SYSTEM.
In the former portion of this work the Augustinian theory, with the system
based on it, has been presented as it is taught by creeds and theologians.
In contrast with it, has been presented the common‐sense system of
religion as evolved by reason and experience.
The evidence will now be presented, to show that those who teach the
Augustinian system, at the same time teach the main points of the common‐
sense system; and where the two systems are contradictory, that they teach
_both_ sides of the contradiction, at once affirming and denying the same
things.
A leading feature of the common‐sense system is, that the _nature_ of the
human mind is our only guide to the natural attributes of God.
It will now be shown that leading theologians and metaphysicians of the
Augustinian school teach the same.
The Calvinistic theologians of New England have been universally
acknowledged as among the most acute and profound metaphysicians in the
world. At the head of these stands President Jonathan Edwards. In
reference to our modes of gaining a knowledge of God, he says:
“If respect to the Divine Being is of any importance, then
speculative points are of importance, _for the only way we can
know what he is, is by speculation_.”
Dr. Woods, for near half a century a leading theological teacher of New
England, says:
“All our particular conceptions of God may be found to take their
rise from _the conceptions we form of created intelligences_.”
Dr. Emmons, a distinguished New England divine, says of man:
“In the very frame and constitution of his nature he still bears
the natural image of his Maker. In a word, man is the living image
of the living God, in whom is displayed more of the divine nature
and glory than in all the works and creatures of God upon earth.”
Dr. Taylor, the New Haven divine, says:
“The only ultimate source of knowledge, and ultimate umpire of
truth, is _the knowing mind_.”
The celebrated Scotch metaphysician, Sir W. Hamilton, says:
“We can know God only as we know ourselves.”
In proof of this from the Bible, these writers quote from the Apostle
James, that “men are made after the similitude of God.”
Another leading feature of the common‐sense system is the position, that
we can discover the chief _end_ or _design_ of the Creator, by _the
nature_ of his works, and that this end is to produce the greatest
possible happiness with the least possible evil.
It will now be shown that leading theologians teach the same.
President Edwards, in his _Dissertation concerning the end for which God
created the world_, teaches that
“What God had respect to as an _ultimate end_ of his creating the
world, was _to communicate of his own infinite fullness of good_.”
He teaches that God is in no way dependent on his creatures for happiness,
but that his enjoyment consists in outpouring his own good to his vast
family.
No one can read that essay without perceiving that, though disconnected
passages may make a different impression, the above is a correct statement
of the doctrine of that dissertation.
It is supposed that this view has been assented to by most of those
American and European theologians who most strenuously defend the
Augustinian system.
The end or design of mind being ascertained, its _right mode of action_ is
thus determined. Accordingly we shall find that the great New England
divines and metaphysicians, though they use different language, all
express the same idea in defining true virtue or holiness.
Thus President Edwards taught, as his son states, that
“Every voluntary action which, in its general tendency and
ultimate consequence, leads to happiness—happiness _in
general_—happiness _on the largest scale_—is virtuous; and every
such action which has not this tendency, and does not lead to this
consequence, is vicious.”
Here let it be noted that President Edwards expressly teaches that it is
not voluntary happiness‐making, irrespective of the amount, that
constitutes virtue; but it is “happiness _in general_—happiness _on the
largest scale_.” This corresponds exactly with the common‐sense system,
demanding that happiness‐making be on the _greatest possible scale_, and
in order to this, it must be _according to law or rules_.
Dr. Dwight, whose system of theology is accepted as the most satisfactory
exposition of the new school Calvinistic views, teaches that
“True virtue is the love of doing good, or the love of promoting
happiness. Its excellence consists in this, that it is the
_voluntary_ and only source of happiness in the universe. God
wills our happiness; it is, therefore, right, it is virtuous in
us, to seek to promote it both here and hereafter.”
In this case, the language of Dr. Dwight is not so discriminating and
clear as that of President Edwards—for he does not show so clearly as does
President Edwards that his real meaning is voluntary happiness‐making _on
the largest scale_. In this, and all the following quotations from other
writers, it is a fact, as gained by their _combined_ expressions, that the
distinction made by President Edwards was accepted, and that by the “love
of doing good,” or the “love of promoting happiness,” is intended that
_voluntary love_ or _good willing_ which seeks not merely some good, but
the _best good_ of all.
Dr. Taylor, the distinguished successor of Dr. Dwight, teaches the same
doctrine, as is so abundantly manifest in his published writings, that no
quotations will be deemed needful.
The Westminster Assembly’s Catechism teaches that
“The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever.”
The glory of God can be secured only by true virtue in himself and in his
creatures; and if this consists in voluntary happiness‐making on the
greatest possible scale, then the chief end of man, as taught in that old
standard of orthodoxy, is exactly the same as is taught in the system of
common sense. Man is to make happiness on the greatest possible scale,
guided by the laws of God—and thus doing, he will “glorify God and enjoy
him for ever.”
The same theologians also teach that the laws of God are our guide as to
what is good and evil, and that true virtue, or right action, is secured
only by obeying these laws. They hold, therefore, the doctrine of common
sense, that all true virtue consists in voluntary obedience to the will of
God as manifested in his natural and revealed laws.
The next point of agreement is in the proposition, that God always has,
and always will do what is “_for the best_”—so that it always is and will
be, out of his power to do better—inasmuch as _to do better than best_, is
a contradiction and absurdity. Every theologian, in one form of words or
another, maintains that God always has done, and always will do, _the best
he can_, so that he has no power to do better. This being so, it is the
same as teaching that the past, present and future existence of sin and
misery, is what is inevitable in the best system which God has power to
create, so that any change in God’s plans, laws, and their results, would
imply an act of folly and malevolence on his part.
This does not imply that the sinful conduct of man is what is desired or
intended by the Creator—nor does it imply that sin was desired or intended
by God as the “necessary means to the greatest good.” Instead of this, it
is clear that if it had been _possible_—_i.e._, if God had the power—to
create all minds with _all the knowledge and all the motives_ that would
secure perfect obedience to law from all the race of Adam, there would
have been more happiness. The universal obedience of all free agents to
all God’s laws for making happiness on the greatest possible scale, would
secure perfect happiness to all, while every act of disobedience would
lessen the amount. To deny this is the same as saying that less happiness
is more than the most happiness, which is absurd.
The result is, that sin is not the fault of the Creator, but is the
inevitable result of the commencement of finite, ignorant, inexperienced
minds, and is what neither God nor man could prevent, in a perfect system
of finite, free agents.
At the same time, it is the fault of all free agents who sin when they
have adequate knowledge and motives. And it is only sins against _known_
law and appropriate motives which are the proper subject of penalties _in
addition_ to the natural consequences of wrong doing.
It is claimed, therefore, that when theologians teach—as all do—that “God
orders all things for the best,” they really teach, in another form, the
common‐sense doctrine as stated above.
Having gained the teachings of leading theologians as to the nature of
true virtue or right voluntary action, we also gain their definition of
wrong moral action, or _sin_. In the words of President Edwards, “Every
_voluntary_ action which in its general tendency and ultimate consequence
leads to happiness—happiness _in general_—happiness _on the largest
scale_—is virtuous; and every such action which _has not this_ tendency,
and _does not_ lead to this consequence, is vicious,” or sinful.
That is to say, every volition that tends to lessen the general happiness,
is vicious or sinful, and every violation of God’s physical, social and
moral laws, has this tendency. Thus the Bible definition of _sin_ is the
one accepted by theologians—_i.e._, “_sin is the transgression of law_,”
without reference to the question whether the law is known or not. _True
virtue_ is voluntary obedience to law, and _sin_ is the voluntary
transgression of law. These definitions then are a part of the Augustinian
system as much as they are of the common‐sense system.
The next point of the common‐sense system taught by theologians, is that
our moral power to obey God—_i.e._, power to choose according to law
instead of impulse—is proportioned to our knowledge of law, and the
motives of fear, hope, love and gratitude, as they are employed by God and
man.
This doctrine is taught by all theologians, except those who hold that the
sin of Adam so ruined the human mind, that there is no power of _any_ kind
to obey God, except as he gives new capacities. No quotations will be
given to establish this point, because, it is believed, that no one will
question it.
No quotations are needed to show that the Augustinian creeds and
theologians agree with the common‐sense system, in teaching that the soul
is immortal—that our destiny in a future state depends on our conduct in
this life—that there is to be an eternal separation of the righteous and
the wicked, whose immortality will be happy or miserable according to
their characters.