SENSE SYSTEM, AND THUS, ALSO, CONTRADICT THEMSELVES.
The preceding chapter shows the agreement of distinguished Augustinian
theologians with the leading points of the common‐sense system. We next
are to notice the particulars in which these theologians and the
Augustinian creeds contradict the common‐sense system, and thus, also,
contradict themselves.
The grand point, which involves these contradictions, is the dogma that
all mankind have a _depraved nature_ consequent on the sin of Adam, which
makes it certain that every voluntary act of every human mind is “sin, and
only sin,” until this depravity of nature is more or less rectified by the
Spirit of God. The opposite of this is the common‐sense doctrine that all
men have a _perfect nature_, created by God, which is unchanged and not in
any way depraved by the sin of Adam.
As involved in this common‐sense view, _true virtue_ consists in the
_right action_ of a perfect nature, as it now is. In opposition,
Augustinianism teaches that true virtue consists in the right action of a
depraved nature _after_ it has been more or less renewed by the Spirit of
God.
Common sense claims that the indispensable requisites to secure right
voluntary action are, _knowledge_, _training_ and _motives_, for which we
are dependent on God, on man, and on self, conjointly. In opposition,
Augustinianism claims that knowledge, training and motives are of no avail
to secure true virtue, until the damage done by Adam’s sin to the nature
of every human mind, is more or less rectified, and that for this we are
entirely dependent on the Spirit of God.
Common sense claims that man, at birth and through life, is entirely
unable to obey many of the physical, social and moral laws of God, for
want of adequate knowledge, training and motives; but that he is fully
able to obey these laws as fast as he has the appropriate knowledge,
training and motives, and that before regeneration he does perform truly
virtuous acts. Augustinianism, in opposition, claims that man never obeys
the laws of God acceptably until the Spirit of God more or less rectifies
the depraved nature consequent on Adam’s sin, and that previous to this
influence of the Spirit, every voluntary act is “sin, and only sin.”(14)
Common sense teaches that the commencement of “a new life” consists, not
in the change of the nature of man, but in the commencement of a _ruling
purpose_ to obey all the laws of God, which purpose may be an unconscious,
gradual process by educational training, or it may be an instantaneous and
conscious act. Augustinianism teaches that “regeneration” or the “new
birth” consists in the re‐creation or change of the nature of mind, so as,
more or less, to remedy the depravity consequent on Adam’s sin.
Common sense teaches that every volition of every mind, which in act and
intention is conformed to the laws of rectitude, is truly virtuous in
every proper use of the term, without any reference to the question either
of a ruling purpose or a change of nature. Augustinianism teaches that
every volition of every mind is sin, and only sin, previous to the act of
regeneration accomplished by the Spirit of God.(15)
To illustrate the above by examples, suppose that a child is trained to
deny itself, to relieve suffering, or to make others happy. In its earlier
efforts this is very difficult, though by practice the principle of habit
renders it more and more easy. Common sense teaches that the first act of
self‐denial for the best good of others, in which the aim or intention is
to do right, is truly virtuous. For the thing done is right, and the
motive or intention is right. But Augustinianism says no; such an act is
“sin, and only sin,” previous to regeneration, though it is true virtue
after regeneration.
Again, a young man is trained to abhor meanness and deceit and to suffer
any thing rather than to violate his plighted faith. He is brought into an
extremity where, by a false statement, he can escape poverty and disgrace
to himself and his family. He sacrifices all rather than to violate his
word and honor.
If he is not a regenerate man, Augustinianism says this act is not truly
virtuous, but is “sin, and only sin.” Common sense says, it is a virtuous
act in every sense of the term as used among men.
We have shown by quotations that Augustinian theologians teach that man’s
nature is the only guide to the nature of God, and, as his work and image,
is perfect in construction. At the same time they teach that man’s nature
is so totally depraved that it never acts morally right, in a single
instance, until it is regenerated by God, and that all sin is the natural
result of this depravity of nature.
In consequence of this contradictory starting‐point, they proceed to other
contradictory instruction. For example, in the education of very young
children most theologians, of whatever school, teach them that to speak
the truth, to obey parents, to deny one’s self for the good of others, is
right, good and virtuous. They teach that when little children act thus,
before regeneration, they not only act virtuously, but that God approves
and loves them for it. In doing this, they use the words _good_, _right_
and _virtuous_, in the ordinary sense in which men understand these terms.
But at the same time, the same theologians are teaching from the pulpit
and the press, that every voluntary act of every child is “sin, and only
sin,” previous to regeneration; that there is no good, right and virtuous
act in an unregenerated mind, and that God feels no approbation or
complacency in such acts or the unregenerated as the above, which are
called virtuous, but are really sin.
It is manifest that the educational training of the young must be
radically diverse just in proportion as one or the other of these two
systems prevails.
On the Augustinian theory, there is no hope of any right moral action, or
truly virtuous conduct, until the depraved nature transmitted from Adam is
regenerated. On the common‐sense theory, every attempt of a parent or
educator, and every effort of a child to secure what is best and right
with the intention thus to secure it, is truly virtuous, and every
repetition is valuable as tending to secure virtuous habits and character.
On the Augustinian theory, religious instruction is only an appointed mode
by which God chooses to regenerate a depraved nature. It is a process for
securing a new nature from God. On the common‐sense theory, religious
training is a process for securing the development and right action of
mind by the influences of knowledge, training and motives, and without any
change of its nature.
It is also clear that these two systems must be very diverse in reference
to the interpretations of the Creator’s will as gained by reason or by
revelations from God.
On the Augustinian theory, mind is so totally depraved as to be incapable
of interpreting correctly, either the natural teachings of reason and
experience, or the recorded revelations from God. Owing to this,
_authorized interpreters_ of God’s will are indispensable. This makes the
whole human race dependent on a class of men authorized by God to
interpret his natural laws and revealed will.
On the contrary, the common‐sense theory claims that every mind, in
proportion as its powers are cultivated and developed, has the means of
discovering the end for which all things are created, and of interpreting
the teachings of reason and experience, and also of interpreting any
revealed records of God’s will.
It thus appears that theologians and creeds that adopt the Augustinian
theory contradict themselves mainly in these two points:
First, they teach that man’s nature _is_ depraved and that it is _not_
depraved.
Next, that previous to regeneration, men do not perform any truly virtuous
acts, and yet that while unregenerated they do perform such acts.
The quotation from creeds and theologians, in preceding chapters, is proof
that they teach that man’s nature is thus depraved, and that previous to
regeneration he never performs a single truly virtuous act. This and the
preceding chapter present some of the evidence that they teach the
opposite.
The following is submitted as still further evidence of such
contradictions.
In the first place, it is allowed by all, that the Augustinian creeds and
theologians teach that man, as _a race_, including every individual, has a
depraved _nature_. The question, then, all turns on the meaning of the
word _nature_, and whether they affirm its depravity _in the same sense_
as they affirm that in nature man is the living image of the living God
and our only guide to a knowledge of him.
It is claimed that they do use the word _nature_ in one and the same sense
when they affirm that man’s nature _is_ and _is not_ depraved. In proof of
this we must resort to our lexicographers who have collected the various
senses in which mankind use the word _nature_. And here we must again
recognize the fact that the true meaning of every word is settled simply
by ascertaining _what meaning men attach to it when they use it_.
In examining our dictionaries, we shall find that the word _nature_ is
used sometimes to signify every thing that God has created; as when it is
said, “all nature speaks its Maker’s praise.” Sometimes, by a figurative
use, the Author of all things is called Nature, as when it is said that
“Nature paints the flowers and spreads her repasts.”
No one will claim that either of these is the sense in which the word is
used in reference to the nature of the mind of man as a race.
The leading and primary signification of the word _nature_ is that which
is intended and understood when we say that “the _nature_ of a design or
construction is proof of the character and intention of the author.” It is
in this sense that men use the word when they speak of the nature of
animals, the nature of trees, and the nature of the soul.
In this use, it has but one signification, and that is, _those qualities,
powers and faculties which are discovered by experience and observation_.
Or in other words, when we discover the qualities of a thing, how it acts,
and how it is acted upon, we learn its _nature_.
In regard to all other existences except mind, the only mode of
discovering _their nature_ is to ascertain by experience and observation
how they _invariably_ appear and act. Thus we decide that it is the nature
of water to run down hill by finding that it _invariably_ does so; and
that it is the nature of smoke to rise in the atmosphere by observing that
it _invariably_ ascends.
Owing to this, mankind often use the word _nature_ as signifying _that
which is according to ordinary experience_. That is to say, the same word
is used to express the _qualities and powers_ of things, and also to
express that _invariable experience_ by which we learn these qualities and
powers. What is according to our ordinary experience we say is according
to nature, and what is contrary to ordinary experience is contrary to
nature.
Thus it is according to nature for water to run down hill, and it is
contrary to nature for it to run up hill.
It is mind, in distinction from matter, which has the power of _willing_,
and this is a power which never is exercised _invariably_ one way or
another.
But theologians have practiced this fallacy on themselves and others. They
first assume, what is contrary to fact, that mind _invariably_ chooses one
way, and that is _wrong_, from birth to regeneration. This being assumed
without proof, they claim that the _nature_ of the human mind is thus
proved to be depraved, and totally so.
Having thus, as they imagine, established its depraved voluntary nature,
they claim that, like all other things, the mind _must act according to
its nature_, which, being wholly depraved, all its moral acts are
consequently depraved.
This is what logicians call _arguing in a circle_; _i.e._, they prove that
it acts _invariably_ wrong because it is totally depraved, and it is
totally depraved because it acts _invariably_ wrong.
But common sense denies the starting assumption; _i.e._, the _invariably_
wrong volitions of every mind from birth to regeneration. On the contrary,
it is claimed that every choice which secures enjoyment without violating
law, is right, and that whenever a mind chooses what is right, with the
intention to act right, the choice is a truly virtuous act, and that all
men make such choices very often before regeneration.
Whatever is according to ordinary experience in the qualities and action
of mind, is said to be according to its nature. It is according to the
nature of mind, then, sometimes to choose what is good, right and
virtuous, and at other times to choose what is evil and wrong, according
to its knowledge, temptations and habits. Such a case never was known as a
mind that _invariably_ chose wrong.
In view of the preceding, it is maintained that the word _nature_, as
applied to mind, as settled by lexicographers, is always used to signify
the same as its _constitutional powers and faculties_, and that this is
the sense in which it is employed when we say “the _nature_ of a
construction or design is proof of the character and intention of the
author.”
We are now prepared to show that theologians use the word nature in this
same sense when they affirm that it is totally depraved, and when, at the
same time, they teach that it is the image of God, and our only guide to
his nature and character.
We shall first present the evidence that they use the word in this sense,
when they teach that every human mind is so depraved in nature that from
birth to regeneration every moral act is sin, and only sin.
The first item of evidence is the fact that all the other meanings of the
word, in our dictionaries, except this, can be shown to be _not_ the ones
in which theologians use the word in reference to men as a race, so that
this use is the only one remaining. They must use it in this sense, as the
only one left, all others being necessarily excluded.
Again, the mode by which they attempt to _prove_ that man has a depraved
nature, shows that they use the word in this sense. For they exhibit the
_wrong action_, or sinful feelings and conduct of the race, as the chief
proof. Their argument is this: the _nature_ of a thing is proved by its
qualities, how it acts, and how it is acted upon. The human mind
_invariably_ acts depraved, therefore its nature is depraved. No one will
deny that theologians always present the wicked feelings and conduct of
children and of men as the proofs of a depraved nature.
It is true, that in doing this they misstate facts, and maintain that
_all_ the actions of men are sin, and only sin. This contradicts
experience and common sense, which affirm that the human mind sometimes
acts right and sometimes wrong, from the first; showing that the nature of
mind is such that it naturally acts right as well as wrong. But this
attempt proves that they used the word in the sense here stated.
Again: that theologians use the word in this sense, is manifest from their
attempts to relieve the character of God from the charge of being “the
author of sin.” They can not deny that the nature of a contrivance proves
the character and intention of the author, and that, if God is the author
of man’s depravity by a wrong _construction_ or _nature_ of mind, it would
be proof that he is the author of all the sin resulting from it, and thus
a depraved character.
Instead of denying this use of the term, they allow it, and then try to
make man himself the author of this depraved nature, either _by_, or _in_,
or _before_ Adam. That is, they allow that man’s mind _is_ wrong in
construction, but claim that he himself is the author of this wrong.
Again: that theologians use the word nature in this sense, is proved by
their description of the depravity intended by them. When they are urged
to point out what the depraved nature of man consists in, they always
state something which shows it to be wrong in _construction_, and which is
exhibited in the wrong _action_ of mind.
There are these following methods of describing this depravity, viz.:
1. It is called a _bias_, _propensity_, or _inclination_ to sin.
2. It is called an _unbalanced_ state of the faculties.
3. It is called a _habit_ of sinning formed in a pre‐existent state.
4. It is called a wrong _combination_, or _proportion_, in the mental
faculties.
5. It is called a state resulting from the _deprivation_ of God’s Spirit.
It will now be shown that each and all of these equally involve the idea
of that malformation or wrong construction which proves its author
depraved.
The first is the most common method. On this view, it is claimed that the
minds of angels and of Adam were constructed with such a _bias_ or
tendency to good as secured their perfect action for a given period. The
mind of man, on the contrary, begins existence here so constructed that it
has a contrary _bias_ to evil; so that it never, in a single instance,
chooses right till regenerated.
The angels and Adam had a _holy nature_, meaning a _bias_, which God
created. Mankind have a contrary bias, which is a _depraved nature_, and
of this, man is the author, either _in_, or _by_, or _before_ Adam. And
they all allow, that if God had created this depraved bias, or depraved
nature, he would be “the author of sin.”
The second mode is, the claim that man’s depravity consists in an
_unbalanced state_ of his faculties or propensities. The angels and Adam
were created by God with the proper balance, and this is the holy nature
made by God. Man is born with an unbalanced state of the faculties, and
this was created by man himself, either _by_, or _in_, or _before_ Adam.
Now the balance of the faculties is as much a part of the construction of
mind as any thing else, and if God created this depraved, he is proved to
be depraved.
The third mode is, the claim that the depravity of man’s mind consists in
a _habit of sinning_. On this view, God created man’s mind aright, in all
respects, in a preëxistent state. In this normal condition of mind, every
propensity was toward not only _good_, but to the _best_ good, while there
was sufficient _knowledge_ of right created also, to save from all
mistakes of judgment as to what is best and right. In this perfect state
_some_ minds began to sin, and thus formed a habit of sinning, and were
then sent into this world to be reformed.
Here it is plain, that the depravity intended is depravity of
construction. For _habit_, as men use the term, expresses the fact that
repetition in the use of any faculty _increases its power_. It is a change
in the constitutional _construction_ of mind induced by use. For example,
a child has little constitutional power of mind to reason or to calculate
figures. By use, this deficiency of construction is modified.
_Habit_, then, modifies the constitutional organization of mind.
This mode of describing the depravity of mind teaches the misconstruction
of constitutional organization as much as all the others, but it furnishes
another mode by which it was induced, so as to make man the author in a
way that is comprehensible, and not absurd.(16)
The fourth mode is the claim that the depravity of the human mind consists
in the _disparities, or varieties, of constitutional organization_.
It has been shown that such disparities, as parts of a vast system in
which the best good of the whole is the best good of each part, are
indispensable to the perfect construction of mind in relation to that
system.
But the depravity claimed is, that which is common to _every_ mind, and is
so total that not a single mind, however highly endowed, ever, even in one
case, acts virtuously till regenerated. Thus the best in mental
construction are as totally depraved as the worst. At the same time, it is
clear that it is constitutional malformation that is taught, and nothing
else.
The fifth mode of describing the depravity of mind is that it consists in
the _deprivation_ of God’s Spirit.
The result of this deprivation is thus described by Dr. Hodge, of the
Princeton Calvinist school of divines:
“In consequence of this withdrawal we begin to exist in moral
darkness, _destitute of a disposition_ to delight in God.”
Arminius, the chief theologian of the Methodists, describes it thus:
“The will of man, with respect to the _true good_, is not only
wounded, bruised, inferior, crooked and attenuated, but is
likewise captivated, destroyed and lost; and has _no powers
whatever_, except such as are excited by grace.”
Thus the presence of God’s Spirit in Adam’s mind, according to Dr. Hodge,
insured a “disposition” to delight in God, which was lost by its
withdrawal. According to Arminius, this withdrawal so affected the whole
race, that “in respect to the _true good_” the will of man has _no powers
whatever_, except such as are excited by grace—that is, by a measured
return of God’s Spirit, withdrawn for Adam’s sin, which return was
purchased by Christ’s death.
It is clear, that it is the powers and faculties of mind that are meant
here, in this explanation of the depravity of man’s nature.
Thus it is shown that every attempt to explain what depravity consists in,
by theologians, results in their teaching a _constitutional malformation_,
which proves the author of the construction to be depraved.
We will now present the evidence, that theologians contradict themselves,
and deny that they use the word _nature_ in the sense of constitutional
organization or construction, and maintain that they use it in some other
sense.
In all creeds and all theological teachings, the authors expressly
disclaim that they maintain any thing which makes God “the author of sin.”
And they allow, that making God the creator of a depraved nature, would
make him the author of sin. Therefore, to escape the difficulty, they
claim that God is the author of one nature, which is perfect and in his
own image, and that there is _another_ nature which man himself made,
either _by_, or _in_, or _before_ Adam, which is depraved. Then when they
are driven to identify the nature that God made and the nature that man
made, they are again at fault. Man really has but one nature, and that is
the nature which is discovered by his qualities and actions, as learned by
experience. There is no other nature conceivable, and no other idea that
men ever attach to the word when applied to the mind or soul of man.
Therefore, theologians really do use it in the sense which they deny, for
there is no other.
Again, theologians deny that they teach “physical depravity” and “physical
regeneration,” and the only intelligible sense of this disclaimer is, that
they do not teach depravity of construction and the reformation of this
depravity of construction. But, as before shown, when they describe the
depravity and regeneration, they make out what actually is physical
depravity and physical regeneration, and nothing else.
Again, when they attempt to describe what they mean, one class of
theologians—_i.e._, new school Calvinists—teach that the whole depravity
consists in a want of “_right willing_.” And this is exactly what the
common‐sense system teaches—_i.e._, that the depravity of man is in the
wrong _action_ and not in the wrong _construction_ of mind. And yet when
they are charged with holding the Pelagian doctrine of perfect mental
construction, they deny it, and say they teach depravity of nature.
As an example of this, is presented the following extract from the
writings of Dr. Bennet Tyler, the president of a theological seminary
established to sustain the New England theology of the President Edwards’
type, in opposition to the supposed Pelagian innovations of the New Haven
theologians:
“God has endowed you with understanding to perceive the rule of
duty, with conscience to feel obligation, and with _will_ to
choose between good and evil. Possessing these powers, you are
complete moral agents, and have _all_ the ability to obey the
commands of God that you ever will have, or ever _can_ have—we do
not mean that all the powers and faculties of his (man’s) soul are
so impaired that he _could not_ do his duty if he would, but that
he _will_ not do his duty when he can.”
In reading the above, one would suppose that there was nothing wrong at
all in the construction of the human mind, and that the whole difficulty
consisted in _not willing_ aright—that is, that the depravity is not in a
wrong _nature_, but in the wrong _action_ of a perfect nature. And yet, at
the time of this writing, the author was the leader of an effort to oppose
this very doctrine, which was supposed to be taught by the New Haven
divines.
In a recent work by the chief theological teacher of the leading Baptist
Seminary,(17) we find similar contradictory statements. He thus writes:
“_Regeneration_ is not only characterized by the sacred writers as
a _creative act_, by which the subject of it becomes a new
creature in Christ Jesus, and a generation from above, by which
the soul is brought into new spiritual life; but also a washing, a
bathing, effected by the Holy Ghost, by which the polluted soul is
cleansed; as an illumination, by which it is filled with the
knowledge of God, and qualified to appreciate spiritual things.
The eye of conscience is cleared, the desires and affections are
renewed and flow into new channels, and the selfish views,
prejudices and motives, which formerly reigned in the soul, are
superseded by faith, love and hope, resting in Christ, and leading
to every good work. The _entire spirit_ is readjusted morally, its
aspirations, tendencies and relations to God are rectified, and it
enters, so to speak, upon a new life.”
In this passage, regeneration is called “a creative act” changing the
_conscience_, the _desires_, the _views_, the _prejudices_ and the
_motives_—so that “_the entire spirit_ is _readjusted_,” and all its
“aspirations, tendencies and relations to God are rectified.” It is not in
the power of language to express _a change_ in the _faculties_ and
_constitutional elements of mind_ more entirely than this; and yet the
very next paragraph reads thus:
“But all this pertains to the moral condition of the soul,
affording _no evidence that its essence has been changed; that any
faculty or constitutive element has been added, any fresh vigor or
new principle of existence infused_.”
But the most remarkable illustration of self‐contradiction among
theologians, involved in every attempt to maintain a depraved nature
consequent on Adam’s sin, is found in the teachings of Dr. Taylor, the
leader of the New Haven school of divines.
In his _Concio ad Clerum_, in 1828, one aim probably was, to meet the
charges against himself, of teaching the Pelagian tenet, that man’s
depravity consists, not in nature, but in action. In reference to this he
writes thus:
“Men are entirely depraved by _nature_. I do not thereby mean that
their nature is 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_.”
Again—
“It is important to say 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.”
In the above extract, it is as clear as language can make it, that Dr.
Taylor taught, in 1828, that in men sin _by nature_ is owing to
propensities to inferior good, which are “different from Adam’s,” who was
created perfect, and that this is “the occasion or reason” of their
sinning, and that “such is _their nature_, that in all appropriate
circumstances of their being, they _will sin, and only sin_.” This must
mean the _construction_ of mind. He does not claim to describe, certainly,
what this difference is between the nature of Adam and that of his
descendants; but he maintains that while Adam’s nature was not so created
by God at first, the nature of _all_ his descendants is so depraved, that,
as the result, they “sin, and only sin,” till regenerated.
But, in contradiction to this, is presented the extract below, sent by Dr.
Taylor to the author, in a letter in which he was attempting to show that
he did not teach the depravity of man in his _constitutional_ faculties.
And he claims that what he thus writes is what he has “_always_ taught:”
“I have _always taught_ that man, after the fall of Adam, was as
truly created in God’s image as was Adam; that Christ was tempted
in _all_ points like as we are; that the stronger are our inferior
propensities, if we govern them, as we can, by the morally right
act of the will, the greater is the moral excellence of the act. I
_do not_ maintain that man has full power to _change_ his depraved
nature without divine aid—for I have never supposed that he has a
depraved nature in ANY sense, or a corrupt nature, much less a
sinful nature, _to be_ changed; but rather, that _in nature_ he is
like God. In discussions I have always opposed the use of language
by your father and Mr. Barnes, of a _corrupt nature not sinful_.”
Now it is not possible to make these two extracts any thing other than
exact contradictions. For in one he teaches that men are so totally
depraved _in nature_, that “in all the appropriate circumstances of their
being they will _sin, and only sin_.”
In the other, he says of man, “I have never supposed that he has a
depraved nature, _in any sense_, or a corrupt nature, much less a sinful
nature, to be changed; but rather that _in nature_ he is like God.”
If it is asked, “How is it possible that a man, at once so honest and so
acute, can thus contradict himself and not perceive it?” it may be
replied, that he has done it no more than does every other theologian and
every creed that teaches at once, that the _nature_ of man is so depraved
at birth that every moral act is sin, and only sin, till regeneration—and
yet, that God, the Creator of all minds, is not the author of the sin
resulting from such a depraved nature.
And theologians are not peculiar in self‐contradictions. _Every error is a
contradiction to some principle of common sense._ Thus it is a fact, that,
as all men believe and maintain, by a necessity of nature, the principles
of common sense, every _false_ principle or error which they defend, is a
flat contradiction to some of their other declarations on other occasions.
Meantime, it is the great mission of all free and fair _discussion_ to
bring men to see their own inconsistencies, and to forsake all which are
shown to be _contrary to reason and common sense_.