sin is by nature owing to propensities to inferior good,\n    with a difference between Adam\u2019s mind and ours (though we can not\n    assert that in which this difference may consist); that our\n    propensities are the same in kind, though different in degree,\n    from those of Adam; that _perhaps_ this distinction may consist in\n    mental differences\u2014or in superior tendencies, compared with\n    Adam\u2019s, to natural good, and less tendency to the highest good.\u201d\n\n\nThus, on account of the first sin of the first pair, God constituted such\na state of things, that instead of perfect minds, such as God gave to the\nangels and to Adam, all men receive such \u201ca nature\u201d as insures \u201csin and\nonly sin,\u201d until regeneration takes place.\n\nThe next extracts will verify the statements made as to the mode adopted\nby Catholic theologians.\n\n\n\n\nCatholic Mode.\n\n\nThe Catholic mode is that of _mystery and sovereignty_, and is based on\nthe assumption that the mind of man, being utterly depraved, has no\ncapacity to judge of what is right and wrong.\n\nAccording to this, the most abominable and horrible crimes are to be\nconsidered virtues if God should commit them, or should teach us that they\nare so.\n\nAmong the most distinguished of the Catholic theologians is the learned\nAbelard, who teaches thus:\n\n\n    \u201cWould it not be deemed the summit of injustice among men, if any\n    one should cast an innocent son, for the sin of a father, into\n    those flames, even if they endured but a short time? How much more\n    so if eternal? Truly I confess this would be unjust in men,\n    because they are forbidden to avenge even their own real injuries.\n    But it is not so in God, who says, \u2018Vengeance is mine, I will\n    repay;\u2019 and again, in another place, \u2018I will kill and I will make\n    alive.\u2019 Now God commits no injustice towards his creature in\n    whatever way he treats him\u2014whether he assigns him to punishment or\n    to life.... In whatever way God may wish to treat his creature, he\n    can be accused of no injustice; nor can any thing be called evil\n    in any way if it is done according to his will. Nor can we in any\n    other way distinguish good from evil, except by noticing what is\n    agreeable to his will.\u201d\n\n\nAnother celebrated Catholic theologian, \u201cthe good Pascal,\u201d thus disparages\nour natural sense of justice as \u201cwretched,\u201d and of no account before this\nawful doctrine.\n\n\n    \u201cWhat can be more contrary to the rules of our _wretched justice_\n    than to damn eternally an infant incapable of volition, for an\n    offense in which he seems to have had no share, and which was\n    committed six thousand years before he was born? Certainly nothing\n    strikes us more rudely than this doctrine; and yet without this\n    mystery, the most incomprehensible of all, we are incomprehensible\n    to ourselves.\u201d\n\n\nThus it is seen that Pascal concedes it as a truth that infants are to be\neternally damned for offenses in which they \u201cseem to have no share,\u201d and\nthat our sense of justice, which revolts from it, is \u201c_wretched_.\u201d\n\nThe Andover Theological Seminary was the first one established in New\nEngland for educating ministers, and for nearly half a century Dr. Woods\nfilled the leading theological chair. The following is introduced, from\nthe CONFLICT OF AGES, to verify the statement that the Catholic mode of\nmystery and sovereignty was the method adopted by him in training the\nclergy of New England on this subject.\n\n\n    \u201cHe [Dr. Woods] expressly teaches that there is in the nature of\n    man, anterior to knowledge or choice, a proneness or propensity to\n    sin, which is in its own nature sinful, \u2018the essence of moral\n    evil, the sum of all that is vile and hateful.\u2019 He also teaches\n    that God inflicts this \u2018tremendous calamity\u2019 on all men for the\n    sin of one man. \u2018This,\u2019 he says, \u2018has been the belief of the\n    church in all ages.\u2019\n\n    \u201cHe then asks, \u2018But how is this proceeding just to Adam\u2019s\n    posterity? What have they done, before they commit sin, to merit\n    pain and death? What have they done to merit the evil of existing\n    without original righteousness, and with a nature prone to sin?\n    Here,\u2019 he says, \u2018our wisdom fails. We apply in vain to human\n    reason or human consciousness for an answer.\u2019 Nay more; he even\n    admits that such conduct is \u2018_contrary to the dictates of our\n    fallible minds_.\u2019 Yet he still insists that we ought not to judge\n    at all in the case, but to believe that it is right because God\n    has done it. \u2018God has not made us judges. The case lies wholly out\n    of our province. It is a doctrine which is not to be brought for\n    trial to the bar of human reason. Mere natural reason, mere\n    philosophy or metaphysical sagacity transcends its just bounds,\n    and commits a heinous sacrilege, when it attacks this primary\n    article of our faith, and labors to distort it, to undermine it,\n    or to expose its truth or its importance to distrust.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\nThe preceding serves to establish the correctness of the writer\u2019s\nstatements as to the modes of meeting difficulties adopted by theologians.\n\nIn the next chapter we shall see that none of these methods prove\nsatisfactory even to theologians themselves.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. THEOLOGIANS THEMSELVES CONCEDE THE AUGUSTINIAN DOGMAS\nINDEFENSIBLE.\n\n\nAlthough each theologian claims that the mode of meeting difficulties\nadopted by his school is satisfactory, yet as each maintains that all\nother modes are unavailing, it comes to pass that a _majority_ of\ntheologians declare each attempt to make the Augustinian dogma consistent\nwith the moral sense of humanity an utter failure.\n\nIt has been shown that the Catholic mode is not to attempt to defend the\ndogma. It is \u201cdecreed\u201d by \u201cthe church,\u201d which is the only infallible\ninterpreter of God\u2019s Word, to be in the Bible, and it is to be received,\nlike the doctrine of transubstantiation, as an inscrutable mystery. This\nis the mode also adopted by Dr. Woods and many other Protestants.\n\nThe following from the Princeton theologians presents their protest\nagainst this Catholic method. They perceive that if they allow it in this\ncase, they have no excuse for denying the validity of the Catholic defense\nof transubstantiation. And so they proceed to claim that imputing to\nchildren sins that they never committed, and thus involving them in\nendless misery, is the true mode, while the Catholic one is vain.\n\n\n\n\nThe Princeton Mode against the Catholic Mode.\n\n\nThe Princeton Reviewers, in opposing the Catholic mode, as defended by Dr.\nWoods, say:\n\n\n    \u201cHow is it to be reconciled with the divine character that the\n    fate of unborn millions should depend on an act over which they\n    had not the slightest control, and in which they had no agency?\n    This difficulty presses the opponents of the doctrine (of\n    imputation) more heavily than its advocates. God must produce such\n    results either on the ground of _justice_ or of _sovereignty_. The\n    defenders of imputation take the ground of _justice_\u2014their\n    opponents that of _sovereignty_.\n\n    \u201cIs it more congenial with the unsophisticated moral feelings of\n    men that God, out of his _mere sovereignty_, should determine that\n    because one man sinned all men should sin, that because one man\n    forfeited his favor all men should incur his curse, or because one\n    man sinned all should be born with a contaminated moral nature,\n    than that, in virtue of a _most benevolent constitution_ by which\n    one was made _the representative_ of the race, the punishment of\n    the one should come upon all?\u201d\n\n\nThat is to say, they affirm interrogatively that imputing sins to innocent\nbeings that they never committed, as the ground of penal inflictions, is a\nbetter defense of God from the charge of being the author of sin and of\ncruel injustice than the Catholic mode of _sovereignty and mystery_. At\nthe same time they discard the _constitutional transmission_ mode of\nAndover and New Haven.\n\nThe following from President Edwards the younger, gives the argument of a\n_constitutional transmission_ divine against the imputation mode.\n\n\n\n\nThe Transmission Mode against the Imputation Mode.\n\n\n    \u201cThe common doctrine has been, that Adam\u2019s posterity, unless saved\n    by Christ, are damned on account of Adam\u2019s sin, and that this is\n    just, because his sin is imputed or transferred to them. By\n    _imputation his sin becomes their sin_.\n\n    \u201cWhen the justice of such a transfer is demanded, it is said that\n    _the constitution which God has established_ makes the transfer\n    just.\n\n    \u201cTo this it may be replied, that the same way it may be proved\n    just to damn a man _without any sin at all_, either personal or\n    imputed. We need only to resolve it into _a sovereign\n    constitution_ of God.\u201d\n\n\nThe Andover and New Haven theologians regard both the Catholic and the\nPrinceton modes as utterly unsatisfactory, and offer instead the mode of\n_constitutional transmission_ as relieving the difficulties.\n\nBut Dr. Woods thus argues the case against them, and appeals powerfully to\n\u201cintelligent and candid men:\u201d\n\n\n\n\nDr. Woods in behalf of the Catholic Mode against the Constitutional\nTransmission Mode.\n\n\n    \u201cAnd is there not just as much reason to urge this objection\n    against the theory just named? Its advocates hold that God brings\n    the whole human race into existence without holiness, and with\n    such propensities and in such circumstances as will certainly lead\n    them into sin; and that he brings them into this fearful condition\n    in consequence of the sin of their first father, without any fault\n    of their own. Now, as far as the divine justice or goodness is\n    concerned, what great difference is there between our being\n    depraved at first, and being in such circumstances as will\n    certainly lead to depravity the moment moral action begins? Will\n    not the latter as infallibly bring about our destruction as the\n    former? And how is it more compatible with the justice or the\n    goodness of God to put us into one of these conditions than into\n    the other, when they are both equally fatal? It is said that our\n    natural appetites and propensities and our outward circumstances\n    do not lead us into sin by any absolute or physical necessity; but\n    they do in all cases certainly lead us into sin, and God knows\n    that they will when he appoints them for us. Now, how can our\n    merciful Father voluntarily place us, while feeble, helpless\n    infants, in such circumstances as he knows beforehand will be the\n    certain occasion of our sin and ruin?... What difference does it\n    make, either as to God\u2019s character, or the result of his\n    proceedings, whether he constitutes us sinners at first, or\n    knowingly places us in such circumstances that we shall certainly\n    become sinners, and that very soon? Must not God\u2019s design as to\n    our being sinners be the same in one case as in the other; and\n    must not the final result be the same? Is not one of these states\n    of mankind fraught with as many and as great evils as the other?\n    What ground of preference then would any man have?...\n\n    \u201cLet intelligent, candid men, who do not believe either of these\n    schemes, say whether one of them is not open to as many objections\n    as the other.\u201d\n\n\nThe idea of a pre\u00ebxistence of the race _before_ Adam, is not held by any\ndenomination.\n\nThus it appears that whenever any person claims that each of these\nattempts to make the Augustine theory, as held by the great Christian\nsects, consistent with the moral sense of humanity is an utter failure, he\nis sustained by _a majority_ of the most learned and acute theologians of\nour age and nation.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. THE AUGUSTINIAN THEORY CONTRARY TO THE MORAL SENSE OF\nMANKIND.\n\n\nHaving presented evidence that both Catholics and Protestants of Europe\nand America unite in holding the Augustinian theory of the origin of evil,\nand also that theologians themselves find it indefensible, the next aim\nwill be to present a portion of the evidence to show that this system is\nat war with the moral feelings and common sense of mankind.\n\nThere are remains of the writings of those who were the opposers of this\ntheory in the time of Augustine, which show the strong emotions called\nforth at that remote period by the introduction of this doctrine.\n\nThe following is from one of the theologians of that day, addressed to the\nauthor of the theory:\n\n\n\n\nJulian to Augustine.\n\n\n    \u201cThe children, you say, do not bear the blame of their own, but of\n    another\u2019s sins. What sort of sin can that be? What an unfeeling\n    wretch, cruel, forgetful of God and of righteousness, an inhuman\n    barbarian, is he who would make such innocent creatures as little\n    children bear the consequences of transgressions which they never\n    committed, and never could commit? God, you answer. What god? For\n    there are gods many and lords many; but we worship but one God and\n    one Lord Jesus Christ. What God dost thou make the malefactor?\n    Here, most holy priest and most learned orator, thou fabricatest\n    something more mournful and frightful than the brimstone in the\n    valley of Amsanctus. God himself, say you, who commendeth his love\n    towards us, who even spared not his own Son, but hath given him up\n    for us all, he so determines\u2014he is himself the persecutor of those\n    that are born. He himself consigns to eternal fire for an evil\n    will, the children who, as he knows, can have neither a good nor\n    an evil will.\u201d\n\n\nThe following is from the celebrated Dr. Watts, whose sacred lyrics endear\nhis name to the Christian world:\n\n\n\n\nDr. Watts.\n\n\n    \u201cThis natural propagation of sinful inclinations from a common\n    parent, by a law of creation, seems difficult to be reconciled\n    with the goodness and justice of God. It seems exceeding hard to\n    suppose that such a righteous and holy God, the Creator, who is\n    also a being of such infinite goodness, should, by a powerful law\n    and order of creation, which is now called nature, appoint young,\n    intelligent creatures to come into being in such unhappy and\n    degenerate circumstances, liable to such intense pains and\n    miseries, and under such powerful tendencies and propensities to\n    evil, by the mere _law of propagation_, as should almost\n    unavoidably expose them to ten thousand actual sins, and all this\n    before they have any personal sin or guilt to deserve it.\n\n    \u201cIf it could be well made out that the whole race of mankind are\n    partakers of sinful inclinations, and evil passions, and biases to\n    vice, and also are exposed to many sharp actual sufferings and to\n    death, merely and only by the original divine law of propagation\n    from their parents who had sinned; and, if the justice and\n    goodness of God could be vindicated _in making and maintaining\n    such a dreadful law or order of propagation_ through six thousand\n    years, we have no need of further inquiries, but might here be at\n    rest. But, if the scheme be so injurious to the goodness and\n    equity of God as it seems to be, then we are constrained to seek a\n    little further for a satisfactory account of this universal\n    degeneracy and misery of mankind.\u201d\n\n\nThe following was written by an American divine at the time of the\ncommencement of the conflict in this country between the Old and New\nSchool Calvinists. At that time this theory of a depraved nature was\naccompanied, even in pulpit teachings, by the assumption of man\u2019s total\ninability to do any thing to gain salvation, and that Christ died, not for\nall men, but only for \u201cthe elect.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nDr. Whelpley.\n\n\n    \u201cThe idea that all the numerous millions of Adam\u2019s posterity\n    deserve the ineffable and endless torments of hell for a single\n    act of his, before any one of them existed, is repugnant to that\n    reason that God has given us, and is subversive of all possible\n    conceptions of justice. I hesitate not to say, that no scheme of\n    religion ever propagated amongst men contains a more monstrous, a\n    more horrible tenet. The atrocity of this doctrine is beyond\n    comparison. The visions of the Koran, the fictions of Sadder, the\n    fables of the Zendavesta, all give place to this; Rabbinical\n    legends, Brahminical vagaries, all vanish before it.\u201d\n\n    \u201cThe whole of their doctrine, then, amounts to this: that a man is\n    in the first place condemned, incapacitated, and eternally\n    reprobated for the sin of Adam; in the next place, that he is\n    condemned over again for not doing what he is totally and in all\n    respects unable to do; and in the third place that he is\n    condemned, doubly and trebly condemned, for not believing in a\n    Saviour who never died for him, and with whom he has no more to do\n    than a fallen angel.\u201d\n\n\nThe elder President Adams at first designed to enter the clerical\nprofession, but was deterred by doctrinal difficulties, of which he thus\nwrites:\n\n\n\n\nJohn Adams.\n\n\n    \u201cIf one man, or being, out of pure generosity, and without any\n    expectation of return, is about to confer any favor or emolument\n    upon another, he has a right and is at liberty to choose in what\n    manner and by what means to confer it. He may confer the favor by\n    his own hand or by the hand of a servant; and the obligation to\n    gratitude is equally strong upon the benefited being. The _mode_\n    of bestowing does not diminish the kindness, provided the\n    commodity or good is brought to us equally perfect and without our\n    expense. But, on the other hand, if one being is the original\n    cause of pain, sorrow, or suffering to another, voluntarily and\n    without provocation, it is injurious to that other, whatever\n    _means_ he might employ, and whatever circumstances the conveyance\n    of the injury might be attended with. Thus we are equally obliged\n    to the Supreme Being for the information he has given us of our\n    duty, whether by the constitution of our minds or bodies, or by a\n    supernatural revelation. For an instance of the latter, let us\n    take original sin. Some say that Adam\u2019s sin was enough to damn the\n    whole human race, without any actual crimes committed by any of\n    them. Now this guilt is brought upon them, not by their own\n    rashness and indiscretion, not by their own wickedness and vice,\n    but by the Supreme Being. This guilt brought upon us is a real\n    injury and misfortune, because it renders us worse than not to be;\n    and therefore making us guilty on account of Adam\u2019s delegation, or\n    representing all of us, is not in the least diminishing the injury\n    and injustice, but only changing the _mode_ of conveyance.\u201d\n\n\nThe celebrated Dr. Channing was educated a Calvinist. The following\nexhibits his views on this subject, after embracing Unitarianism:\n\n\n\n\nDr. Channing.\n\n\nHe says of such views:\n\n\n    \u201cThey take from us our Father in heaven, and substitute a stern\n    and unjust Lord. Our filial love and reverence rise up against\n    them. We say, touch any thing but the perfections of God. Cast no\n    stain on that spotless purity and loveliness. We can endure any\n    errors but those which subvert or unsettle the conviction of God\u2019s\n    paternal goodness. Urge not upon us a system which makes existence\n    a curse, and wraps the universe in gloom. If I and my beloved\n    friends and my whole race have come from the hands of our Creator\n    wholly depraved, irresistibly propense to all evil and averse to\n    all good\u2014if only a portion are chosen to escape from this\n    miserable state, and if the rest are to be consigned, by the Being\n    who gave us our depraved and wretched nature, to endless torments\n    in inextinguishable flames\u2014then do I think that nothing remains\n    but to mourn in anguish of heart; then existence is a curse, and\n    the Creator is\u2014\u2014. O, my merciful Father! I can not speak of thee\n    in the language which this system would suggest. No! thou hast\n    been too kind to me to deserve this reproach from my lips. Thou\n    hast created me to be happy; thou callest me to virtue and piety,\n    because in these consists my felicity; and thou wilt demand\n    nothing from me but what thou givest me ability to perform!\u201d\n\n\nThe following is from the pen of a celebrated writer educated in the\nBaptist denomination, who finally became a Universalist:\n\n\n\n\nJohn Foster.\n\n\n    \u201cI acknowledge my inability (I would say it reverently) to admit\n    this belief together with a belief in the divine goodness\u2014the\n    belief that \u2018God is love,\u2019 that his tender mercies are over all\n    his works. Goodness, benevolence, charity, as ascribed in supreme\n    perfection to him, can not mean a quality foreign to all human\n    conceptions of goodness. It must be something analogous in\n    principle to what himself has defined and required as goodness in\n    his moral creatures, that, in adoring the divine goodness, we may\n    not be worshiping an \u2018unknown God.\u2019 But, if so, how would all our\n    ideas be confounded while contemplating him bringing, of his own\n    sovereign will, a race of creatures into existence in such a\n    condition that they certainly will and must\u2014must by their nature\n    and circumstances\u2014go wrong and be miserable, unless prevented by\n    especial grace, which is the privilege of only a small portion of\n    them, and at the same time affixing on their delinquency a doom of\n    which it is infinitely beyond the highest archangel\u2019s faculty to\n    apprehend a thousandth part of the horror.\n\n    \u201cIt amazes me to imagine how thoughtful and benevolent men,\n    believing that doctrine, can endure the sight of the present world\n    and the history of the past. To behold successive, innumerable\n    crowds carried on in the mighty impulse of a depraved nature,\n    which they are impotent to reverse, and to which it is not the\n    will of God, in his sovereignty, to apply the only adequate power,\n    the withholding of which consigns them inevitably to their doom;\n    to see them passing through a short term of moral existence\n    (absurdly sometimes denominated a _probation_) under all the\n    world\u2019s pernicious influences, with the addition of the malign and\n    deadly one of the great tempter and destroyer, to confirm and\n    augment the inherent depravity, on their speedy passage to\n    everlasting woe;\u2014I repeat, I am, without pretending to any\n    extraordinary depth of feeling, amazed to conceive what they\n    contrive to do with their sensibility, and in what manner they\n    maintain a firm assurance of the divine goodness and justice.\u201d\n\n\nThe following is the experience of the author of the Conflict of Ages:\n\n\n\n\nDr. Edward Beecher.\n\n\n    \u201cIf any one would know the full worth of the privilege of living\n    under, worshiping, loving and adoring a God of honor,\n    righteousness and love, let him, after years of joyful Christian\n    experience and soul\u2010satisfying communion with God, at last come to\n    a point where his lovely character, for a time, vanishes from his\n    eyes, and nothing can be rationally seen but a God selfish,\n    dishonorable, unfeeling. No such person can ever believe that God\n    _is_ such; but he may be so situated as to be unable _rationally_\n    to see him in any other light. All the common modes of defending\n    the doctrine of native depravity may have been examined and\n    pronounced insufficient, and the question may urgently press\n    itself upon the mind, Is not the present system a _malevolent_\n    one? and of it no defense may appear.\n\n    \u201cWho can describe the gloom of him who looks on such a prospect?\n    How dark to him appears the history of man! He looks with pity on\n    the children that pass him in the street. The more violent\n    manifestations of their depravity seem to be the unfoldings of a\n    corrupt nature given to them by God before any knowledge, choice\n    or consent of their own. Mercy now seems to be no mercy, and he\n    who once delighted to speak of the love of Christ is obliged to\n    close his lips in silence; for the original wrong of giving man\n    such a nature seems so great that no subsequent acts can atone for\n    the deed. In this state of mind, he who once delighted to pray,\n    kneels and rises again, because he can not sincerely worship the\n    only God whom he sees. His distress is not on his own account. He\n    feels that God has redeemed and regenerated him; but this gives\n    him no relief. He feels as if he could not be bribed by the offer\n    of all the honors of the universe to pretend to worship or praise\n    a God whose character he can not defend. He feels that he should\n    infinitely prefer once more to see a God whom he could honorably\n    adore, and a universe radiant with his glory, and then to sink\n    into non\u2010existence, rather than to have all the honors of the\n    universe for ever heaped upon him by a God whose character he\n    could not sincerely and honestly defend. Never before has he so\n    deeply felt a longing after a God of a spotless character. Never\n    has he so deeply felt that the whole light and joy of the universe\n    are in him, and that when his character is darkened all worlds are\n    filled with gloom.\u201d\n\n\nThe following is from the Rev. Albert Barnes, a leading New School\nCalvinistic divine, and the author of a very popular Commentary on the\nBible:\n\n\n    \u201cThat the immortal mind should be allowed to jeopard its infinite\n    welfare, and that trifles should be allowed to draw it away from\n    God and virtue and heaven; that any should suffer for\n    ever\u2014lingering on in hopeless despair amidst infinite torments,\n    without the possibility of alleviation and without end; that since\n    God _can_ save men and _will_ save a part, he has not purposed to\n    save _all_; that on the supposition that the atonement is ample,\n    and that the blood of Christ can cleanse from all and every sin,\n    it is not in fact applied to all; that, in a word, a God who\n    claims to be worthy of the confidence of the universe, and to be a\n    being of infinite benevolence, should make such a world as this,\n    full of sinners and sufferers, and then, when an atonement has\n    been made, he did not save _all_ the race, and put an end to sin\n    and woe for ever;\u2014these and kindred difficulties meet the mind\n    when we think on this great subject. And they meet us whenever we\n    endeavor to urge our fellow\u2010sinners to be reconciled to God. On\n    this ground they hesitate. These are _real_ and not imaginary\n    difficulties. They are probably felt by every mind that has ever\n    reflected on the subject; and they are unexplained, unmitigated,\n    unremoved.\u201d\n\n    \u201cI have never known a particle of light thrown on these subjects\n    that has given a moment\u2019s ease to my tortured mind; nor have I an\n    explanation to offer, or a thought to suggest, that would be of\n    relief to you. I trust other men, as they profess to do\u2014understand\n    this better than I do, and that they have not the anguish of\n    spirit which I have; but I confess, when I look on a world of\n    sinners and of sufferers, upon death\u2010beds and grave\u2010yards, upon\n    the world of woe filled with hosts to suffer for ever; when I see\n    my friends, my parents, my family, my people, my fellow\u2010citizens;\n    when I look upon a whole race, all involved in this sin and\n    danger, and when I see the great mass of them wholly unconcerned,\n    and when I feel that God only can save them and yet that he does\n    not do it\u2014I am struck dumb. It is all _dark, dark, dark_ to my\n    soul, and I can not disguise it.\u201d\n\n\nThis is but a brief specimen of the shuddering protest which has arisen in\nall ages and from all sects, against this stern and awful dogma, and which\nhas poured its most powerful records from the shivering hearts of\ntheologians themselves.(3)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMON SENSE DEFINED.\n\n\nThe preceding extracts exhibit a portion of the evidence to prove that the\nAugustinian system is contrary to the moral sense of mankind, and that\ntheologians have failed, by their own concessions, to render it consistent\nand satisfactory even to themselves.\n\nThe next attempt will be to show that _the people_ are endowed with\n_principles of common sense_, by the aid of which they can educe from the\n_works_ of the Creator, independently of any revealed _Word_, a system of\nreligion far superior to the one based on the Augustinian theory.\n\nOur first aim will be to designate what is intended by \u201cthe principles of\ncommon sense.\u201d\n\nIt is claimed, then, that there are certain truths, the belief of which\nexists in every rational human mind. This belief, in some cases, as all\nmust allow, results from the constitution of mind given by the Creator,\nand not from any instruction or knowledge gained by other modes. Of this\nclass is the belief of every mind in its own existence, and also the\nbelief in the existence of other things beside ourselves.\n\nThere are other truths universally believed by every rational mind, where\nthere may be room for question as to whether this belief is acquired or\nthe result of constitutional organization. But this question is waived, as\nof little practical consequence for the present purpose of this work.\n\nThe fact on which the name and classification of these truths rests is,\nthat the belief in them is _common_ to all rational minds, and is regarded\nas so indispensable to true rationality, that whenever any person shows by\nwords and actions that a belief in any one of these truths does not exist,\nhe is regarded as deranged, that is to say, his _reason_ is said to be\nmore or less destroyed.\n\nThis, therefore, is the _test_ by which we are to distinguish these\nprinciples of common sense from all other knowledge. They are truths which\nare believed by all rational persons, so that the disbelief of any one of\nthem, evinced in words and actions, is universally regarded as proof of a\nderanged mind. In such cases, a man, in common parlance, would be said to\nhave \u201clost his mind,\u201d or to have \u201clost his reason;\u201d inasmuch as he is\nlacking in some of those peculiar features which constitute man a rational\nbeing.\n\nIn this work the question is also waived as to the number of truths which\nare to be included in this class. In regard to certain of them there can\nbe no dispute. Of those involving any discussion, there probably will be\nno occasion to speak in this work. The writer does not claim that the\ncommon people, or that metaphysicians, when they speak of \u201ccommon sense,\u201d\nalways refer to what is here designated by this term.\n\nAll that the writer claims is that there are certain truths, the belief of\nwhich is _common_ to all minds, either as the result of constitutional\norganization or of acquired knowledge; and that these can be classified by\nthis _test_, viz., that men universally talk and act as if they believed\nthem, and when they cease to do so, are regarded as more or less insane.\n\nMoreover, it is claimed that it is proper to call them _principles of\ncommon sense_, because they are that kind of sense which is _common_ to\nthe whole race, and also they are _often_ referred to, both by\nmetaphysicians and by the common people, by this term.\n\nIn the following chapters it will be shown that by the application of\nthese principles, a system of natural religion can be gained from the\nworks of the Creator by the same methods that men employ in all the\nordinary concerns of life, and that thus we are as fully qualified to gain\nreligious knowledge and peace as we are to secure temporal comfort and\nprosperity.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. COMMON SENSE APPLIED TO GAIN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.\n\n\nHaving explained what is intended by the principles of common sense, the\nnext attempt will be to apply certain of these principles to gain a system\nof _natural religion_; meaning by this term that religion which may be\ngained from the _works_ of the Creator independently of any revealed Word.\n\nIn all systems of religion the first article relates to the existence and\ncharacter of the Deity to be worshiped and obeyed. The first principle of\ncommon sense to guide us in this inquiry is this:\n\n\n\n\nEvery change has a producing cause.\n\n\nIn the widest sense of the word, _cause_ signifies something as an\nantecedent, without which a given change will not occur, and with which it\nwill occur. This is the leading idea in every use of this word.\n\nThen there are two classes of causes; the first are _necessary_ or\n_producing causes_, and the second _occasional causes_.\n\nA _producing cause_ is an antecedent which _produces_ a given change.\n\n_Occasional causes_ are those circumstances which are indispensable to the\naction of producing causes.\n\nThus, fire applied to powder is the producing cause of an explosion, while\nthe placing of the two together is the occasional cause of it.\n\nThe idea of a producing cause is one which probably is gained when we\nfirst discover that our own will moves our own limbs and other things\naround us. When we will to move a thing, and find the intended change\nfollows our volition to move it, then we can not help believing that our\nown mind _produced_ this change. At the same time we gain the idea of\n_power_ to produce this change, and the belief also that the thing changed\nhad _no power_ to refrain from the change.\n\nOur only mode of defining the idea of a _producing cause_, of _power_ and\nof _want of power_, is to refer to occasions when, by willing, we cause\nchanges, and thus become conscious of the existence and nature of these\nideas by experience.\n\nSo also we have no mode of defining our _sensations_ but by stating the\noccasions in which we are conscious of them. For instance, _whiteness_ is\nthe sensation we have when we look at snow, and _blackness_ is the\nsensation we have when we look at charcoal.\n\nThe same idea of causation and power in ourselves which we have when we\nmake changes by our will, we always connect with any thing which by\nexperiment and testimony we find, in given circumstances, to be an\ninvariable antecedent of a given change. Our minds are so made, that\nwhenever we find an _invariable_ antecedent of a given change, we can not\nhelp believing that this antecedent _produced_ the change, just as we\nbelieve our own will produces changes in our bodies and in things around\nus. And if any person were to talk and act as if lie did not believe this,\nbe would be regarded as having \u201clost his reason.\u201d\n\nMoreover, whenever men, by frequent experiments, find that a given change\nis _invariably_ preceded by a certain antecedent, they can not help\nbelieving that the antecedent has _power_ to produce this change, and that\nthe thing changed has _no power_ to do otherwise. This idea of _power_ and\n_want of power_ always exists whenever men find an _invariable_ antecedent\nto some change. It is by finding what are thus invariably connected as\nantecedents and consequents that men learn what are _causes_, and what are\n_effects_, and what are the _powers_ of things around us.\n\nHere, then, we have these as principles of common sense believed by all\nmen, viz.:\n\n1. Every change (in matter or mind) has a producing cause as an\nantecedent.\n\n2. Every invariable antecedent of an invariable sequent is a _producing_\ncause, and the thing changed has no power to refrain from that change.\n\n3. A producing cause, in appropriate circumstances, has power to make a\ngiven change.\n\nNow every man, however unlearned, can judge for himself whether these\nprinciples of common sense exist in his own mind, as here set forth. For\nexample, let any person take a magnet and discover, day after day, that\nwhen it is placed near a piece of iron it draws it to itself; let him find\nalso, by testimony from others, that this is _invariable_ and fails in not\na single instance, and the inevitable result is a belief that the magnet\nis the _cause_ of the moving of the iron, just as the mind is the cause of\nthe movement of our bodies. So also there is a belief that the magnet, in\ngiven circumstances, has _power_ to move the iron, as our will has power\nto move our body. So also there is a belief that the piece of iron, in the\ngiven circumstances, has _no power_ to refrain from being thus attracted.\n\nWe see, then, that it is a universal fact, that when there is a change of\nany thing, or any new mode of existence, every sane man believes there is\nsome _producing cause_ of this change. Even the youngest child exhibits\nthis principle as a part of its mental organization. And should a person\nbe found who was destitute of a belief in this truth, so that he should\ntalk and act as if things came into existence and were changing places and\nforms without any causes, he would be called insane, or a man who had\n\u201clost his reason.\u201d\n\nOur minds being endowed with this principle, we find the world around us\nto be a succession of changes which we trace back to preceding causes,\nuntil we come to the grand question, \u201cWho, or what first started this vast\nsystem of successive changes?\u201d Only two replies are conceivable. The first\nis that of the Atheist, who, contradicting his own common sense, maintains\nthat, in some past period, all this vast system of organization and\nchanges began to exist without any cause. The other reply is, that there\nis a great, eternal, self\u2010existent _First Cause_, who himself never began\nto be, and who is the author of all finite existences. This being, the\nCreator of the heavens and the earth, we call God.\n\nThe next principle of common sense is that by which we gain a knowledge of\nthe natural attributes of the Creator. It is this:\n\n_Design_ or _contrivance_ to secure a given end, is proof of an\n_intelligent_ designer, and the _nature_ of a design proves the intention\nand character of its author.\n\nThe mind, as has been shown, is so formed that it can not believe that any\nexistence can commence without some antecedent cause. The existence of\n_unorganized_ matter, however, would be no proof that the cause was an\n_intelligent mind_.\n\nBut when any existence is discovered where there is an adjustment of\nparts, all conducing to accomplish some determinate end, no person can\nexamine and understand its nature and adaptations without the accompanying\nbelief that the cause of that contrivance was a mind endowed with the\ncapacity of adjusting means to accomplish an end, and thus an\n_intelligent_ mind.\n\nNor is it possible, when the object which any design is fitted to\naccomplish is clearly discovered, to doubt the _intention_ of the\ndesigner. We can not help believing that it was the intention of the\ncontriver to accomplish the end for which his contrivance is fitted.\n\nAs an example to illustrate the existence of these principles, even in the\nsimplest minds, if a savage should find in the desert a gold watch,\nnothing could lead him to believe that it sprang into existence there\nwithout any cause. If he should open it and perceive the nice adjustment\nof the wheels and all its beautiful indications of contrivance, he could\nnot believe that the mind of an animal, or that any but an intelligent\nmind constructed its machinery. If he should have all its movements\nexplained to him, and learn how exactly all were fitted to mark the\npassage of time, it would be equally impossible to convince him that the\ncontriver did not design it for such a purpose.\n\nVery early childhood gives evidence of the existence of these principles.\nAn interesting instance of this is recorded by a celebrated philosopher,\nwho, to test the existence of these principles in the mind of his child,\nplanted a bed with seeds arranged in the form of the letters which spelled\nthe child\u2019s name. When the green symbols had sprung from the ground and\nwere discovered by the delighted child, the father in vain endeavored to\nforce his belief that the letters came without _a cause_ and without _a\ndesign_. \u201cNo, father. _Somebody_ planted them; somebody _intended_ to have\nthem come up and spell my name!\u201d And thus infancy itself maintains the\nprinciples which are our guide to the Great Source of all finite\nexistences.\n\nAnother principle of common sense lends us still further aid in arriving\nat the natural attributes of the Creator. It is this:\n\n\n\n\nThings are and will continue according to our past experience till there\nis evidence of a change.\n\n\nAll the business of life rests on a belief of this truth. Our confidence\nthat the sun will rise, the seasons return, the ocean and rivers flow, the\nmountains remain; and in thousands of other things that regulate our plans\nand conduct, all depends on this implanted belief that things will\ncontinue according to our past experience till there is evidence of a\nchange. A man who acted as if he disbelieved this principle would be\nregarded as having \u201clost his reason.\u201d\n\nWhen, therefore, we have gained the idea that the Creator is an\n_intelligent mind_, we necessarily believe that his mind is _such as we\nhave ever known in past experience_, that is, a mind _like our own_,\nendowed with reason, intellect, susceptibilities and will. We can not\nconceive of any other kind of mind, because we have never had any\nexperience or knowledge of any other kind.\n\nThe only respect in which we can conceive of the Creator as differing from\nour own minds is in the _extent_ of those natural faculties which are\nexhibited in his works.\n\nThus by the use of the principles of common sense we have gained the\npositions that there is a Being who is the Author of all finite\nexistences, whose mind is like our own in natural faculties, while in the\nextent of these faculties, as exhibited in his works, he is far beyond our\nconceptions.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. THE PEOPLE\u2019S MENTAL PHILOSOPHY.\n\n\nIn the preceding chapter we have applied the principles of common sense to\ngain evidence of the existence of a Creator, or Great First Cause, whose\nnatural attributes we can discover only by _the nature_ of our own minds.\n\nThis being so, our next step in seeking after God is to examine the\nconstruction or nature of our own minds.\n\nThe only way to discover the nature of a thing is to examine what are its\nqualities, how it acts, and how it is acted upon. This also is the same as\nstudying the _philosophy_ of things. For when learned men set forth any\nbranch of philosophy, they only teach the qualities of certain things, how\nthey act, and how they are acted upon.\n\nWhoever, therefore, gives attention to the nature of mind so as to\ndiscover its qualities, how it acts, and how it is acted upon, is studying\nthe philosophy of mind, or mental philosophy.\n\nThe _nature of mind_, _the philosophy of mind_, and _mental philosophy_\nare terms all expressing the same thing.\n\nNow, the only possible way in which any person can discover the nature of\nanother mind is by a knowledge of his own. We first learn by experience\nthe qualities of our own mind, how it acts and how it is acted upon, and\nthen, by a process of reasoning, we learn that there are other minds\naround us, and that they have similar qualities.\n\nThe study of mental philosophy, then, is directing attention to the nature\nof our own mind, and thus discovering the nature of other minds.\n\nIt differs from all other studies in this respect, that all men have the\nmaterials of the knowledge sought in their own minds, and are required\nsimply to direct attention to their own mental states and acts.\n\nThis being so, the common people are as fully qualified to settle all\nquestions in regard to the nature or philosophy of their own minds as the\nmost learned and profound metaphysicians or theologians can be. All that\nis requisite to success is, that they direct their attention to the\nsubject by suitable methods.\n\nIt will be found, on examination, that the common people have secured a\nwritten system of mental philosophy as real as has ever yet been furnished\nby any metaphysician or theologian, while it is free from the great\ndefects which render many works on mental science unpractical and\nrepulsive.\n\nThis\u2014_the people\u2019s system of mental philosophy_\u2014it will be the object of\nwhat follows to set forth.\n\nIn attempting it, we shall find that mankind, in the uses of every\u2010day\nlife, have arranged the various acts and states of mind into classes and\nsubdivisions, and have given names to these classes, and to the specific\nacts or states included in these classes. These classifications and terms\nare recorded by lexicographers in their dictionaries.\n\nAll words have that meaning which is attached to them by the people who\nuse them. The business of the lexicographer is, not to settle what meaning\nought to belong to words, but rather to state the meaning which men\nactually attach to them in writing and speaking.\n\nIn setting forth the people\u2019s system of natural philosophy as contained in\nlexicographies, we find that almost every word is used to express several\nmeanings, similar in some respects and diverse in others. In consequence\nof this, we only can attempt thus much for mental science, as for many\nother subjects, viz., to describe the thing intended, and then to select\nthe word most frequently used to express this idea, as set forth in our\ndictionaries.\n\nThis, then, is the course pursued in the following pages. A description is\nset forth of a given act or state of mind, sufficient to identify it from\nall others, and then the word is selected from dictionaries of our\nlanguage which has most frequently been used by the common people in\nexpressing the idea intended. Thus every person who cares enough about the\nmatter to read and think, can decide as well as the most celebrated\nmetaphysician, whether the description given is _true to his own\nexperience_, and also whether, according to lexicographers, the word\nselected is frequently used by man to express this idea.\n\nThe writer, in her first attempts to investigate the philosophy of mind,\nexamined the works of Stewart, Reid, Locke, Edwards, Brown, Coleridge,\nCousin, Jouffroy, Coombe, Spurtzheim and several others. More recently\nsome attention has been given to the writings of Sir William Hamilton,\nHickok and others. The result has been the conviction, that most of these\nworks contain the people\u2019s system, more or less disguised with diverse\nmodes of classification and new technics, which tend to render the whole\nsubject misty and perplexing. And still more unfortunately, some of them\nattempt the discussion of questions which are unpractical and often\nunintelligible.\n\nAs an example, certain metaphysicians have attempted to prove that there\nis nothing existing but mind, and that all which we believe to be\nrealities without ourselves are not so, but merely ideas in the mind.\n\nOther metaphysicians have attempted to meet their arguments, and to prove\nthat the world around us is a reality.\n\nBoth attempts have ended in books which seem to have no sort of\n_practical_ influence either way. Men can not help believing that there is\nan outer world, and that the men and things that affect our senses are\nrealities, and such arguments neither lessen nor increase this belief.\n\nMeantime, the books written to prove or disprove this truth are\nincomprehensible to most common minds, at least the writer of this work\nhas in vain essayed to understand them, or to find any person who could\ncommunicate any clear ideas of their contents.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII. THE NATURE OF MIND, OR ITS POWERS AND FACULTIES.\n\n\nWe have seen, in the preceding chapters, that our only mode of gaining a\nknowledge of the natural attributes of God, is by the study of the nature\nof mind. We have seen also that the only way to discover the nature of\nmind is to examine what are its qualities, and how it acts and is acted\nupon in _our own experience_.\n\nWhen we discover what our minds actually do, we find out what they have\n_power_ to do. The _faculties_ of mind are its _powers of acting_ as they\nare exhibited in our own experience.\n\nThe following presents a brief outline of the powers and faculties of mind\nas they have been classified and named by _the people_.\n\n_Ideas_ is the word most frequently used to include _all_ the operations\nand states of mind.\n\nOur ideas are often referred to as divided into two classes, viz., ideas\ngained by the senses, and ideas that pass through the mind without the aid\nof the senses.\n\n\n\n\nIntellectual Powers.\n\n\nThe power to gain ideas by the five senses is called _sensation_ or\n_perception_.\n\nThe power to have ideas without the use of the senses is called\n_conception_.\n\n_Per_ is the Latin word for _by_, and _con_ is the word for _without_. So\nwe have _per_ceptions _by_ the senses, and _con_ceptions _without_ the\nsenses.\n\n_Imagination_ or _fancy_, is the power to make new combinations of our\nconceptions.\n\n_Memory_ is the power of recalling past ideas, and of recognizing them as\nhaving existed before.\n\n_Judgment_ is the power of comparing ideas, and noticing their relations\nto each other.\n\n_Abstraction_ is the power of noticing certain parts or certain qualities\nof things, while other parts or qualities are unnoticed.\n\n_Association_ is the power of recalling past ideas according to certain\nmodes, called _laws of association_.\n\nThe above powers are usually classed together, and called _the\nintellectual powers_, or _the intellect_.\n\n\n\n\nThe Susceptibilities, or Feelings.\n\n\nThe powers of feeling various kinds of pleasure and pain, happiness and\nmisery, enjoyment and discomfort, are called the _susceptibilities_, the\n_emotions_ and the _feelings_.\n\nWhen any thing is found to be the cause of pleasurable feelings, there\nfollows a desire to secure it, and it is called _good_. When any thing\ncauses pain, a desire follows to avoid it, and it is called _evil_.\n\nThese _desires_ to secure good and avoid evil are called _motives_ (or\nmovers), because they _move_ the mind to action in order to secure the\ngood desired or to escape the evil feared. The objects that cause such\ndesires are also called motives.\n\nFor example, _gold_ is called the motive that led a man to murder, and the\n_desire_ of gold is also called the motive of that act.(4)\n\nDesires are measured as _strong_ or _weak_ by our own consciousness. When\nwe desire two incompatible things and must choose one or the other, before\nthe act of choice we are conscious that one creates a desire which is\nstronger than the other.\n\nThe only mode of deciding which desire is strongest, is by our own\nconsciousness.\n\n\n\n\nThe Will.\n\n\nThe power of choosing, or willing, is called _the will_. It is also called\nthe power of _volition_.\n\nWhen several desires coexist, some of which must necessarily be denied in\norder to gratify others, we ordinarily choose that object which excites\nthe strongest desire, as measured by our consciousness.\n\nBut it is often the case that we feel the strongest desire for that which\nis not _best_ for us. Thus, when sick we have tempting fruit and nauseous\nmedicine before us, with power to choose either. Our intellect decides\nthat the medicine is best for us, but our strongest desire is for the\nfruit.\n\nIn such a case we have power to choose _either_ that which excites the\nstrongest desire or that which the intellect decides to be _best_, even\nwhen it does not excite the strongest desire.\n\nThis power is the chief feature of a _rational_ mind in distinction from\nan irrational mind.\n\nAnd the belief that we have this power is to be placed as one of the\nprinciples of common sense, because all men talk and act as if they\nbelieve they possess this power. And if any person were to talk and act as\nif he did not believe that he had power to choose in either of these two\nways, he would be regarded as having lost his reason.\n\n\n\n\nReason, or Common Sense.\n\n\nOf the thoughts which continually pass through the mind, we find that some\nare attended with a feeling of the real existence of the objects of our\nthoughts, and others are not so attended. For example, we may think of a\nman with a certain form carrying a dagger and going to commit murder, and\nwith this, a feeling that no such thing is really existing. Again, we may\nhave this same idea attended with the conviction that it is a reality.\n\nThis feeling of the _reality_ of the objects of our thoughts is called\n_belief_, or _faith_.\n\nOur minds are so made, that we necessarily believe not only that things\n_are_ really existing at the present time, but that things _will_ occur\nthat are not now in existence. For example, we believe the sun will rise\nto\u2010morrow morning in another place nearer toward the north or south than\nit did the present morning. We believe the tide will rise higher or lower\non a coming day than it did the present day. And thus multitudes of events\nare believed to be in the future.\n\nThose things which really do or will exist, in distinction from those we\nmay think of but which do not and will not exist, are called _truths_, or\n_realities_.\n\nAll our comfort and happiness depend on our believing _the truth_, meaning\nby truth the _reality_ of things. To believe that things exist when they\ndo not, or that things are not existing when they are, involves certain\npain, disappointment and mistake.\n\nOur great safeguard from this is that part of our mental organization\ncalled _reason_, or _common sense_. This, as has been shown, consists in\nthe necessary belief of certain truths by all men.\n\nThe _test_ by which these truths are identified and distinguished from all\nother knowledge, is the fact that usually all men talk and act as if they\nbelieved them, and that when they fail to do so, they are regarded as\nhaving \u201clost their reason.\u201d\n\nThe truths thus necessarily believed are the foundation of the process\ncalled _reasoning_, which is a mode of establishing other truths by the\naid of those already believed.\n\nThese principles of reason or common sense are often called by other\nnames, such as _intuitions_, _intuitive truths_, _first principles_, etc.\n\nThus all the powers of mind are arranged in the four general classes,\nviz., _the intellect_, _the susceptibilities_, _the will_, and _reason_ or\n_common sense_.\n\nIn regard to the power of mind called _reason_, what is claimed here is,\nnot that either the common people or metaphysicians have usually thus\nclearly set forth what is here so described and named; but that all men,\nlearned and unlearned, allow that there are truths which are necessarily\nbelieved by all mankind; that these are the foundation of all _reasoning_,\nand that they _often_ are called _reason_. So when any one is found to\nlack a belief in certain of these intuitive truths, he is said to have\n\u201clost his reason.\u201d And when any act or assertion is seen to contradict any\nof these truths, it is said to be \u201ccontrary to reason.\u201d\n\nTherefore it is proper to put the belief in these implanted truths as a\ndistinct power of the mind, and to call it \u201cthe reason.\u201d And as the belief\nof these truths is _common_ to all men, it is also proper to call it\n_common sense_.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII. NATURE OF MIND.\u2014REGULATION OF THE THOUGHTS.\n\n\nA system of natural religion includes not only the existence and natural\nattributes of the Creator, but his moral character and the duties owed to\nHim, to our fellow\u2010beings and to ourselves.\n\nTo discover these by the principles of common sense, unaided by\nrevelation, we must again turn to our own minds as our only directory.\nThis demands a more enlarged consideration of many of the specific powers\nand operations of mind, as developed by experience and observation.\n\n\n\n\nMode of regulating our thoughts.\n\n\nThe mode by which the succession of our thoughts is regulated is\nintimately connected with several subjects to be discussed, and will,\ntherefore, first receive attention.\n\nIt will be found that our _sensations_ and _perceptions_ vary in vividness\nand distinctness according to the strength and permanency of certain\nfeelings of _desire_ which coexist with them. For example, we are\ncontinually hearing a multitude of sounds, but in respect to many of them,\nas we feel no desire to know the cause or nature of them, these sensations\nare so feeble and indistinct as scarcely ever to be recalled to the mind\nor recognized by any act of memory; but should we hear some strange\nwailing sound, immediately the desire would arise to ascertain its nature\nand cause. It would immediately become an object of distinct and vivid\nperception, and continue so as long as the desire lasted.\n\nWhile one sensation becomes thus clear and prominent, it will be found\nthat other sensations which were coexisting with it will become feebler\nand seem to die away. The same impressions may still be made upon the eye\nas before, the same sounds that had previously been regarded may still\nstrike upon the ear, but while the desire to learn the cause of that\nstrange wailing sound continues, the other sensations will all be faint\nand indistinct. When this desire is gratified, then other sensations\nresume their former distinctness and prominency.\n\nOur _conceptions_, in like manner, are affected by the coexistence of\nemotion or desire. If, for example, we are employing ourselves in study or\nmental speculations, the vividness of our conceptions will vary in exact\nproportion to the interest we feel in securing the object about which our\nconceptions are employed. If we feel but little interest in the subject of\nour speculations, every conception connected with them will be undefined\nand indistinct; but if the desire of approbation, or the admonitions of\nconscience, or the hope of securing some future good stimulate desire,\nimmediately our conceptions grow more vivid and clear, and the object at\nwhich we aim is more readily and speedily secured.\n\nThe mind is continually under the influence of some desire. It constantly\nhas some plan to accomplish, some cause to search out, or some\ngratification to secure. The present wish or desire of the mind imparts an\ninterest to whatever conception seems calculated to forward this object.\nThus, if the mathematician has a problem to solve, and this is the leading\ndesire of the mind, among the various conceptions that arise, those are\nthe most interesting which are fitted to his object, and such immediately\nbecome vivid and distinct. If the painter or the poet is laboring to\neffect some new creation of his art, and has this as the leading object of\ndesire, whatever conceptions seem best fitted to his purpose are\nimmediately invested with interest, and become distinct and clear. If the\nmerchant, or the capitalist, or the statesman has some project which he is\ntoiling to accomplish, whatever conceptions appear adapted to his purpose\nsoon are glowing and defined, in consequence of the interest with which\ndesire thus invests them.\n\nFrom this it appears that the _chief end_, or leading object of desire of\nthe mind, will in a great measure determine the nature and the succession\nof its conceptions. If a man has chosen to find his chief happiness in\nsecuring power and honor, then those conceptions will be the most\ninteresting to his mind that best fall in with his object. If he has\nchosen to find happiness in securing the various gratifications of sense,\nthen those conceptions that most coincide with this desire will become\nprominent. If a man has chosen to find his chief enjoyment in doing the\nwill of God, then his conceptions will, to a great extent, be conformed to\nthis object of desire. The current of a man\u2019s thoughts, therefore, becomes\nthe surest mode of determining what is the governing purpose or leading\ndesire of the mind.\n\nBut there are seasons in our mental history when the mind does not seem to\nbe under the influence of any governing desire; when it seems to relax,\nand its thoughts appear to flow on without any regulating principle. At\nsuch times the vividness of leading conceptions, which otherwise is\ndetermined by _desire_, seems to depend upon our past experience. Those\nobjects which, in past experience, have been _associated with emotion_,\nare those which thus begin to glow in the distinct lineaments with which\nemotion at first invested them.\n\nIn past experience, all conceptions which were attended with emotion were\nmost distinct and clear, and therefore, when such conceptions return\nunited with others, they are the ones which are most interesting, and thus\nmost vivid and distinct. Thus, in our musing hours of idle reverie, as one\npicture after another glides before the mind, if some object occurs, such\nas the home of our youth, or the friend of our early days, the emotions\nwhich have been so often united with these objects in past experience\ncause them to appear in clear and glowing lineaments, and the stronger\nhave been the past emotions connected with them, the more clearly will\nthey be defined. It appears, then, that there are two circumstances that\naccount for the apparent _selection_ which the mind makes in its objects\nof conception. The first is the feeling that _certain conceptions are\nfitted to accomplish the leading desire of the __ mind_; and the second\nis, that _certain objects in past experience have been attended with\nemotion_.\n\nBut there is another phenomenon in our mental history which has a direct\nbearing on the nature and succession of our conceptions. When any\nconception, through the influence of desire or emotion, becomes the\nprominent object, immediately other objects with which this has been\nassociated in past experience begin to return and gather around it in new\ncombinations. Thus a new picture is presented before the mind, from which\nit again selects an object according as _desire_ or _emotion_ regulates,\nwhich, under this influence, grows vivid and distinct. Around this new\nobject immediately begin to cluster its past associates, till still\nanother scene is fresh arrayed before the mind.\n\nIn these new combinations, those objects which are least interesting\ncontinually disappear, while those most interesting are retained to form a\npart of the succeeding picture. Thus, in every mental picture, _desire_ or\n_emotion_ seems to call forth objects which start out, as it were, in bold\nrelief from all others, and call from the shade of obscurity the\ncompanions of their former existence, which gather around them in new and\nvaried combinations.\n\nThus it is shown that the chief mode by which we regulate the nature and\nsuccession of our thoughts is by the _choices_ we make of our objects of\npursuit. Whatever we choose as our _chief end_, or leading object of\ndesire, becomes the regulator of our emotions, our desires and our\nthoughts. Thus we have power to control our thoughts aright only by\nchoosing right objects of pursuit. We have power to regulate them in this\nway, and but very little power to control them in any other.\n\nThe mere determination to think only on certain subjects in which we feel\nvery little interest avails but for a short time. Speedily the mind\nreturns to its natural course, and brings forward only those objects\nconnected with our chief objects of desire and pursuit.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV. NATURE OF MIND.\u2014THE MORAL SENSE, OR MORAL SUSCEPTIBILITIES.\n\n\nThose susceptibilities of pleasure and pain which are affected by the\nconduct of ourselves or others, in reference to rules of _right_ and\n_wrong_, are called the _moral sense_, or the _moral susceptibilities_.\n\nIn order to a more clear view of this part of the subject, it is important\nto inquire as to the manner in which the ideas of _right_ and _wrong_ seem\nto originate.\n\nThe young child first notices that certain actions of its own are regarded\nwith smiles and tones of love and approval, while other acts occasion\nfrowns and tones of displeasure.\n\nNext, it perceives that whatever gives pleasure to itself is called _good_\nand _right_, while whatever causes unpleasant feelings is called _bad_ and\n_wrong_. Moreover, it notices that there is a right and wrong way to hold\nits spoon, to use its playthings, to put on its clothes, and to do\nmultitudes of other things. It thus perceives, more and more, that there\nare _rules_ to regulate the use and action of all things, both animate and\ninanimate, and that such rules always have reference to some plan or\ndesign.\n\nAs its faculties develop and its observation enlarges, the general\nimpression is secured that _all_ plans and contrivances of men are\ndesigned to promote enjoyment or to prevent discomfort, and are called\ngood and right just so far as this is done. At the same time, all that\ntend to discomfort or pain are called bad and wrong.\n\nIn all the works of nature around, too, every thing that promotes\nenjoyment is called good and right, and the opposite is called evil and\nwrong.\n\nAt last there is a resulting feeling that the great design of all things\nis to secure good and prevent evil, and that whatever is opposed to this\nis wrong, and unfitted to the object for which all things exist. The\nquestion whether this impression is owing solely to observation or partly\nto mental constitution is waived, as of little practical consequence.\n\nIn the experience of infancy and childhood, the _law of sacrifice_ is\nspeedily developed. It is perceived that much of the good to be gained, if\nsought to excess, occasions pain, so that there must be a certain amount\nof self\u2010denial practiced, which, to the young novice, sometimes involves\ndisappointment and discomfort. It is also seen that frequently two or more\nenjoyments are offered which are incompatible, so that one must be\nrelinquished to gain the other. It is perceived, also, that there is a\nconstant calculation going on as to which will be the _best_\u2014that is,\nwhich will secure _the most good with the least evil_. And the child is\nconstantly instructed that it must avoid excess, and must give up what is\nof less value to secure the greater good. All this training involves\n_sacrifices_ which are more or less painful, so that a young child will\nsometimes cry as it voluntarily gives up one kind of pleasure as the only\nmode of securing what is best.\n\nIt is perceived, also, that there is a constant _balancing_ of good and\nevil, so that a given amount of enjoyment cancels or repays for a certain\namount of evil. When a great amount of enjoyment is purchased by a small\ndegree of labor or trouble, the _compound result_ is deemed a good, and\ncalled right; on the contrary, when the evil involved exceeds a given\namount in comparison to the good, the compound result is called evil and\nwrong.\n\nThus is generated the impression that there is a law of sacrifice\ninstituted requiring the greatest possible good with the least possible\nevil, and that this is the great design of all things.\n\nThe impression is, not merely that we are to seek enjoyment and avoid\npain, but that we are to seek the _greatest possible_ good with the _least\npossible_ evil, and that in doing this we are to obey the law of\nsacrifice, by which the greatest good _is to be bought_ by a certain\namount of evil _voluntarily_ assumed.\n\nMoreover, the child is thus gradually trained to understand that _good_\nand _evil_ are to be regarded in two relations. Any thing and every thing\nis called _good_ when it in any way gives enjoyment to any being.\n\nBut if the good can be secured only by sacrificing a greater good or by\ninflicting a greater evil, then, in this relation, the good is called evil\nand wrong. Thus, in one relation eating a delicious fruit is a good,\nbecause it gives enjoyment. But if such is the state of a child\u2019s stomach,\nthat sickness and suffering will follow the act, then it is evil and\nwrong.\n\nThe early training of infancy introduces the first part of the great _law\nof sacrifice_ in regard to _self_ alone. But as the intellect develops,\nthe existence of other minds is learned, and their happiness or suffering\nbecome subjects of attention. Here the calculations of the _balance_ of\ngood and evil become more and more complicated. And the _two relations_\nalso become more definite and extensive. Whatever gives pleasure is always\ncalled _good_ and _right_, until some evil is discovered as connected with\nit, not alone or chiefly to self, but to others also. Then the compound\nresult is sought for, and if it is seen that, _on the whole_, what by\nitself would be good and right if dissevered from its connected evil, does\ninvolve _more_ evil than good, then it is called evil and wrong. But if\nthe balance shows so great an amount of good as pays for certain\nincidental evils, then the result is called good and right.\n\nThe child also very early learns that the _character_ of those around is\nestimated by their reference to this mode of regarding good and evil,\nright and wrong. If a child simply seeks good to itself without any regard\nto the amount of evil involved as a consequence, he is called a bad child.\nOn the contrary, those who make sacrifice of their wishes and plans to\navoid what would bring evil on others, are called good, generous, lovely\nand virtuous. The youngest child soon perceives that its mother and other\nfriends are constantly making sacrifices for its own good, and bearing\ninconveniences and trouble for the good of those around. And those who\nperform such acts of benevolent self\u2010sacrifice are praised, and their\nconduct is called good and right.\n\nThus arises a conviction or belief that the design or end for which every\nthing exists is to make _the most_ happiness possible, and that those who\nconform to this design are acting right, while those who do not are acting\nwrong. Eventually there is established this conviction, also, that the\n_voluntary sacrifice of self\u2010enjoyment_ to promote the _best_ good of all,\nis the _highest_ kind of right action, and that those who practice this\n_the most_ are the _best in character_.\n\nThe first feature of our moral sense, then, is, _that impression of the\ngreat design of all things_ which enables us to judge of the right and\nwrong in voluntary action. This also may be placed as one of the\nprinciples of common sense. God has so formed our minds and their\ncircumstances, that the result is a universal _belief_ in every rational\nmind that whatever secures the _most_ happiness with the least evil is\n_right_, and whatever does not is _wrong_. The wanton and needless\ndestruction of happiness also men believe to be wrong. Their only\ndiversities of opinion are in regard to what will be _best_ and what will\nnot.\n\nThe second feature of our moral constitution is what is ordinarily called\nthe _sense of justice_. It is that susceptibility which is excited at the\nview of the conduct of others as _voluntary_ causes of good or evil.\n\nIn all cases where free agents act to promote happiness, an emotion of\napproval arises, together with a desire of reward to the author of the\ngood. On the contrary, when there is a voluntary destruction of happiness,\nthere is an emotion of disapproval, and a desire for retributive pain on\nthe author of the wrong.\n\nThese emotions are instinctive, and not at all regulated by reason in\ntheir inception. When an evil is done, an instant desire is felt _to\ndiscover the cause_; and when it is found, an instant desire is felt _to\ninflict some penalty_. So irrational is this impulse, that children will\nexhibit anger and deal blows on inanimate objects that cause pain. Even\nmature minds are sometimes conscious of this impulse.\n\nThat this impulse is an implanted part of our constitution, and not the\nresult of instruction, is seen in the delight manifested by young children\nin the narration of the nursery tale where the cruel uncle who murdered\nthe Babes in the Wood receives the retributions of Heaven.\n\nIt is the office of the intellect to judge whether the deed was a\nvoluntary one, whether the agent intended the mischief, and whether a\npenalty will be of any use. The impulse to punish is never preceded by any\nsuch calculations.\n\nAnother feature in this sense of justice is the _proportion_ demanded\nbetween the evil done and the penalty inflicted. That this also is\ninstinctive, and not the result of instruction, is seen in the nursery,\nwhere children will approve of slight penalties for slight offenses, and\nsevere ones for great ones, but will revolt from any very great\ndisproportion between the wrong act and its penalty. As a general rule,\nboth in the nursery and in mature minds, the greater the wrong done, the\nstronger the desire for a penalty, and the more severe the punishment\ndemanded.\n\nAnother very important point of consideration is the universal feeling of\nmankind that the _natural penalties_ for wrong\u2010doing are _not sufficient_,\nand that it is an act of love as well as of justice to add to these\npenalties. Thus the parent who forbids his child to eat green fruit will\nnot trust to the results of the natural penalty, but will restrain by the\nfear of the immediate and more easily conceived penalty of chastisement.\n\nSo, in the great family of man, the natural penalties for theft are not\ndeemed sufficient, but severe penalties for the protection of property are\nadded.\n\nThis particular is the foundation of certain distinctions that are of\ngreat importance, which will now be pointed out.\n\nWe find the terms \u201c_reward_ and _punishment_\u201d used in two different\nrelations. In the first and widest sense they signify not only the\npenalties of human law, but those _natural consequences_ which, by the\nconstitution of nature, inevitably follow certain courses of conduct.\n\nThus an indolent man is said to receive poverty as a punishment, and it is\nin this sense that his children are said to be punished for the faults of\ntheir father.\n\nThe violations of natural law are punished without any reference to the\nquestion whether the evil\u2010doer intended the wrong, or whether he sinned in\nignorance, or whether this ignorance was involuntary and unavoidable. The\nquestion of the justice or injustice of such natural penalties involves\nthe great question of the right and wrong of the system of the universe.\nIs it just and right for the Creator to make a system in which all free\nagents shall be thus led to obedience to its laws by penalties as well as\nrewards, by fear as well as by hope? This question will not be discussed\nhere.\n\nMost discussions as to _just_ rewards and penalties ordinarily relate to\nthe _added_ penalties by which parents, teachers and magistrates enforce\nobedience to natural or to statute law.\n\nIn these questions reference is always had to the _probable results_ of\nsuch rewards and penalties in securing obedience. If experience has shown\nthat certain penalties do secure obedience to wise and good laws, either\nof nature or of human enactment, then they are considered just. If they do\nnot, they are counted unwise and unjust.\n\nSo, if certain penalties are needlessly severe\u2014that is to say, if a less\npenalty will secure equal obedience, then this also decides so severe a\npenalty to be unjust.\n\nIn deciding on the rectitude of the penalties of human enactments, it is\nalways assumed to be unjust to punish for any lack of knowledge and\nobedience when the subject had _no power_ to know and to obey. If _a\nchoice to obey_ will not secure the act required of a free agent, then a\npenalty inflicted for disobedience is always regarded as unjust. The only\nseeming exception to this is the case where a person, by voluntary means,\nhas deprived himself of ability to obey. But in such cases the punishment\nis felt to be right, not because he does not obey when he has no power,\nbut because he has voluntarily deprived himself of this power. And he is\npunished for destroying his ability to obey, and not for violating the\nlaw.\n\nThese things in human laws, then, are always demanded to make a penalty\nappear _just_ to the moral sense of mankind, namely, that the subject have\npower to obey, and that he has opportunity to know the law, and is not\nignorant by any voluntary and improper neglect.\n\nIn all questions of justice, therefore, it is important to discriminate\nbetween those penalties that are inherent as a part of the great system of\nthe universe, and for which the Creator alone is responsible, and those\nadditional penalties which result from voluntary institutions of which men\nare the authors.\n\nThe next feature in our moral constitution is the susceptibility which is\nexcited by the intellectual judgment of our own feelings and conduct as\neither right or wrong.\n\nIn case we decide them to be right, we experience an emotion of self\u2010\napproval which is very delightful; but if we decide that they are wrong,\nwe experience an immediate penalty in a painful emotion called _remorse_.\nThis emotion is always proportioned to the amount of evil done, and the\nconsciousness that it was done knowingly and intentionally. No suffering\nis more keen than the highest emotions of this kind, while their pangs are\noften enduring and unappeasable. Sometimes there is an attending desire to\ninflict retribution on one\u2019s self as a mode of alleviating this distress.\n\nThis susceptibility is usually denominated _conscience_. Sometimes this\nword is used to include both the intellectual judgment of our conduct as\nright or wrong, and the consequent emotions of approval or remorse;\nsometimes it refers to the susceptibility alone. Either use is correct, as\nin the connection in which it is employed the distinction can ordinarily\nbe easily made.\n\nThis analysis of our moral constitution furnishes means for a clear\ndefinition of such terms as _obligated_, _ought_, _ought not_, and the\nlike.\n\nA person is obligated or ought to do a thing when he has the intellect to\nperceive what is _best_, and thus _right_, and the moral susceptibilities\njust described. When he is destitute either of the intellect or of these\nsusceptibilities, he ceases to be a moral and accountable being. He can no\nlonger be made to feel any moral obligations.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV. THE NATURE OF MIND.\u2014THE WILL.\n\n\nThe power _to choose_ exists in other animals as well as in man, so that\nit is not this faculty which distinguishes our race from the brutes. It is\nanother part of our nature which elevates us above the lower animals,\nwhich will now be described.\n\n\n\n\nIrrational Free Agency.\n\n\nWe have seen that desires for good are measured as to their strength or\nfeebleness by our own consciousness, and that in multitudes of cases we\nchoose those things which excite _the strongest_ desire. A mind so\nconstituted as never to be able to choose any thing but that which excites\nthe strongest desire, would be entirely dependent on circumstances, and\nthus the helpless sport of chance. This is the kind of free agency which\nbelongs to the brutes, and may properly be called _irrational free\nagency_.\n\n\n\n\nRational Free Agency.\n\n\nIn contrast with the above, we have already described the mind of man as\npossessing the power to choose _either_ that which excites the strongest\ndesire or that which the intellect decides to be _best for all concerned_.\n\nWhen there is nothing to excite desires, there is no power at all to\nchoose; so that motives are as indispensable to the action of the will as\nphysical causes are to the movement of matter. The more strongly desire is\nexcited the more the power of choice is increased. This gives rise to the\nuniversal use of language which characterizes motives as stronger or\nweaker according as desire is more or less powerful.\n\nThe greater part of our choices are for things which are _best_, so that\nthere is no conflict between what excites the strongest desire and what is\nbest for all. Thus to eat, drink, walk, sleep and perform most of the\ndaily duties of life, are cases where the strongest desire and what is\nbest coincide. In all such cases we choose that which excites the\nstrongest desire. And when we assign the cause or reason for our choice,\nwe say it was the strongest desire which was the _cause_; that is to say,\nit was the _occasional_ cause of our choice. But our own mind is the only\n_producing_ cause of its own volitions.\n\nThis exhibits the grand principle of _free agency_ in distinction from its\nopposite, which is called _fatalism_, viz.:\n\n_Motives are producing causes of desire, and are occasional causes of\nchoice. Mind itself is the only producing cause of choice, having power to\nchoose either that which excites the strongest desire or that which reason\nand conscience decide to be best for all concerned._\n\nIn opposition to this, the fatalist maintains that every act of choice\nfollows the strongest desire, so that there is the same _invariable_\nantecedence and sequence between the two as there is in material changes\nbetween the necessary cause and effect. This being so, the mind has no\npower to choose any thing but that which excites the strongest desire.\n\nNow, this is a question which every person, learned or unlearned, can\ndecide. Have we power to choose any other way than as we do choose? Here\nit is claimed that every human being _believes_ that we have this power,\nand proves that he believes it by word and action. And if any person were\nhabitually to talk and act as if he believed children and men had no power\nto choose right when they choose wrong, he would be regarded as having\nlost his reason.\n\nThis, therefore, is placed as one of the principles of common sense, viz.,\n_every rational mind has power to choose either that which excites the\nstrongest desire or that which the intellect decides to be best, even when\nit does not excite the strongest desire_.\n\n_Moral power_ is the power to control rational minds by motives.\n\nWhen no desire for any good and no fear of any evil exists, the mind has\nno power to choose. Excited desires (or motives) are as indispensable to\nchoice as physical causes are to any change in matter.\n\nThe stronger the desire for a thing, the _easier_ it is to choose it; and\nthe less desire there is for a given thing, the _harder_ it is to choose\nit. This measuring of various degrees of power to choose, is a matter of\nconsciousness to every mind, and it is recognized in all languages. And we\nfind that all mankind, of all languages, recognize the fact that men have\npower to choose what is _best_, even when it conflicts with the strongest\ndesire; so much so, that life itself has been relinquished for the good of\nothers, when there was little or no expectation of a future life, or of\nany consequent good to self.\n\nMoreover, it will be shown in a future chapter that our _highest_ idea of\nvirtue implies a conflict between the strongest desire and the conviction\nof what is right and best on the whole; so that sometimes men choose what\nis seen to be wrong and yet excites the strongest desire, and at other\ntimes what is right or best, when it does not excite the strongest desire.\n\nAll self\u2010control, self\u2010denial and self\u2010government involve the idea of a\nconflict between the decisions of reason and conscience as to what is best\nand right, and the importunities of the strongest desire for what is not\nso.\n\n\n\n\nSubordinate and General Purposes.\n\n\nThere is a constant succession of selections to be made between different\nmodes of securing happiness. A lesser good is given up for a greater, or\nsome good relinquished altogether to avoid some consequent pain. Often,\nalso, some evil is sought as the means of securing some future good, or of\navoiding some greater evil. Thus men endure want, fatigue and famine to\npurchase wealth. Thus the nauseous draught will be swallowed to avoid the\npains of sickness; and thus the pleasures of domestic affection will be\nsacrificed to obtain honor and fame. The whole course of life is a\nconstant succession of such decisions between different modes of securing\nhappiness and of avoiding pain.\n\nIn noticing the operation of mind, it will be seen that there is a\nfoundation for two classes of volitions or acts of choice, which may be\ndenominated _subordinate_ and _general purposes_.\n\nA _subordinate purpose_ is one that secures some particular act, such as\nthe moving of the arm or turning of the head. Such volitions are\nordinarily consequent on some more general purpose of the mind, which they\naid in accomplishing, and which is, therefore, denominated a _general_ or\n_generic purpose_. For example, a man chooses to make a certain journey:\nthis is the general purpose, and, in order to carry it out, he performs a\ngreat variety of acts, each one of which aids in carrying out the generic\ndecision.\n\nIt can be seen that the general purposes may themselves become subordinate\nto a still more comprehensive purpose. Thus the man may decide to make a\njourney, which is a generic choice in reference to all acts subordinate to\nthis end. But this journey may be a subordinate part of a more general\npurpose to make a fortune, or to secure some other important end.\n\nIt is frequently the case that a generic purpose, which relates to objects\nthat require a long time and many complicated operations, exists when the\nmind seems almost unconscious of its power. For example, a man may form a\ngeneric purpose to enter a profession for which years will be required to\nprepare. And while his whole course of action is regulated by this\ndecision, he engages in pursuits entirely foreign to it, and which seem to\nengross his whole attention. These pursuits may sometimes be such as are\nantagonistic to his grand purpose, so as at least to imperil or retard its\naccomplishment. And yet this strong and quiet purpose remains, and is\neventually carried out.\n\nIt is the case, also, that a generic choice may be formed to be carried\nout at some particular time and place, and then the mind becomes entirely\nunconscious of it till the appointed period and circumstances occur. Then\nthe decision becomes dominant, and controls all other purposes. Thus a man\nmay decide that, at a specified hour, he will stop his studies and perform\ncertain gymnastic exercises. This volition is forgotten until the hour\narrives, and then it recurs and is carried out.\n\nThis phenomenon sometimes occurs in sleep. Some persons, in watching with\nthe sick, will determine to wake at given hours to administer medicines;\nthen they will sleep soundly till the appointed time comes, when they will\nwaken and perform the predetermined actions.\n\nIn regard to the _commencement_ of a generic purpose, we find that\nsometimes it is so distinct and definite as to be the subject of\nconsciousness and memory. For example, a spendthrift, in some moment of\nsuffering and despondency, may form a determination to commence a\nsystematic course of thrift and economy, and may actually carry it out\nthrough all his future life. Such cases are often to be found on record or\nin every\u2010day life.\n\nIn other cases, this quiet, hidden, but controlling purpose seems to be\nformed by unconscious and imperceptible influences, so that the mind can\nnot revert to the specific time or manner when it originated. For example,\na child who is trained from early life to speak the truth, can never\nrevert to any particular moment when this generic purpose originated.\n\nIt is sometimes the case, also, that a person will contemplate some\ngeneric purpose before it occurs, while the process of its final formation\nseems almost beyond the power of scrutiny. For example, a man may be urged\nto relinquish one employment and engage in another. He reflects, consults,\nand is entirely uncertain how he shall decide. As time passes, he\ngradually inclines toward the proposed change, until, finally, he finds\nhis determination fixed, he scarcely knows when or how.\n\nThus it appears that generic purposes commence sometimes so\ninstantaneously and obviously that the time and influences connected with\nthem can be recognized. In other cases, the decision seems to be a gradual\none, while in some instances the process can be traced, and in others it\nis entirely unnoticed or forgotten.\n\nIt is in reference to such generic purposes that the _moral character_ of\nmen is estimated. An honest man is one who has a fixed purpose to act\nhonestly in all circumstances. A truthful man is one who has such a\npurpose to speak the truth at all times.\n\nIn such cases, the degree in which such a purpose controls all others is\nthe measure of a man\u2019s moral character in the estimate of society.\n\nThe history of mankind shows a great diversity of moral character\ndependent on such generic choices. Some men possess firm and reliable\nmoral principles in certain directions, while they are very destitute of\nthem in others.\n\nThus it will be seen that some have formed a very decided purpose in\nregard to honesty in business affairs, who yet are miserable victims to\nintemperance. Others have cultivated a principle called _honor_, that\nrestrains them from certain actions regarded as mean, and yet they may be\nfrequenters of gambling saloons and other haunts of vice.\n\nIn the religions world, too, it is the case that some who are very firm\nand decided on all points of religious observances and in the cultivation\nof devotional emotions, are guilty of very mean actions, such as some\nworldly men of honor would not practice at the sacrifice of a right hand.\n\n\n\n\nOn a Ruling Purpose or Chief End.\n\n\nThe most important of all the voluntary phenomena is the fact that, while\nthere can be a multitude of these quiet and hidden generic purposes in the\nmind, it is also possible to form _one_ which shall be the dominant or\ncontrolling one, to which all the others, both generic and specific, shall\nbecome subordinate. In common parlance this would be called the _ruling\npassion_. It is also called the _ruling purpose_, or _controlling\nprinciple_. This consists in the permanent choice of some one mode of\nsecuring happiness as the _chief end_ or grand object of life.\n\nThere is a great variety of sources of happiness and of suffering to the\nhuman mind. Now in the history of our race we find that each one of these\nmodes of enjoyment has been selected by different individuals as the chief\nend of their existence\u2014as the mode of seeking enjoyment to which they\nsacrifice every other. Some persons have chosen the pleasures of eating,\ndrinking, and the other grosser enjoyments of sense. Others have chosen\nthose more elevated and refined pleasures that come indirectly from the\nsenses in the emotions of taste.\n\nOthers have devoted themselves to intellectual enjoyments as their chief\nresource for happiness. Others have selected the exercise of physical and\nmoral power, as in the case of conquerors and physical heroes, or of those\nwho have sought to control by moral power, as rulers and statesmen.\n\nOthers have made the attainment of the esteem, admiration, and love of\ntheir fellow\u2010creatures, their chief end. Others, still, have devoted\nthemselves to the promotion of happiness around them as their chief\ninterest. Others have devoted themselves to the service of God, or what\nthey conceived to be such, and sometimes by the most miserable life of\nasceticism and self\u2010torture.\n\nOthers have made it their main object in life to obey the laws of\nrectitude and virtue.\n\nIn all these cases, the _moral character_ of the person, in the view of\nall observers, has been decided by this dominant volition, and exactly in\nproportion to the supremacy with which it has _actually controlled_ all\nother purposes.\n\nSome minds seem to have no _chief_ end of life. Their existence is a\nsuccession of small purposes, each of which has its turn in controlling\nthe life. Others have a strong, defined and all\u2010controlling principle.\n\nNow experience shows that both of these classes are capable, the one of\n_forming_ and the other of _changing_ such a purpose. For example, in a\ntime of peace and ease there is little to excite the mind strongly; but\nlet a crisis come, where fortune, reputation, and life are at stake, and\nmen and women are obliged to form generic decisions involving all they\nhold dear, and many minds that have no controlling purpose immediately\noriginate one, while those whose former ruling aims were in one direction\nchange them entirely to another.\n\nThis shows how it is that days of peril create heroes, statesmen and\nstrong men and women. The hour of danger calls all the energies of the\nsoul into action. Great purposes are formed with the strongest desire and\nemotion. Instantly the whole current of thought, and all the coexisting\ndesires and emotions, are conformed to these purposes.\n\nThe experience of mankind proves that a dominant generic purpose may\n_extend to a whole life_, and actually control all other generic and\nspecific volitions.\n\n\n\n\nHow the Thoughts, Desires and Emotions are controlled by the Will.\n\n\nWe will now consider some of the modes by which the will controls the\nthoughts, desires and emotions.\n\nWe have seen, in previous pages, the influence which desire and emotion\nexert in making both our perceptions and conceptions more vivid. Whatever\npurpose or aim in life becomes an object of strong desire, is always\ndistinctly and vividly conceived, while all less interesting objects are\nmore faint and indistinct.\n\nWe have also seen that whenever any conception arises it always brings\nconnected objects, forming a new and complex picture.\n\nWhenever the mind is under the influence of a controlling purpose, the\nobject of pursuit is always _more interesting_ than any other. This\ninterest always fastens on those particulars in any mental combination\nthat are connected with the ruling purpose and seem fitted to promote it,\nmaking them more vivid. Around these selected objects their past\nassociated ideas begin to cluster, forming other complex pictures. In all\nthese combinations, those ideas most consonant with the leading interest\nof the mind become most vivid, and the others fade away.\n\nThe grand method, then, for _regulating the thoughts_ is by the generic\ndecisions of the mind as to the modes of seeking enjoyment.\n\nIn regard to the power of the mind over its own _desires and emotions_, it\nis very clear that these sensibilities can not be regulated by direct\nspecific volitions. Let any person try to produce love, fear, joy, hope or\ngratitude by simply choosing to have them arise, and it is soon perceived\nthat no such power exists.\n\nBut there are _indirect_ modes by which the mind can control its\nsusceptibilities. The first method is by directing attention to those\nobjects of thought which are fitted to call forth such emotions. For\nexample, if we wish to awaken the emotion of fear, we can place ourselves\nin circumstances of danger, or call up ideas of horror and distress. If we\nwish to call forth emotions of gratitude, we can direct attention to acts\nof kindness to ourselves calculated to awaken such feelings. If we wish to\nexcite desire for any object, we can direct attention to those qualities\nin that object that are calculated to excite desire. In all these cases\nthe mind can, by an act of will, _direct its attention_ to subjects\ncalculated to excite emotion and desire.\n\nThe other mode of regulating the desires and emotions is by _the direction\nof our generic volitions_. For example, let a man of business, who has\nnever had any interest in commerce, decide to invest all his property in\nforeign trade. As soon as this is done, the name of the ship that bears\nhis all can never be heard or seen but it excites some emotion. A storm,\nthat before would go unnoticed, awakens fear; the prices in the commercial\nmarkets, before unheeded, now awaken fear or afford pleasure. And thus\nmultitudes of varied desires and emotions are called into existence by\nthis one generic volition.\n\nOne result of a purpose to deny an importunate propensity is frequently\nseen in the immediate or gradual diminution of that desire. For example,\nif a person is satisfied that a certain article of food is injurious and\nresolves on _total abstinence_, it will be found that the desire for it is\nvery much reduced, far more so than when the effort is to diminish the\nindulgence.\n\nWhen a generic purpose is formed that involves great interests, it is\nimpossible to prevent the desires and emotions from running consonant with\nthis purpose. The only mode of changing this current is to give up this\ngeneric purpose and form another. Thus, if a man has devoted his whole\ntime and energies to money\u2010making, it is impossible for him to prevent his\nthoughts and feelings from running in that direction. He must give up this\nas his chief end, and take a nobler object, if he would elevate the whole\ncourse of his mental action.\n\nThese are the principal phenomena of the grand mental faculty which is the\ncontrolling power of the mind, and on the regulation of which all its\nother powers are dependent.\n\nThe _nature of regeneration_, and the question whether it is instantaneous\nor gradual or both, all are intimately connected with the subject of this\nchapter.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI. CONSTITUTIONAL VARIETIES OF THE HUMAN MIND.\n\n\nIn the preceding chapters have been presented the most important mental\nfaculties which are common to the race. There are none of the powers and\nattributes of the mind as yet set forth which do not belong to every mind\nwhich is regarded as rational and complete.\n\nBut, though all the race have these in common, yet we can not but observe\nan almost endless variety of human character, resulting from the diverse\n_proportions_ and _combinations_ of these several faculties.\n\nThese constitutional differences may be noticed, first, in regard to the\nintellectual powers. Some minds are naturally predisposed to exercise the\nreasoning powers. Others, with precisely the same kind of culture, have\nlittle relish for this, and little power of appreciating an argument.\n\nIn other cases, the imagination seems to be the predominating faculty. In\nother minds there seems to be an equal balance of faculties, so that no\nparticular power predominates.\n\nNext we see the same variety in reference to the susceptibilities. In some\nminds, the desire for love and admiration is the predominating principle.\nIn others, the love of power takes the lead. Some are eminently\nsympathizing. Others have a strong love of rectitude, or natural\nconscience. In some, the principle of justice predominates. In others,\nbenevolence is the leading impulse.\n\nFinally, in regard to the power of volition, as has been before indicated,\nthere are some that possess a strong will that is decisive and effective\nin regulating all specific volitions, while others possess various and\nhumbler measures of this power.\n\nAccording to the science of Phrenology, some of these peculiarities of\nmind are indicated by the size and shape of different portions of the\nbrain, and externally indicated on the skull.\n\nThat these differences are constitutional, and not the result of\neducation, is clear from the many facts showing that no degree of care or\ntraining will serve to efface these distinctive traits of the mind. To a\ncertain degree they may be modified by education, and the equal balance of\nthe faculties be promoted, but never to such a degree as to efface very\nmarked peculiarities.\n\nIn addition to the endless diversities that result from these varied\nproportions and combinations, there is a manifest variety in the grades of\nmind. Some races are much lower in the scale of being every way than\nothers, while the same disparity exists in individuals of the same race.\n\nThe wisdom and benevolence of this arrangement is very manifest when\nviewed in reference to the interests of a commonwealth. Where some must\nlead and others follow, it is well that some have the love of power\nstrong, and others have it less. Where some must be rulers, to inflict\npenalties as well as to apportion rewards, it is well that there be some\nwho have the sense of justice as a leading principle. And so in the\ndevelopments of intellect. Some men are to follow callings where the\nreasoning powers are most needed. Others are to adopt pursuits in which\ntaste and imagination are chiefly required; and thus the varied\nproportions of these faculties become serviceable.\n\nAnd if it be true that the exercise of the social and moral faculties\nsecures the highest degree of enjoyment, those disparities in mental\npowers which give exercise to the virtues of compassion, self\u2010denial,\nfortitude and benevolence in serving the weak, and the corresponding\nexercises of gratitude, reverence, humility and devotion in those who are\nthus benefited, then we can see the wisdom and benevolence of this\ngradation of mental capacity.\n\nMoreover, in a commonwealth perfectly organized, where the happiness of\nthe whole becomes that of each part, whatever tends to the highest general\ngood tends to the best interest of each individual member. This being so,\nthe lowest and humblest in the scale of being, in his appropriate place,\nis happier than he could be by any other arrangement, and happier than he\ncould be if all were equally endowed.\n\nThis subject is very important, because some theologians present these\ndisparities of mental organization as indications of the depravity\nconsequent on Adam\u2019s sin.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII. NATURE OF MIND.\u2014HABIT.\n\n\nThis chapter is introduced because some theologians claim that the\ndepravity of man consists either in _a habit_ or in something _like_ a\nhabit.\n\nHabit is a facility in performing physical or mental operations, gained by\nthe repetition of such acts. As examples of this in _physical_ operations\nmay be mentioned the power of walking, which is acquired only by a\nmultitude of experiments; the power of speech, secured by a slow process\nof repeated acts of imitation; and the power of writing, gained in the\nsame way. Success in every pursuit of life is attained by oft\u2010repeated\nattempts, which finally induce a habit.\n\nAs examples of the formation of _intellectual_ habits, may be mentioned\nthe facility gained in acquiring knowledge by means of repeated efforts,\nand the accuracy and speed with which the process of reasoning is\nperformed after long practice in this art.\n\nAs examples of _moral_ habits may be mentioned those which are formed by\nthe oft\u2010repeated exercise of self\u2010government, justice, veracity,\nobedience, and industry. The will, as has been shown, gains a facility in\ncontrolling specific volitions and in yielding obedience to the laws of\nright action by constant use, as really as do all the other mental powers.\n\nThe happiness of man, in the present state of existence, depends not so\nmuch upon the circumstances in which he is placed, or the capacities with\nwhich he is endowed, as upon the _formation of his habits_. A man might\nhave the organ of sight, and be surrounded with all the beauties of\nnature, and yet, if he did not form the habit of judging of the form,\ndistance and size of bodies, most of the pleasure and use from this sense\nwould be wanting. The world and all its beauties would be a mere confused\nmass of colors.\n\nIf the habits of walking and of speech were not acquired, these faculties\nand the circumstances for employing them would not furnish the enjoyment\nthey were designed to secure.\n\nIt is also the formation of _intellectual_ habits by mental discipline and\nstudy, which opens vast resources for enjoyment that otherwise would be\nfor ever closed. And it is by practicing obedience to parents that _moral_\nhabits of subordination are formed, which are indispensable to our\nhappiness as citizens, and as subjects of government. There is no\nenjoyment which can be pointed out, which is not, to a greater or less\nextent, dependent upon this principle.\n\nThe influence of habit in regard to the _law of sacrifice_ is especially\ninteresting. The experience of multitudes of our race shows that such\ntastes and habits may be formed in obeying this law, that what was once\ndifficult and painful becomes easy and pleasant.\n\nBut this ability to secure enjoyment through habits of self\u2010control and\nself\u2010denial, induced by long practice, so far as experience shows, could\nnever be secured by any other method.\n\nThat the highest kinds of happiness are to be purchased by more or less\n_voluntary sacrifice_ and _suffering_ to procure good for others, seems to\nbe a part of that nature of things which we at least may suppose has\nexisted from eternity. We can conceive of the eternal First Cause only as\nwe imagine a mind on the same pattern as our own in constitutional\ncapacities, but indefinitely enlarged in extent and action. Knowledge,\nwisdom, power, justice, benevolence and rectitude, must be the same in the\nCreator as in ourselves, at least so far as we can conceive; and, as the\npractice of self\u2010sacrifice and suffering for the good of others is our\nhighest conception of virtue, it is impossible to regard the Eternal Mind\nas all\u2010perfect without involving this idea.\n\nThe formation of the habits depends chiefly upon the leading desire or\ngoverning purpose, because whatever the mind desires the most it will\n_act_ the most to secure, and thus by repeated acts will form its habits.\nThe _character_ of every individual, therefore, as before indicated,\ndepends upon the mode of seeking happiness selected by the will. Thus the\nambitious man has selected the attainment of power and admiration as his\nleading purpose, and whatever modes of enjoyment interfere with this are\nsacrificed. The sensual man seeks his happiness from the various\ngratifications of sense, and sacrifices other modes of enjoyment that\ninterfere with this. The man devoted to intellectual pursuits, and to\nseeking reputation and influence through this medium, sacrifices other\nmodes of enjoyment to secure this gratification. The man who has devoted\nhis affections and the service of his life to God and the good of his\nfellow\u2010men, sacrifices all other enjoyments to secure that which results\nfrom the fulfillment of such obligations. Thus a person is an ambitious\nman, a sensual man, a man of literary ambition, or a man of piety and\nbenevolence, according to the governing purpose or leading choice of his\nmind.\n\nThere is one fact in regard to the choice of the leading object of desire,\nor the governing purpose of life, which is very important. Certain modes\nof enjoyment, in consequence of repetition, increase the desire, but\nlessen the capacity of happiness from this source; while, in regard to\nothers, gratification increases the desire, and at the same time increases\nthe capacity for enjoyment.\n\nThe enjoyments through the senses are of the first kind. It will be found,\nas a matter of universal experience, that where this has been chosen as\nthe main purpose of life, though the desire for such pleasures is\ncontinually increased, yet, owing to the physical effects of excessive\nindulgence, the capacity for enjoyment is decreased. Thus the man who so\ndegrades his nature as to make the pleasures of eating and drinking the\ngreat pursuit of life, while his desires never abate, finds his zest for\nsuch enjoyments continually decreasing, and a perpetual need for new\ndevices to stimulate appetite and awaken the dormant capacities. The\npleasures of sense always pall from repetition\u2014grow \u201cstale, flat and\nunprofitable,\u201d though the deluded being who has thus slavishly yielded to\nsuch appetites feels himself bound by chains of habit, which, even when\nenjoyment ceases, seldom are broken.\n\nThe pleasures derived from the exercise of power, when its attainment\nbecomes the master passion, are also of this description. The statesman,\nthe politician, the conqueror, are all seeking for this, and desire never\nabates while any thing of the kind remains to be attained. We do not find\nthat enjoyment increases in proportion as power is secured. On the\ncontrary, it seems to cloy in possession. Alexander, the conqueror of the\nworld, when he had gained _all_, wept that objects of desire were extinct,\nand that possession could not satisfy.\n\nBut there are other sources of happiness for which the desire ever\ncontinues, and possession only increases the capacity for enjoyment. Of\nthis class is the susceptibility of happiness from _giving and receiving\naffection_. Here, the more there is given and received, the more is the\npower of giving and receiving increased. We find that this principle\noutlives every other, and even the decays of nature itself. When tottering\nage on the borders of the grave is just ready to resign its wasted\ntenement, often from its dissolving ashes the never\u2010dying spark of\naffection has burst forth with new and undiminished luster. This is that\nimmortal fountain of happiness always increased by imparting, never\nsurcharged by receiving.\n\nAnother principle, which increases both desire and capacity by exercise,\nis the power of enjoyment from being the _cause of happiness to others_.\nNever was an instance known of regret for devotion to the happiness of\nothers. On the contrary, the more this holy and delightful principle is in\nexercise, the more the desires are increased, and the more are the\nsusceptibilities for enjoyment from this source enlarged. While the\nvotaries of pleasure are wearing down with the exhaustion of abused\nnature, and the votaries of ambition are sighing over its thorny wreath,\nthe benevolent spirit is exulting in the success of its plans of good, and\nreaching forth to still purer and more perfect bliss.\n\nThis principle is especially true in regard to the practice of rectitude.\nThe more the leading aim of the mind is devoted to _right feeling and\naction_, or to obedience to all the laws of God, the more both the desire\nand the capacity of enjoyment from this source are increased.\n\nBut there is another fact in regard to habit, which has an immense bearing\non the well\u2010being of our race. When a habit of seeking happiness in some\none particular mode is once formed, the _change_ of this habit becomes\ndifficult just in proportion to the degree of repetition which has been\npracticed. A habit once formed, it is no longer an easy matter to choose\nbetween the mode of securing happiness chosen and another which the mind\nmay be led to regard as much superior. Thus, in gratifying the appetite, a\nman may feel that his happiness is continually diminishing, and that, by\nsacrificing this passion, he may secure much greater enjoyment from\nanother source; yet the force of habit is such, that decisions of the will\nperpetually yield to its power.\n\nThus, also, if a man has found his chief enjoyment in that admiration and\napplause of men so ardently desired, even after it has ceased to charm,\nand seems like emptiness and vanity, still, when nobler objects of pursuit\nare offered, the chains of habit bind him to his wonted path. Though he\nlooks and longs for the one that his conscience and his intellect assure\nhim is brightest and best, the conflict with bad habit ends in fatal\ndefeat and ruin. It is true that every habit can be corrected and changed,\nbut nothing requires greater firmness of purpose and energy of will; for\nit is not _one_ resolution of mind that can conquer habit: it must be a\nconstant series of long\u2010continued efforts.\n\nThe influence of habit in reference to _emotions_ deserves special\nattention as having a direct influence upon character and happiness. All\npleasurable emotions of mind, being grateful, are indulged and cherished,\nand are not weakened by repetition unless they become excessive. If the\npleasures of sense are indulged beyond a certain extent, the bodily system\nis exhausted, and satiety is the consequence. If the love of power and\nadmiration is indulged to excess, so as to become the leading purpose of\nlife, they are found to be cloying. But, within certain limits, all\npleasurable emotions do not seem to lessen in power by repetition.\n\nBut in regard to painful emotions the reverse is true. The mind\ninstinctively resists or flies from them, so that often a habit of\nsuppressing such emotions is formed, until the susceptibility diminishes,\nand sometimes appears almost entirely destroyed. Thus a person often\nexposed to danger ceases to be troubled by fear, because he forms a habit\nof suppressing it. A person frequently in scenes of distress and suffering\nlearns to suppress the emotions of painful sympathy. The surgeon is an\nexample of the last case, where, by repeated operations, he has learned to\nsuppress emotions until they seldom recur. A person inured to guilt\ngradually deadens the pangs of remorse, until the conscience becomes\n\u201cseared as with a hot iron.\u201d Thus, also, with the emotion of shame. After\na person has been repeatedly exposed to contempt, and feels that he is\nuniversally despised, he grows callous to any such emotions.\n\nThe mode by which the mind succeeds in forming such a habit seems to be by\nthat implanted principle which makes ideas that are most in consonance\nwith the leading desire of the mind become vivid and distinct, while those\nthat are less interesting fade away. Now no person desires to witness pain\nexcept from the hope of relieving it, unless it be that, in anger, the\nmind is sometimes gratified with the infliction of suffering. But, in\nordinary cases, the sight of suffering is avoided except where relief can\nbe administered. In such cases, the desire of administering relief becomes\nthe leading one, so that the mind is turned off from the view of the\nsuffering to dwell on conceptions of modes of relief. Thus the surgeon and\nphysician gradually form such habits that the sight of pain and suffering\nlead the mind to the conception of modes of relief, whereas a mind not\nthus interested dwells on the more painful ideas.\n\nThe habits of life are all formed either from the desire to secure\nhappiness or to avoid pain, and the _fear of suffering_ is found to be a\nmuch more powerful principle than the _desire of happiness_. The soul\nflies from pain with all its energies, even when it will be inert at the\nsight of promised joy. As an illustration of this, let a person be fully\nconvinced that the gift of two new senses would confer as great an\nadditional amount of enjoyment as is now secured by the eye and ear, and\nthe promise of this future good would not stimulate with half the energy\nthat would be caused by the threat of instant and entire blindness and\ndeafness.\n\nIf, then, the mind is stimulated to form good habits and to avoid the\nformation of evil ones most powerfully by painful emotions, when their\nlegitimate object is not effected they continually decrease in vividness,\nand the designed benefit is lost. If a man is placed in circumstances of\ndanger, and fear leads to habits of caution and carefulness, the object of\nexciting this emotion is accomplished, and the diminution of it is\nattended with no evil. But if fear is continually excited, and no such\nhabits are formed, then the susceptibility is lessened, while the good to\nbe secured by it is lost. So, also, with emotions of sympathy. If we\nwitness pain and suffering, and it induces habits of active devotion to\nthe good of those who suffer, the diminution of the susceptibility is a\nblessing and no evil. But if we simply indulge emotions, and do not form\nthe habits they were intended to secure, the power of sympathy is\nweakened, and the designed benefit is lost. Thus, again, with shame: if\nthis painful emotion does not lead us to form habits of honor and\nrectitude, it is continually weakened by repetition, and the object for\nwhich it was bestowed is not secured. And so with remorse: if this emotion\nis awakened without leading to habits of benevolence and virtue, it\nconstantly decays in power, and the good it would have secured is for ever\nlost.\n\nIt does not appear, however, that the power of emotion in the soul is thus\n_destroyed_. This is evident from the fact that the most hardened\nculprits, when brought to the hour of death, where all plans of future\ngood cease to charm the mental eye, are often overwhelmed with the most\nvivid emotions of sorrow, shame, remorse and fear. And often, in the\ncourse of life, there are seasons when the soul returns from its pursuit\nof deluding visions to commune with itself in its own secret chambers. At\nsuch seasons, shame, remorse and fear take up their abode in their long\u2010\ndeserted dwelling, and ply their scorpion whips till they are obeyed, and\nthe course of honor and virtue is resumed, or till the distracted spirit\nagain flies abroad for comfort and relief.\n\nThere is a great diversity in human character, resulting from the diverse\nproportions and combinations of those powers of mind which the race have\nin common. At the same time, there is a variety in the scale of being, or\nrelative grade of each mind. While all are alike in the common faculties\nof the human mind, some have every faculty on a much larger scale than\nothers, while some are of a very humble grade.\n\nThe principle of habit has very great influence in modifying and changing\nthese varieties. Thus, by forming habits of intellectual exercise, a mind\nof naturally humble proportions can be elevated considerably above one\nmore highly endowed by natural constitution. So the training of some\nparticular intellectual faculty, which by nature is deficient, can bring\nit up nearer to the level of other powers less disciplined by exercise.\n\nIn like manner, the natural susceptibilities can be increased, diminished\nor modified by habit. Certain tastes, that had little power, can be so\ncultivated as to overtop all others.\n\nSo of the moral nature: it can be so exercised that a habit will be formed\nwhich will generate a strength and prominency that nature did not impart.\n\nOne of the most important results of habit is its influence on _faith_ or\n_belief_. Those persons who practice methods of false reasoning, who turn\naway from evidence and follow their feelings in forming opinions,\neventually lose the power of sure, confiding belief.\n\nOn the contrary, an honest, conscientious steadiness in seeking the truth\nand in yielding to evidence, secures the firmest and most reliable\nconvictions, and that peace of mind which alone results from believing the\ntruth.\n\nThe will itself is also subject to this same principle. A strong will,\nthat is trained to yield obedience to law in early life, acquires an ease\nand facility in doing it which belongs ordinarily to weak minds, and yet\ncan retain all its vigor. And a mind that is trained to bring subordinate\nvolitions into strict and ready obedience to a generic purpose, acquires\nan ease and facility in doing this which was not a natural endowment.\n\nThus it appears that by the principle of _habit_ every mind is furnished\nwith the power of elevating itself in the scale of being, and of so\nmodifying and perfecting the proportions and combinations of its\nconstitutional powers, that often the result is that there is no mode of\ndistinguishing between the effects of habit and those of natural\norganization.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII. THE NATURE OF MIND OUR GUIDE TO THE NATURAL ATTRIBUTES OF\nGOD.\n\n\nThe _natural_ attributes of any mind are the powers and faculties to be\nexercised, while it is the _action_ or _voluntary use_ of these faculties\nthat exhibits the _moral_ attributes.\n\nHaving gained the existence of a Great First Cause by the use of one\nprinciple of common sense, and the fact that this cause is an intelligent\nmind by another, it has been shown that a third of these principles leads\nto the belief that the natural attributes of God are like our own. We can\nnot conceive of any other kind of minds than our own, because we have\nnever had any past experience or knowledge of any other.\n\nBut while we thus conclude that the mind of the Creator is, so far as we\ncan conceive, precisely like our own in constitutional organization, we\nare as necessarily led to perceive that the _extent_ of these powers is\nfar beyond our own. A mind with the power, wisdom and goodness exhibited\nin the very small portion of his works submitted to our inspection, who\nhas inhabited eternity, and matured through everlasting ages\u2014our minds are\nlost in attempting any conception of the _extent_ of such infinite\nfaculties!\n\nThus we are necessarily led to conceive of the Creator as possessing the\nintellectual powers described in previous pages. He perceives, conceives,\nimagines, judges and remembers just as we do.\n\nSo also all our varied susceptibilities to pleasure and pain exist in the\nEternal Mind. The desire of good and the fear of evil which are the motive\npower in the human mind, exist also in the divine. Thus by the light of\nnature we settle the question that the existence of susceptibilities to\npain and evil are not the results of the Creator\u2019s will, but are a part of\nthe eternal nature of things which he did not originate or control.\n\nAll the minds we ever knew or heard of are moved to action by desire to\ngain happiness and escape pain, and as we can conceive of no other kind of\nmind than our own, we must attribute to the Creator this foundation\nelement of mental activity.\n\nThus we are led to attribute to the Creator all those susceptibilities\nincluded in _the moral sense_, as described in previous pages. His mind,\nlike ours, feels that whatever makes _the most_ happiness with _the least_\nevil is _right_; that is to say, _it is fitted to the eternal nature of\nthings_, of which his own mind is a part.\n\nSo also the Creator possesses that _sense of justice_ implanted in our own\nminds, which involves the desire of good to those who make happiness, and\nof evil to those who destroy happiness; and which also demands that such\nretributions be _proportioned_ to the good and evil done, and to the\n_power_ of the agent.\n\nSo also we must conceive of the Creator as possessing the susceptibility\nof _conscience_, which includes in the very constitution of mind\nretributions for right and wrong action.\n\nAgain, we are led to conceive of God as a _rational free agent_, with\npower to choose either that which excites the _strongest desire_ or that\nwhich is perceived to be _best on the whole for all concerned_, even if it\ndoes not excite the strongest desire.\n\nAgain, we are to conceive of the Creator as possessing a belief in those\nprinciples of reason which he has implanted in our minds, and made our\nguide in all matters, both of temporal and religious concern.\n\nAgain, our experience of the nature and history of mind, leads to the\ninference that no being has existed from all eternity _in solitude_, but\nthat there is _more than one eternal, uncreated mind_, and that all their\npowers of enjoyment from giving and receiving happiness in social\nrelations have been in exercise from eternal ages. This is the just and\nnatural deduction of reason and experience, as truly as the deduction that\nthere is at least one eternal First Cause.\n\nAgain, all our experience of mind involves the idea of the _mutual\nrelation of minds_. We perceive that minds are made to match to other\nminds, so that there can be no complete action of mind, according to its\nmanifest design, except in relation to other beings. A mind can not love\ntill there is another mind to call forth such emotion. A mind can not\nbring a tithe of its power into appropriate action except in a community\nof minds. The conception of a solitary being, with all the social powers\nand sympathies of the human mind infinitely enlarged, and yet without any\nsympathizing mind to match and meet them, involves the highest idea of\nunfitness and imperfection conceivable, while it is contrary to our\nuniform experience of the nature and history of mind.\n\nIt has been argued that the _unity of design_ in the works of nature\nproves that there is but one creating mind. This is not so, for in all our\nexperience of the creations of finite beings no _great design_ was ever\nformed without a combination of minds, both to plan and to execute. The\nmajority of minds in all ages, both heathen and Christian, have always\nconceived of the Creator as _in some way_ existing so as to involve the\nideas of plurality and of the love and communion of one mind with another.\n\nAnd yet the unity and harmony of all created things as parts of one and\nthe same design, teach _a degree_ of unity in the authorship of the\nuniverse never known in the complex action of finite minds.\n\nThus a _unity_ and _plurality_ in the Creator of all things is educed by\nreason and experience from the works of nature.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX. THE NATURE OF MIND OUR GUIDE TO THE MORAL ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.\n\n\nHaving employed the principles of common sense to gain a knowledge of the\nnatural attributes of God, we are next to employ the same principles to\ngain his _moral_ character; or those attributes which are exhibited in\n_willing_. In other words, we are to seek the character of God as\nexpressed in his _works_ or _deeds_.\n\nIn our experience of the moral character of minds in this world, we find\nthat some of the highest grades as to intellect and susceptibilities, are\nlowest as to good\u2010willing. How is it, then, with the highest mind of all?\nDoes he so prefer evil to good, that he deliberately plans for the\nproduction of evil when he has power to produce happiness in its place? Or\ndoes he sometimes prefer evil and sometimes good, with the variable humors\nof the human race? Or does he always prefer good when it costs him no\ntrouble or sacrifice, but never when it does? Or is he one who\n_invariably_ chooses what is _best for all_, even when it involves painful\nsacrifices to himself?\n\nIn seeking a reply to these momentous questions, we return once more to\nthe principle of common sense before stated, _i.e._, _the nature of any\nwork or contrivance is proof of the character and design of the author_.\n\nIn examining the works of the Creator, we find that the material world\nimpresses us as wisely adjusted and good in construction, only as it is\nfitted to give enjoyment to sentient beings. It is the intelligent,\nfeeling, acting minds that give the value to every other existence. If\nthere were no minds, all perception of beauty, fitness and goodness would\nperish.\n\nIt is _minds_, therefore, which are the _chief_ works of the Creator\u2019s\nhand, and which give value to all others.\n\nIf the _nature_ of these minds is evil, then the author of them is proved\nto be evil by his works. If their nature is good and perfect, then their\nauthor is proved to be good and perfect.\n\nHere again we are driven back to our own minds to gain the only\nconceptions possible to us, not only of wisdom, but of goodness or\nbenevolence.\n\nOn examination, we shall find that we can form no idea of these qualities\nwhich does not involve a _limitation of power_.\n\nOur idea of power is that which we gain when we will to move our bodies or\nto make any other change, and this change ensues. Our only idea of a\n_want_ of power is gained when the choice or willing of a change or event\ndoes _not_ produce it. Whenever, therefore, it shall appear that the\nCreator wills or wishes a thing to exist or to be changed, and that change\nor existence does not follow his so willing, we can not help believing\nthat he has not the power to produce it?\n\nAgain; our idea of _perfectness_ always has reference to power; for a\nthing is regarded as perfect in construction only when there is no power\nin God or man to make it _better_. When any arrangement is as good as it\ncan be, so that neither God nor man has power to make it better, we regard\nit as _perfect_, even when there is some degree of evil involved.\n\nWe are now prepared to define what is included in the terms _perfect\nwisdom_ and _perfect benevolence_, when applied to the Creator or to any\nother being, thus: A perfectly wise being is one who invariably wills the\nbest possible ends and the best possible means of accomplishing those\nends.\n\nAn imperfectly wise being is one who does not invariably do this.\n\nA perfectly benevolent being is one who invariably wills the most good and\nthe least evil _in his power_. An imperfectly benevolent being is one who\ndoes not invariably will thus.\n\nThe _degree_ in which a being is ranked as wise and good is estimated by\nthe extent to which his willing good or evil corresponds with his power.\n\nThus it appears that, in a system where evil exists, the very idea of\n_perfect_ benevolence and wisdom involves the supposition of a _limitation\nof power_.\n\nTo return, then, to the question as proposed at the commencement of the\nchapter\u2014Is the Creator a being who prefers good to evil invariably, or is\nhe one who only sometimes prefers evil to good, and at other times prefers\ngood to evil, with the varying humors of man; or does he _invariably_\nchoose what is _best for all_, even in cases where it may cost personal\nsacrifice and suffering to himself?\n\nIt will be the object of what follows to prove that the last supposition\nis the true one.\n\nIn attempting this, we again take the principle of common sense, that\n\u201c_the nature_ of any contrivance proves the design and character of the\nauthor.\u201d Then we proceed to a review of _the nature_, first of mind, and\nnext of the material world, to prove that the design or _chief end_ of the\nCreator is, not to make happiness irrespective of the amount, but to\nproduce the _greatest possible_ happiness with the _least possible_ evil.\nIn other words, we are to seek for proof that God has done all things _for\nthe best_, so that he has no power to do better.\n\nIn still another form, we are to seek for evidence, in _the nature_ of\nGod\u2019s works, that he has ever done _the best he could_, so that the amount\nof evil that ever was or ever will exist, is not caused by his _willing_\nit, but by his want of power to prevent it; so that any change would be an\nincrease of evil and a lessening of good to the universe as a whole.\n\nIn pursuing this attempt, it will be needful to reproduce two or three\nchapters of a work by the author, already before the public, entitled,\n_The Bible and the People; or, Common Sense applied to Religion_.\n\nIn this work _the nature of mind_ is presented very much more in detail,\nfor the same purpose as that here indicated. What will now follow is a\nbrief review of previous chapters in that work, as a _summary_ of the\nevidence there presented that the _chief end_ of God in all his works is\nto produce the greatest possible happiness with the least possible evil.\n\nWhenever we find any contrivances all combining to secure a certain good\nresult, which, at the same time, involve some degree of inevitable evil,\nand then discover that there are contrivances to diminish and avoid this\nevil, we properly infer that the author intended to secure _as much of the\ngood with as little of the evil as possible_. For example, a traveler\nfinds a deserted mine, and all around he discovers contrivances for\nobtaining gold, and, at the same time, other contrivances for getting rid\nof the earth mixed with it. The inevitable inference would be that the\nauthor of these contrivances designed to secure as much gold with as\nlittle earth as possible; and should any one say that he could have had\nmore gold and less earth if he chose to, the answer would be that there is\nno evidence of this assertion, but direct evidence against it.\n\nAgain: should we discover a piece of machinery in which every contrivance\ntended to secure a _speed_ in movement, produced by the _friction_ of\nwheels against a rough surface, and at the same time other contrivances\nwere found for diminishing all friction that was useless, we should infer\nthat the author designed to secure the _greatest possible speed_ with the\n_least possible friction_.\n\nIn like manner, if we can show that mind is a contrivance that acts by the\ninfluence of fear of evil, and that _pain_ seems as indispensable to the\naction of a free agent as friction is to motion; if we can show that there\nis no contrivance in mind or matter which is designed to secure suffering\nas its primary end; if we can, on the contrary, show that the direct end\nof all the organizations of mind and matter is to produce happiness; if we\ncan show that it is only the _wrong action_ of mind that involves most of\nthe pain yet known, so that right action, in its place, would secure only\nhappiness; if we can show contrivances for diminishing pain, and also\ncontrivances for increasing happiness by means of the inevitable pain\ninvolved in the system of things, then the just conclusion will be gained\nthat the Author of the system of mind and matter designed \u201cto produce the\ngreatest possible happiness with the least possible evil.\u201d\n\nIn the pages which follow, we shall present evidence exhibiting all these\nparticulars.\n\nThe only way in which we learn the nature of a thing is to observe its\nqualities and actions. This is true of mind as much as it is of matter.\nExperience and observation teach that the nature of mind is such, that\n_the fear of suffering_ is indispensable to secure a large portion of the\nenjoyment within reach of its faculties, and that the highest modes of\nenjoyment can not be secured except by sacrifice, and thus by more or less\nsuffering.\n\nThis appears to be an inevitable combination, as much so as friction is\ninevitable in machinery.\n\nWe have the evidence of our own consciousness that it is fear of evil to\nourselves or to others that is the _strongest_ motive power to the mind.\nIf we should find that no pain resulted from burning up our own bodies, or\nfrom drowning, or from any other cause; if every one perceived that no\ncare, trouble, or pain resulted from losing all kinds of enjoyment, the\neffort to seek it would be greatly diminished.\n\nIf we could desire good enough to exert ourselves to seek it, and yet\nshould feel no discomfort in failing; if we could _lose every thing_, and\nfeel no sense of pain or care, the stimulus to action which experience has\nshown to be most powerful and beneficent would be lost.\n\nWe find that abundance of ease and prosperity enervates mental power, and\nthat mind increases in all that is grand and noble, and also in the most\nelevating happiness, by means of danger, care and pain. We may properly\ninfer, then, that evil is a necessary part of the experience of a\nperfectly\u2010acting mind.\n\nSo strong is the conviction that _painful penalties_ are indispensable,\nthat the kindest parents and the most benevolent rulers are the most sure\nto increase rather than diminish those that are already involved in the\nexisting nature of things.\n\nAgain: without a revelation we have no knowledge of any kind of mind but\nby inference from our experience in this state of being. All we know of\nthe _Eternal First Cause_ is by a process of reasoning, inferring that his\nnature must be _like_ the only minds of which we have any knowledge. We\nassume, then, that he is a free agent, regulated by desire for happiness\nand fear of evil.\n\nWe thus come to the conclusion that this organization of mind is a part of\nthe _fixed and eternal nature of things_, and does not result from the\nwill of the Creator. His own is the eternal pattern of an all\u2010perfect\nmind, and our own are formed on this perfect model, with susceptibilities\nto pain as an indispensable motive power in gaining happiness.\n\nWe will now recapitulate some of the particulars in the laws and\nconstitution of mind which tend to establish the position that its\nCreator\u2019s grand design is \u201cto produce the greatest possible happiness with\nthe least possible evil.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nIntellectual Powers.\n\n\nFirst, then, in reference to the earliest exercise of mind in _sensation_.\nThe eye might have been so made that light would inflict pain, and the ear\nso that sound would cause only discomfort. And so of all the other senses.\n\nBut the condition of a well\u2010formed, healthy infant is a most striking\nillustration of the adaptation of the senses to receive enjoyment. Who\ncould gaze on the countenance of such a little one, as its various senses\nare called into exercise without such a conviction? The delight manifested\nas the light attracts the eye, or as pleasant sounds charm the ear, or as\nthe limpid nourishment gratifies its taste, or as gentle motion and soft\nfondlings soothe the nerves of touch, all testify to the benevolent design\nof its Maker.\n\nNext come the pleasures of _perception_ as the infant gradually observes\nthe qualities of the various objects around, and slowly learns to\ndistinguish its mother and its playthings from the confused mass of forms\nand colors. Then comes the gentle curiosity as it watches the movement of\nits own limbs, and finally discovers that its own volitions move its tiny\nfingers, while the grand idea that _it is itself a cause_ is gradually\nintroduced.\n\nNext come the varied intellectual pleasures as the several powers are\nexercised in connection with the animate and material world around, in\nacquiring the meaning of words, and in imitating the sounds and use of\nlanguage. The adult, in toiling over the dry lexicon, little realizes the\npleasure with which the little one is daily acquiring the philosophy,\ngrammar, and vocabulary of its mother tongue.\n\nA child who can not understand a single complete sentence, or speak an\nintelligible phrase, will sit and listen with long\u2010continued delight to\nthe simple enunciation of words, each one of which presents a picture to\nhis mind of a dog, a cat, a cow, a horse, a whip, a ride, and many other\nobjects and scenes that have given pleasure in the past; while the single\nwords, without any sentences, bring back, not only vivid conceptions of\nthese objects, but a part of the enjoyment with which they have been\nconnected.\n\nThen, as years pass by, the intellect more and more administers pleasure,\nwhile the reasoning powers are developed, the taste cultivated, the\nimagination exercised, the judgment employed, and the memory stored with\ntreasures for future enjoyment.\n\nIn the proper and temperate use of the intellectual powers, there is a\nconstant experience of placid satisfaction, or of agreeable and often of\ndelightful emotions, while no one of these faculties is productive of\npain, except in violating the laws of the mental constitution.\n\n\n\n\nThe Susceptibilities.\n\n\nIn regard to the second general class of mental powers\u2014_the\nsusceptibilities_\u2014the first particular to be noticed is the ceaseless and\nall\u2010pervading _desire to gain happiness and escape pain_. This is the\nmainspring of all voluntary activity; for no act of volition will take\nplace till some good is presented to gain, or some evil to shun. At the\nsame time, as has been shown, the desire to escape evil is more potent and\neffective than the desire for good. Thousands of minds that rest in\npassive listlessness, when there is nothing to stimulate but hope of\nenjoyment, will exert every physical and mental power to escape impending\nevil. The seasons of long\u2010continued prosperity in nations always tend to a\ndeterioration of intellect and manhood. It is in seasons of danger alone\nthat fear wakes up the highest energies, and draws forth the heroes of the\nrace.\n\nMind, then, is an existence having the power of that self\u2010originating\naction of _choice_ which constitutes free agency, while this power can\nonly be exercised when desires are excited to gain happiness or to escape\npain. This surely is the highest possible evidence that its Author\n_intended_ mind should thus act.\n\nBut a mind may act to secure happiness and avoid pain to itself, and yet\nmay gain only very low grades of enjoyment, while much higher are within\nreach of its faculties. So, also, it may act to gain happiness for itself\nas the chief end in such ways as to prevent or destroy the higher\nhappiness of others around.\n\nIn reference to this, we find those susceptibilities which raise man to\nthe dignity of a rational and moral being.\n\nIn the first place, there is that _impression of the great design_ of the\nCreator existing in every mind, either as a result of constitution or of\ntraining, or of both united, which results in a feeling that whatever\nlessens or destroys happiness is unfit and contrary to the system of\nthings.\n\nNext there is the power to balance pleasure and pain, and estimate the\ncompound result, both in reference to self and to the commonwealth. With\nthis is combined the feeling that whatever secures _the most_ good with\n_the least_ evil is right and fit, and that the opposite is wrong and\nunfitted to the nature of things.\n\nNext comes the _sense of justice_, which results in an impulse to\n_discover the cause_ of good and evil, and when this cause is found to be\na voluntary agent, a consequent impulse to make returns of good for good,\nand of evil for evil, and also to _proportion_ retributive rewards or\npenalties to the amount of good or evil done.\n\nWith this, also, is combined the feeling that those retributions should be\napplied only where there was _voluntary_ power to have done otherwise.\nWhen it is seen that there was no such power, the impulse to reward or\npunish is repressed.\n\nSuch is the deep conviction that such retributions are indispensable, that\nwhere natural pains and penalties do not avail, others are demanded, both\nin the family and in the commonwealth.\n\nLastly, we find the susceptibility of _conscience_, which, by the very\nframework of the mind itself, apportions the retributive pangs of remorse\nfor wrong doing, and the pleasure of self\u2010approval for well doing. These,\ntoo, are retributions never to be escaped, and the most exquisite, both in\nelevated happiness and excruciating pain. The mind carries about in itself\nits own certain and gracious remunerator\u2014its own inexorable prosecutor,\njudge, and executioner.\n\nThis same design of the Creator may be most delightfully traced in what\nmay be called the _economy_ of happiness and pain.\n\nOne particular of this is set forth at large in the chapter on the\n_emotions of taste_.(5) Here we find the mind formed not only to secure\nmultitudinous enjoyment through the nerves of sensation, but that, by the\nprinciple of association, there is a perpetual _reproduction_ of these\nemotions in connection with the colors, forms, sounds, and motions with\nwhich they were originally associated. Thus there are perpetually\nreturning emotions of pleasure so recondite, so refined, so infinite in\nvariety and extent, and yet how little noticed or understood!\n\nAnother indication of the same kind is the peculiarity pointed out on\nformer pages, where it is shown that securing certain enjoyments which\ntend to promote the _general_ happiness increases both desire and capacity\nfor enjoyment, while those that terminate in the individual diminish by\npossession. Thus the enjoyment of power, which must, from its nature, be\nconfined to a few, diminishes by possession. Thus, too, the pleasures of\nsense pall by indulgence. But the enjoyment resulting from the exercise\nand reciprocation of love, and that resulting from benevolent actions, and\nthat which is included in a course of perfect obedience to all the rules\nof rectitude, increases the capacity for enjoyment.\n\nAnother illustration of the same principle is exhibited in the chapter on\nHabit, where it is seen that the power of pleasurable emotions increases\nby repetition, while painful emotions decrease when the good to be secured\nby their agency is attained. Thus _fear_ serves to protect from danger\ntill caution and habit reader it needless, and then it decreases. And so\nof other painful emotions.\n\nIt is interesting to trace the same design in the constitution of minds in\n_regard to each other_. We find that the purest and highest kind of\nhappiness is dependent on the mutual relations of minds. Thus the\nenjoyment resulting from the discovery of intellectual and moral traits in\nother minds\u2014that resulting from giving and receiving affection\u2014that gained\nby sympathy, and by being the cause of happiness to others, and that\nresulting from conscious rectitude, all are dependent on the existence of\nother beings.\n\nNow we find that minds are relatively so constituted that _what one\ndesires, it is a source of happiness in another to bestow_. Thus one can\nbe pleased by the discovery of certain traits in other minds, while, in\nreturn, the exhibition of these traits, and the consciousness that they\nare appreciated, is an equal source of enjoyment. One mind seeks the love\nof others, while these, in return, are desiring objects of affection, and\nrejoice to confer the gift that is sought. The desire of knowledge or the\ngratification of curiosity is another source of pleasure, while satisfying\nthis desire is a cause of enjoyment to those around. How readily do\nmankind seize upon every opportunity to convey interesting news to other\nminds!\n\nAgain: we find that, both in sorrow and in joy, the mind seeks for the\nsympathy of others, while this grateful and soothing boon it is delightful\nto bestow. So, also, the consciousness of being the cause of good to\nanother sends joy to the heart, while the recipient is filled with the\npleasing glow of gratitude in receiving the benefit. The consciousness of\nvirtue in acting for the general good, instead of for contracted, selfish\npurposes, is another source of happiness, while those who witness its\ndelightful results rejoice to behold and acknowledge it. What bursts of\nrapturous applause have followed the exhibition of virtuous self\u2010sacrifice\nfor the good of others from bosoms who rejoiced in this display, and who\ncould owe this pleasure to no other cause than the natural constitution of\nmind, which is formed to be made happy both in beholding and in exercising\nvirtue.\n\nThis same beneficial economy is manifested in a close analysis of all that\nis included in the affections of _love_ and _gratitude_.\n\nIt has been shown that, in the commencement of existence, the young mind\nfirst learns the sources of good and evil to self, and its sole motives\nare desire for its own enjoyment.\n\nSoon, however, it begins to experience the happiness resulting from the\nrelations of minds to each other, and then is developed the superior power\nof _love_, and its importance as a regulating principle.\n\nIn the analysis of this affection, it is seen to consist, first, in the\npleasurable emotions which arise in view of certain traits of character in\nanother mind. When these qualities are discovered, the first result is\nemotions of pleasure in the contemplation. Immediately there follows _a\ndesire of good_ to the cause of this pleasure. Next follows the desire of\nreciprocated affection\u2014that is, a desire is awakened to become the cause\nof the same pleasure to another; for the desire of being loved is the\ndesire to be the cause of pleasurable emotions in another mind, in view of\nour own good qualities. When we secure this desired appreciation, then\nfollows an increased desire of good to the one who bestows it.\n\nThus the affection of love is a combination of the action and reaction of\npleasurable emotions, all tending to awaken the desire of good to another.\nThis passion may become so intensified that it will become more delightful\nto secure enjoyments to another than to procure them for self.\n\nIn what is thus far presented, we find that the desire of good to another\nresults solely from the fact that certain mental qualities are _causes of\npleasure to self_. Of course, this desire ceases when those qualities\ncease to exist or cease to be appreciated. This kind of love is the\nnatural result of the constitution of minds in their relations to each\nother, making it _easy and pleasant_ to live for the good of another in\nreturn for the pleasure received from their agreeable qualities and\nmanifestations.\n\nBut the highest element of love consists in the _desire and purpose of\ngood to another without reference to any good received in return_. It is\n_good willing_.\n\nThe desire of good to others exists as a natural impulse more or less\npowerful in differently constituted minds. It is the cause of that\npleasure which is felt in the consciousness of being the cause of good to\nanother. But this natural impulse can be so developed and increased by\nvoluntary culture as to become the strongest impulse of the mind, and thus\nthe source of the highest and most satisfying enjoyments. In many minds\nthis becomes so strongly developed that securing happiness to others is\nsought with far more earnestness and pleasure than any modes of enjoyment\nthat terminate solely in self.\n\nThis analysis lays the foundation for the distinction expressed by the\nterms _impulsive benevolence_ and _voluntary benevolence_, or the _love of\ncomplacency_ and the _love of benevolence_. The first is the involuntary\nresult of good conferred on _self_; the last is a voluntary act. It is\ngood willing toward others without reference to self. The first can only\nexist where certain qualities are perceived and appreciated in another\nmind. The second can result from voluntary effort, and become the subject\nof law and penalties.\n\nWe can never be justly required to love another mind with the love of\ncomplacency except when qualities are perceived that, by the constitution\nof mind, necessarily call forth such regard. But the love of benevolence\ncan be justly demanded from every mind toward every being capable of\nhappiness.\n\nHere it is important to discriminate more exactly in regard to the\nprinciple of _benevolence_ and the principle of _rectitude_.\n\nIt is seen that the benevolence which is the subject of rewards and\npenalties as a voluntary act consists in _good willing_\u2014that is, in\nchoosing the happiness of _other_ minds as well as our own as the object\nof interest and pursuit.\n\nBut the principle of rectitude is more comprehensive in its nature. It\nrelates to obedience to _all_ the laws of the system of the universe\u2014those\nrelating to ourselves as much as those relating to others. It is true\nthat, as obedience to these laws includes the greatest possible amount of\ngood with the least possible evil, both to the individual and the\ncommonwealth, the tendency of the two principles is to the same result.\nBut benevolence may be exercised without any regard to the rules of right\nand wrong. Instead of striving to make the _most possible_ happiness with\nthe least possible evil, as our Maker\u2019s great design demands, a course may\nbe taken that makes some happiness to some minds at the expense of vast\nsuffering and wrong to others. No mind acts right, even in willing\nhappiness to others, when it is done in disregard of those laws which\ndemand that we should make happiness the right way, that is, the way which\nis _best for all_.\n\nIn the physical and mental constitution of man there is not a single\narrangement the direct object of which is to produce suffering. The\nsusceptibilities to pain seem designed to protect and preserve, while the\ngreater the need the more strong is this protection. For example, in\nregard to physical organization, fire is an element that is indispensable\nto the life, comfort, and activity of man, and it must be accessible at\nall times and places. But all its service arises from its power to\ndissolve and destroy the body itself, as well as all things around it.\nTherefore the pain connected with contact with fire is more acute than\nalmost any other. Thus even the youngest child is taught the care and\ncaution needful to protect its body from injury or destruction.\n\nAnother fact in regard to the susceptibilities of pain is their frequent\n_co\u2010existence_ with the highest degrees of enjoyment. The experiences of\nthis life often present cases where the most elevated and ecstatic\nhappiness is combined with the keenest suffering, while such is the nature\nof the case that the suffering is the chief cause of the happiness thus\nsecured. The highest illustration of this is in the suffering of saints\nand martyrs, when they \u201crejoice to be counted worthy to suffer shame,\u201d or\nwhen, amid torturing flames, they sing songs of transport and praise.\n\nEven in common life it is constantly found that a certain relative amount\nof happiness is felt to be more than a recompense for a given amount of\npain. This relative amount may be such that the evil involved, though\ngreat, may count as nothing. Where there is a passionate attachment, for\nexample, the lover exults in the labor and suffering that will joyfully be\nreceived as a proof of affection and will secure the compensating return.\n\nIt is a very common fact that painful emotions _are sought_, not for\nthemselves, but as ministers to a kind of mental excitement which is\ndesired. This is the foundation of the pleasure which is felt in tragic\nrepresentations, and in poetry and novels that present scenes of distress.\nThe little child will again and again ask for the tale of the Babes in the\nWood, though each rehearsal brings forth tears; and the mature matron or\nsage will spend hours over tales that harrow the feelings and call forth\nsighs. This also is the foundation of that kind of music called the _minor\nkey_, in which certain sounds bring emotions of sadness or sorrow.\n\nAnother striking fact in regard to the desire for pain is the emotions\nthat are felt by the most noble and benevolent minds at the sight of\ncruelty and injustice. At such scenes, the desire for inflicting pain on\nthe guilty offender amounts to a passion which nothing can allay but\nretributive justice. And the more benevolent the mind, the stronger this\ndesire for retributive evil to another.\n\nThus it appears that the mind is so made as to desire pain both for itself\nand for others; not in itself considered, but as the indispensable means\nto gain some consequent enjoyment.\n\nThe _highest kinds_ of happiness result from painful emergencies. The\ntransports of love, gratitude, and delight, when some benefactor rescues\nsuffering thousands from danger and evil, could exist in no other way. All\nthe long train of virtues included in patient toil for the good of others,\nin heroic daring, in brave adventure, in fortitude, in patience, in\nresignation, in heavenly meekness, in noble magnanimity, in sublime self\u2010\nsacrifice, all involve the idea of trial, danger, and suffering. It is\nonly the highest and noblest class of minds that can fully understand that\nthe most blissful of all enjoyments are those which are bought with pain.\n\nBut the most cheering feature in the constitution of mind is all that is\nincluded in the principle of _habit_. We see in the commencement of\nexistence that every action of mind and body is imperfect, and more or\nless difficult, while each effort to secure right action increases the\nfacility of so doing. We see that, owing to this principle, every act of\nobedience to law makes such a course easier. The intellect, the\nsusceptibilities, the will, all come under this benign influence. Habit\nmay so diminish the difficulty of self\u2010denial for our own good that the\npain entirely ceases; and self\u2010sacrifice for the good of others may so\ndevelop benevolence and generate a habit that it will become pleasure\nwithout pain. There are those even in this world, who have so attained\nthis capacity of living in the life of those around them, that the\nhappiness of others becomes their own, so that there is even less pain in\nself\u2010denial for the good of others than for that of self. When this habit\nof mind is attained by all, the happiness of the commonwealth will become\nthe portion of each individual, and thus be multiplied to an inconceivable\nextent.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX. ADDITIONAL PROOF OF THE MORAL ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.\n\n\nWe have presented the \u201cnature\u201d of mind as the chief evidence of the grand\ndesign of its Creator in forming all things, and thus also presented the\nproof of his perfect wisdom, benevolence, and rectitude. We now will trace\nthe evidences of the same beneficent design in the nature of all social\nand material organizations.\n\nFirst, then, in regard to the domestic relations. We have seen that while\nall happiness depends on obedience to laws, every mind comes into\nexistence in perfect ignorance of them, and without any power to learn\nwhat is good or evil but by experience and instruction. The intention of\nthe Creator that each new\u2010born being should be taught these laws and\ntrained to obey them, is clearly seen in the first and highest domestic\nrelation. In this we see two mature minds, who have themselves been\ntrained to understand these laws, drawn by sweet and gentle influences to\neach other. They go apart from all past ties of kindred; they have one\nhome, one name, one common interest in every thing. The one who has most\nphysical strength goes forth to provide supplies; the delicate one remains\nbehind, by domestic ministries to render home the centre of all\nattractions.\n\nThen comes the beautiful, helpless infant, of no use to any one, and\ndemanding constant care, labor, and attention. And yet, with its profound\nignorance, its tender weakness, its delicate beauty, its utter\nhelplessness, its entire dependence, how does it draw forth the strongest\nfeelings of love and tenderness, making every toil and care a delight! And\nthus, month after month, both parents unite to cherish and support, while,\nwith unceasing vigilance, they train the new\u2010born mind to understand and\nobey the laws of the system into which it is thus ushered. Its first\nlessons are to learn to take care of its own body. And when the far\u2010off\npenalty of pain can not be comprehended by the novice, the parent invents\nnew penalties to secure habits of care and obedience. During all this\nperiod the great lesson of _sacrifice_ constantly occurs. The child must\neat what is _best_, not what it desires. It must go to bed when it wants\nto sit up. It must stay in the house when it wants to go out. It must not\ntouch multitudes of things which it wishes thus to investigate. And so the\nhabits of self\u2010denial, obedience, and faith in the parents are gradually\nsecured, while the knowledge of the laws of the system around are slowly\nlearned.\n\nBut the higher part of the law of sacrifice soon begins to make its\ndemands. The child first learns of this law _by example_, in that of _the\nmother_, that most perfect illustration of self\u2010sacrificing love. Then\ncomes a second child, when the first\u2010born must practice on this example.\nIt must give up its place in the mother\u2019s bosom to another; it must share\nits sweets and toys with the new\u2010comer; it must join in efforts to\nprotect, amuse, and instruct the helpless one. And thus the family is the\nconstant school for training ignorant, inexperienced mind in the laws of\nthe system of which it is a part, especially in the great law of self\u2010\ncontrol, for the best good of self, and of self\u2010sacrifice for the best\ngood of others.\n\nNext comes the discipline of the school and the neighborhood, when the\nchild is placed among his peers to be taught new rules of justice,\nbenevolence, and self\u2010sacrifice for the general good.\n\nNext come the relations of the body politic, for which labors are demanded\nand pain is to be endured according to the grand law of sacrifice, by\nwhich the individual is to subordinate his own interests and wishes to the\ngreater general good, so that the interests of the majority shall always\ncontrol those of the minority.\n\nLastly, the whole world is to be taken into the estimate, and the nations\nare to be counted as members of one great family of man, for which every\nportion is to make sacrifices for the greater general good.\n\nThus, as age, and experience, and habits of obedience to the laws of\nrectitude increase, the duties and obligations grow more numerous and\ncomplicated. But the same grand principle is more and more developed, that\neach individual is to seek the greatest possible happiness with the least\npossible evil, for the vast whole as well as for each subordinate part,\nwhile _self_ is to receive only its just and proper share.\n\nThe same great design of the Creator can be detected also in specific\norganizations, by which minds so differ from each other as to fit them for\nthe diverse positions and relations that the common good demands. If all\nwere exactly alike in the amount of constitutional powers and in the\nproportionate combinations, it can easily be seen that the general result\nwould be far less favorable to the happiness of the whole. But as it is,\nsome have the love of power very large, and seek to lead and control;\nothers have it small, and prefer to follow. Some have elevated intellect,\nand love to teach; others have humbler capacities, and prefer humbler\npursuits.\n\nThese varied combinations also give scope to the virtues of pity,\ntenderness, patience, mercy, justice, self\u2010denial, and many other graces\nthat could not be called into being without all the disparities, social,\ndomestic, intellectual, and moral, that we find existing. Meantime the\nprinciple of habit and the power of the will give abundant opportunities\nfor modifying these natural peculiarities to accommodate to varying\ncircumstances.\n\nTo these indications of benevolent design may be added the \u201cnature\u201d of the\nbodily system, and the \u201cnature\u201d of the material world without. In\nexamining the body we inhabit, so nicely adjusted, so perfectly adapted to\nour necessities, so beautifully and harmoniously arranged, so \u201cfearfully\nand wonderfully made,\u201d it is almost beyond the power of numbers to express\nthe multiplied contrivances for ease, comfort, and delight.\n\nWe daily pursue our business and our pleasure, thoughtless of the thousand\noperations which are going on, and the busy mechanism employed in securing\nthe objects we desire. The warm current that is flowing from the centre to\nthe extremities, with its life\u2010giving energies, and then returning to be\npurified and again sent forth; the myriads of branching nerves that are\nthe sensitive discerners of good or ill; the unnumbered muscles and\ntendons that are contracting and expanding in all parts of our frame; the\nnicely\u2010adjusted joints, and bands, and ligaments, that sustain, and\ndirect, and support; the perpetual expansion and contraction of the vital\norgan; the thousand hidden contrivances and operations of the animal\nframe, all are quietly and constantly performing their generous functions,\nand administering comfort and enjoyment to the conscious spirit that\ndwells within.\n\nNor is the outer world less busy in performing its part in promoting the\ngreat design of the Creator. The light of suns and stars is traversing the\nethereal expanse in search of those for whom it was created; for them it\ngilds the scenes of earth, and is reflected in ten thousand forms of\nbeauty and of skill. The trembling air is waiting to minister its aid,\nfanning with cool breezes, or yielding the warmth of spring, sustaining\nthe functions of life, and bearing on its light wing the thoughts that go\nforth from mind to mind, and the breathings of affection that are given\nand returned. For this design earth is sending forth her exuberance, the\nwaters are emptying their stores, and the clouds pouring forth their\ntreasures. All nature is busy with its offerings of fruits and flowers,\nits wandering incense, its garnished beauty, and its varied songs. Within\nand without, above, beneath, and around, the same Almighty Beneficence is\nfound still ministering to the wants and promoting the happiness of the\nminds he has formed for ever to desire and pursue this boon.\n\nWe are now prepared to meet the questions proposed, (_i.e._) is the\nCreator a being who, with the varying humors of man, sometimes prefers\nevil to good, and sometimes prefers good to evil, or does he invariably\nchoose what is _best for all_, even in cases where it may involve personal\nsacrifices and suffering to himself?\n\nIn attempting to answer this question, we have set forth the evidence to\nbe found in the works of the Creator which establishes the position that\nhis _chief end_ or _ruling purpose_ is to produce the greatest possible\nhappiness with the least possible evil.\n\nThe question then reads, does the Creator destroy happiness and cause\nneedless pain, and thus thwart his own chief desire and great end; the end\nfor which he made all things?\n\nThe very statement of the question is its most forcible answer.\n\nWe have seen that we are obliged to conceive of God as possessing such a\nsocial and moral nature as our own. This would lead him to desire the\nveneration, confidence, love, and gratitude of the children he has\ncreated.\n\nBut he has formed their minds to hate selfishness and to admire and\nreverence self\u2010sacrificing benevolence. Will the Creator then oppose his\nown chief end and grand design by conduct which would make all his\ncreatures necessarily, by the nature he implanted, withhold their respect\nand love, and feel only dislike and contempt? The very question involves\nits own answer.\n\nAdd to this, that all those causes which our experience and observation\nhave shown to lead to wrong choices are necessarily excluded from our\nconceptions of the Creator.\n\nThe Eternal Mind can not err for want of knowledge, nor for want of habits\nof right action, nor for want of teachers and educators, nor for want of\nthose social influences which generate and sustain a right governing\npurpose; for an infinite mind, that never had a beginning, can not have\nthese modes of experience which appertain to new\u2010born and finite\ncreatures.\n\nAgain: Such is the eternal system of the universe, as we learn it by the\nlight of reason, that the highest possible happiness to each individual\nmind and to the whole commonwealth is promoted by the right action of\nevery mind in that system. This, of necessity, is seen and felt by the\nAll\u2010creating and Eternal Mind, and to suppose that, with this knowledge,\nhe would ever choose wrong, is to suppose that he would choose pure evil.\nIt is to suppose the Creator would do what he has formed our minds to\nbelieve to be impossible in _any_ rational mind. It is to suppose that the\nCreator would do that which, if done by human beings, marks them as\ninsane.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI. NATURE OF MIND AS PERFECT IN CONSTRUCTION.\n\n\nThe first article in every system of religion is, who is the God who\ncontrols our destinies, and what is his character?\n\nIn attempting to answer this question by the light of nature,\nindependently of revelation, we have gained these positions. There is an\nIntelligent Mind who created all things, whose natural attributes are the\nsame as ours in kind, but vast beyond our comprehension in extent. In\nmoral character, or that which is exhibited in choice or action, he is\nperfect in wisdom, benevolence, and rectitude; that is to say, he is a\nbeing whose chief end or ruling purpose is to do the best he can to make\nthe most possible happiness with the least possible evil.\n\nThis being discovered as the grand design for which all human minds are\ncreated, we are thus enabled to decide as to what is the right and perfect\n_construction_ or \u201cnature\u201d of mind, and also as to its right and perfect\n_action_.\n\nIn regard to the perfect _construction_ of mind, we must again refer to\nthe fact that in a system of things where both natural and moral evil\nexist, we are obliged to suppose a limitation of power by the nature of\nthings, so that a system is perfect, not as excluding all evil; for as\nevil does exist, a system without any evil is impossible. All that\nremains, then, to constitute the idea of perfection, (as used in reference\nto things as they are) is this, that whatever is created by God, is the\nbest possible in the nature of things.\n\nThe question then must be this, is the mind of man, _as a race_, the best\nin construction, that is possible in the nature of things? Is our mind\nmade _as good as it can be_, so that no change is possible that would make\nit better?\n\nIn replying to this question, we must regard the matter in two relations.\nWe have noticed, in the chapter on the Constitutional Varieties of the\nHuman Mind, that while there are powers and attributes of mind which are\ncommon to all, there is an endless variety of character resulting from the\ndiverse _proportions_ and _combinations_ of these several faculties, and\nalso that there are diverse _grades_ of mind, each having these diverse\ncombinations. Some races of men are much lower in the scale of being,\nevery way, than other races, while the same disparity exists among\nindividuals of the same race.\n\nNow when we compare individuals with each other, or when we compare races\nin these respects, we regard them as more or less perfect in organization\nwith reference to the highest grade or species known to us. In this\nrelation some minds are to be regarded as imperfect and defective in\norganization. And in reference to any one individual or race in this\nrelation, we feel that the organization could be improved.\n\nBut when we regard each mind as a part of a vast _system_, in which the\nhighest good of the whole will prove the highest possible good of each\nindividual part, we are to judge of perfection in the organization of mind\nin another relation. If it is for the greatest happiness of the whole that\nthere should be grades and ranks in mental powers; if disparities and\nvarieties in organization give scope and exercise to virtues and modes of\nenjoyment that would be impossible were all minds exactly alike, and on\nthe pattern of the highest in the scale of being, then the very points\nwhich are imperfections in the individual relations, become perfections in\nrelation to the great whole. In this view, the lowest and humblest in the\nscale of being, when acting in his appropriate place and according to the\ngreat Creator\u2019s design, is perfect in mental construction, and is fitted\nto be happier in every respect than he could be if the whole system were\nchanged by placing him among the highest in mental organization.\n\nJust as it is with the human system\u2014the lowly foot is perfect and complete\nin its place, though inferior in construction and service to the regal\nhead and cunning hand. And should the foot be endowed with the higher\ngifts it would be a departure from its perfection in organization as\nrelated to the whole. The question, then, of the _perfect nature_ of each\nhuman mind requires that we regard each one as a part of an infinite\nsystem demanding grades and ranks, and thus, also, relative disparities.\nAnd having proved that the chief design of the Creator is to make the\n_best possible_ system, we are necessarily led to the conclusion that the\nlowest order of mind is as perfect in its nature, in relation to the great\nwhole, as is the highest of all.\n\nFrom the above we gain this definition:\n\n_A perfect mind_, as to _construction_ or _nature_, is one which is better\nfitted to its position in the best _possible_ system of minds than it\nwould be by any possible change.\n\nIn this use of the words _nature_ and _perfect_ it is claimed that in the\npreceding pages it has been proved that the mind of man is _perfect in\nnature_. Our next inquiry will relate to the perfect _action_ of mind in\nrespect to that which is _voluntary_ or _self\u2010originated_. In other words,\nwe shall inquire as to the _perfect moral action_ of the human mind, as\ndiscoverable by reason and experience, independently of revelation.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII. RIGHT AND WRONG\u2014TRUE VIRTUE.\n\n\nHaving discovered the end for which mind is made, and thus gained the idea\nof what is meant by perfectness, in its _nature_ or _construction_, we\nnext inquire as to what is the perfect _action_ of mind.\n\nHere we must again recognize the distinction between two classes of mental\nactions, viz., those acts which are _natural_ as resulting necessarily\nfrom the constitution of mind, of which God is the producing cause, and\nthose which are _voluntary_ and of which man is the producing cause. The\nfirst are _natural and involuntary_, the latter are _moral and voluntary_.\n\nThis introduces the second part of the system of natural religion, that\nwhich relates to man\u2019s obligations or duty toward the Creator, toward his\nfellow beings, and toward himself. In other words, the question is, \u201cwhat\nis _right voluntary or moral action_?\u201d\n\nIn seeking the reply to this without the aid of revelation, the following\nparticulars demand attention:\n\nIn all discussions on this question there is no mental analysis more\nimportant than the distinction between the desire, or what _moves_ us to\nchoose, and the act of choice.\n\nThe mind is always moved to choice by desire for some good to be gained or\nsome evil to be avoided. The susceptibility or power of being thus led, in\npopular language is called a \u201cbias,\u201d an \u201cinclination,\u201d a \u201cpropensity,\u201d a\n\u201ctendency,\u201d or a \u201cproclivity\u201d toward the object which causes the desire.\nThus the susceptibility to desire stimulating drinks is excited by\nliquors, and this is called \u201ca propensity\u201d to strong drink.\n\nThe susceptibility to desire to amass money is called a bias, or\npropensity to avarice. The only thing ever meant by a bias or propensity\nto choose any thing is, that there are such susceptibilities that desire\ncan be excited for that thing.\n\nBut all such propensities or biases are _from evil_ and _toward good_ in\nthe widest sense of these terms. No rational mind ever desires pure evil,\nbut always desires good of some sort. On the contrary, it is one of the\nimplanted principles of common sense that _no rational mind will choose\npure evil_. Any man who should do this would be regarded as insane\u2014as\nhaving lost the distinctive feature of a rational mind.\n\nBut we find that desires are called _strong_, _imperative_, _powerful_,\nand the like, not at all with reference to the question whether what is\ndesired would be _best_ for all concerned. They are measured, as to\nstrength or weakness, by the degrees of enjoyment their gratification\nsecures, or the amount of pain that self\u2010denial would involve. This\n_measurement_ of varied degrees of pleasure and pain is a matter of\nconsciousness to every mind, and is constantly referred to by all races\nand in all languages.\n\nIn this use of the term, the strongest desire often exists for that which\nis perceived to be the _best_ good for all concerned. At other times the\nstrongest desire is for that which is seen to be the lesser good. When the\nstrongest desire is for that which is best, the choice is _easy_, and the\nmind always chooses the _best_ good. But when the strongest desire is for\nthat which is not best, then choice is more difficult, and there is a\nconscious struggle between the promptings of reason and conscience, and\nthe importunities of strong desire for the lesser good.\n\nAt such periods there is a conscious _power_ in every mind to choose\n_either_ way, and sometimes we choose to gratify the strongest desire and\ngive up the best good, and at other times we choose the best good and deny\nthe strongest desire. Every human being has been conscious of this\nstruggle between excited desire and the dictates of reason, and all the\nliterature of the world refers to it as a universal fact. The terms _self\u2010\ndenial_, _self\u2010control_, _self\u2010government_, all are based on this\nexperience of all minds.(6)\n\n\n\n\nRight Actions and Rewardable Actions.\n\n\nThe preceding furnishes the ground for the distinctions always recognized\nbetween voluntary action which is _right_ as _best_ for all concerned, and\nthose actions which are deemed _praiseworthy_, _rewardable_, and\n_meritorious_.\n\nWhenever the dictates of reason and our strongest desire are coincident,\nso that choosing what is right and best involves no struggle; then the\nideas of merit and of desert of reward, praise, and commendation are\nwanting. We say such acts are right, but there is no merit in them, and no\nproper ground for adding any other reward than that which naturally\nresults from choosing what we desire most, and which is best for us and\nfor all concerned.\n\nOn the contrary, when there is a struggle between a sense of what is right\nand best, and the strongest desire, and a choice is made which involves\nself\u2010denial and self\u2010sacrifice, we feel that the act is one which is\nmeritorious, and deserving of reward and praise.\n\nAny voluntary action, then, is _right_ which is conformed to those rules\nof rectitude which tend to secure _the most_ happiness for all, even when\nthere is no temptation to another course. But an action is _meritorious_\nand _rewardable_ only when there is a reference to the rules of rectitude\nin the mind of the actor and some degree of self\u2010denial. To choose what we\ndesire most, without any regard to what is right or wrong, even when it\nchances that our choice is that which is _best_, and thus _right_, does\nnot meet our idea of a meritorious and praiseworthy act.\n\nThe greater portion of our choices are of those things which are good in\nall relations, as best for self and best for all concerned. Thus when we\ndesire to eat, to drink, to breathe the pure air, to admire the beauties\nof nature, to enjoy the society of friends,\u2014to choose these and a thousand\nother daily blessings, promotes our own best good and the best good of all\nconcerned. In all such cases choosing what we desire most is morally\n_right_ in all relations. But no acts of choice are _meritorious_, except\nas they involve a regard to law in the mind of the actor, and some degree\nof self\u2010denial in conforming to rule.\n\nThe only cases where moral evil (or wrong choices) can exist, are where\ndesires are excited for some good, either for ourselves or for others,\nwhich is not _best for all concerned_. In all such cases there is a\n\u201cbias,\u201d \u201ctendency,\u201d and \u201cpropensity\u201d to choose _good_ of some sort, but it\nis not the _best_ good, and therefore to choose it would be morally wrong.\nThus there is a bias or propensity to what is good in one relation, but\nevil in another; good as tending to give enjoyment, but evil as contrary\nto a law which enjoins that the _best_ good should always be preferred.\n\nIn such cases the _desires_ for a good which is not for the _best_ are not\nmorally wrong, for they arise involuntarily from those susceptibilities\nimplanted by God, which are not to be exterminated, but only regulated by\nlaw. The moral evil consists not in the _existence_ of such desires, but\nin _choosing_ to gratify them at the sacrifice of the best good of self or\nof others.\n\nIt has been shown that one result of the wrong action of mind is such a\nchange in its constitutional nature, that there will be a desire to\ninflict evil on others as a malignant pleasure to the guilty mind. In\nthese cases such desires may properly be called _morally wrong_ because\nthey are the result of the _voluntary_ action of the sinful mind, and not\nof the natural susceptibilities implanted by the Creator. As they result\nwholly from wrong previous choices, the guilty mind itself is the author\nof them and not the Creator of mind.\n\nHere it is important to discriminate in regard to that natural impulse in\nall minds which is excited by the infliction of pain on self or on others.\nIt is this natural impulse to inflict evil on the author of evil which is\nthe foundation of _justice_ in the family and in the civil state. Its\ndesign is for the best good of all concerned, and it becomes evil only by\nexcess and misuse. So long as it is controlled by reason and conscience it\nis good and only good.\n\nIn view of the above distinctions, there can be no moral evil in _desires_\nfor things which it would be wrong to choose, _except as these desires are\nthe result of previous wrong choices_.(7)\n\nIt has been shown that the principle of _habit_ renders it more and more\neasy and agreeable to regulate our choices by the rules of rectitude. The\nhabit of sacrificing personal gratification to the rule of duty may be so\ncultivated that what at first was difficult, and involved a painful\nstruggle, becomes easy. It is possible so to cultivate such habits that\nour highest desires, and the dictates of reason and conscience, shall\ncontinually be more and more coincident.\n\nWe can conceive of newly\u2010created beings as placed in such circumstances\nthat, for a considerable period, all their strongest desires may be\ncoincident with the best good of themselves and of others, so that there\ncan be no opportunity to practice self\u2010control in regulating their desires\nby the rules of rectitude. In such a case, while acting simply from\nimpulse, without reference to rule, they would always act _right_, and yet\nthey would form no habits of self\u2010control, and thus would be liable to\nfail at the first temptation where their strongest desire conflicted with\nthe known law of rectitude.\n\nThe preceding statements are made in order to arrive at correct and\ndiscriminating definitions of certain fundamental terms on which the whole\nquestion of the \u201cdepraved nature\u201d of the human mind will be found to turn.\n\n\n\n\nRight in Tendency and Right in Motive.\n\n\nMankind in all ages and in all languages speak of certain acts as right or\nwrong in reference to their _tendency_ or their effect on human happiness,\nand without reference to the intention of the author. Thus they affirm\nthat the stealing and selling of men is wrong, whatever may be the motives\nof the slave trader.\n\nAgain, they speak of acts as right or wrong in reference to the _motive_\nor _intention_ of the author. Thus they say a man who sacrificed his\nwealth and reputation, rather than to violate his conscience, acted right\nas to _motive_, although he was mistaken in his views of duty, so that his\nact, as it respects its tendency, may have been wrong.\n\n\n\n\nRight General Purpose.\n\n\nAgain, it has been shown that a man may form a _general purpose_ to act\nright in obeying all the laws of God as discoverable by reason or\nrevelation. This general purpose may be a quiet, abiding principle, so as\nto regulate the thoughts and emotions, and may control most of the\nspecific choices of a whole succeeding life. The _main purpose_, or _chief\nend_ of such a man is to bring all his thoughts, words, and actions into\nperfect agreement with the rules of rectitude. In reference to this and\nhis consequent conduct, his would be denominated a _virtuous character_.\n\nNo one will deny that this is a correct statement of the use of terms by\nmankind in every\u2010day life. Thus then we have gained the following\ndefinitions as established, not by metaphysicians and theologians, but by\n_the people_.\n\n\n\n\nDefinitions.\n\n\n_A right moral act_, as it respects its _tendencies_, is one in which the\nthing chosen is for the _best_ good of all concerned.\n\n_A right moral act_, as to _motive_, is one in which the _intention_ of\nthe actor is to conform to the rules of rectitude.\n\n_A meritorious_ or _praiseworthy act_ is one in which there is some\n_sacrifice_ of feeling, either immediate or remote, in order to conform to\nlaw.\n\n_A virtuous act_ is one in which that which is chosen is right, both in\n_tendency_ and in _motive_.\n\n_A virtuous character_ is one in which a general purpose exists to obey\nall the rules of rectitude. The _degree_ of virtue is dependent on a\ncorrect judgment of what is right or wrong, and the strength or measure of\nthe general purpose in controlling all other purposes. Some men carry out\na general purpose much more steadily and consistently than others, and\nsome men have much more correct ideas of what is right and wrong in\nconduct than others.\n\nThe _natural character_ of a man is that which results from his\nconstitutional powers and faculties of mind, of which God is the author.\n\nThe _moral character_ of a man is all that results from _his own willing_.\n\nOur highest idea of a virtuous character, as gained by experience and\nobservation, is that of a mind so trained to habits of self\u2010control and\nobedience to rule, that it has become easier to obey the laws of\nrectitude, than to gratify any excited desire, however imperative, which\nis seen to violate law.\n\nThus, then, it is shown that a virtuous character consists, not in the\n_nature_ of the mind which is given by God, but in the _purposes_,\n_habits_, and _feelings_ generated by voluntary acts, of which the man\nhimself is the author; God being the cause or author, of this virtue only\nas he is the Creator of mind and of all its circumstances of temptation\nand trial.\n\nIn regard to the formation of a virtuous character, as a matter of\nexperience, it usually results from a slow and gradual process of training\nand development. The general purpose to obey all the laws of rectitude\noriginates, as a general fact, not as a definitely formed purpose, whose\ntime of inception can be distinctly marked. Yet it is not unfrequently the\ncase that persons who have passed a life of unrestrained indulgence, by\nsome marked and powerful influence, are suddenly led to a decided and\ndefinitely marked purpose of virtuous obedience, and carry out this\npurpose with great success.\n\nAny such sudden change, in popular language, would be called \u201cthe\ncommencement of a new life.\u201d And when this sudden change takes place under\nthe influence of motives presented in the Bible, it is called by one class\nof theologians the \u201cnew birth\u201d or \u201cregeneration.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nIs True Virtue Possible before Regeneration?\n\n\nIn the discussions which are to follow, it will be found that almost every\npoint debated involves, as a foundation question, \u201cwhat _is_ true virtue?\u201d\nAnd the grand question at issue between the system of common sense and the\nteachings of all theologians who uphold the Augustine theory, is this: _is\ntrue virtue possible to an unregenerate mind_? Theology says no, common\nsense says yes. Theology teaches that previous to regeneration every\nvoluntary act of every human mind is \u201csin, and only sin.\u201d Common sense\nmaintains, on the contrary, that every voluntary act which is in agreement\nwith the best good of all concerned, when the _intention_ is to act right,\nis virtuous without any regard to the question of the regeneration of the\nmind. In other words, theology teaches that true virtue is the right\nvoluntary action of a mind after its \u201cnature\u201d is changed by God, and\ncommon sense teaches that true virtue is the right voluntary action of any\nmind without any change in its nature.\n\nThe discussion of this point involves the further consideration of certain\nmental experiences which will shed some light on the subject. It will be\nfound that in case of all persons who are said to \u201cact on principle,\u201d or\nto be \u201cconscientious persons,\u201d that, in the greater portion of their\nvoluntary acts, they have no _conscious_ immediate reference to the rules\nof rectitude. There seems to be an unconscious general purpose to act\nright on all occasions, which becomes obvious only when a case occurs\ninvolving a seeming violation of the rules of rectitude. At such times the\nmind becomes conscious of its ruling purpose. But the greater portion of\nall the daily acts of life have been decided upon as in agreement with the\nall\u2010controlling general purpose, and a man chooses to do many things in\nwhich he has no _conscious_ reference to rule. And still such acts have,\nin past time, been subjects of reflection in reference to the question of\nright and wrong, and have been decided to be right, and it is in\nconsequence of this decision that the mind no longer considers these\nquestions with a conscious reference to rule.\n\nThe distinction between what is denominated \u201ca man of principle\u201d and an\n\u201cunprincipled man,\u201d is simply this, that the former is one who has formed\nhabits of self\u2010regulation by the rules of rectitude, and the latter has\nnot.\n\nThis mental analysis is important in reference to deciding the character\nof _a virtuous action_.\n\nA virtuous act, as defined above, is one in which the thing chosen is\nright and the motive is right. But it is not indispensable that the person\nwho performs the act should be immediately _conscious_ of a reference to\nrule in each right specific volition. It is sufficient that the mind be\nunder the control of a _ruling purpose_ of rectitude, so that all the\nsubordinate minor purposes are in fact regulated, though unconsciously, by\nthis purpose.\n\nIt is at this point that the class of theologians who make regeneration to\ninclude a voluntary act on the part of man, are in antagonism with the\nexperience and common sense of mankind. Such maintain that every act of\nevery human being is \u201csin, and only sin,\u201d until a ruling purpose is formed\nto obey God as the chief end, and one also which is actually _more_\nefficient and stronger in controlling the ordinary acts of life than the\npurpose to gratify self. Previous to the existence of this general\npurpose, they maintain that every act of self\u2010denial or self\u2010sacrifice for\nthe good of others is \u201csin, and only sin.\u201d According to their theory,\nchoosing that which is right because it is right, is not a virtuous act\nuntil a ruling purpose of universal obedience to God is formed.\n\nThat is to say, it is the _ruling purpose_, or _the want_ of a ruling\npurpose to obey God in all things, which decides the character of every\nspecific act of choice. Thus if a child is trained to be honest, truthful,\nand self\u2010denying, and succeeds very often in conforming to such\ninstructions, there is no true virtue in any such acts until a _ruling\npurpose_ of obedience to God is generated, which is habitually _more_\ncontrolling than the impulses of self\u2010indulgence. This is the point where\n_the people_ and _theologians_ are at issue.\n\nThe people insist that every act is virtuous when the thing chosen is\nright and the intention is right, even before the mind of a child has\nattained a ruling purpose of universal obedience. Theologians say no; such\nacts are \u201csin, and only sin,\u201d in the sight of God.(8)\n\nIt will be shown hereafter that the theory of theology on this subject is\nnot carried out consistently in practice, but that in the early training\nof little children theologians contradict their own theory and adopt that\nof the people.\n\n\n\n\nPerfectness in Construction and Perfectness in Action and Character.\n\n\nIn a previous chapter we have seen [p. 103] that our idea of _perfectness_\nin moral character and action always has reference to _power_. In a system\nwhere evil is actually existing, we regard a contrivance or an action as\nperfect when there is no power in God or man to make it better, even when\nevil is involved. A being is perfect in character and in action when his\npurpose is to do the best possible for all concerned, and when this\npurpose is carried out to the full extent of his power.\n\nWe have shown in the preceding chapter that the mind of man is perfect in\n_nature_ or _construction_ as being better fitted to its place in the best\npossible system of mind than it would be by any change possible either to\nGod or man.\n\nThe preceding pages of this chapter enable us to point out what is the\n_perfect moral character_ of minds which are perfect in construction. It\nconsists in _a ruling purpose to discover and to obey all the laws of the\nCreator, which is carried out to the full extent of power in the one who\nthus purposes_.\n\nIt has been shown that the Creator himself is limited by the eternal\nnature of things to a system which, though the best possible, makes him,\nin one sense, the author of some evil, both natural and moral. He is the\nauthor only as the Creator of all things, and thus the author of all the\nconsequent results of creation, even of those that are morally evil. In\nthis sense alone is he the author of either natural or moral evil.\n\nThe infinite and eternal mind of God is limited, not by want of wisdom and\nknowledge, but by the eternal nature of things of which his own existence\nand natural attributes are a part. But finite minds are limited by a want\nof knowledge and wisdom which can be the result only of _experience and\ntraining_. For the want of this knowledge and training every finite mind,\nso far as we can discover by reason and experience, must inevitably\nviolate the laws of God. And yet any mind may be perfect in moral\ncharacter and action in exactly the same sense as God is perfect, (_i.e._)\nit may form and carry out a purpose to conform to the laws of the existing\nsystem of things _to the full extent of its knowledge and power_. When\nthis purpose is formed and carried out to the full measure of ability, the\nfinite creature becomes \u201cperfect, even as our Father which is in heaven is\nperfect.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCommon Sense Theory of the Origin of Evil.\n\n\nWhat then is the cause or origin of evil as taught by reason and\nexperience?\n\n_It is the eternal nature of things existing independently of the will of\nthe Creator or of any other being._\n\nWhat is the cause of the existence of this created system? It is the will\nof the Creator.\n\nWhat is the cause or reason why God willed that this system should be as\nit is, with all the evil that exists? It is because it is the best system\npossible in the nature of things.\n\nWhat is the cause or reason that any given event, however evil, is not\nprevented by God? It is because any change that would prevent it, would\nalter the best possible system, and thus make more evil than the one thus\nprevented.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII. LAWS AND PENALTIES\u2014SIN AND HOLINESS.\n\n\nThe _laws of God_, in regard to voluntary action, are those _invariable_\narrangements in mind and matter by which happiness or pain are connected\nwith certain feelings and actions.\n\nThus it is an _invariable_ arrangement that pain shall be connected with\ntouching fire, and pleasure with seeing the light. So in regard to the\nintellect; pleasure is _invariably_ connected with the exercise of wit and\nhumor, and disgust with folly and fatuity. So the moral sense is\n_invariably_ pleased with truth, justice, and integrity, and pained by the\nopposite.\n\nWhenever, therefore, we discover what _invariably_ affords pleasure or\npain, we discover one of the laws of God.\n\nTo discover these laws, and to believe in them, is as indispensable to the\nright action of mind as light is indispensable to perfect eyes in order to\nsee.\n\nThe first lesson of every new\u2010born spirit is to discover the laws that\nrelate to its own enjoyment. Whenever a child chooses any thing which\nsecures enjoyment without harm to itself or to others, it is acting as its\nCreator designed, and this action is therefore right. And whenever it\nchooses what will cause needless pain to itself or to others, it acts\nwrong. Most of the choices of a little child are of what is right as\ngiving enjoyment without harm.\n\nThe grand law of God, as learned by experience, is that every mind must\n_sacrifice_ the lesser for the greater good in gratifying its own desires.\nWhen the interests of others are not concerned, the child must always\nchoose not what it desires the most, but what is best for itself. It is\nthe first labor of the educator to make a child understand and obey this\nfirst part of the law of sacrifice.\n\nBut where the feelings and interests of others are involved, the law of\nGod is, that the lesser good of the individual shall always be sacrificed\nto the greater good of the many. Each mind of the great commonwealth is to\nact, not to make self\u2010gratification the first thing, but to make the\ngreatest possible happiness with the least possible evil for the whole\ncommonwealth the predominant purpose. And such is the system of the\nCreator that whatever is for the best good of the whole is for the best\ngood of each individual.\n\nThus it appears that _obedience to the laws of God_, _physical_,\n_intellectual_, _social_, _and moral_, is to be chosen as the ruling\npurpose of each mind. And this is _the mode_ by which all rational beings\nare to promote the end or design for which all things are made, (_i.e._,)\nhappiness\u2010making on the greatest possible scale for the great\ncommonwealth.\n\nNOW it is very certain that no human mind is able, by its own solitary\ninvestigations, to discover all the physical, intellectual, social, and\nmoral laws of God.\n\nMany of these laws we can learn by experience, but for the greater portion\nwe are dependent on the instruction of others. Therefore _truth_ on the\npart of educators, and _faith_ on the part of the learners are as\nindispensable to the right action of mind as is light to the right action\nof the eye in seeing. Not a \u201cdead,\u201d merely intellectual belief, but a\n\u201csaving faith\u201d that controls the feelings and conduct.\n\nWe now are enabled to define the kind of _inability_ as to obeying the\nlaws of God, which inevitably attends every mind that commences its\nexistence in this world. As yet there have never been perfectly _true_\neducators of young minds, while perfect _faith_, that is to say, \u201csaving\nfaith,\u201d in the teachings that are true is as much wanting. The young child\ncan not be made to understand, and therefore can not believe, or have\nfaith in many of the laws of God and the penalties connected with them.\nThis no one will deny.\n\n\n\n\nSeveral Classes of Moral Actions.\n\n\nThere are several classes of moral actions. The first class includes those\nwhich _in all cases_ destroy the best good of man. Of these are wanton\ncruelty to helpless creatures, and ingratitude in returning needless evil\nfor good. In regard to such the mind, by its very constitutional impulses,\nrevolts from them and feels them to be wrong without any process of\nreasoning. So also all those actions that in all cases cause enjoyment\nwithout evil, are instinctively felt to be right without any reflection.\n\nBut there are many actions that are entirely dependent on circumstances\nfor their moral character. Thus to punish a little child in one case would\nbe cruel and wrong, in another it might be benevolent and right. To take a\nwoman, when not married to another, for a wife is right, but wrong if she\nis married. And so with thousands of other actions.\n\nAgain, some actions that do no harm to any individual at a given time, are\nwrong because they would be destructive to general happiness, if generally\nallowed; or, in other words, they are wrong in _tendency_. Thus, in a\ngiven case, a lie might do a great deal of good and no immediate harm. And\nyet it would be wrong, because leaving it to every man\u2019s discretion when\nit was _best_ to lie would in the end destroy all confidence in human\ntestimony.\n\nAgain, many of the laws of God can be discovered only by long experience\nof many communities. As soon as experience has shown that any practice\nwill do more harm than good, then the law of God is discovered and it\nbecomes obligatory. Thus the question of polygamy has been settled. Thus,\ntoo, the vending of alcoholic drinks has been decided to be wrong as a\ngeneral practice.\n\nHere comes up the distinction between wrong choices that deserve blame and\npunishment, and those that do not. In the natural system of the Creator\nall violations of law are followed by the natural penalties without any\nreference to the motives, knowledge, or ability of the agent. All\nquestions among men, as to blame and retribution, have reference to the\n_adding_ of other penalties and rewards in the present or future state. It\nis only in regard to such that the questions of blame, of justice, and of\nmercy are to be debated. Without revelation we have no evidence that the\nnatural penalties of law are ever suspended, either as a matter of justice\nor mercy. In the case of great crimes and wrongs, that _additional_\npenalties are to follow in a future state is what all men fear, and this\nit is which induces self\u2010inflictions to secure pardon for sin.\n\nNow these are distinctions existing in all rational minds, and are\ncontinually referred to in every\u2010day life. But it is impossible for any\nbut an omniscient being to decide on all the motives that regulate the\nactions of others, while even our own motives are often so hidden and\ncomplex that we are blinded as to their true character.\n\nThe language of common life does not always recognize these distinctions.\nWhen a wrong action is done the actor is called a wrong\u2010doer, and is\nblamed for the deed. And the fact that he believed that he was acting\nright, and even that he practices self\u2010denial in performing what is\nimagined to be a duty, though it palliates, does not ordinarily end all\ndispleasure. For in multitudes of cases the ignorance of duty results from\npride or selfish neglect of inquiry. And few are competent to decide how\nfar the ignorance is a misfortune and not a fault.\n\nIt is owing to this fact that most of the language of life assumes that\nall violations of law are blamably wrong, and are to be punished here or\nhereafter. In the most common use of the term, \u201csin is the transgression\nof law.\u201d At the same time men recognize the distinction between sins of\nignorance and willful sin.\n\n\n\n\nSin and Holiness.\n\n\nThe preceding, then, warrants the definition of _sin_ as \u201c_the\ntransgression of law_,\u201d whether known or unknown. The question of the\nrectitude of penalties _added_ to the natural consequences of violated\nlaws, is confined to those sins which are attended by a knowledge of law\nand ability to understand and obey.\n\nThese distinctions and definitions are important because a large class of\ntheologians maintain that sin is the voluntary transgression of _known_\nlaw, and make this definition the foundation of their assertion that all\nmen have power to be perfect in conformity to all law, meaning by this all\nthe laws of God that they _know_ and _believe_. On this theory _sin_ is\nthe transgression of _known_ law, and not of that which is unknown. And on\nthis theory one way to keep children from sin would be to keep them in\nignorance of God\u2019s laws.\n\nThe writer maintains that this limited use is not the common meaning.\nMankind do not stop to settle the question whether men were ignorant of\nwhat was right, before they decide that they sin. Often such ignorance\nresults from an unwillingness or indolence that prevents attention, and\nfew can decide how far our ignorance of law results from guilty neglect.\nIt is true that when a perfect and innocent inability to know law is\nproved, the _added_ penalties of statute law are remitted. But still the\n_natural_ penalties are unremitted.\n\nThe word _holy_ in its original use signifies _set apart_ or _consecrate\nto the special service_ of some deity. Thus the vessels of a temple, the\npriests and the building are called holy in this sense. In reference to\nmoral acts or choices, this term is used as recognizing the fact that a\nmind may be voluntarily consecrated or devoted to the service of God by\nright action, or obedience to his laws. God himself is called holy on the\nsupposition that there are rules of right and wrong in the nature of\nthings, independent of his will, and that his will is conformed to these\nrules, while men are called holy in reference chiefly to the will or\nservice of their Creator.\n\nIn the Creator holiness signifies perfect voluntary conformity to that\nwhich is _for the best_ according to the eternal nature of things. In men\nperfect holiness is perfect conformity of will to the laws or _will_ of\nGod, both absolutely and in motive or intention. A mind is consecrated to\nGod when its _ruling purpose_ is to obey him in all things. In this use of\nthe term holiness in man, is what can not be _created_, as it is a\nvoluntary act of his own mind.\n\nThe question whether Adam was created with \u201ca _holy_ nature,\u201d while his\nposterity begin existence here with an \u201cunholy nature,\u201d must be settled by\na clear definition of the words employed.\n\nIf the term \u201cnature\u201d refers to the construction of the mind itself as made\nby God, a holy nature must signify that organization and combination of\nthe natural powers of mind, which is the best possible for a mind in its\nappointed place in the best possible system.\n\nIf, on the contrary, the term \u201cnature\u201d refers to that character of mind\nconsequent on its own volitions, then a holy nature can be caused or\ncreated only by man himself as the sole _producing cause_ of his own\nvolitions, God being the author or cause of this nature only in the sense\nin which men are causes of voluntary action in other minds, viz.,\n_occasional causes_ by the use of _motives_ or objects that excite\ndesires.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV. LOVE TO GOD AND LOVE TO MAN.\n\n\nIn a former chapter we have noticed the analysis of the principle of\n_love_. It is needful to refer to this again, as intimately connected with\nthe question of the right moral action of finite minds.\n\nWe have seen that love is a complex exercise, its first element being\nagreeable emotions in view of certain qualities and actions. Combined with\nthese emotions co\u2010exists a desire of reciprocated regard, that is to say,\na desire to be the cause of similar agreeable emotions to the one loved.\nThese are constitutional impulses not at all consequent on any volition or\nchoice, and as the involuntary element of love, are properly called\n_involuntary love_. Such love can not be justly demanded except where\nthose qualities are, or can be, perceived which naturally awaken agreeable\nemotions. In cases where the qualities exist that would naturally awaken\naffection if noticed, and the want of it is owing to inattention, a proper\nregard to such qualities can be justly demanded. But this is the only\nparticular in which involuntary love can be made the subject of law and\npenalties.\n\nBut the main element of love, as practically estimated among men, is such\na desire of good to the one loved as involves the _good willing_ or\nvoluntary effort to please and gratify. If a friend simply is pleased with\nour good qualities, and wishes to please us with his naturally agreeable\ntraits in return, it is of little value in comparison with the truer love\nwhich is shown in _voluntary_ efforts to please and make happy. This last\nis the main element of true affection, and properly is called _voluntary\nlove_ or _good willing_. Theologians express this distinction by the terms\nthe _love of complacency_ and the _love of benevolence_.\n\nThus we have gained these definitions:\n\n_Involuntary love_ toward God and toward men consists in agreeable\nemotions in view of admirable qualities.\n\n_Voluntary love_ toward God and toward men consists in _good willing_, or\nthe voluntary effort to please and make happy.\n\nTo \u201clove our neighbor _as ourselves_\u201d must refer solely to voluntary love,\nfor we have no regard to our own agreeable qualities in the love of self.\nSelf\u2010love is simply the desire and will to please and gratify self. This\nthen is _the kind_ of love that can properly be demanded of all. Each one\ncan justly be required to will or choose to please and gratify others the\nsame as we do ourselves. Each can be required to estimate the happiness of\nevery other mind as of the same value as his own, and to exercise _good\nwilling_ for others as we do for our own enjoyment. From this primary\nprinciple necessarily results the law demanding that the good of the\ncommonwealth shall always take precedence of any individual concern. If we\nare bound to value the happiness of each mind as _equal_ in value to our\nown, the inevitable result is that we are to estimate the happiness of\n_many_ minds as of _more_ value than our own, so as always to make our own\nenjoyment and wishes subordinate and secondary to the general good.\n\nStill more are we to regard the feelings and wishes of our Creator and\nSupreme Lord. He has infinite susceptibilities of enjoyment and suffering,\nand thus whatever retards or promotes his wishes and plans must be of as\nmuch more value as his powers of enjoyment and suffering are greater than\nours. The _love of good willing_ then should have first reference to God\nas the one whose will and wishes are of more value than any other being in\nthis relation alone. Still more are we bound to regard his will and wishes\nas first in value, because his chief end and aim is the most possible\nhappiness to all the creatures he has made. To will to please God as the\nchief end of our existence is the same as to choose to make the most\npossible happiness, not only to him, but to all his creatures.\n\nInvoluntary love is valuable as rendering it easier and more agreeable to\nlabor for the welfare of others. Those whose interesting traits please us;\nthose who, as children or friends, contribute to our enjoyment, and those\nwho in any way give us pleasure, it is far easier to will for their\nenjoyment than it is to do so for those who do nothing to please us, and\nperhaps only give us discomfort, anxiety or disgust.\n\nThis exhibits an indirect way of securing the love of good will toward\nthose who neither please us by their agreeable qualities, nor are causes\nof enjoyment to us in any way. Involuntary affection may be so strongly\nexcited toward one whose qualities or conduct cause delight to self, that\nthe desire to please that friend may become more animating than the desire\nfor any personal gratification. Should such a friend be deeply interested\nin the happiness of his children, or of any other persons, whose character\nand conduct may in no way please us, still the desire to gratify such a\nfriend may lead to good willing to those whom he loves, for his sake, in\norder to please and gratify him.\n\nThus it is that love to parents tends to produce \u201cpeace and good will\u201d\namong children, who, in their little broils, are restrained by the desire\nto please their parents, when love to each other fails.\n\nHere we have a view of the importance of _right conceptions_ of God\u2019s\ncharacter, in order to secure the perfect action of finite minds,\nespecially in the first stage of existence.\n\nIt has been shown that the rules of right action are to be gained, in many\ncases, only by long experience and by a course of reasoning. Often, too,\ngeneral rules (such, for example, as that we are _never to lie_, even to\nsave life, or for _any_ reason,) must be obeyed when a person can see\nimmediate evil, and no good to self or to any one by obedience. Now it is\nimpossible for a rational mind to choose _pure evil_. There must be _some\ngood_ in an object to excite desire, or it is impossible to choose it. But\npleasurable emotions toward an all\u2010wise Creator, whose benevolence and\nwisdom excite love, delight, and confidence, may be such that _to please\nhim_ gives abundant motive to obey the rules of right he enjoins when no\nother good can be perceived except that obedience will please him. And the\nmore we perceive in him that excites admiration, love, and gratitude, the\nmore strength of motive is gained.\n\nIt has been shown that a choice or act is _virtuous_ in all relations,\nwhen it absolutely is best for all, and when it is done in reference to a\nrule of rectitude, or _because_ it is right. The motive or reason of a\nchoice decides whether or not it is virtuous.\n\nNow as the Creator\u2019s will and the rules of rectitude are the same, when we\nsay that any act, in order to be virtuous, must have reference to God\u2019s\nwill, the question comes up, is an act virtuous _because it pleases God_,\nor does it please God _because it is virtuous_? _i.e._, because it\nconforms to those rules by which his chief end in creation is secured, and\nwhich rest on the eternal nature of things.\n\nThe last is the principle here assumed. God\u2019s great end is the highest\nhappiness of his creatures. Obedience to his laws is the mode for securing\nthis end; his own actions are right as they conform to this end; and the\nactions of all his creatures are right only in the same relation.\n\nSo God\u2019s \u201cglory\u201d consists in the highest happiness of his creatures, which\ncan only be secured by their obedience to his laws.\n\nThis makes it clear that choosing as our chief end to obey all the\nphysical, social, and moral laws of God, as learned by experience, is the\nsame as loving God with all the heart, and our neighbors as ourselves. It\nis also living for God\u2019s glory as the chief end; and it is being a truly\nrighteous, virtuous, and pious man.\n\nThis distinction between voluntary and involuntary love enables us to\ndiscover certain dangers that result for want of such discrimination. Men\nmay conceive of the Creator as desiring to be loved, admired, and\nglorified, just as selfish conquerors, like Alexander and Napoleon have\ndone. In this view all their aims would be to excite agreeable emotions\ntoward God by the contemplation of his various attributes. And thus they\nmight be so absorbed in the indulgence of such delightful emotions as to\nbecome entirely heedless of the wants and the wishes of those around them.\nThis kind of experience would cultivate selfishness instead of\nbenevolence.\n\nOn the contrary, choosing to obey all God\u2019s laws for happiness\u2010making on\nthe largest scale, and viewing the lovely and glorious attributes of the\nCreator as _means_ to this end, would induce the only true virtue, while\nit is the true mode of pleasing our Maker and increasing his enjoyment.\n\nThe preceding furnishes the mode of harmonizing a great variety of\nexpressions that may properly be given in answer to the great question,\n\u201cwhat must we do to be saved?\u201d as we gain this answer independently of\nrevelation.\n\nThe first answer is, \u201cbelieve in God\u2019s teachings\u2014or have faith in God.\u201d\nThis means, take the laws of God as revealed by reason and experience, and\n_obey_ them, and you shall be saved. It is a _practical_ and not a mere\nintellectual belief that constitutes this \u201csaving faith.\u201d\n\nThe next answer is, \u201crepent,\u201d or \u201crepentance toward God.\u201d\n\nThe word repent is used to signify, sometimes, simply remorse or pain for\nwrong\u2010doing. In another sense it signifies that sorrow for wrong\u2010doing\nwhich includes reformation. It is ceasing to disobey law and commencing a\nlife of obedience. It is in this sense that men are saved by repentance.\n\nAnother answer is, \u201cthou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,\nand thy neighbor as thyself.\u201d This has been shown to signify, thou shalt\nchoose as the chief end of life to make happiness the right way, that is,\nby obeying all the physical, social, and moral laws of God. \u201cThis is the\nlove of God, that we keep his commandments.\u201d\n\nAnother answer is, \u201cmake it thy chief end to glorify God.\u201d Inasmuch as\nGod\u2019s glory consists in the exhibition of his character as a benevolent\nbeing, all who promote his chief aim by making happiness according to his\nwill, are living to glorify God.\n\nAnother answer is, \u201clive a truly virtuous life.\u201d It has been shown that\ntrue virtue consists in _obedience to the great law of sacrifice_ by which\nthe lesser personal good is sacrificed to the greater good of all\nconcerned.\n\nThus faith, repentance, love to God and man, making it our chief end to\nglorify God, living a virtuous life, all signify one and the same thing,\n(_i.e._,) choosing to find out and to obey all the physical, social, and\nmoral laws of God as our chief end or ruling purpose.\n\nThe _righteous_ are those who have formed such a purpose, and who exhibit\nits results in their daily life.\n\nThe _wicked_ are those who have not formed such a purpose, and do not\nexhibit it in their daily life.\n\nIn the common language of every\u2010day life, when a person is intensely\ninterested in any pursuit, it is said to be \u201chis life.\u201d And when a man\nchanges from a vicious to a virtuous course he is said to \u201cbegin a new\nlife.\u201d\n\nThus it would be in agreement with the ordinary use of language to call a\nnew\u2010formed purpose to obey all the laws of God the commencement of a new\nlife. And as the beginning of natural life is the commencement of a life\nof _impulsive choices unregulated by law_, the commencement of a life of\n_obedience to law_ would, by a figure of speech, very naturally be called\n\u201ca new birth.\u201d\n\nWe have seen, in previous pages, that the formation of a ruling principle\nor governing purpose is sometimes the result of a slow process of\neducational influences, and sometimes it is a marked and sudden change. In\nthe history of mind we find, as a general rule, that it is the slow\nprocess of educational training that secures a virtuous character in\nchildhood, while the more sudden and marked changes are incident chiefly\nto more advanced life.\n\nThe term \u201c_regeneration_\u201d is used by theologians as meaning the formation\nof a ruling purpose to love and obey God, by man himself. By some, this\nchange of mind is regarded as in all cases instantaneous, by others as\nsometimes a gradual and sometimes an instantaneous change.\n\nThe preceding still farther exhibits the fact that the whole foundation of\nreligion and of morals rests on the answer to the question, what is _true\nvirtue_ or _right voluntary_ action?\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV. INCREASED CIVILIZATION INCREASES MORAL DIFFICULTIES.\n\n\nFrom the preceding it appears that the more our race advances in\ncivilization, the more numerous and complicated are the laws of God which\nmust first be discovered and then obeyed.\n\nBy advance in civilization is signified increase in the capacities of the\nhuman mind for varied enjoyments, and increase in the appropriate supply\nof these capacities. The early history of the race resembles the early\nperiod of individual life, when the chief enjoyments are those of the\nsenses. The refined and varied pleasures of taste are but little attained\nexcept by cultivation. So also the higher pleasures of the intellect and\nof the moral nature are dependent on culture.\n\nAs every new avenue to enjoyment is opened, and every new capacity\ndeveloped, there are inevitably resulting difficulties and temptations\nwhich, experience soon shows, must be regulated by laws and penalties.\nFrom this results the endless multitude of civil and statute laws, in\naddition to the various domestic and social rules enforced in the family,\nthe school and the neighborhood.\n\nAll these laws and rules will be found to be only specific applications of\nthe great law of sacrifice which demands that, in all cases, every mind\nshall choose what is best for self and best for the whole. The great\ndemocratic principle that the majority shall rule is but one mode of\napplying this general law of sacrifice.\n\nIn this aspect we can perceive how it is, that every attempt to develop\nany faculty of enjoyment in any created mind, and every effort to provide\naliment for such developed capacities is right, as in agreement with the\ngrand end designed by the Creator; provided it is done according to the\ngreat law of sacrifice disclosed by reason, viz., that individual\nenjoyment be made subordinate to the general good, and that no greater\ngood be sacrificed for a less, either for self or for the commonwealth.\n\nIn this light, music, drawing, painting, sculpture, architecture, the\ndrama, poetry, laughter, all things that impart enjoyment to any mind are\n_right_, provided no higher good is sacrificed in enjoying them. Nay,\nmore; all these modes of imparting enjoyment may become positive duties,\nin cases where they do not interfere with some higher good.\n\nThis view of the subject still further illustrates the nature of that\ninability which exists in _all_ finite minds in discovering and obeying\nthe laws of God.\n\nThere are only two conceivable modes by which we can learn these laws; one\nis by the _experience_ of finite beings; the other is by _revelation_ from\nthe Creator. To learn what is right and wrong by experience involves not\nonly the certainty, but the necessity, as it respects the absolute right,\nof wrong\u2010doing; for no one, however right the motive or intention may be,\ncan discover what will cause more or less good or evil but by experiments\nin which the evil as well as the good is detected by experience.\n\nTo learn what is right and wrong in all the thousand and million\ncomplications of life by revelation, would involve the necessity of a\ndirect revelation every hour of every day, to every individual of the\nrace. But the only conceivable mode by which revelations from God are\npossible, is by miracles and prophecy, which are interruptions of the\nordinary uniformity of nature. It is the fact that the laws of nature are\nuniform that alone makes miracles possible, so that incessant revelations\nby miracles would destroy such uniformity, and thus destroy the only\nconceivable mode of communication from the Creator.\n\nThis being so, the only possible method by which mankind can discover what\nis right and wrong in the greater portion of their actions is by an\nexperience involving, more or less, wrong\u2010doing as a part.\n\nThere are _general rules_ of right and wrong which can be communicated\nboth by God and man, but these rules are to be _applied_ by men to the\nnumberless and ever\u2010varying circumstances of life, involving still the\nsame necessity of _experience of evil_ in order to detect the _relative_\namount of good to be gained in the varied courses offered for pursuit to\nwhich these rules are to be applied.\n\nNow the grand difficulty, as it respects both God and man, as before\nshown, is the positive inability of undeveloped mind to understand much of\nwhat is right and wrong. This difficulty meets the mature mind as really\nas it does the infant\u2019s; for while many of the general rules evolved by\nreason and experience are clear, and easily perceived, there are endless\nvarieties of cases in which the _application_ of these rules is a matter\nof uncertainty. For example, that men are to be honest and speak the\ntruth, are rules universally appreciated. But then come the questions\nwhether this and that thing _is_ honest, or whether in this or that\nemergency it may not be right to say what is false. The higher men advance\nin civilization, and the more means and modes of enjoyment are discovered,\nthe more complicated become the questions of right, and the more frequent\nthe temptations to wrong.\n\nAll that can be done is to cultivate the conscience and train the\nreasoning powers of mankind, so that by means of the experience of life,\nas developed by individuals and communities, regard to the rules of right\nand wrong shall keep pace with the increasing civilization.\n\nWith these distinctions in the mind, we can perceive that _sin_, in its\nwidest sense, including transgression of _unknown_ law, is inevitable in a\nperfect system of finite minds, while in the limited sense, as\ntransgression of _known_ law, it is not so.\n\nSo also we can see, that without the intervention of the Creator to teach\nus, it is an impossibility for any human being to live without sin; so\nthat this intervention is impossible except to a limited extent, without\nan entire change in the eternal nature of things to which God\u2019s own will\nis conformed.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVI. HUMILITY AND MEEKNESS.\n\n\nWe have seen that we can learn what is right and wrong only by aid\nreceived from the experience of our fellow\u2010beings around us.\n\nBut in order to this, there are certain virtues which are both difficult\nand indispensable. In studying the history of mind, it will be seen that\nthe higher the grade of intellect and the greater its culture, the\nstronger is the love of intellectual supremacy and the more energetic the\npride of opinion. It is a fact which none will dispute, that, as the\ngeneral rule, having some exceptions, the class of minds most highly\nendowed by native talent and acquired culture, are most unwilling to take\nthe attitude of _learners_ toward their associates, and still more toward\ntheir inferiors in these endowments. When this pride of intellect and of\nopinion is combined with benevolence of disposition and with sensitiveness\nof conscience, there is nothing more difficult than to \u201cbecome as a little\nchild\u201d in learning truth and duty. For the more benevolence and\nconscientiousness, the greater the unwillingness to be put in the wrong.\n\nAnd yet, in the smallest sphere of life, between every individual and his\nneighbors, thousands of questions of right and wrong turn on how our words\nand actions will affect the happiness of those around; and there is no\npossibility of settling such questions but by leaving every person at\nliberty to communicate freely what does, or does not, give them pain or\npleasure, and thus teach others how to make happiness and save from pain.\nIn order to this, it is indispensable that every one be made to understand\nthat our chief aim is to make happiness the best and right way, and that\nfor this end we wish to have a perfectly free expression of wishes and\nopinions. For if it is perceived that irritability and alienation result\nfrom such a course, all those around us will conceal their feelings and\nopinions, and thus, for want of a true knowledge of circumstances, we\nshall \u201cwalk in darkness,\u201d because we are not willing to be told the truths\nthat put us in the wrong or expose our mistakes.\n\nThe same free expression of opinion and protest against all wrong, are as\nindispensable to the discovery of those rules of right and wrong, that are\nto be evolved from the general experience. Every man, woman and child in\nthe commonwealth, should be perfectly free to set forth their opinions,\nexperience, and reasoning, for the purpose of finding out what is best for\nthe whole. Nor should they be withheld by the fear that such a course\nwould place a parent, a brother, a friend, or a party in the wrong, and\nexpose those dearest to us to blame. For the true happiness of each and\nall is to be secured by a knowledge of the truth, and often such knowledge\ncan be gained only by exposing the evil results of courses that are\npursued by the best and most conscientious persons.\n\nIn carrying out this principle, there must be discretion exercised as to\n_time_ and _manner_ of performing the duty; and there are some\n_limitations_ to be recognized, which are matters of _expediency_. For\nexample, a man must seek the best time to expose what is wrong, and he\nmust seek to do it in a manner that will secure the good aimed at with the\nleast possible evil. And if it can be done better by the agency of\nanother, the aid of that other should be invoked.\n\nSo in regard to limitations, what is strictly personal should be confined\nto the party who alone is concerned. What relates solely to the family\nconcerns should be confined to the family. Nor should any wrongs or\ndissensions be brought before the public except those in which the public\nwelfare is involved.\n\nBut with these limitations it is the demand of reason and common sense,\nthat every man, woman and child freely protest against all that they\nbelieve to be wrong in opinion or conduct.\n\nIn taking such a course, every man\u2019s success in discovering and\npropagating the truth will depend very much on the spirit with which it is\nattempted. If it is done in a self\u2010sufficient, dictatorial, and\ndenunciatory mode, the inevitable result will be to arouse those passions\nand prejudices which are most effectual in blinding the mind in\ndiscovering truth.\n\nIf, on the contrary, it is attempted with the humility, meekness and\nbenevolence which are befitting ignorant, fallible and short\u2010sighted\nbeings, encompassed with such appalling difficulties and dangers, the most\nfavorable of all influences will be exerted to secure a patient and candid\nattention.\n\nStill, so sensitive are men to all implications of their motives or\nconduct, so unwilling are they to acknowledge themselves mistaken, that\nthe faithful discharge of the duty of protesting against wrong, will\nalways be attended with more or less of ill\u2010will and bad passions.\n\nIn view of the above, if we were to predict what would be the _first_\npreliminary teaching of a messenger from the Creator imparting to us the\ntrue way of happiness\u2010making, we should say, reasoning from the experience\nof life, it would read thus:\n\n\u201cBlessed are the _poor in spirit_;\u201d that is, those who feel their poverty\nof mind as to the knowledge required for right action.\n\n\u201cBlessed are they that _mourn_;\u201d that is, those who are troubled by this\nwant.\n\n\u201cBlessed are the _meek_;\u201d that is, those that can quietly and patiently\nbear reproof and fault\u2010finding.\n\n\u201cBlessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness;\u201d that\nis, those who are as earnest to find the right way of happiness\u2010making as\nthe hungry and thirsty are for food and drink.\n\n\u201cBlessed are the _happiness\u2010makers_.\u201d(9)\n\n\u201cBlessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness\u2019 sake;\u201d that is,\nthose who are willing to _suffer_ for the right.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVII. THE STANDARD OF RIGHT AND WRONG DECIDED BY THE RISKS OF\nETERNITY.\n\n\nIt has been shown, that the more the capacities of men are cultivated, and\nthe sources of enjoyment multiplied, the more complicated become the\nvarying questions as to right and wrong moral action, and the more our\nreasoning powers and our conscience need to be cultivated in order to\ndecide correctly.\n\nJust as fast as men increase in the number and extent of the capacities\nand resources of enjoyment, will questions of right and wrong multiply,\nand rules be evolved, every one of which will rest on the grand law of\n_sacrifice_, which demands of every individual that he shall give up\nprivate feelings and choose what is _best for all concerned_.\n\nThese difficulties and complications are still more increased, if we are\nto take into account an immortal existence, and the influence which\nconduct and character in this life may have on a future eternity. What is\nbest for each individual, and what is best for the commonwealth in such\nvast relations, involve questions far beyond the reach of human\ncapacities, which only infinite wisdom can answer.\n\nIn all questions of right and wrong, for individual and for public\ninterests, the degree of danger and risk involved, always is the ruling\nconsideration. The greater the danger of the commonwealth, or of the\nindividual, the greater are the demands for sacrifices on the part of all\nconcerned. What would be right in circumstances of ease and safety,\nbecomes the height of selfishness and crime in hours of peril and\nsuffering.\n\nTo illustrate this point on a humble scale, let it be supposed that a vast\nand dangerous morass is filled with a multitude of travelers, of all ages\nand all degrees of intelligence, who can press through it to their homes\nonly by difficult, dark, and circuitous paths. In addition to its\nmorasses, pit\u2010falls, swamps and fens, each path is beset with venomous\nreptiles, and its woods with ferocious beasts, while it is the young and\ntender who are the special objects of pursuit to these terrific foes. In\nsuch a community, and amid such dangers, all decisions of right and wrong,\nas to what was owed to others or to one\u2019s self, would be entirely diverse\nfrom what would be demanded were all in their safe homes. Sleepless\nnights, constant watching, painful toils, incessant vigilance, would be\nthe imperious duty of every one, who could render any service. Amusements\nand sports, that in other circumstances would be wise and right, would be\nallowed only just so far as they tended to give relaxation or repose of\nmind and body to those who needed them, and only for the great end of\nsecuring a safe and speedy escape to all.\n\nNow suppose that, in these circumstances, some of the wanderers are taught\nthat there were no such dangers, that the paths were all safe and certain,\nand that every one of them would sooner or later arrive safely at home.\n\nOthers are taught that there probably is some danger and some doubt as to\nthe amount of risks, yet as no one knows much about the matter, on any\nalternative, it is very wise to be careful and prudent.\n\nAnother class are taught that all these terrific dangers do exist; nay\nmore, that it is certain that some are to be lost in pit\u2010falls, some torn\nwith wild beasts, some poisoned to death with venomous reptiles, and some\nfor ever lost in bleak and cold morasses.\n\nMeantime, who should be the lost and who the saved, and the _number_ of\nthe lost, would be entirely dependent on the care, vigilance, labors and\nsacrifices endured by each, not only for self, but for others.\n\nIt can easily be seen, that in these three classes there must be an\nentirely different standard for deciding all questions of right and wrong.\nWhat would be right and wise, in case there is little or no danger, would\nbe folly and crime amid such terrific perils. In one case, each would have\nlittle concern or responsibility for any but self; in another case, all\nbenevolent minds would be overwhelmed with anxiety for others as well as\nfor themselves.\n\nThis being so, it is claimed that the deductions of reason as to the\nfuture immortality of man, and his risks and dangers beyond the grave, are\nindispensable to deciding multitudes of moral questions of the highest\nmoment, while every person\u2019s standard of morality must be regulated by\ntheir decision of this question.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII. THE DESTINY OF MAN IN THE FUTURE LIFE.\n\n\nIt has been shown, that the teachings of reason as to the immortality of\nthe soul, and our risks and dangers after death, are indispensable to a\ntrue standard of morality, and to the decision of innumerable moral\nquestions of the highest moment.\n\nThe next attempt, therefore, will be to set forth what can be learned by\nreason and experience, independently of revelation, in regard to the\nfuture destiny of man.\n\nThe first question relates to the existence of the soul after death, and\nits immortality. Here we have to guide us that great principle of common\nsense, which regulates mankind in all the practical business of life,\nviz., _things are, and will continue according to past experience, until\nthere is evidence of a change_.\n\nBy the aid of this, we go forward in all practical affairs, believing that\nthe beings and things around us are continued in existence till we have\nevidence that they are not. If any man were to talk and act as if every\nperson was destroyed, and every town and village annihilated, as soon as\nthe evidence of his senses failed, he would be deemed one who had \u201clost\nhis reason.\u201d\n\nThis same principle tends to the belief that the soul of man continues to\nexist after the dissolution of the body. We have _no evidence_ that the\nseparation of soul and body is an event that either injures or destroys\nthe spiritual part. On the contrary, there are many analogies in nature\nthat would lead to the impression that death gives new strength and powers\nto the disembodied spirit.\n\nThis being so, we have the same reason to believe that the soul of man\nexists after death as we have for believing that our friends are living\nwhen they leave us on a journey, and we have no evidence of their death.\nWe can not see them, hear them, or feel them, and yet we believe they are\nliving, we know not exactly where, because we have no evidence of their\ndeath. And so, after the dissolution of the body, though all evidence of\nsense as to the existence of their immaterial part ceases, we believe the\nsame thinking, sentient spirits continue to exist, because we have no\nevidence that they have ceased to do so.\n\nWe have perfect evidence that the body ceases to exist as a body, for it\nmoulders to dust. We have no evidence at all that the soul is either\ninjured or destroyed. Such a thing as the destruction or annihilation of a\nspirit was never known or heard of from any quarter of earth or heaven.\n\nWe therefore conclude, that at the moment of death the soul is still\nexisting with all its powers unchanged.\n\nThe same argument goes on still further, and leads to the immortality of\nthe soul. We know of no cause or reason for the destruction of the soul at\nany future period. We never have known or heard that any soul ever ceased\nto exist. And so we infer, that the soul will keep on a perpetuated\nexistence, by the same principle as that which leads us to believe the\nearth and the heavens will remain to future ages.\n\nIn regard to the _character and condition_ of departed spirits, again we\nhave the same principle to guide us. Without revelation, the _past\nexperience_ of mind is our sole beacon to give light as to its future\ndestiny.\n\nOur next inquiry, then, is, what does the past experience of mind teach us\nas to its condition beyond the grave? In pursuing this inquiry, we must\nrecall, in brief forms, some of the points of mental experience set forth\nin previous chapters.\n\nSome of the most important of these relate to the principle of _habit_ by\nwhich the exercise of all our faculties becomes more and more easy by use.\nThis is true of the intellect, by which we gain our knowledge of what will\nsecure _the most_ happiness; of the _social_ nature, by which we give\nhappiness to other minds and receive the same from them; of our _moral_\nnature, by which we are guided to justice, equity, and the rule of\nconscience; of our _voluntary_ nature, by which we regulate all our other\npowers. Each and all are developed, strengthened, and facilitated in right\naction, by being exercised according to the laws of God.\n\nThe legitimate use of all our faculties induces also not only increased\nfacility, but increased _enjoyment_. The more the intellect is trained,\nthe more agreeable its exercise. The more our social nature is developed\nby use, the more its powers are developed and its _blessed_ influence\nincreased. The more our moral nature is exercised, the more vigorous\nbecomes our sense of justice and the sensibilities of conscience, and the\nmore pleasing their exercise. And the more the will is exercised in\ncontrolling every other faculty by the rules of rectitude, the more easy\nand delightful is this power of self\u2010control.\n\nThe influence of habit in regard to the great law of _sacrifice_ for the\n_best_ good of all, is especially to be regarded. Such is its power that,\nin many cases, self\u2010sacrifices that at first were annoying, or even\npainful, become sources of the highest and noblest enjoyment.\n\nAnother not less important influence of habit is, in regard to those modes\nof enjoyment which are most important to the commonwealth, and most\nhappifying. The pursuit of these increases both desire and capacity for\ngratification, while those less important and more dangerous, if made the\nleading object of pursuit, diminish capacity while desire is increased.\nThus the happiness gained in giving and receiving affection, in causing\nhappiness to others, and in rectitude of action, all increase both the\ndesire and the capacity for these important and elevated modes of\nenjoyments. Nor is there any danger of excess in forming habits in these\ndirections. But the pleasures of the senses and the pursuit of power,\nhonor, and other enjoyments that terminate in self, are liable to excess,\nand this excess diminishes the capacity for enjoyment, while the ceaseless\ncraving of desire remains.\n\nThus it appears that a mind that forms habits of happiness\u2010making\naccording to right rules, becomes more and more strongly drawn to that\ncourse by finding more and more enjoyment in it, while a mind that pursues\nas a chief end the enjoyments that terminate in self, constantly loses\ncapacity for such good, and yet the desire for it drives on to vain and\ncheerless efforts.\n\nAnother ominous fact in our mental nature is, the effect of habit in\ndiminishing the control of the voluntary power. When any excessive or\nillegitimate mode of exercising the faculties becomes a ruling passion,\nthe _change_ of a habit thus formed becomes more and more difficult in\nexact proportion to the continuous repetition. Even when men see and feel\nthat a habit is formed that increases their sorrow and diminishes their\nenjoyment, and that another course would render them every way nobler and\nhappier, they find their purposes of change often are powerless. The\ncontrol of the will continually yields to the force of habit, and so they\nare hopelessly driven on in their fetal pursuits.\n\nAgain, the effect of wrong action on the susceptibilities is as ominous as\nit is on the power of choice. We have seen that the design of painful\nemotions is to stimulate to the formation of good habits, and that when\nthis legitimate object is not effected these emotions continually decrease\nin strength and vividness, so that the designed benefit is lost. Thus\n_fear_ is designed to induce habits of caution, but if no such habits are\nthe result, danger ceases to excite this emotion, and a man becomes at\nonce fearless and careless. So with sympathy in the sufferings of others;\nif no habits of benevolent efforts to relieve are induced, that\nsensibility diminishes, and men become at once unsympathising, hard and\ncruel. So it is with _shame_; if it does not lead to habits of honor and\nduty, the susceptibility continually diminishes. And so it is with\n_remorse_; if habits of rectitude are not induced by its emotions, the\nconscience becomes \u201cseared as with hot iron.\u201d\n\nBut the most deteriorating effect of wrong action is seen in regard to\nthat fundamental point of the mental constitution which makes it a source\nof happiness to be the cause of happiness to others. It is a universal\nfact that the tendency of disagreeable emotions is to lead to the\ninfliction of pain on others. This propensity to inflict pain on whoever\nis the cause of pain, when regulated by the rules of rectitude, is the\nsource of justice in the family and state, and leads only to good. But\nwhen it is indulged and unregulated, it is the most fearful feature in our\nmental constitution. The records of history exhibit many monsters of our\nrace, whose mental constitution has become so disordered by habits of\nfatal indulgence, that all love of happiness\u2010making for others seems\ndestroyed, and the baleful pleasure of tormenting becomes a ruling\npassion.\n\nAnother feature of our mental conformation which directly bears on this\nsubject, is the fact, that all those good qualities and benevolent acts\nwhich naturally tend to please and awaken the desire of good to others,\nmay become sources of pain and ill\u2010will. This is the case when the lovely\nand benevolent traits of other minds are contrasted with opposite traits\nin self. Thus it is that the selfish, cruel and malignant hate and are\npowerfully repelled from the generous, just and virtuous, while the good\nas instinctively fly from the wicked.\n\nThe natural result of these features in the nature of mind, is a continual\ntendency toward a separation of the good and the bad, the righteous and\nthe wicked.\n\nAccording to the teachings of experience, a mind that forms habits of\nselfishness and sin is constantly tending to a deterioration of its nature\nin all directions. And the course of obedience to the grand law of self\u2010\nsacrifice for the _best_ good of all, becomes more and more difficult and\nimprobable. As the natural result the good are more and more attracted\ntoward each other, and the bad are more and more repelled.\n\nThese tendencies, so plainly exhibited here, reasoning from experience, we\ninfer are to continue after death, until the final result must be the\nentire exclusion of the evil from the good, whenever power exists to\ncompel the separation. This power, all must feel is held and will be\nexercised by the Author of all minds, whose great plan, so far as reason\nteaches, can be carried to perfection only by such a consummation.\n\nOne point in the history of our race has a mournful pertinence to this\nquestion. We find that the improvement and the safety of the great\ncommonwealth is always, more or less, promoted by the ruin of individuals.\nMultitudes are deterred from evil courses by the miserable end of those\nwho pursue them; so that the good are often preserved by the destruction\nof the bad.\n\nSo, too, we find exhibitions of the fact that minds are utterly ruined,\nand ruined _for ever_, so far as we can perceive. The man who has\nstultified his intellect, ruined his health, seared his conscience, and\nblunted all his generous and benevolent sensibilities by a course of\ndebauchery, cruelty and crime, is a wreck as total and irretrievable, so\nfar as we can see, as a watch whose springs and pivots are crushed beneath\nthe hammer, or a human body whose every lineament is effaced beneath the\nrushing locomotive train.\n\nThe common language of life expresses such mental facts in precisely the\nsame terms as are applied to physical catastrophes. Thus, a man who is\ngiven up to debauchery, intemperance and crime, is said to be a \u201ctotal\nwreck\u201d\u2014\u201centirely destroyed,\u201d\u2014\u201cutterly ruined.\u201d\n\nAdd to this the teaching of experience, that when men are bad, the\nincrease of blessings only increases indulgence and crime. At the same\ntime punishment does not tend to reformation. The more men suffer for\ntheir folly and guilt, the more hardened they become. The victims of\nlicentiousness and intemperance, though they suffer such miseries, have\never been regarded as the farthest removed from the probabilities of\nreformation.\n\nAdd to all this, the deductions of reason as to the moral nature of the\nCreator and Governor of all minds. He has power to separate the good and\nbad; his great design, of which we here see only the _tendencies_, makes\nit indispensable to the perfect happiness of the good that they be\nseparated from the bad\u2014a _perfectly_ happy commonwealth can not be\nattained where the bad form a part\u2014while the _sense of justice_ exists in\nGod on a scale far above ours, demanding _added_ penalties for the known\nand willful destruction of happiness. He, like his children on earth,\nfeels that craving for retributive justice, which can never rest till the\nguilty and remorseless monster receives the just recompense for his\ncruelty and crimes.\n\nThese teachings of reason and experience lead to the conclusion, not only\nthat there is to be a grand consummation in which all sin and suffering\nshall be ended in a perfected commonwealth, but also to the conclusion\nthat those excluded from this community of the good are to continue their\nexistence in sin and its natural results for ever.\n\nThat any portion, either of matter or mind, is to be annihilated, can not\nbe inferred from any past experience. All that we can learn are the laws\nof perpetual _succession_ and _change_. One single fact of annihilation\nhas never yet been made known to man by any process of reasoning, or any\nrecorded experience.\n\nThere is another question in reference to this awful subject, which is of\ndeepest interest. Although the deductions of reason lead to the doctrine\nof the eventual separation of mankind into two distinct communities, the\ngood and the evil, what are its teachings as to the _immediate_ state of\neach individual soul after the event of death?\n\nHere, as before, we have only the nature and past history of mind, from\nwhich the future is to be deduced. In this world we have found the changes\nin the character of individuals and of communities to proceed by slow and\nimperceptible movement. We have nothing in the past to lead to the belief\nthat this slow process of discipline, culture and change may not proceed\non for ages. As in this life, multitudes have the impress and direction of\ncharacter given in early life, so that the first few years determine all\ntheir future history in this world, so the career of this short life may\nfix the future through eternal years. And yet the process of change to the\nfull consummation of character may involve ages.\n\nIn studying the works of the Creator, we find that every thing goes\nforward on a system of _developments_. Nothing comes into being in full\nperfection, and unless there is an interruption of the natural tendencies\nof things, every thing reaches its full and perfected state before its\nexistence ends. And the nobler, larger, and grander the existence, the\nslower it proceeds to its consummated perfection. The oak and the palm\ndemand centuries ere they reach their perfected prime. The highest grades\nof animal life are slowest in gaining their full development. The horse,\nthe elephant, and the camel, are going forward to perfection for years\nafter the feebler tribes that started with them have perfected and\nperished.\n\nGuided, then, by the analogies of experience, we should infer that _mind_,\nthe noblest work of its Creator\u2019s hand\u2014mind, that begins its career in\nsuch low and feeble development, is not to form the mournful exception to\nthe general rule.\n\nOn the contrary, we infer from all past experience, both of matter and\nmind, that the soul, when it lays aside its outer covering, proceeds\nonward in its career of development. And if its period of progressive\ndevelopment is proportioned to its relative value in comparison with all\nother created things, the fleeting years of this life in relation to the\nages previous to its prime, may be but as the first days of puling infancy\nto the whole career of manhood.\n\nBut this subject is imperfectly treated, if we neglect to consider the\nfact, that the soul, so far as we can perceive, is _disembodied_ at death.\nWe have perfect evidence, that the material part is destroyed, as to its\norganized existence. We have the same sort of evidence that the soul\ncontinues to exist, and will continue to exist, as we have that the sun\nexists when all evidence of sight ceases. But what is the experience of a\ndisembodied spirit, we have no means of learning. It may be that its\npowers of knowledge and action are greatly increased, when freed from its\nearthly prison. If this be so, the experience of this life leads to the\ninference that its dangers and temptations are increased in exact\nproportion. Increase of civilization is only increase in sources of\nknowledge and enjoyment, and each addition brings new temptations, new\nrules, and the need of new penalties. It may be the same in the future\nlife.\n\nWe can suppose the body a veil to hide our mind from another, and that\ndeath makes every soul \u201copen and naked,\u201d in all its thoughts and feelings,\nto every other disembodied spirit. What would be the effect of such a\nrevelation, no one could say. But we should fear rather than hope.\n\nIf men are exasperated by words that exhibit only a portion of the scorn,\ncontempt, and disgust felt toward the base and mean, not only by the pure\nand good, but by the wicked themselves, such a _full revelation of all\nminds to all minds_ presents a theme for awful forebodings to the guilty.\nAnd even the purest might tremble to encounter such an ordeal. But over\nsuch terrific conjectures rest the darkness and silence of the grave.\n\nThe following, then, are the deductions of reason and experience as to the\nfuture condition of our race after death.\n\nThe soul, at the dissolution of the body, remains unchanged in its tastes,\nhabits and character. The _tendencies_ indicated in this life are\ncontinued indefinitely, and eventually will result in the separation of\nthe good and the bad into two separate communities, the one, being\nobedient to all the laws of God, will be for ever and perfectly happy, and\nthe other are to reap the natural results of disobedience, and whatever\nadded penalties the best good of the universe may demand.\n\nThe final consummation in which this separation will be achieved, may be\nat the distance of ages, and in the meantime all those minds that have\npassed, or will pass from this life, are in the same process of culture,\ndiscipline, and upward or downward progress, which exists in this life.\nWhether these advantages and temptations will be greater or less in the\ndisembodied state, we have no data for inference or conjecture.\n\nThe conduct and character formed in this life will have an abiding\ninfluence on the character and happiness of every mind through eternal\nages.(10)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIX. WHAT MUST WE DO TO BE SAVED?\n\n\nWe have considered the risks and dangers of the future state, as taught by\nreason and experience, and also as the foundation of a true standard of\nmorality. We have seen that the true mode of escape from these dangers is\n_the formation of a truly virtuous character_, or in other words, _it is\nmaking it our chief end to obey all the laws of God_.\n\nThe next question is, what are the teachings of reason and experience as\nto the most successful modes of securing true virtue, or voluntary\nobedience to all the laws of God?\n\nThis brings up the inquiry as to the _causes_ of voluntary action, and of\nthe power which one mind has of securing right or wrong volitions in\nanother.\n\nIn a previous chapter was pointed out the distinction to be recognized\nbetween the _producing_ cause and the _occasional_ causes of volition.\n\nMind itself is the _only_ producing cause of its own volitions. Excited\ndesires, and those objects which excite desire, are the _occasional_\ncauses of choice.\n\nThe question is, in what sense can any being be the cause of virtuous\nactions, or virtuous character, in another mind?\n\nHere we must recur to the fact that the Creator, as the author of all\nminds, and of all the things that excite desire, is the cause, in one\nsense, of all the volitions and of all the characters of all finite minds.\nIt is in this sense that, in the Bible, the Jehovah of the Old Testament\nsays, \u201cI make peace and _create evil_.\u201d No other being but the Creator can\nbe regarded as the cause of volitions in this sense, viz., as the author\nof all minds and their circumstances of temptation.\n\nThere is a second sense in which the Creator is never the cause of sinful\naction in any mind. It is this: creating or modifying our\nsusceptibilities, or arranging temptations with _the design_ or\n_intention_ of producing sinful action. This is established by proving,\nthat the chief end of God is to make the most possible happiness, and that\nsin is the needless destruction of happiness, resulting from disobedience\nto the laws of God.\n\nThe only sense, then, in which God can be called the author or cause of\nsinful volitions in the minds of his creatures, is the fact that he is the\nauthor of all created minds and of their circumstances of temptation.\n\nIn regard to man, there are only two conceivable modes, in which he can be\nthe cause of sinful or virtuous character in other minds.\n\nThe first mode is so to combine circumstances of temptation as to affect\nthe most excitable and powerful sensibilities, or to remove those objects\nand influences that sustain moral principle, or by a long course of\ntraining, to form habits and induce principles. The combinations of motive\ninfluences that one mind can thus bring to bear on another, as temptations\nto right or wrong action, are almost infinite.\n\nAnother mode is by _changing the constitutional susceptibilities_. This\ncan sometimes be effected to a certain degree by education, and the\nformation of habits. It can be still more directly effected through the\nphysical organization. For example, a child may be trained to use coffee,\ntea, alcohol, or tobacco, till the nervous system is shattered, and then a\nplacid temper becomes excitable, an active nature becomes indolent, and\nmultitudes of other disastrous changes are the result.\n\nWhen these two modes are employed with the _design_ to induce wrong\naction, then men are blameable causes of sinful action and character in\ntheir fellow men. God, as above shown, never thus causes sin. When these\nmodes are employed with the _intention_ to induce virtuous actions and\ncharacter, then both God and man are causes of right moral action in\nmankind.\n\nThus, it appears, that in the formation of virtuous character and habits,\nGod, educators and self are the three combining causes, each being\nindispensable to the result, and thus each dependent on the others. God\ndecides the nature and combinations of our susceptibilities and our\ncircumstances of temptation. The educators of mind also modify the\nsusceptibilities, and regulate the temptations. Self, as the producing\ncause of volition, decides the nature of our own volitions, and thus also\nco\u00f6perates to regulate circumstances of temptation.\n\nThe attainment of virtuous character, therefore, depends conjointly on\nGod, man and self. It has been shown that God _invariably_ does _the best\nhe can_ to secure the most perfect action possible in all minds.\n\nThe blamable causes of all failure in right and virtuous action are self\nand the finite educators of self. The unblamable causes are God, educators\nand self, so far as they are faithful in doing _all they can_ to educate\naright.\n\nWith these preliminary considerations, we proceed in the inquiry as to\nthose modes which in past experience have been found most successful in\nsecuring virtuous character, or voluntary obedience to the laws of God.\n\nThe first cause of right moral action is a _knowledge_ of and _faith_ in\nthe physical, social, intellectual and moral laws of God. It is\nimpossible, in the nature of things, that a new\u2010created mind should be\npossessed of such knowledge and faith. All that is possible, so far as we\ncan learn by reason and experience, is that there should be a slow and\ngradual development not only of each individual mind, but of the whole\nrace, as each generation, in turn, receives by instruction the experience\nof the one previous, and transmits it with its own experience to a\nsucceeding generation.\n\nThe next thing that has been found efficacious in forming virtuous\ncharacter is the formation of uniform _habits of obedience to parental\nrule_, in the early periods of existence. To secure this, _invariable\nsteadiness in government_ has been found indispensable. If a child finds\nthat sometimes he is to obey and sometimes he is not, there is always a\ntemptation to struggle against law. But if a parent\u2019s laws, rewards and\npenalties are as steady and sure as those of God, in due time the child\nsubmits as cheerfully to the domestic rules and commands, as he does to\nthe laws of nature. He is no more tempted to contest parental commands\nthan he is to attempt to stop the flow of a river or the falling of rain.\nIn this way a habit of submission to law is generated, which makes all the\nfuture discipline and training of life comparatively easy. A child learns\ncheerfully to obey a heavenly Father, just in proportion as he thus obeys\nhis earthly parents.\n\nThe next thing taught by experience is that children should be instructed\nas fast as possible in the _reasonableness and benevolence_ of all the\nlaws they are required to obey. Obedience is made easy and sure just in\nproportion as a child is made to perceive, that such obedience is _best\nfor himself and best for all concerned_.\n\nThe next thing which experience has shown to be most effective in securing\nobedience to law, is _love_ on the part of the educator, and corresponding\nlove in return from the child. To gain the love of a child an educator\nmust exhibit all lovable traits, and confer benefits, so as to call forth\nat once admiration, gratitude and affection. This renders it easy to the\nchild to conform to the rules and wishes of one so beloved.\n\nSympathy with a child in all its trials and in all its enjoyments, still\nfurther increases this power of another mind in right guidance.\n\nThis sympathetic influence is greatly increased by the power of a virtuous\n_example_\u2014especially if this example is exhibited by a beloved friend and\nbenefactor, who would be gratified by thus guiding a dependent mind.\n\nAnother influence that tends to secure virtuous action is the bearing of\npain and hardships even when it is not voluntary. Those children who are\ntrained in a cold clime and on a hard soil, and who are early trained to\nhardships, find it far easier to conform to rule, and to bear sacrifices\nfor the general good, than those whose lives have been a course of\nuninterrupted ease and indulgence.\n\nTo these, add the social influences of the example and sympathy of a\nsurrounding community. Where all around are practicing virtuous\nconduct\u2014where all admire and praise only what is good and right\u2014it is far\neasier to secure obedience to the rules of rectitude, than where the\nexample and sympathy of surrounding minds are opposed to virtue.\n\nBut the most powerful of all influences in securing virtuous action, is\nthe principle of love and gratitude toward some noble benefactor, who\nsaves from some terrible evils at the expense of great personal suffering\nand sacrifices, and who seeks his reward in the pleasure of redeeming\nthose thus benefited, from the snares and ruin of sin. And the greater the\nevils averted, and the more severe the suffering on the part of the\nbenefactor, the stronger the influence thus gained to secure virtuous\ncharacter and action in the one thus rescued.\n\nThese are the influences which experience has shown to be most effective\nin securing virtuous character.\n\nWhen the question is asked, \u201cWhat must _we_ do to be saved?\u201d it may be\nanswered in reference to all concerned in the matter; that is to say,\n\u201cWhat must self do\u2014What must our fellow\u2010men do\u2014What must the Creator do,\nto secure obedience to his laws, and thus to save from sin and its\npenalties?\u201d\n\nIn view of the above teachings, each one for himself must seek, first,\n_knowledge_ of the laws of God, and of their rewards and penalties as\ndiscovered by the experience of mankind. In order to do this, each must\ntake all means to gain _true_ teachers, and to receive their teachings in\ntrue _faith_, that is, that _practical_ faith, which includes the purpose\nof obedience. Each must cultivate the intellect, the reason and the moral\nsense, in order to judge correctly in receiving and applying the rules of\nrectitude; each must seek to discover the reasonableness and benevolence\nof these laws, and form _habits_ of steady obedience; each must seek to\ndiscover and rightly to appreciate all the good and lovable qualities of\nall who institute and administer laws, from the Creator to all subordinate\nrulers and governors in the domestic and civil state; each must seek the\nsociety of those whose sympathy and example would encourage and promote\nvirtuous conduct; and finally, each must make obedience to all the laws of\nGod the _chief end_ or ruling purpose. These are briefly the reply to the\ngreat question in relation to self.\n\nWe are next to consider this question in relation to what men must do to\n_save others_.\n\nHere we are to take into account two subjects previously illustrated; the\nfirst is that great law of _sacrifice_, by which each individual must make\nhis own wishes and welfare subordinate to the higher interests of the\ngreat commonwealth; the second is the fact that all questions of right and\nwrong are dependent on the _risks and dangers_ that threaten the\ncommonwealth. In cases where there is little peril or evil, each\nindividual has little responsibility for others. On the contrary, when all\nare exposed to terrific dangers and hazards, every individual is bound to\nthink and care as much for the danger of each one as for his own. And just\nas much as the interests of all are of more value than those of one, so\nmuch _more_ should each place the public welfare above that of self.\n\nIn a preceding chapter have been exhibited the risks and dangers of our\nrace in reference to the future life. These are such, that without any\nappeal to revelation, every man of humanity and benevolence must feel that\nto save his fellow\u2010beings from such dangers should become immediately his\nleading object of pursuit, his _chief end_.\n\nIn pursuing this as the main object of life, each individual is bound to\nfollow the teachings of experience as to the most successful modes as set\nforth above. Each one, then, should become a _teacher of the laws of God_\nto all who are in ignorance, to the full extent of his power, and set\nforth all the motives to induce obedience; each should strive to exhibit\nall those qualities and deeds which will excite admiration, love and\ngratitude, in order thus to gain influence over other minds and guide them\nto virtuous conduct. Each should confer benefits and practice self\u2010denying\nbenevolence toward others and thus gain still farther influence. Each\nshould strive to exhibit that _example_ and that _sympathy_ that are so\neffective in leading others aright.\n\nIn regard to those who are the educators of the young, each must strive to\nmaintain that _invariable steadiness in governments_ which is so effective\nin forming virtuous habits and in rendering obedience to the laws of God\nmore and more easy.\n\nFinally, it should be the aim of each to establish such a _community_\naround all who are being trained to virtue, that every social influence\nshall repress vice and encourage virtue.\n\nNext, we are to consider the great question in reference to the Creator.\nWhat then must God do to save our race from sin and its miseries? What\nwould reason and experience teach us to expect he would do to secure\nobedience to his laws?\n\nIn answering this question we must again refer to the causes which\nexperience has shown to be most effective, for we can conceive of no\nother. We have examined the evidence that the Creator has given to each of\nhis children such a constitution of mind and body, and such circumstances\nof temptation and trial as is _best on the whole_, as a part of an\ninfinite _system_ whose results are to develop through eternity. At the\nsame time it has been shown that God is limited, by the eternal nature of\nthings, to a course in which _some_ evil must exist, so that all that is\nrequisite to his character as perfectly benevolent, is that this evil\nshould be reduced by him to its least possible amount.\n\nTo suppose that God can impart at creation of each mind all the knowledge\nof the millions of rules needed for all the myriads of new relations, of\nmyriads of beings through all eternity, is to suppose an impossibility in\nthe nature of things.\n\nIf it be maintained that the Creator is not thus limited by the nature of\nthings, but, as theologians teach, could make mind perfect in all needed\nknowledge as in all other respects, at the first, then we have the greater\ncontradiction involved in the fact, that a perfectly benevolent being\nchose for his children ignorance and sin in preference to knowledge and\nvirtue.\n\nTo say that it may be _best_ to create minds destitute of all needed\nknowledge when the want insures infinite wrong and suffering, and when\nthere is power to create the knowledge that would insure perfect\nhappiness, is simply a direct contradiction. It is saying that _less_\nhappiness may be _greater_ than _greater_ happiness. For by \u201cwhat is for\nthe best\u201d we understand \u201cthat which secures the _most_ happiness.\u201d And\nsaying that making misery where there is power to make happiness in its\nplace, is _best_, means nothing else but the assertion above, that less\nhappiness is greater than greater happiness; or that _less_ is _more_ than\n_most_, which is a contradiction, inconceivable and absurd, so that no\nmind can either comprehend or believe it.\n\nNow, every theologian of every school and of every sect maintains that\n\u201cGod does all things _for the best_.\u201d Every one who believes in a\nbenevolent Creator does the same. This is simply saying that God does the\nbest possible; that is to say, there is no power that can make a better\nsystem than God has made, or administer it with more wisdom or\nbenevolence. He has chosen the best possible and so he can not do any\nbetter.\n\nThese things being granted, the teachings of experience would lead us to\nsuppose, still farther, that the Creator must do all that is possible to\nmaintain _invariable steadiness of government_. We can see that this,\nwhich is so important in family government, must be still more so in an\ninfinite family. For this end, the natural penalties for wrong doing, must\nbe as _invariable_ as the rewards for well doing.\n\nAgain, the Creator must instruct his creatures in his laws and their\nrewards and penalties to the full extent of his power. That is to say, he\nmust provide well\u2010trained educators of mind, as fast and as fully as is\npossible in the nature of things, having in view the results of eternal\nages to guide his decisions.\n\nAgain, to secure voluntary obedience, he must add to the natural rewards\nand penalties of his laws, the other class of motives which experience has\nshown to be most effective. Thus, he must present himself to his creatures\nas a being possessing all those qualities which call forth the delightful\nemotions of admiration, reverence and love; he must show himself as a\nconstant benefactor, and as one who \u201cdoes not willingly afflict or grieve\nthe children of men.\u201d He must manifest his love to his creatures by word\nas well as by deed. He must come personally to provide for their wants and\ncheer them with his care. He must show his tenderness and sympathy in\ntheir trials and sorrows as well as in their joys. And if they are exposed\nto great dangers and evils from which they can be redeemed by self\u2010\nsacrifice and suffering on his part, this highest and most effective proof\nof love must be exhibited.(11)\n\nTo this must be added, a manifestation of his _chief __ desire_, so that\nwhen love and gratitude ask, what can we do to please our benefactor in\nreturn, the answer shall be, obey his laws, and work and suffer for the\ngood of all, as you see your Heavenly Parent does for you.\n\nFinally, he must bring around each of his creatures the powerful social\ninfluence, not only of his own sympathy and example, but those also of a\nperfect commonwealth, where all shall be perfect as is the Father of all.\n\nThis is what we should evolve by the light of reason and experience, as\nwhat the Creator must do to save our race. Whether he has done all this,\nis a question that belongs to that system of religion which we can gain\nonly by revelation from God.(12)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXX. HOW FAR REASON AND EXPERIENCE ARE SUFFICIENT WITHOUT\nREVELATION.\n\n\nThe preceding chapters present the system of natural religion, as it may\nbe gained by experience and those principles of reason or common sense\nwith which all men are endowed.\n\nWhether mankind ever have, or ever would, fully evolve this system of\nreligious belief without any aid by revelation from the Creator, is a\nquestion which we can not readily decide\u2014inasmuch as the claim of\nChristianity is, that from the first, our race have been instructed by\nrevelations from God, which have been more or less preserved in traditions\nand written records. It is certain that the elimination of this system, by\nunaided humanity, is dependent on the development of both the intellectual\nand moral powers, just as much so, as the physical discoveries of Newton,\nCopernicus and Columbus were dependent on the intellectual progress of the\nrace.\n\nIn reference to the question of the necessity or importance of revelations\nfrom the Creator, it is interesting to examine how far those nations that\nhave been most advanced in intellectual development, have secured this\nsystem of common sense, independently of the revelations contained in the\nBible\u2014revelations which also have been more or less incorporated by\nMohammed into the Koran.\n\nIn a brief review of the pagan systems, that of Boodhism occupies the\nfirst place, as one which has had longest and largest control over\ncivilized pagandom\u2014one which has been most unimpeded by resistance, and\none which now controls _one half_ the human race.\n\nWe have seen that the common\u2010sense system teaches an eternally self\u2010\nexistent Creator, perfect in knowledge, wisdom, power and benevolence,\nadministering a perfect system by laws\u2014his chief design being to produce\nthe most possible happiness with the least possible evil. It teaches also,\nthat the right _voluntary_ action of mind, as a part of this system,\nconsists in _good willing_ toward the Creator, toward self, and toward our\nfellow\u2010beings, _according to the laws_ of God, so as to secure what is\n_best_ for all concerned\u2014making it imperative that self be made\nsubordinate to the public good. It teaches also, that the most effective\nmode of securing this right action is, first, by imparting a _knowledge_\nof these laws and their sanctions, and thus influencing mind by the\nmotives of _hope_ and _fear_; next, by the motive influences of _love_,\n_gratitude_, _sympathy_ and _example_, as mutually exercised by God, our\nfellow\u2010men and self. Finally, it teaches that all questions as to what is\nright and wrong, are to be regulated with reference to the risks and\ndangers of a _future life_, and not with chief reference to this life\nalone\u2014and that in this estimate the interests of self are to be made\nsubordinate to those of the commonwealth.\n\nWe will now notice how far the system of Boodh corresponds with that of\ncommon sense.\n\nThis religion(13) is one in which there is no intervention of any supreme\nGod, or any self\u2010existent being, or any Creator; on the contrary, all\nsouls and all the universe exist from eternity. All souls from eternity\nhave gone on transmigrating from one body to another, rising or falling in\nthe scale of existence according to their merit or demerit. Boodh is a\ngeneral name for a divinity or god. There have been innumerable Boodhs in\ndifferent worlds and different ages, but in this world only four. These\nfour are beings who have risen by merit through various transmigrations,\nand then became incarnate in human bodies. At last they were annihilated,\nnone of them being now in existence\u2014so that this world for centuries has\nbeen without any God.\n\nThe last Boodh of this world was Gaudama. He passed through innumerable\ntransmigrations in four hundred millions of worlds, and attained immense\nmerit. At last, he was born into this world the son of a king, about six\nhundred years before Christ. The moment he was born he exclaimed, \u201cNow am\nI the noblest of men; this is the last time I shall ever be born!\u201d He\nremained forty\u2010five years as Boodh of this world\u2014performed all sorts of\nmeritorious deeds, promulgated excellent laws, and then was annihilated.\nEver since, this world has had no God, and will have none for eight\nthousand years, when the next Boodh is to appear. The first three Boodhs\nleft no laws or sayings. Those of Gaudama, the last Boodh, were reduced to\nwriting A. D. 94, and these are the _Bedegat_, or Bible of the Boodhists.\n\nThese teachings of Gaudama are so obligatory, that disbelief of them is\nthe only crime that incurs _eternal_ punishment.\n\nAccording to this system, true virtue or rewardable merit, consists in\nobeying the teachings of Gaudama. These teachings relate first to sins to\nbe avoided. The five general laws are, not to kill, not to steal, not to\ncommit adultery, not to lie, and not to drink intoxicating liquors. These\nare subdivided so as to include all sins of similar kinds under each head.\nFor example, the first law includes even the killing of animals for food,\nalso capital punishments and war.\n\nSins are divided into these three classes: first, those of the body, such\nas killing, theft, fornication, etc.; those of the tongue, as falsehood,\nharsh language, idle talk, etc.; and those of the mind, as pride,\ncovetousness, envy, heretical thoughts, etc.\n\nThese writings of Gaudama strongly denounce the evils of pride, anger,\ncovetousness, and all inordinate appetites. Men are exhorted to avoid\nexcess in perfumes, ornaments and laughter\u2014also strong drink, smoking,\nopium, night wanderings, bad company, idleness, anger under abuse,\nflattery to benefactors, annoying jests, and all that leads to strife.\n\nFor all such sins the most awful conceivable punishments are to follow in\na future state, and for millions of ages.\n\nRewardable merit is of three kinds:\n\n1. Obedience to all the preceding precepts and prohibitions, and the\nperformance of all duties _fairly deducible_ from them, such as integrity,\ngentleness, lenity, forbearance, condescension, veneration to parents and\nlove to mankind in general.\n\n2. Alms\u2010giving and votive offerings. This includes feeding priests,\nbuilding temples and accommodations for priests and for travelers, making\nroads, tanks and wells, planting fruit and shade trees, feeding criminals\nand animals, and finally, giving alms to all classes of men in need.\n\n3. Prayers and reading the Bedegat, or religious books. Of this last kind\nof merit, there are three kinds: the first is the senseless repetition of\nprayers and reading; the second, reading intelligently; the last, is\nperforming these exercises with strong desires and feelings. Prayers are\nnot addressed to any God, as there is none existing now for this world.\nGaudama, at his death, advised that, in addition to obeying his laws, his\nrelics and image should be worshiped, and temples be built to his honor\ntill the next Boodh came.\n\nVotive offerings of fruit, rice and flowers are made to priests or placed\nin temples. The prayers consist of the repetition of soliloquies that\nexpress our liability to bodily evils and to mental suffering, and our\ninability to escape. Also of protestations of this kind, \u201cI will not lie;\u201d\n\u201cI will not steal;\u201d \u201cI will not kill,\u201d etc.\n\nThere are four Sabbaths or days for public worship each month, when the\npeople go with votive offerings and prayers to the temple of Gaudama, but\nthey have no general united worship.\n\nThe Boodhists have a hierarchy very much like the Catholic church, with\nvaried grades and ranks. The priests are required to practice celibacy,\nand are mainly supported by voluntary gifts from the people.\n\nThey reside in buildings erected especially for them, and as celibacy and\nthe avoidance of women are enjoined on all, these establishments very much\nresemble Catholic monasteries. Few of the priests preach, and only by\nspecial request, after which, presents are made to them. They attend\nfunerals only when invited, and then expect presents. Part of them spend\nsome time in teaching novitiate priests, but most of them, regarding work\nas unprofessional, spend their time in sheer idleness. It is the rule that\neach priest perambulate the streets every morning till he receives boiled\nrice enough for his daily wants. The higher class of priests avoid this.\nIn Burmah the priests are at the rate of one to every thirty persons, and\nthey are well supported by the people, and without interference from the\ngovernment to enforce it.\n\nAs to the motives that sustain this religion, there being no God to the\nBoodhist, all motives arising from relations and regard to him are\nexcluded. All the motives presented appeal to hope of good and fear of\nevil to _self_. Those who attain a certain measure of merit in obeying\nGaudama\u2019s teachings go to some of the celestial regions, according to\ntheir attainments. These consist of twenty\u2010six heavens, one above another,\nwhich offer various degrees of enjoyment according to merit obtained.\n\nThere are eight principal hells; four that torment with cold and four with\nheat. In the other hells are other sufferings, although not connected with\nheat and cold. Worms bite, bowels are torn out, limbs are racked, bodies\nare lacerated, they are pierced with hot spits, crucified head downward,\ngnawed by dogs, torn by vultures. These are described with minuteness in\nthe _Bedegat_ and often depicted by the native artists in drawings,\nreminding one of Dante\u2019s Inferno illustrated.\n\nFor killing a parent or a priest a man will suffer in one of the hells of\nfire for inconceivable millions of ages. Denying the doctrines of Gaudama\nincurs _eternal_ suffering in fire. Insulting women, old men or priests,\nreceiving bribes, selling intoxicating drinks and parricide, are punished\nin the worst hell.\n\nMerit gained by any good conduct in these hells enables the person to rise\neven to the celestial regions.\n\nThe souls of all the universe have existed from eternity, transmigrating\nfor ever, and thus rising and falling in the scale of existence according\nto the degrees of merit at each birth. This is decided not by any deity\nbut by immutable fate. In passing through these changes the amount of\nsorrow is incalculable. The Bedegat declares that the tears shed by one\nsoul in its various changes are so great that the ocean in comparison is\nbut a drop. Sorrow is declared to be the inevitable attendant of all\nexistence, and therefore \u201cthe chief end,\u201d and the highest reward of\nBoodhism is, _annihilation_.\n\nThe system of Boodhism commenced about six hundred years before Christ,\nand has pervaded eastern, central and southern Asia about as long and as\nfully as Christianity has pervaded Europe. The Burman empire, where this\naccount of that faith was obtained, presents the most favorable results of\nthis system on the character and condition of its votaries.\n\nIn China, Buddhism (another name for Boodhism) is the popular religion.\nWith it is associated Confucianism, which is a system of morals and\npolitics instituted by Confucius, B. C. 550, which teaches nothing in\nregard to any God or a future state. With them co\u2010exist the sect of\nLaotze, which is a kind of rationalism. Most of the temples and priests\nare those of Boodh or Budda, but there is no such organized priesthood as\nin Burmah, nor is this religion maintained by governmental power. It is\nalso considerably modified by the more ancient system of polytheism.\n\nIn Thibet and Tartary, the religion of the Grand Lama chiefly prevails,\nwhich is one form of Boodhism.\n\nIn western India, Brahmanism is in constant warfare with Boodhism, and the\ntwo systems are perfectly antagonistic. Brahmanism teaches one eternal\ndeity and three hundred and thirty\u2010three millions of other gods, with\nhosts of idols representing them; Boodhism has no deity at all, and only\none image, that of Gaudama. Brahmanism enjoins sacrifices; Boodhism\nforbids killing. Brahmanism requires atrocious tortures; Boodhism\ninculcates fewer austerities than even Popery. Brahmanism makes lying,\nfornication and theft sometimes commendable, and describes the gods as\nexcelling in such crimes; Boodhism never confounds right and wrong, and\nnever excuses any sin. Brahmanism makes the highest good or chief end of\nman to be absorption into the supreme deity; Boodhism makes _annihilation_\nthe highest hope and aim of existence. These two systems, together with\nMohammedanism, so prevail in Hindostan that the distinct results of each\ncan never be compared. These are the prevailing religions in the most\nadvanced pagan nations at the present time; and of the two, Boodhism is\nthe best, and probably has been the most fairly tested in Burmah.\n\nIn past ages the two most highly developed heathen nations were those of\nGreece and Rome, and of their religion we have the fullest records. It is\nnot probable that any one will consider their system of religion superior\nto this now exhibited of modern paganism.\n\nThe result is that the most highly developed heathen nations, as yet, have\nattained but very imperfectly the system of common sense.\n\nNo heathen religion ever taught an eternally\u2010existing Creator, perfect in\nknowledge, wisdom, power and benevolence. None ever taught that the chief\nend of our Creator is happiness\u2010making on the greatest possible scale.\nNone ever taught that this also is the chief end for which man is created.\nNone ever taught that right moral action, or true virtue, consists in\n_good willing toward the Creator, toward self, and toward our fellow\u2010\nbeings, according to the laws of the Creator, so that every mind shall\nmake the good of self subordinate to the general good_. None ever taught\nthat all questions of right and wrong, or what is for _the best_, are to\nbe decided with reference to the risks and dangers of a future life. None\never presented communion with, and the care, sympathy, sacrifices, and\nexample of a \u201clong\u2010suffering\u201d Creator, as motives to secure virtuous self\u2010\nsacrifice from his creatures. If all this is taught by revelations from\nGod in the Bible, it is what was never taught by any other religion yet\nknown on earth.\n\nIn the history of the heathen world, we find anxious inquiries on these\nsubjects pressing on every thoughtful spirit. Who made this world with its\nprofound and ceaseless sorrows? Are there contending deities, and are the\nmalignant powers in the ascendant? If there be one supreme Creator of all,\nis he propitious or hostile to a race so guilty as ours? Does he feel any\npity or sympathy for our profound ignorance, our infinite sorrows? Can we\ndo any thing to gain his help in our darkness and misery? Where do we go\nwhen we die? Does our short and painful span of being end in eternal\nnight, or are we to go on in another career of similar suffering and\nchange? When we lay our beloved ones in the grave, shall we ever meet them\nagain, or is \u201cthe only proper utterance of a broken heart, _vale, vale, in\neternum vale_?\u201d\n\nThese have been the mournful questionings of every age and every race,\nwhile the wisest sages of the wisest nations, without a revelation, have\nbeen unable to give any satisfactory reply.\n\nGreece and Rome were the most civilized of all ancient nations, and they\ngive us Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, as their best and wisest\nmen, who most deeply pondered these great questions. Aristotle held to one\nsuperior deity, but taught that the stars are true and eternal deities.\nCicero leads to the belief of many gods, and approves of worshiping\ndistinguished men as gods. Socrates held to a plurality of deities, and\nalso to transmigration. He held that the common sort of good men will go\ninto the forms of bees, ants, and other animals of a mild and social kind.\nPlato held to two principles, God and matter, and that God was not\nconcerned either in the creation or government of this world. He argued\nfor the immortality of the soul on the ground of its _pre\u2010existence_, and\nconcludes some of his speculations thus:\n\n\u201cWe can not of ourselves know what will be pleasing to God, or what\nworship to pay him; but it is needful that a lawgiver be sent from heaven.\nSuch an one do I expect, and O how greatly do I desire to see him, and who\nhe is!\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXI. AUGUSTINIAN CREEDS AND THEOLOGIANS TEACH THE COMMON\u2010SENSE\nSYSTEM.\n\n\nIn the former portion of this work the Augustinian theory, with the system\nbased on it, has been presented as it is taught by creeds and theologians.\nIn contrast with it, has been presented the common\u2010sense system of\nreligion as evolved by reason and experience.\n\nThe evidence will now be presented, to show that those who teach the\nAugustinian system, at the same time teach the main points of the common\u2010\nsense system; and where the two systems are contradictory, that they teach\n_both_ sides of the contradiction, at once affirming and denying the same\nthings.\n\nA leading feature of the common\u2010sense system is, that the _nature_ of the\nhuman mind is our only guide to the natural attributes of God.\n\nIt will now be shown that leading theologians and metaphysicians of the\nAugustinian school teach the same.\n\nThe Calvinistic theologians of New England have been universally\nacknowledged as among the most acute and profound metaphysicians in the\nworld. At the head of these stands President Jonathan Edwards. In\nreference to our modes of gaining a knowledge of God, he says:\n\n\n    \u201cIf respect to the Divine Being is of any importance, then\n    speculative points are of importance, _for the only way we can\n    know what he is, is by speculation_.\u201d\n\n\nDr. Woods, for near half a century a leading theological teacher of New\nEngland, says:\n\n\n    \u201cAll our particular conceptions of God may be found to take their\n    rise from _the conceptions we form of created intelligences_.\u201d\n\n\nDr. Emmons, a distinguished New England divine, says of man:\n\n\n    \u201cIn the very frame and constitution of his nature he still bears\n    the natural image of his Maker. In a word, man is the living image\n    of the living God, in whom is displayed more of the divine nature\n    and glory than in all the works and creatures of God upon earth.\u201d\n\n\nDr. Taylor, the New Haven divine, says:\n\n\n    \u201cThe only ultimate source of knowledge, and ultimate umpire of\n    truth, is _the knowing mind_.\u201d\n\n\nThe celebrated Scotch metaphysician, Sir W. Hamilton, says:\n\n\n    \u201cWe can know God only as we know ourselves.\u201d\n\n\nIn proof of this from the Bible, these writers quote from the Apostle\nJames, that \u201cmen are made after the similitude of God.\u201d\n\nAnother leading feature of the common\u2010sense system is the position, that\nwe can discover the chief _end_ or _design_ of the Creator, by _the\nnature_ of his works, and that this end is to produce the greatest\npossible happiness with the least possible evil.\n\nIt will now be shown that leading theologians teach the same.\n\nPresident Edwards, in his _Dissertation concerning the end for which God\ncreated the world_, teaches that\n\n\n    \u201cWhat God had respect to as an _ultimate end_ of his creating the\n    world, was _to communicate of his own infinite fullness of good_.\u201d\n\n\nHe teaches that God is in no way dependent on his creatures for happiness,\nbut that his enjoyment consists in outpouring his own good to his vast\nfamily.\n\nNo one can read that essay without perceiving that, though disconnected\npassages may make a different impression, the above is a correct statement\nof the doctrine of that dissertation.\n\nIt is supposed that this view has been assented to by most of those\nAmerican and European theologians who most strenuously defend the\nAugustinian system.\n\nThe end or design of mind being ascertained, its _right mode of action_ is\nthus determined. Accordingly we shall find that the great New England\ndivines and metaphysicians, though they use different language, all\nexpress the same idea in defining true virtue or holiness.\n\nThus President Edwards taught, as his son states, that\n\n\n    \u201cEvery voluntary action which, in its general tendency and\n    ultimate consequence, leads to happiness\u2014happiness _in\n    general_\u2014happiness _on the largest scale_\u2014is virtuous; and every\n    such action which has not this tendency, and does not lead to this\n    consequence, is vicious.\u201d\n\n\nHere let it be noted that President Edwards expressly teaches that it is\nnot voluntary happiness\u2010making, irrespective of the amount, that\nconstitutes virtue; but it is \u201chappiness _in general_\u2014happiness _on the\nlargest scale_.\u201d This corresponds exactly with the common\u2010sense system,\ndemanding that happiness\u2010making be on the _greatest possible scale_, and\nin order to this, it must be _according to law or rules_.\n\nDr. Dwight, whose system of theology is accepted as the most satisfactory\nexposition of the new school Calvinistic views, teaches that\n\n\n    \u201cTrue virtue is the love of doing good, or the love of promoting\n    happiness. Its excellence consists in this, that it is the\n    _voluntary_ and only source of happiness in the universe. God\n    wills our happiness; it is, therefore, right, it is virtuous in\n    us, to seek to promote it both here and hereafter.\u201d\n\n\nIn this case, the language of Dr. Dwight is not so discriminating and\nclear as that of President Edwards\u2014for he does not show so clearly as does\nPresident Edwards that his real meaning is voluntary happiness\u2010making _on\nthe largest scale_. In this, and all the following quotations from other\nwriters, it is a fact, as gained by their _combined_ expressions, that the\ndistinction made by President Edwards was accepted, and that by the \u201clove\nof doing good,\u201d or the \u201clove of promoting happiness,\u201d is intended that\n_voluntary love_ or _good willing_ which seeks not merely some good, but\nthe _best good_ of all.\n\nDr. Taylor, the distinguished successor of Dr. Dwight, teaches the same\ndoctrine, as is so abundantly manifest in his published writings, that no\nquotations will be deemed needful.\n\nThe Westminster Assembly\u2019s Catechism teaches that\n\n\n    \u201cThe chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever.\u201d\n\n\nThe glory of God can be secured only by true virtue in himself and in his\ncreatures; and if this consists in voluntary happiness\u2010making on the\ngreatest possible scale, then the chief end of man, as taught in that old\nstandard of orthodoxy, is exactly the same as is taught in the system of\ncommon sense. Man is to make happiness on the greatest possible scale,\nguided by the laws of God\u2014and thus doing, he will \u201cglorify God and enjoy\nhim for ever.\u201d\n\nThe same theologians also teach that the laws of God are our guide as to\nwhat is good and evil, and that true virtue, or right action, is secured\nonly by obeying these laws. They hold, therefore, the doctrine of common\nsense, that all true virtue consists in voluntary obedience to the will of\nGod as manifested in his natural and revealed laws.\n\nThe next point of agreement is in the proposition, that God always has,\nand always will do what is \u201c_for the best_\u201d\u2014so that it always is and will\nbe, out of his power to do better\u2014inasmuch as _to do better than best_, is\na contradiction and absurdity. Every theologian, in one form of words or\nanother, maintains that God always has done, and always will do, _the best\nhe can_, so that he has no power to do better. This being so, it is the\nsame as teaching that the past, present and future existence of sin and\nmisery, is what is inevitable in the best system which God has power to\ncreate, so that any change in God\u2019s plans, laws, and their results, would\nimply an act of folly and malevolence on his part.\n\nThis does not imply that the sinful conduct of man is what is desired or\nintended by the Creator\u2014nor does it imply that sin was desired or intended\nby God as the \u201cnecessary means to the greatest good.\u201d Instead of this, it\nis clear that if it had been _possible_\u2014_i.e._, if God had the power\u2014to\ncreate all minds with _all the knowledge and all the motives_ that would\nsecure perfect obedience to law from all the race of Adam, there would\nhave been more happiness. The universal obedience of all free agents to\nall God\u2019s laws for making happiness on the greatest possible scale, would\nsecure perfect happiness to all, while every act of disobedience would\nlessen the amount. To deny this is the same as saying that less happiness\nis more than the most happiness, which is absurd.\n\nThe result is, that sin is not the fault of the Creator, but is the\ninevitable result of the commencement of finite, ignorant, inexperienced\nminds, and is what neither God nor man could prevent, in a perfect system\nof finite, free agents.\n\nAt the same time, it is the fault of all free agents who sin when they\nhave adequate knowledge and motives. And it is only sins against _known_\nlaw and appropriate motives which are the proper subject of penalties _in\naddition_ to the natural consequences of wrong doing.\n\nIt is claimed, therefore, that when theologians teach\u2014as all do\u2014that \u201cGod\norders all things for the best,\u201d they really teach, in another form, the\ncommon\u2010sense doctrine as stated above.\n\nHaving gained the teachings of leading theologians as to the nature of\ntrue virtue or right voluntary action, we also gain their definition of\nwrong moral action, or _sin_. In the words of President Edwards, \u201cEvery\n_voluntary_ action which in its general tendency and ultimate consequence\nleads to happiness\u2014happiness _in general_\u2014happiness _on the largest\nscale_\u2014is virtuous; and every such action which _has not this_ tendency,\nand _does not_ lead to this consequence, is vicious,\u201d or sinful.\n\nThat is to say, every volition that tends to lessen the general happiness,\nis vicious or sinful, and every violation of God\u2019s physical, social and\nmoral laws, has this tendency. Thus the Bible definition of _sin_ is the\none accepted by theologians\u2014_i.e._, \u201c_sin is the transgression of law_,\u201d\nwithout reference to the question whether the law is known or not. _True\nvirtue_ is voluntary obedience to law, and _sin_ is the voluntary\ntransgression of law. These definitions then are a part of the Augustinian\nsystem as much as they are of the common\u2010sense system.\n\nThe next point of the common\u2010sense system taught by theologians, is that\nour moral power to obey God\u2014_i.e._, power to choose according to law\ninstead of impulse\u2014is proportioned to our knowledge of law, and the\nmotives of fear, hope, love and gratitude, as they are employed by God and\nman.\n\nThis doctrine is taught by all theologians, except those who hold that the\nsin of Adam so ruined the human mind, that there is no power of _any_ kind\nto obey God, except as he gives new capacities. No quotations will be\ngiven to establish this point, because, it is believed, that no one will\nquestion it.\n\nNo quotations are needed to show that the Augustinian creeds and\ntheologians agree with the common\u2010sense system, in teaching that the soul\nis immortal\u2014that our destiny in a future state depends on our conduct in\nthis life\u2014that there is to be an eternal separation of the righteous and\nthe wicked, whose immortality will be happy or miserable according to\ntheir characters.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXII. AUGUSTINIAN CREEDS AND THEOLOGIANS CONTRADICT THE COMMON\u2010\nSENSE SYSTEM, AND THUS, ALSO, CONTRADICT THEMSELVES.\n\n\nThe preceding chapter shows the agreement of distinguished Augustinian\ntheologians with the leading points of the common\u2010sense system. We next\nare to notice the particulars in which these theologians and the\nAugustinian creeds contradict the common\u2010sense system, and thus, also,\ncontradict themselves.\n\nThe grand point, which involves these contradictions, is the dogma that\nall mankind have a _depraved nature_ consequent on the sin of Adam, which\nmakes it certain that every voluntary act of every human mind is \u201csin, and\nonly sin,\u201d until this depravity of nature is more or less rectified by the\nSpirit of God. The opposite of this is the common\u2010sense doctrine that all\nmen have a _perfect nature_, created by God, which is unchanged and not in\nany way depraved by the sin of Adam.\n\nAs involved in this common\u2010sense view, _true virtue_ consists in the\n_right action_ of a perfect nature, as it now is. In opposition,\nAugustinianism teaches that true virtue consists in the right action of a\ndepraved nature _after_ it has been more or less renewed by the Spirit of\nGod.\n\nCommon sense claims that the indispensable requisites to secure right\nvoluntary action are, _knowledge_, _training_ and _motives_, for which we\nare dependent on God, on man, and on self, conjointly. In opposition,\nAugustinianism claims that knowledge, training and motives are of no avail\nto secure true virtue, until the damage done by Adam\u2019s sin to the nature\nof every human mind, is more or less rectified, and that for this we are\nentirely dependent on the Spirit of God.\n\nCommon sense claims that man, at birth and through life, is entirely\nunable to obey many of the physical, social and moral laws of God, for\nwant of adequate knowledge, training and motives; but that he is fully\nable to obey these laws as fast as he has the appropriate knowledge,\ntraining and motives, and that before regeneration he does perform truly\nvirtuous acts. Augustinianism, in opposition, claims that man never obeys\nthe laws of God acceptably until the Spirit of God more or less rectifies\nthe depraved nature consequent on Adam\u2019s sin, and that previous to this\ninfluence of the Spirit, every voluntary act is \u201csin, and only sin.\u201d(14)\n\nCommon sense teaches that the commencement of \u201ca new life\u201d consists, not\nin the change of the nature of man, but in the commencement of a _ruling\npurpose_ to obey all the laws of God, which purpose may be an unconscious,\ngradual process by educational training, or it may be an instantaneous and\nconscious act. Augustinianism teaches that \u201cregeneration\u201d or the \u201cnew\nbirth\u201d consists in the re\u2010creation or change of the nature of mind, so as,\nmore or less, to remedy the depravity consequent on Adam\u2019s sin.\n\nCommon sense teaches that every volition of every mind, which in act and\nintention is conformed to the laws of rectitude, is truly virtuous in\nevery proper use of the term, without any reference to the question either\nof a ruling purpose or a change of nature. Augustinianism teaches that\nevery volition of every mind is sin, and only sin, previous to the act of\nregeneration accomplished by the Spirit of God.(15)\n\nTo illustrate the above by examples, suppose that a child is trained to\ndeny itself, to relieve suffering, or to make others happy. In its earlier\nefforts this is very difficult, though by practice the principle of habit\nrenders it more and more easy. Common sense teaches that the first act of\nself\u2010denial for the best good of others, in which the aim or intention is\nto do right, is truly virtuous. For the thing done is right, and the\nmotive or intention is right. But Augustinianism says no; such an act is\n\u201csin, and only sin,\u201d previous to regeneration, though it is true virtue\nafter regeneration.\n\nAgain, a young man is trained to abhor meanness and deceit and to suffer\nany thing rather than to violate his plighted faith. He is brought into an\nextremity where, by a false statement, he can escape poverty and disgrace\nto himself and his family. He sacrifices all rather than to violate his\nword and honor.\n\nIf he is not a regenerate man, Augustinianism says this act is not truly\nvirtuous, but is \u201csin, and only sin.\u201d Common sense says, it is a virtuous\nact in every sense of the term as used among men.\n\nWe have shown by quotations that Augustinian theologians teach that man\u2019s\nnature is the only guide to the nature of God, and, as his work and image,\nis perfect in construction. At the same time they teach that man\u2019s nature\nis so totally depraved that it never acts morally right, in a single\ninstance, until it is regenerated by God, and that all sin is the natural\nresult of this depravity of nature.\n\nIn consequence of this contradictory starting\u2010point, they proceed to other\ncontradictory instruction. For example, in the education of very young\nchildren most theologians, of whatever school, teach them that to speak\nthe truth, to obey parents, to deny one\u2019s self for the good of others, is\nright, good and virtuous. They teach that when little children act thus,\nbefore regeneration, they not only act virtuously, but that God approves\nand loves them for it. In doing this, they use the words _good_, _right_\nand _virtuous_, in the ordinary sense in which men understand these terms.\n\nBut at the same time, the same theologians are teaching from the pulpit\nand the press, that every voluntary act of every child is \u201csin, and only\nsin,\u201d previous to regeneration; that there is no good, right and virtuous\nact in an unregenerated mind, and that God feels no approbation or\ncomplacency in such acts or the unregenerated as the above, which are\ncalled virtuous, but are really sin.\n\nIt is manifest that the educational training of the young must be\nradically diverse just in proportion as one or the other of these two\nsystems prevails.\n\nOn the Augustinian theory, there is no hope of any right moral action, or\ntruly virtuous conduct, until the depraved nature transmitted from Adam is\nregenerated. On the common\u2010sense theory, every attempt of a parent or\neducator, and every effort of a child to secure what is best and right\nwith the intention thus to secure it, is truly virtuous, and every\nrepetition is valuable as tending to secure virtuous habits and character.\n\nOn the Augustinian theory, religious instruction is only an appointed mode\nby which God chooses to regenerate a depraved nature. It is a process for\nsecuring a new nature from God. On the common\u2010sense theory, religious\ntraining is a process for securing the development and right action of\nmind by the influences of knowledge, training and motives, and without any\nchange of its nature.\n\nIt is also clear that these two systems must be very diverse in reference\nto the interpretations of the Creator\u2019s will as gained by reason or by\nrevelations from God.\n\nOn the Augustinian theory, mind is so totally depraved as to be incapable\nof interpreting correctly, either the natural teachings of reason and\nexperience, or the recorded revelations from God. Owing to this,\n_authorized interpreters_ of God\u2019s will are indispensable. This makes the\nwhole human race dependent on a class of men authorized by God to\ninterpret his natural laws and revealed will.\n\nOn the contrary, the common\u2010sense theory claims that every mind, in\nproportion as its powers are cultivated and developed, has the means of\ndiscovering the end for which all things are created, and of interpreting\nthe teachings of reason and experience, and also of interpreting any\nrevealed records of God\u2019s will.\n\nIt thus appears that theologians and creeds that adopt the Augustinian\ntheory contradict themselves mainly in these two points:\n\nFirst, they teach that man\u2019s nature _is_ depraved and that it is _not_\ndepraved.\n\nNext, that previous to regeneration, men do not perform any truly virtuous\nacts, and yet that while unregenerated they do perform such acts.\n\nThe quotation from creeds and theologians, in preceding chapters, is proof\nthat they teach that man\u2019s nature is thus depraved, and that previous to\nregeneration he never performs a single truly virtuous act. This and the\npreceding chapter present some of the evidence that they teach the\nopposite.\n\nThe following is submitted as still further evidence of such\ncontradictions.\n\nIn the first place, it is allowed by all, that the Augustinian creeds and\ntheologians teach that man, as _a race_, including every individual, has a\ndepraved _nature_. The question, then, all turns on the meaning of the\nword _nature_, and whether they affirm its depravity _in the same sense_\nas they affirm that in nature man is the living image of the living God\nand our only guide to a knowledge of him.\n\nIt is claimed that they do use the word _nature_ in one and the same sense\nwhen they affirm that man\u2019s nature _is_ and _is not_ depraved. In proof of\nthis we must resort to our lexicographers who have collected the various\nsenses in which mankind use the word _nature_. And here we must again\nrecognize the fact that the true meaning of every word is settled simply\nby ascertaining _what meaning men attach to it when they use it_.\n\nIn examining our dictionaries, we shall find that the word _nature_ is\nused sometimes to signify every thing that God has created; as when it is\nsaid, \u201call nature speaks its Maker\u2019s praise.\u201d Sometimes, by a figurative\nuse, the Author of all things is called Nature, as when it is said that\n\u201cNature paints the flowers and spreads her repasts.\u201d\n\nNo one will claim that either of these is the sense in which the word is\nused in reference to the nature of the mind of man as a race.\n\nThe leading and primary signification of the word _nature_ is that which\nis intended and understood when we say that \u201cthe _nature_ of a design or\nconstruction is proof of the character and intention of the author.\u201d It is\nin this sense that men use the word when they speak of the nature of\nanimals, the nature of trees, and the nature of the soul.\n\nIn this use, it has but one signification, and that is, _those qualities,\npowers and faculties which are discovered by experience and observation_.\nOr in other words, when we discover the qualities of a thing, how it acts,\nand how it is acted upon, we learn its _nature_.\n\nIn regard to all other existences except mind, the only mode of\ndiscovering _their nature_ is to ascertain by experience and observation\nhow they _invariably_ appear and act. Thus we decide that it is the nature\nof water to run down hill by finding that it _invariably_ does so; and\nthat it is the nature of smoke to rise in the atmosphere by observing that\nit _invariably_ ascends.\n\nOwing to this, mankind often use the word _nature_ as signifying _that\nwhich is according to ordinary experience_. That is to say, the same word\nis used to express the _qualities and powers_ of things, and also to\nexpress that _invariable experience_ by which we learn these qualities and\npowers. What is according to our ordinary experience we say is according\nto nature, and what is contrary to ordinary experience is contrary to\nnature.\n\nThus it is according to nature for water to run down hill, and it is\ncontrary to nature for it to run up hill.\n\nIt is mind, in distinction from matter, which has the power of _willing_,\nand this is a power which never is exercised _invariably_ one way or\nanother.\n\nBut theologians have practiced this fallacy on themselves and others. They\nfirst assume, what is contrary to fact, that mind _invariably_ chooses one\nway, and that is _wrong_, from birth to regeneration. This being assumed\nwithout proof, they claim that the _nature_ of the human mind is thus\nproved to be depraved, and totally so.\n\nHaving thus, as they imagine, established its depraved voluntary nature,\nthey claim that, like all other things, the mind _must act according to\nits nature_, which, being wholly depraved, all its moral acts are\nconsequently depraved.\n\nThis is what logicians call _arguing in a circle_; _i.e._, they prove that\nit acts _invariably_ wrong because it is totally depraved, and it is\ntotally depraved because it acts _invariably_ wrong.\n\nBut common sense denies the starting assumption; _i.e._, the _invariably_\nwrong volitions of every mind from birth to regeneration. On the contrary,\nit is claimed that every choice which secures enjoyment without violating\nlaw, is right, and that whenever a mind chooses what is right, with the\nintention to act right, the choice is a truly virtuous act, and that all\nmen make such choices very often before regeneration.\n\nWhatever is according to ordinary experience in the qualities and action\nof mind, is said to be according to its nature. It is according to the\nnature of mind, then, sometimes to choose what is good, right and\nvirtuous, and at other times to choose what is evil and wrong, according\nto its knowledge, temptations and habits. Such a case never was known as a\nmind that _invariably_ chose wrong.\n\nIn view of the preceding, it is maintained that the word _nature_, as\napplied to mind, as settled by lexicographers, is always used to signify\nthe same as its _constitutional powers and faculties_, and that this is\nthe sense in which it is employed when we say \u201cthe _nature_ of a\nconstruction or design is proof of the character and intention of the\nauthor.\u201d\n\nWe are now prepared to show that theologians use the word nature in this\nsame sense when they affirm that it is totally depraved, and when, at the\nsame time, they teach that it is the image of God, and our only guide to\nhis nature and character.\n\nWe shall first present the evidence that they use the word in this sense,\nwhen they teach that every human mind is so depraved in nature that from\nbirth to regeneration every moral act is sin, and only sin.\n\nThe first item of evidence is the fact that all the other meanings of the\nword, in our dictionaries, except this, can be shown to be _not_ the ones\nin which theologians use the word in reference to men as a race, so that\nthis use is the only one remaining. They must use it in this sense, as the\nonly one left, all others being necessarily excluded.\n\nAgain, the mode by which they attempt to _prove_ that man has a depraved\nnature, shows that they use the word in this sense. For they exhibit the\n_wrong action_, or sinful feelings and conduct of the race, as the chief\nproof. Their argument is this: the _nature_ of a thing is proved by its\nqualities, how it acts, and how it is acted upon. The human mind\n_invariably_ acts depraved, therefore its nature is depraved. No one will\ndeny that theologians always present the wicked feelings and conduct of\nchildren and of men as the proofs of a depraved nature.\n\nIt is true, that in doing this they misstate facts, and maintain that\n_all_ the actions of men are sin, and only sin. This contradicts\nexperience and common sense, which affirm that the human mind sometimes\nacts right and sometimes wrong, from the first; showing that the nature of\nmind is such that it naturally acts right as well as wrong. But this\nattempt proves that they used the word in the sense here stated.\n\nAgain: that theologians use the word in this sense, is manifest from their\nattempts to relieve the character of God from the charge of being \u201cthe\nauthor of sin.\u201d They can not deny that the nature of a contrivance proves\nthe character and intention of the author, and that, if God is the author\nof man\u2019s depravity by a wrong _construction_ or _nature_ of mind, it would\nbe proof that he is the author of all the sin resulting from it, and thus\na depraved character.\n\nInstead of denying this use of the term, they allow it, and then try to\nmake man himself the author of this depraved nature, either _by_, or _in_,\nor _before_ Adam. That is, they allow that man\u2019s mind _is_ wrong in\nconstruction, but claim that he himself is the author of this wrong.\n\nAgain: that theologians use the word nature in this sense, is proved by\ntheir description of the depravity intended by them. When they are urged\nto point out what the depraved nature of man consists in, they always\nstate something which shows it to be wrong in _construction_, and which is\nexhibited in the wrong _action_ of mind.\n\nThere are these following methods of describing this depravity, viz.:\n\n1. It is called a _bias_, _propensity_, or _inclination_ to sin.\n\n2. It is called an _unbalanced_ state of the faculties.\n\n3. It is called a _habit_ of sinning formed in a pre\u2010existent state.\n\n4. It is called a wrong _combination_, or _proportion_, in the mental\nfaculties.\n\n5. It is called a state resulting from the _deprivation_ of God\u2019s Spirit.\n\nIt will now be shown that each and all of these equally involve the idea\nof that malformation or wrong construction which proves its author\ndepraved.\n\nThe first is the most common method. On this view, it is claimed that the\nminds of angels and of Adam were constructed with such a _bias_ or\ntendency to good as secured their perfect action for a given period. The\nmind of man, on the contrary, begins existence here so constructed that it\nhas a contrary _bias_ to evil; so that it never, in a single instance,\nchooses right till regenerated.\n\nThe angels and Adam had a _holy nature_, meaning a _bias_, which God\ncreated. Mankind have a contrary bias, which is a _depraved nature_, and\nof this, man is the author, either _in_, or _by_, or _before_ Adam. And\nthey all allow, that if God had created this depraved bias, or depraved\nnature, he would be \u201cthe author of sin.\u201d\n\nThe second mode is, the claim that man\u2019s depravity consists in an\n_unbalanced state_ of his faculties or propensities. The angels and Adam\nwere created by God with the proper balance, and this is the holy nature\nmade by God. Man is born with an unbalanced state of the faculties, and\nthis was created by man himself, either _by_, or _in_, or _before_ Adam.\nNow the balance of the faculties is as much a part of the construction of\nmind as any thing else, and if God created this depraved, he is proved to\nbe depraved.\n\nThe third mode is, the claim that the depravity of man\u2019s mind consists in\na _habit of sinning_. On this view, God created man\u2019s mind aright, in all\nrespects, in a pre\u00ebxistent state. In this normal condition of mind, every\npropensity was toward not only _good_, but to the _best_ good, while there\nwas sufficient _knowledge_ of right created also, to save from all\nmistakes of judgment as to what is best and right. In this perfect state\n_some_ minds began to sin, and thus formed a habit of sinning, and were\nthen sent into this world to be reformed.\n\nHere it is plain, that the depravity intended is depravity of\nconstruction. For _habit_, as men use the term, expresses the fact that\nrepetition in the use of any faculty _increases its power_. It is a change\nin the constitutional _construction_ of mind induced by use. For example,\na child has little constitutional power of mind to reason or to calculate\nfigures. By use, this deficiency of construction is modified.\n\n_Habit_, then, modifies the constitutional organization of mind.\n\nThis mode of describing the depravity of mind teaches the misconstruction\nof constitutional organization as much as all the others, but it furnishes\nanother mode by which it was induced, so as to make man the author in a\nway that is comprehensible, and not absurd.(16)\n\nThe fourth mode is the claim that the depravity of the human mind consists\nin the _disparities, or varieties, of constitutional organization_.\n\nIt has been shown that such disparities, as parts of a vast system in\nwhich the best good of the whole is the best good of each part, are\nindispensable to the perfect construction of mind in relation to that\nsystem.\n\nBut the depravity claimed is, that which is common to _every_ mind, and is\nso total that not a single mind, however highly endowed, ever, even in one\ncase, acts virtuously till regenerated. Thus the best in mental\nconstruction are as totally depraved as the worst. At the same time, it is\nclear that it is constitutional malformation that is taught, and nothing\nelse.\n\nThe fifth mode of describing the depravity of mind is that it consists in\nthe _deprivation_ of God\u2019s Spirit.\n\nThe result of this deprivation is thus described by Dr. Hodge, of the\nPrinceton Calvinist school of divines:\n\n\n    \u201cIn consequence of this withdrawal we begin to exist in moral\n    darkness, _destitute of a disposition_ to delight in God.\u201d\n\n\nArminius, the chief theologian of the Methodists, describes it thus:\n\n\n    \u201cThe will of man, with respect to the _true good_, is not only\n    wounded, bruised, inferior, crooked and attenuated, but is\n    likewise captivated, destroyed and lost; and has _no powers\n    whatever_, except such as are excited by grace.\u201d\n\n\nThus the presence of God\u2019s Spirit in Adam\u2019s mind, according to Dr. Hodge,\ninsured a \u201cdisposition\u201d to delight in God, which was lost by its\nwithdrawal. According to Arminius, this withdrawal so affected the whole\nrace, that \u201cin respect to the _true good_\u201d the will of man has _no powers\nwhatever_, except such as are excited by grace\u2014that is, by a measured\nreturn of God\u2019s Spirit, withdrawn for Adam\u2019s sin, which return was\npurchased by Christ\u2019s death.\n\nIt is clear, that it is the powers and faculties of mind that are meant\nhere, in this explanation of the depravity of man\u2019s nature.\n\nThus it is shown that every attempt to explain what depravity consists in,\nby theologians, results in their teaching a _constitutional malformation_,\nwhich proves the author of the construction to be depraved.\n\nWe will now present the evidence, that theologians contradict themselves,\nand deny that they use the word _nature_ in the sense of constitutional\norganization or construction, and maintain that they use it in some other\nsense.\n\nIn all creeds and all theological teachings, the authors expressly\ndisclaim that they maintain any thing which makes God \u201cthe author of sin.\u201d\nAnd they allow, that making God the creator of a depraved nature, would\nmake him the author of sin. Therefore, to escape the difficulty, they\nclaim that God is the author of one nature, which is perfect and in his\nown image, and that there is _another_ nature which man himself made,\neither _by_, or _in_, or _before_ Adam, which is depraved. Then when they\nare driven to identify the nature that God made and the nature that man\nmade, they are again at fault. Man really has but one nature, and that is\nthe nature which is discovered by his qualities and actions, as learned by\nexperience. There is no other nature conceivable, and no other idea that\nmen ever attach to the word when applied to the mind or soul of man.\nTherefore, theologians really do use it in the sense which they deny, for\nthere is no other.\n\nAgain, theologians deny that they teach \u201cphysical depravity\u201d and \u201cphysical\nregeneration,\u201d and the only intelligible sense of this disclaimer is, that\nthey do not teach depravity of construction and the reformation of this\ndepravity of construction. But, as before shown, when they describe the\ndepravity and regeneration, they make out what actually is physical\ndepravity and physical regeneration, and nothing else.\n\nAgain, when they attempt to describe what they mean, one class of\ntheologians\u2014_i.e._, new school Calvinists\u2014teach that the whole depravity\nconsists in a want of \u201c_right willing_.\u201d And this is exactly what the\ncommon\u2010sense system teaches\u2014_i.e._, that the depravity of man is in the\nwrong _action_ and not in the wrong _construction_ of mind. And yet when\nthey are charged with holding the Pelagian doctrine of perfect mental\nconstruction, they deny it, and say they teach depravity of nature.\n\nAs an example of this, is presented the following extract from the\nwritings of Dr. Bennet Tyler, the president of a theological seminary\nestablished to sustain the New England theology of the President Edwards\u2019\ntype, in opposition to the supposed Pelagian innovations of the New Haven\ntheologians:\n\n\n    \u201cGod has endowed you with understanding to perceive the rule of\n    duty, with conscience to feel obligation, and with _will_ to\n    choose between good and evil. Possessing these powers, you are\n    complete moral agents, and have _all_ the ability to obey the\n    commands of God that you ever will have, or ever _can_ have\u2014we do\n    not mean that all the powers and faculties of his (man\u2019s) soul are\n    so impaired that he _could not_ do his duty if he would, but that\n    he _will_ not do his duty when he can.\u201d\n\n\nIn reading the above, one would suppose that there was nothing wrong at\nall in the construction of the human mind, and that the whole difficulty\nconsisted in _not willing_ aright\u2014that is, that the depravity is not in a\nwrong _nature_, but in the wrong _action_ of a perfect nature. And yet, at\nthe time of this writing, the author was the leader of an effort to oppose\nthis very doctrine, which was supposed to be taught by the New Haven\ndivines.\n\nIn a recent work by the chief theological teacher of the leading Baptist\nSeminary,(17) we find similar contradictory statements. He thus writes:\n\n\n    \u201c_Regeneration_ is not only characterized by the sacred writers as\n    a _creative act_, by which the subject of it becomes a new\n    creature in Christ Jesus, and a generation from above, by which\n    the soul is brought into new spiritual life; but also a washing, a\n    bathing, effected by the Holy Ghost, by which the polluted soul is\n    cleansed; as an illumination, by which it is filled with the\n    knowledge of God, and qualified to appreciate spiritual things.\n    The eye of conscience is cleared, the desires and affections are\n    renewed and flow into new channels, and the selfish views,\n    prejudices and motives, which formerly reigned in the soul, are\n    superseded by faith, love and hope, resting in Christ, and leading\n    to every good work. The _entire spirit_ is readjusted morally, its\n    aspirations, tendencies and relations to God are rectified, and it\n    enters, so to speak, upon a new life.\u201d\n\n\nIn this passage, regeneration is called \u201ca creative act\u201d changing the\n_conscience_, the _desires_, the _views_, the _prejudices_ and the\n_motives_\u2014so that \u201c_the entire spirit_ is _readjusted_,\u201d and all its\n\u201caspirations, tendencies and relations to God are rectified.\u201d It is not in\nthe power of language to express _a change_ in the _faculties_ and\n_constitutional elements of mind_ more entirely than this; and yet the\nvery next paragraph reads thus:\n\n\n    \u201cBut all this pertains to the moral condition of the soul,\n    affording _no evidence that its essence has been changed; that any\n    faculty or constitutive element has been added, any fresh vigor or\n    new principle of existence infused_.\u201d\n\n\nBut the most remarkable illustration of self\u2010contradiction among\ntheologians, involved in every attempt to maintain a depraved nature\nconsequent on Adam\u2019s sin, is found in the teachings of Dr. Taylor, the\nleader of the New Haven school of divines.\n\nIn his _Concio ad Clerum_, in 1828, one aim probably was, to meet the\ncharges against himself, of teaching the Pelagian tenet, that man\u2019s\ndepravity consists, not in nature, but in action. In reference to this he\nwrites thus:\n\n\n    \u201cMen are entirely depraved by _nature_. I do not thereby mean that\n    their nature is itself sinful, nor that their nature is the\n    physical or efficient cause of their sinning; but I mean that\n    their nature is the _occasion_ or _reason_ of their sinning\u2014that\n    such is their nature, that in all the appropriate circumstances of\n    their being they will _sin_ and _only sin_.\u201d\n\n\nAgain\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIt is important to say that sin is by nature, owing to\n    propensities to inferior good, with a difference between Adam\u2019s\n    mind and ours\u2014though we can not assert that, in which this\n    difference may consist;\u2014that our propensities are the same in\n    _kind_, though different in _degree_ from those of Adam; that\n    perhaps this distinction may consist in mental differences, or in\n    superior tendencies, compared with Adam\u2019s to natural good, and\n    less tendency to the highest good.\u201d\n\n\nIn the above extract, it is as clear as language can make it, that Dr.\nTaylor taught, in 1828, that in men sin _by nature_ is owing to\npropensities to inferior good, which are \u201cdifferent from Adam\u2019s,\u201d who was\ncreated perfect, and that this is \u201cthe occasion or reason\u201d of their\nsinning, and that \u201csuch is _their nature_, that in all appropriate\ncircumstances of their being, they _will sin, and only sin_.\u201d This must\nmean the _construction_ of mind. He does not claim to describe, certainly,\nwhat this difference is between the nature of Adam and that of his\ndescendants; but he maintains that while Adam\u2019s nature was not so created\nby God at first, the nature of _all_ his descendants is so depraved, that,\nas the result, they \u201csin, and only sin,\u201d till regenerated.\n\nBut, in contradiction to this, is presented the extract below, sent by Dr.\nTaylor to the author, in a letter in which he was attempting to show that\nhe did not teach the depravity of man in his _constitutional_ faculties.\nAnd he claims that what he thus writes is what he has \u201c_always_ taught:\u201d\n\n\n    \u201cI have _always taught_ that man, after the fall of Adam, was as\n    truly created in God\u2019s image as was Adam; that Christ was tempted\n    in _all_ points like as we are; that the stronger are our inferior\n    propensities, if we govern them, as we can, by the morally right\n    act of the will, the greater is the moral excellence of the act. I\n    _do not_ maintain that man has full power to _change_ his depraved\n    nature without divine aid\u2014for I have never supposed that he has a\n    depraved nature in ANY sense, or a corrupt nature, much less a\n    sinful nature, _to be_ changed; but rather, that _in nature_ he is\n    like God. In discussions I have always opposed the use of language\n    by your father and Mr. Barnes, of a _corrupt nature not sinful_.\u201d\n\n\nNow it is not possible to make these two extracts any thing other than\nexact contradictions. For in one he teaches that men are so totally\ndepraved _in nature_, that \u201cin all the appropriate circumstances of their\nbeing they will _sin, and only sin_.\u201d\n\nIn the other, he says of man, \u201cI have never supposed that he has a\ndepraved nature, _in any sense_, or a corrupt nature, much less a sinful\nnature, to be changed; but rather that _in nature_ he is like God.\u201d\n\nIf it is asked, \u201cHow is it possible that a man, at once so honest and so\nacute, can thus contradict himself and not perceive it?\u201d it may be\nreplied, that he has done it no more than does every other theologian and\nevery creed that teaches at once, that the _nature_ of man is so depraved\nat birth that every moral act is sin, and only sin, till regeneration\u2014and\nyet, that God, the Creator of all minds, is not the author of the sin\nresulting from such a depraved nature.\n\nAnd theologians are not peculiar in self\u2010contradictions. _Every error is a\ncontradiction to some principle of common sense._ Thus it is a fact, that,\nas all men believe and maintain, by a necessity of nature, the principles\nof common sense, every _false_ principle or error which they defend, is a\nflat contradiction to some of their other declarations on other occasions.\nMeantime, it is the great mission of all free and fair _discussion_ to\nbring men to see their own inconsistencies, and to forsake all which are\nshown to be _contrary to reason and common sense_.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII. THE AUGUSTINIAN THEORY NOT IN THE BIBLE.\n\n\nIn the preceding chapters it is shown that theological creeds and\nteachings maintain the common\u2010sense system, and at the same time the\ncontradictory Augustinian system. In other words, it is shown that the\nAugustinian theologians contradict at once our common sense, our moral\nsense, and themselves.\n\nIt will next be shown that the Augustinian theory _is not contained in the\nBible_, and that theologians conflict with each other in regard to this\npoint also.\n\nThere is _only one_ passage in the Bible which was ever claimed by _any_\none as teaching a depraved nature _consequent on Adam\u2019s sin_. That passage\nis Romans v., from the 12th to the 19th verse:\n\n\n    12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death\n    by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have\n    sinned:\n\n    13 For until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed\n    when there is no law.\n\n    14 Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them\n    that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam\u2019s transgression,\n    who is the figure of him that was to come.\n\n    15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if\n    through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of\n    God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ,\n    hath abounded unto many.\n\n    16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift. For the\n    judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many\n    offenses unto justification.\n\n    17 For if by one man\u2019s offense death reigned by one; much more\n    they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of\n    righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.\n\n    18 Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men\n    to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift\n    came upon all men unto justification of life.\n\n    19 For as by one man\u2019s disobedience many were made sinners, so by\n    the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.\n\n\nIn this passage these things are taught:\n\n\n    1. By one man sin entered and death by sin, and so [_i.e._, by one\n    man] death passed on all men, _for that all have sinned_.\u2014Verses\n    12, 13, 14.\n\n    2. Through the offense of one many _have died_.\u2014Verse 15.\n\n    3. The judgment was by one to condemnation.\u2014Verse 16.\n\n    4. By one man\u2019s offense _death_ reigned by one.\u2014Verse 17.\n\n    5. By the offense of one, judgment came on all to\n    condemnation.\u2014Verse 18.\n\n    6. By one man\u2019s disobedience many were made sinners.\u2014V. 19.\n\n\nThere are three modes of interpreting this passage, and the question all\nturns on whether the _death_ spoken of is _natural_ death or _spiritual_.\n\n\n\n\nInterpretation of the Apostolic Age.\n\n\nThe first interpretation is that of the Apostolic age and onward to the\ntime of Augustine. It is briefly this:\n\nAdam is a type of Christ, and as by Adam\u2019s sin natural death came on all\nwho are his _natural children_, (for they all, like Adam, have _sinned_\nand suffer death as the consequence,) so by one man, Christ, spiritual\nlife comes to all who are Christ\u2019s _spiritual children_.\n\nThis simply teaches that Adam as the head of a sinning race, who suffer\ndeath in consequence of his sin and their own, is an emblem or type of\nChrist, the head of a holy family, who by him receive spiritual life.\nCondemnation and natural death come from sinning, both to Adam and to all\nthe children brought into being by him. Justification and spiritual life\ncome from Christ to all whom he has caused to become his spiritual\nchildren.\n\nFor abundant proof that this was the interpretation of this passage, from\nthe apostles to the time of Augustine, the author refers to Dr. E.\nBeecher\u2019s _Conflict of Ages_, book v., chapter 2.\n\n\n\n\nAugustinian Interpretation.\n\n\nThe Augustinian interpretation is this: The sin of Adam caused a _depraved\nnature_ and consequent spiritual death to all his descendants. So also the\nobedience and death of Christ have purchased or caused a _holy nature_ and\nspiritual life to all who are regenerated.\n\n\n\n\nPrinceton Interpretation.\n\n\nIt has been shown that the Princeton theologians teach, that though all\nmen did not sin _in_ Adam, or sin at all, before they were born, yet God\n_imputes_ Adam\u2019s sin to them, and _regards_ and _treats_ them _as if_ they\nhad committed it.\n\nTheir interpretation of this passage then is briefly this:\n\nAs by, or on account of, Adam\u2019s sin a _condemning sentence_ came on all\nmen, so by Christ\u2019s obedience a _sentence of acquittal_ (_i.e._,\njustification) came on all who are regenerated.\n\nAccording to these divines, verse 12 does not refer to a depraved _nature_\nnor to _actual sin_, but only to the fact that all suffer the penalty for\nAdam\u2019s sin through all time and eternity, unless they are regenerated. The\nPrinceton school of divines are the most strongly Calvinistic in\nmaintaining the total depravity of man and his entire inability to perform\nany truly virtuous act previous to regeneration.\n\nHere, then, we have these results:\n\nThe Augustinian theory of _the depraved nature_ of man, consequent on\nAdam\u2019s sin, contradicts the common sense and moral sense of mankind,\ncontradicts the creeds and teachings that contain it, and is not taught in\nthe chief passage in the Bible claimed as teaching it, as interpreted by\nthe whole Christian world in the first four centuries, and by a large body\nof Calvinistic divines who teach total depravity at the present time.\n\nWhoever, then, denies that this passage of the Bible teaches this doctrine\nis sustained by the whole Church of the Apostolic ages and by a great body\nof the highest Calvinistic churches at this day.\n\nThere are some other passages that may be referred to as relating to this\nsubject. The first is Romans, chapter ii., 6 to 16:\n\n\n    \u201cWho will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who\n    by patient continuance in well\u2010doing, seek for glory, and honor,\n    and immortality; eternal life: but unto them that are contentious,\n    and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation\n    and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that\n    doeth evil; of the Jew first and also of the Gentile; but glory,\n    honor, and peace to every man that worketh good; to the Jew first,\n    and also to the Gentile; for there is no respect of persons with\n    God. For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish\n    without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged\n    by the law; (for not the hearers of the law are just before God,\n    but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when _the\n    Gentiles, which have not the law_, do _by nature_ the things\n    contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto\n    themselves, which show the work of the law written in their\n    hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts\n    the mean while accusing, or else excusing one another;) in the day\n    when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according\n    to my gospel.\u201d\n\n\nTaken in its connection, the word _nature_, as used in this passage,\nevidently is used in its primary and chief meaning, to signify the\nconstitutional powers or organization of mind. \u201cThe work of the law\nwritten in their hearts,\u201d \u201ctheir conscience also bearing witness;\u201d these\nare what are referred to when it is said, \u201cthe Gentiles do _by nature_ the\nthings contained in the law.\u201d And it is _doing_ those things which secures\n\u201cglory, honor and peace\u201d\u2014\u201cto the Jew first, and _also to the Gentile_.\u201d\n\nAnother passage is Ephesians, ii., 1\u20103:\n\n\n    \u201cAnd you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;\n    wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this\n    world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit\n    that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also\n    we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our\n    flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and\n    were _by nature_ the children of wrath, even as others.\u201d\n\n\nIn this passage the apostle is addressing those who in a succeeding verse\nare told, \u201cremember that ye being in times past _Gentiles_ in the flesh:\u201d\nthis being so, they are those who, the same writer says, \u201cdo _by nature_\nthe things contained in the law.\u201d\n\nThe signification of nature in this passage must be _that which is\naccording to ordinary experience_. That is, _according to ordinary\nexperience_ mankind \u201care children of wrath,\u201d _i.e._, subject to the\nwrathful penalties of disobedience to the laws of God. But by the\ninfluences brought by Christ, \u201ca new life\u201d is secured, which is a life of\nintelligent and _voluntary_ obedience to law, an obedience which the\nnatural penalties of law could not secure, but which the _knowledge_ and\n_love_ of God, as manifested by Christ, do secure.\n\nOne other text merits attention: 1 Corinthians, chapter ii., 14. \u201cBut the\n_natural_ man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are\nfoolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are\nspiritually discerned.\u201d\n\nIn this passage the \u201c_natural_ man\u201d must signify \u201cman as he is found in\nour ordinary experience.\u201d The idea evidently intended, is that mankind, as\na race, do not understand or obey the truth as it is taught by Christ and\nthe Spirit of God. The fact is affirmed that without Christ and the divine\nSpirit to aid, man as a race does not come to such knowledge of and\nobedience to the laws of God as secures eternal life.\n\nIn reference to most other texts quoted to prove a depraved _nature_, it\nwill be found that they simply affirm depraved _action_. Men, in the\nBible, are described as wrong\u2010_doers_ by their own wrong _willing or\nchoice_ and not by a depraved _nature_. Sometimes they are said to choose\nwrong and sometimes right, and their wrong willing no more proves a\ndepraved nature than the right willing proves a holy nature.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV. A RELIABLE REVELATION FROM THE CREATOR IMPOSSIBLE IF IT\nCONTAINS THE AUGUSTINIAN THEORY.\n\n\nThe object aimed at in this chapter demands attention to the following\npreliminaries.\n\nBefore we can gain a reliable revelation from our Creator, we are obliged\nto establish the truth that there is such a Creator. Our only mode of\ndoing this is by the method already set forth in chapter 10, and for which\nwe are dependent on our reason or common sense.\n\nHaving, by the aid of reason, arrived at a knowledge of the existence and\ncharacter of the Creator, we next inquire as to the mode by which we can\nreceive direct revelations from him.\n\nHere we find that we are again wholly dependent on reason or common sense.\nThe principle on which we alone rely for revelations from God is this:\n\nA CHANGE IN THE ESTABLISHED ORDER OF NATURE SURPASSING HUMAN POWER, IS\nEVIDENCE OF A SUPERNATURAL AGENCY THAT IS SANCTIONED BY THE AUTHOR OF THE\nLAWS OF NATURE.\n\nThe conviction of the wisdom and power of the Author of this vast and\nwonderful frame around us is such that, whatever changes may occur in its\nestablished order, must be felt to be by his permission.\n\nTo illustrate this, suppose a man appeared, claiming to be a teacher sent\nfrom God. In proof of this, he commands a mountain to be uptorn and thrown\ninto the sea. Now, if this phenomenon should follow his command, it would\nbe impossible for any who witnessed it, to refrain from believing that the\nAuthor of Nature performed this miracle to attest the authority of his\nmessenger.\n\nIn order to insure this belief in the interference of the Creator, there\nmust be full evidence that there can be no deception, and that the\nmiraculous performance is entirely beyond human power and skill. Men\nalways talk and act on the assumption that _such_ miracles are from God,\nand all rational minds so regard them.\n\nWe have shown that the chief cause of a wrong action of mind, is that it\ncommences existence in perfect ignorance, while all those causes which\nexperience shows to be indispensable to its right action, to a greater or\nless degree are wanting.\n\nThe grand want of our race is _perfect educators_ to train new\u2010born minds,\nwho are _infallible teachers of what is right and true_.\n\nWe have presented the evidence gained by reason and experience that the\nCreator is perfect in mental constitution, and that he always has acted\nright, and always will thus act. This being granted, we infer that he\nalways has done _the best that is possible_ for the highest good of his\ncreatures in this world, and that he always will continue to do so.\n\nWe proceed to inquire in regard to what would be the best that is possible\nto be done for us in this state of being, _so far as we can conceive_.\n\nInasmuch as the great cause of the wrong action of mind is the ignorance\nand imperfection of those who are its educators in the beginning of its\nexistence, we should infer that the best possible thing to be done for our\nrace, would be to provide some _perfect and infallible teacher_ to\ninstruct those who are to educate mind. This being granted, then all would\nconcede that the Creator himself would be our best teacher, and that, if\nhe would come to us himself in a visible form, to instruct the educators\nof mind in all they need to know, for themselves and for the new\u2010born\nminds committed to their care, it would be the best thing we can conceive\nof for the highest good of our race.\n\nWe next inquire as to the best conceivable mode by which the Creator can\nmanifest himself so as to secure credence.\n\nTo decide this, let each one suppose the case his own. Let a man make his\nappearance claiming to be the Creator. We can perceive that his mere word\nwould never command the confidence of intelligent practical men. Thousands\nof impostors have appeared and made such claims, deceiving the weak and\nignorant and disgusting the wise.\n\nA person with such claims, were he ever so benevolent and intelligent, but\nhaving had no other evidence than his word to support them, would, by\nsensible persons, be regarded as the victim of some mental hallucination.\n\nBut suppose that a person claiming to be the Creator of all things, or to\nbe a messenger from him, should attest his claim by shaking the earth, or\nturning back the floods of the ocean, it would be impossible for any man\nto witness these miracles without believing, that the Author of all things\nthus attested his own presence or the authority of his messenger. We have\nshown that the very organization of mind would necessarily force such a\nbelief on all sane minds.\n\nOne other method would be as effective. Should this person predict events\nso improbable and so beyond all human intelligence, as to be equivalent to\nan equal interruption of experience as to the laws of mind, as time\ndeveloped the fulfillment of these predictions, the same belief would be\ninduced in the authority of the person thus supernaturally endowed.\n\nIn the case of miracles, the evidence would be immediate and most powerful\nin its inception. In the case of prophecy, the power of the evidence would\nincrease with time.\n\n_Miracles and prophecy_, then, are the _only_ methods that we can conceive\nof, that would, as our minds are now constituted, insure belief in\nrevelations from the Creator.\n\nBut if every human being, in order to believe, must have miracles, there\nwould result such an incessant violation of the laws of nature as to\ndestroy them, and thus to destroy all possibility of miracles.\n\nThe only possible way, then, to establish revelations to the _race_, is to\nhave them occur at certain periods of time, and then have them adequately\n_recorded and preserved_.\n\nThe Bible is a collection of books written at different periods of the\nworld\u2019s history. These books profess to be records of the various\nmanifestations and teachings of the Creator to mankind. It is claimed for\nthem, that their authority is established by miracles and prophecy, _with\nall the evidence that is possible, so far as we can conceive_, and that\nthere are no other books in the world having any _such_ evidence of\nauthorized revelations from God.\n\nNo attempt will be made to set forth this evidence, which, it is claimed,\nis peculiar to the Bible. The point here attempted is, to show that, were\nthe Augustinian system contained in these writings, it would destroy their\nclaims as _reliable_ revelations from God, even allowing that miracles and\nprophecy attested their authority.\n\nAll must allow that it is _possible_ to have such things given in a\nrevelation from God as would destroy its reliability. For example, suppose\nit were a fact that a revelation, supported by miracles, taught that\n_there was no God_. This would necessarily destroy its authority as a\nrevelation from God.\n\nSuppose again, that it taught that the Creator, who wrought the attesting\nmiracles, was a liar, and loved to deceive his creatures; this would also\ndestroy its reliability as a guide to truth.\n\nSuppose again, that it taught that the Creator was a being who preferred\nevil to good, and chose to have his creatures ignorant and miserable, when\nhe has power to make them wise and happy. This also would destroy the\nreliability of any revelation from the Creator, even were it sustained by\nundisputed miracles and prophecy.\n\nThis last is precisely what the Augustinian system _does_ teach, and, as\nits advocates claim, it is a part of a revelation from the Creator,\nsupported by miracles and prophecy.\n\nIn opposition to this, it is maintained that this system is not to be\nfound in the Bible, and that were it there, all the miracles and prophecy\nconceivable could not prove these writings to be revelations from the\nCreator, which are _reliable_ as our guide to truth and happiness. A\nCreator who wills ignorance and misery to his creatures, when he has power\nto will knowledge and happiness in their place, is not a being to be\nbelieved or trusted as our guide to truth and happiness.\n\nIt is in this light that the Augustinian theory, as a part of the Bible,\nbrings the question fairly before _the people_, as \u201c_Bible or no Bible_?\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXV. TENDENCIES OF THE TWO OPPOSING SYSTEMS.\n\n\nThe preceding chapters have presented the distinctive features of two\nsystems which, in their main points, are shown to be contradictory, while\nboth are exhibited as incorporated into the chief creeds and theological\nteachings of the Christian world.\n\nIt is the object of this chapter to point out the _tendencies_ of these\nantagonistic systems.\n\nIt is maintained, that the common\u2010sense system, resting as it does on\nimplanted principles common to all minds, is evolved and held very much in\nproportion to the development of the reasoning powers and the moral sense.\n\nThat part of this system which relates to man\u2019s duties and best interests\n_in this life_, without reference to a future state, has been more\nharmoniously evolved by the wise and good of all ages and nations than any\nother. Thus, in the teachings of Confucius, Zoroaster, Gaudama, Solon,\nSocrates, Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, and the Antonines, who are among the\nchief heathen sages, we can find nearly all the moral duties of man, to\nhimself and to his fellow\u2010man, which are to be found in the Bible. It is\ntrue that there are diversities and deficiencies in all; but a large body\nof pure morality could be made up from their united teachings. The account\ngiven of the system of Boodhism in a previous chapter is one illustration\nof this fact.\n\nBut, while it is comparatively easy for the good and wise heathen to\nreason out what is _best_ for man in this life, as taught by experience,\nthe grand failure is in _motives_ which will secure _obedience_ to the\nrules of virtue. \u201cWe see the right and yet the wrong pursue,\u201d has been the\nuniversal lament of humanity.\n\nThe character of the Creator, as \u201cthe Lord, the Lord God, merciful and\ngracious, slow unto anger, of great kindness;\u201d \u201cwho doth not _willingly_\nafflict or grieve the children of men;\u201d who \u201clike as a father pitieth his\nchildren;\u201d who is \u201ca father of the fatherless and a judge of the widow;\u201d\n\u201ca God without iniquity, just and right;\u201d \u201ca judge of the fatherless and\nthe poor;\u201d who \u201cshall judge the world with righteousness;\u201d \u201ca righteous\nGod, who trieth the heart and the reins;\u201d who \u201cwill regard the prayer of\nthe destitute;\u201d who \u201cknoweth the wants of the heart;\u201d \u201cwho knoweth our\ndown\u2010sitting and up\u2010rising, and is acquainted with all our ways;\u201d who is\n\u201ca righteous Lord who loveth righteousness;\u201d \u201cwhose judgments are all\nright;\u201d whose \u201cword is right;\u201d whose \u201cword is truth from the beginning;\u201d\nwho is \u201cplenteous in mercy and truth;\u201d such a character as this, as it is\nrecorded in the Jewish sacred books, was never evolved or set forth by the\nwisest and best sages of all the earth, unaided by these writings.\n\nThat such a Being regards our race with long\u2010suffering compassion, and\ncame himself to earth, by his teachings, example and _self\u2010sacrificing_\nlove, to save us from sin, this was never even _imagined_ by any of the\nheathen sages of earth.\n\nThe _power of motive_, secured by a belief in the omnipresence, sympathy\nand love of such a God, never was attained by the unaided reasoning of any\nhuman being.\n\nThe fact that the soul survives the dissolution of the body, and that the\ngood go where they are happy, and the wicked where they are punished, has\nbeen more or less clearly evolved by the heathen world. In some nations,\nas for example the followers of Boodhism, this doctrine is quite definite\nand distinct, but with most heathen nations all their notions on this\nsubject are dim, shadowy and unpractical.\n\nIt is those nations alone, who have had access to the Bible, who have ever\nattained the _powerful motives_ which are found in the system of common\nsense. And yet, as has been shown, these influences have been, to a great\nextent, nullified by a contradictory system.\n\nIt is claimed, that the system of common sense is the one on which the\nrevelations of the Creator, contained in the Bible, are founded. This\nbeing so, those who are most developed in their reasoning powers, and who\nalso yield the most reverence to the Bible, are those who are most\npowerfully protected against the pernicious tendencies of the antagonistic\nsystem of Augustine.\n\nThus, a system which is antagonistic to reason and common sense, has, by\necclesiastical authority and perversion, been fastened most firmly on that\nclass of minds who bring all their cultivated powers to its defense, while\nat the same time the very cultivation of these powers, and their reverence\nfor the Bible, tend to the destruction of the same system. We consequently\nfind the strongest defenders, and the strongest antagonists of the\nAugustinian system, in those sects who were educated within its\nentrenchments.\n\nIf common sense and the Bible are to conquer this false system, it must be\ndone by those whose common sense and reverence for the Bible are most\neffective and most prominent. And yet this class of persons are the ones,\nwho would the most vigorously apply their energies in the defense of a\nsystem in which they have been trained from infancy, and which is\nsustained by all the power of public sentiment, and church organization.\nThis being premised, the tendencies of the two antagonistic systems will\nnow be set forth.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVI. TENDENCIES OF THE TWO SYSTEMS AS THEY RESPECT THE\nCULTIVATION OF THE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL POWERS.\n\n\nThe system of common sense rests on the assumption that there are\nprinciples of right and wrong founded on the eternal nature of things,\nexisting independently of the will of the Creator in his own eternal mind,\nand by which his character and conduct may be judged.\n\nThe human mind is constructed in accordance with these principles, as the\nembryo image of the Eternal Creator. By the aid of these principles, we\ndiscover the design and character of God in the _nature_ of his works, and\ncan perceive what is right or wrong in moral action as tending to fulfill\nor oppose this design. Thus we are enabled to understand and to adore the\nrectitude, wisdom and goodness of our Creator, as manifested either in his\nworks or in more direct revelations from him.\n\nAccording to this system, all voluntary action is right which produces\nhappiness without violating the laws of God. Thus every person who is\nmaking self or others happy in the _best_ way, guided by the teachings of\nexperience or by revelations from God, is fulfilling the great design of\nour Maker, and thus pleasing him by promoting his chief desire.\n\nOn the contrary, the Augustinian system assumes that the human mind, being\ntotally depraved, is entirely disqualified to judge of the character and\nways of God. Nay more, it assumes that there is no standard of right and\nwrong by which we can judge of the rectitude of the ways of God.\n\nAccording to this theory, the fact that God wills a thing is what makes it\nright; so that any thing is right if God does it, and true if he says it,\nhowever contrary it may be to our moral nature and common sense.\n\nIn the teachings of moral science, founded on this theory, it is\nmaintained that God has formed our minds to feel certain emotions of\napproval or disapproval in view of certain relations and actions, which\nare right or wrong only as agreeing or disagreeing with his will. But as\nthe mind of man is depraved, this constitution is no certain guide, and we\nare dependent on direct revelations from God to teach us what is in\nagreement with his will. Yet here again we are at fault; for such is our\ndepravity that we are disqualified to _interpret_ these revelations,\nexcept as we are regenerated by God.\n\nAccordingly, man has no means of judging of the designs or character of\nhis Maker\u2014nor, while unregenerate, as most of our race are and have been,\nhas he any sure means of discovering the will of God, either by reason or\nrevelation, saving as he may find infallible priestly interpreters.\n\n\n\n\nTendencies of the Two Systems in Regard to the Cultivation of the\nReasoning Powers and Moral Sense.\n\n\nThe common\u2010sense system, resting on the assumption that _happiness\u2010making,\naccording to the laws of God_, is the chief end of man, naturally leads to\nthe development of the intellect and reason in order to discover these\nlaws, and to the devotion of all our powers to happiness\u2010making, according\nto these laws. This being so, every thing that tends to make enjoyment and\ndiminish evil without violating law, is valued as good and right. All\nnoble, generous, self\u2010sacrificing and honorable sentiments and acts are\nregarded as right, pleasing to the Father of all, and tending equally to\npromote the best good of ourselves and of all our fellow\u2010beings. In this\nlight we become _one_ with the Father and with all good beings just so far\nas we obey all the physical, social and moral laws of our Creator, and\nthus conform to his will, and add to his happiness. Thus the direct\ntendency of this system is to promote an earnest desire, first to discover\nall that is true and right, and then to follow it. And such efforts\nnaturally tend both to develop our highest powers, and to bring the mind\ninto harmony and communion with the Father of our spirits.\n\nOn the contrary, the Augustinian system, resting on the assumption that\nall the plans and ways of God are a mystery beyond our comprehension; that\nman, by nature, has no power to understand what is right or wrong in God\u2019s\ndispensations; that what we call goodness and virtue in unregenerate minds\nis not so in God\u2019s sight; that every act of every unrenewed mind is sin,\nand only sin; that until regenerated we never do any thing to move God to\nre\u2010create our ruined nature; all this in its _tendency_ leads to\nrecklessness, hopelessness and neglect of all virtuous efforts, as useless\nin regard to our highest interests. As before intimated, these tendencies\nare more or less counteracted by the teachings of common sense and the\nBible. Still, such tendencies must always be, more or less, effective and\ndisastrous.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVII. TENDENCIES OF THE TWO SYSTEMS IN RESPECT TO INDIVIDUAL\nRELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.\n\n\nThe Augustinian system, assuming that true personal religion consists in\nthe exercises of \u201ca new nature,\u201d tends to introverted mental efforts, in\norder to discover whether the signs of such a nature exist in ourselves.\n\nAs, on this theory, it is certain that man will do nothing to change his\nfallen nature until the Spirit of God is given to aid, the great attention\nand effort must be directed to those methods, which \u201cthe church\u201d decides,\nor experience has proved, to be connected with the bestowal of this\nspiritual gift.\n\nNot knowing clearly what the depraved nature is, which is to be changed,\nnor the certain signs of its existence or re\u2010creation, nor any certain\nmode of securing the desired change, there is a perplexing variety of\nvague instructions as to \u201cwhat we must do to be saved?\u201d\n\nIn illustration of this, the following from an article by the editor of\nthe Methodist Quarterly, shows how Wesley and his followers instruct on\nthis subject:\n\n\n    \u201cI have continually testified, in private and in public,\u201d says\n    Wesley, \u201cthat we are sanctified as well as justified by faith.\u201d\n\n\nThis being first stated, the great question follows, _what is that faith_\nby which we are justified and sanctified? The answer is this:\n\n\n    \u201cIt is a divine evidence and conviction, first that God hath\n    promised it in the holy Scriptures; secondly, that what God hath\n    promised he is _able_ to perform; thirdly, that he is _able and\n    willing_ to do it _now_. To this, is to be added one thing more: a\n    divine conviction _that he doeth it_. In that hour it is\n    done.\u201d(18)\n\n\nThat is, in order to be justified and sanctified we must have a divine\nevidence and conviction that God is _able_ and _willing_, and actually\n_does now_ give the justification and sanctification we seek. In other\nwords, in order to gain what we seek we must believe that we have gained\nit. In order to get a blessing we must believe that we possess it.\n\nThus it is, that one of the largest sects of our country is instructed by\nits founder and his most intelligent and learned followers, as to the way\nof salvation from everlasting and inconceivable misery. It will be\nremembered, that this class of divines teach that the depravity of man\u2019s\nmind consists in the _deprivation_ of God\u2019s Spirit, which is withheld from\nall the descendants of Adam on account of his sin.\n\nThe following presents the mode of instruction in which the author was\neducated. It is contained in a letter from Dr. Nettleton, a celebrated\nrevival preacher, who often resided with the author\u2019s father during\nrevivals in which they were co\u2010laborers. This letter was written to oppose\nthe views of the New Haven divines, who maintained that, although in\nconsequence of Adam\u2019s sin, there is a tendency or bias to evil so powerful\nas to insure \u201csin, and only sin\u201d till regeneration occurs, yet that _the\nact_ of regeneration consists in a choice or purpose on the part of man\nhimself.\n\nIn reference to these views of Dr. Taylor and others, Dr. Nettleton says:\n\n\n    \u201cThey adopt a _new theory of regeneration_. It has been said by\n    some that regeneration consists _in removing this sinful bias_,\n    which is anterior to actual volition; this they deny. But whether\n    we call this propensity _sinful_ or not, all orthodox divines who\n    have admitted its existence have, I believe, united in the opinion\n    that regeneration _does_ consist in removing it,\u201d [which the New\n    Haven divines denying, they are excluded from the \u201corthodox\u201d\n    ranks, in the view of Dr. N.]\n\n\nHe continues thus:\n\n\n    \u201cNo sinner ever did or ever will make a holy choice prior to an\n    _inclination_, _bias_ or _tendency_ to holiness.\n\n    \u201cOn the whole their [_i.e._, the New Haven divines] views of\n    depravity, of regeneration and of the mode of preaching to sinners\n    can not fail, I think, of doing very great mischief. This\n    exhibition [_i.e._, that regeneration consists in _man\u2019s choice_]\n    overlooks the most alarming feature of human depravity and _the\n    very essence of experimental religion_. It is directly calculated\n    to prevent sinners from coming under conviction of sin....\u201d\n\n    \u201cThe progress of conviction ordinarily is as follows: _Trouble and\n    alarm_ first, on account of _outward_ sins; secondly, on account\n    of hardness of heart, deadness and insensibility to divine\n    things,\u2014_tendency_, _bias_, _proneness_ or _propensity to sin_,\n    both inferred and felt; and this the convicted sinner always\n    regards, not merely as calamitous, but as _awfully criminal_ in\n    the sight of God. And the sinner utterly despairs of salvation\n    _without a change in this propensity to sin_. And while he feels\n    this propensity to be thus criminal, he is fully aware that if\n    God, by a sovereign act of his grace, does not interpose to remove\n    or change it, he shall never give his heart to God, _nor make one\n    holy choice_.\u201d\n\n\nThe great point taught by Dr. Nettleton and his associates was, that man\nhas a depraved nature consisting in a bias or propensity to sin,\nconsequent on Adam\u2019s sin, for which we are \u201cawfully criminal in the sight\nof God,\u201d and which man himself will never remedy; that regeneration\nconsists in the change of this bias by God, and that until God does make\nthis change man will \u201cnever give his heart to God nor make one holy\nchoice.\u201d And yet his sermons, as the writer heard them month after month,\nabounded in pungent addresses to sinners, commanding them in God\u2019s name to\n\u201cgive their hearts to God,\u201d and maintaining that their inability to do so\nwas owing to their own fault and _unwillingness_ to do so.\n\nAt the same time, the New Haven divines, in the same pulpit, were urging\n_their_ views, showing that regeneration consisted in \u201cchoosing God and\nhis service;\u201d that man was fully able to do this, and yet that owing to\nhis depraved nature, he never would do it, until that nature was in some\nway changed by God. Meantime, on their view also, every voluntary act,\nprevious to regeneration, was \u201csin, and only sin.\u201d Nor had God pointed out\nany sure mode of obtaining from him the gift of regenerating grace. They,\nhowever, urged that the results of _experience_ proved that regeneration,\nthough not promised to unregenerate doings, is, as a matter of fact,\nbestowed more frequently on those who use \u201cthe means of grace,\u201d such as\nprayer, reading the Bible and frequenting religious meetings, than on\nthose who do not.\n\nThe points of difference between the New Haven theologians and their\nopponents, seemed to be, that the former taught that regeneration was the\nact of man himself in choosing God\u2019s service; while Dr. Nettleton and his\nassociates taught that it consisted in the change of man\u2019s _nature_ by\nGod, and not in what was done by man himself. The New Haven theologians\nhave been more definite in their attempts to explain the exact nature of\nregeneration than any other class. They all agree, however, that man never\nwill, in any case, become regenerated until God in some measure rectifies\nthe injury done to human nature by Adam\u2019s sin; that God points out no\ndefinite way to secure this aid; and that previous to regeneration every\nmoral act of man is \u201csin, and only sin.\u201d\n\nAs to the signs or evidence of regeneration, those who teach that man\u2019s\ndepravity consists in the _deprivation_ of God\u2019s Spirit, on account of\nAdam\u2019s sin, often lead to the expectation of some sudden \u201clight and joy,\u201d\nas the first evidence of regeneration. Such, also, follow Wesley\u2019s\ndirection, and try to believe that they _are_ justified and sanctified, in\norder to become so. Others point out certain emotions toward God or toward\nJesus Christ as the proof of the commencement of a new nature.\n\nSome divines lead to the impression that the new nature consists in a\nmysterious indwelling of God in the soul, or a union of our nature to his,\nso that when it takes place, there is a natural outflowing of good\nfeelings and good works, as there was of evil before this union. But they\npoint out no intelligible way of gaining this union.\n\nThe Catholic church teaches that regeneration is conferred by the rite of\nbaptism, and that thus a seed or some mysterious principle is implanted,\nwhich is developed by use of the forms and rites of \u201cthe church,\u201d and\nexhibited in \u201cgood works.\u201d The Episcopal churches, more or less, retain\nthis view in the teachings of their clergy.\n\n\u201c_Saving faith_,\u201d or the \u201cfaith which justifies,\u201d is described by\nreligious teachers with most singular and inconsistent forms of\nexpression. If any person will make a collection of the various diverse\nexplanations of this indispensable requisite to eternal life, it would\nprove a most mournful illustration of vague teachings in reply to the\ngreat question, \u201cWhat must we do to be saved?\u201d\n\nThe following extract was prepared by a very intelligent theological\nstudent at the request of the author, in reference to the great question,\n\u201cWhat must we do to be saved?\u201d as set forth in a recent work, highly\nrecommended for its clear and practical views on this great matter. This\nwork, entitled \u201c_The Higher Christian Life_,\u201d exhibits not only the\nauthor\u2019s views of what regeneration consists in, but his views of another\nsubject that has greatly interested many minds in the religious world,\nunder the name of _Christian Perfection_:\n\n\n    \u201cI have examined, as you requested, the book entitled \u2018_The Higher\n    Christian Life_,\u2019 with a view of gaining the author\u2019s definition\n    of \u2018conversion,\u2019 or \u2018regeneration,\u2019 and his directions for\n    securing it, and also his idea of what the \u2018second conversion\u2019\n    consists in. His view of the first conversion, or regeneration,\n    _is the generally entertained one_, _i.e._, _it is the pardon of\n    our sins_. This pardon is instantaneous and entire. The moment a\n    soul believes in Christ, and accepts his atonement, that moment it\n    experiences _a complete sense of pardoned sin_.\n\n    \u201cLuther experienced this when, after fasting, and watching, and\n    struggling under the weight of sins unforgiven had brought him to\n    the brink of the grave, these words were brought home to his mind,\n    \u2018I believe in the forgiveness of sins.\u2019 From that moment \u2018joy\n    filled his soul, and he arose quickly from the depths of despair\n    and the bed of sickness.\u2019\n\n    \u201c_Second conversion is the cleansing from sin_, which the author\n    says \u2018is a work of indefinite length,\u2019 and in this particular\n    alone differs from the first conversion.\n\n    \u201cBut, in the examples cited by him, the experience of this second\n    conversion has been as instantaneous as the first. Luther,\n    climbing Pilate\u2019s stair\u2010case on his hands and knees, for the\n    purpose of gaining holiness, was brought to his feet by the truth,\n    \u2018The just shall live _by faith_.\u2019 \u2018Then,\u2019 Luther says, \u2018I felt\n    myself born again. As a new man I entered by an open door into the\n    very Paradise of God.\u2019\n\n    \u201cSo in all the other examples of this author, the apprehension of\n    _Christ as the way_, is instantaneous; and yet he says \u2018the work\n    of Christ remains yet to be done in the future.\u2019 In this point\n    only does it differ from the first conversion, that it is not all\n    done in an instant, although, as I have said before, his examples\n    all make the impression that in both cases the work is\n    instantaneous.\u201d\n\n\nThis extract is not given as a _correct_ exhibition of the views of this\nauthor, for it may not do him justice. It is given to show how vague and\nindefinite are the teachings of religious writers and preachers on this\nsubject. Here is a book recommended for its _clear views_ by the highest\nclass of minds. It is read and re\u2010read by an intelligent, well\u2010educated\nyoung man, who is studying theology in one of our first seminaries. He\nthen gives this author\u2019s view of regeneration, as that which he supposes\nto be contained in that book, and also as \u201c_the one generally\nentertained_.\u201d\n\nAnd what is this answer to the great question, \u201cWhat must we do to be\nsaved?\u201d\u2014a question on which the happiness of endless ages is suspended.\n\n_It is the pardon of sin_, which \u201cis instantaneous and entire.\u201d This is\nsomething which God does, and this, as it would seem, is regeneration.\n\nNext it is stated that \u201cthe moment a soul _believes in Christ and accepts\nhis atonement_, that moment it experiences _a complete sense of pardoned\nsin_.\u201d Here one must ask, \u201cwhat is signified by believing in Christ and\naccepting his atonement? Is this also regeneration, and if so, does it\nconsist in the intellectual assent to the proposition that Christ as God\nsuffered and died, and by this act secured the pardon of our sin?\u201d There\nis nothing given to decide these queries.\n\nNext, it is stated that this act of faith is followed by \u201c_a complete\nsense_ of pardoned sin.\u201d Is _this_ regeneration, or is it a _part_ of it?\nThere is nothing given to decide this question.\n\nIt is certain that the young man, totally failed in his efforts to secure\nany _clear_ and _definite_ conceptions of the author\u2019s meaning, exactly as\nhas been the case with the writer herself, for whom the above extract was\nprepared.\n\nIt has been the privilege of the writer, often to listen to the preaching\nof Dr. Bushnell, one of the most popular of all our religious teachers. On\none such occasion during the present season, the object of his sermon\nseemed to be to teach what was that _true knowledge of God_, which he\nurged on his hearers.\n\nHe stated that it was not merely an intellectual apprehension of his\ncharacter and deeds, but something which every soul must gain in order to\nsecure eternal life, something, as it seemed, which he deemed\n_regeneration_.\n\nHe finally enunciated this, which seemed to be his idea of this\nindispensable experience: \u201c_It is the return of God into the human soul_.\u201d\n\nIn enlarging on this, he described something which was so vague and\nindefinite as to make it useless to attempt to state the impression made.\nAfterward, aid was sought from one of the preacher\u2019s constant and most\nintelligent hearers. \u201cDoes Dr. Bushnell believe in a pre\u00ebxistent state,\nwhen God, in the manner set forth, was _in_ the soul of each human being?\nIf not, what does he mean by a \u2018return of God into the soul?\u2019 \u201d After some\ndiscussion, this intelligent parishioner concluded that his meaning\nprobably was, that when we desire and intend wholly to submit our wills to\nthat of God, and to be guided wholly by him, we become in this respect\n_one_ with God. And this is what is meant by God\u2019s _return_ into the soul.\nAt what _previous_ time this state of union was experienced, and then\nlost, so that regeneration is its \u201creturn,\u201d seemed to remain, as it\nrespects information to be gained from parishioners, a matter of hopeless\nspeculation.\n\nIn a family of whom eight are ministers of religion, and several are\ntheological professors, the one who has seemed most fully to agree with\nthe writer in explaining the nature of regeneration, is the _Star\ncontributor to the Independent_.\n\nIt has been shown that Phrenology is antagonistic to the Augustinian\ntheory of implanted evil propensities, by teaching that every faculty,\nwhen developed and regulated aright, tends to the best good of the race,\nso that the extinction of any faculty or propensity would not be an\nimprovement, but rather an injury to the constitution of mind.\n\nIn regard to this brother, here referred to, the system of Phrenology was\nembraced by him before his theological education was commenced, and was\nnever relinquished. In consequence, his mode of explaining the nature of\nregeneration has been diverse from most accepted methods of theological\nschools. And yet, when the writer, applied both to his published articles\nand to some of his most intelligent, regular hearers, to ascertain if the\ncommon\u2010sense view of regeneration, as here stated, was in perfect\nagreement with her brother\u2019s views, it seemed difficult to decide.\n\nIn reading some of the Star Papers, the common\u2010sense view of regeneration\nis clear and unmistakable; in others, there are statements as to the\n_distinctive_ nature of Christian character, which seem to be both\nadditional and diverse. The result is, an uncertainty as to the exact idea\nof what regeneration consists in, as taught by this brother.(19)\n\nThe editors of the Independent quote the following sentence from _Common\nSense Applied to Religion, or the Bible and the People_, as a statement of\n\u201cthe doctrine of the new birth,\u201d which is \u201cnot materially different\u201d from\nthat held by \u201cthe fathers and mothers of New England for eight successive\ngenerations:\u201d\n\n\n    \u201cThe \u2018second birth\u2019 is the sudden or the gradual entrance into a\n    life, in which the will of the Creator is to control the self\u2010will\n    of the creature, while under the influence of love and gratitude\n    to him, and guided by \u2018faith\u2019 in his teachings, _living chiefly\n    for the great commonwealth_ takes the place of _living chiefly for\n    self_. For this, the supernatural aid of the Holy Spirit is\n    promised to all who seek it, and without this aid, success is\n    hopeless. But the grand instrumentality is _right training_ by\n    parents and teachers.\u201d (Common Sense, etc., p. 333.)\n\n\nLet this statement, by the Independent, of what the new birth consists in,\nas held by the fathers and mothers of New England, be compared with the\npreceding account of \u201cconversion,\u201d given by a young theologian, born in\nConnecticut, and educated at Yale College, as the \u201cgenerally entertained\none,\u201d and the case is rendered increasingly difficult and perplexing.\n\nIn the view of the author, _all_ theologians do so far hold the common\u2010\nsense theory of regeneration, that when they find a person whose will\nseems to be entirely subjected to the will of God, while \u201cunder the\ninfluence of love and gratitude to Him, and guided by faith in his\nteachings, _living chiefly for the great commonwealth takes the place of\nliving chiefly for self_\u201d\u2014such a person is regarded by them as\n_regenerated_. At the same time, bound by the Augustine system, they give\nother views of the nature of regeneration, which are vague and\nconflicting, as has been illustrated in the preceding pages.(20)\n\nFrom all this results endless anxiety, doubt and distress, in\nconscientious minds, from uncertainty whether their depraved nature has\nbeen changed, and from perplexity in view of the multifarious modes of\nteaching in regard to the nature and signs of regeneration.\n\nFrom this, too, results false confidence and indifference to right and\nwrong conduct, in those who imagine they discover in themselves the signs\nof a regenerated nature, which will, as they are led to believe, secure\nheaven without reference to the amount of good or evil deeds.\n\nThis same incertitude as to what regeneration is, has also tended to\ninduce the fanaticism, extravagance and absurdities often connected with\nreligious excitements.\n\nThe idea that there is to be some mysterious change in the soul by the\ngift of God\u2019s Spirit; that this is to be gained by prayer; that the\nevidence of this change is to be found in sudden and great mental\nagitation; together with the belief that an _eternity_ of misery or bliss\nis depending on such a change; and that death is the end of all hope\u2014all\nthis tends to great extremes of distress and excitement.\n\n\n\n\nTendencies of the Common\u2010Sense System.\n\n\nIn contrast to these tendencies of the Augustinian system, in regard to\nindividual religious experience, we notice those of the common\u2010sense\nsystem. According to the latter, the _first birth_ brings man into\nexistence as an undeveloped being, with perfect and wonderful capacities\nof knowledge, enjoyment and self\u2010control. The first period of existence is\nnecessarily a period of _experimenting_, in which mind is dependent on\nothers for most of the knowledge indispensable to right action, and also\nfor the training of the physical, social and moral habits. It is\nimpossible to choose aright, intelligently, until a child learns _what is\nright_, and this is a slow and gradual process. In some cases, by a\ncareful training, early virtuous principles and habits may be so induced,\nthat there can not be any marked period in which the mind comes under the\ncontrol of _a ruling purpose_ to obey all the rules of rectitude as\ndisclosed by reason and experience, or by revelations from God.\n\nIn other cases, the child may grow up to manhood entirely unregulated by\nany such purpose, while self\u2010gratification, unrestrained by rules, is the\nperpetual aim. In such cases, a sudden change, in which the man forms and\ncarries out a ruling purpose to act righteously and virtuously, in all his\nrelations to man, to God and to himself, may take place. This change, in\nthe language of common life, would be expressed thus: \u201cThe man has begun a\nnew life; he is a new creature.\u201d And by a figurative use of language, the\nchange might be called \u201ca new birth,\u201d or, in theological language,\n\u201cregeneration.\u201d In such a case, the chief desire or ruling passion would\nbe, to discover and to obey all the physical, social and moral laws of the\nCreator, as they are taught by reason and experience, or by revelations\nfrom God.\n\nSuch an experience would be properly expressed by the terms, _faith_ in\nGod, _love_ to God, _repentance_ toward God, _as these terms are used by\nmen in common life_. Thus \u201cregeneration,\u201d according to the common\u2010sense\nsystem, becomes an intelligible, rational and practical matter.\n\nIn case of a revelation from God by a prophet or messenger, confidence in,\nand obedience to, the teachings of that messenger, would be practical or\nsaving faith, both in God and in his messenger also. Thus, if Christ is\nproved to be a messenger from God by miracles, whoever _practically\nbelieves_ in Christ, believes in God also. And just so far as a man\nunderstands Christ\u2019s teachings _aright_, and _purposes_ to obey him, and\n_carries out_ this purpose, just so far he has faith, and love, and\nrepentance toward God and toward Christ. And as men are named by the name\nof those they obey, every man is a _true Christian_ just so far as he\nunderstands Christ\u2019s teachings _aright_ and _obeys_ them.\n\nIn this view of the case, the true \u201c_signs of regeneration_\u201d would be each\nperson\u2019s consciousness of the great end and purpose of his life, and the\nfruits or results of this purpose in an habitual obedience to the\nphysical, social and moral laws of God, as learned by reason, experience\nand revelation. Thus the answer to the great question of life becomes\nclear, harmonious and practical, furnishing the means for every person to\njudge of his own character and prospects.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXVIII. TENDENCIES OF THE TWO SYSTEMS IN REFERENCE TO THE\nCHARACTER OF GOD.\n\n\nIt has been shown (chapter 24) that _emotive_ love, in view of noble and\ninteresting traits of character, affords a most powerful motive in\nsecuring _voluntary love_ or _good willing_ according to the laws of God.\nThis is the grand reason why it is so important that all his creatures\nshould regard their Creator, whose laws they must obey, as perfect in\nevery noble and lovable quality. This would render it easy and delightful\nto obey his will.\n\nThe principle of gratitude is the strongest in our nature, in calling\nforth desires to please another. This renders it so important that we\nshould regard our Maker, not only as noble and lovely, but as the\ndispenser of innumerable and constant favors to ourselves and to those\nwhom we love.\n\nThe highest emotions of love and gratitude are evoked when a noble and\nlovely benefactor condescends to humiliation, suffering, and even to death\nto rescue from great calamity. And the greater the danger and suffering\nfrom which this goodness rescues, the stronger the gratitude and the\ndesire to please the benefactor.\n\nIn this view we can conceive of no way in which our Creator could so\npowerfully influence his creatures to virtuous self\u2010sacrifice for the\ngeneral good in obedience to his laws, as by such an exhibition on his\npart.\n\nIt has been shown [Chapter 28] that by the light of reason and experience\nalone, we infer that our race are exposed to dreadful risk and danger of\nevils, which to _some_ will prove interminable. If, then, it can be made\nto appear that our Creator has submitted to great humiliation and\nsuffering to rescue us, and that his _chief desire_ is that his creatures\nshould obey his beneficent laws, the strongest conceivable motives would\nbe secured to lead to glad obedience to the rules of virtue. And having\nshown that the chief end of our Creator is to do all in his power to make\nthe most possible happiness, we should infer that he had made or would\nmake such a manifestation of his character to his creatures. And were this\nrevealed to us as done, such a revelation would properly be called \u201cglad\ntidings,\u201d as that which was best fitted to save men from sin and\nsuffering.\n\nAccording to the system of common sense, our Creator is presented as the\nAlmighty Father, who forms each finite mind an embryo image of his own all\nperfect mind, with the great design of making all the happiness possible.\nAlthough the highest happiness of each and of all, depends on the perfect\naction of every mind, such action is not possible in the nature of things\nexcept as a knowledge of his laws and of the motives to secure obedience\nare made known by finite educators, who must first be trained themselves\nby a long and slow process. Thus every mind is dependent for its final\nsuccess in attaining perfect obedience to law, and for perfected\nhappiness, on God, on finite educators and on self.\n\nIn carrying forward the development and education of our race, the Creator\nalways has done and always will do the _best that is possible_ for the\ngood of all. And yet, so far as reason and experience teach, some will be\n_ruined for ever_. The deteriorating process begun in this life, and its\nbaleful results, will continue for ever.\n\nThe great consummation, when those that are hopelessly ruined will be\nseparated from the good, is at an indefinite period ahead, and may be many\nages, while the same process of labor and training are proceeding in the\nunseen world, and yet so that the conduct and character formed in this\nlife have a _decided influence_ on the whole course of existence that\nfollows.\n\nThus when the good man dies we may hope that his upward career is\neternally secure. But when the wicked die there must be \u201ca certain fearful\nlooking for of judgment and fiery indignation.\u201d\n\nThe Creator does, has done, and will do _all that is __ possible_ to save\nall that _can_ be saved from this doom, and as the highest possible\nmotives we can conceive to secure this end, would be the appearance of our\nCreator in human form as a teacher of his laws, an example of virtue and a\nself\u2010sacrificing Saviour, we infer that he has done or will do this, at\nthe time and in the manner which is best fitted to the great end in view.\n\nThe Augustinian system presents a view of the character and conduct of the\nCreator in mournful contrast to this.\n\nOur only idea of a perfectly benevolent being is that of one who prefers\nhappiness to suffering, and who does _all in his power_ to promote one and\nprevent the other. Our only idea of a malevolent being is, that he wills\nmisery when he has full power to make happiness in its stead. Our only\nevidence of the _moral_ character of a being (or that exhibited in\n_willing_) is _the nature_ of his works. On the Augustinian theory, all\nthe chief works of the Creator\u2019s hand, the immortal minds, which alone\ngive value to any other existences, are depraved so totally that there is\nno really good act done by any one of them till created anew.\n\nIn other words, the Creator, having full power to make every mind perfect\nin nature, and who still has power to re\u2010create all with perfect natures,\nhas instituted a system by which the sin of one man entails a depraved\nnature on a whole race, while the evil as yet has been remedied only in\nthe case of a small, \u201celect\u201d number. All the rest are doomed to eternal\nmisery for conduct which is the certain consequence of this misformed\nnature.\n\nTo save men from the punishment of the sins consequent on their depraved\nnature, Christ, the most perfect and only unsinning being that ever\nvisited earth, undergoes deep humiliation and excruciating sufferings.\n\nTo call such conduct as this _just_, or _kind_, or _merciful_, is a\nviolation of all our ideas of the meaning of such terms. What kindness is\nthere in giving existence to _any_ being on such terms? What blessings are\nall the comforts and enjoyments of this life, so soon to be snatched away,\nthus making the contrast of future misery so much the more horrible? What\nmercy is there in any mode of rectifying a wrong so needlessly inflicted?\nWhat mercy, or what justice is there in adding to all the miseries of our\nrace the sufferings of so noble and lovely a being as Jesus Christ, when\nall, and more than all, effected by his agonies, could be so much more\njustly and reasonably secured by regenerating all the minds thus\nneedlessly ruined in their nature? This strange and mysterious transaction\nonly adds to the terror and gloom that shroud such a Creator, whose\ncharacter can be learned only by the _nature_ of his works.\n\nTo call all this a _mystery_ is a misuse of terms, for there is no mystery\nabout it. More direct, clear, and open injustice, folly and malevolence,\ncan not possibly be expressed in human language than that here set forth\nand ascribed to God.\n\nEvery mind instinctively asks, why did not the Creator give us a perfect\nnature when he has the power to do so? Why does he not stop all the sin\nand misery resulting from the depraved nature of man by regenerating all,\nwhen he has power to do so? How can we either respect or love a being who\nhas done such awful and endless wrong to our race, and for no conceivable\ngood made known to us? What cause of gratitude for the sufferings and\ndeath of Christ to save the few of us who alone are to escape from such\nneedless and intolerable evils?\n\nMeantime, the various theories invented to relieve the baleful impression\nthus made as to the character of our Creator, only add new difficulties.\n\nTo say that this perpetuated mode of bringing ruined minds into existence,\nis a penalty for a single sin of the first pair, thousands of years ago,\nwhat a violation of all our ideas of justice! To say that this transaction\nis _just_ because Adam was \u201c_regarded_\u201d by God as \u201cthe federal head\u201d of\nour race, and that he \u201cimputes\u201d the sin of the father to all his\ndescendants, what is this, to our conceptions, but puerile folly added to\nthe baldest cruelty and injustice?\n\nTo say that we all \u201csinned _in_ Adam,\u201d thousands of years before we were\nborn, and are punished by a ruined nature, so far as we can conceive of\nsuch an absurd proposition, what is this penalty better than inflicting\nendless tortures on myriads of new\u2010born infants for their first ignorant\nand unconscious sin?\n\nTo say that _man_, or _Adam_ is the author of all this ineffable wrong,\nbecause it is done by \u201ca constitutional transmission\u201d from parent to\nchild, of which God is the author, when he had full power to make each\nchild perfect in nature, what is this but adding to cruelty and injustice\na mean subterfuge in order to cast the blame on Adam and his race?\n\nThe mind turns from a God so represented, with horror and dismay, and it\nis only by concealing this system, by representations that are _perfectly\ncontradictory_, that the baleful impression is lessened.\n\nThe view of God\u2019s character thus presented by the Augustinian theory, not\nonly lessens the power of motive which the common\u2010sense view of the\nCreator\u2019s character affords, but brings a powerful positive influence to\nturn the human mind from that love and obedience toward God which is so\nindispensable to peace and happiness.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXXIX. TENDENCIES OF THE TWO SYSTEMS AS TO CHURCH ORGANIZATIONS.\n\n\nIt has been shown that the common\u2010sense theory teaches that all mankind\nmust, in order to eternal happiness, be trained by human agencies to\nchoose what is _best_, guided by the laws of God, as learned by experience\nor by revelation.\n\nUnder the guidance of this general principle, _associated_ bodies would\nresult, whose aim would be discussion and instruction to discover and\nperpetuate a _knowledge_ of the rules of rectitude, and to secure all\nthose _motives_ which experience has proved to be most effective in\nsecuring obedience to these rules. In other words, the chief end of such\nassociations would be to find out what is _best_ and thus right, and also\nthe _best_ modes of securing right action.\n\nThe experience of mankind has shown that the most effective way to extend\nand perpetuate any religion is to have a body of men supported who shall\ngive their chief energies and time to this object. Social gatherings at\nregular periods have also been found effective to this end. In short, were\na system of religion established, founded _exclusively_ and _consistently_\non experience and common sense, it would include sabbaths of interrupted\nworldly affairs, social gatherings to promote worshipful obedience to the\nCreator and a body of men educated and sustained for the express purpose\nof discovering, instructing in and perpetuating the intellectual, social,\nmoral and religious interests of humanity. Such a ministry would be not\ndogmatic teachers, but leaders in discussions and investigations.\n\nThe great aim of all these arrangements would be to discover by inquiry\nand discussion what is best in all human interests and affairs, in view of\nthe immortality of man, and the risks and dangers of eternity, and also to\ndevise the best modes of influencing all to right action.\n\nWere this life the end of our being, and were all questions of right and\nwrong to be settled in reference to the well\u2010being of our race in this\nshort span, no such separate class of religious leaders and organized\ninstrumentalities would be needful. But if men are to be _trained_ to act\nwith reference to the invisible state as the _chief_ concern, then\norganized instrumentalities to resist the overruling tide of worldliness\nbecome indispensable.\n\nThe full tendencies of such organizations, based _exclusively_ on the\nprinciples of common sense, must be a matter of speculation merely, for\nthe world has had no experience of this kind. As yet we have only the\nexperience of mankind as to systems in which the teachings of common sense\nhave been combined with contradictory influences of false dogmas, which\nhave been sustained by the strongest organizations, civil and\necclesiastical.\n\nWe will now trace some of the tendencies of the Augustinian system as they\nhave been exhibited in the history of church organizations.\n\nIt has been shown that the Augustinian theory of a depraved nature is the\nfoundation doctrine alike of the Catholic and the Protestant churches. All\nagree that man by nature is so miserably misformed that the gift of the\nHoly Spirit purchased by Christ to re\u2010create is his sole hope of escape\nfrom everlasting perdition, while there is little or no ability to\nunderstand or obey God\u2019s revealed will until this gift is imparted. From\nthis originated a priesthood as the medium through which this renewing\ngift is to be obtained, and who are the only authorized interpreters of\nGod\u2019s revealed will. The transmission of this power through the rite of\nordination, preserved in direct succession from the apostles, is the\nleading point in the Episcopal organization. Still more is this carried\nout to extreme results in the Catholic church.\n\nBoth organizations assume that \u201cthe church\u201d which has this power, does not\ninclude _the people_, but is the priesthood alone. It is the ecclesiastics\nof these churches who are to interpret the Bible for the people, and the\npeople are to receive these decisions as from God. This is the _theory_,\nwhile common sense and the Bible have more or less modified its practical\nadoption, especially in the Episcopal churches.\n\nThe Puritans of England were the first among the Protestants who organized\nchurches as consisting solely of those who \u201cprofess\u201d to be \u201cregenerated\u201d\non the theory of the renewal of the depraved nature derived from Adam. To\nthis profession in most cases must be added an examination by persons who\nare regenerated in order to ascertain whether the true signs of a new\nnature, according to their pattern, really exist. Such churches are a\nclose corporation, having a minister to preach and administer baptism and\nthe sacrament of the Lord\u2019s Supper, and deacons, elders, or committees to\ndecide who shall be received as regenerate or turned out as unregenerate.\n\nAmong the Puritans and their descendants originated another practice which\nhas become prevalent, by which the churches thus organized as regenerated\npersons, also claim the right of infallible interpreters of the Bible, so\nfar as to exclude all from their communion who do not profess to agree\nwith their interpretations. That is to say, all persons, in order to be\nadmitted to their corporation and to the Lord\u2019s table, must not only\nprofess to be regenerate in the nature transmitted from Adam, but must\nconfess that they interpret the Bible according to the notions of the\nchurch they seek to join.\n\nIt will now be shown that most of our large denominations in this country\nare so founded on the Augustinian dogma that were _the people_ all to give\nup this theory the whole basis of sectarianism would be destroyed.\n\nThe Congregational and Baptist denominations are severed simply in\nreference to the rite of baptism as the mode of admission to their\nregenerated churches. The Congregationalists hold that baptism should be\nadministered by sprinkling, and to the infants of church members as well\nas to adults joining the church. The Baptists hold that baptism should be\nadministered by immersion, and only to adults who join the church. This is\nall that divides the two sects.\n\nOf course, if all the people ceased to hold that churches are to consist\nof persons whose nature received from Adam is re\u2010created, all churches\nassociated on the theory would be ended, and so these disputes about modes\nof admission would be ended.\n\nAgain, the Presbyterians and Congregationalists separate on the question\nof the appointment and duties of the _officers_ of their churches. The\nCongregationalists manage by church committees. Each church is the sole\ntribunal in its own affairs, thus being strictly democratic. The\nPresbyterian churches manage the business of each church by _sessions_ or\n_elders_ appointed by the church, and when they fail to give satisfaction,\nan appeal is made to a Presbytery consisting of ministers and elders of\nseveral churches.\n\nThus again, if churches organized on the Augustine theory of the\nregeneration of a depraved nature should cease, this dispute in regard to\n_church officers_ would end, and the Presbyterians, Congregationalists,\nand Baptists would find all ground for separation gone.\n\nAgain, the old and new school Presbyterian churches separate on questions\nrelating to man\u2019s ability to regenerate himself and in regard to what is\nthe nature of regeneration.\n\nThis all depends on the fact of a depraved nature transmitted from Adam to\nbe regenerated. If this dogma is relinquished by the people then these two\nsects will have no ground for division.\n\nAgain, the Methodists differ from the other Augustinian sects chiefly in\nregard to the officers and management of churches organized on the theory\nof a depraved nature received from Adam, which is to be regenerated. And\nif such organizations were ended the ground of separation between the\nMethodists and the preceding sects would be removed.\n\nAgain, the Episcopalian sect is founded on the idea of a succession of\nordained priests through whose agency the gift of God\u2019s Spirit to renew\nour depraved nature and to impart the true interpretation of his\nrevelations is to be obtained.\n\nIf, then, the people discard the dogma of a depraved nature consequent on\nAdam\u2019s sin, and assume that they have perfect natures, and are authorized\nto interpret the Bible for themselves, the chief ground for the existence\nof this as a separate sect will be removed. The Catholic church also would\nsoon be ended as a distinct sect were all the people of that church to\ndiscard these and all opinions and practices immediately or remotely based\non the Augustinian dogma.\n\nThe preceding will serve to illustrate the position that the tendency of\nthe common\u2010sense system is to unite all men in efforts to discover and to\nobey all the laws of God for making happiness the _best_ way for time and\neternity.\n\nOn the contrary, the Augustinian system tends to organize mankind into\nsects contending, not for truth and happiness, but for certain outward\nrites and forms of organization.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XL. TENDENCIES OF THE TWO SYSTEMS IN REGARD TO HUMILITY, MEEKNESS\nAND A TEACHABLE SPIRIT.\n\n\nThe result of receiving _church_ interpretations as infallible, whether of\npriests or regenerated laity, is the assumption of a similar infallibility\nby each person who thus accepts them.\n\nThis is accomplished by a very singular fallacy, thus:\n\nThe regularly ordained priests, or the regenerated priests and laity of\nthe _true_ church, are claimed to be the only persons qualified to\nunderstand and interpret the meaning of God\u2019s revelations. The question\nthen is, _which is the true church_? The Catholic says, \u201cMine, and no\nother.\u201d The Episcopalian says, \u201cMine, and no other;\u201d and so says the\nPresbyterian. The result is, each man decides that the true church is _the\none that agrees with his views of what the Bible teaches_.\n\nHaving thus decided that the church that agrees with himself is the true\nchurch, the man proceeds, not only to receive reverently the decisions of\nhis church, but assumes that every other man is bound to do the same.\n\nThe Catholic receives one set of interpretations from the church that he\nhimself has infallibly decided to be the true church. The Protestant\nreceives the creeds and confessions of the church he has infallibly\ndecided to be the true church, whose regenerated ministers and members are\nqualified to understand the Bible, as no unregenerated man can do.\n\nBeing thus sustained by his own claims as a regenerated person, and also\nby the claims of the church he adopts as the true one, there is little\nfoundation for poverty of spirit, humility and meekness. How can a man\nfeel \u201cpoor in spirit,\u201d as destitute of the knowledge requisite for right\naction, when he has his own regenerated mind and the guidance of the\nregenerated true church? How can a man be meek when others strive to\nenlighten him by showing that he is in the wrong, especially when such\nefforts are those of the unregenerated, or those shut out of his true\nchurch?\n\nHow can a man become very humble and lowly in his own conceit, when, in\ncontrast with most of the world, he alone can feel and act virtuously or\nunderstand truly God\u2019s revelations?\n\nThe natural tendency to pride, self\u2010sufficiency and dogmatism is still\nfurther increased by the assumption that humility consists mainly in a low\nopinion of \u201cthe nature\u201d with which we are endowed. Thus, while assuming\ninfallibility in one aspect, they still can claim to be humble and lowly,\nbecause they abhor and despise their depraved nature and its results in\nthemselves.\n\nAt the same time, the most remarkable self\u2010deception is practiced in\nregard to their own Christian graces. These all being supposed to spring\nfrom a regenerated nature imparted by God, they disclaim all honor or\nmerit, and give all the glory to God, who has wrought these graces from\ntheir dead and sinful nature. By this method they imagine they attain a\ntrue humility and lowliness of spirit.\n\nBut every man of great genius, and every woman of uncommon beauty,\nunderstand as truly as the professedly regenerated person, that their\ngifts are from God, and are willing to give all the glory to him for thus\ndistinguishing them from their fellow\u2010creatures. And the ascription of all\nthe power and glory to God does not save the professedly regenerated\nperson from self\u2010complacency and pride any more than it does the genius or\nthe beauty.\n\nAnd yet we find religious writings abounding in such disclaimers and\nascriptions, which are evidently regarded as proofs of humility and\nlowliness of spirit. It is true that such expressions do often flow from\nthe hearts of the really humble and contrite; but the fact that a person\nregards and acknowledges God as the author of his own extraordinary gifts,\nthat raise him above his fellows, is no _proof_ of humility, while it is\noften so regarded.\n\nIn contrast to this tendency of the Augustinian system, the common\u2010sense\nview teaches that while our nature is noble and perfect in\nconstruction\u2014the embryo image of its Maker\u2014it is destitute of that\nknowledge, experience and training, for which it is equally dependent on\nGod and on man. And as the requisite knowledge can be gained only by the\naid of those minds around, whose happiness is affected by our conduct, it\nis clear that a willingness to learn from any quarter and to be told our\nmistakes by any person, is the natural result of an earnest desire to find\nout and obey the truth. And a consciousness of our own liabilities to\nmistakes, and a certainty that there is no one \u201cthat liveth and sinneth\nnot,\u201d tends to induce compassionate sympathy for the failings of others,\nand an indisposition to force opinions on them by any other mode than calm\nstatement and argument.\n\nAt the same time, an earnest desire for inquiry and discussion is\ngenerated, which naturally leads to patient investigation, courteous\ndemeanor towards opponents, and to all the graces that wait on a gentle,\nhumble and truth\u2010loving spirit.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLI. TENDENCIES OF THE TWO SYSTEMS IN REGARD TO DOGMATISM,\nPERSECUTION AND ECCLESIASTICAL TYRANNY.\n\n\nIt has been shown that the Augustinian system, teaching as it does man\u2019s\ndepraved nature and destitution of any principles of right guidance in his\nown mind, makes him wholly dependent not only on revelations from his\nCreator, but on infallible interpreters.\n\nThus we find that wherever this system became dominant there has co\u00ebxisted\nthe claim that _the people_ are not to decide, each one for himself, what\nare the teachings of reason, experience and revelation as to truth and\nduty. Instead of this, first it was popes and councils, in which the laity\nhad no voice; next, as among the Puritans, it was the church, including\nboth the clergy and the regenerated portion of their flocks.\n\nFrom this resulted religious persecutions, in this manner: Men are to obey\nGod as their first duty. _The church_ is God\u2019s mouth\u2010piece to interpret\nhis commands to mankind. If men refuse to obey God, speaking through his\nchurch, they must be forced to do so by pains and penalties. And as in\nview of eternal happiness and eternal misery, all earthly interests are as\nnothing, every temporal consideration must be put out of account.\nMoreover, whoever leads men to disobey the church and thus to disobey God,\nand so to peril not only their own eternal welfare, but that of others,\ncommits a greater crime than is done by violating any human ordinances.\nTherefore, the heaviest penalties should be employed to enforce obedience\nto the church, and the church must take precedence of the civil\ngovernment.\n\nThus it came to pass that the more sincere, conscientious and benevolent a\nperson was, while holding these views, the more surely would he become a\npersecutor.\n\nThe pages of history give many mournful illustrations of this truth. One\nof the most striking will be here introduced.\n\nIsabella of Spain, by whose generosity this western world was discovered,\nwas one of the most gentle, conscientious, benevolent and lovely\ncharacters that ever adorned a throne.\n\nShe was trained to believe the church to be the representative of God on\nearth, and her father confessor, Torquemada, the originator of the\nInquisition, was the guide of her conscience. By his commands the\nInquisition reared its horrid dungeons. By his counsel the industrious,\ncultivated and chivalrous Moors, the most useful of all her subjects, were\ndriven from their native soil. By his commands the Jews were brought to\nthe cruel alternative of giving up their religion or relinquishing all\nthat made life dear. And thus the historian narrates this dreadful tale of\nreligious persecution:\n\n\n    \u201cThe experiment of conversion was tried upon the Jews, and it\n    utterly and totally failed. In the first place, their position in\n    Christian society was a source of continual discussion. \u2018If we\n    admit them to public offices, we have gained nothing,\u2019 said the\n    mercantile classes. \u2018If we exclude them,\u2019 said the clergy, \u2018what\n    motive is held out for the rest to join us?\u2019 But as a religious\n    experiment, the failure was even more complete. The fathers were\n    nominal converts, and nominal converts the children continued to\n    be. Ostentatiously they attended mass; but in their own houses\n    their Sabbath was kept, their ritual was read, their psalms were\n    sung. Meantime, intercourse and intermarriage with Christians\n    became more fatally easy than it had been before. Shunned by the\n    middle classes, they intermarried with the \u2019blue blood\u2019 of the\n    nobility, they entered the priesthood, and ascended the highest\n    steps of the Catholic hierarchy. Nay, they became, more than once,\n    inquisitors, and wielded against their foes with cynical hatred\n    the terrors of the Holy Office. Of the Inquisition there is no\n    space to speak here;(21) sufficient to say that the \u2018New\n    Christians\u2019 were the chief cause of its institution, and that\n    during the eighteen years that Torquemada held office, ten\n    thousand persons were burned alive.\n\n    \u201cBut two thirds of the Jews of Spain had remained unconverted; and\n    with them the Inquisition had nothing to do; for they were under\n    special laws and under royal protection. But Torquemada had not\n    forgotten them. Working on the pride of Ferdinand, on the\n    conscience of Isabella, he persuaded them to sign the celebrated\n    Edict of Exile. They were to leave Spain in three months. They\n    were to take neither silver nor gold with them. If it pleased God\n    to change their hearts, the church would most willingly receive\n    them.\n\n    \u201cRuinous alike to banisher and banished, this edict had cost a\n    struggle. Isaac Abarbenel, wealthy, learned, high in royal favor,\n    rushed into the queen\u2019s audience\u2010chamber, on hearing what till\n    then had been carefully concealed from his nation, threw himself\n    at her feet, and doubtless won her over for the moment. To\n    Ferdinand he offered thirty thousand ducats. But, in the wavering\n    of debate, Torquemada appeared suddenly. \u2018Judas,\u2019 he said, \u2018sold\n    his master for thirty pieces. Your Majesties, it seems, want\n    thirty thousand. Here He is; take Him; and what ye do, do\n    quickly!\u2019 Dashing a crucifix on the table, he left them. The omen\n    was clear, and the die was cast.\n\n    \u201cTo the Jews one road of deliverance was still left. To renounce\n    the outward garb of their religion, never again to pass the\n    threshold of a synagogue, never to chant a Hebrew hymn nor keep a\n    Hebrew Sabbath; to change every household custom, to break all the\n    rules of life, dear from the nursery and clung to on the bed of\n    death; to repeat a false creed, to enter an idolatrous temple, to\n    kneel down with God\u2019s enemies;\u2014this road was open, though treading\n    it they would have trampled on their fathers\u2019 tombs. Yet, on the\n    other hand, thousands had taken that course; and would tell them\n    that strict adherence to the laws of the land they lived in,\n    abstinence from all that might offend, performance of harmless\n    superstitions, bowing down for a season in the house of Rimmon,\n    that this was a course plainly marked out by Providence. The loss,\n    too, that they would suffer in exile was immense; and we must\n    estimate this loss before we can estimate the worth of those who\n    chose to suffer.\n\n    \u201cWe have seen the Jews of France leave it, enter it, leave it\n    again, and count the value of their sojourn at exactly the price\n    at which re\u00ebntrance could be bought. It was a market\u2010stall, a\n    field for acquisition; but it was not the seat of Jewish learning,\n    it was not the resting place of their fathers for many\n    generations.\n\n    \u201cNow Spain was something more to them than this. It was no foreign\n    soil, passed and repassed with the indifference of a stranger.\n    They had lived there for twelve hundred years. They had seen the\n    Teutonic forest\u2010creeds moulded and melted into the new faith of\n    Rome. They had seen the Ishmaelite sweep that faith away. By him\n    they had been welcomed as brothers. With him they had lit the lamp\n    of science when all the world was dark. Then they had seen the\n    Cross rise from the northern mountains, and the Crescent wane and\n    wane before it. By the kings of Christian Spain their worth had\n    been acknowledged; they had fostered their trade; they had called\n    them to their councils; they had befriended and loved them.\n    Persecution and jealousy had driven many of their brethren to\n    accept another creed; but the new Christians were Jews still; they\n    had married their daughters to the proudest nobles of a race where\n    the peasant was proud; and not a duke in all Spain could despise\n    them without despising his own mother\u2019s blood. Spain, too, was the\n    land where Jewish wisdom had unfolded and blossomed. Their\n    physicians and their astronomers were the first in Europe. Their\n    poets and their philosophers were eminent among their nation. The\n    psalms of Jehuda Halevi were sung in the synagogues of the Rhine.\n    Aben Esra had eclipsed the fame of the great Eastern school of\n    Pombeditha; above all, Spain claimed the son of Maimon, the great\n    prophet of the Exile, famed from the Seine to the Euphrates as the\n    second Moses.\n\n    \u201cSuch, besides escape from utter ruin, were the temptations to\n    apostacy. And those who issued the decree fully hoped that\n    apostacy would have been its result. Every means was taken. \u2018In\n    the public squares, in the synagogues, Catholic preachers\n    thundered forth invective against the Hebrew heresy.\u2019 They might\n    thunder\u2014they were not heard.\n\n    \u201c \u2018Come,\u2019 said their priests and elders, \u2018let us strengthen\n    ourselves in our faith and in the teachings of our God, against\n    the voice of the oppressor, and the scorn of the enemy. If they\n    destroy us\u2014well; if they will let us live\u2014well; but we will not\n    depart from the Covenant, neither make our hearts froward; but we\n    will go forth in the name of the Lord our God, who saved our\n    fathers from Egypt, and brought them through the Red Sea.\u2019\n\n    \u201cThe spirit of Moses and of Joshua rested on the aged rabbis, and\n    their words prevailed. Few in number and bold in cowardice were\n    those who yielded. They made ready for this second Exodus where no\n    Canaan glistened in the distance. Forced to sell their possessions\n    in three months, forbidden to sell them for gold, they were glad\n    to exchange large houses or estates for an ass or mule, or for\n    such trifling articles of travel as the wish to be first at the\n    spoiling might induce purchasers to supply.\n\n    \u201cEastward, westward, northward\u2014to Africa, to Portugal, to Italy\n    and the Levant,\u2014half a million Jews went forth. Eighty thousand\n    sought shelter in Portugal, but did not find it. Thousands fell\n    into the hands of the barbarians of Fez. They were sold for\n    slaves; they were left to starve on desert isles; their bodies,\n    yet living, were ripped open for the hidden gold. Thus writes\n    Rabbi Josef:\n\n    \u201c \u2018And there were among them who were cast into the isles of the\n    sea, a Jew and his old father, fainting from hunger, begging\n    bread; and there was none to break unto them in a strange country.\n    And the man went and sold his little son for bread, to restore the\n    soul of the old man; and when he returned to his father, he found\n    him dead; and he rent his clothes. And he went back to the baker\n    to take his son; but the baker would not give him back; and he\n    cried out with a sore and bitter cry for his son, but there was\n    none to deliver. All this befell us in the year Rabbim\u2014for the\n    sons of the desolate are \u201cMany\u201d\u2014yet have we not forgotten thee,\n    neither have we dealt falsely in thy covenant. Hasten to help us,\n    O Lord! For thy sake we are killed all the day; we are counted as\n    sheep appointed for the slaughter. Make haste to help us, O God of\n    our salvation.\u2019\n\n    \u201cOr listen to the chronicler of Genoa, who saw them as they\n    drifted eastward:\n\n    \u201c \u2018This expulsion,\u2019 he says, \u2018seemed to me at first a praiseworthy\n    act, done in the cause and for the honor of God. Yet, when we\n    remember that they were not brute beasts after all, but men made\n    by God, surely it must be owned that some little cruelty was\n    shown. Their woes were very piteous to see. The first who starved\n    were the infants at the breast; then the mothers, carrying their\n    dead children till they fell down and died with them. Many\n    perished of cold and of squalor. Unused to the sea, countless\n    numbers died from sickness; many were drowned by the sailors for\n    their wealth; the poor, who could not otherwise pay their passage,\n    sold their children. Lean, pale, with eyes deep\u2010sunken, like\n    ghosts from the dead, hardly moving enough to show that they were\n    alive, they came into our city to find shelter for three days; for\n    our ancient laws forbade a longer stay. Yet for the repair of\n    their ships, and for health\u2019s sake, a short respite was granted.\n    They were allowed to live on the Mole, while they made ready for\n    their long voyage eastward. Thus the winter passed, and many of\n    them died. The spring came, and ulcers broke out that had been\n    hitherto kept under by the cold, and all that year there was a\n    plague in that city.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\nThis mournful narrative exhibits one of the most sublime examples of\nreligious faith and conscientious self\u2010sacrifice to what was deemed truth\nand duty in the persecuted. At the same time, when the avaricious\nFerdinand relinquished thirty thousand ducats, and the tender and\nbenevolent Isabella turned a deaf ear to such prayers and sufferings from\nher people, there can be no doubt that conscience ruled the persecutors\nalso. Even Torquemada himself may have been acting from the most\nconscientious and benevolent motives in all the disastrous influences he\nbrought to bear on his royal mistress.\n\nThis passage of history also teaches that honesty, and sincerity, and\nconscientiousness will not avail without a _knowledge of the truth_. Nay,\nmore; had these persecutors been less conscientious, the natural instincts\nof humanity or personal interests would have mitigated or withheld the\ncruel doom.\n\nIt is in this light that we are enabled, in spite of their mistakes in\nopinions, to look upon theologians as among the noblest sufferers and\nconfessors for what they believed to be truth. From the time of Augustine\nand Pelagius to the present day nothing can be more clear than that the\ncombatants on both sides were actuated by a sincere love to God and to\nman, each believing, as sincerely as did Saul of Tarsus, that in these\nconflicts they were verily doing God service, and that all they were\ncalled to suffer was for the true church of God and the salvation of their\nfellow\u2010men.\n\nBut the main purpose for which this record of history now appears is to\nillustrate the natural tendency of the Augustine theory in leading to\ndogmatism, persecution and ecclesiastical tyranny.\n\nThe tendency of the common\u2010sense system can not be illustrated by history,\nfor unfortunately Christendom has never yet had an opportunity to test by\na fair experiment its true tendencies. We can only imagine what would be\nthe results were all ecclesiastical restraints and teachings based on the\nAugustine theory removed from our pulpit ministries, our hymns and\nprayers, our religious literature, and, most of all, from long established\nhabits of thought and feeling.\n\nThen all our religious organizations would have for their leading aim, not\nto maintain some outward rite or modes of organization, but to promote\nfree discussion for the discovery of truth and harmonious co\u00f6peration to\npromote happiness according to the laws of God.\n\nThen the ministry of the Word would be committed to men distinguished not\nonly by natural endowments, acquired knowledge and skill in debate, but\nalso ensamples to their flocks in the virtues of humility, meekness, and a\ngentle and teachable spirit. Then the points that would divide men into\nparties would be chiefly _practical_ questions, so that where no agreement\nin opinion could be secured, each would peaceably try a fair experiment\nand eventually bring the results forward for the general good.\n\nThen every individual would be free to protest against all that he\nbelieves to be injurious and wrong, in regard to individuals, to the\nfamily, to the church and to the state, and be met in his efforts as a\nbenefactor rather than an opposer or an enemy.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLII. TENDENCIES OF THE TWO SYSTEMS AS SHOWN IN CONTROVERSY AND\nSECTS.\n\n\nIt is the aim of this chapter to show that the chief controversies and\nchief sects of Christendom have resulted from the Angustinian system, and\nfrom attempts to eliminate it from the system of common sense with which\nit has been combined.\n\nThe dogma of a depraved nature consequent on Adam\u2019s sin, was a\nphilosophical theory introduced to account for the prevailing sinfulness\nof the human race. The attempt of Pelagius and his associates to oppose\nthis dogma, was met by civil and ecclesiastical power and persecution.\n\u201cAnd thus,\u201d says the historian, \u201cthe Gauls, Britons and Africans by their\ncouncils, and the emperors by their edicts, demolished this sect in its\ninfancy and suppressed it entirely.\u201d\n\nFor long ages after this, no attempt was made to oppose the system based\non this theory in any of its branches. The doctrine that man, being so\ndepraved in nature as to be incapable of knowing or judging aright, and\nhaving no standard of right and wrong but express revelations from God,\nresulted in the unresisted claim of popes and church councils as the only\nauthorized interpreters of the Bible.\n\nThen began the powerful influence of _education_. Every child was trained\nto believe the doctrine of a depraved nature as a part of the word of God,\nto be received with unquestioning submission. Thus the most powerful\ninfluences were enlisted to enchain the feeble and plastic mind of\nchildhood at the starting\u2010point of thought and reason. It was also taught\nby theologians to all the young ecclesiastics as a _system_, thus adding a\nnew force to early educational training by the authority of the church,\nwith all its solemn and awful sanctions.\n\nThe idea that every man is to receive the teachings of Christ,\nuncontrolled by church authority, as _he_ understands them, and that he is\na Christian just so far as he _understands aright_ and _obeys_ them, found\nno advocates for long centuries. Meantime the ecclesiastics, as the only\ninfallible interpreters of God\u2019s word, and the only source by which to\ngain regenerating influences, abused the influence thus acquired, to build\nup the awful prelatic power that ruled Christendom for ages. At last, with\nmany other abominations, the regular sale of indulgences to commit all\nmanner of crimes at fixed prices, brought intolerable follies and crimes\nto a crisis.\n\nThen Luther and his compeers arose and waged war, not against the root of\nthese evils, but against those inevitable branches, the infallibility of\nchurch interpretations and the substitution of outward creeds, rites and\nforms for the spiritual principle of love to God and man exhibited by\nobedience to the Creator\u2019s laws.\n\nLuther claimed that he and all men were bound to interpret the Bible for\nthemselves, and not to submit their judgment to any pope, council or\necclesiastical power. And he claimed that the Bible teaches that man is to\nbe saved [justified], not by outward forms, but _by faith in Jesus\nChrist_. But retaining the doctrine of man\u2019s ruined and helpless _nature_,\nhis ideas of _faith_ and of the _mode_ of attaining it, were vague and\nconflicting. Thus originated the long conflict between Catholic and\nProtestant Christianity, involving some of the most bloody and cruel wars\nand persecutions that ever afflicted humanity.\n\nNext came Arminius and his associates, who, still clinging to the fatal\nroot of a totally depraved nature, labored to devise _some_ way in which,\nin spite of this ruin, man could do something to secure regeneration from\nGod. For, as shown in the early chapters, Calvinism maintained that man\nwas utterly helpless, and that _all_ the doings of the unregenerate were\nsin and only sin, and therefore utterly unavailing in gaining regenerating\naid from God. Hence originated the long conflict between Calvinism and\nArminianism, which has been continued to this day.\n\nBoth these schools of divinity rested on the dogma of an entirely depraved\nnature, but their tendencies were diverse.\n\nCalvinism, maintaining the utter helplessness of man, tended to despairing\ninefficiency. If man really could do nothing, why should he attempt any\nthing to secure salvation?\n\nOn the other hand, Arminianism, promising help through certain forms,\nrites and influences conveyed by ecclesiastics, tended to a reliance on\nrites and forms. If man is to be saved by these instrumentalities and can\ndo nothing himself except through them, then, these being secured, the\nnatural tendency must be to rest in them.\n\nThese two diverse tendencies finally resulted in an equal torpor and\nindifference to religion in both parties, which was interrupted on the\nArminian side by Wesley and Whitfield, and on the Calvinistic side by\nJonathan Edwards.\n\nWesley and his co\u2010laborers taught anew the Protestant doctrine of man\u2019s\nindependence of ecclesiastical interpretations and church forms, and the\nnecessity of an immediate and higher spiritual life. From his efforts and\nthose of Whitfield originated the great Methodist denomination in Great\nBritain and America.\n\nIn this sect is carried out the theory of regeneration, not as a slow\nprocess of educational training, but as an instantaneous change,\nmanifested in excited sensibilities. As the depravity consequent on Adam\u2019s\nsin consists in the \u201cdeprivation\u201d of God\u2019s Spirit, and regeneration is the\nreturn of this gift, to be secured by prayer and other \u201cmeans of grace,\u201d\nwe find their prayers, hymns and preaching all conformed to this theory.\nThey gain grace when the Spirit comes, and when it departs they \u201cfall from\ngrace.\u201d\n\nWhile Wesley and Whitfield, in Great Britain, appealed directly to the\npeople in combatting the Arminian tendency to forms and laxness, Jonathan\nEdwards addressed the leaders of metaphysical thought in his profound and\nacute writings. He attempted to meet the universal paralysis consequent on\nthe Calvinistic doctrine of man\u2019s inability, amounting almost to the loss\nof a consciousness of personal freedom.\n\nHis aim was to restore to man a sense of ability and responsibility. Thus\noriginated his theory of _natural ability_ and _moral inability_, which\namounts simply to this: that man has _natural_ power to obey all that God\nrequires, but that he so lacks _moral ability_, on account of his depraved\nnature, that it is certain that he never will make a truly virtuous choice\ntill he is regenerated, and regeneration is not to be secured by any\nunregenerated doings.\n\nFrom this resulted the division into the _old_ and _new\u2010school\nCalvinistic_ parties in the Congregational and Presbyterian churches.\n\nLastly, the New Haven divines, while in some of their writings they held\nexactly the views of President Edwards, and claimed to have made no\ninnovation, in others they came exactly to the Pelagian ground,\nmaintaining that man \u201chas not a depraved nature _in any sense_, nor a\ncorrupt nature, much less a sinful nature,\u201d \u201cbut rather that in nature he\nis like God.\u201d\n\nThis is the same doctrine as was held by Pelagius, and if it were only\ncarried out consistently and not contradicted, would be the entire\nelimination, root and branch, of the Augustinian system.\n\nFrom this resulted a theological controversy that has agitated the\nPresbyterian and Congregational churches for the last thirty years.\n\nThere are two denominations which all the Augustinian sects agree in\nexcluding from their fellowship as not entitled to the name of Christian\nsects, which have had great influence in undermining the hold of the\nAugustinian theory. These are the _Universalists_ and the _Unitarians_.\n\nThe former do not formally deny the Augustinian theory of a depraved\nnature consequent on Adam\u2019s sin, but leaving it undisputed, gain great\ninfluence by it. They allow that God has power to restore man to his\noriginal perfectness, and then maintain that the very idea of a benevolent\nbeing, who is the loving parent of all his creatures, makes it certain\nthat he will do so. For, as shown before, our only idea of a benevolent\nbeing is, that he _wills_ to do _all in his power_ to secure that which\nwill make the most happiness with the least evil. As, therefore, all the\nAugustinian sects concede that God has power to make all minds perfect at\nthe first, and to regenerate all minds that are ruined through the sin of\nAdam, Universalists maintain that the very idea of the Creator as a\nbenevolent being necessarily involves the certainty that he will in the\nend, bring all the creatures he has made to a state of perfectness, both\nin mental _construction_ and mental _action_. This argument is\nunanswerable, and the people very extensively are led to so regard it, and\nto adopt this view of the future state of our race.\n\nThe question, with this sect, all turns on whether it is possible in the\nnature of things for God to construct mind on a more perfect pattern than\nthat of the human mind; and whether it is possible, in the nature of\nthings, to make the best possible system of minds that are free agents,\nand yet save _all_ of them from perpetuated disobedience to the laws of\nthat system and the consequent suffering of the natural penalties.\n\nIt has been shown that the common\u2010sense system teaches that it is not\npossible, so that it must be by revelation only, that man could gain such\na doctrine as the eventual perfect holiness and happiness of the whole\nhuman race.\n\nWhile the Universalists gain great power by not contesting the Augustinian\ndogma, the Unitarians have taken the ground of a full recognition of the\nPelagian doctrine of the perfect _construction_ of the _nature_ of man. At\nthe same time they have, as a sect, almost universally adopted the\nUniversalist doctrine of the eventual salvation of the whole of our race.\n\nBoth these sects have embraced men of great popular talents, who have\nwidely influenced the public mind, in their attempts to lessen confidence\nin the doctrines and sects based on the Augustinian theory.\n\nMeantime, in the scientific world, mental philosophy has made great\nprogress in clear analysis and accurate definitions. The Scotch school of\nmetaphysicians, headed by Reid and Stewart, have clearly developed and\nestablished in a popular form, the _principles of reason_ and _common\nsense_; though as professors in a Calvinistic university and community,\nthey never ventured to apply these principles to the investigation of\nreligious theories as to the \u201cdepraved nature\u201d of the human mind. They\npassed over the whole question in utter silence.\n\nStill more recently has been developed the system of Phrenology, which is\nbased on the _constitutional diversities_ in mental faculties. This system\nhas effectively warred on the theological theory of implanted evil\npropensities, by teaching that every faculty, when developed and regulated\naright, tends to the best good of the race, so that the extinction of any\nfaculty or propensity would not be an improvement, but rather an injury to\nthe constitution of mind.\n\nAt the same time, by the influence of our schools, our colleges, our\npulpits, our popular lectures and our wide\u2010spread periodicals, both\nreligious and secular, the mind of all classes has been rising to a larger\ndevelopment, and to clearer and more discriminating views of mental and\nmoral science in every department. Thus the people are gradually throwing\noff the chains of ecclesiastical authority and assuming that liberty of\nthought and action, which their Almighty Father designed as the chief\nbirth\u2010right of all his intelligent offspring.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIII. PRACTICAL TENDENCIES OF THE TWO SYSTEMS.\n\n\nIn the preceding pages it has been shown that the common\u2010sense system\npresents an intelligible, practical and consistent standard of right and\nwrong, by which we can judge clearly of the character and conduct, both of\nthe Creator and of his creatures.\n\nThe mind of the Creator existing from all eternity, independently of his\nown will, is the pattern of perfectness in the construction of mind. He\nhas formed and sustains a system fitted to his own perfections. The chief\nend of this system is happiness\u2010making on the greatest possible scale. In\norder to this, his _laws_, by which the most possible good with the least\npossible evil will be secured, must be discovered and obeyed.\n\nAccordingly, all that tends to secure happiness without evil is right, and\nall that needlessly lessens or destroys happiness is wrong. Every effort\nto discover the laws of God and to obey them is right and pleasing to him\nas promoting his chief desire and great end. This view furnishes a\nfoundation for clear conceptions in every practical question of right and\nwrong. What is _for the best_ as discovered by reason and experience? This\nis the great question, when we have no direct revelation from God. And\neven when revelation intervenes, it must be only in regard to _general\nrules_, leaving it still a matter of experience and discussion in\n_applying_ these rules to the multitudes of varying cases in human\nexperience. Thus, for example, a command to be honest toward all, leaves\ninnumerable questions to be settled as to what _is_ honest and fair in the\nmultiplied cases arising between man and man.\n\nBut we always have the great principle of common sense to guide us, that\n_whatever is for the best is right_, leaving it for reason and experience\nto settle what is and what is not for the best.\n\nBut in contrast the Augustinian system, in many ways, tends to becloud the\nmind in regard to practical questions of right and wrong.\n\nThus the assumption that there are no principles in the human mind that\nenable us to judge of the character and conduct of God; that we have no\nmeans of learning what is the object or end for which all things are made;\nthat man is so depraved as to be disqualified to know what is right and\nwrong, except as taught by revelations from God; and at the same time\ndisqualified to interpret such revelations until regenerated, or by the\nhelp of a priesthood; all this tends to create the feeling of incertitude\nas to any question of right and wrong, while the abuses of priestly\ninterpretations have so often set the Bible in opposition to our moral\nsense and common sense as greatly to increase the evil.\n\nAdd to this, the assumption that there is no true virtue in any acts of\nthe unregenerate, but that all their moral deeds are sin, and only sin,\nand the perplexity is increased as to what is right and what is wrong\nmoral action.\n\nAgain, the fact that salvation from eternal misery is possible only to\nthose who have gained a new \u201cnature,\u201d while it is often seen that some of\nthose received into churches as having this new nature, are not so\ncharitable, amiable, just or honest, as many who are not thus admitted,\nand the mind is still more beclouded as to the real nature of right and\nwrong in practical conduct.\n\nAgain, the manner in which this new nature is recognized by those\nappointed to decide who are regenerated and who are not, in order to admit\nto or exclude from churches, still farther increases the difficulty. The\nquestions often propounded on such occasions relate mainly to certain\nstates of feeling toward God or Christ, or to certain doctrines involved\nin the Augustinian theory. If replies to these are satisfactory, the\ncandidate is pronounced regenerated and received to the church.\n\nMeantime, ever since the days of Luther, the doctrine of \u201cjustification by\nfaith,\u201d in opposition to \u201csalvation by works,\u201d has been assumed to be the\nfoundation principle, both of Protestantism and of true piety, while there\nhas been great indistinctness of conception as to the true meaning of\nthese terms. At the time of the great conflict between Romanism and the\nReformers, the grand evil to be combated was a reliance for salvation on\nthe prescribed outward rites and forms of the church without any reference\nto an internal spiritual principle. The attempt of the Reformers was to\nsubstitute for these outward forms that spiritual principle which consists\nin a _ruling purpose to discover and to obey the will of God according to\nthe teachings of Christ_, whom they regarded as \u201cGod manifest in the\nflesh.\u201d They recognized the fact that no man ever did or ever could live\nwithout some violations of the laws of God, so that no man could be saved\non the ground of perfect obedience to law. Instead of this they assumed\nthat man could gain eternal life by \u201cbecoming a new creature in Christ\nJesus,\u201d meaning by this that \u201cnew life\u201d which consists in ceasing to live\nto please self, and living to please God in Christ as the chief end of\nlife, by earnest conformity to his will as learned either by reason and\nexperience or by the Bible.\n\nThis is what they intended by faith in Jesus Christ. And the opposite\ndoctrine of \u201csalvation by works\u201d was that which the Romish church was\nurging, viz., conformity to her outward rites and forms.\n\nBut in process of time, and for want of clear conceptions and clear\nteaching, it came about that the real good works, commanded by Christ, as\na part of the love of God required, were confounded with the rites and\nforms, and outward deeds commanded by the church, and which may be\nperformed without the principle of love to Christ, which is exhibited in\nobedience to his teachings. The result has been that the teachings and\nwritings of many Protestants often make the impression that the good works\nof a pure morality are of no avail and often very much in the way of a\nman\u2019s final salvation. Thus has arisen the distinction often made between\ngood _moral_ men and good _religious_ men. This classification rests\nentirely on the Augustinian dogma, that until the depraved nature received\nfrom Adam is regenerated, all the moral acts of men, however virtuous and\nexcellent, are \u201csin, and sin only.\u201d\n\nThe true meaning of \u201cjustification by faith and not by works,\u201d is that men\nare not to be saved by _actually finding out_ in all possible cases what\nis for the best and then _doing_ it, which no man ever did or ever can do\nwithout mistake; but rather by _a ruling purpose to discover and to obey_\nall the laws of the Creator. This last is the _spiritual_ principle in\nopposition to mere _outward acts_. It is _practical_ faith in God which is\nto save the soul of man. All, therefore, who believe Christ to be God are\n\u201cjustified\u201d by _faith_ in Christ. That is, they are regarded and treated\nas just and righteous, when they have this internal principle of obedience\nto Christ, even though they are never free from actual transgression of\nlaw, either known or unknown. Thus the ancient patriarchs were saved by\nfaith in Christ, he being the God of the old dispensation as much as of\nthe new.\n\nThat this is the sense in which the Reformers used the words\n\u201cjustification, or salvation by faith,\u201d in opposition to \u201csalvation by\nworks,\u201d may easily be proved. At the same time, it is as easy to show that\nthey used this term in another sense also. But at this time no reference\nwill be made to any other use than the one under consideration. Their\nother use of this term in reference to the atonement of Jesus Christ will\nbe referred to hereafter.\n\nThe preceding exhibits the several ways in which the Angustinian theory\ntends to becloud the mind in regard to practical questions of right and\nwrong. These tendencies have been more or less counteracted by the\nimplanted principles of reason. Still more have they been rectified by the\nsteady and clear teachings of the Bible, which never, when truly\ninterpreted, contradict either the moral sense or common sense of man, but\nrather strengthen them and guide them aright.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIV. TENDENCIES OF THE TWO SYSTEMS IN THE TRAINING OF CHILDREN.\n\n\nIt has been shown that the common\u2010sense system results from the implanted\nprinciples of mind, so that no person can be entirely free from its\ninfluence.\n\nThe Augustinian system has also been shown in its Calvinistic and Arminian\ntendencies.\n\nThe Calvinistic form, making it certain that, owing to the depravity of\nnature consequent on Adam\u2019s sin, every moral act is sin and only sin,\nwhile there is no revealed mode of securing regeneration, leads to\nhopeless inefficiency and neglect of religious advantages. The Arminian\nform, maintaining the efficacy of certain rites and ceremonies in securing\nregeneration, tends to a disastrous dependence on outward observances.\n\nThose parents who are trained in the Calvinistic school, usually _begin_\neducation more or less on the common\u2010sense theory that children can and do\nplease God when they are obedient, gentle, kind, self\u2010denying and\nconscientious. Prayers and hymns are also taught to the little ones that\nmake this impression.\n\nBut when advancing years bring the pulpit and other Calvinistic influences\nto bear, these impressions, more or less, fade away, and are followed by\nthe depressing feeling that nothing that a child does is either good or\npleasing to the heavenly Father till the \u201cwicked heart\u201d is changed by God,\nand that there is no definite, practical mode of securing this change. The\nconsequence, in many cases, is, that all prayer and all attention to\nreligious instruction ceases, and a desperate course of worldliness and\ndeparture from all recognition of God ensues. In other cases, the natural\nresult of this Augustinian theory is more or less counteracted by\nconscience, common sense and the Bible.\n\nOn the other hand, the Arminian view of the efficacy of rites and means of\ngrace sanctioned by God as the mode of securing regeneration, has led to\ngreat stress on the use of those rites and forms. The Catholic and a\nportion of the Episcopal church, have taught that the rite of baptism was\nthe appointed mode of remedying the depravity engendered from Adam. And so\nindispensable was it deemed to the salvation of infants, that not only\nlaymen, but women were allowed to administer this rite at the approach of\ndeath, when no priest could be obtained, lest the infant soul should go to\nendless perdition with the taint of Adam\u2019s sin unremoved.\n\nThere have been great dissensions in the Episcopal church as to the\nefficacy of baptism. Some have taught that regeneration was imparted by\nthis rite. Others have taught that this rite secured the implanting of \u201ca\nseed,\u201d or some new mysterious principle, which if cherished and cultivated\nby the church, would result in Christian character. Those who hold this\nview, rely chiefly on the training of children in the church as the\nappointed mode of securing their salvation.\n\nThat branch of the Arminian school which left the Episcopal church under\nWesley and his associates, were driven off by the laxity and want of\nspiritual life consequent on these tendencies to reliance on rites and\nforms. In place of this, they urged the doctrine of instantaneous\nregeneration, to be gained by certain means of grace. According to these\nteachers, regeneration consists in the return of God\u2019s Spirit to the soul,\nwhich is withheld in consequence of Adam\u2019s sin. The tendency of this view\nwas to lessen reliance on educational training and to exalt the importance\nof other means of grace by which regeneration seemed to be secured, and to\nwhich the Bible, as was claimed, promised success.\n\nThus, in the Arminian sects, where the efficacy of rites and forms by a\nregularly ordained and authoritative priesthood has been relinquished,\neducational training has conformed more to the Calvinistic view. As\neternal salvation depends on securing regeneration, every thing is made\nsecondary to those methods by which regeneration is to be gained.\n\nThe Episcopal Arminians, therefore, depend more on educating the young\naright, and have little dependence on revivals, while the Methodist\nArminians look less to education and more to revivals and other modes of\nsecuring religious excitement.\n\nBut the foundation difficulty alike of the Calvinists, the Episcopal\nArminians and the Methodist Arminians, is the assumption that\n_regeneration of a ruined nature_ is the thing to be sought, both by\nchildren and by adults, as the indispensable prerequisite to salvation,\nand that \u201cthe means of grace\u201d are not for the training and development of\na perfect nature, but to gain from God the cure of a ruined and helpless\none.\n\nIn contrast to this, the common\u2010sense system recognizes all that is\npractical in any of the three methods. It teaches that man\u2019s _nature_ is\nperfect, and yet that he is utterly helpless without the _knowledge_,\n_training_ and _motives_, for which he is dependent alike on God and on\nman. It teaches that this nature can be trained to \u201ca new life\u201d by\neducational instrumentalities and by a slow and gradual process. At the\nsame time it teaches, that when men have lived a worldly life there may be\na _sudden_ change of character by _voluntarily_ commencing a life of love\nand obedience to God, in place of a life of unregulated self\u2010indulgence.\n\nSince the days of Pelagius and Augustine, there has never been any large\nbody of Christians who have trained children on the common\u2010sense system\ndissevered from the Augustinian theory. This experiment is yet to be tried\nbefore its full and proper tendency can be truly developed.\n\nThe Unitarian sect, who reject the Augustinian dogma, also reject some of\nthe fundamental principles of the common\u2010sense system, especially that on\nwhich the whole system of moral and religious duty and motive rests, _the\ndangers of the race_ in the invisible world, and the _power of motive_\nsecured by \u201cGod manifest in the flesh\u201d as the long\u2010suffering and self\u2010\ndenying Creator, coming to aid his creatures by his teaching, sympathy,\nexample, and abounding love.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLV. THE PEOPLE REJECTING THE AUGUSTINIAN SYSTEM.\u2014POSITION OF\nTHEOLOGIANS.\n\n\nIt is the object of what follows to present the evidence that _the people_\nare rejecting the Augustinian system, while they are retaining the system\nof common sense, as that alone which is taught in the Bible.\n\nPreliminary to this, a brief statement of the prominent points of these\nsystems, where their antagonism is most practical and apparent, will be\nallowed.\n\nThe Augustinian system teaches that on account of Adam\u2019s sin, man is born\nwith a _nature_ so _totally depraved_, that he never performs any truly\nvirtuous acts till this nature is regenerated; that the true church of God\non earth consists only of those who are thus regenerated; and that a\nvisible church consists of an organization of persons who profess to\npossess a nature that has been re\u2010created, so that they perform truly\nvirtuous acts, as the unregenerated never do.\n\nIn opposition to this, the common\u2010sense system teaches that man is born\nwith a perfect nature, so that he can and does act virtuously without any\nchange in this nature; also that the true church of God on earth consists\nof all those whose chief end and earnest purpose is to discover and to\nobey all his laws; and a visible church consists of any who associate by\nsome outward organization to aid each other in attempts to discover and to\nobey the laws of God.\n\nThe evidence that the people are rejecting the former, and assuming the\nlatter view as that which is taught in the Bible, will now be presented\nunder these heads:\n\nThe present position of theologians;\n\nThe state of the church;\n\nThe position of the pastors of churches;\n\nThe state of popular education;\n\nThe position of woman;\n\nThe position of Young America;\n\nThe position of the religious and secular press.\n\n\n\n\nPresent Position of Theologians.\n\n\nIn attempting to portray the present state of the theological world, it is\nneedful first to distinguish between a class which may distinctively be\ntermed theologians and the much larger class which are pastors of the\npeople.\n\nThe two classes are so commingled that it would be impossible to draw any\nline so exact as to arrange all in these two classes; for sometimes the\nsame person is both theologian and pastor. Still there is foundation for\nclassification as distinct as ordinarily exists in regard to other\nprofessions where men combine diverse pursuits.\n\nIn attempting this classification, it must be noticed that the religious\nworld is divided into great denominations, each having its theological\nschools, its colleges, its theological magazines and its religious\nnewspapers.\n\nAll these are conducted by men whose business is not that of pastors, and\nyet a great majority of whom were educated for this office by a regular\ntheological training. Meantime, their position, professional reputation\nand daily bread depend on maintaining the particular peculiarities in\ndoctrine and practice of a given sect. By this is meant, that should they\npublicly avow a renunciation of the peculiarities that distinguish their\nsect, they would suffer in the public estimation of their supporters, and\nbe immediately removed from their professional employment. It is this\nclass who are usually among the chief leaders of each denomination, and\nwho therefore are exposed to all the difficulties and temptations which\nbeset those whose power, influence, profession and pecuniary support are\nmore or less connected with a _conservative_ course in all matters of\nreligious opinion\u2014difficulties and dangers to which a pastor is much less\nexposed, so long as he maintains his hold on the confidence and affection\nof his people, who are his chief protection against theological\npersecution of any kind.\n\nThe first class depend on a whole denomination for reputation and a\nlivelihood; the last class depend chiefly on their own people. The first\nclass, on every practical question, must regard the views and opinions of\na sect, as leaders and guardians of the interests of a great organization,\nwhose very existence depends on the dominance of certain opinions. The\nlatter class must chiefly regard the highest spiritual good of the souls\ncommitted to their care.\n\nThus, for example, the Baptist theological professors, and editors of\nreligious periodicals, must maintain that baptism by immersion is the only\nscriptural mode of admission to the visible church of God and to the\nsacrament, or give up their influence, reputation and professional\nlivelihood. And they must sustain the organized interests of that sect as\nits most trusted and talented leaders. Moreover, the very existence of the\nsect and of their position as its leaders, depend on the maintenance of\nthis tenet, for it is this alone that separates them from the\nCongregational sect.\n\nIn like manner, the Congregational theological professor and editor must\nmaintain that form of church organization or give up his post. And so the\nPresbyterian, Episcopal and Methodist theological professors and editors\nare equally bound.\n\nThis representation does not necessarily imply any thing invidious. If it\nis regarded as a duty to keep up the sectarian divisions, which, as has\nbeen shown, all result from the Augustinian dogma, then men must be\nsupported to do it by theological schools and periodicals. And when men\nare put into positions for the express purpose of sustaining the peculiar\nviews of a sect, it is not honest for them to hold these positions after\nthey can no longer conscientiously do the work they are hired to perform.\n\nBut each pastor is the leader of his flock; and their opinions and\npractices are more or less at his control as their religious teacher. And\nso long as he can carry his people with him he is independent of every\nother ecclesiastical power. True, he may be censured, deposed and excluded\nfrom a given sect or party, but his people only have to declare themselves\nindependent, and that they choose to retain him as their religious\nteacher, and no one can harm him as to his professional employment or his\nsupport.\n\nThus it is that the pastors of churches have fewer of those difficulties\nto meet which restrain the chief theological leaders of a sect.\n\nWe are now prepared to notice the present position of theologians in this\ncountry.\n\nIt has been shown that the chief theological conflicts, since the days of\nAugustine, and also the chief sects, have resulted from attempts to throw\noff the dogma introduced by him in some one of its developments. Thus the\nconflict headed by Luther was against the substitution of external rites\nand forms resulting from man\u2019s helpless depravity for an internal\nprinciple of love and obedience.\n\nThe conflict commenced by Arminius was to maintain man\u2019s ability to do\nsomething by his own efforts to gain eternal life, in opposition to the\nutter inability taught by Calvinism.\n\nThe conflict commenced by Wesley and his associates, was to rouse men from\na resting in outward rites and forms and educational training, by making\ninstantaneous regeneration a practicable aim, and one to be secured by the\nuse of \u201cthe means of grace.\u201d\n\nThe conflict commenced by President Edwards was to remedy the Calvinistic\ntendency to hopeless inefficiency and waiting for God to regenerate, by\ninsisting on man\u2019s ability to obey all that God requires.\n\nThe conflict led by the New Haven school of divines, was, in fact, an\nattempt to cut up the Augustinian system by the root, in maintaining that\nsin consists in the _wrong action_ of a right nature, and not in a\ndepraved nature and its inevitable results.\n\nAll these controversies have been carried on, more and more, in the\naudience of _the people_, who, in the meantime, have been continually\nadvancing in mental culture and knowledge.\n\nEspecially has this been the case in this country, where religion has been\nfreed from civil restraints. Several of the religious sects have been so\ndivided on these matters as to involve civil suits to settle questions of\nproperty, thus bringing theologians and lawyers on to the same arena. And\nthus discussions on theological points were reported in secular papers.\n\nThis was the case in the rending of the Presbyterian church into the Old\nand New\u2010school sections. During this controversy, some of the most honored\nand talented of the clergy were suspended from their pulpit duties and\nthreatened with dismission from theological professorships, solely on the\ncharge of denying certain points of doctrine of the Augustinian system.\nAnd the highest judicature of the nation was called to decide whether the\nmen thus charged had, or had not so departed from orthodox creeds as to\nwarrant the loss of place and income.\n\nIn this discussion, the endowments of colleges, of theological schools,\nand of church property, were so at stake, that the laymen all over the\nland were obliged to inquire into and understand the merits of a\ndiscussion strictly metaphysical and theological.\n\nIn Massachusetts, at one time, the whole State was excited by the question\nwhether there were any other _churches_ except the _congregations_ that\nworshiped together and supported the minister. This question was argued\nbefore the highest court of the State, and decided in the negative, while\nfor years the controversy was prolonged.\n\nMeantime, the study of mental science has been introduced into both\ncolleges and schools all over the land, and the sons, and even the\ndaughters of our farmers and mechanics, have gained clearer and more\ndiscriminating views on such subjects than can now be found in the\nwritings of Aristotle, Plato, and the wisest men of past ages.\n\nPhrenology, also, has drawn maps of the mental faculties, so that even the\nsenses have been trained to aid in metaphysics.\n\nThe pulpit, the press and public lecturers now, when they refer to the\n_intellect_, the _susceptibilities_, the _will_, _the moral powers_, and\nuse other metaphysical terms, are understood by all.\n\nIn short, the human mind has developed in all directions, until it is\nimpossible any longer to conceal absurdities under cover of hard names and\nmetaphysical abstrusities, especially when the practical concerns of this\nlife, as well as the life to come, are equally involved.\n\nMeantime, the most vigorous and acute minds in the various opposing sects\nand theological schools, have been exhibiting, in magazines and\nnewspapers, the difficulties and absurdities each finds in the creed and\nteaching of all who differ, while it is the laymen who read and pay for\nthese periodicals. In these, and many other ways, the discussions which\nonce were confined to metaphysicians and theologians, have come before the\npeople, and the Augustinian system has been more and more clearly\nexhibited as contrary to the moral sense and common sense of mankind.\n\nA few years since, Dr. Edward Beecher published the _Conflict of Ages_, in\nwhich, with a calm and Christian spirit and in a popular form, was set\nforth the difficulties consequent on the Augustinian system, which for\nages have agitated all Christendom.\n\nIn this work, it is shown that there are \u201cprinciples of honor and right\u201d\nwhich all theologians agree in maintaining that God must and does regard\nand obey; that these principles are violated by God on the supposition\nthat he has brought mankind into being in this world with a depraved\nnature; and finally, that all theories as yet invented by theologians to\nrelieve the Creator from such an imputation are failures, except the\ntheory, which is there presented, of _a pre\u2010existent state_, according to\nwhich, mankind were created with perfect natures, which they ruined by\nsinning, and came into this life to be restored to their former perfect\nstate.\n\nMuch that appears in the early portion of this work is from this source.\nStill more has been gained from that work in the clear manner in which it\nis there proved, that the Bible does not teach that the sin of Adam had\nany effect on \u201cthe nature\u201d of the human race, and that the interpretation\ngiven to the passage in Romans v., which is the chief one claimed as\nteaching this doctrine, not only has been interpreted wrong, but is\ncontrary to the rendering of the whole Christian world from the apostles\nto Augustine.\n\nIn other words, the _Conflict of Ages_ came before _the people_ with the\nclaim, that the Augustinian theory of a depraved nature consequent on the\nsin of Adam, as taught by all theologians of the great Catholic and\nProtestant sects, is contrary to the moral sense of mankind and entirely\nunsupported by the Bible.\n\nThis work was read, not only by theologians and pastors, but by\nintelligent laymen, to an extent never known before of a strictly\ntheological work.\n\nAnd what was the ground taken by theologians of all schools? They were\nbound to show to the people, in opposition to this work, if they could,\nthat this Augustinian dogma _was not_ contrary to the moral sense of\nmankind, and that it _was_ taught in the Bible.\n\nBut not a single attempt of this kind has ever been made. This universal\n_silence_ is as direct a confession of inability to reply as ever was\nknown in the theological world. All that ever has been attempted has been,\nto show that the theory of a pre\u00ebxistent state, offered by that author,\naffords little or no relief, and is without scriptural authority.\n\nThe words of a distinguished theologian and editor of a theological\nquarterly, addressed to the writer, express the case exactly: \u201cYour\nbrother has succeeded in throwing us all into the ditch, but he has shown\nus no way to get out.\u201d\n\nThat is to say, so long as the doctrine of a _depraved nature_ that\ninsures \u201csin, and only sin,\u201d in every unregenerate mind, is maintained,\nthere is no _satisfactory_ way yet devised of proving the wisdom and\nbenevolence of God, by the concessions of theologians themselves.\n\nAt the same time, the _Conflict of Ages_, in removing the chief passage in\nthe Bible relied on for proving that _in consequence of Adam\u2019s sin_ the\nnature of all men has become depraved, has equally removed the evidence\nmost relied on to prove that there is any such _depravity of nature_\ntaught in the Bible at all.\n\nThis universal, tacit concession of theologians of all schools, in\nreference to this famous passage of Scripture, had no little influence in\nbringing before the public the volume entitled _Common Sense Applied to\nReligion, or the Bible and the People_ before referred to.\n\nIn this work, the _principles of common sense_ and the _nature or\nconstruction of mind_ are by the author exhibited more at large than in\nthis volume. And the common\u2010sense system of religion as thus educed is\nalso set forth, though less completely and extensively than in this work.\n\nThe laws of language and interpretation also are introduced into that work\nfor the purpose of showing (in the second volume not yet published) that\nthe common\u2010sense system is also taught in the Bible.\n\nBut preliminary to this, it was seen to be important to apply the\nprinciples of common sense to prove that the Bible is a collection of\n_reliable_ records, of _reliable_ revelations from the Creator to mankind.\n\nIt was seen also, that if the Augustinian system is really taught in these\nwritings, _it is impossible to prove them to be reliable revelations_ from\nGod, as is set forth at large in chapter 34 of this present volume.\n\nFor this reason, in the Addenda to the first volume the Augustinian theory\nis introduced, and very briefly shown to be, not only contrary to the\ncommon sense and moral sense of mankind, but also without support from the\nBible.\n\nBefore publication, this work was sent to a large number of those regarded\nas among the most acute and profound theologians of the several classes\ndescribed herein, with the request that if they detected inaccuracies as\nto _facts_, or _fallacious reasonings_, they would point them out for\nrevision. In making this appeal it was stated that the writer had little\ntaste for metaphysics or theology, and had been driven to them in the\nstress of great sorrow and under a tremendous pressure of motive as\nnarrated in the Introduction.\n\nSeveral of those thus addressed, returned criticisms and remarks in reply.\nThe book was then issued, in which the author appeared not in the attitude\nof a teacher, but as an inquirer. And the closing inquiries were:\n\nAre these principles of common sense accepted?\n\nIs _the system_ of natural religion evolved by their aid accepted?\n\nIs the Augustinian theory of depravity, as tried by these principles and\nthe rules of interpretation, supported either by reason or the Bible?\n\nThe work, as thus revised, was again sent to these same theologians, and\nit was noticed in most of the periodicals.\n\nThe result was the same as was accorded to the arguments of the _Conflict\nof Ages_. Some criticisms on style, language and minor matters appeared in\nthe notices of the book, but the above main questions thus submitted were\nmet with an ominous _silence_.\n\nNone of the theologians of any school has pointed out any misstatement of\nany specific fact; nor have they attempted to dispute the principles of\ncommon sense set forth, or the results of their application in the\n_system_ thus evolved. Nor have they attempted to show that the passage in\nthe Bible on which the Augustinian theory chiefly rests, is sanctioned by\nthe interpretations of the apostolic ages, or that the interpretation of\nit in the _Conflict of Ages_, is incorrect.\n\nMoreover, in the columns of the Independent, in reply to their notice of\nher work, the following statement was made by the author:\n\n\n    \u201cThe case stands thus: I am aiming to present, in a short and\n    popular form, in my next volume, the _evidence_ that, in the\n    Bible, we have _reliable_ and _authoritative_ revelations from the\n    Creator, and to educe from these documents the true answer, not\n    only to the question, \u2018What must _we do_ to be saved?\u2019 but to the\n    grand question of my own profession, \u2018What must we do the most\n    effectively to train the young mind to virtue and immortality?\u2019\n\n    \u201cAt my first step I am met by \u2018Young America,\u2019 with such an\n    honest, amiable, and powerful leader as Theodore Parker. Regarded\n    as holding the creed in which I was educated, and most of my life\n    have advocated, I am thus interrogated:\n\n    \u201c \u2018Is not the Creator the author of the constitution of mind?\n\n    \u201c \u2018If the Creator _had power_ to make it right and yet has made it\n    wrong, is he not proved by _his works_ (the only mode of learning\n    his character) to be unwise and malevolent, and is not a\n    _reliable_ revelation from such a being, to teach the way of\n    virtue and happiness, impossible?\n\n    \u201c \u2018Do you not claim that the Bible teaches that God _has proved_\n    his power to make mind perfect by creating angels and Adam with\n    _perfect minds_, and at the same time, as a penalty for the sin of\n    the first parent, has made such a constitution of things, that\n    every human mind comes into existence with a ruined and depraved\n    nature, that never _can_, or never _will_, act right till God re\u2010\n    creates it, while as yet, for the great mass of mankind, he never\n    remedies this wrong?\n\n    \u201c \u2018Do you not claim that the Bible teaches that no human being has\n    any right and acceptable feelings or actions till God thus re\u2010\n    creates the mind?\n\n    \u201c \u2018If the Bible _does_ teach thus, we can find a nobler Creator\n    and more perfect system of religion by the light of nature without\n    any revelation at all, while the God of the Bible, by its own\n    showing, is _proved_ unworthy of confidence as a teacher of the\n    way to virtue and happiness.\u2019\n\n    \u201cPressed by these questions, I have searched the Bible in vain to\n    find any such doctrines in its pages. I find nothing of the kind,\n    and so I acknowledge that I have been in the wrong, and relinquish\n    the Augustinian dogma in which I have been educated, as\n    unsupported either by reason or revelation; and first privately\n    and then publicly ask for _any evidence_ to sustain it.\n\n    \u201cI come before the public, not as a teacher of metaphysics or\n    theology, but as an _inquirer_ for the truth. I state, as nearly\n    as I am able, the difficulties I have met, and take every possible\n    method to avoid mistake and misrepresentation in regard to the\n    opinions of both those with whom I agree and those from whom I\n    differ.\n\n    \u201cI assume that theology is capable of improvement; that Protestant\n    divines are no more infallible than Catholic; that a humble and\n    teachable spirit is the distinctive mark of a Christian teacher;\n    and that the courage and manliness that can acknowledge mistakes\n    is not only more Christian, but even in the eye of the world, is\n    more honorable and dignified than any assumption of infallibility,\n    however well sustained.\n\n    \u201cIn publicly meeting such an amount of talent, learning, and\n    influence as seems now to be arrayed against me, I deem that it in\n    no way implies a presumptuous or self\u2010confident spirit. I concede\n    that many of those I thus meet are my equals or superiors in\n    natural abilities, and certainly all are so in learning. I believe\n    also they are men of conscientious integrity, and that, probably,\n    most of them, would go to the stake rather than knowingly to\n    sacrifice their allegiance to truth, duty, and God. And I believe\n    that if I have any special mission in this matter, it is to\n    illustrate the truth that _common sense_, without any unusual\n    talents or learning, united to a sincere desire to learn and to\n    obey the truth, are sufficient for all men and all women, in all\n    important decisions for this life, and as much so for the life to\n    come.\n\n    \u201cNor do I regard this as a resort to old and _unpractical_ meta\u2010\n    physical abstrusities. It rather involves that great _practical_\n    question of life, before which all others fade into\n    nothingness\u2014that question which meets every parent and every\n    teacher for every child\u2014which meets every human being, as in\n    sorrow, or disappointment, or sickness, or death, the soul asks\n    from its Creator help and guidance for the dread and eternal\n    future. Instead of leading to metaphysical and theological\n    abstrusities, my hope is to entice from their dark and sorrowful\n    mazes to the plain and cheerful path of common sense.\n\n    \u201cThe great question involved is, have _the people_ a reliable\n    revelation from the Creator in the Bible, and are they qualified\n    to decide what are its true teachings on that great question of\n    life, \u2018What must we do to be saved?\u2019\n\n    \u201cAnd at the same time, the great practical question for my sex is\n    no less at issue, \u2018How are we best to train the mind of childhood\n    to virtue and eternal happiness?\u2019 These questions surely are\n    capable of being, and should be, discussed in the language of the\n    common people, and not in those scholastic and metaphysical terms\n    which they can not, and will not seek to comprehend.\n\n    \u201cIn these circumstances I endeavor first to meet the charge of my\n    friends of the Independent, that I have misrepresented the views\n    of that class of theologians with whom they fraternize, and with\n    whom I claim to agree.\n\n    \u201cI offer the following as the exact words in which I have heard\n    the New Haven divines express their opinions, and which, on my\n    application, were sent to me as a correct statement of their\n    views, as taught for more than a quarter of a century, in the New\n    Haven School of Theology.\n\n    \u201cThey maintain that \u2018man, _after_ the fall of Adam, was as truly\n    created in God\u2019s image as was Adam; that Christ was tempted in all\n    points like as we are; that the stronger are our inferior\n    propensities, if we govern them, as we can, by the morally right\n    act of the will, the greater is the moral excellence of the act.\n    They do not maintain that man has full power to _change_ his\n    depraved nature without divine aid, for they have never supposed\n    he has a depraved nature _in any sense_, or a corrupt nature, much\n    less a sinful nature, to be changed; but rather that _in nature_\n    he is like God. In discussions, they have always opposed the use\n    of language by my father and Mr. Barnes of a corrupt nature, not\n    sinful.\u2019\n\n    \u201cI present this as an exact statement of my own views, and I claim\n    that, on the point of the native character of the human mind, it\n    is the _Pelagian_ ground in opposition to the _Augustinian_, and\n    that no _third_ ground is possible. If I am wrong in either\n    particular, I ask to be enlightened by the editors of the\n    Independent, and by the New Haven divines themselves. I claim also\n    that, so far as I can see, this is the _only_ ground on which the\n    argument above stated, as that of \u2018Young America,\u2019 can be\n    successfully met.\n\n    \u201cI understand the editors of the Independent that they occupy the\n    Augustinian ground, and I therefore appeal to them, as well as to\n    the theologians of Princeton, Andover, Union, and Lane, to\n    instruct me and the public _wherein_ I have misstated their views,\n    and above all, to instruct us how, with this dogma fastened to it,\n    the Bible can be sustained against the above infidel argument. In\n    reference to this, should any thing be attempted, I offer these\n    questions for attention:\n\n    \u201cIs there any passage in the Bible that teaches that the minds of\n    the angels or of Adam were not made exactly like those of the\n    descendants of Adam, and subjected to the same slow and gradual\n    process of acquisition and development?\n\n    \u201cI have looked and inquired in vain to find any such passage, or\n    to find any person who ever found one.\n\n    \u201cIs there any passage in the Bible that teaches that the _nature_\n    or constitution of the mind of man is not _the best that is\n    possible in the nature of things_? I have never been able to find\n    any.\n\n    \u201cIs there any passage in the Bible that teaches that man has\n    received a _ruined nature in consequence of Adam\u2019s sin_?\n\n    \u201cI have read long arguments from Dr. Hodge of Princeton, proving\n    that there is no such thing taught in Romans v., the only passage\n    ever claimed to teach this doctrine that I ever heard of. My\n    brother, Dr. E. Beecher, thus concludes a long argument on this\n    subject in the Conflict of Ages: \u2018The doctrine that our depraved\n    natures or our sinful conduct have been _caused_ or _occasioned_\n    by the sin of Adam, is not asserted in any part of God\u2019s word.\u2019 \u201d\n\n\nThe high, moral and intellectual character of the gentlemen to whom this\nappeal was thus made, forbids the idea that they would allow such\nstatements and arguments and appeals to go unnoticed if they felt able to\nafford any light in reply to these questions. It was their highest duty as\nteachers of theology, if they could do it, to show how to answer the\nargument of \u201cYoung America\u201d against the Bible as containing the\nAugustinian dogma; to show that the passage introduced above as a specimen\nof the Pelagianism taught by the New Haven divines either _is not_ the\ndoctrine they teach or is not Pelagianism; to show that there _are_ some\npassages in the Bible that teach that the nature or the constitution of\nman is not the best possible in the nature of things, and _is_ different\nfrom that of the unsinning angels or unfallen Adam; and finally, to show\nthat there _is_ some passage in the Bible that teaches that the depraved\nnature of man was caused or occasioned by the sin of Adam.\n\nNot only the professors and editors thus addressed, but all the\ntheologians of all schools, so far as the writer can learn, have\nmaintained a profound _silence_ on all these questions. The _Independent_\nalso declined any _discussion_ thus: \u201cWe have no intention of surrendering\nour columns to a _theological_ or _psychological controversy_ such as\nmight be introduced by the communication we now publish.\u201d\n\nThe writer after this, in several cases, suggested to some of the most\nactive and intelligent minds in some of the above theological seminaries,\nto endeavor to secure a full discussion of these topics in their lecture\nrooms, and was told, in reply, that all such efforts were decidedly\ndiscouraged.\n\nShe also addressed notes to several editors of the secular press to see if\ntheir columns could be used for the purpose. From the one whose past\nfreedom led to the expectation of an affirmative answer, the reply was,\nthat he had promised his orthodox friends that he would not _needlessly_\nintroduce _heresy_ into his paper, and that the greatest of all heresies\nwas _common sense_!\n\nFinally, on consulting one of the most shrewd and best informed publishers\nin regard to the future volume, he expressed the opinion that \u201cin whatever\nelse theologians differed, they were all united in the determination that\nthe investigation proposed by the author _should not be permitted_.\u201d\n\nThis being so, the author has concluded, and the public probably will\nconclude, that the most profound and acute theologians of this country\nhave relinquished the idea of attempting any farther defense of the\nAugustinian dogma.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVI. PRESENT POSITION OF THE CHURCH.\n\n\nThe word \u201cchurch,\u201d as used in this article, refers chiefly to those close\ncorporations which claim to be regenerated persons, whose depraved nature,\ntransmitted from Adam, has been so far rectified by re\u2010creation, that they\nare, more or less, in the practice of true virtue, of which the\nunregenerate world are supposed to be totally destitute.\n\nIn this sense they claim to be \u201cthe saints,\u201d \u201cthe righteous,\u201d \u201cthe elect,\u201d\n\u201cthe children of God,\u201d \u201cthe salt of the earth,\u201d \u201cthe light of the world,\u201d\n\u201ca holy nation,\u201d \u201ca peculiar people.\u201d\n\nWhile the members of these churches do not claim that all who do not come\ninto their organizations are of the opposite class, they do, by their\nprofession and admission to such churches, claim to be of the regenerated\nclass, to whom the above terms of the Bible are to be applied, while the\ngreat majority of mankind, not in these organizations, are called by them\n\u201cthe world,\u201d \u201cthe unregenerate,\u201d \u201csinners,\u201d \u201cthe wicked,\u201d and by other\nsimilar terms.\n\nSo long as the great body of the people were guided chiefly by\necclesiastics, and were thus trained to believe that heaven was to be\ngained by some unintelligible \u201cchange of nature,\u201d imparted by priestly\nagency, or by some supernatural intervention of God\u2019s Spirit, these claims\nwere regarded with mystified fear and doubt.\n\nBut the more intelligence and discussion have spread among the people, the\nmore such claims have been questioned and distrusted.\n\nMany things have combined to increase such distrust. Among these may be\nmentioned the discussions already noticed, conducted by theologians\nthemselves, by which the absurdities and inconsistencies maintained by\neach, were exposed by all the others.\n\nAnother cause of distrust has been the great variety of _tests_ and _signs\nof regeneration_. One class of religious teachers claim a certain kind of\nexperience as indispensable to admission to the church. A second class\nreprobate this sign and set up another. A third class depreciate both and\ninsist upon still another. And thus it is made apparent, that theologians\ndo not agree among themselves what the \u201cdepraved nature\u201d of man consists\nin, nor what are the true signs or evidence of its \u201csaving change.\u201d\n\nAnother cause of distrust has arisen from attempts to carry out a system\nof church discipline. Some churches expel persons for interpreting the\nBible in a different mode from themselves or their creed. Others expel\ntheir members for vending alcoholic drinks, or for dancing, or for holding\nslaves, or for marrying the sister of a deceased wife. Meantime, the sins\nof pride, anger, covetousness, avarice, worldliness, evil temper,\nunfairness in business, hard dealings with the poor, and many other\ndevelopments of selfishness, often are made no bar to full and honorable\ncommunion.\n\nAgain, in churches and sects that are most strenuous in attempting to\nmaintain by church discipline a uniformity of interpretation of the Bible\nconformed to their own, it has come to pass that orthodoxy of\ninterpretation is sometimes _practically_ placed before morality of\nconduct. Thus, if a member of a church or a minister is suspected of\ndenying the supreme divinity of Christ, or the depravity and need of\nregeneration of _nature_ in man, a great agitation is produced, and\nattempts are made, by church discipline, to rectify the evil as very\ndangerous. In the meantime, a slanderous tongue, or dishonest dealings, or\nselfish worldliness, excite less concern, and arouse to less effort. The\ninevitable result is an impression that churches and ministers place\nconformity of interpretation to their own creeds or opinions before\nmorality, and consequently the feeling is engendered, _that church\norganizations, founded on the Augustinian theory, tend to immorality_.\n\nThis impression as to the immoral tendency of such church organizations,\nhas been increased by the fact that in times of special religious\nexcitement, that class of men in many cases, become most prominent as\nleaders in prayer meetings and other public ministries whose character for\nconsistency in private life, or in business matters, is low. It is\nperceived that this fact does not prevent these men from being regarded as\nreligious men, and as superior to others, who, living exemplary lives, are\nunable or unwilling to take any conspicuous place in religious movements.\nAnd when the period of excitement is passed, it is found that these\nleaders in revival seasons are no better in their private life and\nbusiness dealings than before.\n\nIt is also sometimes the case that men of high character and position, can\nnot be reached by church discipline as are the humbler members, and thus\nsin is made respectable by its association at once with talents,\ninfluence, wealth and church membership.\n\nIn addition to this, the fact that so many ministers and churches have\ntaken such an antagonistic course in the public movements to remove\nintemperance and slavery from our land, has led to open attacks on\nministers and churches in the newspapers, in public lectures and in many\nother ways, in which their inconsistencies have been held up to public\nridicule as well as to more serious denunciation.\n\nSo long as the \u201cchange of nature,\u201d which fits man for heaven, was regarded\nas a supernatural mystery which no one could understand or explain, while\nthe approved signs of regeneration were submitted only to ministers,\ndeacons, elders and church committees, the matter was exclusively in their\nkeeping.\n\nBut as soon as the nature of regeneration began to be explained\nintelligibly, and men adopted the common\u2010sense view, that the _true_\nchurch consists of persons who not only believe in Christ intellectually,\nbut believe _practically_, _i.e._, that they are those who _obey_ Christ,\nthe case bore a different aspect. \u201cThese are the persons,\u201d they say, \u201cwho\norganize on the assumption that they are regenerated because they obey\nChrist\u2019s teachings, while so many virtuous persons are shut out as\n_totally_ and _entirely_ disobedient,\u2014as never feeling or acting truly\nvirtuously in the sight of God in a single instance!\u201d\n\nThe more this questionable assumption has become apparent, the more has\nbeen the disturbing influence on both the church and the world.\n\nMultitudes of serious, virtuous and conscientious persons, who are really\nliving Christian lives and making it their chief concern to obey the great\nMaster, have refused to join associations that make such dubious claims.\n\nStill more has been the revulsion from those churches which demand as\nterms to admission professed belief in certain modes of interpreting the\nBible contained in a creed. They, holding the Protestant doctrine that\nevery man is to interpret the Bible for himself, responsible to no man or\nbody of men, can not thus resign their religious liberty.\n\nMeantime, the Christian profession has ceased to be a cross in any way,\nand has rather become honorable. Those who have been taught that a\n_purpose_ or determination to obey Christ was regeneration, have in many\ncases formed such a purpose, confessed belief in the needful creeds and\njoined the church in great numbers, before they had time to ascertain\nwhether they had moral strength to carry out this purpose. They find on\ntrial that they have not, and then discover that though there is an open\ndoor to _enter_ the church there is none for exit that is not\ndiscreditable, and so they remain.\n\nOthers come into the church for worse motives, to secure the confidence,\nrespect and trust that is accorded to that profession. Thus it has come to\npass that the class, denominated \u201cthe world,\u201d has been growing in\nChristian character and practical virtue, while, as a body, \u201cthe church\u201d\nhas been deteriorating.\n\nThe writer, in her very extensive travels and intercourse with the\nreligious world, has had unusual opportunities to notice how surely and\nhow extensively the conviction of this fact has been pressed on the minds\nof the best class of Christian ministers and laymen. More than twenty\nyears ago, one of the most laborious Episcopal bishops of the western\nStates, in reply to inquiries as to the state of religion in his large\ndiocese replied, \u201cthe world is growing better and the church is growing\nworse.\u201d\n\nMore than ten years ago, a distinguished lawyer, who had extensive\nfinancial business to transact, himself an honored and exemplary member of\nthe church, stated to the writer that he was decided in the conviction\nthat the better class of worldly men were more honorable and reliable in\nbusiness matters than the majority of church members. When asked to\naccount for this, the reply was that religious men were chiefly interested\nto get to heaven, which in their view was to be secured \u201cby faith and not\nby works,\u201d and so good works became a secondary concern. But the chief\nconcern of worldly men is to succeed in this life, and they have learned\nthat honesty is the best policy in attaining their chief end.\n\nThis statement was repeated to another exemplary church member, who, as a\nbank officer and lawyer of distinguished integrity, was said to transact\nmore business than any other man in the north\u2010western States. He remarked\nthat the above was exactly his own opinion, and, moreover, he stated that\na friend of his, also a church member, who, he said, did more business\nthan any other man in Central New York, had expressed to him the same\nopinion.\n\nThese statements were repeated not long ago to a business man, an\nexemplary member of an orthodox church in Boston, and he expressed the\nsame opinion. In repeated other instances that need not be enumerated, in\nvarious sections of the country, the same opinion has been expressed by\nintelligent and consistent members of the church, whose prejudices would\nnaturally lead them to the most favorable view of the case.\n\nSuch impressions have not been decreased by the recent multiplied\ndefalcations, forgeries, and other business dishonesties that have\noccurred in the last three years among church members and officers of\nreligious charities in high places of trust.\n\nTo all this add the fact, that a large class of men of exemplary private\nlife, who are spending their time, money and influence for the relief of\nhuman woes and the redress of social and political wrongs, are at the same\ntime openly attacking the church as the chief bulwark of these wrongs,\nwhile all the delinquencies of ministers and churches are freely discussed\nand denounced by them _before the people_.\n\nThe result is, that a large portion of the most exemplary and intelligent\npart of the church feel themselves to be in a dubious and false position,\nand are daily querying whether _professing_ to be a _peculiar_ people is\nnot doing more harm than good; and whether it would not be better that the\ninfluence of good men should rest on their _unassociated_ individual\ncharacter, and not on organizations making such high profession where the\nlight of goodness is obscured by associated darkness.\n\nGreat doubt and skepticism, both in the church and out of it, have thus\narisen also as to _what real religion consists in_, and as to what _are_\nthe true claims of the church and its ministry.\n\nMultitudes who would enter the church if it was regarded simply as an\nassociation of persons to support the ordinances appointed by Jesus\nChrist, and to aid each other in obeying his Word, turn from its present\nposition and claims with distrust or disgust. At the same time ministers\nand church members, feeling these difficulties, have more and more\nrelinquished the Augustinian theory as the basis of their organization,\nand are advancing to an open avowal of the common\u2010sense ground, _i.e._,\nthat the real invisible church of Christ embraces all those who\nacknowledge him as their Lord and Master, and make it their chief aim to\nunderstand and to obey his teachings, and that a _visible church_ is any\nassociation of persons who organize to aid each other in this object, by\nsustaining a ministry and worship as _they_ understand to be most in\nagreement with the teachings of Christ.\n\nThe Episcopal church, both in Great Britain and in this country, although\nas strictly Augustinian in its articles as any other, has taken the lead\nof all others in practically renouncing that system. Any man can more\nreadily secure all the privileges of membership in that church without any\nconfession of faith or public profession of a \u201cchange of nature,\u201d than in\nany of the other Augustinian denominations, and this is probably one great\nreason of its prosperity in this country.\n\nAny sensible man of good moral character, who should state in a respectful\nand candid spirit, that he could not conscientiously submit to\nacknowledging in any form, the rights of any man or body of men to decide\nfor him in regard to the interpretation of the Bible; that according to\nhis understanding of its teachings, he was bound to acknowledge Jesus\nChrist as his Lord and Master in all matters of faith and practice, and to\nassociate himself with other avowed followers of Christ by some form of\nopen acknowledgment; that as he understands the New Testament, the rites\nof baptism and the Lord\u2019s Supper were instituted as forms of such\nacknowledgment and communion, and that he wished thus to connect himself\nwith the Episcopal church without any creed, confession or acknowledgment;\nit is believed, that in such a case, there are few ministers and still\nfewer laymen who would not think it right to gratify such a desire. It is\nbelieved that there are many, also, of the highest standing for intellect,\npiety and position in the Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist and\nCongregational churches, who have so far thrown aside the system of\nAugustine, that they also would receive such a man to their communion on\nthese terms.\n\nIn this state of feeling among laymen the developments of sectarianism,\nwhich, as has been shown, all relate to matters of rites and forms,\nresulting from the Augustinian theory, have become more and more\nsuspicious and offensive. Especially is this the case in the newer States,\nwhere union and harmony among good men are most needed.\n\nIn the volume, of _Common Sense Applied to Religion_, page 342, statistics\nare introduced from the reports of three of the largest sects of this\ncountry, the Old and New school Presbyterian and the Congregational\nchurches, showing that, owing to their sectarian divisions, _nearly one\nthird_ of their churches are without ministers, and _nearly one half_ of\nthese churches have not over fifty members, the majority of these being\nwomen, while the _relative_ amount of ministers to churches is constantly\ndecreasing. Not only in the large, but the smaller towns, the struggle to\nbuild churches and support ministers among the various sects, that differ\nonly as to rites and forms, is most mournful, making a taxation both on\nthe East and West for their support which is incredible.\n\nEach denomination is trained to regard itself as \u201cthe church of God\u201d and\nto labor for its increase as a service to God\u2019s cause, while the extension\nof other sects is not so regarded. Although few intelligent Protestants\nnow believe that any forms or rites are indispensable to salvation, each\nsect regards its own peculiarity as of very great importance. And as all\nthe large sects are divided only on modes of baptism or of church\norganization there is a constant tendency to magnify these points of\ndifference. Were it not for this, in small places and in new settlements,\nall would unite in one large, harmonious church, that could not only\nsupport its own ordinances, but send of its surplus to supply the\ndestitute. Instead of this, the feuds, envies, jealousies and bickerings\nbetween small and struggling churches, of from four to twenty diverse\nsects, are an occasion of reproach and contempt to the world, and of\nmortification to all honorable and pious minds.\n\nSo in regard to education, each sect is now acting _as a sect_, in\nstarting new colleges and seminaries, or in endowing those already\nstarted, and this often with little reference to the supply provided by\nother sects. For example, in Ohio there are _twenty\u2010six_ endowed colleges,\nin Indiana there are _eleven_, and thus at the same rate in other new\nStates.\n\nBesides endowments to support professors, vast sums have been spent in\nbuildings, many of them unused for want of pupils. After each sect has\nthus gained its colleges, it must struggle to find pupils, and thus\nmultitudes of young boys are pressed into a Latin and Greek course, not at\nall demanded in their future pursuits, and often forsaken before the\ncollege is ever reached. The waste of educational benefactions in these\nways is enormous.\n\nThese expenditures are all to be met by the laity, and the more the nature\nof these sectarian divisions is understood, the more distrustful are the\npeople in regard to these profuse expenditures to keep up such divisions.\nMultitudes of intelligent laymen contribute simply because their clergymen\nurge it, and entirely without intelligent approval of these things. To\ntheir own view, Christianity, as exhibited by contending sects, is a\nsource of more evil feeling, contention and needless expense than of\ncompensating benefits, and distrust and misgiving increase and abound.\n\nIn such a position of the organized church, one of the most remarkable\nindications to be noted is the occurrence of a \u201crevival\u201d among all sects,\nin which _the __ people_ take the lead, and theologians and pastors\nwillingly resign their wonted place. All badges of sect are dropped, and\nthe dogmas of Augustine, from which they originated, are thrown aside. The\nsystem of common sense is recognized, and its intelligent and harmonizing\ninfluence secures, for the first time, the respectful attention of worldly\nmen toward religious developments, which in all past time have been\nregarded by them with suspicion or scorn.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVII. STATE OF THE PASTORS OF CHURCHES.\n\n\nThat portion of the clerical world who, as pastors, are most nearly in\nconnection with the people, are necessarily affected with the influences\nthat touch theologians, and also with the condition of their people.\n\nThey find that what they have been trained to regard as a _fundamental_\ndoctrine of the Bible, has ceased to be defended by those who have been\ntheir teachers in theology, and who are the leaders of their sect.\n\nThey find their own minds very greatly in doubt as to many points taught\nthem in their theological training. They find intelligent laymen refusing\nto enter the church, whom they feel to be as really followers of Christ in\nheart and life as any in their churches, while they see many professors of\nreligion as selfish, worldly and unprincipled as most of the world around,\nand yet they can not exclude them.\n\nThey find intelligent young men coming to them expressing a desire to obey\nChrist and to unite with his followers in efforts to \u201cbe good and to do\ngood,\u201d but unable to subscribe to the creed of the church in regard to a\ndepraved nature and associated tenets, while by one expedient or another\nthese pastors waive the difficulty and receive them into their churches.\nThey find intelligent mothers and Sunday\u2010school teachers throwing aside\nthe Augustinian dogma, and training their little ones to believe that they\ncan love and serve their Saviour with their present nature and faculties,\nand that every attempt to conform to the rules of duty is well\u2010pleasing to\nGod, and a step forward in the path to heaven.\n\nThey find intelligent Christian mothers wishing to bring their children to\nthe communion with no other profession than that they desire and intend to\nobey their Saviour in all things.\n\nIn this state of things, some of the most successful and intelligent\npastors have decided, in such cases, to cut loose from their creeds and\nconfessions, and to receive to the communion any young children whom their\nparents believe and feel to be thus prepared for it.\n\nThe position assumed by the parochial clergy in the great revival of the\npast year, has been a remarkable index.\n\n_The people_ of all sects and creeds came together to express their wish\nand intention to serve the Lord Christ by obedience to his word in heart\nand life, and their pastors sat with them as equals in all respects before\nthe common Father. They related their experience; they exhorted each other\nto persevere; they united in prayers for help and guidance, and their\npastors ceased to urge attention to those \u201cdoctrines\u201d founded on the\nAugustinian theory, which in former revivals were made so prominent.\n\nThere are incidents that have come under the personal observation of the\nwriter the past year in regard to the parochial clergy which are very\nominous on account of the character of the persons involved, who not only\nare among the first in intelligence and influence, but may properly be\ndenominated, in reference to the leading class of pastors, \u201crepresentative\nmen.\u201d\n\nIn one case, a young man of great intelligence and moral worth, who might\nproperly be regarded as a \u201crepresentative man\u201d of the better portion of\n\u201cYoung America,\u201d informed the writer that he and his wife had accepted the\ngeneral invitation of their pastor to receive the communion. Inasmuch as\nthe doctrines of the creed of that church were not accepted by him, the\ninquiry was made whether this step was taken with the approval of his\npastor, and the reply was in the affirmative.\n\nThe inquiry was then made, on what ground he united in this ordinance. The\nreply was, substantially, that he wished to be good and to do good, guided\nby the teachings of Christ; that he wished to be united in feeling and\naction with good men, who cherish the same aims, and also to make it\nmanifest that he was associated with that class; that he regarded this\nsacramental ordinance as instituted for this very purpose, while his\nminister, as a consistent Protestant, did not insist that he should\ninterpret the Bible according to his creed or be shut out from this\nprivilege.\n\nIn another case, an intelligent mother who had trained her children\nexclusively on the common\u2010sense theory, informed the writer that she had\ntaken them to the Lord\u2019s Table with the consent of one of the most\ndistinguished pastors of the land, without any examination or admission to\nthe church. She simply narrated to him her own opinion that her children\nfrom early years had learned to love the Saviour and to be conscientious\nin daily efforts to obey his teachings; that they and she felt that they\nwere commanded by their Saviour openly to acknowledge themselves as his\nfollowers, \u201ceven to the death,\u201d if need be, in order to fulfill all\nrighteousness, and that they did not and could not believe the creed of\nthat church, nor in the right of any man, or body of men, to exact such\nbelief under penalty of exclusion from the table of their Lord.\n\nThe pastor welcomed these lambs of the fold with their mother, and felt\nthat had he driven them away it would have been in defiance to their\nSaviour\u2019s word, \u201cSuffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid\nthem not.\u201d\n\nIn still another case, one of the most honored Congregational pastors of\nNew England openly declared to friends of the writer that it was in vain\nto try to preach this Augustinian system any longer; that _the people\nwould not hear it_, and that he should have to preach to bare walls if he\nattempted it any more.\n\nMany other similar incidents that have come to the knowledge of the writer\nin different quarters of the country, might be added, but the above will\nsuffice as illustrative indications of the present position of pastors.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLVIII. THE POSITION OF POPULAR EDUCATION.\n\n\nIt is a significant fact in regard to the religious training of the young\nin this country, that the most influential leaders of popular education,\nespecially in its earlier stages of improvement, have been laymen, and\nlaymen who reject the Augustinian dogma, and all organizations founded on\nit. And yet they are men who believe in, and have exhibited by their\nexample, the great duty of love to God and love to man, in a life of\nobedience to the physical, social and moral laws of God.\n\nMeantime, the laws of the land which forbid any exclusive favor to any\nreligious sect, do, in fact, forbid any religious training in common\nschools that conflicts with the common\u2010sense system. It has been shown\n(chapter 39) that the larger Christian sects are all founded, in their\ndistinctive features, on the Augustinian dogma. This being so, the law\nthat excludes distinctive sectarian teaching excludes the Augustinian\nsystem.\n\nIn regard to smaller sects, not Augustinian, the distinctive doctrine of\nthe Unitarian creed is such a _unity_ in regard to the Creator as forbids\nthe idea of more than one divine person who has all the attributes of God.\nThis, it has been shown in chapter 18, is contrary to the common\u2010sense\nsystem.\n\nThe distinctive doctrine of the Universalist creed forbids the idea of the\nperpetuated existence of sinful and miserable beings; this, also, is\ncontrary to the common\u2010sense system, as shown in chapter 28. Thus the\nchief sects that are not counted as Augustinian or Evangelical, are also\nexcluded from introducing their distinctive tenets into the common schools\nof the people.\n\nMoreover, while the people, in the schools under their control, thus\nforbid by law any religious training which conflicts with the common\u2010sense\nsystem, they permit prayers to God and the use of the Bible, _provided_\nthe privilege is not used, in opposition to the spirit of the above law,\nto introduce distinctive sectarian tenets.\n\nIt is also very noticable that in Great Britain the most influential\npatrons of popular education, and writers on the training of the young,\nhave, though members of the established church, vigorously opposed the\nAugustinian system. Archbishop Whateley has written a most powerful\nargument, and one which none have attempted to answer, in favor of the\ncommon\u2010sense view of church organization. He also has given all his\ninfluence to the establishment of schools for the people, in which every\nparent and child shall, as far as possible, be _free_ in regard to\nreligious matters.\n\nThe beloved and honored name of Arnold, dear to every liberal educator of\nevery sect and name, has set the example of a religious training that is\nbased entirely on the common\u2010sense system. And probably there is not a man\nliving or dead whose influence has been so extensive in guiding public\nopinion on this subject. Without openly denying the articles, or forsaking\nthe established church, Whateley, Arnold and their associates have warred\non the Augustinian theory and its offsets more energetically and\neffectively than any two men that can be named.\n\nThus, it appears, that the people themselves, and the chief leaders in\npopular education, have decided that no teaching that conflicts with the\nsystem of common\u2010sense shall be introduced into the common schools.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XLIX. THE POSITION OF WOMAN AS CHIEF EDUCATOR OF MIND.\n\n\nOne of the most important indices of religious change is the advance in\nthe character of female education during the last thirty years.\n\nFifty years ago, to read, write and cipher, and a few accomplishments,\nwere all that were attempted in the school education of women. A little\nhistory and one or two other branches were added in some of the higher\nschools.\n\nIt being assumed that the _equal_ culture of _all_ the faculties, so as to\ninsure a _well\u2010balanced_ mind, is the chief aim of all education, it is\nprobable that the mental culture of women in this country for the last\nthirty years has approached nearer to the true standard than was ever\nknown in the experience of any other nation.\n\nThe training to the handicraft of the needle, even if only for ornament,\nthe measure of domestic duty that most young girls learn to perform, the\nculture of the musical taste and the art of drawing, the combination in\nfemale schools of mathematics, languages and general knowledge, and the\nimmense variety of culture from lectures and general reading, all have\ntended to develop the female mind on a scale of advancement and equable\nculture never before known.\n\nThe result is a generation of women well trained for high and independent\nthought and action. At the same time, it is probable that there never\nbefore was so large a proportion of the best educated women who were so\ndecidedly conscientious and religious.\n\nIt is granted by all, that it is to woman more than to man, that is\ncommitted the chief business of training the human mind at its most\nimportant stage of development. It is granted, also, that in order to\nsuccess in culture, both physical and mental, it is the first step to\nunderstand _the nature_ of that which is to be trained and developed. The\nfirst question, then, to every woman, in reference to her first duty is,\nwhat is _the nature_ of the minds given us to train?\n\nIn this light, it is as if a gardener were to receive some rare and\ndelicate plant with directions from his lord to train it with the utmost\ncare; his first inquiry would be, What is its nature? Does it require sun\nor shade? Does it need a moist or a sandy soil? Is it a climber, or a\nshrub, or a tree? Or, it is as if a young machinist should receive from\nhis master a collection of wheels and springs, and a great variety of\ndelicate machinery, with the direction to put them together and adjust\nthem for right action. His first inquiry would be, what is the _nature_ of\nthe thing to be thus arranged? For what _end_ or _purpose_ is it\nconstructed? What is the _mode of working it_ which will best accomplish\nthe end designed?\n\nIn like manner woman receives from her Lord the delicate physical form and\nimmortal spirit of her child to train _aright_ for an existence never to\nend. She asks of those who are her Lord\u2019s messengers for this very end,\nwhat is _the nature_ of this wonderful and delicate organization? What is\nthe _end_ or _purpose_ for which it is made? What is the _mode_ of\n_training_ which will best accomplish the end designed?\n\nThe preceding pages exhibit the kind of replies that for ages have met\nthese heart\u2010wrenching queries of womanhood. From most, it is shown, she\nhears that the _ruined nature_ of her offspring is such that she can do\nabsolutely nothing to secure any right development. Others tell her that\nno one knows what was the end or purpose for which the mind of her child\nwas made. Others tell her that no one knows what are _right_ means in\nregard to the training and action of mind. Others tell her that the mind\nof her child is constructed wrong, and that nothing can be done to secure\nits right training and development, but in some way to induce its Maker to\nre\u2010create it.\n\nMeantime, also, her teachers are in conflict as to what is the difficulty\nwith the _nature_ of her child, and what would be its right action, and\nwhat is to be done to secure its right development. At the same time, the\ngreater portion of the teachings on this great matter are so enveloped in\nabstruse theological and metaphysical technics as to baffle the wisest in\ntheir attempts to gain clear and definite ideas from them.\n\nIn this state of the case many sensible mothers and teachers, all over the\nland, have adopted a course dictated by their own common sense and their\nexperience of the _nature_ of mind, as discovered in their attempts to\ntrain it. In pursuing such a course, many of them have taught simply the\nsystem of common sense, leaving out entirely the Augustinian\ncontradictions. They have in various forms of language taught their little\nones after this fashion: \u201cYour heavenly Father made you to be happy and to\nmake others happy. In order to this, he wishes that you should always have\nwhat you like best, except when it would injure you or others. But when\nwhat you like best and want the most, is not _best_ for you or _best_ for\nothers, you must always choose what is _for the best_, and in so doing you\nact virtuously and please and obey God. And just so far as you do all that\nis best for yourself and for others, guided by the teachings of Christ,\nand with the desire and purpose to obey him, you become a virtuous, pious\nand holy child, and a true Christian.\u201d\n\nIn taking such a course as this, many mothers and teachers find themselves\nin antagonism with the teachings of the pulpit, the Sunday School and the\ngreat body of religious books, and yet they persevere. And sometimes they\ntake their children from the Sunday School because the home training is\nthere so directly assailed. And they would, in some cases, keep them from\nthe church also, were not the theological technics so effective in\nprotecting childhood from all comprehension of a large portion of pulpit\nteachings.\n\nIt is such intelligent, cultivated and pious mothers and teachers that go\nto their pastors with their perplexities and troubles, and not\nunfrequently find that tender sympathy which those only can give who have\nsuffered the same kind of distress.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER L. PRESENT POSITION OF YOUNG AMERICA.\n\n\nBy the term \u201cYoung America,\u201d as it is used at this day, seems to be\nintended that class of youthful minds who are striving to free themselves\nfrom all past ecclesiastical and conventional restraints, and who are\naiming to think and act with entire freedom on all subjects.\n\nThe most active and efficient of this class are those who by general\nreading and study have both strengthened their reasoning powers and been\nmost affected by the causes before described, which have tended to lessen\nrespect for the church founded on the Augustinian theory of such a\ndepraved nature transmitted from Adam, that all unregenerate doings are\n\u201csin, and only sin.\u201d\n\nThese young minds find the power of the pulpit, the church, the religious\npress, and the religious training of the family, the school and the\ncollege all combined to enforce this doctrine. They feel galled and\nindignant at the chains which they find around them; and trained to\ninterpret the Bible as teaching this doctrine and the system based on it,\nthey secretly revolt from the authority of that book. They feel that the\nministers and churches which sustain this doctrine are the grand\nimpediments to freedom of thought and opinion, and the chief fortress of a\nsystem which to them is hateful in theory, and, in their view, destructive\nalike to a true manhood and a pure morality.\n\nBut if they speak out their feelings they will be denounced as infidels\nand avoided as dangerous persons. What is more trying still, the mother\nthey love so much will be distressed, their father will be equally grieved\nand perhaps offended with their self\u2010conceit, and all their Christian\nfriends will be disturbed and displeased.\n\nUnder these conflicting influences there exists a constant conflict\nbetween their honest convictions and desire for truth and independent\naction, and their gentle and generous impulses. This is the condition of\nmultitudes of young minds, who to please a mother, a father, a sister or a\nfriend, attend church and listen in silence to much that they do not\nbelieve and to some things which they abhor. Others quietly withdraw from\nall religious ministries, on the plea that Sunday is more profitably spent\nby them in quiet strolls or reading at home, while the real trouble,\nsecretly burning in their hearts, is scarcely breathed aloud.\n\nOf this class of minds not a few are found in our theological seminaries.\nAnd here they encounter new difficulties. As the system of Augustinianism\nis developed as the basis of their professional training, they attempt to\nmeet it with some discussion. In this they find little or no\nencouragement. _Free discussion_ seems to be deemed inadmissible, and\nthose who urge it find themselves in an uncomfortable minority, who are\nregarded rather as agitators than as manly and independent seekers after\ntruth.\n\nBut the most powerful influence on the most influential class of \u201cYoung\nAmerica,\u201d as highest in intellectual and moral development, has been the\npractical working of _two false principles_.\n\nThe first of these is, that _organizations_ to promote truth and\nrighteousness are of more consequence than truth and righteousness. Thus,\nto a Catholic, the reputation and interests of _the church_\u2014that is, the\nclergy\u2014are to be regarded first, so that its pope and priesthood are to be\nshielded from the public exposure of whatever crimes they may commit, lest\nthe influence of the church should suffer. Thus, in Protestant\necclesiastical organizations, the sins of their chief leaders are\nsometimes covered and palliated, lest their church and order be\ndiscredited. Thus the college faculty are sometimes sustained by parents\nor the public in unjust proceedings, lest the respect and confidence of\nthe pupils or the public toward them should be impaired. Thus, also, the\nofficers of benevolent associations are tolerated and shielded from odium\nfor conduct that should receive universal disapprobation. In such cases,\nthe _end_ is made secondary to the means\u2014the instrumentalities to promote\nvirtue receive more regard than virtue itself. This, among \u201cfishers of\nmen,\u201d is making taking the fish secondary to the care of the net.\n\nThe other false principle is, that men are to be restrained from\nprotesting against wrong, in cases where it would make great trouble and\ndifficulty to individuals or to communities involved in it.\n\nThat men are to use discretion and consult expediency as to the _time_ and\n_manner_ of exposing and denouncing wrong, is one of the teachings of\ncommon sense. But that men are to protest against wrong only when it makes\nlittle or no trouble to any one, and be silent when contention and trouble\nwould result from such protesting, is a principle that would have\ninhibited the spread of Christianity by the apostles, of the Reformation\nby Luther, and of every other great reform.\n\nThe extent to which wise and good men have adopted and acted on these\nfalse principles has probably done more to undermine faith in the Bible\nand the church than all other causes united.\n\nThe tendency has been to generate the feeling that the great organizations\nbased on the Bible and aiming to extend its authority, are really little\nbetter than associations to sustain the power and the influence of a\ncertain privileged class, at the sacrifice of not only truth and\nrighteousness, but of manly freedom of thought and speech.\n\nThe extent of real infidelity, not only in our colleges, but among the\nyoung mechanics of our shops and manufactories, the young farmers in our\nfields, the clerks in our offices and stores, and Young America all over\nthe nation, is little imagined by those, who, on the field of\nconservatism, are striving to repress free discussion. There are seething\nand glowing fires gathering for vent, which such attempts are as vain to\nrestrain as are bands of cobwebs to confine an outbursting volcano.\n\nIn speaking thus confidently of the present position of woman and of\n\u201cYoung America,\u201d it seems proper to notice the opportunities that have\nbeen furnished to attain some knowledge in this direction.\n\nDuring twelve years of service as principal of institutions at the East\nand West, in which nearly a thousand young girls from the most influential\nclasses and from nearly every State in the Union have been under her\ntraining, the writer gained no little insight into the varied experiences\nof the young. Later in life, ill health and other causes led to frequent\nreunions with former pupils all over the land, who as mothers, wives and\nsisters sought sympathy and counsel. Thus was gained the private history\nand the personal acquaintance of their husbands, brothers and sons, in\nmany professions and in various colleges.\n\nIn many cases the sons would disclose to a candid and sympathizing friend\nmental experiences and histories of themselves and their companions,\nwhich, from motives of tenderness, were hidden even from the most kind and\njudicious parents. The affiliated societies that bring the most\ninfluential young men of different colleges together, their meetings for\nanniversary and club reunions, have generated a common pulse, as it were,\nthrough the great body of the most highly educated and most influential\nyoung men in the land; so that learning what affects a small portion\nteaches also what affects the whole.\n\nThese intimations indicate but a small portion of the opportunities which\nhave led to the opinions expressed in this and the preceding chapter.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LI. PRESENT POSITION OF THE RELIGIOUS PRESS.\n\n\nTo any one who examines the religious press of the different sects of the\npresent time, it is clear that there never was a period in which the\n_ecclesiasticism_ founded on the Augustinian theory was more a leading\nobject of effort. At the time that the Bible Society and other benevolent\nreligious associations originated, the tendency of the different sects was\nto a harmonious union for the great end of sending the gospel to the\ndestitute. At that time, questions in relation to the modes of ordination\nand baptism, and as to church officers, seemed to vanish as matters of\nsmall concern to all whose chief aim was to save the lost. But now the\nreverse tendency is manifest. Every sect is engaged in magnifying the\nimportance of its own distinctive peculiarity, in getting up publishing\nhouses to disseminate its own peculiar modes of religious teaching, in\nraising funds to build churches, and in building up its own distinctive\nschools and colleges. And this is done not so much, as it would seem,\nbecause the salvation of ignorant and guilty men depends on these\nsectarian peculiarities, as because the extent, respectability and\ninfluence of a sect will be thus promoted. Every editor of every religious\npaper, therefore, is a chief leader in an effort to build up a sect, which\nas before shown, originates from the Augustinian dogma.\n\nIt is an established maxim in law and all administration of justice, that\nwhere a man\u2019s property, character, and professional success are involved,\nhe is barred from testimony as an incompetent witness. And it is deemed no\ndisparagement to the most honorable and high\u2010minded men in the community\nto be dealt with on the assumption that such personal interests so bias\nmen\u2019s judgment that they can not be trusted.\n\nNow it will not be denied by any one, that our religious periodicals are\nall supported by the differing sects with the express understanding that\neach shall advocate the views of the sect that especially patronizes it.\nAnd should any editor become convinced that the opinions he was appointed\nto advocate are false, he could not honorably retain his office without\ndeclaring his change of opinion, and this declaration would inevitably\nresult in the loss of his professional character and income among his\nfriends and supporters.\n\nFor example, if the editor of the Independent were to become convinced\nthat churches organized on the Congregational mode were unscriptural, and\nshould attempt to defend such a view, he would either resign his post or\nbe removed from it. The same would be true in regard to the editors of the\nPresbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist and Methodist religious magazines and\nnewspapers.\n\nSo in regard to the professors of our theological schools, who are the\nchief supporters of theological magazines. They must all teach the\nAugustinian dogma of a depraved nature transmitted from Adam to all his\ndescendants, or resign their professional reputation, their office and its\nincome.\n\nThese being facts, it may properly be affirmed that the religious press in\nthis country is barred from the full and free discussion of the great\nquestion of eternal life, \u201cWhat must we do to be saved?\u201d\n\nOne of the most remarkable indications of this fact is the course pursued\nby the leading religious periodicals of each sect in noticing the work\nbefore referred to, _Common Sense applied to Religion, or the Bible and\nthe People_. In that work, and in an article in the Independent, as well\nas by private letters, an appeal was made to their editors, who, many of\nthem, are personal friends of the writer, to instruct her and to instruct\nthe public wherein there was any failure in that work, either in setting\nforth truly the principles of common sense and the rules of\ninterpretation, or in deducing by these principles the _system_ of common\nsense, or in proving that the Augustinian dogma and the system founded on\nit were contrary to the common sense and the moral sense of mankind, and\nunsupported by the Bible.\n\nAs these editors are not only honorable and Christian gentlemen, but among\nthe most acute and profound metaphysicians in the world, it would be the\nheight of ill manners to assume that, discerning any failures, they\nrefused to specify them, either in private or in public, except for the\nreasons intimated. No editor whose periodical is supported by a sect for\nthe express purpose of maintaining its distinctive peculiarities, could\nindorse that work as correct in its statements and arguments without\ngiving up the basis on which the existence of that sect depends which\nsupports his periodical.\n\nIn these circumstances the editors of the Independent fairly and openly\navowed that they could not open their columns to \u201ca psychological and\ntheological discussion\u201d of this sort. And every editor of every other\nreligious periodical tacitly made the same declaration by _entire silence_\non the main subject of the volume\u2014the very principles, involving the\nexistence of the sect for whose defense they were appointed.\n\nSo manifest was this position of these leaders of the theological world,\nthat the most intelligent and best informed publishers came to the\nconclusion that whatever else theologians differed about, they were all\nunited in the determination that such a discussion of these points as was\nsought by the author should not be permitted. And even the editors of the\nsecular press were urged not to allow their columns to be used for such\npurposes.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LII. THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE SECULAR PRESS.\n\n\nThe most decided index of the coming agency of the people, in throwing off\nthe Augustinian system, is the present position of the secular press.\n\nIt has been shown how much the religious press is restrained in liberty of\nopinion and expression, so that it is probable that there is not a\nprofessedly religious paper in the nation that could controvert the\n_distinctive_ doctrines of the sect that patronizes it without losing its\ncharacter and income.\n\nBut the secular press is far less encumbered with such difficulties. The\nprogress of this great power toward the discussion of such subjects has\nbeen very striking. At first there began to be seen simple reports of the\nreligious anniversaries in some secular papers. This proving popular, next\nthere came notices of missionary and benevolent operations. Then notices\nof the sermons of distinguished clergymen were given, and then whole\ncolumns of daily papers were occupied with sermons from ministers, without\nregard to denomination. Finally, the great \u201crevival\u201d became a topic of the\nsecular press. Reports of religious meetings, the number who were counted\nas converts, and all the details connected with this great popular\nmovement were chronicled in the secular almost as fully as in the\nreligious press.\n\nThe comments of editors, also, on this subject, were usually respectful,\ncandid, and in many cases very able and discriminating. The result has\nbeen, that inasmuch as the religious press circulates chiefly among \u201cthe\nchurch\u201d and the secular press among \u201cthe world,\u201d the gospel has been\npreached to sinners far more by secular than by religious editors. And it\nmay be assumed as a fact, that the secular editors of this nation have far\nmore power and influence in guiding the religious opinions and moral\nconduct of \u201cthe world\u201d than either the clergy or the religious press, and\nprobably more than both combined.\n\nIn this state of the case, all the interests of the religious press are\nopposed to free investigation and discussion, and all the interests of the\nsecular press are as powerfully interested to promote it.\n\nIn appealing, therefore, from the theological world to \u201cthe people,\u201d it is\nthe editors of the secular press\u2014the true \u201c_Tribunes_ of the people\u201d\u2014who\nwill render the verdict, and this verdict is awaited with very little\ndoubt or apprehension in regard to its nature.\n\nThe questions submitted for decision are not so comprehensive as those of\nthe volume referred to in which theologians chiefly were invoked, and\nwhich they have as yet declined to answer. The questions submitted to _the\npeople_ are briefly these: Does common sense, or does the Bible teach that\nevery human being possesses such a depraved nature as never to perform any\ntruly virtuous act until this nature is re\u2010created by God? and are the\nchurches organized on the assumption that its members are diverse from the\nworld, in that they, as regenerated persons, perform virtuous acts as no\nunregenerated person ever does, sanctioned by common sense or by the\nBible?\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER LIII. WHAT THE PEOPLE WILL DO?\n\n\nIt has been shown that the Augustinian dogma of a depraved nature is the\nfoundation of all the large sectarian organizations in this country, and\nof the contentions, evil passions and waste of property resulting from\nsuch divisions among Christians.\n\nIt has been shown that the leading theologians have ceased to defend this\ndogma, that the pastors of churches are practically evading it, that the\neducators of the young are throwing it aside, and that the people in all\ndirections are rejecting it.\n\nThis process of eliminating the Augustinian system from the system of\ncommon sense and the Bible, with which, for ages, it has been entwined,\nthus far has gone on as the result chiefly of the development of the\nintellectual and moral nature of all classes, but especially of the\n_common people_. A period has now arrived in which the question has become\nso far an intelligible and a _practical_ one, that the two great\nprinciples of society indicated by the words _conservatism_ and _progress_\nare arranging and accumulating antagonistic forces for an open and decided\nmanifestation on this great question. What will be the precise nature of\nthis manifestation no human mind can predict. But the distinctive\nprinciples of the two parties furnish some data for anticipating some\nfuture results, as they may occur in the several classes referred to in\npreceding chapters under the following heads:\n\n\n\n\nWhat Theologians will do?\n\n\nIn attempting to indicate the probable future course of theologians, it is\nimportant to notice the relative positions of persons trained to sustain a\n_system_ of doctrines, and of those who seek for truth and duty without\nany such commitment.\n\nMost theologians grow up from infancy under a system of doctrines\ninculcated both from the pulpit and in the family. This enlists all the\nstrong and inveterate influences of early education in its favor. Next,\nthe collegiate pulpit instructions and associations all favor the same\nsystem. Next, the theological school brings the young under the direct\ntraining of the most acute minds, whose express business it is to teach\nall methods of supporting and defending that _system_. Here the young\nminister is taught how to construct his sermons so as most effectually to\nbring the popular mind under its control, and so as to most effectively\noppose all antagonistic sects and teachings.\n\nFinally, the office of a clergyman involves such ecclesiastical relations\nas subjects a man to constant espionage, and to ecclesiastical discipline\nand ejection if he adopts any views that would essentially modify the\n_system_ in which he is trained.\n\nIf, therefore, any theologian or pastor finds himself doubting as to any\ndoctrine, he perceives that it is so interlocked with the _system_ of\nwhich it is a part that he is at once brought face to face with the\nquestion, Shall I give up _the whole system_ in which I was educated, all\nthe lectures and sermons framed on that system, all my ecclesiastical\nconnections, my professional character and my salary?\n\nIt is as if a man should find himself in some emergency upholding by a\nsingle timber a portion of a building which so interlocks with every other\nportion that he can not let it go without throwing down the only house\nthat can shelter himself and all he holds dear. In such a case a man must\ncome to a decision as to whether the piece of timber _ought_ to be\nremoved, and _when_ and _how_ it should be done, with an anxiety,\ndeliberation and forecast that would be inappropriate to a man who finds\nonly a disconnected stick of timber in his way. This illustrates the\nrelative position and difficulties of theologians in contrast with those\nwhich impede the common people in the search after truth and duty.\n\nIn this view of the case it would be unreasonable to expect that\ntheologians _as a class_, though among the wisest and best of men, are to\nbe leaders in any great or sudden change in religious opinions. On the\ncontrary, it is to be anticipated that they will be the most earnest,\nenergetic, and at the same time honest, defenders of time\u2010honored\nreligious dogmas, which it is their professional business to uphold. Nor\nis it any implication of their talents, learning, honesty or piety to\nsuppose that they will be among the last to perceive the fallacies and\nevils involved in whatever _system_ they defend.\n\nYet there are considerations which indicate that the experience of the\npast is not to be the exact image of the future. The progress of mind is\nas distinctly marked among theologians as it is among any class of\nsociety, and this being toward the system of common sense, involves the\nwaning of the dogmatic spirit of infallibility and the increase of that\nhumble and teachable spirit, which is alike the mark of true philosophy\nand of Christianity.\n\nIn the infantile development of our race mere physical prowess was deemed\nthe chief virtue and was the grand aim of all manly culture.\n\nIn the next higher stage of development _intellectual power_ became the\nobject of highest veneration and assiduous cultivation.\n\nThe advent of a still higher stage of development is now dawning, which is\nbest illustrated by the docile spirit of a little child, which feels\nexalted by taking a low place, which understands that true dignity and\nmagnanimity consists, not in assumed infallibility, but in a modest and\nhumble acknowledgment of ignorance, of mistakes, and of the need of\nknowledge and guidance, not only from God but from men.\n\nIt is believed that it is not too much to expect that this stage of high\ndevelopment is to be found even among that class most unfavorably placed\nfor the attainment of it.\n\nShould this be the case, there will soon be the _conservative_ and the\n_progressive_ parties among theologians; the one holding on to both of the\ncontradictory systems, and maintaining their infallibility; the other,\nopenly cutting loose from all that conflicts with their common sense and\nmoral sense, will manfully and honestly confess their fallibility and past\nmistakes.\n\nBetween these two parties will be a third class, who either from policy or\nfrom timidity, or from inability to form decided opinions, will maintain\nentire silence as to any thing involving entire commitment to either\nparty.\n\n\n\n\nWhat the Pastors will do?\n\n\nThe pastors of the people are that class in which the division of\n_conservatism_ and _progress_ must most immediately and most distinctly\nappear. And the reason is, that the question to them is a _practical_ one,\nmore so than it can be to any other class of men.\n\nIt is their business and calling to teach men what they must do to be\nsaved, and every week they must appear before the public to give their\nopinions on this very question.\n\nIn this situation, the conservative class will include all who have taken\nthe opinions of their theological teachers as an act of memory, with very\nlittle original thought or investigation. These, being helpless as to any\nability to investigate or to reason independently, will continue to preach\nand teach in the same round as was given them in their course of\ntheological study. Such will be alarmed and distressed at the changes in\nopinion all around them, and will mourn over them as departures from the\ngood old paths of truth and safely. Such will be sustained chiefly by the\nold and conservative portion of their parishes, while the most active\nminds, both young and old, will become more and more restless and\ndissatisfied, or forsake entirely such ministrations.\n\nIn the progressive class of pastors, there will be a marked division. The\nfirst will include those who have clear and decided perceptions of truth\nand duty, and at the same time a full conviction that outspoken frankness\nand honesty is not only a duty, but the best policy.\n\nThus, when they find their minds perplexed and doubtful as to the system\nin which they have been trained, they will, if called to speak, frankly\nsay so. If they advance to a new position, and yet are not clear in regard\nto certain connected topics, they will say so. If they are clear that the\nsystem of Augustine is false, root and branch, they will say so, and carry\nout all the results involved in this position. In short, they will go\nforward in a perfect faith in truth, honesty and freedom of speech.\n\nNor will they consult \u201cexpediency,\u201d except as to the _time_ and the\n_manner_ of making known their change of opinion.\n\nThe other portion will adopt the policy which assumes that peace and quiet\nin holding error is more important than truth which involves trouble and\ncontention. Such will conceal their real opinions under forms of\nexpression that will deceive the conservative portion of their people, by\nmaking the impression that they hold to old creeds and formularies, in the\nsense in which they formerly did, when they do not. They will use the\nstereotyped forms of orthodoxy, knowing that those of their people who are\nalarmed at supposed changes, will be quieted by impressions which are\nfalse. And they will do this, believing it to be Christian expediency,\nalthough it is a course exactly opposite to that pursued by Christ and his\ndisciples.\n\n\n\n\nWhat the Church will do?\n\n\nIn regard to church organizations, it has been shown that there are two\ndiverse principles on which these organizations may be perpetuated. The\nfirst is the Augustinian, in which the principle of union is a supposed\nchange of the nature transmitted from Adam, enabling a man to perform\ntruly virtuous acts, as none ever do who are not thus re\u2010created. The\nsecond is that of common sense, in which the principle of union is the\nacknowledgment of Jesus Christ as Lord and Master, and the purpose to obey\nhim in all things; or, in the words of the Episcopal formula, \u201ca church is\na _congregation_ of faithful men, in which the pure word is preached and\nthe sacraments duly administered according to Christ\u2019s ordinances.\u201d This\ndefinition, in order to represent the common\u2010sense view, assumes that\n\u201cfaithful men\u201d are persons who believe in Christ\u2019s authority, as the Lord\nof all, and who purpose to obey him.\n\nIt has been also shown, in a previous chapter, that the church\norganizations based on the Augustinian theory, are gradually modifying\ntheir practice so as more and more to recognize the common\u2010sense\nprinciple.\n\nIt is believed that this process of quiet change is to be greatly\naccelerated by _discussion_. The people are not aware that the mode of\nchurch organization and discipline now most prevalent is an _innovation_,\nwhich has existed less than two centuries, and chiefly in this country,\nand that there can be found no authority for it, either in the Bible or\nchurch history. The word \u201cchurch,\u201d as used in the New Testament, in the\noriginal Greek means _congregation_, and includes all who unite in one\nassembly to worship.\n\nNo case can be found in the Bible of any such organization as corresponds\nwith that which is now called by the name of \u201cchurch,\u201d as distinct from\nthe \u201ccongregation.\u201d\n\nThese being facts, the whole matter of church organization and discipline\nis soon to become a matter of general discussion, the result of which, of\ncourse, can not be predicted in any details. But it is certain that the\nmore discussion there is, the more the common\u2010sense system will become\ndominant. And it is certain that the portion of the people connected with\nchurches will more and more demand discussion. They will assume that their\npastors are not to be their authoritative, dogmatic teachers; but their\nleaders in worship and ordinances; their presiding officers in\ndiscussions, and the administers of much of that kind of knowledge needed\nby the people, to enable them to act independently in interpreting the\nBible for themselves.\n\n\n\n\nWhat Women will do?\n\n\nThe great principle of Protestantism, in distinction from Catholicism, is,\nthat every person is to be an independent interpreter of the Bible,\nresponsible to no man or body of men; and that every person is to\n_protest_ against all that conflicts with this right.\n\nThis principle carried out consistently, makes theologians and pastors a\nclass sustained by the people, not as dogmatic teachers of their own\nopinions, but as persons set apart for the purpose of gaining and of\ncommunicating to the people all the knowledge needful to fit them to use\ntheir rights as _authorized interpreters of the Bible_.\n\nBut though all Protestants hold this principle theoretically, by far the\nlarger portion have never practically adopted it, but, as a matter of\nfact, go to theologians and pastors for their _opinions_, and not for the\n_knowledge_ on which opinions are to rest. Thus it is that ecclesiastics\ncontrol the faith of a large portion of the Protestant churches, as\nauthoritatively as do the pope and priests control that of the Catholic\nchurch.\n\nWe have seen, in the case of Isabella of Spain, one of the most\nbenevolent, conscientious and lovely of women led on to the most unjust\nand cruel deeds, simply from practically adopting the principle, that her\nreligious teachers must be authoritative guides of her opinions, and that\nher own common sense and moral sense must bow to ecclesiastical dictation.\n\nThe present time is one in which the women of this country must decide in\nregard to this same principle and on practical questions of the deepest\nmoment.\n\nIt has been shown, that with small exceptions, the Catholic and Protestant\ntheologians and clergy unite in teaching a depravity of _nature_ in every\nhuman being, involving these questions:\n\nAre we so depraved as to be incapacitated to interpret the Bible, and made\ndependent on ecclesiastical and regenerated persons to interpret for us?\n\nDoes the _invisible true church_ consist only of those whose _nature_ has\nbeen re\u2010created, or of those who, without any newly\u2010created nature, truly\ndesire and purpose to use all their natural powers according to the\nteachings of Christ?\n\nDoes a \u201c_visible church of Christ_\u201d consist of persons possessing a newly\u2010\ncreated nature, by which alone any truly virtuous acts can be performed,\nor does it consist of persons who unite to sustain the public worship,\nordinances and teachings of Jesus Christ?\n\nAre children to be trained to believe that all their feelings and actions\nare \u201csin and only sin,\u201d till they receive a new nature from God, or be\ntaught that whenever they choose what is _right_, with the _intention_ to\ndo right, they act virtuously and please God?\n\nAre children to be allowed to come to the table of their Lord and Saviour\nas soon as they can understand the nature of the ordinance, and wish and\nintend to obey Jesus Christ in all things, or are they to be excluded\nuntil church officers decide whether the signs of a _new nature_ are to be\nfound?\n\nAre women and children to be excluded from the Lord\u2019s table because they\ninterpret the Bible diversely from the church with which they worship?\n\nThese are the practical questions involved in the doctrine of the depraved\nnature of man, as taught by the clergy of the great Christian sects.\n\nIt has been stated that many intelligent and pious women in various parts\nof our country have already quietly assumed their rights as authorized\ninterpreters of the Bible on all these questions, have cast off the\nAugustinian theory, and thus, in fret, have set themselves in opposition\nto the clergy, except so far as the clergy themselves have come to the\nsame results. The writer, in this work, has done little more than has also\nbeen done by many pious and intelligent mothers and teachers, except to\ndefine, methodize and publicly express opinions which other women have\n_practically_ adopted in training children, as the result of their own\nexperience, common sense and study of the Bible.\n\nSome of the leading organs of the High Church party in the Episcopal\nchurch, and thus the most strenuous defenders of ecclesiastical\ninfallibility and authority, in noticing the writer\u2019s volume, _Common\nSense Applied to Religion_, previously referred to, ask with _naive_\nsimplicity, what right has a woman to apply common sense to religion, or\nto have any opinions except as she is taught them by the church, at the\nsame time sneering at the idea, that \u201cthe dear people\u201d are competent to\nunderstand and interpret the Bible for themselves.\n\nThis shows that the issue is now fairly presented and understood. The\necclesiastical party, more or less, openly claim that the only authorized\ninterpreters of the Bible are the ordained priesthood, or the regenerated\nchurch. On the other hand, the people, and women, as that half of the\npeople to whom the training of the human mind is especially committed,\nmaintain that they are ordained to this office by a Higher Power and by\nthe imposition of a nobler hand than any who boast an uninterrupted\napostolical succession.\n\nMoreover, it is claimed that every well\u2010educated, pious woman of good\ncommon sense, who has trained young children, is _better_ qualified to\ninterpret the Bible correctly, on all points pertaining to such practical\nduties, than most theologians possibly can be. And the reasons are, that\nshe is free from those biasing difficulties which have been pointed out as\nembarrassing theologians, while all her employments and all her culture\neminently tend to aid rather than to embarrass her judgment on such\nsubjects.\n\nAdd, also, that the Bible was written for common people, and not for\nmetaphysicians, and in the language of common life, and not in theological\nterms, and that if it teaches the system of common sense, it is better\nfitted to the apprehension of those whose training has been practical\nrather than scholastic.\n\nFinally, the promises of aid from the Author of the Bible, is to the meek\nand lowly of heart. \u201c_The meek_ will he guide in judgment; _the meek_ will\nhe teach his way.\u201d That the position of those accustomed to rule and teach\nis as favorable to the cultivation of a meek, humble and teachable spirit\nas that of those trained to learn and to obey, few will maintain.\n\nThese facts being so, it is believed that ere long the greater portion of\nthe most intelligent and conscientious women in this country, will\ngradually and quietly take this course. They will perceive that they are\nbound, not only to assume and exercise the distinctive rights of\nProtestantism, as authorized interpreters of the Bible, but to _protest_,\nby word and deed, against all that opposes the exercise of these rights.\n\nIn accordance with this, they will respectfully and privately express to\ntheir pastor and fellow\u2010Christians their _protest_ against the Augustinian\nsystem, as involving a dreadful slander on their Lord and Saviour, vailing\nin mystery and gloom his lovely character, which is the light and life of\nthe soul; they will protest against every creed or confession or church\nordinance that is based on this system, as an indorsement of this fatal\nslander; they will protest against being regarded as members of a church\nin any other sense than as persons united with a _congregation_ to sustain\nthe worship and ordinances instituted by Christ, and to aid each other in\nobeying his word; they will make it clear to all concerned, that they do\nnot claim to possess any other _nature_ than that received from God at\nbirth, nor to be regenerated in any other sense than that they now desire\nand sincerely purpose to obey Christ in all things.\n\nThey will, moreover, protest against the exclusion of themselves or their\nchildren from the Lord\u2019s table, for interpreting the Bible diversely from\nthe church with which they worship, and against the interference of church\nofficers to examine them or their children in order to ascertain their\nmode of interpreting the Bible or the any other signs of regeneration,\nthan the expressed desire to unite with the congregation in the worship\nand ordinances appointed by Christ.\n\nShould such a course as this result in exclusion from the Lord\u2019s table,\nthose thus protesting can depart peaceably to some church which could\nconscientiously receive them on such terms. And if no such church is to be\nfound, they can quietly relinquish the privilege, until such time as it\ncan be enjoyed without a sacrifice of principle and religious liberty.\n\nIf those thus protesting act consistently, they will accord to the church\nexcluding them the same liberty to interpret the Bible, in regard to duty\non this subject, as they claim for themselves. The church in cutting them\noff may feel as conscientiously bound to the course they adopt, according\nto their way of understanding the Bible, as those do who protest and\nwithdraw. And if the true spirit of Christ, the spirit of humility,\nmeekness and love prevails, such disruptions will occur without\ncontentions or ill feelings on either side.\n\nBut in churches embracing many who possess very little of this spirit and\ncherishing the claim of infallibility,\u2014first in deciding which is the true\nchurch and next in maintaining its dogmas,\u2014there would result a mode of\ndealing with such _Protestants_ very similar to that of former ages. This\nwould lead to agitation and discussion. But even on this trying\nalternative more good than evil might be hoped, especially if those who\nprotest and withdraw, maintain the meek, peaceable and quiet spirit\nrequired and exhibited by their Master.\n\n\n\n\nWhat Young America will do?\n\n\nThe higher the development of humanity, the more the capacities for\nenjoyment and suffering are increased, and the more civilization\nmultiplies the means and modes of gratifying increasing desires, the\nstronger becomes the deep\u2010felt anxiety in regard to the invisible future.\nAre all these capacities, so infinite in their tendencies, to expand for\never, only to be wrenched and crossed and baffled as they are in this\nlife? What are our dangers? What are we to do to escape them? This is more\nand more the agonizing demand of humanity.\n\nIt has been shown that a system of doctrine has been forced upon\nChristendom which has shrouded this great question in mysterious gloom. It\nhas been shown also that the great _organizations_ of the religious world\nare so vitally based on this system that its renunciation involves their\ncertain dissolution. And though the advance of humanity has, more or less,\nmodified the opinions and practice of the individuals embraced in such\norganizations, still the _principle_ remains unchanged. Consequently any\nformal, open attack on this principle involves the combined antagonism of\nall the most powerful religious organizations of society.\n\n_Free_ discussion is not to be expected in our theological schools, where\nthe young men know that they can not be recommended for license if they\nfail to adopt the creed of their sect. Nor can it be found in our\ncolleges, most of which depend for patronage on, or are pledged to the\ninterests of a sect. Nor can it be expected in our pulpits, where the\nminister teaches and the people have no chance of rejoinder or\ndisputation. Nor can it be expected of the religious press, which is also\nbound to sustain sectarian interests. What power is there then which can\ncontend against such portentous combinations, sustained not only by the\nprestige of ages and all the innate forces of long\u2010drilled organizations,\nbut by the honest and conscientious convictions of the great majorities\nthus enrolled?\n\nIt is _the power of truth evolved by free discussion_, and mainly as it is\nand will be administered in the hands of _Young America_ and _the secular\npress_.\n\nThe young men of the nation have the control of their literary societies\nin our colleges and seminaries, and of the popular lyceums and other\nassociations, where every member has a vote in deciding what shall be\ndiscussed; and here the battle will be fought for religious liberty and\nthe Bible.\n\nIn this conflict there will appear two distinct classes. The first will be\nthose of shallow capacity and acquirements, who, perceiving themselves to\nbe in the party of reason and common sense, will imagine that they have\nacquired this position, not by the progress of the age, brought about to a\ngreat extent by the discussions, the labors and sufferings of wise and\ngood men, many of them distinguished as metaphysicians and theologians,\nbut that it is all owing to their own remarkable genius and independent\nthought. Thus they will become \u201cheady, high\u2010minded,\u201d rash and\ncontemptuous. Of these, some will be borne away to utter skepticism,\nimmorality and final ruin. Others, unable to reason correctly, and\nbewildered by the conflict, will swing around to the opposite extreme, and\nenter a church where they can rest their faith on a priesthood claiming to\nbe heaven\u2010inspired, which shall decide all questions of faith and practice\nfor them.\n\nBut the nobler portion of Young America will understand truly their great\nmission, and, taught by the mistakes and darkness of the past, with a\nmodest and humble sense of their own inability to go forward without help,\nboth from God and their fellow\u2010men, will seek for truth, duty and\nhappiness in the appropriate path of _calm_, _honest_, _fair_ and _free\ndiscussion_. And their generous hearts and strong arms will be shield and\nbuckler even to the feeblest who may enter the lists.\n\n\n\n\nWhat the Religious Press will do?\n\n\nThis question is the most perplexing of all, at least to those who have\nattentively marked the recent developments in the religious world.\n\nWhat is there that more clearly defies at once the moral sense, the common\nsense and the teachings of the Bible, than the system of slavery as it now\nexists in this country, and yet a majority of not only editors, but of the\nministers of Christ, in some of our most intelligent and large\ndenominations, openly refuse freedom of discourse on this subject; nay,\nmore, some of the religious papers are openly justifying the slave trade,\nwhich politicians, even those without any pretensions to religious\nprinciple, have placed as piracy, the highest civil crime.\n\nAnd the last year has witnessed the deliberate crushing of free debate on\nthis subject, in one of our largest and most effective benevolent\nassociations. And some of those whose whole lives have exhibited them\namong the most amiable, conscientious and exemplary men, are to be found\nupholding such a course.\n\nWho then can predict what will be the course of the religious press, when\nevery editor must maintain the distinctive tenets of a sect, or at once\nlose his professional character and his income?\n\nIt is very easy to predict what will be the course of those who will make\nno sacrifice for truth. A large portion will neither read, or think or\ndiscuss, or, so far as they have power to prevent, allow others to do so.\nSome will take this course in the satisfied belief that they, and the\nchurch which they have infallibly decided to be infallible, can never err.\nOthers will avoid all discussion for fear of being convinced of mistakes,\nobliging them, if acknowledged, to sacrifices of pride, character and\nincome.\n\nOthers will make some show of discussion, so far as to use the disgraceful\narts sometimes resorted to, in order to satisfy and blind ignorant and\nunreflecting readers. Unfair and garbled quotations, misstatement of\nfacts, depreciating implications of character and motives, invidious\nallusions to family or party connections, the use of unpopular terms,\nwhich humbler minds have been trained to regard as designating the most\ndangerous and destructive heresies, these, and many other discreditable\nmethods, will probably be employed to stave off discussion, or to nullify\nits power.\n\nBut there is a class of minds who have access to the religious press, and\ncan more or less control its action, who are far above such humiliating\nlittleness and dishonesty. In regard to these, such are the influence of\neducation and long\u2010trained habits of thought, that an entire change of a\n_whole system_ must be a gradual process. And when sermons, lectures,\nbooks and pulpit ministries have all been in accordance with one system,\nthey can not be modified to meet another without many practical\ndifficulties. Nor can men, whose professional associations with\necclesiastical bodies and with parishes impede them, settle many practical\nquestions involved in any change of views, without demanding _time_ for\nreflection, examination and consultation.\n\nIn this position of affairs in the religious world, a measure of\nretention, and even of protracted silence, in many cases, may be wise and\njustifiable. And charges of compromise, or of cowardice, or of\nintellectual deficiency, in such cases, would be false, ungenerous and\nunjust. All this should be taken into account in judging of the future\naction of those who control the religious periodicals and literature.\n\n\n\n\nWhat the Secular Press will do?\n\n\nThe answer to this question is much more clear than the preceding one,\ninasmuch as the secular press, to a great extent, is free from the\nembarrassments that restrain the religious press.\n\nIt has become so manifest that the great body of the people are determined\nto enjoy perfect liberty of conscience, and to defend the right of free\ndiscussion in religion and morals, as well as in politics, that it is\nclearly for the interests of editors, not committed to sectarianism, to\nuphold these rights.\n\nThe distinguished popularity and success of that Daily which now boasts\nthe largest circulation in the nation, is a most significant fact. Its\ncareer began long before the religious world had its distinctive tenets\nrudely assailed by any but ecclesiastical hands, and long before the\nsecular press ventured to bring its common\u2010sense maxims to bear on\nreligious topics.\n\nSingle\u2010handed, it fearlessly opened its columns to discussions on\nFourierism, women\u2019s rights, intemperance, slavery, religious doctrines,\nand all other matters that concerned the public weal, giving every party a\nfair chance to speak for itself. The religious world took the lead in the\noutcry and alarm against this course. But _the people_, and even a large\nproportion of the _religious people_, sustained this attempt at fair and\nfree discussion, so honestly and fearlessly pursued, until the battle was\nfairly won. And now it is probable that the larger proportion of the most\ncandid and intelligent editors of the secular press perceive that their\npecuniary interests, in regard to free religious discussion, are in the\nsame direction as their reason and conscience.\n\nThis being so, it is probable that the most powerful, fair and effective\ndiscussions of the grand question of life hereafter, will be found more in\nthe secular than in the religious press, at least for a considerable\nperiod of time.\n\nShould this be so, there would probably be an improvement in _modes_ of\ndiscussion in several respects.\n\nAmong these may be anticipated an advance in a spirit of Christian\nhumility, charity and of gentlemanly courtesy in dealing with the\ncharacter and motives of those whose opinions, either in religion or\nmorals, are discussed. The true spirit of Christian charity demands that\nwe endeavor to present the best rather than the _worst_ construction of\nour opponent\u2019s character, motives and arguments.\n\nA true humility implies such a self\u2010distrust, and such a sense of our need\nof aid in discovering truth, not only from God but from our fellow\u2010men, as\nwill be indicated in a modest and unimpassioned exhibition of opinions and\narguments, and a courteous reception of all criticisms and counter\narguments. With this spirit the weakness or mistakes, or sophistries of an\nopponent would be exhibited more in sorrow than in triumph or scorn.\n\nA true gentlemanly courtesy would enforce the same rules of delicacy and\ngood breeding in public encounters as are regarded by well\u2010bred persons in\nthe drawing room. This would necessarily banish all allusion to personal\nor family failings, and all invidious or disrespectful modes of address or\nlanguage.\n\nNo one who is familiar with the controversies on doctrine and morals, as\nconducted in the religious papers, can doubt that there is room for\nimprovement in all these particulars.\n\nSuch improvement is to be anticipated, not on account of any mental or\nmoral superiority of the conductors of the secular press, but rather from\nthe fact that they are free from many of the embarrassments and exciting\ninfluences already pointed out as surrounding those who conduct the\nreligious periodicals.\n\nAnother improvement to be anticipated is the withdrawal of the great\nquestions in debate from the mists of metaphysical and theological\ntechnics to the clear, popular language of common life.\n\nIn the preceding pages it is shown that the most important questions of\nreligious truth and duty can be discussed in the language of common life,\nso as to be made intelligible to all persons of ordinary education, who\nare sufficiently interested to give their attention to matters which\ndemand intellectual exertion. Men will find that they must \u201c_labor_ to\nenter into the strait gate,\u201d intellectually as well as morally, and that\nthey are to \u201c_work_ out their own salvation with fear and trembling,\u201d\nwhile thus they will learn to understand the nature of the encouraging\nassurance that \u201cit is God that worketh in us _to will and to do_ of his\nown good pleasure.\u201d\n\nWhen, therefore, the secular press and the popular lyceum take up these\ngreat questions they will insist that the discussions shall be carried on\nin popular language, so that the labor demanded shall not be increased by\nthe unknown tongue of theological and metaphysical science.\n\nAgain, there will be an improvement in the mode of conducting such\ndiscussions, by the banishment of all adventitious topics and the firm\ngrasping of the one great fundamental point in debate. It will be insisted\nthat the question is not at all whether Arminians or Universalists, or\nUnitarians hold this or that opinion, nor whether advocating such and such\nviews would injure the cause of this or that institution, or sect or\nindividual; nor whether this or that person has certain faults, or is a\nproper advocate of some innovations; nor whether undesirable results would\nfollow from expressing certain views, but simply _what is the truth_, so\nfar as it can be discovered by honest statements and fair discussion.\n\nThe grand question in debate is not whether men are _depraved_ in\n_character and action_ as they appear in the history of the world. All\nparties agree in the _fact_ of such dreadful depravity. The question is in\nregard to the _philosophy_ of this fact, that is to say, What is the\n_cause_ or reason of this depravity?\n\nHere it will be found that two classes exist in all the great Protestant\nsects, viz.:\n\nThose who hold that the cause is a depraved _nature_, [signifying what men\nmean when in common life they use the terms, _nature_, _organization_,\n_construction_ or _constitution_,] and those who deny that any such\ndepraved nature exists. These two opposite opinions, ever since the third\ncentury, have been expressed by the terms, _Augustinian_ and _Pelagian_.\n\nThe case is now so fairly and clearly before _the people_, that every\ntheologian who has capacity and training sufficient to understand an\nargument must knowingly do one of these things:\n\n1. Deny depravity of _nature_ and allow that he is a Pelagian; or\n\n2. Affirm such depravity, take rank as an Augustinian and then meet the\nargument which, on this assumption, destroys all evidence of the\nbenevolence of God, and renders a _reliable_ revelation from him\nimpossible.\n\n3. Withdraw from all discussion either by entire silence, or by hiding in\nthe fogs of metaphysical and theological technics, or by the disgraceful\narts of debate practiced to alarm and delude the ignorant.\n\nHeretofore the editors of secular papers have practically conceded that\nthe religious disputes and conflicts that agitated the churches were\nmatters out of their province and to be turned over to the clergy and\nreligious editors. And inasmuch as most of these contentions have related\nto matters of rites and forms, or to abstract doctrinal points having\nlittle _practical_ bearings on the daily life, such abstinence seemed\nappropriate. But the progress of the age has at last fairly brought the\norganized church front to front with the unregenerate world on the\ngreatest of all _practical_ questions\u2010a question with which every editor\nof every secular paper has as deep a personal and family interest as has\nany religious editor, or any doctor of theology, or any parochial pastor.\n\nIs it _a fact_, or is it not, that every man at birth is so depraved in\n_nature_ that every one of his moral acts is _sin_, _and sin only_, until\na change in this _nature_ is wrought by the creative power of God, and\nmust all young children be educated on this assumption?\n\nThe training of the family, our institutions of education, the church\norganizations of the great religious sects, all depend on this question.\nThe answer to it must be _yes_ or _no_, for no third supposition is\npossible. Every _intelligent_ man then must speak out in the affirmative,\nor in the negative, or else hide in silence or in the mists of deceit.\n\nIn this view of the case, it is believed that the educated class of\npowerful and cultivated minds, who are, by their position and talents, the\nleaders of the secular press, will not turn this matter over to their\ntheological contributors, but will take the case into their own hands, and\nfearlessly and earnestly meet their high responsibilities.\n\nThus they may prove not only the most effective leaders in the\nintellectual and moral advance of humanity, but the protectors of many\nsuffering, struggling minds, who unaided would sink in the conflict before\nthem.\n\nIn this exhibition of the position of the religious world, the attitude of\nthis work is very remarkable. It is in open and direct antagonism with\n_all_ the religious _organizations_ of the Christian world, and that too\nin regard to the very fundamentals on which each of these organizations\ndepends for its existence. All the Augustinian sects are against the\nposition of this work, that the mind of man is _perfect in nature_, and\nshould they adopt the Pelagian ground _consistently_, every one of them\nwould either come to an end, or change the very basis of its organization.\n\nThe only sect that openly and consistently avows the Pelagian view, is the\nUnitarian; but this organization is founded on the distinctive tenet of\nsuch a unity in God as forbids the idea of a plurality of eternal, self\u2010\nexistent Persons, having the highest attributes of God. This is contrary\nto the system of common sense, as exhibited in this work, page 100. The\nUniversalist organization is based on the doctrine that none of the human\nrace will continue sinful for ever, and thus insure the natural\nconsequences of sin. This also is shown to be contrary to the system of\ncommon sense, as presented in this work, page 177.\n\nThe great body of persons, as yet unorganized, who agree in resisting the\nclaims of the Bible as containing reliable revelations from the Creator,\nand thus _authoritative_ rules of faith and practice, will be arrayed\nagainst such claims maintained in this work, as one of the inevitable\nresults of the application of the principles of common sense.\n\nConsequently, the whole religious organizations of the world, who rest\ntheir faith on the Bible, are antagonistic to this work, while those who\nrepudiate the authority of the Bible are equally so.\n\nStill more remarkable is the fact exhibited in this volume, that the\nwriter, in a family circle embracing so many theologians and pastors,\nappears before the public as antagonistic to most, and supported openly by\nnot one of them.\n\nWhat then is the foundation of that confiding and cheerful equanimity with\nwhich all this imposing array of organizations and individual talents,\nlearning and influence is regarded? It is, first, confidence in truth and\nthe God of truth, and next, the intimate knowledge gained by the writer,\nof the _characters_ and the _mental experiences_ of some of the most\npowerful minds that are leaders of this host, and at the same time a\nsimilar knowledge of some of the noblest minds, who are most effectively\ninfluencing that great portion of the popular mind which is not embraced\nin these organizations. Whatever may be the opinions of these powerful\nclasses, who may in form and position appear antagonistic, they will never\nbe leaders in any attempt to crush perfect freedom of thought and\nexpression, or to restrain that free and earnest discussion which is\nimpending.\n\nNay more, if the distinctive feature of a follower of Christ is to be\nhumble and teachable in spirit, \u201cmeek and lowly of heart,\u201d and if that\nhighest form of human development is dawning, when moral magnanimity shall\ntake precedence of intellectual power in human estimation, then the world\nwill soon behold what as yet has been deemed impossible, great and learned\nmen, even doctors in theology, nay more, even men that have written books,\nresigning the claim of infallibility, and confessing that they have made\nmistakes.\n\nThe hope of this, moreover, is sustained by the character and position of\nsome, who not only stand high in the theological world, but are among the\nmost revered and beloved in that family circle, where the golden chain of\nperfect love has never for a moment been sundered by the widest\ndiversities of opinion or the freest discussion of differences. What has\ntranspired in one Christian family, it is believed, may be but the emblem\nof what is yet to prevail among the true children of Him, \u201cof whom the\nwhole family in heaven and on earth is named.\u201d(22)\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTE.\n\n\n    The work often referred to in the preceding pages, was written, at\n    first, on a more limited plan than now appears. After a portion\n    was printed, it was perceived that the discussion contained in\n    this volume was indispensable, and the title at first designed for\n    the _whole_ work, became inappropriate to the first portion when\n    issued alone. In making a change, the result has been, that the\n    work has sometimes been advertised by its first name, the BIBLE\n    AND THE PEOPLE, and sometimes by its second name, COMMON SENSE\n    APPLIED TO RELIGION, and sometimes by both together.\n\n    Hereafter, the title of the first volume will be COMMON SENSE\n    APPLIED TO RELIGION. This volume is the second portion. The final\n    portion, not yet published, will be entitled THE BIBLE INTERPRETED\n    BY COMMON SENSE.\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES.\n\n\n\n\nNote A.\n\n\nThe new school divines agree with the old school in teaching that previous\nto regeneration every moral act is _sin and only sin_, and that God has\nmade no promises to unregenerate doings, which would obligate him to re\u2010\ncreate the soul, in return for such performances.\n\nOn the contrary, they urge man himself to change his own heart, as that\nwhich is possible without any aid from God. And the interference of God to\nregenerate is represented by them as an act of sovereign, elective mercy,\nunbought by any labor or striving on the part of man.\n\nStill, they encourage the use of the means of grace as the way in which\nGod ordinarily meets the sinner, in bestowing this gift. They urge that\n_experience_ proves, that though regeneration is not _promised_ to the use\nof the means of grace, it is more frequently bestowed on those who use\nthem than on those who neglect them.\n\n\n\n\nNote B.\n\n\nThere are three points on the subject of the future state, which need to\nbe discussed separately.\n\nThe first is, will there be an eventual separation of the human race, at\nsome final consummation, so that from that point, through all eternity,\nthere will be two separate communities, the good being perfect in\ncharacter and happiness, and the bad reaping the natural results of their\nevil tempers and conduct _for ever_?\n\nThe second is, does our conduct in this life have an influence in deciding\nour _degrees_ of happiness or misery in a future state, so that we reap\nthe natural good or evil consequences of all we do here _for ever_?\n\nThe third is entirely independent of the other two, and is this: Is the\n_eternal_ condition of _every_ human being fixed _at the hour of death_;\nor is there with _some_ a continued process of culture and discipline, and\nof upward and downward progress in a future state, extending to the day of\nfinal separation and consummation?\n\nThat _some_ may become so good in this life as to insure an eternal upward\nprogress, and that _some_ may become so bad as to insure a perpetual\ndownward progress, may be true, and yet, to others new opportunities may\nbe given.\n\nIt is by _revelations from the Creator_ alone that these points can be\neffectually settled. It is shown in chapter 27, that every system of\nreligion or morals must be decided by these questions. Therefore, these\nquestions, and the authority of the Bible on these points, must become the\nsubject of renewed and earnest discussion.\n\n\n\n\nNote C.\n\n\nThe doctrine of the Atonement can be regarded simply as a fact without any\nreference to the philosophy of it, _i.e._, the mode or _cause_ of this\nfact. _Jesus Christ came into this world to save men from sin and its\ninevitable penalties, by his teachings, sufferings and death._ This fact\nmay be received without any attempt to explain the _why_ or the _how_ it\ncame to pass, or how it is made efficacious, which are the _philosophy_ of\nthis fact.\n\nIn regard to this philosophy, various theories have been incorporated into\ncreeds and theological systems.\n\nThe most common theory at the present time, in this country, is, that the\nsufferings and the death of Christ avail to sustain the justice and the\nlaws of God as effectually as would the infliction of eternal misery on\nall who are regenerated. That is to say, if by repentance and reformation,\nwithout an atonement, men should escape all the penalties for past sin,\nthe result would be that God\u2019s justice would be impeached and his laws be\nnullified, just as human lawgivers become unjust and their laws are made\nvoid when all penalties are remitted. This difficulty, it is supposed, on\nthe common theory, was met by the sufferings and the death of Jesus\nChrist, as a _vicarious substitute_ in behalf of those saved. That is to\nsay, this atoning sacrifice operates to preserve the justice of God and\nthe efficiency of laws, as effectually as would the eternal punishment,\nfrom which all regenerated persons are thus rescued.\n\nThis mode of explaining the _why_ and the _how_ may be relinquished and\nanother mode adopted, or no theory at all may be deemed needful, while\nbelief may remain in the great _fact_, that Jesus Christ wrought out the\nsalvation of those who are saved, by his advent, sufferings and death, and\nthat they could be saved by no other mode.\n\nIt is very important to recognize this distinction between the _fact_ and\nthe _philosophical theories_ invented to explain the fact; because it is\nfrequently the case that the denial of a theory is regarded as a denial of\nthe great fact, when such is not the case. All may agree in the fact when\nvery diverse theories are held to explain it.\n\nWhether our Creator actually has come in human form into this world, and\nexhibited an example of _self\u2010sacrifice_ and _suffering_ for the general\ngood, is what we may infer as _probable_ by the light of nature, but which\nwe can _fully prove_ only by revelation.\n\n\n\n\nNote D.\n\n\nWhether the Creator ever communes with the human spirit except through the\nmaterial organizations, is one on which reason and experience furnish no\nintimations.\n\nNo record is to be found of any communications from the Creator to mankind\nthat were not made either by visible forms or intelligible sounds, or by\nvisions and dreams in sleep. All the revelations recorded in the Bible\nwere by some one of these methods.\n\nThis being so, the system of common sense neither affirms or denies the\ndirect access of the creative mind to the minds of his creatures. It is a\nquestion to be settled solely by revelation.\n\n\n\n\nNote E.\n\n\nThis mode of explaining the depravity of mind is to be found in the\n_Conflict of Ages_. On page 90 the following passage exhibits the author\u2019s\nidea, both of a _perfectly constructed mind_, and of a _depraved mind_:\n\n\u201cSo there is a _life of the mind_. It involves an original and designed\ncorrelation to God, and such a state of the affections, passions,\nemotions, intellect and will, that communion with God shall be _natural_,\nhabitual, and the life of the soul. He who has been so far healed by\ndivine grace as to reach this state, has a true idea of the _normal_ and\n_healthy state_ of the soul. And if he finds that there is that _in the\nstate of his moral constitution and emotions_ which seems to lie beneath\nhis will and undermine its energy to follow the convictions of reason and\nconscience, and that by divine grace _this has been changed_, and an\nenergy not only to will but to do good is supplied, is it to be wondered\nat that, in some way, he should come to the conclusion that there is in\n_his nature_ or _moral constitution_, _depravity_ or _pollution_, anterior\nto the action of the will?\u201d\n\nThe theory which this author adopts is, that the \u201cnormal\u201d state of man\u2019s\n\u201c_nature_ or moral _constitution_\u201d was created in man by God in a\npre\u00ebxistent state, and that man\u2019s \u201c_depravity_ or pollution anterior to\nthe action of the will\u201d consists in \u201ca habit of sinning,\u201d generated in\nthis pre\u00ebxistent state.\n\nThis habit of sinning was not a part of the perfectly\u2010constructed nature\nmade by God. Man himself introduced it into his own mind, thus rendering\nit so depraved that every moral act is sin, and only sin.\n\n_Regeneration_, according to this theory, consists in a change of the\n\u201cstate of the moral constitution,\u201d whereby \u201can energy not only _to will_\nbut _to do good_ is supplied.\u201d That is to say, the \u201chabit of sinning\u201d can\nbe lessened or removed by some supernatural change of the \u201cmoral\nconstitution\u201d by God. And yet all men are born with this depravity which\nGod _can_ remedy, and _will not_, except for a select few.\n\nIt is manifest, therefore, that this writer holds to a depravity of\n_nature_ in the true and proper sense of the term, signifying constitution\nor _construction_.\n\nThis being so, his theory puts it out of his power to prove the\nbenevolence of the Creator, or to establish any revelation from him as a\n_reliable_ guide to truth and happiness.\n\nFor it is the _nature_ of any created thing which proves the character and\nintentions of its creator. If then all human minds are depraved in\n_nature_ or \u201cconstitution,\u201d the Creator of these minds is thus proved to\nbe depraved, and no revelations from him can be _reliable_. He prefers sin\nand evil to virtue and happiness, and of course his teachings can be no\nguide to truth, virtue and happiness. Thus, by his own theory, this author\nis debarred from any proof of a pre\u00ebxistent state by revelation.\n\nOn page 20 it is further stated that \u201cinasmuch _as the mind of man is\ndepraved_, and there may be _danger in trusting_ its unrevised,\nuncorrected decisions as to these principles [of honor and right], it is\nof great importance, for purposes of revision, carefully to study those\ndevelopments of benevolent, honorable and just feelings, towards which the\nhuman mind, _after regeneration_, and under the guidance of the Holy\nSpirit, is found most directly to tend.\u201d\n\nThis passage shows that this depravity of the \u201cmoral constitution,\u201d\ngenerated in a pre\u00ebxistent state, in the view of this author, is such that\nthere is danger in trusting our mental decisions as to the principles of\nhonor and right at first implanted by God, but vitiated and impaired by\nthe \u201chabit of sinning.\u201d This danger, it is suggested, is lessened \u201cafter\nregeneration,\u201d so that regenerated persons are thus entitled to guide\ntheir unregenerate fellow\u2010men in matters of truth and duty. This lays the\nfoundation for the claims of a regenerate church and clergy to superior\nauthority in deciding on the interpretations of the Bible. The tendencies\nof such claims to pride, dogmatism and persecution, are pointed out in\nchapter 41.\n\n\n\n\nNote F.\n\n\nThe following extract from the _Views and Experiences of Religion_, _by\nHenry Ward Beecher_, is an example of the vagueness and uncertainty\nreferred to. It is part of an article entitled _How to Become a\nChristian_.\n\n\u201cThe moment you realize this goodness of Christ, his helpfulness to you,\nhis lenient, forgiving, sympathizing spirit, then you know what _faith in\nChrist_ means. If such a Saviour attracts you, and you strive all the more\nardently, from love toward him and trust in him, then you are a Christian:\n_not a religious man_, but _a Christian_.\n\n\u201cA man may worship through awe, or through a sense of duty, and I think\nthere are hundreds of men in the churches who are _only religious men_,\nand _not Christians_. A man who feels toward God only awe or fear, who\nobeys merely from a _sense of duty_, who is under the dominion of\n_conscience_ rather than of love, may be religious, but he is _not a\nChristian_.\u201d\n\nThere is nothing said in this article of any need of any new creation of\n_the nature_ of the mind; nor is this Augustinian dogma to be found in any\nof this author\u2019s published works.\n\nIn this article, written expressly to give clear views of what it is to\nbecome a Christian, and _how_ to do it, we find it taught \u201ca man who feels\ntoward God only awe or fear, who obeys merely from a sense of duty, who is\n_under the dominion of conscience_ rather than of love, may be\n_religious_, but _he is not a Christian_.\u201d\n\nSuppose, then, a person with a strong sense of justice and great natural\nbenevolence, is trained to believe the Calvinistic form of the Augustinian\nsystem, so that God appears to him only the awful, incomprehensible author\nof this dreadful system, and Jesus Christ, this same God, so united to a\nman (as this transaction is usually represented) that the human soul alone\nbears all the grief and suffering involved in the expiatory sacrifice\ndemanded. Suppose, also, that, in this view, unable to feel any emotions\nbut fear and awe, he says, \u201c_There must be a dreadful mistake somewhere_.\nI can not fathom it; but I can and will do this: I will trust the word of\nJesus Christ as to the character of God, and I will _obey his teachings\nconscientiously_ in all things, as nearly as I am able;\u201d and this\ndetermination is carried out in his life.\n\nIs such a man a Christian, or is he not? Guided only by the above extract,\nit would be very difficult to decide, or to state what is this author\u2019s\nview of regeneration; nor is there any thing in his published writings to\nremove the vagueness and uncertainty caused by such teachings as are\nembraced in the above extract, as to what _change_ makes a man a true\nChristian.\n\nAccording to the system of common sense (as explained chapter 24, and also\non page 258) to form and carry out a ruling purpose to obey the laws of\nGod, as made known by Jesus Christ, is loving God and Christ in the only\nway in which love can justly be made a subject of command. And when a man\nforms and carries out such a purpose, he is \u201cunder the dominion of\nconscience,\u201d and is a true Christian.\n\nThe point where this writer seems to fail, in this extract, is, in a want\nof the distinction, pointed out in the chapter above mentioned, between\n_voluntary_ and _involuntary_ love. A person may be \u201cunder the dominion of\nconscience,\u201d by a purpose to obey all the laws of God, and for want of the\ntrue view of God\u2019s character, as exhibited in Jesus Christ, may experience\nonly emotions of fear and awe in performing such obedience.\n\nIt is the true, _efficient_ purpose to obey Christ which constitutes a man\na Christian. It is right views of God\u2019s character, as seen in Jesus\nChrist, that gives new _strength_ to carry out such a purpose.\n\n\u201cWhen we were yet _without strength_, in due time Christ died for the\nungodly,\u201d thus giving new motives of love and gratitude, in addition to\nthose of fear and awe. Not until all the false theories that hitherto have\nvailed the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ are cast away, will the full\nmeaning of the above text be fully understood.\n\n\n\n\nNote G.\n\n\nAmong theologians and pastors there are two classes now existing, in all\nthe great Protestant sects, the one holding to a _real_ depravity of\n_nature_, and striving to make such a fact consistent with common sense\nand with the ideas of benevolence and justice in the Creator; the other,\nholding only to a depravity of _action_ and of character, resulting from\nsuch action in this life, are striving to evade open antagonism with the\nAugustinian theory.\n\nNo third position being possible, every man is necessarily Augustinian or\nPelagian; either holding that man _is_ depraved _in nature_, or that he is\n_not_.\n\nIn the first class, is one whom, above all others, the writer would prefer\nto meet in a discussion on this great question. It is one who is\nremembered in early life as the honest, serious, book\u2010loving boy; next as\nthe earnest Christian and faithful student, winning the highest honors of\na collegiate course; next as a student of theology called to several of\nthe highest city pulpits, even before finishing his preparatory course;\nnext, even in youth, the president of a flourishing western college,\ntaking a decided stand on the slavery question, defending the _freedom of\nthe press_ with its first martyr, and very nearly sharing his fate; next\nresuming the pastor\u2019s office, mainly to gain more freedom to write and\npublish his peculiar views, which he well understood would encounter all\nthe organized interests of Christendom, and place a drag\u2010chain on all his\npersonal and professional interests; finally, one who, as scholar,\nmetaphysician and theologian, in the writer\u2019s view, has never been\nsurpassed, while he never has, and never will, resort to a cowardly or\nunfair mode to weaken or escape an argument. Thus much, if not allowable\ntoward a brother, may be permitted toward an antagonist.\n\nIt is this brother who for years has been laboring to sustain the\nAugustinian dogma by a theory which\u2014could it be proved\u2014is the only one yet\ndevised that is at once rational, intelligible and actually secures the\nend designed. For if it were a fact that the _nature_ of mind is depraved,\nand if it were possible to prove that our race originally, in a\npre\u00ebxistent state, were created with a perfect nature, ruined themselves,\nand were born into this world for purposes of pardon and redemption, the\ngrand difficulty _would_ all be remedied, and God _could_ be exhibited as\nwise, just and good in spite of this mournful fact.\n\nBut it is _the fact_ of the _depraved nature_ of the human mind, where the\nwriter and this brother are at issue, and not on any theory to relieve the\ndifficulties incident to that fact.\n\nThe argument of this work, to prove that there is no possible mode of\nproving the benevolence of God, or of proving that the Bible is a reliable\nrevelation from him, to any man who teaches that the _nature_ of the human\nmind is depraved in _any_ sense that can be made intelligible by human\nlanguage, _this_ is the place where the author of the Conflict of Ages, in\ndue time, will meet this discussion fairly, openly and honorably.\n\nIn the second class, mentioned above, is another brother, whom the writer\nbelieves to be as decidedly on the Pelagian ground. Whether he yet fully\nunderstands his position, is not affirmed by one, who has, for so short a\ntime, fully understood her own bearings in this matter. But ere long, the\nonly question remaining for him will be, whether he shall openly attack\nthis strongly\u2010entrenched error, this wholesale slander on his Lord and\nMaster, or take the Tract Society mode of evading discussion. All who best\nknow the writer of the _Star Papers_, best understand that any question of\n_expediency_ will relate, not to the fearless, outspoken exhibition of his\nopinions, but only to the _time_ and _manner_ in which it shall be done.\nHe must soon perceive that it is as much his duty openly to attack the\n_African_[A] enslavement of Anglo\u2010Saxon _minds_, as it ever was to combat\nthe Anglo\u2010Saxon enslavement of African _bodies_.\n\nIt will be noticed that this public appeal to family friends was not made\nuntil all other theologians, especially obligated to meet this discussion,\nhad evaded it, and some of them by unfair, ungentlemanly and unchristian\nmethods.\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber\u2019s Note: Obvious printer\u2019s errors have been corrected.]\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 Note A.\n\n    2 The theory of Dr. E. Beecher, as it has not been accepted by any\n      denomination, is not referred to here.\n\n    3 Most of the extracts in this and the preceding chapter are furnished\n      by Dr. E. Beecher in his Conflict of Ages.\n\n    4 In scientific language, the _object_ of desire is called the\n      _objective motive_, and the _desire_ itself is called the\n      _subjective motive_.\n\n    5 These references are to portions of the volume before mentioned\n      which are not introduced into this work.\n\n    6 Metaphysicians have mystified this subject thus:\u2014They say \u201cthe will\u201d\n      (or choice) _invariably_, \u201cis as is the greatest apparent good.\u201d But\n      when it is inquired, does \u201cgreatest good,\u201d as here used, signify\n      that which the intellect decides to be _best far all concerned_, and\n      thus _right_, or does it signify that which causes the _strongest\n      desire_ as measured by our own consciousness? It will be found that,\n      in this metaphysical statement above, it means _both_. This leads to\n      the same sort of confusion as would result from using the word\n      _straight_ to include the two ideas of both _straight_ and\n      _crooked_. With such an enlarged, but improper, definition, it could\n      truly be said that men _invariably_ go _straight_, and as truly that\n      they also _invariably go crooked_.\n\n      The only way in which the expression, \u201cthe will is as is _the\n      greatest apparent good_,\u201d can be true, is to use the term to include\n      both what is the greatest good as judged by the intellect, and also\n      the greatest good as causing the strongest desire, thus making one\n      word express two _diverse_ ideas.\n\n      It is this want of discrimination in the use of the term \u201cgreatest\n      apparent good,\u201d by President Edwards, which accounts for the fact\n      that one class of the most acute metaphysicians regard him as the\n      defender of free agency, and another class, equally acute, maintain\n      that he teaches the exactly opposite doctrine of fatalism. It is by\n      this deceptive use of the words _greatest apparent good_, and\n      _strongest motive_, that such _invariableness of antecedence_ and\n      _consequents_ is made out, as is the proof of _producing causes_ and\n      _necessary effects_ in the material world. Thus results the idea of\n      _irrational free agency_, making the mind of man like irrational\n      brutes, inevitably and necessarily controlled by the strongest\n      desire, (or strongest motive) and destroying all idea of _rational\n      free agency_.\n\n    7 This is a very important point in regard to the question of a\n      _depraved nature_.\n\n    8 This refers to those theologians who teach that regeneration\n      consists not in a change of _nature_ but of _purpose_.\n\n    9 In the Greek, the word in the New Testament translated\n      \u201cpeacemakers,\u201d is more correctly rendered \u201chappiness\u2010makers.\u201d\n\n   10 Note B.\n\n   11 Note C.\n\n   12 Note D.\n\n   13 This account is taken from Rev. Howard Malcom\u2019s _Travels in Asia_.\n\n   14 The Arminians hold that Christ\u2019s death has purchased the return of\n      God\u2019s Spirit withdrawn for Adam\u2019s sin, and that owing to this aid,\n      man has some power to obey God previous to regeneration, so that all\n      the doings of the unregenerate are not sin.\n\n   15 Those new school Calvinists, who teach that regeneration consists in\n      the formation of a ruling purpose by man himself, hold that this\n      never takes place until the Spirit of God more or less rectifies the\n      depraved nature consequent on Adam\u2019s sin, and that previous to\n      regeneration every moral act of every mind is \u201csin, and only sin.\u201d\n\n   16 Note E.\n\n   17 \u201cState of the Impenitent Dead,\u201d by Alvah Hovey, D.D.\n\n   18 From the article on Sanctification, in the magazine _Beauty of\n      Holiness_, January, 1859.\n\n   19 Note F.\n\n   20 In regard to the author of the _Conflict of Ages_, the writer is\n      still uncertain whether he would or would not assent to the common\u2010\n      sense view of regeneration, here stated, as exact and complete, or\n      whether he supposes that the \u201chabit of sinning, generated in a\n      pre\u00ebxistent state,\u201d is changed by some direct operation of the\n      Spirit of God on the \u201cnature\u201d or faculties of the human mind, which\n      is antecedent to any right voluntary action on the part of man, and\n      without which, every moral act of every unregenerated mind is \u201csin,\n      and only sin.\u201d\n\n      These personal references are introduced to illustrate more\n      effectively the vague and diversified teachings of theologians and\n      religious teachers in answer to the great question, on which they\n      claim that an eternity of blessedness or misery is depending.\n\n   21 The extent to which Judaism had spread among the upper ranks is\n      strikingly shown by the fact that one of the first inquisitors,\n      Peter Arbues, was assassinated by a conspiracy formed of the chief\n      officers of the Arragonese government, who were most of them,\n      according to Llorente, of Jewish blood or connections. The\n      Inquisition, however, was odious on other grounds, as a royalist\n      institution, like our Star Chamber.\u2014See Llorente\u2019s _History of\n      Inquisition_.\n\n   22 Note G.","title":"An Appeal to the People in Behalf of Their Rights as Authorized Interpreters of the Bible","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":107464}