Note.

Note.The work often referred to in the preceding pages, was written, at first, on a more limited plan than now appears. After a portion was printed, it was perceived that the discussion contained in this volume was indispensable, and the title at first designed for thewholework, became inappropriate to the first portion[pg 371]when issued alone. In making a change, the result has been, that the work has sometimes been advertised by its first name, theBible and the People, and sometimes by its second name,Common Sense Applied to Religion, and sometimes by both together.Hereafter, the title of the first volume will beCommon Sense Applied to Religion. This volume is the second portion. The final portion, not yet published, will be entitledThe Bible Interpreted by Common Sense.[pg 372]Notes.Note A.The new school divines agree with the old school in teaching that previous to regeneration every moral act issin and only sin, and that God has made no promises to unregenerate doings, which would obligate him to re-create the soul, in return for such performances.On the contrary, they urge man himself to change his own heart, as that which is possible without any aid from God. And the interference of God to regenerate is represented by them as an act of sovereign, elective mercy, unbought by any labor or striving on the part of man.Still, they encourage the use of the means of grace as the way in which God ordinarily meets the sinner, in bestowing this gift. They urge thatexperienceproves, that though regeneration is notpromisedto the use of the means of grace, it is more frequently bestowed on those who use them than on those who neglect them.Note B.There are three points on the subject of the future state, which need to be discussed separately.The first is, will there be an eventual separation of the human race, at some final consummation, so that from that point, through all eternity, there will be two separate communities, the good being perfect in character and happiness, and the bad reaping the natural results of their evil tempers and conductfor ever?[pg 373]The second is, does our conduct in this life have an influence in deciding ourdegreesof happiness or misery in a future state, so that we reap the natural good or evil consequences of all we do herefor ever?The third is entirely independent of the other two, and is this: Is theeternalcondition ofeveryhuman being fixedat the hour of death; or is there withsomea continued process of culture and discipline, and of upward and downward progress in a future state, extending to the day of final separation and consummation?Thatsomemay become so good in this life as to insure an eternal upward progress, and thatsomemay become so bad as to insure a perpetual downward progress, may be true, and yet, to others new opportunities may be given.It is byrevelations from the Creatoralone that these points can be effectually settled. It is shown in chapter 27, that every system of religion or morals must be decided by these questions. Therefore, these questions, and the authority of the Bible on these points, must become the subject of renewed and earnest discussion.Note C.The doctrine of the Atonement can be regarded simply as a fact without any reference to the philosophy of it,i.e., the mode orcauseof this fact.Jesus Christ came into this world to save men from sin and its inevitable penalties, by his teachings, sufferings and death.This fact may be received without any attempt to explain thewhyor thehowit came to pass, or how it is made efficacious, which are thephilosophyof this fact.In regard to this philosophy, various theories have been incorporated into creeds and theological systems.The most common theory at the present time, in this country, is, that the sufferings and the death of Christ avail to sustain the justice and the laws of God as effectually as would the infliction of eternal misery on all who are regenerated. That is to say, if by repentance and reformation, without an atonement, men should escape all the penalties for past sin, the result would be that[pg 374]God's justice would be impeached and his laws be nullified, just as human lawgivers become unjust and their laws are made void when all penalties are remitted. This difficulty, it is supposed, on the common theory, was met by the sufferings and the death of Jesus Christ, as avicarious substitutein behalf of those saved. That is to say, this atoning sacrifice operates to preserve the justice of God and the efficiency of laws, as effectually as would the eternal punishment, from which all regenerated persons are thus rescued.This mode of explaining thewhyand thehowmay be relinquished and another mode adopted, or no theory at all may be deemed needful, while belief may remain in the greatfact, that Jesus Christ wrought out the salvation of those who are saved, by his advent, sufferings and death, and that they could be saved by no other mode.It is very important to recognize this distinction between thefactand thephilosophical theoriesinvented to explain the fact; because it is frequently the case that the denial of a theory is regarded as a denial of the great fact, when such is not the case. All may agree in the fact when very diverse theories are held to explain it.Whether our Creator actually has come in human form into this world, and exhibited an example ofself-sacrificeandsufferingfor the general good, is what we may infer asprobableby the light of nature, but which we canfully proveonly by revelation.Note D.Whether the Creator ever communes with the human spirit except through the material organizations, is one on which reason and experience furnish no intimations.No record is to be found of any communications from the Creator to mankind that were not made either by visible forms or intelligible sounds, or by visions and dreams in sleep. All the revelations recorded in the Bible were by some one of these methods.This being so, the system of common sense neither affirms or denies the direct access of the creative mind to the minds of his creatures. It is a question to be settled solely by revelation.[pg 375]Note E.This mode of explaining the depravity of mind is to be found in theConflict of Ages. On page 90 the following passage exhibits the author's idea, both of aperfectly constructed mind, and of adepraved mind:“So there is alife of the mind. It involves an original and designed correlation to God, and such a state of the affections, passions, emotions, intellect and will, that communion with God shall benatural, habitual, and the life of the soul. He who has been so far healed by divine grace as to reach this state, has a true idea of thenormalandhealthy stateof the soul. And if he finds that there is thatin the state of his moral constitution and emotionswhich seems to lie beneath his will and undermine its energy to follow the convictions of reason and conscience, and that by divine gracethis has been changed, and an energy not only to will but to do good is supplied, is it to be wondered at that, in some way, he should come to the conclusion that there is inhis natureormoral constitution,depravityorpollution, anterior to the action of the will?”The theory which this author adopts is, that the“normal”state of man's“natureor moralconstitution”was created in man by God in a preëxistent state, and that man's“depravityor pollution anterior to the action of the will”consists in“a habit of sinning,”generated in this preëxistent state.This habit of sinning was not a part of the perfectly-constructed nature made by God. Man himself introduced it into his own mind, thus rendering it so depraved that every moral act is sin, and only sin.Regeneration, according to this theory, consists in a change of the“state of the moral constitution,”whereby“an energy not onlyto willbutto do goodis supplied.”That is to say, the“habit of sinning”can be lessened or removed by some supernatural change of the“moral constitution”by God. And yet all men are born with this depravity which Godcanremedy, andwill not, except for a select few.It is manifest, therefore, that this writer holds to a depravity ofnaturein the true and proper sense of the term, signifying constitution orconstruction.[pg 376]This being so, his theory puts it out of his power to prove the benevolence of the Creator, or to establish any revelation from him as areliableguide to truth and happiness.For it is thenatureof any created thing which proves the character and intentions of its creator. If then all human minds are depraved innatureor“constitution,”the Creator of these minds is thus proved to be depraved, and no revelations from him can bereliable. He prefers sin and evil to virtue and happiness, and of course his teachings can be no guide to truth, virtue and happiness. Thus, by his own theory, this author is debarred from any proof of a preëxistent state by revelation.On page 20 it is further stated that“inasmuchas the mind of man is depraved, and there may bedanger in trustingits unrevised, uncorrected decisions as to these principles [of honor and right], it is of great importance, for purposes of revision, carefully to study those developments of benevolent, honorable and just feelings, towards which the human mind,after regeneration, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is found most directly to tend.”This passage shows that this depravity of the“moral constitution,”generated in a preëxistent state, in the view of this author, is such that there is danger in trusting our mental decisions as to the principles of honor and right at first implanted by God, but vitiated and impaired by the“habit of sinning.”This danger, it is suggested, is lessened“after regeneration,”so that regenerated persons are thus entitled to guide their unregenerate fellow-men in matters of truth and duty. This lays the foundation for the claims of a regenerate church and clergy to superior authority in deciding on the interpretations of the Bible. The tendencies of such claims to pride, dogmatism and persecution, are pointed out in chapter 41.Note F.The following extract from theViews and Experiences of Religion,by Henry Ward Beecher, is an example of the vagueness and uncertainty referred to. It is part of an article entitledHow to Become a Christian.[pg 377]“The moment you realize this goodness of Christ, his helpfulness to you, his lenient, forgiving, sympathizing spirit, then you know whatfaith in Christmeans. If such a Saviour attracts you, and you strive all the more ardently, from love toward him and trust in him, then you are a Christian:not a religious man, buta Christian.“A man may worship through awe, or through a sense of duty, and I think there are hundreds of men in the churches who areonly religious men, andnot Christians. A man who feels toward God only awe or fear, who obeys merely from asense of duty, who is under the dominion ofconsciencerather than of love, may be religious, but he isnot a Christian.”There is nothing said in this article of any need of any new creation ofthe natureof the mind; nor is this Augustinian dogma to be found in any of this author's published works.In this article, written expressly to give clear views of what it is to become a Christian, andhowto do it, we find it taught“a man who feels toward God only awe or fear, who obeys merely from a sense of duty, who isunder the dominion of consciencerather than of love, may bereligious, buthe is not a Christian.”Suppose, then, a person with a strong sense of justice and great natural benevolence, is trained to believe the Calvinistic form of the Augustinian system, so that God appears to him only the awful, incomprehensible author of this dreadful system, and Jesus Christ, this same God, so united to a man (as this transaction is usually represented) that the human soul alone bears all the grief and suffering involved in the expiatory sacrifice demanded. Suppose, also, that, in this view, unable to feel any emotions but fear and awe, he says,“There must be a dreadful mistake somewhere. I can not fathom it; but I can and will do this: I will trust the word of Jesus Christ as to the character of God, and I willobey his teachings conscientiouslyin all things, as nearly as I am able;”and this determination is carried out in his life.Is such a man a Christian, or is he not? Guided only by the above extract, it would be very difficult to decide, or to state what is this author's view of regeneration; nor is there any thing in his published writings to remove the vagueness and uncertainty caused by such teachings as are embraced in the above extract, as to whatchangemakes a man a true Christian.[pg 378]According to the system of common sense (as explained chapter 24, and also on page 258) to form and carry out a ruling purpose to obey the laws of God, as made known by Jesus Christ, is loving God and Christ in the only way in which love can justly be made a subject of command. And when a man forms and carries out such a purpose, he is“under the dominion of conscience,”and is a true Christian.The point where this writer seems to fail, in this extract, is, in a want of the distinction, pointed out in the chapter above mentioned, betweenvoluntaryandinvoluntarylove. A person may be“under the dominion of conscience,”by a purpose to obey all the laws of God, and for want of the true view of God's character, as exhibited in Jesus Christ, may experience only emotions of fear and awe in performing such obedience.It is the true,efficientpurpose to obey Christ which constitutes a man a Christian. It is right views of God's character, as seen in Jesus Christ, that gives newstrengthto carry out such a purpose.“When we were yetwithout strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly,”thus giving new motives of love and gratitude, in addition to those of fear and awe. Not until all the false theories that hitherto have vailed the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ are cast away, will the full meaning of the above text be fully understood.Note G.Among theologians and pastors there are two classes now existing, in all the great Protestant sects, the one holding to arealdepravity ofnature, and striving to make such a fact consistent with common sense and with the ideas of benevolence and justice in the Creator; the other, holding only to a depravity ofactionand of character, resulting from such action in this life, are striving to evade open antagonism with the Augustinian theory.No third position being possible, every man is necessarily Augustinian or Pelagian; either holding that manisdepravedin nature, or that he isnot.In the first class, is one whom, above all others, the writer would prefer to meet in a discussion on this great question.[pg 379]It is one who is remembered in early life as the honest, serious, book-loving boy; next as the earnest Christian and faithful student, winning the highest honors of a collegiate course; next as a student of theology called to several of the highest city pulpits, even before finishing his preparatory course; next, even in youth, the president of a flourishing western college, taking a decided stand on the slavery question, defending thefreedom of the presswith its first martyr, and very nearly sharing his fate; next resuming the pastor's office, mainly to gain more freedom to write and publish his peculiar views, which he well understood would encounter all the organized interests of Christendom, and place a drag-chain on all his personal and professional interests; finally, one who, as scholar, metaphysician and theologian, in the writer's view, has never been surpassed, while he never has, and never will, resort to a cowardly or unfair mode to weaken or escape an argument. Thus much, if not allowable toward a brother, may be permitted toward an antagonist.It is this brother who for years has been laboring to sustain the Augustinian dogma by a theory which—could it be proved—is the only one yet devised that is at once rational, intelligible and actually secures the end designed. For if it were a fact that thenatureof mind is depraved, and if it were possible to prove that our race originally, in a preëxistent state, were created with a perfect nature, ruined themselves, and were born into this world for purposes of pardon and redemption, the grand difficultywouldall be remedied, and Godcouldbe exhibited as wise, just and good in spite of this mournful fact.But it isthe factof thedepraved natureof the human mind, where the writer and this brother are at issue, and not on any theory to relieve the difficulties incident to that fact.The argument of this work, to prove that there is no possible mode of proving the benevolence of God, or of proving that the Bible is a reliable revelation from him, to any man who teaches that thenatureof the human mind is depraved inanysense that can be made intelligible by human language,thisis the place where the author of the Conflict of Ages, in due time, will meet this discussion fairly, openly and honorably.In the second class, mentioned above, is another brother, whom the writer believes to be as decidedly on the Pelagian ground.[pg 380]Whether he yet fully understands his position, is not affirmed by one, who has, for so short a time, fully understood her own bearings in this matter. But ere long, the only question remaining for him will be, whether he shall openly attack this strongly-entrenched error, this wholesale slander on his Lord and Master, or take the Tract Society mode of evading discussion. All who best know the writer of theStar Papers, best understand that any question ofexpediencywill relate, not to the fearless, outspoken exhibition of his opinions, but only to thetimeandmannerin which it shall be done. He must soon perceive that it is as much his duty openly to attack theAfrican[A] enslavement of Anglo-Saxonminds, as it ever was to combat the Anglo-Saxon enslavement of Africanbodies.It will be noticed that this public appeal to family friends was not made until all other theologians, especially obligated to meet this discussion, had evaded it, and some of them by unfair, ungentlemanly and unchristian methods.[Transcriber's Note: Obvious printer's errors have been corrected.]

The work often referred to in the preceding pages, was written, at first, on a more limited plan than now appears. After a portion was printed, it was perceived that the discussion contained in this volume was indispensable, and the title at first designed for thewholework, became inappropriate to the first portion[pg 371]when issued alone. In making a change, the result has been, that the work has sometimes been advertised by its first name, theBible and the People, and sometimes by its second name,Common Sense Applied to Religion, and sometimes by both together.Hereafter, the title of the first volume will beCommon Sense Applied to Religion. This volume is the second portion. The final portion, not yet published, will be entitledThe Bible Interpreted by Common Sense.

Hereafter, the title of the first volume will beCommon Sense Applied to Religion. This volume is the second portion. The final portion, not yet published, will be entitledThe Bible Interpreted by Common Sense.

Notes.Note A.The new school divines agree with the old school in teaching that previous to regeneration every moral act issin and only sin, and that God has made no promises to unregenerate doings, which would obligate him to re-create the soul, in return for such performances.On the contrary, they urge man himself to change his own heart, as that which is possible without any aid from God. And the interference of God to regenerate is represented by them as an act of sovereign, elective mercy, unbought by any labor or striving on the part of man.Still, they encourage the use of the means of grace as the way in which God ordinarily meets the sinner, in bestowing this gift. They urge thatexperienceproves, that though regeneration is notpromisedto the use of the means of grace, it is more frequently bestowed on those who use them than on those who neglect them.Note B.There are three points on the subject of the future state, which need to be discussed separately.The first is, will there be an eventual separation of the human race, at some final consummation, so that from that point, through all eternity, there will be two separate communities, the good being perfect in character and happiness, and the bad reaping the natural results of their evil tempers and conductfor ever?[pg 373]The second is, does our conduct in this life have an influence in deciding ourdegreesof happiness or misery in a future state, so that we reap the natural good or evil consequences of all we do herefor ever?The third is entirely independent of the other two, and is this: Is theeternalcondition ofeveryhuman being fixedat the hour of death; or is there withsomea continued process of culture and discipline, and of upward and downward progress in a future state, extending to the day of final separation and consummation?Thatsomemay become so good in this life as to insure an eternal upward progress, and thatsomemay become so bad as to insure a perpetual downward progress, may be true, and yet, to others new opportunities may be given.It is byrevelations from the Creatoralone that these points can be effectually settled. It is shown in chapter 27, that every system of religion or morals must be decided by these questions. Therefore, these questions, and the authority of the Bible on these points, must become the subject of renewed and earnest discussion.Note C.The doctrine of the Atonement can be regarded simply as a fact without any reference to the philosophy of it,i.e., the mode orcauseof this fact.Jesus Christ came into this world to save men from sin and its inevitable penalties, by his teachings, sufferings and death.This fact may be received without any attempt to explain thewhyor thehowit came to pass, or how it is made efficacious, which are thephilosophyof this fact.In regard to this philosophy, various theories have been incorporated into creeds and theological systems.The most common theory at the present time, in this country, is, that the sufferings and the death of Christ avail to sustain the justice and the laws of God as effectually as would the infliction of eternal misery on all who are regenerated. That is to say, if by repentance and reformation, without an atonement, men should escape all the penalties for past sin, the result would be that[pg 374]God's justice would be impeached and his laws be nullified, just as human lawgivers become unjust and their laws are made void when all penalties are remitted. This difficulty, it is supposed, on the common theory, was met by the sufferings and the death of Jesus Christ, as avicarious substitutein behalf of those saved. That is to say, this atoning sacrifice operates to preserve the justice of God and the efficiency of laws, as effectually as would the eternal punishment, from which all regenerated persons are thus rescued.This mode of explaining thewhyand thehowmay be relinquished and another mode adopted, or no theory at all may be deemed needful, while belief may remain in the greatfact, that Jesus Christ wrought out the salvation of those who are saved, by his advent, sufferings and death, and that they could be saved by no other mode.It is very important to recognize this distinction between thefactand thephilosophical theoriesinvented to explain the fact; because it is frequently the case that the denial of a theory is regarded as a denial of the great fact, when such is not the case. All may agree in the fact when very diverse theories are held to explain it.Whether our Creator actually has come in human form into this world, and exhibited an example ofself-sacrificeandsufferingfor the general good, is what we may infer asprobableby the light of nature, but which we canfully proveonly by revelation.Note D.Whether the Creator ever communes with the human spirit except through the material organizations, is one on which reason and experience furnish no intimations.No record is to be found of any communications from the Creator to mankind that were not made either by visible forms or intelligible sounds, or by visions and dreams in sleep. All the revelations recorded in the Bible were by some one of these methods.This being so, the system of common sense neither affirms or denies the direct access of the creative mind to the minds of his creatures. It is a question to be settled solely by revelation.[pg 375]Note E.This mode of explaining the depravity of mind is to be found in theConflict of Ages. On page 90 the following passage exhibits the author's idea, both of aperfectly constructed mind, and of adepraved mind:“So there is alife of the mind. It involves an original and designed correlation to God, and such a state of the affections, passions, emotions, intellect and will, that communion with God shall benatural, habitual, and the life of the soul. He who has been so far healed by divine grace as to reach this state, has a true idea of thenormalandhealthy stateof the soul. And if he finds that there is thatin the state of his moral constitution and emotionswhich seems to lie beneath his will and undermine its energy to follow the convictions of reason and conscience, and that by divine gracethis has been changed, and an energy not only to will but to do good is supplied, is it to be wondered at that, in some way, he should come to the conclusion that there is inhis natureormoral constitution,depravityorpollution, anterior to the action of the will?”The theory which this author adopts is, that the“normal”state of man's“natureor moralconstitution”was created in man by God in a preëxistent state, and that man's“depravityor pollution anterior to the action of the will”consists in“a habit of sinning,”generated in this preëxistent state.This habit of sinning was not a part of the perfectly-constructed nature made by God. Man himself introduced it into his own mind, thus rendering it so depraved that every moral act is sin, and only sin.Regeneration, according to this theory, consists in a change of the“state of the moral constitution,”whereby“an energy not onlyto willbutto do goodis supplied.”That is to say, the“habit of sinning”can be lessened or removed by some supernatural change of the“moral constitution”by God. And yet all men are born with this depravity which Godcanremedy, andwill not, except for a select few.It is manifest, therefore, that this writer holds to a depravity ofnaturein the true and proper sense of the term, signifying constitution orconstruction.[pg 376]This being so, his theory puts it out of his power to prove the benevolence of the Creator, or to establish any revelation from him as areliableguide to truth and happiness.For it is thenatureof any created thing which proves the character and intentions of its creator. If then all human minds are depraved innatureor“constitution,”the Creator of these minds is thus proved to be depraved, and no revelations from him can bereliable. He prefers sin and evil to virtue and happiness, and of course his teachings can be no guide to truth, virtue and happiness. Thus, by his own theory, this author is debarred from any proof of a preëxistent state by revelation.On page 20 it is further stated that“inasmuchas the mind of man is depraved, and there may bedanger in trustingits unrevised, uncorrected decisions as to these principles [of honor and right], it is of great importance, for purposes of revision, carefully to study those developments of benevolent, honorable and just feelings, towards which the human mind,after regeneration, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is found most directly to tend.”This passage shows that this depravity of the“moral constitution,”generated in a preëxistent state, in the view of this author, is such that there is danger in trusting our mental decisions as to the principles of honor and right at first implanted by God, but vitiated and impaired by the“habit of sinning.”This danger, it is suggested, is lessened“after regeneration,”so that regenerated persons are thus entitled to guide their unregenerate fellow-men in matters of truth and duty. This lays the foundation for the claims of a regenerate church and clergy to superior authority in deciding on the interpretations of the Bible. The tendencies of such claims to pride, dogmatism and persecution, are pointed out in chapter 41.Note F.The following extract from theViews and Experiences of Religion,by Henry Ward Beecher, is an example of the vagueness and uncertainty referred to. It is part of an article entitledHow to Become a Christian.[pg 377]“The moment you realize this goodness of Christ, his helpfulness to you, his lenient, forgiving, sympathizing spirit, then you know whatfaith in Christmeans. If such a Saviour attracts you, and you strive all the more ardently, from love toward him and trust in him, then you are a Christian:not a religious man, buta Christian.“A man may worship through awe, or through a sense of duty, and I think there are hundreds of men in the churches who areonly religious men, andnot Christians. A man who feels toward God only awe or fear, who obeys merely from asense of duty, who is under the dominion ofconsciencerather than of love, may be religious, but he isnot a Christian.”There is nothing said in this article of any need of any new creation ofthe natureof the mind; nor is this Augustinian dogma to be found in any of this author's published works.In this article, written expressly to give clear views of what it is to become a Christian, andhowto do it, we find it taught“a man who feels toward God only awe or fear, who obeys merely from a sense of duty, who isunder the dominion of consciencerather than of love, may bereligious, buthe is not a Christian.”Suppose, then, a person with a strong sense of justice and great natural benevolence, is trained to believe the Calvinistic form of the Augustinian system, so that God appears to him only the awful, incomprehensible author of this dreadful system, and Jesus Christ, this same God, so united to a man (as this transaction is usually represented) that the human soul alone bears all the grief and suffering involved in the expiatory sacrifice demanded. Suppose, also, that, in this view, unable to feel any emotions but fear and awe, he says,“There must be a dreadful mistake somewhere. I can not fathom it; but I can and will do this: I will trust the word of Jesus Christ as to the character of God, and I willobey his teachings conscientiouslyin all things, as nearly as I am able;”and this determination is carried out in his life.Is such a man a Christian, or is he not? Guided only by the above extract, it would be very difficult to decide, or to state what is this author's view of regeneration; nor is there any thing in his published writings to remove the vagueness and uncertainty caused by such teachings as are embraced in the above extract, as to whatchangemakes a man a true Christian.[pg 378]According to the system of common sense (as explained chapter 24, and also on page 258) to form and carry out a ruling purpose to obey the laws of God, as made known by Jesus Christ, is loving God and Christ in the only way in which love can justly be made a subject of command. And when a man forms and carries out such a purpose, he is“under the dominion of conscience,”and is a true Christian.The point where this writer seems to fail, in this extract, is, in a want of the distinction, pointed out in the chapter above mentioned, betweenvoluntaryandinvoluntarylove. A person may be“under the dominion of conscience,”by a purpose to obey all the laws of God, and for want of the true view of God's character, as exhibited in Jesus Christ, may experience only emotions of fear and awe in performing such obedience.It is the true,efficientpurpose to obey Christ which constitutes a man a Christian. It is right views of God's character, as seen in Jesus Christ, that gives newstrengthto carry out such a purpose.“When we were yetwithout strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly,”thus giving new motives of love and gratitude, in addition to those of fear and awe. Not until all the false theories that hitherto have vailed the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ are cast away, will the full meaning of the above text be fully understood.Note G.Among theologians and pastors there are two classes now existing, in all the great Protestant sects, the one holding to arealdepravity ofnature, and striving to make such a fact consistent with common sense and with the ideas of benevolence and justice in the Creator; the other, holding only to a depravity ofactionand of character, resulting from such action in this life, are striving to evade open antagonism with the Augustinian theory.No third position being possible, every man is necessarily Augustinian or Pelagian; either holding that manisdepravedin nature, or that he isnot.In the first class, is one whom, above all others, the writer would prefer to meet in a discussion on this great question.[pg 379]It is one who is remembered in early life as the honest, serious, book-loving boy; next as the earnest Christian and faithful student, winning the highest honors of a collegiate course; next as a student of theology called to several of the highest city pulpits, even before finishing his preparatory course; next, even in youth, the president of a flourishing western college, taking a decided stand on the slavery question, defending thefreedom of the presswith its first martyr, and very nearly sharing his fate; next resuming the pastor's office, mainly to gain more freedom to write and publish his peculiar views, which he well understood would encounter all the organized interests of Christendom, and place a drag-chain on all his personal and professional interests; finally, one who, as scholar, metaphysician and theologian, in the writer's view, has never been surpassed, while he never has, and never will, resort to a cowardly or unfair mode to weaken or escape an argument. Thus much, if not allowable toward a brother, may be permitted toward an antagonist.It is this brother who for years has been laboring to sustain the Augustinian dogma by a theory which—could it be proved—is the only one yet devised that is at once rational, intelligible and actually secures the end designed. For if it were a fact that thenatureof mind is depraved, and if it were possible to prove that our race originally, in a preëxistent state, were created with a perfect nature, ruined themselves, and were born into this world for purposes of pardon and redemption, the grand difficultywouldall be remedied, and Godcouldbe exhibited as wise, just and good in spite of this mournful fact.But it isthe factof thedepraved natureof the human mind, where the writer and this brother are at issue, and not on any theory to relieve the difficulties incident to that fact.The argument of this work, to prove that there is no possible mode of proving the benevolence of God, or of proving that the Bible is a reliable revelation from him, to any man who teaches that thenatureof the human mind is depraved inanysense that can be made intelligible by human language,thisis the place where the author of the Conflict of Ages, in due time, will meet this discussion fairly, openly and honorably.In the second class, mentioned above, is another brother, whom the writer believes to be as decidedly on the Pelagian ground.[pg 380]Whether he yet fully understands his position, is not affirmed by one, who has, for so short a time, fully understood her own bearings in this matter. But ere long, the only question remaining for him will be, whether he shall openly attack this strongly-entrenched error, this wholesale slander on his Lord and Master, or take the Tract Society mode of evading discussion. All who best know the writer of theStar Papers, best understand that any question ofexpediencywill relate, not to the fearless, outspoken exhibition of his opinions, but only to thetimeandmannerin which it shall be done. He must soon perceive that it is as much his duty openly to attack theAfrican[A] enslavement of Anglo-Saxonminds, as it ever was to combat the Anglo-Saxon enslavement of Africanbodies.It will be noticed that this public appeal to family friends was not made until all other theologians, especially obligated to meet this discussion, had evaded it, and some of them by unfair, ungentlemanly and unchristian methods.

Note A.The new school divines agree with the old school in teaching that previous to regeneration every moral act issin and only sin, and that God has made no promises to unregenerate doings, which would obligate him to re-create the soul, in return for such performances.On the contrary, they urge man himself to change his own heart, as that which is possible without any aid from God. And the interference of God to regenerate is represented by them as an act of sovereign, elective mercy, unbought by any labor or striving on the part of man.Still, they encourage the use of the means of grace as the way in which God ordinarily meets the sinner, in bestowing this gift. They urge thatexperienceproves, that though regeneration is notpromisedto the use of the means of grace, it is more frequently bestowed on those who use them than on those who neglect them.

The new school divines agree with the old school in teaching that previous to regeneration every moral act issin and only sin, and that God has made no promises to unregenerate doings, which would obligate him to re-create the soul, in return for such performances.

On the contrary, they urge man himself to change his own heart, as that which is possible without any aid from God. And the interference of God to regenerate is represented by them as an act of sovereign, elective mercy, unbought by any labor or striving on the part of man.

Still, they encourage the use of the means of grace as the way in which God ordinarily meets the sinner, in bestowing this gift. They urge thatexperienceproves, that though regeneration is notpromisedto the use of the means of grace, it is more frequently bestowed on those who use them than on those who neglect them.

Note B.There are three points on the subject of the future state, which need to be discussed separately.The first is, will there be an eventual separation of the human race, at some final consummation, so that from that point, through all eternity, there will be two separate communities, the good being perfect in character and happiness, and the bad reaping the natural results of their evil tempers and conductfor ever?[pg 373]The second is, does our conduct in this life have an influence in deciding ourdegreesof happiness or misery in a future state, so that we reap the natural good or evil consequences of all we do herefor ever?The third is entirely independent of the other two, and is this: Is theeternalcondition ofeveryhuman being fixedat the hour of death; or is there withsomea continued process of culture and discipline, and of upward and downward progress in a future state, extending to the day of final separation and consummation?Thatsomemay become so good in this life as to insure an eternal upward progress, and thatsomemay become so bad as to insure a perpetual downward progress, may be true, and yet, to others new opportunities may be given.It is byrevelations from the Creatoralone that these points can be effectually settled. It is shown in chapter 27, that every system of religion or morals must be decided by these questions. Therefore, these questions, and the authority of the Bible on these points, must become the subject of renewed and earnest discussion.

There are three points on the subject of the future state, which need to be discussed separately.

The first is, will there be an eventual separation of the human race, at some final consummation, so that from that point, through all eternity, there will be two separate communities, the good being perfect in character and happiness, and the bad reaping the natural results of their evil tempers and conductfor ever?

The second is, does our conduct in this life have an influence in deciding ourdegreesof happiness or misery in a future state, so that we reap the natural good or evil consequences of all we do herefor ever?

The third is entirely independent of the other two, and is this: Is theeternalcondition ofeveryhuman being fixedat the hour of death; or is there withsomea continued process of culture and discipline, and of upward and downward progress in a future state, extending to the day of final separation and consummation?

Thatsomemay become so good in this life as to insure an eternal upward progress, and thatsomemay become so bad as to insure a perpetual downward progress, may be true, and yet, to others new opportunities may be given.

It is byrevelations from the Creatoralone that these points can be effectually settled. It is shown in chapter 27, that every system of religion or morals must be decided by these questions. Therefore, these questions, and the authority of the Bible on these points, must become the subject of renewed and earnest discussion.

Note C.The doctrine of the Atonement can be regarded simply as a fact without any reference to the philosophy of it,i.e., the mode orcauseof this fact.Jesus Christ came into this world to save men from sin and its inevitable penalties, by his teachings, sufferings and death.This fact may be received without any attempt to explain thewhyor thehowit came to pass, or how it is made efficacious, which are thephilosophyof this fact.In regard to this philosophy, various theories have been incorporated into creeds and theological systems.The most common theory at the present time, in this country, is, that the sufferings and the death of Christ avail to sustain the justice and the laws of God as effectually as would the infliction of eternal misery on all who are regenerated. That is to say, if by repentance and reformation, without an atonement, men should escape all the penalties for past sin, the result would be that[pg 374]God's justice would be impeached and his laws be nullified, just as human lawgivers become unjust and their laws are made void when all penalties are remitted. This difficulty, it is supposed, on the common theory, was met by the sufferings and the death of Jesus Christ, as avicarious substitutein behalf of those saved. That is to say, this atoning sacrifice operates to preserve the justice of God and the efficiency of laws, as effectually as would the eternal punishment, from which all regenerated persons are thus rescued.This mode of explaining thewhyand thehowmay be relinquished and another mode adopted, or no theory at all may be deemed needful, while belief may remain in the greatfact, that Jesus Christ wrought out the salvation of those who are saved, by his advent, sufferings and death, and that they could be saved by no other mode.It is very important to recognize this distinction between thefactand thephilosophical theoriesinvented to explain the fact; because it is frequently the case that the denial of a theory is regarded as a denial of the great fact, when such is not the case. All may agree in the fact when very diverse theories are held to explain it.Whether our Creator actually has come in human form into this world, and exhibited an example ofself-sacrificeandsufferingfor the general good, is what we may infer asprobableby the light of nature, but which we canfully proveonly by revelation.

The doctrine of the Atonement can be regarded simply as a fact without any reference to the philosophy of it,i.e., the mode orcauseof this fact.Jesus Christ came into this world to save men from sin and its inevitable penalties, by his teachings, sufferings and death.This fact may be received without any attempt to explain thewhyor thehowit came to pass, or how it is made efficacious, which are thephilosophyof this fact.

In regard to this philosophy, various theories have been incorporated into creeds and theological systems.

The most common theory at the present time, in this country, is, that the sufferings and the death of Christ avail to sustain the justice and the laws of God as effectually as would the infliction of eternal misery on all who are regenerated. That is to say, if by repentance and reformation, without an atonement, men should escape all the penalties for past sin, the result would be that[pg 374]God's justice would be impeached and his laws be nullified, just as human lawgivers become unjust and their laws are made void when all penalties are remitted. This difficulty, it is supposed, on the common theory, was met by the sufferings and the death of Jesus Christ, as avicarious substitutein behalf of those saved. That is to say, this atoning sacrifice operates to preserve the justice of God and the efficiency of laws, as effectually as would the eternal punishment, from which all regenerated persons are thus rescued.

This mode of explaining thewhyand thehowmay be relinquished and another mode adopted, or no theory at all may be deemed needful, while belief may remain in the greatfact, that Jesus Christ wrought out the salvation of those who are saved, by his advent, sufferings and death, and that they could be saved by no other mode.

It is very important to recognize this distinction between thefactand thephilosophical theoriesinvented to explain the fact; because it is frequently the case that the denial of a theory is regarded as a denial of the great fact, when such is not the case. All may agree in the fact when very diverse theories are held to explain it.

Whether our Creator actually has come in human form into this world, and exhibited an example ofself-sacrificeandsufferingfor the general good, is what we may infer asprobableby the light of nature, but which we canfully proveonly by revelation.

Note D.Whether the Creator ever communes with the human spirit except through the material organizations, is one on which reason and experience furnish no intimations.No record is to be found of any communications from the Creator to mankind that were not made either by visible forms or intelligible sounds, or by visions and dreams in sleep. All the revelations recorded in the Bible were by some one of these methods.This being so, the system of common sense neither affirms or denies the direct access of the creative mind to the minds of his creatures. It is a question to be settled solely by revelation.

Whether the Creator ever communes with the human spirit except through the material organizations, is one on which reason and experience furnish no intimations.

No record is to be found of any communications from the Creator to mankind that were not made either by visible forms or intelligible sounds, or by visions and dreams in sleep. All the revelations recorded in the Bible were by some one of these methods.

This being so, the system of common sense neither affirms or denies the direct access of the creative mind to the minds of his creatures. It is a question to be settled solely by revelation.

Note E.This mode of explaining the depravity of mind is to be found in theConflict of Ages. On page 90 the following passage exhibits the author's idea, both of aperfectly constructed mind, and of adepraved mind:“So there is alife of the mind. It involves an original and designed correlation to God, and such a state of the affections, passions, emotions, intellect and will, that communion with God shall benatural, habitual, and the life of the soul. He who has been so far healed by divine grace as to reach this state, has a true idea of thenormalandhealthy stateof the soul. And if he finds that there is thatin the state of his moral constitution and emotionswhich seems to lie beneath his will and undermine its energy to follow the convictions of reason and conscience, and that by divine gracethis has been changed, and an energy not only to will but to do good is supplied, is it to be wondered at that, in some way, he should come to the conclusion that there is inhis natureormoral constitution,depravityorpollution, anterior to the action of the will?”The theory which this author adopts is, that the“normal”state of man's“natureor moralconstitution”was created in man by God in a preëxistent state, and that man's“depravityor pollution anterior to the action of the will”consists in“a habit of sinning,”generated in this preëxistent state.This habit of sinning was not a part of the perfectly-constructed nature made by God. Man himself introduced it into his own mind, thus rendering it so depraved that every moral act is sin, and only sin.Regeneration, according to this theory, consists in a change of the“state of the moral constitution,”whereby“an energy not onlyto willbutto do goodis supplied.”That is to say, the“habit of sinning”can be lessened or removed by some supernatural change of the“moral constitution”by God. And yet all men are born with this depravity which Godcanremedy, andwill not, except for a select few.It is manifest, therefore, that this writer holds to a depravity ofnaturein the true and proper sense of the term, signifying constitution orconstruction.[pg 376]This being so, his theory puts it out of his power to prove the benevolence of the Creator, or to establish any revelation from him as areliableguide to truth and happiness.For it is thenatureof any created thing which proves the character and intentions of its creator. If then all human minds are depraved innatureor“constitution,”the Creator of these minds is thus proved to be depraved, and no revelations from him can bereliable. He prefers sin and evil to virtue and happiness, and of course his teachings can be no guide to truth, virtue and happiness. Thus, by his own theory, this author is debarred from any proof of a preëxistent state by revelation.On page 20 it is further stated that“inasmuchas the mind of man is depraved, and there may bedanger in trustingits unrevised, uncorrected decisions as to these principles [of honor and right], it is of great importance, for purposes of revision, carefully to study those developments of benevolent, honorable and just feelings, towards which the human mind,after regeneration, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is found most directly to tend.”This passage shows that this depravity of the“moral constitution,”generated in a preëxistent state, in the view of this author, is such that there is danger in trusting our mental decisions as to the principles of honor and right at first implanted by God, but vitiated and impaired by the“habit of sinning.”This danger, it is suggested, is lessened“after regeneration,”so that regenerated persons are thus entitled to guide their unregenerate fellow-men in matters of truth and duty. This lays the foundation for the claims of a regenerate church and clergy to superior authority in deciding on the interpretations of the Bible. The tendencies of such claims to pride, dogmatism and persecution, are pointed out in chapter 41.

This mode of explaining the depravity of mind is to be found in theConflict of Ages. On page 90 the following passage exhibits the author's idea, both of aperfectly constructed mind, and of adepraved mind:

“So there is alife of the mind. It involves an original and designed correlation to God, and such a state of the affections, passions, emotions, intellect and will, that communion with God shall benatural, habitual, and the life of the soul. He who has been so far healed by divine grace as to reach this state, has a true idea of thenormalandhealthy stateof the soul. And if he finds that there is thatin the state of his moral constitution and emotionswhich seems to lie beneath his will and undermine its energy to follow the convictions of reason and conscience, and that by divine gracethis has been changed, and an energy not only to will but to do good is supplied, is it to be wondered at that, in some way, he should come to the conclusion that there is inhis natureormoral constitution,depravityorpollution, anterior to the action of the will?”

The theory which this author adopts is, that the“normal”state of man's“natureor moralconstitution”was created in man by God in a preëxistent state, and that man's“depravityor pollution anterior to the action of the will”consists in“a habit of sinning,”generated in this preëxistent state.

This habit of sinning was not a part of the perfectly-constructed nature made by God. Man himself introduced it into his own mind, thus rendering it so depraved that every moral act is sin, and only sin.

Regeneration, according to this theory, consists in a change of the“state of the moral constitution,”whereby“an energy not onlyto willbutto do goodis supplied.”That is to say, the“habit of sinning”can be lessened or removed by some supernatural change of the“moral constitution”by God. And yet all men are born with this depravity which Godcanremedy, andwill not, except for a select few.

It is manifest, therefore, that this writer holds to a depravity ofnaturein the true and proper sense of the term, signifying constitution orconstruction.

This being so, his theory puts it out of his power to prove the benevolence of the Creator, or to establish any revelation from him as areliableguide to truth and happiness.

For it is thenatureof any created thing which proves the character and intentions of its creator. If then all human minds are depraved innatureor“constitution,”the Creator of these minds is thus proved to be depraved, and no revelations from him can bereliable. He prefers sin and evil to virtue and happiness, and of course his teachings can be no guide to truth, virtue and happiness. Thus, by his own theory, this author is debarred from any proof of a preëxistent state by revelation.

On page 20 it is further stated that“inasmuchas the mind of man is depraved, and there may bedanger in trustingits unrevised, uncorrected decisions as to these principles [of honor and right], it is of great importance, for purposes of revision, carefully to study those developments of benevolent, honorable and just feelings, towards which the human mind,after regeneration, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is found most directly to tend.”

This passage shows that this depravity of the“moral constitution,”generated in a preëxistent state, in the view of this author, is such that there is danger in trusting our mental decisions as to the principles of honor and right at first implanted by God, but vitiated and impaired by the“habit of sinning.”This danger, it is suggested, is lessened“after regeneration,”so that regenerated persons are thus entitled to guide their unregenerate fellow-men in matters of truth and duty. This lays the foundation for the claims of a regenerate church and clergy to superior authority in deciding on the interpretations of the Bible. The tendencies of such claims to pride, dogmatism and persecution, are pointed out in chapter 41.

Note F.The following extract from theViews and Experiences of Religion,by Henry Ward Beecher, is an example of the vagueness and uncertainty referred to. It is part of an article entitledHow to Become a Christian.[pg 377]“The moment you realize this goodness of Christ, his helpfulness to you, his lenient, forgiving, sympathizing spirit, then you know whatfaith in Christmeans. If such a Saviour attracts you, and you strive all the more ardently, from love toward him and trust in him, then you are a Christian:not a religious man, buta Christian.“A man may worship through awe, or through a sense of duty, and I think there are hundreds of men in the churches who areonly religious men, andnot Christians. A man who feels toward God only awe or fear, who obeys merely from asense of duty, who is under the dominion ofconsciencerather than of love, may be religious, but he isnot a Christian.”There is nothing said in this article of any need of any new creation ofthe natureof the mind; nor is this Augustinian dogma to be found in any of this author's published works.In this article, written expressly to give clear views of what it is to become a Christian, andhowto do it, we find it taught“a man who feels toward God only awe or fear, who obeys merely from a sense of duty, who isunder the dominion of consciencerather than of love, may bereligious, buthe is not a Christian.”Suppose, then, a person with a strong sense of justice and great natural benevolence, is trained to believe the Calvinistic form of the Augustinian system, so that God appears to him only the awful, incomprehensible author of this dreadful system, and Jesus Christ, this same God, so united to a man (as this transaction is usually represented) that the human soul alone bears all the grief and suffering involved in the expiatory sacrifice demanded. Suppose, also, that, in this view, unable to feel any emotions but fear and awe, he says,“There must be a dreadful mistake somewhere. I can not fathom it; but I can and will do this: I will trust the word of Jesus Christ as to the character of God, and I willobey his teachings conscientiouslyin all things, as nearly as I am able;”and this determination is carried out in his life.Is such a man a Christian, or is he not? Guided only by the above extract, it would be very difficult to decide, or to state what is this author's view of regeneration; nor is there any thing in his published writings to remove the vagueness and uncertainty caused by such teachings as are embraced in the above extract, as to whatchangemakes a man a true Christian.[pg 378]According to the system of common sense (as explained chapter 24, and also on page 258) to form and carry out a ruling purpose to obey the laws of God, as made known by Jesus Christ, is loving God and Christ in the only way in which love can justly be made a subject of command. And when a man forms and carries out such a purpose, he is“under the dominion of conscience,”and is a true Christian.The point where this writer seems to fail, in this extract, is, in a want of the distinction, pointed out in the chapter above mentioned, betweenvoluntaryandinvoluntarylove. A person may be“under the dominion of conscience,”by a purpose to obey all the laws of God, and for want of the true view of God's character, as exhibited in Jesus Christ, may experience only emotions of fear and awe in performing such obedience.It is the true,efficientpurpose to obey Christ which constitutes a man a Christian. It is right views of God's character, as seen in Jesus Christ, that gives newstrengthto carry out such a purpose.“When we were yetwithout strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly,”thus giving new motives of love and gratitude, in addition to those of fear and awe. Not until all the false theories that hitherto have vailed the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ are cast away, will the full meaning of the above text be fully understood.

The following extract from theViews and Experiences of Religion,by Henry Ward Beecher, is an example of the vagueness and uncertainty referred to. It is part of an article entitledHow to Become a Christian.

“The moment you realize this goodness of Christ, his helpfulness to you, his lenient, forgiving, sympathizing spirit, then you know whatfaith in Christmeans. If such a Saviour attracts you, and you strive all the more ardently, from love toward him and trust in him, then you are a Christian:not a religious man, buta Christian.

“A man may worship through awe, or through a sense of duty, and I think there are hundreds of men in the churches who areonly religious men, andnot Christians. A man who feels toward God only awe or fear, who obeys merely from asense of duty, who is under the dominion ofconsciencerather than of love, may be religious, but he isnot a Christian.”

There is nothing said in this article of any need of any new creation ofthe natureof the mind; nor is this Augustinian dogma to be found in any of this author's published works.

In this article, written expressly to give clear views of what it is to become a Christian, andhowto do it, we find it taught“a man who feels toward God only awe or fear, who obeys merely from a sense of duty, who isunder the dominion of consciencerather than of love, may bereligious, buthe is not a Christian.”

Suppose, then, a person with a strong sense of justice and great natural benevolence, is trained to believe the Calvinistic form of the Augustinian system, so that God appears to him only the awful, incomprehensible author of this dreadful system, and Jesus Christ, this same God, so united to a man (as this transaction is usually represented) that the human soul alone bears all the grief and suffering involved in the expiatory sacrifice demanded. Suppose, also, that, in this view, unable to feel any emotions but fear and awe, he says,“There must be a dreadful mistake somewhere. I can not fathom it; but I can and will do this: I will trust the word of Jesus Christ as to the character of God, and I willobey his teachings conscientiouslyin all things, as nearly as I am able;”and this determination is carried out in his life.

Is such a man a Christian, or is he not? Guided only by the above extract, it would be very difficult to decide, or to state what is this author's view of regeneration; nor is there any thing in his published writings to remove the vagueness and uncertainty caused by such teachings as are embraced in the above extract, as to whatchangemakes a man a true Christian.

According to the system of common sense (as explained chapter 24, and also on page 258) to form and carry out a ruling purpose to obey the laws of God, as made known by Jesus Christ, is loving God and Christ in the only way in which love can justly be made a subject of command. And when a man forms and carries out such a purpose, he is“under the dominion of conscience,”and is a true Christian.

The point where this writer seems to fail, in this extract, is, in a want of the distinction, pointed out in the chapter above mentioned, betweenvoluntaryandinvoluntarylove. A person may be“under the dominion of conscience,”by a purpose to obey all the laws of God, and for want of the true view of God's character, as exhibited in Jesus Christ, may experience only emotions of fear and awe in performing such obedience.

It is the true,efficientpurpose to obey Christ which constitutes a man a Christian. It is right views of God's character, as seen in Jesus Christ, that gives newstrengthto carry out such a purpose.

“When we were yetwithout strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly,”thus giving new motives of love and gratitude, in addition to those of fear and awe. Not until all the false theories that hitherto have vailed the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ are cast away, will the full meaning of the above text be fully understood.

Note G.Among theologians and pastors there are two classes now existing, in all the great Protestant sects, the one holding to arealdepravity ofnature, and striving to make such a fact consistent with common sense and with the ideas of benevolence and justice in the Creator; the other, holding only to a depravity ofactionand of character, resulting from such action in this life, are striving to evade open antagonism with the Augustinian theory.No third position being possible, every man is necessarily Augustinian or Pelagian; either holding that manisdepravedin nature, or that he isnot.In the first class, is one whom, above all others, the writer would prefer to meet in a discussion on this great question.[pg 379]It is one who is remembered in early life as the honest, serious, book-loving boy; next as the earnest Christian and faithful student, winning the highest honors of a collegiate course; next as a student of theology called to several of the highest city pulpits, even before finishing his preparatory course; next, even in youth, the president of a flourishing western college, taking a decided stand on the slavery question, defending thefreedom of the presswith its first martyr, and very nearly sharing his fate; next resuming the pastor's office, mainly to gain more freedom to write and publish his peculiar views, which he well understood would encounter all the organized interests of Christendom, and place a drag-chain on all his personal and professional interests; finally, one who, as scholar, metaphysician and theologian, in the writer's view, has never been surpassed, while he never has, and never will, resort to a cowardly or unfair mode to weaken or escape an argument. Thus much, if not allowable toward a brother, may be permitted toward an antagonist.It is this brother who for years has been laboring to sustain the Augustinian dogma by a theory which—could it be proved—is the only one yet devised that is at once rational, intelligible and actually secures the end designed. For if it were a fact that thenatureof mind is depraved, and if it were possible to prove that our race originally, in a preëxistent state, were created with a perfect nature, ruined themselves, and were born into this world for purposes of pardon and redemption, the grand difficultywouldall be remedied, and Godcouldbe exhibited as wise, just and good in spite of this mournful fact.But it isthe factof thedepraved natureof the human mind, where the writer and this brother are at issue, and not on any theory to relieve the difficulties incident to that fact.The argument of this work, to prove that there is no possible mode of proving the benevolence of God, or of proving that the Bible is a reliable revelation from him, to any man who teaches that thenatureof the human mind is depraved inanysense that can be made intelligible by human language,thisis the place where the author of the Conflict of Ages, in due time, will meet this discussion fairly, openly and honorably.In the second class, mentioned above, is another brother, whom the writer believes to be as decidedly on the Pelagian ground.[pg 380]Whether he yet fully understands his position, is not affirmed by one, who has, for so short a time, fully understood her own bearings in this matter. But ere long, the only question remaining for him will be, whether he shall openly attack this strongly-entrenched error, this wholesale slander on his Lord and Master, or take the Tract Society mode of evading discussion. All who best know the writer of theStar Papers, best understand that any question ofexpediencywill relate, not to the fearless, outspoken exhibition of his opinions, but only to thetimeandmannerin which it shall be done. He must soon perceive that it is as much his duty openly to attack theAfrican[A] enslavement of Anglo-Saxonminds, as it ever was to combat the Anglo-Saxon enslavement of Africanbodies.It will be noticed that this public appeal to family friends was not made until all other theologians, especially obligated to meet this discussion, had evaded it, and some of them by unfair, ungentlemanly and unchristian methods.

Among theologians and pastors there are two classes now existing, in all the great Protestant sects, the one holding to arealdepravity ofnature, and striving to make such a fact consistent with common sense and with the ideas of benevolence and justice in the Creator; the other, holding only to a depravity ofactionand of character, resulting from such action in this life, are striving to evade open antagonism with the Augustinian theory.

No third position being possible, every man is necessarily Augustinian or Pelagian; either holding that manisdepravedin nature, or that he isnot.

In the first class, is one whom, above all others, the writer would prefer to meet in a discussion on this great question.[pg 379]It is one who is remembered in early life as the honest, serious, book-loving boy; next as the earnest Christian and faithful student, winning the highest honors of a collegiate course; next as a student of theology called to several of the highest city pulpits, even before finishing his preparatory course; next, even in youth, the president of a flourishing western college, taking a decided stand on the slavery question, defending thefreedom of the presswith its first martyr, and very nearly sharing his fate; next resuming the pastor's office, mainly to gain more freedom to write and publish his peculiar views, which he well understood would encounter all the organized interests of Christendom, and place a drag-chain on all his personal and professional interests; finally, one who, as scholar, metaphysician and theologian, in the writer's view, has never been surpassed, while he never has, and never will, resort to a cowardly or unfair mode to weaken or escape an argument. Thus much, if not allowable toward a brother, may be permitted toward an antagonist.

It is this brother who for years has been laboring to sustain the Augustinian dogma by a theory which—could it be proved—is the only one yet devised that is at once rational, intelligible and actually secures the end designed. For if it were a fact that thenatureof mind is depraved, and if it were possible to prove that our race originally, in a preëxistent state, were created with a perfect nature, ruined themselves, and were born into this world for purposes of pardon and redemption, the grand difficultywouldall be remedied, and Godcouldbe exhibited as wise, just and good in spite of this mournful fact.

But it isthe factof thedepraved natureof the human mind, where the writer and this brother are at issue, and not on any theory to relieve the difficulties incident to that fact.

The argument of this work, to prove that there is no possible mode of proving the benevolence of God, or of proving that the Bible is a reliable revelation from him, to any man who teaches that thenatureof the human mind is depraved inanysense that can be made intelligible by human language,thisis the place where the author of the Conflict of Ages, in due time, will meet this discussion fairly, openly and honorably.

In the second class, mentioned above, is another brother, whom the writer believes to be as decidedly on the Pelagian ground.[pg 380]Whether he yet fully understands his position, is not affirmed by one, who has, for so short a time, fully understood her own bearings in this matter. But ere long, the only question remaining for him will be, whether he shall openly attack this strongly-entrenched error, this wholesale slander on his Lord and Master, or take the Tract Society mode of evading discussion. All who best know the writer of theStar Papers, best understand that any question ofexpediencywill relate, not to the fearless, outspoken exhibition of his opinions, but only to thetimeandmannerin which it shall be done. He must soon perceive that it is as much his duty openly to attack theAfrican[A] enslavement of Anglo-Saxonminds, as it ever was to combat the Anglo-Saxon enslavement of Africanbodies.

It will be noticed that this public appeal to family friends was not made until all other theologians, especially obligated to meet this discussion, had evaded it, and some of them by unfair, ungentlemanly and unchristian methods.

[Transcriber's Note: Obvious printer's errors have been corrected.]

Back to Index Next