I
ORIGIN OF SIN
AND ITS
RELATIONS TO GOD
THE UNIVERSE
BY
REV. E. W. COOK, A. M. VI
IT matters not so much what men have re- garded as truth, as what is truth.
"Retolved, That if ever I live to years, I will be impartial to hear the reasons of all pre- tended discoveries, and receive them if ra- tional, how long so ever I have been used to another way of thinking."
JONATHAN EDWARDS
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY
NEW YORK AND LONDON 1899
Copyright, 1899, by
FUNK & WAGNAIAS COMPANY
[Registered at Stationers' Hall, England]
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES
THE ORIGIN OF SIN
PREFACE.
THIS book is not a mere reproduction of old opin- ions, but is an original discussion of the fundamental principles of the Evangelical system.
Neither is it a hasty production, the outline of it, very nearly as it appears in the closing chapter — " PLAN OF THE UNIVERSE " — having been first pub- lished by the author as a newspaper article under date of Dec. 26, 1845.
Neither is it designed to be controversial; and very little is said in the way of refuting the opinions of others.
Also, it is written for the common mind; and aims to present the great, underlying principles of God's moral government in such clear and simple lan- guage, that the uneducated mind will be able to un- derstand it. The majority of our theological trea- tises are too scholarly for the apprehension of any but a trained theologian. Metaphysical language, therefore, and such as only a trained intellect would readily comprehend, have been carefully avoided. The design has been to reach the mass of our church members, who would be interested in theological discussion could they understand and appreciate it; and so the entire work is expressed in the common language of common life.
At the same time it discusses the profoundest
VI PREFACE.
problems of the universe — the relations of the Al- mighty to the moral system of which he is the cre- ator and responsible guardian, what are the underlying principles of His administration over it, and how the tangled gfcein of hqman life and experi- ence — tt^e faarfl and fcnottv problems which con- front us on every side, may yet be consistent with infinite and perfect benevolence.
It is also meant especially to be in strict accord- ance with the declarations of the Inspired Word, indorsing heartily the recent utterance of one of our most distinguished preachers — "All that the Bible clearly teaches is essential. All that the Bible does not clearly teach has no place in Christian faith. ' '
It is hoped that this attempt to grapple with some of the most difficult of our theological prob- lems will appear not to have been entirely unsuc- cessful.
K. W. C.
Brooklyn, N. Y.
CONTENTS.
Introduction xv
CHAPTER I.
OUR PRESENT POSITION IN THE UNIVERSE.
SEC. I. — The infancy of the moral system 21
SEC. 2. — The future universe 30
CHAPTER II.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN AND CHARACTERISTICS.
I. — The origin of sin 33
SEC. i. — Who were the first sinful beings ? 33
SEC. 2. — The occasion of sin 33
SEC. 3. — Objections:
1. The occasion of sin being a necessary element
in the soul, its indulgence cannot be sinful. ... 45 Remorse 47
2. Adam obeyed God for some time after his crea-
tion 51
3. The unf alien angels have not sinned 52
4. Then there must have been such an occasion of
sin in Christ 52
5. This view would necessitate self-denial in the
Almighty 53
EVOLUTION 56
HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY 60
1. History of the doctrine 62
2. Scripture argument 68
3. Argument from reason 74
4. The hypothesis not to be entertained 76
5. The real consequences of Adam's sin to the
race 84
vii
Vlll CONTENTS.
II. — Characteristics of sin 86
SEC. i. — Sin a wicked principle of the heart 86
SEC. 2. — This selfish principle exerts a predominating
power over the moral nature 89
SEC. 3. — The exceeding sinfulness of sin 90
CHAPTER III.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS RELATIONS TO THE ALMIGHTY.
SEC. i. — Why did God create a moral system ? 93
SEC. 2. — The leading end or object God has in view in
its progress and management 95
SEC. 3. — The prevention of sin 96
SEC. 4. — The f oreordination of sin 106
SEC. 5. — Is sin overruled for good ? in
SEC. 6. — Exegesis of Rom. ix : 18 114
SEC. 7. — God not responsible for the existence of sin. . 118
SEC. 8. — God's abhorrence of sin is measureless 120
CHAPTER IV.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS RELATIONS TO THE FALLEN ANGELS.
SEC. i. — When were they created ? 123
SEC. 2. — Their original constitution 124
SEC. 3. — Circumstances of their creation 124
SEC. 4. — Their probation 125
SEC. 5. — Motives 130
SEC, 6. — Why they were not redeemed 140
SEC. 7. — Their punishment 143
CHAPTER V.
AMORAL EVIL IN ITS RELATIONS TO THE HUMAN RACE.
SEC. i. — The creation of man 146
SEC. 2. — Connection with a physical body 150
SEC. 3. Temptation by malignant beings 156
1. A personal devil 157
2. Temptation in Eden 157
3. Benevolence of temptation generally 160
SEC. 4. — The conditions of infancy. — Death in in- fancy 164
CONTENTS. ix
SEC. 5. — The parental relation 168
SEC. 6. — Other aspects of human probation 174
CHAPTER VI.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS RELATIONS TO THE UNFALLEN ANGELS.
CHAPTER VII.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS RELATIONS TO REDEMPTION.
I. — The Atonement in its relation to man 186
The design of the atonement is:
1. To provide the possibility of pardon 186
2. To overcome the wilfulness and obstinacy of
the sinner 188
3. To set before men a perfect example of holy
living 190
4. To introduce into the world the influences of the
Holy Spirit 190
5. To give the redeemed at last an abundant en-
trance into heaven 191
6. The atonement was intended for the salvation
of all mankind 192
II. — The Atonement in its relations to the unf alien angels. . 195
CHAPTER VIII.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS FINAL AND ETERNAL ISSUES UPON THE UNGODLY.
SEC. i. — Fundamental principles of moral government. 199 SEC. 2. — The doctrine of endless punishment not ab- surd 204
SEC. 3. — The nature and necessities of God's perfect moral government demand endless punish- ment as the only proper penalty for sin 207
1. The supposition of no penalty 207
2. The supposition of limited and temporary pen-
alty 209
3. Penalty must correspond with the enormity of
sin 213
4. With the mischief of sin, , , 213
X CONTENTS.
5. Penalty in its relations to the sacredness and
value of God's Law 215
6. There must be a correspondence between the
appropriate reward of obedience, and the ap- propriate penalty of disobedience 216
SEC. 4. — The harmony of the Divine administration
necessitates endless penalty 217
SEC. 5. — Penalty in its relations to the atonement 218
SEC. 6. — All possible efforts to save men are tried in
this world 221
1. The appeal to affection 222
2. The appeal to fear 227
3. The agency of the Holy Spirit to give them
efficacy 228
SEC. 7. — All the probable surroundings of the sinner after death are adverse to the doctrine of his
restoration 229
Objection : The condition of the heathen 234
1. They are truly sinful 234
2. They are inexcusable in their sinfulness 235
3. The heathen fully recognize their guilt 235
4. They do have a fair probation 236
SEC. 8. — The habit of sinning will, to all appearance,
remain unchanged by the event of death 239
SEC. 9. — Sinful character not changed hereafter by the
exertion of Divine power 243
SEC. 10. — The sinner in the future world will have no
desire for a change of character 245
1. There will be no regret that he is sinful 245
2. The positive love of sin will increase with in-
creasing wickedness 246
SEC. ii- — The wicked, in the future world, will not seek the companionship of God, nor desire a
home in heaven 247
SEC. 12. — Punishment in itself has no tendency to re- form character 248
SEC. 13. — The suffering of perdition will have no ten- dency to improve character 251
CONTENTS. XI
SEC. 14. — Nothing can be done with the sinner here- after, but to confine him in the great prison- house , 258
1. There would be nothing gained by his release. . 258
2. The offer of salvation would be rejected by
those in perdition 258
3. The annihilation of the wicked is impossible. . . 259
(1) They have thus far been kept in existence. 259
(2) They deserve endless punishment 260
(3) If annihilated, why should they have been created? 260
(4) The moral government of God demands their endless punishment 261
(5) No proof of annihilation in the Bible 261
4. Endless freedom while sinning impossible 262
5. Endless confinement the only thing remaining. . 265
SEC. 15. — Benevolence of the moral system 265
SEC. 16. — Objections 270
1. " Would you punish your child eternally ? " 270
2. " If my friends are to be lost, I should desire to
be with them." 271
3. " How can I be happy in heaven, knowing that
my friends are suffering ? " 272
4. " The sins of so short a period as human life
can not merit an eternity of punishment." 274
5. "A finite being can not commit an infinite sin,
and, therefore, can not merit unlimited punish- ment." 275
6. "All punishment is for the reformation of the
offender, and can not, therefore, be endless.".. 276
7. "A progressive system like ours will cure it-
self." 276
8. " The infliction of endless penalty would render
the character of the Almighty unlovely and repulsive." 277
9. The system of naturalism assumes finite pen-
alty without proof 280
10. To create beings, knowing that they will be lost, can not be benevolent 283
Xll CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IX.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS RELATIONS TO THE ENDLESS FUTURE.
SEC. i. — The future of the universe 286
SEC. 2. — Motives 287
1. — The endless punishment of the wicked will be used as a motive to deter the future universe from rebellion 289
THEORY OF DR. BUSHNELL.
Objection. — Observation on the consequences of sin
would be useless 289
NOTE. — This view sacrifices one class of beings for the
benefit of another 294
II. — Redemption in its relations to the future universe. 296
Objection —
1. These motives do not deter men here from sin-
ning 304
2. Newly-created beings cannot appreciate the
love and mercy of God in redemption 307
CHAPTER X.
BIBLE TESTIMONY.
SEC. i. — General attitude of the Almighty toward sin
in this world 312
SEC. 2. — The wicked excluded from Heaven 318
SEC. 3. — The wicked sent to a place of punishment. . . . 320
SEC. 4. — The punishment of the wicked endless 323
SEC. 5. — The doctrine of the Old Testament 327
CHAPTER XI.
PRACTICAL MATTERS.
1. Absurdities of Universalism 329
2. Faith in God's Word 342
3. Matter of preaching 351
4. Ministerial responsibility 355
5. Quotation from Richard Baxter 358
CHAPTER XII. — PLAN OF THE UNIVERSE. . . . 362
APPENDIX A. — THE REDEEMED CHURCH 366
APPENDIX B.— THE MIDDLE STATE 383
INDEX TO FOOT-NOTES.
Origin of sin a mystery 34
Exegesis of Jam. i : 14 by DR. KNAPP 38
Is the love of self-indulgence or the love of freedom
the occasion of sin ? 42
Christ tempted as we are 49
The doctrine of total depravity 61
AUGUSTINE'S view of Rom. v : 12 62
The doctrine of original sin and infant damnation 63
BEECHER'S doctrine of pre-existence 68
KNIGHT'S paraphrase of Rom. v : 19 71
Creationism and traducianism 75
Different kinds of necessity 97
Errors respecting the influences of the Holy Spirit. . . . 100
Exegesis of Prov. xxi : i 103
Careful use of motives 105
Exegesis of Ps. Ixxvi : 10 112
Definition of election 117
Anticipative consequences of sin 150
Rom. v : 12, "All have sinned." 164
Errors in parental training 170
Creation of the Unfallen Angels 181
CONNYBEARE and HOWSON on the relation of the
atonement to the un fallen angels 183
TOWNSEND'S note on the same 183
The atonement delivers from sin 192
Must I believe the Gospel ? 198
DR. TAYLOR'S definitions of moral government 199
Probation after death 232
Why God makes efforts to save those whom he fore- knows will be lost 245
xiii
XIV INDEX TO FOOT-NOTES.
Chastisement by earthly parents 248
Blasphemies under suffering 255
COWLES on the use God will make of the wicked here- after 293
DR. BUSHNEL'S theory of the universe 305
REV. ALBERT BARNES' trouble 309
Our object is to consider the duration, and not the
nature, of future punishment 312
The word hell, in the Scriptures, means only the grave. 313
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS on the Atonement 347
Dr. Bellamy's view of the universe 368
CALVIN'S commentary on Eph. i : 23 379
INTRODUCTION.
THE wave of Universalism now sweeping over the English and American Churches is due mainly, it is believed, to erroneous views of the origin and na- ture of sin, and its relations to the moral govern- ment of God.
The Evangelical Churches generally trace the uni- versality of human sinfulness to the connection of the race with sinful Adanyof which connection God is manifestly the responsible author.
The Evolutionist traces sin to the "semi-brutal character ' ' which man ' ' has brought up with him from the animal world ' ' from which the race is said to have been derived. In this view the occasion of sin in man, in the language of one of the recent ad- vocates of evolution, is " fastened upon him by his Maker."
The advocates of Conditional Immortality assume that sin results in annihilation ; of which they give no satisfactory proof.
The Restorationists assume that all punishment is for the reformation of the offender ; thus ignoring the necessary relations of penalty to moral govern- ment.
The Higher Critics make the Bible teach what they wish to believe respecting both sin and its punishment.
XVl INTRODUCTION.
The Universalists give both the righteous and the wicked the same final destiny. Against each and all of these this book is aimed.
But the writer attempts to go beyond the mere refutation of these erroneous views, and takes a positive position thus : """"The Bible is a revelation from God. — The Bible plainly teaches the doctrine of Endless Punishment.
If so, then there is an imperious necessity lying back of it, why so dreadful a penalty should be threat- ened and executed ; and this necessity must lie in the fundamental principles of God's moral govern- ment, and must rest on foundations as immovable as the throne of God. What the grounds of this ne- cessity are, the author endeavors to show.
And it may be said respecting all the apparent difficulties which environ the Divine administration, that they are only apparent, and that back of them lie satisfactory explanations of each and all. Behind the dark cloud the sun is still shining, and to the view of Him who ' ' sitteth upon the circle of the earth," the universe is moving in majestic har- mony.
Now if an explanation of all apparent difficulties really exists, should we not endeavor to find it ? Is it not the grandest employment of life to study the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, and, like the an gels, ' ' desire to look into thern?5^'
"Not that we can hope to escape mystery, for this is everywhere, and God himself the profoundest mystery of all.
INTRODUCTION. XVii
But mystery is not inconsistency ; and inconsis- tency, in the Divine order, is nowhere ; while many of our theological systems are burdened with in- consistencies ; and one of the prominent designs of this book is to get rid of them, and develop a consis- tent theological system.
The most dreadful error that is pervading the churches at the present time, is the doctrine of Uni- versalism, assailing, as it does, the fundamental prin- ciples of the Divine government over the universe ; and on this doctrine the great theological contest of the future is yet to be fought. And the controversy will all turn on this matter of $in — its orgin, nature, and relation to God^sKingdom. If these can be satisfactorily explained, then will by far the greater part of the theological difficulties that now confront us, have also a satisfactory explanation, and the en- tire system unfold itself to our view even as it lies in the mind of the Almighty, harmonious, benevo- lent and grand.
THE ORIGIN OF SIN
. CHAPTER I. OUR PRESENT POSITION IN THE UNIVERSE.
WE anticipate for the moral system a grand and glorious outcome. But when and where and how is the expectation to be realized ? Things now look sad and gloomy, and have for six thousand years. Sin has prevailed and not holiness, suffering: s^A not happiness, and but for the Bible promise of better- ment, we should sink in despair.
But the promise is that the great Redeemer ' ' shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied ' ' (Is. liii : n), i. ?., He is to have an adequate com- pensation for all His mighty sufferings. But where is He to find the satisfaction ? Certainly not here and now, for this world is a moralwreck.
Moreover, all the results of tEe atonement in this world are necessarily finite, while the atonement is an infinite provision — the mightiest possible work of Omnipotence ; and no results of it in this world merely can correspond with it in magnitude and pre- ciousiiess. Where then is the great Redeemer to find His satisfaction ? Revelation has not told us, but perhaps in that "new heaven and that new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness." (2 Pet. Hi: 13-)
19
20 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
If so, then this world must be only the stepping- stone to the future one, to which, however, as a re- deemed world, it doubtless sustains vital and funda- mental relations. What are those relations ? What is our position in the universe of worlds ? Are we looking out upon a peopled universe, or are we among they?r^/ of created beings ?
It is by no means unimportant which of these two views shall be entertained. Take, for example, the fact of sin, and God's dealings with it here in this world.
If the universe be peopled, then God's dealings with the sin of this world in the way of judgment and mercy would apparently affect but slightly these peopled worlds. But assume the infancy of the moral system, ad that the universe of worlds is yet to be peopled, and then the dealings of God with this world of sinners may be creating those peculiar mo- tives and influences which will reach and affect all newly created beings hereafter and forever.
So of the atonement. If it is to be limited in its influences mainly to this world, and there are no ages and races hereafter to be reached and affected by it, so that human salvation is its main object, this is one view.
But suppose the mora. system to be in its infancy, and the relations of the atonement to it to be funda- mental, so that all holy beings in all worlds forever, as these worlds shall be successively peopled, will owe to the exhibition of God's love and mercy in redemption, their confirmation in holiness ; thus making the atonement through Jesus Christ to lie
OUR PRESENT POSITION IN THE UNIVERSE. 21
at the foundation of the entire happiness of the uni- verse through eternal ages — for it is " in the ages to come ' ' that He will ' ' show the exceeding riches of His grace " (Eph. ii : 7), this is quite another view. This makes redemption the great central fadl of the universe. This makes all that it will accomplish in this world, only the beginning of its endless and in- creasing glories ; so that in other worlds, and amid other scenes, and other races of moral beings, is to be found the culmination of its great design. Hard- ly though its culmination, for, in this view, it is to have none, but to go on in a career of increasing glory and blessedness forevermore ; and which of these two views shall be entertained, becomes a matter of transcendent importance.
Our view is that God is just now laying the foun- dations of an endless moral universe ; and that when these foundations have been laid securely, then the peopling of the material universe will go on through all the ages ; so that the ultimate design which God has in view is a moral universe expanding in glory and blessedness forevermore. The point, therefore, now to be established is vital and fundamental, viz.,
SEC . i — The Infancy of the Moral System .
The question is, Has the peopling of the worlds been going on for ages, or are the angels fallen and unfallen, and the human race, the only moral beings as yet created, the pioneers of an endless moral uni- verse that is yet to be? We assume the present in- fancy of the moral system for the following reasons:
i . There is no evidence from the Bible that other worlds are peopled. The Bible mentions no other
22 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
moral beings than the angels — fallen and unfallen — and the human race ; so that to assume the existence of others is to go just so far beyond the divine record. Two passages only may seem to require considera- tion.
Job xxxviii : 4, 7 : " Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth, . . . when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy ? ' ' Who were these ' ' sons of God ? ' ' We may suppose them to have been the fallen angels in the days of their innocence, when they may have been the only created beings, and, like Adam in the garden previous to his fall, were studying the char- acter of God through his works, and coming, in this way, to a knowledge of God and duty, and reaching the point of intelligent responsibility. As the first of created beings, they would need the evidence that God was the wise, powerful, and benevolent Creator of themselves and the universe. And very likely God gave them the evidence of this in the beautiful, harmonious, and impressive adjustment of this world, which was originally fitted up, perchance, for their own residence ; for there are a few expressions in the Bible which seem to indicate that this world has been their only habitation, and that they had their probation on this planet.
Suppose this passage to allude to them, how ap- propriate the appellation to them of ' ' the morning stars" — the first of created beings, rejoicing in the spring-time of their conscious being, admiring the works of God and pouring forth to him their songs of praise!
OUR PRESENT POSITION IN THE UNIVERSE. 23
Another passage is Genesis iii : 24: " He placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubims" An elaborate article on the cherubim of the sacred Scrip- tures by Rev. Albert Barnes, will be found in Vol. VIII., p. 386, of the Quarterly Christian Spectator, in which the writer comes to the following con- clusion :
" They were not angels. They are never spoken of as such. Nor are they represented either as angels, or as designed to represent real forms of life. The idea of an angel, therefore, at the entrance of the Garden of Eden, is the idea of a philosophy, or the notion of the nursery, and without any foundation in the Scriptures."
2. There is no evidence from reason that other worlds are peopled.
As to theyfa^d? stars, as Chalmers says, ' ' these orbs have sent us scarce another message than told by their feeble glimmering upon the eye — the simple fact of their existence. ' ' And since his day the solar spectrum has revealed to us physical elements in their constitution identical with those of our planet. But this is all.
As to iheptanets, the fact of their annual and diur- nal revolution, like our earth, their retinue of re- volving satellites, their envelopment in an atmos- phere, and any other facts which liken them to our earth, and which might, therefore, be supposed to indicate abodes of intelligence, are all equally well accounted for on the assumption that they are yet to be peopled.
The author of the " Plurality of Worlds" has also shown conclusively that not a single fact of astro-
24 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
nomical science looks at all in the direction of a peo- pled universe ; and even beyond this, that all the facts of astronomy point to this as the only peopled world.
3. There are serious objections to the assumption of a peopled universe.
If peopled, then these races of moral beings are either in obedience to God or in rebellion against Him . If in rebellion, then where is the benevolence of creating a moral system whose universal rebellion must have been distinctly foreseen ?
If in allegiance, then why is our world in rebel- lion? Could a vast universe be kept in subjection, and yet must a single insignificant world like ours defy the Almighty ? In that case the resources of the Creator have availed for securing the obedience of innumerable worlds of beings ; why should they fail here? Or, reversing the argument, if rebellion has broken out here, why not there ? And human reason furnishes no answer.
Also, if the universe of worlds be peopled, then have we apparently drifted in upon the great current of being at some indefinite period, and should occupy, in the universe, no position of peculiar significance. And how then can the mighty plan of redemption in this world be accounted for, and the incontrover- tible evidence from the fact that Christ died to re- deem it, that it occupies one of the most prominent and important positions in the whole universe of God?
Furthermore, if our position in the universe be one of insignificance, as to all appearances it must be if
OUR PRESENT POSITION IN THE UNIVERSE. 25
we are but a single world among the infinitude of peopled worlds, how comes there such a mighty con- test for it among invisible powers ? Why, for ex- ample, does the interest and sympathy of all heaven center on it, so that the conversion of a single sinner is welcomed "with acclamations of joy ? And why are malignant beings — the devil and his angels — all leagued together for its destruction ? And to these objections there is no conceivable answer.
4. There are no valid objections to the assumption that the present is the dawning-time of the moral creation.
For there must have been a beginning; and what- ever point in duration be assumed for it, however remote, will still have an eternity preceding ; so that nothing is gained by assuming for it an earlier pe- riod than the present.
Also no other supposition can be less objectionable. For whatever point in past ages be assumed for the commencement of the moral universe, will still have all the objections lying against it which may appear to lie against the supposition of its present infancy.
Neither is the existence of a vast number of un- inhabited worlds, which the assumption involves, any objection to it ; because in a progressive system like ours we should naturally expect the prior creation of the material universe, at least in part — matter before mind. In human affairs, common-sense builds a house before introducing the inmates. Why should not God build the material universe, in part, at least, before peopling it ?
Neither can it be objected that this hypothesis
26 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
gives our insignificant world too great importance and prominence as compared with the universe of worlds ; for no greater prominence is thus given to it physi- cally than God has given it morally by making it the theater of Redemption.
Is it objected that such an assumption involves an eternity of inaction on the part of the Almighty ? We do not know this ; and all speculation about the eternity of God's existence, and what He may have been or done in these past, eternal ages, is beyond the grasp of our finite minds. We can only say that the material universe had a beginning, and wherever that beginning is located, there must have been an eternity preceding it, and there we must stop.
Shall we attempt to escape the difficulty by as- suming the eternity of the -material system ? Un- doubtedly our finite minds can as readily compre- hend the eternity of matter as of mind ; but to as- sume the eternity of matter is both unscriptural and unphilosophical .
First — It is unscriptural.
The Scriptures plainly teach the creation of ma- terial things by the power of God. It is the first truth declared in the Bible (Gen. i : i) : "In the be- ginning God created the heaven and the earth." The same truth is taught in Hebrews i : 10 : " And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth ; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. ' ' Says John in his Gospel (i : 3) : " All things were made by Him." And Paul in Col. i : 1 6, 17 is still more explicit: "By Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in
OUR PRESENT POSITION IN THE UNIVERSE. 27
earth ; all things were created by Him, and for Him. And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist."
Secondly — The assumption is unphilosophical.
Reason teaches at this point the same as the Bible. For if matter be eternal it must be self-existent, and therefore independent. If independent, it would admit of no change, either in kind or degree. But the visible and material universe is ever chang- ing, proving thus its dependence upon higher forces, and is, therefore, not eternal.
We accept the statement, therefore, that ' ' in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," not because we can comprehend it, but solely on the authority of the Divine Record. An eternity past or to come, is altogether beyond the comprehension of our finite faculties; and our most becoming posi- tion is in sitting at the feet of Revelation, and say- ing with the reverent Psalmist, ' ' I will hear what God the Lord will speak;" and when the declaration is clear and unequivocal that God is ' ''from everlast- ing to everlasting, ' ' and that ' ' He is before all things, and by Him all things consist, ' ' accept it as authorita- tive, even though it be to us a profound and inex- plicable mystery.
5. All the facts and intimations of the Bible point decidedly to the present as the commencement of the moral system.
First — The Bible gives no intimation that other worlds are peopled. It mentions the creation of the "• worlds" by Jesus Christ, but makes no mention of their inhabitants.
28 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
Secondly — We find the attention of all the angels of heaven centered on this world. Says the apostle : ' ' Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation ? ' ' (Heb. i : 14). All the angels of heaven, then, are employed in earthly ministrations. They may be employed thus in other worlds, but there is not the slightest intimation of it; while here we know they are all interested — so much so that ' ' there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth."
Thirdly — The energies of hell are also expended upon this world. Satan is here, the ' ' prince of the aerial host," tempting men, "working in the chil- dren of disobedience," and driving with fiendish hate his schemes of mischief. Here also are a great multitude, if not all, who lost with him ' ' their first estate. ' ' They may be prosecuting a similar work of temptation elsewhere, but we have no intimation of it; and for aught that appears to the contrary, they are all here in this world. This record of the angels, therefore, so far as it goes, looks strongly in the direction of this as the only peopled world.
Fourthly — All the representations of the Bible respecting the plan of redemption, make its posi- tion in the universe to be fundamental. It is the only sacrifice for sin — the first and final illustration to the universe of God's mercy to the sinful; for, says the apostle, " He died unto sin once" and "be- ing raised from the dead, dieth no more; ' ' and ' ' when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high " (Heb. vi : 3); or, as the apostle expresses it another place,
OUR PRESENT POSITION IN THE UNIVERSE. 29
" After He had offered one sacrifice for sin, forever sat down on the right hand of God " (Heb. x : 12), as if He had now laid the foundation for the great work of eternity, and that all the after ages were to be only for its eternal unfolding.
Furthermore, we learn that all through the coming ages the moral splendors of God's character are to find their most vivid illustration in the works and wonders of redemption — ' ' That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in his kindness towards us through Christ Jesus." (Eph. ii:7.)
And again, the declaration is, that " the whole family in heaven and earth are named for Christ. ' ' (Eph. iii : 15.)
Once more, the atonement stands so related to the universe that ' ' all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, shall be gath- ered together in one, even in Him " (Eph. i : 10) ; and ' ' at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and in earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Phil, ii : 10, n.) We may indeed very imperfectly comprehend the meaning of these wonderful declarations, yet the most natural as- sumption is that, in some way, the Great Savior is the " Chief Corner Stone" — the grand foundation, not merely of this earthly dispensation, but of the entire economy of the universe. And besides, this infinite expansion of the wonders and glories of re- demption, is a delightful anticipation, and one which we all as Christians earnestly crave. Plainly,
30 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
therefore, these various relations of the atonement indicate its position in the universe to be funda- mental.
If, therefore, any belief is to be entertained re- specting the period when the moral system was en- tered on, its present infancy is the most rational, and is the only view in perfect harmony with the foregoing facts and intimations of the Bible.
SEC. 2. — The Future Universe.
If then the present to be the infancy of the moral system, then are we to all appearance facing a uni- verse boundless in extent, endless in duration and limitless in expansion.
First — We consider its vastness. It is not bounded by this world. It extends beyond this compara- tively diminutive planet to myriads of other worlds. It embraces the countless systems which only the telescope reveals — even an infinitude of worlds and suns and systems, to which no power either of the eye or of the telescope has yet carried us. True, they may not yet be peopled, they may not be ready as yet for the occupancy of moral beings, but they are all doubtless to be peopled with free moral intel- ligences, amenable to the same laws with ourselves, comprehended in the same administration, and con- stituting together one grand empire.
Second — But this is not enough. We are to think of it also as an endless universe. We have no evidence that a particle of matter has ever been an- nihilated, or ever will be. We have no evidence that a single mind once created will ever cease to
OUR PRESENT POSITION IN THE UNIVERSE. 3!
exist. We can, therefore, affix no limit to the dura- tion of the universe, and it appears to be stretching on and on to eternal ages. To all appearance, God is building an endless universe.
Third — And this is not enough. We see mil- lions of new minds coming yearly into existence, and each and all immortal. Hence the universe appears to be expanding endlessly. For we see no reason why the same Power which has laid the foundations of so vast an empire, and proceeded thus far with its development, should not advance still farther, and find hereafter the same reason for exertion which it has thus far found; nor why, in- deed, its exertion should ever cease; why God, who has begun to create, should ever cease creating. Space and duration are both apparently limitless, and, therefore, no reason appears why Omnipotent energy should ever diminish its activity. And should it not, then will the time come when the mass of beings now in existence will be but the "small dust of the balance," compared with its magnitude in the coming ages. And so at this point we face not only an eternal, but an eternally expanding universe of moral beings — endless in duration, boundless in enlargement.
Is it said that this endlessness of creation is in- capable of demonstration? This is granted, while still this position is assumed to be undeniably true. By this is meant that there is much in favor of the position, and with no counteracting evidence.
We assume, therefore, that this is our present standpoint of observation — That we are looking out
32 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
upon the dawning-time of the moral creation; that the work of peopling this material universe has but just commenced; that the Power which has begun to create free minds will never cease its activity, so that the peopling of worlds on worlds with moral intelligences will be the ceaseless work of the un- ending future; and therefore that God is now laying the foundation-stones of that vast moral structure which, in the coming ages of eternity, will be mag- nificent beyond conception.
And here the mind pauses a moment to consider what stupendous foundations of government must be laid adequately to sustain such a superstructure. And the thought arises also — How grandly and truthfully this mighty moral system harmonizes with the declaration of the Almighty : "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." (Is. Iv : 9.) And now, if any of God's " ways," as we are about to consider them, should appear too high and dizzy and dreadful for our finite gaze, especially if the foundations of law and pen- alty should appear unnecessarily massive, should appear even to be infinite foundations, the solution of the matter may be found in this — that God is building so vast a universe, and laying the founda- tions of a government over it that must stand the strain of eternity.
CHAPTER II.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN AND CHARACTERIS- TICS.
/. Origin of Sin.
SEC. i . — Who were the First Sinful Beings ? We know neither from reason nor revelation of more than three orders of moral beings — the angels fallen and unfallen, and the human race. To assume the existence of others, therefore, is to go just so far be- yond the record ; and as the fallen angels are first mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, therefore, in the absence of all opposing evidence, we assume them to have been the first moral beings created, and theyfr^/ sinners.
SEC. 2. — The Occasion of Sin.
It is evident that no good reason for sin can be given ; for then it would not be sin; and poor ones are worthless.
Also, if any explanation of the origin of sin should be given which would amount to a good reason for it, then the sinner could make good answer for it at the day of final judgment.
The most, therefore, that can be done in this direc- tion is to suggest an occasion of sin ; yet such an oc- casion, that the resulting sinshall appear wilful and inexcusable.
The view is not unfrequently entertained that a
33
34 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
pure and perfect being would obey God as a matter of course, and that submission to His will on the part of such a one would require no self-denial. Our leading theologians are accustomed to speak of Adam in the garden as one whose only inclination was to obedience. Dr. Bushnell speaks of him as ' ' spontaneous to good. ' '
But were this true, the first sin would have been impossible. If submission to God were entirely an easy matter, then submission would have been always rendered, and the first sin becomes, if not exactly impossible — for that expression would seem to con- flict with free agency — yet as certain not to be com- mitted as if it were.
In accounting for the existence of sin, it is custom- ary to trace the sinfulness of the human race to an organic connection with sinful Adam ; and then to trace his sin to the temptation of the devil. But how is the sin of the devil to be accounted for? Where did his sm originate ?
We face here the prime difficulty in theology. The reason or occasion for the commission of the first sin*
* For the most part our theological writers regard the origin of sin as inexplicable, or else trace its origin to causes or occasions which rob it of blameworthiness.
Says ARCHBISHOP WHATELY, " The existence of evil is a mystery we can not explain."
DR. BUSHNELL calls it " The night side of the creation."
Says DR. JOHN WATSON (Ian Maclaren), "Among all the problems upon which the human intellect has tried its teeth, the origin of evil is the most useless and hopeless, the most fascinating and maddening."
Says DR. BUSHNELL again in another connection, " Sin can nowise be accounted for ; there are no positive grounds or principles back of it whence it may have come" ("Nature and the Supernatural," p. 128). But he says on p. 1 14, " There must be positive impulses to be governed,
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 35
Here notice, it must have been committed under the three following conditions :
i . Those who committed it came directly from the hand of God, and were, therefore, pure and perfect in their original constitution.
2. They must have been placed in the best pos- sible circumstances — the best surroundings for the de- velopment of a holy character. We argue both these points from the assumed benevolence of God.
3. They encountered no temptation from malig- nant beings ; for there were no unholy beings to present it. Hence their position was in all respects the best calculated to result in holiness. .
The vital point is thus demonstrated that an occa-N j?ion of sin must exist in a pure and perfect being I placed in ihejrest possible circumstances. What couldy it have been ?
This leads us to consider the occasion o sin.
The word occasion is here used with carefulness and precision, as being entirely distinct from the effi- cient cause. For example : the occasion of gluttony is the natural appetite for food ; but because that between this occasion and the gluttony there comes in the free, moral, and responsible being, under ob- ligation to keep all his inclinations in due subordina-
or else there could not be a man/' But he does not indicate what those "positive" impulses are, and states only a negative one, viz., " a condi- tion privative."
DR. VEB.XON, in his recent work " Probation and Punishment," says : ' Sin rises out of a sinful propensity," thus making sin before sin. \.
The Evolutionists trace sin to the animal nature which "man has\ brought up with him " from the brute creation from which he sprang, j This makes sin unavoidable and, therefore, excusable, and, therefore, / not the sin with which the Bible deals.
36 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
tion to the higher dictates of reason and judgment therefore does he himself become the efficient cause of the sinful gluttony. For the occasion lie ^Ts in no way responsible, while he shoulders the entire bur- den of responsibility for the sinful gluttony. So the effirignt cause of sin can only be the moral being himself who commits it ; and the question now is, How comes it that a being made in the image of God, and pure and perfect in his original constitu- tion , becomes \h&_efficient cause of sin ?
i. The explanation of the Apostle in James i : 14, 1 5 is that the sinfulness of men — of ' ' every man ' ' — originates in inn^gfent constitutional propensity: "Every man is tempted, whenTne is drawn away' of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin ; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. ' '
Let this statement be carefully analyzed" :
(1) The word lust, in this immediate connection, is not a happy translation of the original, being al- most invariably used in a bad sense ; whereas the original word may mean only innocent desire, being the same word used by Paul when he says, ' ' Hav- ing a desire to depart, and be with Christ" (Phil, i : 23), also in I. Thes. ii : 17, the same word is translated ' ' with great desire, ' ' and our Savior uses the same word when he says, " With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you " (L,uke xxii : 15). That this is the proper translation here, is evident from what follows.
(2) It is ' ' his own lust ' ' or desire or inclination — that is, it originates in himself ; so that the external
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 37
influences, whatever they may be — whether the devil or wicked men or circumstances — only stir up a something that was all the while in him — " his own lust ' ' — something that belongs to him, and was in him before he was tempted. Another thing:
(3) It is a something that is innocent. It comes in before the sin — it ' ' bring eth forth ' ' the sin ; so that the sin comes in after it. Therefore this ' ' lust, ' ' this occasion of sin, can not be itself sinful, being something before sin, and must be innocent constitu- tional propensity of some kind, lying back of volun- tary action, and being, therefore, destitute of moral character — a mere constitutional element. There- fore
(4) It is not at all of the nature of depravity, nor does it imply any defect in the original constitution, and is consistent with perfect innocence and even holiness. Christ was ' ' made in all things like unto His brethren," and "tempted in all points like as they are." (Heb. ii : 17 ; iv : 15.)
Therefore being tempted precisely as we are, He must have been ' ' drawn away of his own lust and enticed, ' ' just as we are ; and if that involved no sin in Him, then it does not in us, and the lust is int cent. Furthermore :
(5) No matter how severe or even fierce the ' ' lust ' ' or desire may be by which the man is drawn away," if he resists the inclination, and no consent of the will follows, there is no sin, only temptation; and which, if resisted, results in virtue — "'Blessed is the man that endureth temptation." (Jam. i : 12.)
No matter how~strong" the^Eeniptation in Eden
38 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
may have been, nor how intense the desire to par- take of the fruit, had our first parents only resisted the temptation of the devil, and refused to partake of it, there would have been no sin committed, and the probability is that they would bogfr confirmed by this resistance in eternal obedience to God. The occasion of sin must therefore be innocent constitutional propensity*
2. What is this innocent, constitutional propen- sity— this ' ' lust, ' ' as the Apostle terms it ? It ap- pears to be the love of conscious freedom in a free, moral agent — a consciousness of freedom, and a de- sire to exercise it. Thus —
(i) A moral being is a. free being because " made in the image of God. ' ' If not free, he would not be made in his image.
* Says DR. KNAPP, in illustration of this passage, James i : 14, "The rising desires which our first parents felt to eat the fruit were founded in their nature, and were not imparted to them as sin. Nor is the springing up of involuntary desire in the heart of man ever considered in Scripture as sin ; but merely the entertaining, cherishing, and ac- complishing of this desire." (Christian Theology, p. 240.) And again he says in another place : ' ' The desires of man are not in themselves sinful, for they are deep laid in the constitution which God Himself has given to human nature. They become sinful only when man seeks and finds pleasure in them, cherishes them in his heart, seeks occasion to awaken the desires, and seeks and performs the sins to which he is inclined." (p. 256, IV.)
It seems singular that having stated so clearly and satisfactorily the occasion of sin in men, he should not have gone a step further and traced all sin to the same source— the gratification of natural desires ; and as the constitutional desire of every free, moral agent is to have ftjf yym way, to have found in the gratification of this, the occasion of sin in all sinful beings ; not only in Adam, but also in mankind gener- ally, and in the fallen angels. Respecting the sin of the latter he at- tempts no explanafton, giving only a few Jewish notions respecting it, and finally falls back on the position that human sinfulness is derived from Adam. He says "The universality of depravity depends on the derivation of all men from one progenitor or father." (p. 255.)
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 39
(2) He must be conscious that he is free. He can- not be free without being conscious of it.
(3) He must love to exercise this freedom in the way of independent action; which means mainly that he must love to seek and obtain whatever pleases him — to seek his own personal gratification without restraint. He can not have this freedom without loving to exercise it — in common language, without loving to have his own way. Nothing, indeed, is plainer than that he can not but love the objects which minister to his gratification . He must delight to seek his enjoyment in every avenue opened — to roam the universe at will, taxing every object, every scene, every employment affording satisfaction. But
(4) Can he be safely allowed to have his own way? No. For, in that case, each one acting out his natural inclinations, would set up for himself, and there would be as many independent wills as there are individuals, each acting for himself, and with no paramount regard for the general good; and the resulting collision, strife, discord, and suffering would be uncontrollable and dreadful, and the uni- verse itself become a moral wreck; so that the only security for the harmony and happiness of the uni- verse is the submission of all individual wills to the one controlling will o£ God. Therefore,
(5) We see the absolute necessity that God assert His control over His moral creature, and give him His law with its two cardinal requirements — "loving God with all his heart, and his neighbor as him- self, ' ' as the only security for thewelfare of the universe, and enforce obedience to it with the whole
40 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
weight of his authority; so that this free moral na- ture must n^A^ ^r^einjo conflict with law. Therefore we inquire
3. What is the nature of the Law ?
(1) Ivawis "a decisive rule of action for moral agents." In the divine government the law de- mands the voluntary and unconditional submission of a free moral agent to God's requirements. Doing this, God will make him supremely and eternally happy — as happy as infinite power, wisdom, and benevolence can make him. But
(2) It is also of the nature of restraint. Its lan- guage is ' ' Thou shalt ' ' and ' ' Thou shalt not. ' ' It requires him to seek, not his own way, but God's way. His will must be his sole guide. Therefore,
(3) To give up independence of action and sub- mit to restraint, which oftentimes involves the giv- ing up of objefts in themselves desirable, can not be an easy matter. It must cost a struggle. It is going against inclination — practising self-denial. And this must be attended with reluctance, and a reluctance just proportioned to the love^of inde- pendence. By just so much as he loves his own way, byjust so much he must make an effort in order to surrender it. But,
(4) It is his highest duty to surrender it, and con- sent to be guided, governed, and restrained, if need be, as God may see fit, as the only security for the harmony and welfare of the universe, which requires the merging of all wills in the one controlling will of the Almighty.
4. Here then we find
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 41
THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
Not a good reason for it, for that is impossible; but an occasion of it — a reason why it is committed. We trace it To the necessary nature oj free agency — to the love of conscious freedom in a free moral agent, coming into conflict with the necessary restraints of law and government — as Paul says, ' ' I had not known sin ^^•bytheJLaw . " (Rom. vii : 7.)
In this view it is a mere innocent occasion of sin, as the natural appetite for food is the innocent occa- sion of sinful gluttony.
The occasion of sin is thus seen to be inseparable from free agency under the restraint of law; and some particulars respecting it are deserving of special notice.
(1) It lies back of voluntary action, and is there- fore destitute of moral character — a mere constitu- tional element. Therefore,
(2) It is not at all of the nature of depravity, nor does it imply any defect in the original constitution, and is consistent with perfect innocence, and even holiness. Christ was ' ' tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin."
(3) In this view every being in the universe who\ sins, whether man or devil, sins solely because he \ dislikes the restraint of law, and shrinks from the self-denial_ necessary to obedience. This is the occa- sion of the sin. The real sin, and where all the guilt centers, is the disobedience itself — the act of transgression, the determination to break the law and have his own way, in exact accordance with they
42 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
way in which the prophet describes human sinful- ness — " We have turned every one to HIS OWN WAY." (Is. liii: 6.)
(4) The leading peculiarity of this view is that it represents the occasion of sin as inseparable from a free nature under this necessary restraint of law, and belongs therefore to a moral being by virtue of his creation; and is as inseparable from the soul as freedom itself. Therefore,
(5) It belongs necessarily to the nature of all moral beings who either have been or can be cre- ated ; and therefore all newly -created beings forever, will have the same inclination at the outset of their being, to throw off the restraints of law and govern- ment, that has already broken out in the sinning angels and men.*
The law may be a mere imperative of the reason
k ii _ —
and the conscience, or it may be a command rightly imposed by another, to whose rightfulness, how- ever, the reason assents ; but in either case it is law, coming down upon a moral being with the demand of obedience to rightful authority. In the former case the individual becomes, in the language of the apostle, ' ' a law unto himself, his conscience also bear-
* Some perhaps would prefer to say that the disinclination to sub- mission grows out of a love of self-gratification rather than the love of freedom. But this statement appears not quite sufficiently general to cover the whole ground; for there appears to be an inclination to resist authority as such, without reference to any particular object of self-gratification — to refuse to obey just because commanded to — to refuse to do a thing just because told to. Our statement also seems to come nearer to our Savior's representation of the workings of the wicked heart — " we will not have this man to reign over us " — imply- ing a hatred of authority. (Luke xix : 14. )
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 43
ing witness." (Rom. ii : 15.) In the latter he comes under the authority of another — a parent, guardian, master, or ruler; and the sin resulting is always disobedience to rightful authority — to law. Sin is ever therefore ' ' the transgression of the law. ' ' ' ' Where no law is there is no transgression. ' ' (Rom. iv:i5.)
With the existence and operation of this element in human society we are all familiar. The inclina- tion of the whole world is to its own pleasure. The very first development of the infant mind is in the direction of impatience of restraint — he wants his own way. This is the leading chardleristic of child- hood also, and is what creates the necessity for pa- rental authority in the family. This is the chief trouble in the community — that men want their own way, instead of seeking the general good. This, too, makes government necessary in the state; and even on the broad field of national experience the sole occasion of difficulty is the preference of the individ- ual over the general good. "for all seek their own" is the grand trouble of the universe. (Phil, ii : 21.)
This view of the occasion of sin, is one whose im- portance can hardly be over-estimated. The fact that all created beings, from their very nature, shrink from the restraints of law, and are, on that account, inclined to sin, is the distinguishing'feature of the system herein developed, and furnishes the key, it is believed, to the right understanding of the moral universe. And even as the law of gravitation is the key which unlocks the grand secrets of the material
44 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
universe, and gives the reason«for its beauty, order, and harmony, so the key which unlocks the grand secrets of the moral universe, and gives' the reason for all in it that is discordant and jarring and trouble- some, will be found to be this universal tendency of free mind to resist law, and thus to break away from the great controlling center — -^God. It is this that ruined the angels, that made the human race a sin- "fuToTie^hat made redemption necessary, and is the grand obstacle to the unfolding of the moral uni- verse, in the coming ages, in righteousness and true holiness, and which can be surmounted only by the infinite energies of the Almighty.
SEC. 3. Objections.
To this representation of the origin of sin it may be objected
i . That, if this dislike of restraint be a necessary element in the nature of a moral being, then its in- dulgence is a matter of course, and not to be won- dered at; and that a moral being can not be blamed for indulging it. Answer:
This objection overlooks the essential elements of a free nature; for while it is true that the love of con- scious freedom, and the consequent dislike of re- straint belong necessarily to the nature of a free moral agent, yet so also do reason and conscience and the sense of moral obligation belong as truly and in- separably to such a nature; and the free moral agent is as free to follow one as the other.
And between these two, the inclination and the reason, stands the imperial will regnant in the realm
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 45
of its own activity, and deciding ever for itself which \ of the two it will follow, the love of freedom, and I thus commit sin, or the reason and judggnent and / thus act rightly?
And here it should be noticed that whenever it rejects the demands of reason, and follows the in- clination to self-indulgence, it always acts against the higher motive, and yields to the lower; and, in so doing, stifles within itself the sense of moral obliga- tion, debases its lofty nature, and commits an act of inexcusable wickedness.
To illustrate — A religiously educated business- man listens to a sermon from the text ' ' Seek first the kingdom of God. ' ' The message comes to him backed by the authority of the Almighty, and he so accepts it. It is distinctly before his mind not only as the higher motive, but the highest motive in the universe. And on being questioned he would acknowledge it to be such. He listens to the ser- mon, and acknowledges its truthfulness. And yet he will refuse to be effectually moved by it, and persist still in his life of worldliness and sin.
The entire preceding view of the nature and oper- ations of a human soul in the matter of sinful selfjndulgenceA is comprehended in the single word self-denial^ To show this, let the word be carefully analyzed.
i. In the act of self-denial, there is a conscious something to be repressed. And it belongs to me. It is a part of my moral nature — a something in me pleading for self-indulgence. In familiar language — it wants its own way.
4<> THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
2. Something within me says that I ought not to yield to it — that to yield to it would be wrong, and to refuse to yield to it would be commendable and right. Thus some part of my moral nature com- mands me not to yield to another part of my moral nature.
3. I feel and know that there is a power within me qualifying me to do this — qualifying me to stand up against this internal inclination, and to refuse to gratify it. I know I can say to it, " Get thee be- hind me. I will not yield to thee. I will do right. I will reject the temptation, and trample on it."
x 4. If I use this conscious power, and stand up
/against this temptation, I stand up against myself.
| One part of myself exercises authority over another
part of myself, and demands of it obedience. My-
\ self denies myself. Hence, the expression self-
V denial.
The mind appears, therefore, to move in this three-fold direction — in the direction of the inclina- tion, the judgment, and the will.
a. Therrris^n inclination To^choose my own way of self-indulgence.
b. There is a judgment deciding that the indul^ gence of the inclination — the yielding to it — would b^ wrong.
f c. There is the imperial will determining to follow
/ the judgment instead of the inclination; and all
V this is the simple analysis of the word self-denial.
\ When, therefore, rightful authority meets a moral
being to which he feels disinclined to yield, reason
and conscience press him at once to resist this love
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 47
of independence, this temptation, this ' ' drawing away of his own lust, ' ' and submit to the require- ment. And if he would but resist it, as he might do, and as God commands him to do — as the devil might have done, and Adam might have done, and both should have done — not only would there be no sin in him, but he would merit the commendation, ' ' Blessed is the man that endureth temptation. ' ' But if he yields to it, he sins, and assumes the en- tire responsibility of the wrong-doing. He is never any more excusable in yielding to this occasion than is the glutton in his gluttony. Who would excuse a man for acting like a beast?
And if he yields, he is perfectly free in so doing. For were there anything in the inclination or im- pulse which determined the will of the moral being — any thing in it of a compulsory nature — there would be no explanation of that remorse which rends the guilty soul.
REMORSE is the soul upbraiding itself for its sin; and wherever felt, is its own clear testimony to three things:
( i ) That the sin committed was wholly unneces- sary. Could a convicted soul, in the extremity of its torment from remorse, see and feel that back of its wickedness there lay a necessity under which it acted, the remorse would cease at once. It would instantly clear itself from blame and from mental suffering by the reflection, ' ' I could not help it, ' ' and be at peace. There would no longer be ground for remorse or the possibility of it. There might be any amount of regret at the unpleasant consequences
48 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
which have followed, but there could be no self-re- proach at being the guilty author of those conse- quences; and this is the essential ingredient in remorse.
(2) Remorse is the soul's testimony that the sin- ful conduct was inexcusable. If in certain compli- cated cases of human action there are some things which appear excusable, and others not, the re- morse reaches only those which are seen to be inex- cusable and keeps exact pace with the inexcusable- ness. Whatever is seen to be excusable ceases to distress. Self-reproach extends only to that for which the soul can find no good excuse.
(3) The testimony of the soul under remorse is, that in the precise circumstances in which it acted wrong, it should have acted exactly the other way — either not to do what it did, or to do that which it neglected to do. Observe — The conviction of the re- morseful soul is that there should have been an en- tire change in the conduct, with no change in the circumstances. It blames itself for acting as it did, the circumstances remaining as they were; thus giv- ing its own highest testimony to its own perfect free- dom.
However wicked men may reason against their own freedom and responsibility, one pang of re- morse within them gives the lie to all their assump- tions against it, dissipates all their sophistries, and arraigns them at the bar of their own consciences as being guilty and deserving of punishment for not acting exactly the opposite way from what they did act, and with no change of circumstances. And this
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 49
is freedom — freedom in choice, power of contrary choice — FREEDOM OF WILL, absolute and unqualified.
This element in a moral nature, therefore, this love of conscious freedom, this occasion of sin al- tho constitutional, and necessarily belonging to free agency, is yet one that should ever be kept in subordination to the higher law of reason and con- science— that law which demands that God be obeyed at any cost of sacrifice and self-denial.
And the example of the Savior, who was ' ' made in all things " like as we are, and " tempted in all points like as we are," has demonstrated that it can be and ought to be kept in subordination. He said, ' ' not my will but Thine be done. ' ' And so ought every moral being in God's universe to say when brought to the trial — ' ' not my will but Thine be done; " and there is no manner of excuse why he should not. Because he can give up his own will and way, he can go against his inclinations, and ought ever to do thus when reason and conscience demand it, even as did the Savior. But it will ever be with a struggle at the outset. ' ' Not my will ' ' is the strait gate through which every soul must pass at the threshold of moral action; and he who said it ' ' left us an example, ' ' and left it to the universe too — ' ' that we should follow his steps who did no sin."* (i Pet. i : 21, 22.)
* The assumption not unf requently made, that Christ resisted temp- tation and remained holy by virtue of his divine nature; or because he received extra divine assistance over and above what we receive, is an assumption wholly unauthorized.
i. The Scriptures nowhere teach such a doctrine. In the account of his temptation in the wilderness, we find no evidence of supernatural help. The ministration of the angels granted for His relief and com-
5© THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
On the whole, therefore, every sin in God's universe whenever or wherever, or by whomsoever com- mitted, is, and must be, in the very nature of the case, wholly inexcusable, and deserving of unquali- fied condemnation. For he who does wrong, and rejects the binding authority of reason and con- science, commits an act second only in criminality, both as respects its nature and influence, to a depar- ture from moral rectitude on the part of God Himself.
fort in His bitter conflict, was not furnished till the temptation was ended; and the "heirs to salvation " are favored with this same super- natural assistance of the ministering angels.
2. The record of this temptation shows Him resisting the assaults of the adversary simply by opposing to his suggestions the declarations of the Scriptures; in which there is no evidence of superior divine assis- tance.
3. The clear statement of the Bible, that he was "made in all things like unto his brethren," and was " tempted in all points like as they are" is a declaration of little significance for us in the hour of tempta- tion, provided that, for any reason, he had a better opportunity for re- sisting temptation, and thus remaining holy, than we have.
4. He is distinctly held up as an example for our imitation, and we are exhorted to be sinless because He ivas ( i Pet. ii : 21-23. ) ; and where is the force of such an exhortation if the possibibities of resistance, on our part, were not equally favorable with His ? The entire argument of the apostle in Heb. ii : 10-18 and iv : 14-16, fails of being satisfactory the moment we assume, for the Savior, superior advantages to ours for remaining holy. If His temptations were less severe than ours; or if his human nature derived superior strength from a union with the divine; or if a greater measure of the Spirit were imparted; or any divine assistance furnished of which we are deprived, then is there no reasonableness in the exhortation to us to remain holy because He did. Also, if at this point, he was lifted out of the plane of human experience, and translated into that of the divine, he is no longer one who can sympathize with us in our temptations merely on the ground of having been " Himself tempted," which is the ground presented.
There is, indeed, no ground for any other belief than that every dis- advantage which human nature now has in the conflict with tempta- tion, Christ had; and on the other hand, that every advantage He had for resisting temptation, and remaining holy, human nature now has; so that the fact that he remained true to God and duty is proof that every human being should do the same.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 51
And well may God say to him, " Be ye therefore per- fect EVEN AS your Father which is in Heaven is per- fect . " " Be y e holy FOR I am holy . ' ' It isobj ected :
2. That Adam in the garden obeyed God for some considerable time after his creation, and, therefore, could not have had in him, at the outset, any such occasion of sin as is now insisted on. Answer:
Many, and indeed most of our theologians lavish upon Adam, previous to his fall, groundless com- mendations, calling him not only innocent and sin- less, but holy: ' ' heart full of holiness, " " loving all that God loved," [self-denial?] "spontaneous to good," in short, a perfect pattern of obedience and holiness at the very outset — at the very time of his creation. They do not see apparently, that created holiness is an absurdity — that as no sin is possible but a ' ' trangression of the law, " so no holiness is possible but obedience to law, and that Adam, when created, was only innocent, not holy. Thus they make no distinction between innocence and holiness — between
the obedience that costs no^elf-denial, and the obe- dience that submits to God under a fair trial, and thus use, in respect to Adam, language applicable only to a being confirmed in obedience.
All the character Adam had earned previous to his fall was earned only by obedience to commands which crossed none of his natural inclinations, and cost him no self-denial — the law of marriage and the
- — -• **' -__2-
Sabbath, and the command to dress and keep the gardenT No commands had been imposed which in- terfered at all with his pleasure — his inclinations; and the commendation so often lavished upon him
52 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
for his goodness, obedience, and holiness, are ground- less. It was a goodness that cost nothing, and was worth as little. Good as far as it went, but of very inferior value, because existing in a heart in which there was no settled principle of obedience.
But to the point in question: How could obedi- ence in such circumstances prove that he had no constitutional disinclination to submit to the proper and necessary restraints of law and authority? The fact was that no sooner was he crossed than he re- fused to obey. No sooner did he find that the tree was " good for food, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, ' ' than his love of having his own way overpowered all other considerations, and in the face of commands and warnings and threatenings, and reason and conscience, broke out in open rebel- lion against restraint; and that, too, in so insignifi- cant a matter as the possession of a single tree, when allowed freely to partake of all the other trees of the garden. Certainly his recorded experience, so far as it goes, proves only the truth of our position — that the occasion of sin is common to all moral be- ings. It is objected:
3. That the unfallen angels have not sinned; and how then can the occasion of sin be common to all moral beings ?
This objection will be noticed when we come to consider ' ' the relation of Moral Evil to the Unfallen Angels."
It is objected
4. That this position assumes a similar element in the human nature of Christ. Answer:
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 53
The Scriptures themselves teach this. Christ is declared to have been ' ' made in all things like as we are, ' ' and to have been ' ' tempted in all points like as we are " (Heb. 2 : 17; 4 : 15), and how could this be unless He had the same constitutional inclinations that we have ? Also it says He ' ' pleased not Himself" (Rom. 15 : 3); consequently went against His pleasure — His natural inclinations — con- sequently denied Himself, showing that He had incli- nations which needed to be denied, just as we have. Had He ' 'pleased himself, ' ' and followed His inclina- tions, as we do, He would have sinned; but He said rather, ' ' Not^y will, but thine be done. " By ' 'will ' ' is here meant wish, or inclination; and His inclination He resisted. And this inclination was precisely the same inclination which leads us to sin, and would have lead Him to sin had He not resisted it. At this point, therefore, He was indeed tempted precisely as we are, and therefore had in Him the same inclina- tion to resist the necessary restraints of law and government, which we and all moral beings have. It is objected again:
5. That as moral beings are made "in God's image," the foregoing position will necessitate self- denial on the part of the Almighty. True ; and obedience to the great law of benevolence, to which He also is subject, does call for self-denial even on His part. God even claims it for Himself, when He says, "He doth not afflict willingly:' Therefore by just so much as He does not, must He repress the immediate promptings of His pitiful nature, and be- cause the highest good demands it, deny Himself,
54 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
and still continue the infliction. Again, He is " not willing that any should perish;" and by just so much as He is not willing, must He repress the strong impulses of affection for the creature He has made; and because the general good demands the mainten- ance of His law and government inviolate, must He still deny Himself and punish him as he deserves. Moreover the giving of His own son to sufferings and death, was an act of infinite self- denial.
Thus in the mutual relations of moral beings, self-denial for the general good has become the law of the universe. ' ' If any man will come after me let him deny himself" (Matt, xvi : 24), is undoubtedly not merely the law of this world, but of all worlds. Even God does not exempt himself from self-denial; and he, therefore, who refuses to practice it, and thus remain true to God and duty, assails the uni- versal welfare, disobeys the Almighty, follows the promptings of his own self-will, and deserves the uttermosst of condemnation.
There is, therefore, no valid objection to the posi- tion we are assuming — that the occasion of sin is common to the nature of all moral beings who either have been or can be created.
EVOLUTION.
In recent years the attempt has been made to find the occasion of sin in the fact of evolution. One of the latest expositions of this scheme is in a recent work by REV. GEORGE A. GORDON, D.D., entitled "Immortality and the New Theodicy;" and it is
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 55
presumed that the views presented by him are fairly in accordance with the views of the evolutionists generally.
THEODICY is an attempt to reconcile the existence of evil with the benevolence of God; and this ' ' New Theodicy ' ' explains the matter, in the words of DR. GORDON thus — " The temporary power man has to resist God, is in consequence of the irrationality that he has brought up with him from the animal world. ' ' ' ' All the retarding forces of human society are due to irrationality, " "to the weakness of reason. ' ' The scheme is — that man is derived — evolved from the brute creation, and has come up from it by a grad- ual process; and, therefore, he speaks of man as having a " semi-brutal character." (Pp. 82, 100, 101.)
There are serious objections to this hypothesis.
i. It can not be proved. DR. GORDON brings forward no proof whatever of its truthfulness. Whatever evidence there may be from fossil remains of a gradual evolution in the brute creation from a lower to a higher type — and there is confessedly a vast deal — there is not a particle of evidence that man has been included in the process. That he has, is manifestly an unwarrantable inference, with nothing conclusive to support it. No man has ever seen such a change taking place. If men have been found with brutal natures, apparently half brute and half human, it has been a descent from the rational to the irrational, due to physical causes ; but, in no case on record, an ascent from the brutal to the moral and spiritual.
56 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
2. The hypothesis is unnecessary. The occasion of sin, as developed in the preceding pages, is far more satisfactory, and, indeed, meets fully all the facts in the case. This finds the occasion of sin in the nature of free, moral agency, coming into conflict with the necessary restraints of law and government, and no other explanation is needed.
3. The statement in Genesis is that man was made " in the image of God ;" and the same truth is re- peated in James iii : 9, that men are now ' ' made after the similitude of God. ' ' The image of God then is semi- brutal /"
4. This theory of evolution makes sin unavoidable and even necessary. Says HENRY WARD BEECHER, sin is the ' ' necessary concomitant ' ' of the evolu- tionary process ; and DR. GORDON affirms respect- ing man that this animal and irrational nature ' ' is fastened upon him by his Maker. ' ' (p. 101 .) There- fore being necessary and unavoidable, it is not really sin, only imperfection, and, to a degree, excusable ; which sin, as dealt with in the Bible, never is.
5. This, too, throws the responsibility for human sinfulness directly on to the Almighty, and makes it due to His own direct agency in ' ( fastening upon him ' ' this animal nature.
6. This theory represents sin as originating in the animal nature, and not in the spiritual ; whereas our Savior declares that sin conies directly from the spiritual : " Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, etc." (Matt. xvtiQ.) Therefore sin originates in the spiritual and not in the animal nature. What have
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 57
the towering passions of pride, envy, hatred, revenge, and ambition to do with the body ? The body is only the occasional instrument of their gratification, not the originating cause of them. (This point will be more fully considered in the chapter on ' ' Man.")
7. Regarding sin as due to the animal nature which ' ' God has fastened on man, ' ' the evolutionist can have no such idea of the character of sin as the Bible gives it — "enmity against God," " heart full of evil," "wicked to desperation," " madness is in their heart. ' ' Moreover the Bible makes the enor- mity of sin to be due to the fact that it is the trans- gression of law, ' ' that sin by the commandment, might become exceeding .sinful," just as the repre- sentation of sin in the preceding pages makes it.
Also where is the propriety of God's hating sin so terribly, "Thou hatest all workers of iniquity," hating a man merely for acting out the ' ' semi-brutal character," which He Himself had "fastened upon him?"
8. The sin of Adam is not represented as due at all to "irrationality" — to any "want of reason," but as an intelligent and deliberate violation of a plain and positive command — " Thou shalt not eat of the tree. ' ' He wickedly followed his inclinations, and God evidently regarded his conduct as utterly inexcusable. He does not appear to regard his sin as due to something that He had ' ' fastened on him," and, therefore, to some extent, excusable, but as wilful and inexcusable, and deserving the punish- ment threatened upon him — ' ' Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. ' '
58 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
The scriptures never depreciate the nature and origin of man even by the remotest implication, only his character ; and that he makes for himself, and for it he alone is responsible.
On the contrary, it magnifies his origin to the highest degree. God said ' ' Let us make man in our image after our likeness. (Gen. i : 26).
Also in Heb. ii : 7, it says " Thou madest him a little lower than the angels ; thou crownedst him with glory and honor. ' ' Now unless we assume for the angels a brutal nature and origin, which seems an unwarrantable assumption, then as the creation of man is mentioned in immediate connection with that of the angels, we should naturally assume for both a direct creation of God without any brutal intervention.
It says also in the same connection, ' ' Thou didst set him over the works of thy hands ' ' ; while the Evolutionist makes him come up himself from the brute creation — not only not in any sense ' ' set over" them, but being himself a development of them.
But the absurdity of the doctrine of Evolution comes out preeminently in this — that as the Lord Jesus was ' ' made in all things like unto his breth- ren," therefore, the great Redeemer, the Lord of glory, conceived by the Holy Ghost, had a "brutal character fastened on him."
9. Such a view of the origin of sin should excite only ihepity of the Almighty — pity that His ' ' semi- brutal " creatures do not exercise a better judgment — that they are not less irrational, and do not use a
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 59.
better reason in their conduct. No place whatever is left for any exhibition of wrath-, whereas Paul says in Rom. i : 1 8 that ' ' the wrath of God is re- vealed from heaven against all ungodliness and un- righteousness of men. ' ' Also, instead of regarding even the heathen as "irrational," he says in v. 19 that " that which may be known of God was mani- fest in them; for God had showed it to them. Also v. 20 that his divine character was ' ' clearly seen ' ' from the works of nature; so that their wickedness was ' ' without excuse. ' ' Also, that their sinfulness was not due to a " want of reason," but that they "knew God; " and though clearly seeing their ob- ligations to be grateful, they were not " thankful; " and worse than all, turned away from the worship of the true God to the worship of idols (vs. 18-25). Paul, therefore, makes out the sinfulness even of the heathen, to be wilful, wicked and inexcusable ; and not due to any ' ' want of reason. ' ' At this point the scheme of evolution seems opposed to the entire representations of the Scriptures.
10. The tendency of the scheme is to Universal- ism ; and however DR. GORDON may disclaim for himself a belief in the doctrine, such is still its direct tendency. And, indeed, it is here asserted without fear of contradiction, that the mass of the Evolution- ists are also Universalists.
1 1 . What idea of the atonement must any man have with this belief in evolution ? Not at all as a scheme of mercy to save the sinner from the penalty of violated law — not at all as a plan to render for- giveness possible under the perfect, moral government
60 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
of God — not at all as designed to ' ' save us from wrath through Christ " (Rom. v : 9); but merely a plan to assist man out of his ' ' irrationality ' ' — to restore his defective "reason;" thus rejecting the teachings of the Bible upon this most vital of all doctrines.
And the fact is that many of our most prominent Congregational pastors, and even professors in our theological seminaries, starting with this theory of evolution as the origin of sin, are modifying funda- mentally the Scripture doctrine of the atonement, and making it a far different matter from what the Bible makes it; and under the name of ' ' Progressive Ortho- doxy," "New Theodicy," and " Advanced Think- ing, ' ' are making it anything but the great plan of the Almighty to "deliver us from the wrath to come." (i Thes. i : 10.) And thus the theory of evolution, as usually apprehended and accepted, is subverting the very foundations of Christianity.
HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY.
This doctrine, as held generally in our evangeli- cal churches, is — That mankind have become sinful on account of some kind of a connection with sinful Adam, so that the sinfulness of the race is to be traced to this connection. The obvious objection to this view is that, as God is the author of this con- nection, it represents him as acting to perpetuate sin. It seems desirable, therefore, that, if possible, some other and better view should be substituted.
It is proposed in this book to substitute, in the place of this, the view which has just been pre-
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 6l
sented — that the sinfulness of mankind, as well as of all sinful beings, is to be traced to the love of con- scious freedom in a free moral agent, coming into conflict with the necessary restraints of law and gov- ernment; and that this characteristic of a moral nature belongs to all moral beings who either have been or can be created.*
Some may object to this substitution on the ground that an acceptance of the doctrine of heredi- itary depravity is necessary to a belief in the ' ' soli- darity of the race. ' ' But the solidarity of the race appears to depend merely on hereditary descent; and this may apparently exist without any transmissiou of depraved tendencies. To reject, therefore, the doctrine of hereditary depravity, is not of necessity to reject the solidarity of the race, nor to take a posi- tion distinctively Pelagian.
Others again may object to this substitution on the ground that it sacrifices the doctrine of Federal Headship. But it is not proposed to set this aside,
* Let it be noticed, however, that in suggesting this change from the commonly accepted belief, no change is contemplated in the Bible dodlrine of human wickedness either in its nature, entireness, or invet- eracy. That will still remain the same — "the carnal mind enmity against^God, and not subject to His law" (Rom. viii : 7); and the human heart will still be, in the language of the prophet, " deceitful above all things, and wicked to desperation." (Jer. xvii :g.) It is only proposed to shift the explanation of human sinfulness from the connection of the race with Adam, over on to this universal occasion of sinfulness as found in the very nature of free-agency, making thus all sin and all true depravity to be an intelligent, wilful, and wicked " transgression of law." Thedodlrine of "Total Depravity," or as that expression has been caricatured to mean that men are as bad aa they can be — the entire sinfulness of human character — that mankind are " dead in trespasses and sins," and that a sinner has not the least claim on the mercy of God, lies at the foundation of the entire system of evangeli- cal truth.
63 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
but only to modify it. There is undoubtedly a great fundamental truth in the doctrine of Federal Head- ship. Doubtless Adam stood, in some important sense, as the head or representative of the race, per- haps on this wise — Adam having been placed in the best possible circumstances for securing salvation, the fact that he sinned showed that any other moral beings, at that stage of the universe, would also sin. Human nature, therefore, in this view, had, as it were, a trial in him — the experiment with him de- monstrating that moral beings, in this world, could not consistently be kept from sinning; and, there- fore, that the only question respecting the human race was not how could the race be kept from sinning, but how be saved after they have sinned.
Of course, this is not the usual statement of the doctrine, but still it involves the trial of the human race in Adam in a certain sense ; and just so far as it does, it involves the fundamental principle of Federal Headship.
The doctrine of Hereditary Depravity fails, in several respects, of being satisfactory.
I. HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE.
The ancient doctrine, as taught by AUGUSTINE in the fifth century, was the result of mere human speculation. It was assumed that souls, like bodies, are propagated from parent to child.*
*AUGUSTINE, however, thought he found a scriptural warrant for this dodlrine in Rom. v : 12 — " Death passed upon all men for that all have sinned;" the English translation "for that," being rendered in the I,atin Vulgate by " in quo " — in whom. The expression in the orig- inal Greek, however, admits of three different translations — in whom.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 63
This is the dodlrine of the Assembly's catechism, and which was finally crystallized in New England in that familiar couplet of the primer —
" In Adam's fall We sinned all."
This is the ancient and proper dodlrine of " ORIG- INAL. SIN."*
This made two kinds of sin — one committed before we were born and the other after. The first was called " original," the second " adlual." The first made men sinners ' ' by nature, ' ' the second ' ' by practice. ' '
But the dodlrine has been greatly modified by theologians subsequently, so that there have been as many as six statements of it among Calvinistic theo- logians which differ radically from each other.
for that, and unto which. Doddridge prefers the latter—" unto which death all have sinned."
The doctrine of Traducianism, or the propagation of souls, has no scriptural foundation unless it be this translation of the Vulgate — in whom — while two other translations are equally true to the original.
*Out of this purely philosophical assumption grew the horrible dogma of infant damnation, and which, owing mainly to the author- ity of ST. AUGUSTINE, was adopted by the entire medieval church ; the logical process being that as every infant had committed the sin of eating the forbidden fruit in Eden, and as there had been no oppor- tunity for repentance, of course, his perdition must be the only possible result.
According to this view original and actual sin differ in the time of their commission, but not at all in their nature, both being a wilful and wicked "transgression of law." But now, if the doctrine of one- ness with Adam be given up and the doctrine of Creationism be substi- tuted in its place, then the term Original Sin has no longer any intelli- gible meaning ; and to apply it to the moral state of the infant at birth is nonsensical. If oneness with Adam is given up, the expression Orig- inal Sin should be given up ; or, if retained, the only appropriate defi- nition of it will be that of DR. EMMOXS, " The first sin that was com- mitted."
64 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
PRES. EDWARDS differs from Augustine and Cal- vin in that he rejects the propagation of souls en- tirely, but holds to a " divinely constituted union between Adam and his posterity, by which his sin becomes theirs. ' ' According to AUGUSTINE we are guilty at birth because we ate the forbidden fruit. According to EDWARDS, because God determined that Adam's sin should be ours.
The PRINCETON DIVINES reject all co-existence with Adam, or any real guilt on account of his sin; but hold still that God regards and treats us as if we were guilty. Says DR. HODGE: "Adam's act was regarded as our act," he being, in this view, a kind of representative of the human race and related to us by a sort of ' ' federal headship. ' ' Here is another change. EDWARDS and CALVIN both held that we were guilty of Adam's sin, though in differ- ent ways; but PRINCETON, only that we are treated as if we were. This theory is called Imputation; and which STUART, with a kind of grim facetious- ness, characterizes as ' ' fictitious guilt, but veritable damnation."
Many New England theologians have made an- other change, and teach, not that we are guilty of Adam's sin in any sense; but only that we inherit from him a sinful disposition (vide Wood's Essay). MiJLLER also says: "The individual has a sinful nature from his birth. ' '
Others make another change and say that the dis- position is not really sinful, but only that we are de- praved, corrupt, disordered at birth from our con- nection with Adam, and on this account grow up to
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 65
be sinful. The Presbyterian Confession calls it " a corrupted nature. ' '
At this point two of our profoundest modern the- ologians— DRS. MUL.LER and FAIRBAIRN — are en- tirely at variance. MULLER says not only that ' ' the individual has a sinful nature at birth," as quoted above, but that ' ' hereditary sin makes every man, from the outset of his life, actually guilty in God's sight, and exposes him to eternal condemnation."
On the other hand, FAIRBAIRN says that this inherited sinfulness "is not transgression, and is without guilt."
At this point, too, there is another difference be- tween distinguished theologians, some, like STUART, holding that the stream of moral pollution, originat- ing in Adam, has flowed to the human race through the mental channel; others, like PRES. APPLETON, that its channel has been through the physical con- nection.
DR. DWIGHT says he is unable to explain it, and confesses he has seen ' ' no explanation which did not leave the difficulties as great, and, for aught I know, as numerous as they were before."
DR. TAYLOR narrows down the doctrine to this — ' ' I take only this general position as that, and that only, which the Scriptures authorize — that the sin- fulness of mankind is in consequence of Adam's sin."
DR. EDWARD BEECHER sweeps even this away, and declares that ' ' the doctrine that our depraved natures, or our sinful conduct, have been caused or occasioned by the sin of Adam, is not asserted in any part of the Word of God." Also, he declares that
66 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
' ' all attempts to explain the connection between the sin of Adam and the ruin of his posterity have been so unsatisfactory as to create a violent presumption that the idea is, in itself, incapable of vindication or defense." And PRES. FAIRCHIU), in the Advance of Sept. 1 6, 1869, makes this very significant state- ment: ' ' The doctrine of the Fall, in its relation to human depravity, is confessedly an open question." And, perhaps, among all our modern theologians there has not been a more conservative man or a more close and careful thinker than PRES. FAIR- CHILD.
ARMINIAN VIEWS.
Such are the views of some of the leading Calvin- istic theologians. I^et us notice the position of a few of the more distinguished of the ARMINIAN DIVINES.
Says ARMINIUS: "All those will be saved who have not themselves committed actual transgres- sions;" thus utterly rejecting the doctrine that in- fants would be lost.
WESLEY, in the early part of his life, had embraced the Augustinian theology, for he says: " By the sin of the first Adam we all became children of wrath." Again: "We were all born with a sinful, devilish nature." But in subsequent years he appears to have entirely changed his theological position, for he says, in his later writings: " Nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of a known law of God. ' '
Notice here the word " known" plainly implying
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 67
that there was no sin, nor the possibility of it, until the age of intelligent responsibility was reached.
Evidently, in his estimation, it was not necessarily heresy for a man to change his theological opinions on this point. It may not be heresy to advance a step further, and adopt our explanation.
Says WATSON: "Little children, until actual sin, remain heirs of eternal glory." Remain thus — that is, they are heirs of glory from the mere fact of their creation by God, and remain so till actual sin.
Says DR. ADAM CLARK: ' ' Christ loves little child- ren because He loves simplicity and innocence. ' '
Says LIMBORCH: " Infants have a certain inclina- tion to sin which they derive, not from Adam, but from their next immediate parents. ' ' In this view he would apparently make the depravity of men to run back to Adam for its prime origin, while he would still reject the theory of Augustine, that the entire race existed in Adam.
FLETCHER probably phrases the prevalent belief correctly when he says: " As Adam brought a gen- eral condemnation and a universal seed of death [notice, he does not say sin\ upon all, so Christ brings upon them a general justification and a uni- versal seed of life. ' ' To this we add that, if these results of God's visitation upon men for the sin of Adam, as Fletcher represents them, are not to be regarded as a calamity, there can be no objection to the above statement; but, according to the general belief, they are. STUART'S view, as he distinctly states it — and which is only implied in the above quotation from FLETCHER — is that the connection
68 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
with Adam is a calamity ', and that the atonement of Christ comes in as a ' ' Compensation ' ' to make up for these previously inflicted evils and calamities — this "general condemnation." But if so, then God was under obligation to provide the atonement; and how, then, is it a purely gracious dispensation — a dorea en kariti, as the apostle terms it, and which God was under no obligation to men to bestow.
2. SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT.
The way sin was proved by the old divines to have descended from Adam was by making the death spoken of in Rom. v include death spiritual as well as temporal.
The refutation of this exegesis by DR. BEECHER in his ' ' Conflict of Ages ' ' is exhaustive and unan- swerable. He shows that this interpretation is not found in the early fathers; was not given to the pass- age till the fourth century; was never adopted by the Greek Church at all; and, moreover, is entirely at variance with the design and scope of the argument.
But, if the doctrine of sin derived from Adam is not taught in Rom. v, then it is not a doctrine of the Bible; for, as DR. BEECHER says: "If these things [depravity and disorder at birth] are not as- serted in this passage to have been caused by the sin of Adam, then plainly they are not asserted to have been caused by it at all in any part of the Word of God; for there is no other passage of Scripture in which it can even be pretended with any show of probability whatever that these things are asserted. ' '*
*Altho indorsing thus fully the reasoning of DR. BEECHER upon the connection of the human race with Adam, and feeling that he has
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 69
EXEGESIS OF ROMANS V : 1 2-1 9.
The only argument of any weight for making the death spoken of in this passage include spiritual zs, well as temporal death, is that it stands in contrast with the word life in v. 17; and as the latter evidently means spiritual and eternal life, therefore the former must mean spiritual and eternal death. Answer:
This assumes that Paul, in comparing the respect- ive works of Adam and of Christ, is intending to make a formal comparison — to run a careful and exact parallel between the two, so that what is said of the work of the one shall find an exact counter- part in the work of the other. But this assumption is utterly without foundation.
Now, let a view be taken diametrically the oppo-
done great service to the church in refuting the mischievous dogma of inherited depravity, we do not yet see sufficient reason to accept his hypothesis of Preexistence. His argument may be briefly stated as follows :
1. Men are in a sinful, depraved or disordered condition at birth.
2. No beings can be responsible for it but Ood and ourselves.
3. " The principles of honor and right " forbid us to ascribe it to Ood. Therefore,
4. The responsibility must come on us ; and how can this be unless through a forfeiture at birth by sin committed by us in a previous state of existence?
If the first of these positions be granted, we rega rd the reasoning as unanswerable ; but this he makes to rest solely on the authority of the past. He makes no attempt to sustain it except by numerous quota- tions from ancient and modern writers and from confessions ef faith, none of which prove moral disorder and birth ; but are all, without exception, mere philosophical assumptions in order to account for the certainty and universality of human sinfulness.
But if the hypothesis be accepted as herein advanced, that the occa- sion of sin in men lies in the necessary nature of free agency, and is inseparable from it, then the certainty and universality of human sin- fulness are accounted for without the assumption of depravity or even disorder at birth ; and the hypothesis of sin committed in a preexistent state becomes unnecessary.
7O THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
site of this. Let it be assumed with equal, and even superior, probability that the mind of the apostle, in its rapid and intense workings discerning a certain correspondence between the works of Adam and of Christ, so that one might properly be considered in some respects a type (tupos) of the other, is catching merely at those points of comparison in which the two illustrate each other more or less perfectly, with no thought of an exact correspondence — a rigid and formal comparison — and the entire argument falls to the ground. Certainly this is his manner of writing elsewhere. Witness the corresponding passage in i Cor. xv : 45-49 — the only other passage in which Adam and Christ are compared.
The first Adam was made "a living soul," the last Adam was ' ' a quickening spirit. ' '
The first was " natural," the last " spiritual." The first was "earthly," the last "heavenly." Those who are earthly are like Adam; those who are heavenly are like Christ.
Now, to assume that the apostle was running a careful and exact parallel between the works of Adam and of Christ in this passage would be ab- surd. For example, assume that the expression ' ' a living soul ' ' was intended precisely to correspond with ' ' a quickening spirit, ' ' and then undertake to ascertain the exact meaning of the one from the other, and the absurdity becomes apparent. No, in both passages the apostle is evidently catching only at points of resemblance more or less obvious, and thus the word death in Rom. v need not be pressed to an exact fulness of meaning with the word
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 71
life, and allows, at least, of limitation to temporal death.
Verse 19 — " were made sinners."
This verse, as it stands in our translation, teaches Universalism out and out, for the unqualified state- ment is that as all " were made sinners " by Adam, so all shall be made righteous by Christ; and if " were made " really means what the words imply, that all men actually become sinners through Adam, then all men must actually become righteous through Christ, and Universalism is the logical result.
Now, the word translated ' ' were made ' ' occurs in the New Testament twenty-one times. In all the other places where Paul uses it it means to ordain or appoint as a ruler, conductor, overseer, judge, elder, or priest; but in no other one of them does it mean "were made," as here translated. And in neither of the other three places where it is used by other New Testament writers does it necessarily need the translation ' ' were made. ' ' The exact meaning of the word is to put, place, or lay down — that is, to put in a position ; and the meaning of the statement in v. 19, which seems the most natural, is this — That as all are made subject to temporal death for Adam's sin, and are so far put in the position of sin- ners for his sake, so, by the obedience of Christ, all are put in the position of the righteous so far as to re- ceive with them the benefits of Christ's redemption — the offer of pardon and the blessings of probation.*
* The paraphrase of KNIGHT on this passage is as follows : " For as by one man's (Adam's) offense the multitudes who have peopled this
72 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
A condensed summary of the entire passage is as follows:
First — The apostle says (v. 12) that by one man sin entered into the world, and death entered by it, and so death passed upon all men — that is, the con- demning sentence of temporal death was passed upon the entire race for Adam's sin. ' ' In Adam all die. ' ' (i Cor. xv : 22.) "By one man's offense death reigned'' — that is, the mortality which Adam incurred by sinning was transmitted, by God's ar- rangement, to the entire race.
In other words, God determined that Adam, inas- much as he had become mortal by sinning, should beget only mortal descendants. Hence the state- ment, " As in Adam all die." (i Cor. xv : 22.)
Secondly — He represents the work of Christ as equaling, and even in some respects surpassing, in its effects the results of Adam's sin. For example —
V. 15. By one, death comes to all; by One grace abounds to all.
V. 1 6. " The judgment ' ' — the condemning sen- tence of temporal death — follows "one" offense; the " free gift " follows "many."
world have been placed in the position of sinners by being handed over to death, so, by the obedience of Oi;e, even Christ, shall the same multi- tudes be placed in the position of righteous persons so far as to be raised from death," limiting thus, as it would appear, the universal conse- quences of Christ's death to the resurrection of all men from the dead. Perhaps the more extended view of STUART is preferable. He repre- sents the consequences of Christ's death to the entire race thus — "A state of renewed and peculiar probation, attended with many privileges and blessings, with the proffer of eternal life and glory procured for our guilty race by the lyord Jesus Christ." This certainly is a fair and consistent interpretation, and meets all that the passage necessarily requires.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 73
V. 17. By one sinner, and he a mere man, death temporal reigns; much more by the Infinite Savior, the elect shall reign in life eternal.
V. 18. By "one offense " (Greek) all come under a condemning sentence of temporal death; by "one righteousness" (Greek) all come under a provision designed and adapted for justification unto life.
V. 19. As, therefore, by the disobedience of one all are put in the position of ' ' sinners ' ' (by thus suffering temporal death for his sin), so, by the obedience of One, all are put in the position of the ' ' righteous ' ' (by the blessings they enjoy in com- mon with them) .
V. 20. This verse should be especially noticed in its bearings on the doctrine of hereditary depravity. In v. 12 sin entered (eiselthe} and death entered by it. Now, v. 20, the law {pareiseltheti) entered in addition, so that (as a consequence) the fall {parap- toma) "abounded" — filled up, extended, filled up the world; but grace met even this additional exi- gency, so that even where "sin abounded grace superabounded. ' '
[NOTE. — If we are to believe that the fall extended beyond Adam — "abounded" — embraced the race for the reason that his descendants were connected with him, then here in this 2oth verse, if anywhere, we should expect that doctrine would be stated. But this verse says nothing about it, and only mentions, as the occasion of this universal sinfulness, that the law came in — either natural or revealed, or both — im- plying that men now become sinners just as Adam
74 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
did, by an intelligent transgression of it; no allusion being made directly or indirectly to him as the occa- sion of this universal sinfulness.]
V. 2 1 . That as sin hath reigned in or with death temporal (en to thanatd), meaning, perhaps, in con- nection with it — attended by it — and commensurate in extent with it, so might grace reign through righteousness unto life eternal — that is, sin reigns unto death temporal, while grace reigns unto life eternal. Thus the apostle shows that, at every point, the system of Grace through Christ had tran- scended in blessings to mankind; the entire train of evils that had come upon the race from the sin of Adam.
3. ARGUMENT FROM REASON.
But it is asserted on the ground of reason that human sinfulness is derived from Adam. It appears, it is said, that the child inherits the depraved consti- tution of the parent, and, therefore, that depravity is thus handed down from parent to child, and hence must run back finally to a depraved ancestor for its origin. Answer:
The child inherits from the parent four things ; not always, but generally:
1. Physical peculiarities, as of feature and com- plexion.
2. Mental peculiarities, as of strength or weakness or aptitude for particular studies.
3. Peculiarities of disposition; wilful and head- strong parents generally having similarly constituted children.
4. Depraved tastes also, like the appetite in the
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 75
parent for intoxicating drink, or any other vicious indulgence.
But the primary occasion of sin, as we have seen, lies back of all these in the constitutional nature of the moral being; and this occasion is only modified in its external manifestations by the parental con- nection; so that all we know with certainty respect- ing this matter is that parental peculiarities are apt to determine what particular form the sin of the child shall take — that is, no matter who or what the parents may be, the child will certainly sin, and the sin be sure to take some form; but the peculiar form is very apt to be determined by the mental and physical habits of either or both parents, so that the form of sin, and not the sin itself, is all that can rightly be charged to parental connection. Adam and the angels both sinned without any depraved ancestor; and a child, with no parental connection, were the thing possible, or placed in any other possible circumstances at this stage of the creation than those in which he is placed, would undoubtedly do the same.*
* It will be obvious to the theological student that we have adopted, as a philosophical basis, the doctrine of Creationism rather than that of Traduciaiiism ; for altho, as Prof. Shedd observes, "the dodtrineof Traducianism is unquestionably more accordant with that of Origi- nal Sin than that of Creationism," still we are not able to see that as a philosophical hypothesis it explains and harmonizes as many of the facts of Reason and Revelation as that of Creationism. Indeed, as an hypothesis it applies only to the human race, while that of Creationism admits of application to this world, and to all worlds forever.
Whether, however, the theory of Creationism or Traducianism be adopted, makes no difference with the point in question. For suppose souls are propagated, the' only necessary inference is that Adam begat a son like himself — a free, moral agent, and as such having in him the
j6 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
4. THE HYPOTHESIS NOT TO BE ENTERTAINED.
The doctrine, therefore, that men sin from a con- nection with Adam, is taught neither by Reason nor Revelation, and is a mere hypothesis of human inven- tion to account for the certainty and universality of human sinfulness. And now regarding it as an hypothesis merely, it is useless, unreasonable, mis- chievous, and every way objectionable.
1 . It is useless. For the sole value of an hypoth- esis lies in its accounting for facts. Now, we have three facts or instances of sin — the angels, Adam, and ourselves; and the hypothesis accounts only for our sin, leaving the other two instances with no explanation whatever. And what is an hypothesis worth that explains only one-third of the fadls ?
2. It is unreasonable. Much confusion has arisen in theological discussion from not properly discrim- inating between human nature and human character. Men often say that human nature is bad when they only mean human character.
Now, properly speaking, human nature is what God makes men to be by virtue of their creation. Human character is what men make themselves to be by their own acting.
Human nature God makes ' ' in His own image. ' ' "Men made after the similitude of God." (James iii : 9.) Human character men make after another pattern ; as our Savior said: ' ' Ye are of your father
same occasion of sin that Adam himself had, and that the angels had ; and that the son sinned, not because descended from a depraved an- cestor, but simply and solely because he v,-as a moral being, and sinned for the same reason that Adam and the angels did.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 77
the Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." (John viii : 44. )
Human nature, therefore, or what men are at birth, is Godlike; human character, or what men make themselves afterward, is devilish.
(i) Human nature. This is the nature God gives men. That men are made " after the similitude of God ' ' means that they have powers of thinking, feeling, and acting — an intellect to know and under- stand God, sensibilities wherewith to love Him, and a will to choose His service. This is God's image in the soul. This is the nature God gives every moral being, and for whatever a man has in him at birth God alone is responsible. Therefore, to say, as some do, that men are born sinful — that they have at birth a " sinful nature" — is to trace that sinful nature directly to the Almighty, and make Him its responsible author. Moreover, it is a statement so absurd in itself that nothing can be more so. For if a man is born a sinner, then he can not avoid being a sinner; and, if he can not avoid it, then he is not to blame for it; and if he is not to blame for it, then he is innocent ; and we have the manifest absurdity of a sinful innocence, or an innocent sinfulness. With the same propriety might we speak of an honest thief or a truthful liar.
Also, " sin is the transgression of the law; " and how can a being transgress law when too immature and undeveloped even to know what law is ?
Others, therefore, would not say that the infant was born sinful, but only that he inherits a depraved nature, because he will certainly sin by and by. And
78 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
such often speak of the infant in terms of reproba tion, calling him "a little viper," for example, only undeveloped as yet. This is wicked. It is tradu- cing God's image in the soul. It was certain that Adam would eventually sin, but think of God as calling him a viper — a moral monster during his innocence because he would sin at some future time, thus casting reflection on His own work.
There is no reason for calling the infant depraved because he will sin any more than there would have been for calling Adam depraved before his fall, be- cause he would sin eventually. Such statements respecting the infant are unreasonable. There is no depravity in any being but such as results from re- sponsible sinning; and no other sinful character is possible but such as results from an intelligent and wilful transgression of the law of God; and the idea of inherited sinfulness, or even inherited depravity, as the expression is generally understood, violates our necessary ideas of moral and responsible action.
(2) Human character. This is ever the result of intelligent, voluntary, and responsible choice. This every man creates for himself by voluntarily choos- ing; and when carried out into action is called con- duct, and no true character is possible before this intelligent choice. A good character is the result of obedience to law, and a bad character is the result of disobedience to law; and no other moral character is possible or conceivable. Created holiness or created sinfulness is, therefore, an absurdity. And when theologians say, as they so often do, that Adam was created holy, they use language with no intelligible
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 79
meaning. A moral being, at the time of his crea- tion, can be only innocent. (3) It is mischievous.
1 . It impugns the benevolence of God. The very first question of theology is, ' ' Who made you ? ' ' Answer, " God." And He made me as I am, so that everything in me at birth is His work, even all the consequences of parental sinfulness. This He claims. "/ visit the iniquities of the parents upon the children." Therefore, for all that is in us at birth God alone is responsible, and if depravity \K inherited, then is He its responsible author. And how can such an arrangement be reconciled with infinite and perfect benevolence ? Every Christian shrinks from saying that GOD is the responsible author of depravity.
2. It hinders the Spirit's work of conviction of sin. If men under conviction of sin are taught that they are born with a depravity, or tendency to sin, or hindrances in themselves to right living and act- ing, of which God is the responsible author, the very next thought is that they are not entirely to blame for their sinful conduct. They must be, to some ex- tent, excusable. And the writer has known lamen- table instances where conviction of sin has been thus stifled. Is it said in reply that powerful revivals of religion have occurred under such preaching? Granted; but only in spite of it and through the in- fluence of other Bible truth which the Spirit could use. Revivals have increased in number and in power where such doctrines have been omitted in preaching.
80 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
3. It embarrasses the dodlrine of the true human- ity of Christ. The Scriptures teach that Christ was "made in all things " like us; and if we inherit de- pravity at birth, then He did; and we never say that Christ inherited depravity.
4. It has a calamitous bearing upon the dodlrine of Future Punishment. It is believed that the wave of Universalism that is now sweeping over the Or- thodox Churches, and threatening to overwhelm the system of evangelical faith, is due, to a very great extent, to the general belief in this dodlrine of He- reditary Depravity.
To hold and teach in the first place that God has connected the human race with a depraved ancestor, by virtue of which connection He pours one stream of moral pollution down through the entire race, and then, in the very next breath, that He damns men eternally for being sinners — (and this is pre- cisely the shape in which the dodlrine lies in the minds of vast numbers of professing Christians, even, as it is believed, in the minds of a very large majority) — is so manifestly inconsistent with the didlates of benevolence that men have come to feel quite generally that either the dodlrine of Hereditary Depravity, or the dodlrine of Endless Punishment must be given up; and they have begun, all over the land, to give up the latter, and to conclude that the dodlrine of Endless Punishment is ' ' intrinsically ab- surd; " even more, that it is unjust, unreason- able, and inconsistent with the Divine benevolence. And it is believed that the main reason why the members of our Orthodox Churches are, to so great
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 8l
an extent, rejecting the doctrine of endless punish- ment is their belief in this doctrine of hereditary depravity.
Here was the miserable starting point of John Foster, and which involved his own mind in such inextricable confusion on the doctrine of Future Punishment.
Accepting the teachings of the theologians upon the doctrine of Hereditary Depravity, he says:
"But, still, what is man? He comes into this world with a nature fatally corrupt, and powerfully tending to actual evil." And then, again, drawing his views from the same source, he contemplates the Almighty as "bringing, of His own sovereign will, a race of creatures into existence in such condition that they certainly will and must — must by their nature and circumstances — go wrong. ' '
No wonder that, from such premises, he should say, respecting the doctrine of endless punishment, ' ' I acknowledge my inability to admit this belief, together with a belief in the Divine goodness. ' '
The experience of Henry Ward Beecher was sim- ilar. In the latter part of his life he rejected the doc- trine of Endless Punishment, and he says of him- self that " the revolution in his educational belief" was owing to a necessary recoil " from the old scho- lastic theology which made sin spring from a corrupt nature — a nature corrupted through the fall of Adam." And no wonder that multitudes in our evangelical Churches, starting from the same pre- mises, should conclude that the doctrine in question is irreconcilable with the Divine benevolence; even
82 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
treat it with ridicule and contempt, and call it "in- trinsically absurd. ' ' Indeed, there is no alternative. Either the doctrine of Hereditary Depravity, as com- monly accepted, must be given up, or else the doc- trine of Future Punishment must be given up.
4. The doctrine is exceedingly objectionable in all respects.
The Bible declares that God ' ' hates all workers of iniquity; " and yet this doctrine represents Him as aiming, at the very outset of the race, to make all mankind just such ' ' workers of iniquity. ' '
He commands men to be holy — " Be ye holy for I am holy; " — and yet is represented as planning at the outset to have them unholy by connecting them with a depraved ancestor.
He is represented as laying a sure foundation for their sinning, and then commanding them to hate sin and repent of it.
He makes an arrangement which results in bring- ing the entire race under the power and dominion of sin, and then makes an infinite sacrifice in Re- demption to deliver them from its power. Many of our distinguished theologians — STUART, for exam- ple— regard the matter in just this light. They hold that the connecting of the race with Adam is, in itself, a calamity, and that the Atonement comes in as a " Compensation ' ' to make up for these pre- viously-inflicted evils and calamities. But if so, then — as has already been said — God was under ob- ligation to men to provide an Atonement — not merely under obligation to His own benevolence, but to the sinners themselves. But how, then, is it a purely
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 83
gracious dispensation — a dorea en chariti, as the apostle terms it — " a gift by grace," a " free gift " (Rom. v: 15, 16), and which God was under no obligation to men to bestow ? This robs it of its crowning glory as being a scheme of pure mercy; even it represents the Almighty as inflicting on the race a great calamity, and then making up for His own bad work by the Plan of Redemption.
In brief review of these last two points — Heredi- tary Depravity and Evolution — let it be added —
That to hold that men are born depraved — that they derive their tendency to sin from their connec- tion with sinful Adam, of which connection God is manifestly the responsible author, is to make the doctrine of Endless Punishment logically impossi- ble; and the Churches which have held to both doc- trines have done so by a logical inconsistency; and John Foster's reasoning from his premises was logical and right. Endless Punishment for sin can not, in such circumstances, be rightly inflicted.
Also, to hold, with the Evolutionists, that men get their tendency to sin from a ' ' semibrutal char- acter, ' ' derived from the animal creation from which they are said to have sprung, making sin a ' ' neces- sary concomitant of the evolutionary process; " or a something that ' ' God has fastened upon us, "is to make sin unavoidable, and Endless Punishment for it logically impossible.
Again, Paul says, in Rom. i : 18: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. ' ' But now to speak of the wrath of God against a man for acting out the
84 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
very nature that He gave him, either by connecting him with sinful Adam, or with the brute creation, not only impugns the benevolence of God, but ren- ders the defense of his conduct impossible.
Moreover, both of these schemes give a good rea- son for the sin committed, and, therefore, neither of them can be the true reason. For Endless Punish- ment for sin can in no way be made to appear log- ically consistent with benevolence, except as the responsibility for the sin is made to rest entirely upon the sinner; and the effort has been in this chapter to make it thus. And in the view herein presented, when he is arraigned at the bar of final judgment for his sin, he will be speechless.
5. THE REAL, CONSEQUENCES OF ADAM'S SIN TO THE RACE.
1. Temporal death. Adam having sinned, an im- mortality on earth for him was not desirable; and hence the sentence of temporal death on him.
Then, as the race would be sinful in any possible circumstances, God determined to so connect them with Adam that he should beget only mortal de- scendants like himself — so that their mortality should be the result of this connection; and thus, all men died in him ; immortality on earth to them, as a sinful race, being as calamitous an arrangement as for Adam; therefore the statement, "As in Adam all die" (i Cor. xv : 22) — that is mortality is in- herited from mortal Adam.
2. Physical labor and toil. " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread." (Gen. iii : 19.) And
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 85
all know that the necessity for continuous labor is one of the greatest blessings to a world of sinners.
3. Physical evils of various kinds — pain, suffering, disease, and wretchedness, coming on men, not merely on account of Adam's sin, but the sins of their immediate parentage, and coming thus mainly perhaps, to make men fear sin from seeing its terri- ble consequences in those they most love.
4. Another consequence of the parental relation to the race is a tendency to indulgence in the same forms of sin of which the parent is guilty. The child will sin any way, but the particular form which the sin shall take may be determined, or at least modified, by the sin of the parent. This is all that can be proved either from reason or revelation. And whatever this hereditary result may be, there is no rea- son for assuming it to be a calamity, for without this parental connection it may be certain that the child would sin in some other and worse way — sin, per- haps, as the Devil did — from the impulses of his original constitution merely, and perhaps be thrown by it, as he was, beyond the possibility of repentance and pardon.
Now, the point to be especially noticed in respect to all the foregoing results of the parental connec- tion is, that they are to be regarded as the evil con- sequences of sin to the child, and not as the cause of his sin. Not one of them is designed in any way to perpetuate sin, but to hinder it. They are designed by the Almighty to create in the heart of humanity a fear of sin — a dread to commit it on account of these consequences — and thus to accumulate obstacles
86 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
in the way of its commission, and bring out in bolder and stronger relief the beauty of holiness, "whose ways are pleasantness, and all of whose paths are peace. ' '
The doctrine of Hereditary Depravity has thus been treated at some considerable length because it has such a vital connection with the main design of this book, and we now resume the general subject.
II. Characteristics of Sin. SEC. i. — Sin is a wicked principle of the heart.
A sinful heart is one in which there is a settled de- termination to have its own will and way, irrespect- ive of the will and pleasure of the Almighty. ' ' The wicked through the pride of his countenance will not seek after God. God is not in all his thoughts. ' ' (Ps. x : 4) — i. e. , not in any of his thoughts. Sin is selfishness, and selfishness sacrifices the higher good to its own inferior interests and pleasure; and with this wicked principle within, a man is ready to sacri- fice even the interests of God's kingdom whenever they interfere with his own pleasure. But
2. In God's arrangement of this world this selfish principle is under great and constant restraint, and men are, to a very great extent, prevented from act- ing out their selfishness, so that the external conduct even of a wicked man, is oftentimes not dictated by this selfish principle, but by other principles and motives which God has implanted in the very nature of a moral being, and in the workings of human society. God has created a vast amount of moral machinery in this world to restrain the outworkings
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 87
of this selfish principle, and thus to promote human happiness and the general welfare, and secure the beautiful and beneficent results which we see about us. For example, a man can rot but have a regard for his own temporal welfare, and his business pros- perity; he has necessarily a degree of self-respect, a love of approbation — a desire for the good opinion of his fellow-men, the love of justice, the dislike of suffering, and a wish to relieve it; he encounters the relations of domestic life — the family and the home; he meets the restraints of government in the family, the state, and the nation; the laws and usages of society, and a constitutional amiability strongly in- fluence him. All these are ever working to obstruct the outbreaking of sin, and to restrain the acting out of the selfish principle within, so that, altho a wicked man at heart, his conduct, in the estimation of men, is often praiseworthy, and he is held up as a pattern of goodness and benevolence.
But this is all God's work, and He only is to be commended for the beautiful and beneficent results which appear in the workings of human society. They are due to the workings of the great moral machinery which He has devised and set in opera- tion to make human existence possible, and especi- ally to make this world, notwithstanding human wickedness, a world of mercy and probation. With- out these restraints on human selfishness, human life would be unendurable. They are all God's restraint upon the outworkings of human depravity. Nevertheless
3. A man's character, as estimated by the Al-
88 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
mighty, is always determined by the ruling princi- ple of the heart in its relations to himself, and not by the external conduct. "Man looketh on the out- ward appearance, but God looketh on the heart. ' ' If a man has no settled principle of obedience to Him, He considers him wicked throughout; and none of his external, commendable acts, as men regard them, are of any account in His estimate of the man's character. Hence, Paul says: " Tho I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and tho I give my body to be burned, and have not charity " — the principle of love and obedience to God — "it profiteth me nothing." (i Cor. xiii 13.) Men may reckon him good on account of his benevolent acts towards his fellow-men, but God regards him as wicked on ac- count of his being all the while careless and neglect- ful of his relations to Him. Notwithstanding his external benevolence, the wicked principle within his heart has not been renounced, and God reckons him a wicked man all the while, and in all his doings. "The plowing of the wicked is sin." (Prov. xxi 14.) Also his rebellion against himself represses all other feelings of complacency with his otherwise commendable external conduct. What cares the great central government of a nation whether the head of a rebellion be a good husband, father, and neighbor or not, while he is aiming to destroy the nation, and rend its grand and glorious fabric in pieces ? And when arraigned for his trea- son, who would think of urging his domestic virtues in extenuation of his mighty, public wrong?
4. Hence, all who are not Christians are down-
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 89
right enemies of God. ' ' He that is not with Me is against Me." (Matt, xii : 30.) This divides the whole universe of moral beings into two classes — the righteous and the wicked. There is no neutral ground. All are downright friends or downright enemies of God, depending wholly on the ruling principle of the heart.
SEC. 2. This selfish principle exerts a predominat- ing power over the moral nature.
It not merely exists in it, but so thoroughly dom- inates it that a free being will do and dare anything before he will give up his own will and way. Illus- trations of this are abundant. The rebel angels dared the wrath of God rather than give up their own will and way. Adam in the garden did the same. We witness the same thing now in the rebel- lion of the child against parental authority. What terrible collision often results ! What determination on the part of the child ! What desperation — the struggle protradled for hours before the point of yielding is reached. Also take the world over, the last thing men will give up is their own wills. Even persons of great constitutional amiability not unfrequently find a terrible struggle in submitting to God, and becoming true Christians ; while the mass of men will not even attempt submission, and dare the attitude of persistent and life-long rebellion against the Almighty. And this attitude of hostil- ity to God, and resistance to his authority, is not the result of ignorance. The child of pious parents, educated to believe the Bible, and who has never doubted for a moment the doctrine of the endless
go THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
punishment of the wicked, will yet go on in sin day after day for years, believing all the while that he is daring by it the wrath of God, and risking his eternal salvation. And he will knowingly incur this infin- ite danger rather than give up his own will and submit to God.
And so strong is this wilful purpose of rebellion, that when long persevered in by wicked men, the Bible likens its surrender to matters of utter impos- sibility— "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots, then may ye also do good who are accustomed to do evil." (Jer. 13 : 23.)
SEC. 3. The exceeding sinful-ness of sin.
The mere inclination in a moral being to have his own way, is not sin, being inseparable from the nature of a free moral agent ; but the sin comes in when that inclination is followed by a determination to have his own way, amounting to an internal and spiritual rebellion against the restraints of God's Law and authority. This is then carried out into action and involves —
1. Disobedience to the commands laid upon him. The command, in the case of the Fallen Angels was perhaps, ' ' not to leave their own habitation ; ' ' for this is what in Jude 6, they are declared to have done. In the case of Adam it was, ' ' Thou shalt not eat of the tree, ' ' and his sin consisted in a diredl disobedience to this plain and positive command. Sin, therefore, involves a diredl disobedience to the commands of God. This involves —
2. A determination to follow his desires and in- clinations— to give up to self-indulgence — to get
MORAL EVIL IN ITS ORIGIN. 91
whatever pleases him regardless of consequences — hi short, to put his own inclination and pleasure above every thing else.
3. Also it is a determination not to follow the dic- tates of reason and judgment, which declare to him plainly that the L,aw of God is right, that obedience to it is right, and that his best interests and welfare will be secured by yielding this obedience. Also
4. It is a determination not to practise the self- denial necessary to obedience, and which is seen to be reasonable and right ; and is, therefore, a deter- mination to put self and self-indulgence above reason, conscience, and God. Also
5. In sinning he stifles the admonitions of con- science— the sense of moral obligation — the feeling that I ought to obey, and ought not to disobe)' ; thus quenching within himself these sacred monitions.
6. Furthermore — So long as he refuses to obey God, he not only puts himself above him, but in direct opposition to him. He arrays himself in posi- tive and downright hostility to him, and in rebellion against his authority. In the language of our Savior in the parable, he declares that he "will not have Him to reign over him." (Luke 19 : 14.)
And even when convinced of his own sinful con- duct, instead of being made humble and repentant in view of it, no other feeling is awakened within him but that of hatred and opposition. And even beyond this, rather than accept the just punishment of his sin, he would hurl the Almighty from his throne, if he had the power ; and would actually do it were he not met by Omnipotent Energy.
93 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
7. Finally — Sin assails the very foundations of Law and Government, and aims to subvert the moral order of the universe, and make it one uni- versal scene of disorder, anarchy, and ruin — in short, a universal Hell. And it would accomplish this result were it not restrained by the infinite energies of the Almighty.
On the whole, therefore, sin is the determination to have my own way at whatever sacrifice — even that of God and the universe, and is, therefore, seen to be, in all cases, the outworking of supreme, un- mitigated selfishness.
These things taken together show what tremendous meaning there is in the declaration of the Apostle, ' ' That sin by the commandment might become ex- ceeding sinful.''' (Rom. 7: 13.)
CHAPTER III.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS RELATIONS TO THE ALMIGHTY.
SEC. I. Why has the Almighty entered on the creation of a moral system ? Answer : For his own pleasure. ' ' Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. ' ' (Rev. 4 : n.) What most tends to promote that pleasure?
1. One answer, and the answer most generally given, is — That as God is the fountain of all exist- ence, His highest pleasure must be in having His exalted position properly recognized — to be honored and glorified by all intelligent existences ; and, therefore, that He created the Moral System primar- ily for His own glory. So that all things that take place were foreordained to this great end — the glory of God. Nothing indeed that actually takes place, is excepted. The perdition of ungodly men, and even their sin were not only permitted, but designed and intended for the same great end ; and, as a matter of fadl, do, in the highest degree glorify God. (See PRES. EDWARDS and the Westminster Confes- sion.) But
2. Another answer is possible. While the proper recognition of His dignity and glory on the part of His intelligent creatures, is, undoubtedly, one great source of pleasure to Him, it is believed that He ex- periences a higher degree of pleasure from loving and being loved; and that this is the primary reason
93
94 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
why He has entered on the creation of a moral sys- tem. In this view the bestowing of affection, and receiving affection in return, become fundamental — the primary design of creation, and not the proper recognition of His exalted position in the universe.
This first answer makes, in theological phrase, Divine Sovereignty fundamental.
The second answer makes Divine Love funda- mental.
These two views are in some respects radically different, and lead to distinct practical results. This latter view is the one adopted in this discussion, namely — That the primary, fundamental reason for the creation of the moral system was — God wanted beings whom He could love, and who could love Him in return.
1. He desired to love. But He could not love stocks and stones and material things any more than we can. Neither could He love the brute creation, for they could not understand and appreciate Him. He could truly love only a proper object of love ; and there is no proper object of affection but a free, moral agent — one who can understand and appre- ciate affection, and especially that affection which has its foundation in moral qualities and character.
2. He desired to be loved. But none but beings made in- His image could either appreciate His affec- tion, or love Him in return. And yet the love of one free, intelligent being is a higher source of hap- piness to Him than all the material works that His hands have builded. Why ? Because it is affection freely and voluntarily rendered. To illustrate —
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. 95
The vine furnishes us with its delicious clusters, and we enjoy them. But we cannot love the vine for producing them. Why not ? Simply because it turnishes them of necessity. Suppose equally deli- cious clusters were sent us by a friend. The pleasure in partaking of them would be the same, but how immeasurably superior the satisfaction from them as being the expression of free, voluntary affeElion !
This, therefore, is the prime reason why God has created a system of free, moral agents — He wanted beings whom He could love, and He wanted beings who could love Him in return, because appreciating His moral excellence. ' ' God is love : and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him " (i John iv : 16) ; and so God wanted beings in whom He could dwell, and who could dwell in Him, through the existence and exercise of this mutual affection.
SEC. 2. What is the leading end or object which God has in view in the progress and management of this Moral System ?
Answer : To have it a Holy Universe. For
1. He can not love moral beings, nor they Him, unless they are holy. Also
2. He must desire that beings made like himself — "in His own image" — should aft like himself; and as He is holy in character and conduct, that they should be holy in character and conduct. Also
3. God is supremely blessed in the conscious con- formity of His own character and conduct to the eternal and immutable principles of Right, i. e. , in His own conscious Rectitude or Holiness. Then,
96 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
the same must be true of all beings ' ' made in His image ; ' ' and the same blessedness must result to them from their conscious rectitude as results to the Almighty Himself. When, therefore, God says to His whole moral creation "Be ye holy for / am holy, ' ' He commands them to do the best thing both for Himself and for them ; and if they would but obey Him and do it, it would be the best kind of moral conduct, and be to them the highest possible source of blessedness even as it is to Him.
The conclusion is inevitable that there can be no possible or conceivable system better than a pure and holy universe of moral beings.
SEC. 3. The Prevention of Sin.
If God loves Holiness supremely why does He not secure it by the exertion of His Omnipotent Power ? The only possible answer is that even Omnipotence has its limitations. This some deny, not seeing apparently that there are things lying beyond the realm of Power and Soverignty, and appertaining to the very nature of things, which no amount of mere power can touch. For example
1. God, as we have seen, desires Holiness in His moral creatures, first, last and always. But He can not have holiness without Freedom. He absolutely can not ; for the very idea and definition of Holiness is z. free, -voluntary choice of Right. Here, there- fore, is limitation at the very outset. Here is a cannot at the very starting-point. God cannot have Holiness without Freedom.
2 . Then follows another cannot. He can not have Freedom of choice without the possibility of a wrong
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. 97
choice, i. <?., the possibility of sin. Here is another limitation growing out of the very nature of things — the very nature of Freedom. Because freedom of choice means real freedom — unrestricted freedom in the action of the will. And this necessarily implies the possibility of a wrong choice. In a system, therefore, of free, moral agents God can not prevent the possibility of sin.
3. A free, moral agent can be controlled and gov- erned by nothing but motive. Here is another cannot, and the limitations multiply. For the action of the will, in a free, moral agent, is only in the direction of choice — of free choice. And this can not be compelled — can not be reached and affected by anything that it can not resist ; as otherwise its free- dom would be ruined. Power, therefore, as some- thing compelling moral action, is out of the question. It can not be used with a free, moral agent, and the only influence proper to be used in the government of moral beings is motive*
* In connection with the matter of freedom, it may be well to notice a point which has given trouble to some, viz: — It is said that if an act be certain, it must also be necessary; and as all action is certain to the Divine mind, therefore, there can be no freedom in action. The solu- tion of the difficulty is— That there are several kinds of necessity, and one kind is entirely consistent with freedom. There is
1. Physical Necessity. Now the fundamental idea of necessity is — An impossibility of the contrary; and this element is common to all kinds of necessity. Physical necessity is the necessity, or impossibility of the contrary, given by the nature of cause, and amounts to compulsion; e. g., gravity acting on a stone, and causing it to fall. The certainty that the stone will fall, is determined by the nature of cause acting upon it; and under this there is no possibility of freedom.
2. Metaphysical Necessity, as that 2 and 2 make 4. Here there is an impossibility of the contrary, but it has nothing to do with moral action.
3. Philosophical Necessity, or the necessity given by certainty. In this the mind first sees the certainty, aud then sees an impossibility of
98 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
But why could not the influences of the Holy Spirit have been used to prevent the entrance of sin into the moral system ? Answer : The peculiar in- fluences of the Holy Spirit belong apparently to that scheme of grace and mercy which has been devised for the recovery of the sinful in this world through an atonement ; as says the Apostle, ' ' Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ ' ' (Tit. iii : 6) ; and there is no reason for sup- posing that they could properly have been exerted upon the first sinful beings to prevent their sin.
Even the influences of the Holy Spirit in conver- sion appear to be used only to give efficacy to motive. And in this work He apparently affects only the antecedents of volition, leaving the will un- touched. He enlightens the intellect and quickens the sensibilities, so that a man is made to see truth as he had not before seen it, and to feel its power as he had not before felt it ; and when this is done, He
the contrary growing out of it; 1. e., the mind sees that if a thing is certain to be, then it is impossible but that it should be.
Here the necessity is not seen from the nature of the cause, as in Physical Necessity, but the certainty is first seen, and the necessity, or impossibility of the contrary, is merely inferred from it. The necessity is no greater than the certainty, and is derived from it; and this neces- sity is entirely consistent with freedom.
For example — Motives give certainty •without physical necessity. Moral beings are ever acting under the influence of motives; but mo- tives have no compelling power; and the moral being, acting under their influence, always acts freely and responsibly. In every such action he might have acted the other way — either not to have done what he did, or to have done what he neglected to do. This is demon- strated, as was said in a former connection, by the single fact of remorse, which would be impossible without conscious freedom.
No one but the Almighty can know beforehand how a moral being will act under the influence of motive; and how He can know it is ut- terly beyond our comprehension. We do not know beforehand how a moral being will act, for he can resist all motives.
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. 99
undoubtedly stops exactly there, leaving the will to its own voluntary action in view of the motives pre- sented ; and, therefore, at this exact point, throws upon the man himself the entire responsibility of the resulting choice. The experience of the [Prodigal Son is in point. First he thinks, "In my father's house is bread enough and to spare." Then he feels, ' ' I perish with hunger. ' ' The resulting choice or determination ' ' I will arise and go to my father," was apparently entirely his own, in which decision he ' ' made himself 'a new heart. (Eze. xviii :
3I-)
Indeed, under a system merely of law, such as we suppose existed previous to the atonement, to bring in any extraneous influence, like that of the Holy Spirit to induce obedience in moral beings, might only tend to weaken the influence of law over them, and eventually undermine the entire authority of the government.
To illustrate — Suppose a father to lay some com- mand upon his child; and then, instead of enforcing the command by the simple weight of his authority, should use some extraneous influence to secure obe- dience. For example, suppose he should offer him an orange. What is the consequence ?
First — He weakens his authority and impairs his influence over his child.
Secondly — Obedience could probably be secured a second time, in similar circumstances, only by means of some additional inducement.
Thirdly — This method of procedure continued, would result in the confirmed and hopeless rebellion
100 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
of the child against all parental authority, as well as lay the foundation of rebellion in the entire family.
So in the government of God. Under a system of mere law, to bring in some extraneous influence to secure obedience to his commands, might only tend to weaken the influence of law, and lead ultimately to rebellion. Or, if no evil consequences should fol- low to those directly influenced, still, the knowledge of the fact, disseminated through the universe, that God was thus securing the obedience of his creatures, might undermine the foundations of government elsewhere.
In respect to this world, as the majesty of law has here been first sustained by an Atonement, such a result can not be apprehended. But to have exerted this influence upon the first sinful beings to prevent their sinning, might have been attended with evil consequences to the entire system.
As we know, therefore, of no other means which God has ever made use of to govern moral beings, except motives and the influences of the Holy Spirit to make them efficacious, therefore, there is no reason for supposing that, under a system of mere law, such as we have every reason to think existed previously to the Atonement, moral beings could have been controlled by anything but simple motive.*
* Assumptions are often made respecting the influences of the Divine Spirit, and His peculiar office — work in human conversion and salva- tion, which are not warranted either by reason or the Scriptures, e. g. to assume that there are no limitations to the exercise or exertion or use of the influences of the Holy Spirit in the conviction and conversion of men — that God could use or employ them to any and every extent, and in any and all circumstances — that no considerations affecting moral government can possibly come in to render some degree of re-
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. IOI
4. And now we come to another cannot — another limitation. God, as we have seen, is aiming to se- cure all possible Holiness. And as He puts this above all things else, and subordinates everything else to it, so He must use all possible instrumentality in securing it ; and as motives are the only instru- mentality proper to be used, He must use all there are. And if He uses all there are, then He can do no more than He is doing in the way of securing holiness and preventing sin. And He may truth- fully say of his entire vineyard of the world, as He said of His vineyard of the Jewish nation, " What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it!" (Is. v : 4.) When, there- fore, He plies His moral universe with the three infinite motives, Heaven, Hell, and Calvary — and no motives more influential than these are possible — He does the best that can be done for the prevention of sin.
It appears, therefore, that in the matter of pre- venting sin, there are manifest limitations of Divine Power growing out of the very nature of things — out of the nature of a moral being and of a moral system.
The prevention of sin, therefore, in a moral sys- tem is impossible. It might be prevented for a time, but not forever. It can not be prevented wholly
striction necessary, is what, with our limited knowledge, we are not qualified to do. Nor do any declarations of the Bible respecting the influences of the Holy Spirit warrant us in making such assumptions. But if this be so, then how or when or where or to what extent they can be properly used or exerted, we do not know; and all we can prop- erly assert is that God uses them in this world, to the full extent that He wisely and properly can; and there we must stop.
102 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
except by the non-creation of the moral system. The simple logic in the case is this — God hates sin. He says He does. And if He hates it, then, of course, He would have prevented it if He could. He has not prevented it, and, therefore, could not.
Here appears to be a fallacy in the Westminster Confession — That Omnipotence has no limitations. This is not stated in so many words, but is assumed throughout the entire Confession. Divine sover- eignty is made fundamental and without limitation. If sin exists, the assumption is that God desires it should exist. If moral beings are lost, it is because God desires they should be lost ; and He even ' ' or- dains their perdition for his own glory." The declaration " He doeth His will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth," is accepted as having no limitations ; not seeing appa- rently that when God creates beings free, He must accept all the certain consequences of that freedom ; and as freedom necessarily limits power, so He must and does accept this limitation of His own power.
As a matter of fact, He does not desire the exist- ence of sin, and has " no pleasure in the death of the wicked, ' ' and His only pleasure is that ' ' he turn from his evil way and live." And, therefore, the sin and perdition of ungodly men comes to pass only because Omnipotence can not prevent it in a system of free, moral agents.
That Divine Omnipotence has no limitations, is the corner-stone of Universalism. Its reasoning is this—
i. God is omnipotent, and can, therefore, do any
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. 103
thing and every thing He pleases, and all things are in accordance with His will and pleasure.
2. He says He " will have all men to be saved ; " and that He ' ' has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. ' ' Therefore
3. All will be saved.
But this assumes, like the Calvanistic doctrine, that omnipotence has no limitations, and that if God desires a man to be saved, then he will be saved.
It assumes also that the universe is governed by Omnipotent Power and Force — that this influence can properly be used in the moral world, and that by this influence God can so guide and govern moral beings as to have them act as He pleases. But this contradicts all that we see about us, for we see that He does not have things as He pleases. His commands are violated, His name blasphemed, His Sabbaths desecrated, His Bible neglected, and He Himself treated with personal contempt and in- sult. Does God desire to be thus treated ?
But furthermore, any supposition that the moral universe is guided and governed, or can be, by force, exerted to any extent whatever, even that of omnipotence, is absurd and impossible.* For moral
* But does it not say in Prov. 21: i, that " the King's heart is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers [rivulets] of water: he turneth it whith- ersoever he will ?" meaning that if the King's heart could be turned thus, of course, those of all his subjects, and of every one else, could be. (The reference here is to artificial irrigation; where the little "water- courses " ( Rev. Ver. ) in the gardens could be readily diverted from one channel to another merely by the foot. )
This refers to the power of the Almighty over human heart* in re- spect to what might be termed specific action — how men shall be led to think, feel, and a<5t in the every day circumstances of life ; but does not
IO4 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
beings are not machines, and cannot be moved by force, though exerted to any extent. Indeed, there is no more intrinsic absurdity in imagining an en- gineer getting his locomotive on the track, and then attempting to drive it by reading to it the Ten Com- mandments, than in supposing God to put His moral creature on the track of free and responsible action, and then to attempt to move him by power — by the force of His omnipotence.
The fact is, the two great empires of matter and mind are governed by influences utterly unlike — one by force and compulsion, and the other by mo- tive and persuasion. And each must be governed by its own appropriate influence.
So we say that God can not govern mind by force any more than He can govern matter by motive.
Would it impair the omnipotence of God at all to say that He can not govern the solar system by the Ten Commandments ? Certainly not ; for this is only saying that He cannot act inconsistently with His own works ; that is, He can not use with matter an influence appropriate only to mind.
On the other hand, would it impair His omnipo- tence at all to say that He can not convert men with crow-bars ? Certainly not ; for this involves a simi- lar inconsistency. It is only saying that He can not use with mind an influence appropriate only to mat- refer to the great, fundamental change of principle and character de- nominated conversion. In this, the action of the Almighty is repre- sented as being " according to the working of His mighty power which He wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead. ' ' Eph. i • 19,20.
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. 105
ter. It plainly appears, therefore, that force can not be used in the government of mind , and that omni- potence, or infinite force, is just as powerless for this as finite. Even God Himself can govern His moral universe only by motive, and must ever leave His moral creatures as absolutely free in determining their own characters and conduct, as if there were no such thing as omnipotence.*
If, therefore, a man acts rightly and becomes holy in character through faith and repentance, it will be the result of his own free choice; and God will com- mend and reward him accordingly. And if he chooses a wicked and ungodly life, he will do it on his own responsibility, as a free and accountable being ; and God will deal with him accordingly in the matter of punishment.
But let us take this matter of the Divine preven- tion of sin to the tribunal of Common Sense.
If a man should stand by and see a murder com- mitted, and make no effort to prevent it, and the fact should be proved against him, he would be re- garded as a particeps criminis — partaker in the crime.
* Even motives must be used carefully so as not to touch the freedom of the will. For example — Who does not believe that the sin of Adam in the garden could have been prevented at the time, by a thunder- clap breaking at the moment from the clear sky? Then -why did not God prevent his sin in that way ? Because, although not reaching the point of compulsion, yet it would have seriously affected the action of the Free Will in its relations to Himself. Adam would, in that case, have obeyed the thunder-clap and not God. And such a method of procedure continued, would, in the end, have destroyed all true moral government over him. God, therefore, only said to him " Eat, and thou shalt die," and there left it
106 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
If a man see another committing a theft, or at- tempting a burglary, or any other violation of the laws of the land, and makes no effort to prevent it, the law regards him as a partaker in the crime.
If now the Almighty stands by and sees His own laws violated — even "permits" the violation when he might prevent it, how is He not as truly respon- sible for the sin as a man would be in similar cir- cumstances ?
Also, take this passage, ' ' To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Men everywhere believe that preventing sin is doing good. It is so regarded the world over. If there- fore, God should not prevent sin when he might, and thus neglect to do the good He might do, why would it hot be sin in Him as truly as the same con- duct would be in a man ?
Also, take this same common-sense view of His own declarations. He says He ' ' is not willing that any should perish." Then, to be consistent, He must do all He can to prevent their perishing.
Again He says He ' ' will have all men to be saved." Then, to be consistent, he must do all he can to save all men.
The position, therefore, that God can not prevent both sin and perdition in a system of free, moral agents, is demanded by every principle of common sense.
SEC. 4. The Foreordination of Sin.
Another fallacy of the Westminster Confession is found in the statement that " God foreordained
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. 107
whatsoever comes to pass ; ' ' putting thus Holiness and Sin in to the same category, as if both were fore- ordained in the same way, and for the same reason, neither of which is true.
i . Holiness acid Sin are not foreordained in the same way. Holiness is the great end, as we have seen, which God has ever in view in the progress and management of the moral system, and is always and in all circumstances, in perfect accordance with His will and pleasure. He loves holiness and is ever making direct efforts to secure it. He foreor- dains it, therefore, for its own sake.
But he does not love sin, and makes no direEl efforts for its existence; nor is it like holiness desir- ableybr itself. It is hateful and loathsome to the Almighty, and a source of incalculable mischief in His universe wherever it exists. If, therefore, sin and holiness are both foreordained, there must still be a difference in the mode of their foreordination. They can not both be foreordained in the same way. And the difference is this — one is foreordained directly, and for its own sake, as being, in itself, a desirable object. The other, being utterly undesir- able, is foreordained only in the sense of being ren- dered certain by the creation of the system into which it was foreseen it would enter. One, there- fore, is foreordained direftly, the other indirettly.
And between these two kinds of foreordination there is a great, even a mighty difference. To illus- trate— the North chose the war of the Rebellion that a government ' ' of the people, and by the people,
108 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
and for the people, might not perish from the earth. ' ' But did it choose the slaughter of our sons and brothers, and the expenditure of thousands of mil- lions in the same way f It rendered them certain when it determined to save the Union; but did it choose them direftly, and for their own sake f Did it desire these fearful results? On the contrary, how it deplored the sacrifice, and regretted its ne- cessity, and mourned the slaughtered thousands, and chose these sad results only indireftly.
And does not God deplore the sin and ruin of His own child — a moral being, made ' ' in His own image, ' ' made for immortality, and capable of in- finite expansion in all glory and blessedness ? And how utterly inconsistent, how dreadful the doctrine that He created Him for perdition — foreordained Him to be lost — even desired that he should be. Such teaching is blasphemous. Sin and holiness can not, therefore, be foreordained in the moral sys- tem in the same way ; and sin is foreordained only indirectly — only rendered certain by the creation of the system in which its existence was foreseen. Therefore holiness is foreordained directly, but sin only indirectly — merely rendered certain.
2. Neither are sin and holiness foreordained for the same end — " the glory of God."
The doctrine of the confession is that the Almighty ' ' works all things for His own glory. ' ' And by the expression ' ' all things, ' ' is not meant merely that He makes the universe as a whole work for His glory — which is most certainly true — but that He makes all
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. 109
the particular things which the universe contains, conspire to the same end ; so that even the sin and perdition of ungodly men are foreordained, as it says, ' ' for the glory of God. ' ' The fallacy here lies in assuming that because the moral system as a whole was created and designed and foreordained for the glory of God — which is certainly true — therefore all that the system contains must have been foreor- dained for the same end, which is not true.
To illustrate — a man determines to seek his for- tune in the diamond fields of South Africa. Does he choose the danger and expense attending it ? No, he only renders these certain, and gets rid of both all he can. They are only hindrances and obstruc- tions to the main design, (just as sin is to the holi- ness God is aiming to secure) ; and are accepted only because they can not be avoided. He does not choose them for their own sake, but still renders them certain by determining on the main design — securing wealth. So God foreordained the moral system as a whole for His own glory, because of the grand results of holiness and happiness which He foresaw would flow from it in the endless future. But He foreordained the sin and its consequences which He also foresaw would enter into it, not at all for His own glory, nor because He desired at all their existence, for their entire results are calamit- ous ; but He foreordained them only in the sense of rendering them certain by the creation of the sys- tem into which He foresaw they would enter — i. e. , He foreordained them indirectly. That sin was not
110 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
decreed directly is evident from the parable of the Tares and the Wheat. In this parable the question asked is ' ' Whence came the Tares ? ' ' And if sin were decreed directly, the answer should have been, ' ' I foreordained the tares. ' ' But the parable gives no such explanation ; and the Almighty is cleared from all responsibility in the matter by the declara- tion. " An enemy hath done this."
But PRES. EDWARD'S asserts that the sin of the universe can not be foreknown unless decreed directly . How do we know ? God foreknows possibilities ? without decreeing them. Why not actualities? Christ says of the cities where He preached and labored, that ' ' if. the mighty works done in them had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented." This possibility was not decreed, yet he certainly foreknew it. Is there any more intrin- sic difficulty in foreknowing actualities than pos- sibilities— to foreknow how a moral being will act than how he would act ? There appears to be the same difficulty in both cases. So we do not cer- tainly know that human conduct cannot be foreknown unless decreed. The most natural conclusion, in view of our Savior's declaration about Tyre and Sidon, is, that all possibilities and all actualities are, and always have been, distinctly before the mind of God. How they are we know not. How the actions of a free moral agent — as free to act in one way as in the other — can be foreknown, either as actualities or only possibilities, appears to us a profound and in- explicable mystery ; and very likely one that we
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. Ill
may never be able to comprehend. It may be one of the ' ' deep things ' ' of God beyond the reach of the finite intelligence. But we know that they are and must be foreknown ; for the fulfilment of pro- phecy respecting human conduct in the future, proves it. But that they must be decreed in order to be foreknown we do not know ; and it is not neces- sary for us to say that because God foreknew sin, therefore He decreed sin.
SEC. 5. Is Sin overruled for good?
Some assert, as the reason why sin exists, that "sin is overruled for good." This is never the case except that a sin may be used for the correc- tion of other sin; as where Peter's denial of Christ, by showing him his moral weakness, corrected his overweening self -confidence, which was spoiling him for an apostle.
Hezekiah's vanity, too, needed correction; and God "left him to try him, that he (Hezekiah) might know all that was in his heart." (2 Chron. xxxii : 31). But it would have been better for Peter and Hezekiah both had there been no weakness needing correction.
But was not this sin of the crucifixion overruled for good ? No, in no respect whatever. All the good of the crucifixion came from God giving His Son to sufferings and death. But he might have done this in a variety of ways. He chose to let wickedness crucify him. Now what came from God giving His Son? Answer : The offer of pardon and eternal life to sinful men, the gift of the Holy Spirit,
112 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
the common blessings of Probation, and the salva- tion of the penitent.
What came from the sin of the crucifixion ? An- swer : Nothing but the deep damnation of the scribes and pharisees concerned in it, and the utter ruin of the nation. No good of any kind came from the sin of the crucifixion, nor was it overruled for one particle of good. No result flowed from it but in the line of disaster.
In Acts ii : 23 "Him being delivered" is one thing; "Ye have taken," is quite another. The first was God's act of mercy and love in Redemp- tion. The second was the act of the "wicked hands" of men in the crucifixion of the Savior. From the first came the provisions of Grace for the world's salvation. From the second, the perdition of the mass of those concerned in the wicked transaction.
But does not God make ' ' the wrath of man to praise Him ?"*
Yes. But how ? Only by His dealings with it in the way of judgment. God made the wrath of Pharaoh to praise him by the judgments executed upon him; and in this way God's " name was de- clared throughout all the earth." Now where did the good — "the praise," — come from? Answer:
* The commentary of PROF. COWLES upon this passage is as follows: " The English version of this passage (Ps. Ixxvi : 10) can not well be justified from the Hebrew. He then gives this version — "For the wrath of man shall praise thee. The last and utmost remains of hu- man wrath.thou wilt gird about thee as it were thine own sword.for the destruction of thy foes." Instead of translating the Hebrew word by " restrain, " as in our version, he would translate it " gird cm, as the warrior does his sword."
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. 113
from God's dealings with him. What come from the sin of Pharaoh ? Answer : Ten dreadful plagues upon Egypt, and the final destruction of him and his hosts in the Red Sea. Not a particle of good came from the sin of Pharaoh. Also Pha- raoh would have glorified God far more had he hum- bled himself under the Divine judgments, as did Nebuchadnezzar.
So God will make ' ' the wrath of all wicked men to praise him," at last by the perdition with which he will visit them in the future world; thus exhibit- ing his character as a firm and efficient Moral Gov- ernor. Now whence comes the good ? Answer : From God' 's punishment of the sinner. What comes from the sin itself? Nothing but damnation. Not a particle of good. Nor is the wrath overruled at any one point for £X>od. It is not overruled at all — not turned aside at all from its natural tendency — but goes right on to work out its own legitimate result of disaster and ruin.
But PRES. EDWARDS holds that God even or- dained sin for His own glory, that He might, by means of it, illustrate the perfections of His own character — His justice in punishment, and His mercy in pardon. But is there any other place or any set of circumstances that we know of where the infraction of the law glorifies the lawgiver ? In all other relations in this world the belief is that to break the law dishonors the lawgiver, is an insult to his majesty, and tends to bring him into contempt and to subvert the foundations of his government;
114 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
and that the entire result of breaking just laws is calamitous, something to be regretted and discour- aged and avoided.
But this dodlriue teaches that sin against God is made to glorify Him ; even that He not only "permits" it, but "orders" it for this very pur- pose. Then certainly he can not regret its exist- ence or its commission, seeing it is the very means of glorifying Him. Then we ought not to regret it for the same reason. And then how can we repent for what glorifies Him?
But, furthermore, God must even rejoice in the existence of sin, because it thus glorifies Him ; even He must rejoice both in the sin and the damnation of wicked men, because He is glorified thereby. But how can this be reconciled with his own declara- tion that He has ' ' no pleasure in the death of the wicked ? ' ' — which he certainly must have if their sin and punishment did, as a matter of fa (51, glorify Him, more than their obedience would have done • which shows the absurdity of the doctrine.
SEC. 6. Exegesis of Rom. ix : 18.
At this point we notice that remarkable passage, Rom. ix : 18, because it is so often quoted in opposi- tion to the views which have j ust now been pre- sented— "Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy ; and whom He will be hardeneth. ' ' Here some reason thus — They say that the passage evidently traces both the ' ' mercy ' ' and the ' ' hard- ness " to the same source — the Divine Will, and that settles the matter. He wills one as truly as the
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. 115
other, and, therefore, so far as the mere exercise of the Divine Will is concerned, there can be no differ ence between them. Both are in accordance with His will and pleasure.
But the fact is, there is a radical difference between them. And the difference is this — He wills one directly ', and the other only indirectly , as was just now said respecting holiness and sin.
1 . He wills the ' ' mercy ' ' directly. It is His eter- nal purpose to make efforts for the conversion and salvation of A, which He foreknows will be success- ful ; and He determines thus to show " mercy " to Him. In securing this result, His will, His pleas- ure, and His efforts all harmonize. He, therefore, foreordains directly the conversion and salvation of A. But now
2. He wills the hardness of B only indirectly, i. e. He foresees that if He creates B a free, moral agent, and makes efforts through His Truth, Providence, and Spirit for His conversion, the only result will be His increased hardness through His own willful and wicked resistence to these efforts.
Yet He wills nevertheless to make these efforts. Why ? Not at all for the sake of the hardness (as when the smith manipulates the steel with fire and water for the very purpose of producing hardness) but only in spite of it, and for the sake of securing some other and benevolent end. To illustrate —
The house of a poor but worthy man in my neigh- borhood burns down, and I make an effort to induce the community to assist him in his extremity. I go
Il6 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
to a rich but penurious neighbor, and try to enlist his sympathies in his behalf. I plead the case with him as I best can. But he, in his meanness and stinginess, refuses all assistance, and, as the result, his heart is hardened. Now there is a sense in which /hardened his heart. I made the appeal to him ; and had it not been for my effort with him, his heart would not have been thus hardened. And in that sense only did /harden his heart, viz., by urging him to do a benevolent act ; and he hardened his own heart by resisting my appeal. I did not make the appeal to him for the sake of hardening his heart. I had a benevolent end in view.
So God hardens the hearts of wicked men only by the efforts He makes to save them by His goodness and mercy and judgment, which yet they resist. He is not aiming to harden them, but to soften them, and lead them to repentance.
So God dealt with Pharaoh. None of God's deal- ings with him were either designed or calculated to harden. They were designed, every one of them, to lead him to do right, and let the people go. Every one of the plagues sent upon him had this natural tendency ; and he hardened his own heart by resist- ance. Pharaoh would have glorified the Almighty far more, and in a far better way, had he humbled himself before him as did Nebuchadnezzar under the Divine judgments ; but as he would not, God deter- mined, as the next best thing, to make him a warn- ing to the nations of the danger of resisting the Al- mighty. God really desired him to be obedient, and
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. 117
let the people go ; but as he would not, he still con- tinued his dealings with him, in order to accomplish by them some other good end.
The real meaning, therefore, of this difficult pas- sage is — that God wills to show mercy to A by an eternal purpose to make direct efforts for his conversion and salvation, which efforts he foreknows will be successful.*
He also purposed from all eternity to make efforts for the conversion and salvation of B, which He fore- knew would only harden ; but He makes these efforts only for the sake of some other and benevo- lent ends, and not at all for the sake of hardening. The resulting hardness and final perdition of B are not at all in accordance with His will and pleasure ; for He is ' ' not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Pet. iii : 9.) His real desire, therefore, is that B would yield to these efforts, and repent, and be saved. " As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked ; but that the wicked turn from his ways and live." (Eze. xxxiii : n.)
*Here is a definition of election, covering the entire Scriptural ground, and in which, it would appear, that the Armenian and the Calvanist can cordially agree, viz., God's eternal purpose to makesucA efforts for a man's conversion and salvation as he foreknows will be successful.
It differs from the Calvanistic position in not asserting the doclrine of '•'special grace," as the cause of conversion, which lacks sufficient Scriptural proof.
It differs from the Armenian view in not rejecting the doctrine of special grace, which, after all, may be true. The Armenian goes as far beyond the Scriptures in rejecting it, as the Calvanist does in attesting it. The above definition stops with saying, '• God makes such efforts/'
Il8 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
God hardens wicked men, therefore, only in- directly— hardens them only by making efforts to soften them. The wicked man himself is the only direct author of the hardness, and he shoulders the entire responsibility for this melancholy result. God, therefore, wills the mercy directly, and the hardness only indirectly — wills the hardness by making efforts to save which He foreknows will be unsuccessful.
SEC. 7. God not responsible for the existence of sin.
If God foresees that, as a matter of fact, if He create a system of free moral agents, some of them will certainly sin, why does not this act of creation, in these circumstances, make Him responsible for this result? And why, foreknowing this certain result, should He not have abandoned the creation of the system ?
i . Take the first question — Why is he not respon- sible ? Answer :
He made the first sinful beings with the best orig- inal constitution they could have, and placed them in the best possible circumstances for the develop- ment of a holy character, and could do nothing better. In short, He made them, as He makes all moral beings, " to glorify God and enjoy him forever;" and this they can do only by holy obedience. He made them, therefore, to be holy, and did the best that could be done to have them so ; and, therefore, for the sin of the first sinful beings He is no way responsible. He is responsible for the existence of the moral system, but not for the perversion of free,
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. 119
moral agency on the part of those who compose it. He is not responsible, therefore, for the entrance of sin into the system ; and, moreover, having always worked against it, with the very energies of Omnip- otence, He is in no way responsible for its existence.
2. But why, if the Almighty foresees that sin is certain to result from the creation of the system, should not the system itself have been abandoned ? Answer :
Because holiness and consequent happiness will al- so result from this act of creation ; and because the holiness and happiness resulting from an eternity of creation, will so greatly overbalance the sin and misery, that to sacrifice the one to the other would not be the dictate of benevolence.
To illustrate — Suppose a man contemplates the founding of a Christian college. Now endow him with foreknowledge to see that, in that event, a few who enter it will abuse their privileges, waste time, talents, and opportunities, and become dissipated and ruined ; while the mass will graduate with honor, and become a blessing to themselves, their friends, and the community at large. Shall he abandon the project ? Common-sense says, No. Common-sense ever decides to do that which is on the whole for the best, in any and all conceivable circumstances.
Moreover, in the case supposed, these dissipated students shoulder the entire responsibility of their wrong-doing. The institution is not in fault, and the teachers are not in fault, and the founder is not in fault. The fault is all their own, and they must suf-
120 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
fer the consequences. The best has been done for them that could be done.
So the Almighty, looking out upon the grand and glorious universe, such as it will be in the coming ages, will not abandon it because He foresees that a few moral beings, at the outset, will refuse to love and obey Him ; especially when, in order to secure their obedience and love, He will do all He can do. No, He will not, for their wickedness, be diverted from the main design. He will do what is on the whole for the best, just as every common-sense man does ; and will carry on His begun universe to its grand and glorious consummation.
SEC. 8. God's abhorrence of sin is measureless.
This is the only proper representation of God's re- lations to sin.
Men persist in regarding sin, and especially their own sin, as a trivial matter, and excuse it, and pal- liate it, and construct philosophical systems repre- senting it as on the whole for the best. But apart from human philosophy and speculation, and that perverted theological teaching which makes ' ' sin the necessary means of the greatest good ; ' ' apart also from the schemes of infidel men to accommo- date matters to their own wicked conduct, and so to arrange the administration of the Almighty, that they can live prayerless and godless lives here, and yet come out safe in the end — apart from such things, there is no countenance given either from reason, or revelation, or the workings of God's provi- dence in the world, or from any source whatever, to
MORAL EVIL IN RELATION TO THE ALMIGHTY. 121
the idea that God has any other views or feelings about sin than those of unmitigated loathing, and an infinite preference that no one of His moral creatures should ever have committed it. Apart from such things, the whole universe of God cries out against the supposition, that the God of Heaven can either manifest or feel the least favor toward sin ; or connive in any way at its commission ; or have any secret preference that it should exist ; and unites in condemning sin, in all circumstances, as wholly unnecessary, good for nothing, entirely mischievous, the source of all calamity, the cause of all pain and suffering, and a fountain of absolutely unmingled evil.
"What," you say, "is there, on the whole, no good end secured by the existence of sin ? ' ' None at all. In every relation it sustains to God's uni- verse, its existence is calamitous. It is evil and only evil. It is unmitigated mischief ; and God has arrayed Himself against it from the very first, with the whole energy of His infinite nature ; used every - possible influence against it ; determined on the system in which He foresaw it would exist, only be- cause, from that system, as a moral system, He could get, in spite of sin, the most holiness and hap- piness ; He hates it everywhere ; loathes it every- where ; desires nothing so much as that every being who is committing it would stop, and never be guilty of another sin ; regrets exceedingly that any one should ever have committed it ; never has done the least thing to induce him to commit it ; made him
122 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
" upright" at the outset, that is, made him to act rightly ; made it the ' ' chief end ' ' of his existence " to glorify God and enjoy Him forever," not to sin against Him ; has aimed the entire round of His providential dealings with Him since His creation, against His sinning ; has given Him every conceiv- able warning, brought to bear on Him the most ter- rible threatenings ; made Him to feel the mischief of sin in His own bitter experience, and in all his deal- ings with Him, anywhere, and everywhere, has been working steadily against sin.
And with this view the Bible in its whole spirit and letter accords. It arrays itself utterly against all such wicked notions as that God desires the ex- istence of sin in His universe for any reason. It re- presents Him as arrayed in unqualified hostility both against sin and sinners. There is no uncertain sound in the language of the Bible. It does not re- present God as hating sin in the abstract, and yet feeling favor toward the sinner ; nor as opposed to the sinner, while at the same time, for some reason, preferring, on the whole, His sin ; but it represents Him as standing up, with no qualification or soften- ing whatever, as the utter antagonist of all sin and of every sinner — " Thou art not a God which hath pleasure in wickedness, neither shall evil dwell with Thee. The foolish shall not stand in Thy sight ; Thou hatest all workers of iniquity." (Ps. v:5.)
Such, in our view, are the relations of the Al- mighty to the existing sin of the universe.
CHAPTER IV.
MORAL EVIL IN ITS RELATIONS TO THE FALLEN ANGELS.
The Scripture record of the Fallen Angels is brief but decisive. The devil first appears in the garden of Eden as a tempter in the form of a serpent, and hence is called, in Rev. xii : 9, "That old serpent, the devil." He is also called in Eph. ii : 2, " the prince of the power of the air," which STUART translates, "the prince of the aerial host." In re- spect to their number, those possessing one man were called legion ' ' because they were many. ' ' From 2 Pet. ii : 4 and Jude vi, we learn that they sinned against God, and were cast down to hell for their rebellion; and from Matt, xxv : 41, that the place for the final punishment of ungodly men was prepared originally for them. These are the main facts recorded.
SEC. i. When were they created?
As they are the first moral beings mentioned in the Scriptures, we should naturally conclude that they were the first created.
The usually received opinion that they were cre- ated at the same time with the Unfallen Angels, and that both existed for a time in holiness and happi-
123
124 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
ness, has no foundation in the Scriptures, and will be considered when we come to speak of the latter.
SEC. 2. Their original constitution.
All moral beings are alike in the essential elements of their natures. Intellect, Sensibilities, and Will, or the power of thinking, feeling, and choosing, belong alike to every one, and constitute, in each and all, ' the image of God ' ' in which Adam is declared to, have been created. At all events, in the absence of all opposing evidence, this is assumed to have been the constitutional nature of the Fallen Angels, so that they, like Adam, were made with an Intellect to know God, Sensibilities to feel His love, and a Will qualifying them to choose His service.
That the original nature and surrounding circum- stances of the first created beings must have been the best adapted to result in a holy character and in holy conduct, has already been noticed. What these exact circumstances were, we are next to con- sider.
SEC. 3. Circumstances of their creation.
It is interesting to contemplate the position of a company of moral beings coming first into existence and being in the universe alone with God ; which we suppose to have been the position of the Fallen Angels.
i . It will be proper to notice what was the prob- able degree of maturity appertaining to their orig- inal constitution.
It would be most natural to suppose that, like Adam, they were created in the full possession of
MORAL EVIL : RELATIONS TO FALLEN ANGELS. 125
their mental and moral faculties, and were prepared at once to contemplate the peculiarities of their situ- ation, to survey the magnificence of the material system, and to be charmed with its order, variety, and beauty, to investigate the wonders of their own mental and moral constitution, and to draw from all existing sources whatever would serve to illustrate the power, wisdom, and benevolence of God.
2. What course would probably be pursued with them in these circumstances? It seems probable that God would reveal himself to them, claiming to be their Creator, as well as the Creator and Upholder of all the vast and visible frame of things — unfold to them his character and attributes so far as there had been an opportunity for their manifestation, and accumulate before their minds the evidence existing of the nature and extent of their obligations to love and obey Him, so as to render them inexcusable for .withholding obedience.
SEC. 4. Their Probation.
The first moral beings, therefore, and, as we sup- pose, all moral beings, having an innate tendency to break away from the restraints of law and gov- ernment, and thus to resist the Almighty, would need, at the outset of their career, like Adam in the garden, a trial of allegiance. This trial we term, in theological phrase, Probation ; and it is probably needed by all newly created beings as they enter on their eternal existence.
What the nature and circumstances of this proba- tion would probably be, we can only conjecture from
126 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
the recorded experience of Adam, the only moral being of whose earliest history we have any record.
The first commands which God imposed on Adam were those which fell in entirely with his natural inclinations, namely, the law of marriage and the Sabbath, and the command to dress and keep the garden. But these commands, and any similar ones, were no test of allegiance — no indication what he would do should his natural inclinations be crossed. And furthermore, no such acls of obedi- ence, merely, would have confirmed him in holiness; for they were very far from involving the requisite degree of submission to the Divine will ; and a cer- tain and proper amount of trial, as his condudl after- ward showed, would have been sufficient, at any time, to induce him to abandon his Maker.
But what would have confirmed him ?
The answer is — Had he not eaten of the forbidden fruit; had he steadily refused, at this point, all solicitations to disobedience, both from his natural inclinations and the assaults of the tempter — in which case he would have resisted his natural incli- nations, and denied himself at the command of God — this adl of obedience, in these circumstances, would have required such an amount of self-denial, and would have involved such a degree of submission to the Divine Will, as undoubtedly to have fortified him against all subsequent temptation, and, there- fore, have confirmed him in obedience forever ; and for this it was that the trial was ordained.
Reasoning, therefore, from analogy, we conclude
MORAL EVIL t RELATIONS TO FALLEN ANGELS. 127
it altogether probable, that every newly created being will need a similar probation in order to be- come confirmed in obedience to God ; and that his moral character forever will depend upon whether he can be induced, at the outset of his career, to practice the requisite amount of self-denial at the command of the Almighty.
We assume, therefore, that God will give every intelligent being, at the commencement of his exist- ence, a suitable trial — a probation, as an opportunity for him to become confirmed in eternal obedience to himself.
It is obvious that the results of this probation must be decisive. If at this turning point, and under a fair trial, the free, moral agent resolves to obey God, his future character will be settled on the side of holiness ; and this determined resistance to sinful inducement, will lay broad and deep the foun- dations of his everlasting blessedness.
It follows, also, that if at this point he disobeys God, his future character will be determined toward unholiness and misery ; and as sin tends ever to perpetuate itself, that there will be no hope of res- toration to the forfeited favor of God, unless God interpose, as He has in this world, with a scheme of recovering grace.
The object in imposing this trial at a compara- tively early period va. his history, may be twofold.
i . It may be a matter of certainty to the Divine mind, should such trial be omitted at the outset, and could a moral being, or any number of such, be
128 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
prevented without it from transgression for any definite time, however long, that sooner or later, there would result a far more extended and disas- trous rebellion, than if all such beings were tried at the commencement of their existence — or at least as soon as their knowledge of the character and attri- butes of God and their relations to Him, had imposed upon them the necessary degree of moral responsibility.
2. At the outset of his career he may be more likely to pass the trial in safety.
It is not at all incredible, that, at any subsequent period, his relations to the universe might become more complicated, the obstacles within him and around him to his required submission to the Divine will, increased both in number and magnitude, and his entire position more unfavorable in all respects, for becoming confirmed in holiness. In this view, a trial at the outset ', would seem to be the dictate of benevolence.
It was probably necessary, therefore, that the Fallen Angels should have a probation, — a trial of their allegiance to God ; and that this probation should be preceded by all the knowledge of God, — of His character, His government and His works, which could be unfolded to them ; so that when the trial of allegiance came they would feel uuder per- fect obligation to render Him instant and unqualified obedience. Adam lived for months, and probably years before his fall, studying the works and won- ders of the Great Architect, and thus reaching the
MORAL EVIL : RELATIONS TO FALLEN ANGELS. 129
point of intelligent responsibility. At least time enough intervened for him to "give names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field ; " (Gen. ii : 19, 20.) each name doubt- less corresponding with the peculiar appearance and habits of the different species as he leisurely studied and admired them. During this time he was be- coming acquainted with the character and perfec- tions of God through His material works, which, with the exception of His firmness in the punish- ment of the rebel angels, furnished the only field on which those perfections had been exhibited. Similar to his experience was doubtless that of the Fallen Angels, so far as becoming acquainted with God, and their relations to Him was concerned. Ample time and opportunity were afforded them for reach- ing the point of intelligent responsibility.
Then doubtless came the trial of allegiance, what- ever it may have been, which was essential to their confirmed obedience and eternal happiness ; and this required, perhaps, that there should have been some restriction imposed upon them, similar to that imposed on Adam as the test of his allegiance.
It is probable, therefore, that God imposed on the Fallen Angels such a restriction — the very best which could be imposed — one precisely adapted to their constitution, and the peculiarities of their situation, and demanded of them compliance with it as the only possible security for their future welfare.
He held up before them the unending happiness which would follow their self-denial and submission
130 THE ORIGIN OF SIN.
to himself ; He represented the sad consequences of their refusal to obey — even the fearful penalty of being forever excluded from His favor, saying to them in solemn and impressive language, ' ' In the day that this command is broken ye shall surely die," and presented before their minds all possible motives to deter them from transgression.
The sad result of this probation we learn from the declaration of the Bible : ' ' The angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation , He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the Judgment of the Great Day. ' ' (Jude 6. )
They sinned and fell, notwithstanding all that was done to prevent it. And theirs was a melan- choly and a dreadful fall ; and the more so because it was a hopeless one, and no possibility existed that any provisions of'mercy could save them from their doom. Thus much for their general history.
And here the question arises — why was not sin prevented by the use of stronger motives at the outset f This leads to the consideration of the fol- lowing section :
SEC. 5. Motives.
There is no reason for supposing that