Having presented the Augustinian theory, as it is set forth in both
Catholic and Protestant creeds, the next object will be to verify the
statements of the preceding chapters as to the _modes of meeting
difficulties_ adopted by theologians.
The first extract will show that Augustine taught that all men had a
common nature in Adam, so that his choosing to eat the forbidden fruit was
the act of each and all human minds which were existing in or with him at
that time. And thus that it was man and not God that caused our depravity
of nature.
The extract introduced to verify the above was written to St. Jerome, who
taught that all minds commenced their first existence at or near the birth
of each. This Augustine denied, and the passage shows not only that he
taught a common nature which was ruined in Adam, but also that all
unbaptized infants go to endless punishment for the sin thus committed in
Adam ages before they were born.
Augustine’s Mode.
“How can so many thousands of souls which leave the bodies of
unbaptized infants be with any equity condemned, if they were
newly created and introduced into these bodies for no previous
sins of their own, but by the mere will of him who created them to
animate these bodies, and foreknew that each of them, for no fault
of his own, would die unbaptized? Since, then, we can not say that
God either makes souls sinful by compulsion, or punishes them when
innocent, and yet _are obliged to confess that the souls of the
little ones are condemned if they die unbaptized_, I beseech you
tell me how can this opinion be defended, by which it is believed
that souls are not all derived from that one first man, but are
newly created for each particular body?”
Thus Augustine supposed that he escaped the charge of making God the
author of sin by teaching that God created all the souls of the race _in_
Adam, so that Adam’s sin ruined the nature of himself and his posterity
all at one stroke, while it made it right and just to send all unbaptized
infants to eternal misery.
The next extract is introduced to verify the statement made as to the
Princeton mode of making man the author of his own depraved nature. This
mode is the one adopted by most theologians of the Old School Presbyterian
church. It is thus set forth by Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, in his Commentary
on Romans:
Princeton Mode.
“The great fact in the apostle’s mind was, that God regards and
treats all men, from the first moment of their existence, as out
of fellowship with himself, as having forfeited his favor. Instead
of entering into communion with them the moment they begin to
exist (as he did with Adam), and forming them by his Spirit in his
own moral image, he regards them as out of his favor, and
withholds the influences of the Spirit. Why is this? Why does God
thus deal with the human race? Here is a form of death which the
violation of the law of Moses, the transgression of the law of
nature, the existence of innate depravity, separately or combined,
are insufficient to account for. Its infliction is antecedent to
them all; and yet it is of all evils the essence and the sum. Men
begin to exist out of communion with God. This is the fact which
no sophistry can get out of the Bible or the history of the world.
Paul tells us why it is. It is because we fell in Adam; it is for
the offense of one man that all thus die. The covenant being
formed with Adam, not only for himself but also for his
posterity—in other words, Adam having being placed on trial, not
for himself only, but also for his race, his act was, in virtue of
this relation, REGARDED AS OUR ACT.
“God withdrew from us as he did from him; in consequence of this
withdrawal, we begin to exist in moral darkness, destitute of a
disposition to delight in God, and prone to delight in ourselves
and the world. The sin of Adam, therefore, ruined us; was the
ground of the withdrawing of the divine favor from the whole race.
But such evil was inflicted before the giving of the Mosaic law;
it comes on men before the transgression of the law of nature, or
even the existence of inherent depravity. It must, therefore, be
for the offense of one man that judgment has come upon all men to
condemnation.”
Constitutional Transmission Mode.
Dr. Dwight’s system of theology is regarded as the fairest exhibition of
the theological opinions of the majority of the New England Congregational
clergy.
While the Catholic mode, as taught by Dr. Woods so many years at Andover,
is probably adopted by many, the views of Dr. Dwight, and his successor,
Dr. Taylor, on the point under consideration, are taught now both at the
Andover and New Haven seminaries, and probably are adopted by the great
majority of the clergy in the Congregational and New School Presbyterian
denominations.
These theologians maintain that man is the author of his own depraved
nature in this way. Adam sinned and ruined his own nature, and then, in
consequence of this sin, God instituted _such a constitution __ of
things_, that this ruined nature has been transmitted to all his
posterity, after the same manner as bodily diseases are transmitted from
parent to child. This constitution also was established when God had the
power to bestow on each human mind the same “holy nature” which he gave to
Adam. The following from Dr. Dwight sustains this statement:
“The corruption of mankind exists in consequence of the apostacy
of Adam. By means of the offense or transgression of Adam, the
judgment or sentence of God came upon all men unto condemnation,
because, and solely because _all men in that state of things which
was constituted in consequence of the transgression of Adam_,
became sinners.”
That is to say, God having the power to make all men with minds as perfect
as Adam’s before his fall, on account of Adam’s sin _constituted a state
of things_ that would insure the universal sinfulness of the whole race.
Dr. Taylor, the successor of Dr. Dwight as head of the New Haven school of
divines, teaches thus:
“Men are entirely depraved by nature. I do not mean that their
nature is in itself sinful, nor that their nature is the physical
or efficient cause of their sinning; but I mean that their nature
is the _occasion or reason_ of their sinning—that such is their
nature, that in _all_ the appropriate circumstances of their being
they will _sin and only sin_.”
He further states:
“That sin is by nature owing to propensities to inferior good,
with a difference between Adam’s mind and ours (though we can not
assert that in which this difference may consist); that our
propensities are the same in kind, though different in degree,
from those of Adam; that _perhaps_ this distinction may consist in
mental differences—or in superior tendencies, compared with
Adam’s, to natural good, and less tendency to the highest good.”
Thus, on account of the first sin of the first pair, God constituted such
a state of things, that instead of perfect minds, such as God gave to the
angels and to Adam, all men receive such “a nature” as insures “sin and
only sin,” until regeneration takes place.
The next extracts will verify the statements made as to the mode adopted
by Catholic theologians.
Catholic Mode.
The Catholic mode is that of _mystery and sovereignty_, and is based on
the assumption that the mind of man, being utterly depraved, has no
capacity to judge of what is right and wrong.
According to this, the most abominable and horrible crimes are to be
considered virtues if God should commit them, or should teach us that they
are so.
Among the most distinguished of the Catholic theologians is the learned
Abelard, who teaches thus:
“Would it not be deemed the summit of injustice among men, if any
one should cast an innocent son, for the sin of a father, into
those flames, even if they endured but a short time? How much more
so if eternal? Truly I confess this would be unjust in men,
because they are forbidden to avenge even their own real injuries.
But it is not so in God, who says, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will
repay;’ and again, in another place, ‘I will kill and I will make
alive.’ Now God commits no injustice towards his creature in
whatever way he treats him—whether he assigns him to punishment or
to life.... In whatever way God may wish to treat his creature, he
can be accused of no injustice; nor can any thing be called evil
in any way if it is done according to his will. Nor can we in any
other way distinguish good from evil, except by noticing what is
agreeable to his will.”
Another celebrated Catholic theologian, “the good Pascal,” thus disparages
our natural sense of justice as “wretched,” and of no account before this
awful doctrine.
“What can be more contrary to the rules of our _wretched justice_
than to damn eternally an infant incapable of volition, for an
offense in which he seems to have had no share, and which was
committed six thousand years before he was born? Certainly nothing
strikes us more rudely than this doctrine; and yet without this
mystery, the most incomprehensible of all, we are incomprehensible
to ourselves.”
Thus it is seen that Pascal concedes it as a truth that infants are to be
eternally damned for offenses in which they “seem to have no share,” and
that our sense of justice, which revolts from it, is “_wretched_.”
The Andover Theological Seminary was the first one established in New
England for educating ministers, and for nearly half a century Dr. Woods
filled the leading theological chair. The following is introduced, from
the CONFLICT OF AGES, to verify the statement that the Catholic mode of
mystery and sovereignty was the method adopted by him in training the
clergy of New England on this subject.
“He [Dr. Woods] expressly teaches that there is in the nature of
man, anterior to knowledge or choice, a proneness or propensity to
sin, which is in its own nature sinful, ‘the essence of moral
evil, the sum of all that is vile and hateful.’ He also teaches
that God inflicts this ‘tremendous calamity’ on all men for the
sin of one man. ‘This,’ he says, ‘has been the belief of the
church in all ages.’
“He then asks, ‘But how is this proceeding just to Adam’s
posterity? What have they done, before they commit sin, to merit
pain and death? What have they done to merit the evil of existing
without original righteousness, and with a nature prone to sin?
Here,’ he says, ‘our wisdom fails. We apply in vain to human
reason or human consciousness for an answer.’ Nay more; he even
admits that such conduct is ‘_contrary to the dictates of our
fallible minds_.’ Yet he still insists that we ought not to judge
at all in the case, but to believe that it is right because God
has done it. ‘God has not made us judges. The case lies wholly out
of our province. It is a doctrine which is not to be brought for
trial to the bar of human reason. Mere natural reason, mere
philosophy or metaphysical sagacity transcends its just bounds,
and commits a heinous sacrilege, when it attacks this primary
article of our faith, and labors to distort it, to undermine it,
or to expose its truth or its importance to distrust.’ ”
The preceding serves to establish the correctness of the writer’s
statements as to the modes of meeting difficulties adopted by theologians.
In the next chapter we shall see that none of these methods prove
satisfactory even to theologians themselves.