THEOLOGIANS.
It is the object of what follows to present the evidence that _the people_
are rejecting the Augustinian system, while they are retaining the system
of common sense, as that alone which is taught in the Bible.
Preliminary to this, a brief statement of the prominent points of these
systems, where their antagonism is most practical and apparent, will be
allowed.
The Augustinian system teaches that on account of Adam’s sin, man is born
with a _nature_ so _totally depraved_, that he never performs any truly
virtuous acts till this nature is regenerated; that the true church of God
on earth consists only of those who are thus regenerated; and that a
visible church consists of an organization of persons who profess to
possess a nature that has been re‐created, so that they perform truly
virtuous acts, as the unregenerated never do.
In opposition to this, the common‐sense system teaches that man is born
with a perfect nature, so that he can and does act virtuously without any
change in this nature; also that the true church of God on earth consists
of all those whose chief end and earnest purpose is to discover and to
obey all his laws; and a visible church consists of any who associate by
some outward organization to aid each other in attempts to discover and to
obey the laws of God.
The evidence that the people are rejecting the former, and assuming the
latter view as that which is taught in the Bible, will now be presented
under these heads:
The present position of theologians;
The state of the church;
The position of the pastors of churches;
The state of popular education;
The position of woman;
The position of Young America;
The position of the religious and secular press.
Present Position of Theologians.
In attempting to portray the present state of the theological world, it is
needful first to distinguish between a class which may distinctively be
termed theologians and the much larger class which are pastors of the
people.
The two classes are so commingled that it would be impossible to draw any
line so exact as to arrange all in these two classes; for sometimes the
same person is both theologian and pastor. Still there is foundation for
classification as distinct as ordinarily exists in regard to other
professions where men combine diverse pursuits.
In attempting this classification, it must be noticed that the religious
world is divided into great denominations, each having its theological
schools, its colleges, its theological magazines and its religious
newspapers.
All these are conducted by men whose business is not that of pastors, and
yet a great majority of whom were educated for this office by a regular
theological training. Meantime, their position, professional reputation
and daily bread depend on maintaining the particular peculiarities in
doctrine and practice of a given sect. By this is meant, that should they
publicly avow a renunciation of the peculiarities that distinguish their
sect, they would suffer in the public estimation of their supporters, and
be immediately removed from their professional employment. It is this
class who are usually among the chief leaders of each denomination, and
who therefore are exposed to all the difficulties and temptations which
beset those whose power, influence, profession and pecuniary support are
more or less connected with a _conservative_ course in all matters of
religious opinion—difficulties and dangers to which a pastor is much less
exposed, so long as he maintains his hold on the confidence and affection
of his people, who are his chief protection against theological
persecution of any kind.
The first class depend on a whole denomination for reputation and a
livelihood; the last class depend chiefly on their own people. The first
class, on every practical question, must regard the views and opinions of
a sect, as leaders and guardians of the interests of a great organization,
whose very existence depends on the dominance of certain opinions. The
latter class must chiefly regard the highest spiritual good of the souls
committed to their care.
Thus, for example, the Baptist theological professors, and editors of
religious periodicals, must maintain that baptism by immersion is the only
scriptural mode of admission to the visible church of God and to the
sacrament, or give up their influence, reputation and professional
livelihood. And they must sustain the organized interests of that sect as
its most trusted and talented leaders. Moreover, the very existence of the
sect and of their position as its leaders, depend on the maintenance of
this tenet, for it is this alone that separates them from the
Congregational sect.
In like manner, the Congregational theological professor and editor must
maintain that form of church organization or give up his post. And so the
Presbyterian, Episcopal and Methodist theological professors and editors
are equally bound.
This representation does not necessarily imply any thing invidious. If it
is regarded as a duty to keep up the sectarian divisions, which, as has
been shown, all result from the Augustinian dogma, then men must be
supported to do it by theological schools and periodicals. And when men
are put into positions for the express purpose of sustaining the peculiar
views of a sect, it is not honest for them to hold these positions after
they can no longer conscientiously do the work they are hired to perform.
But each pastor is the leader of his flock; and their opinions and
practices are more or less at his control as their religious teacher. And
so long as he can carry his people with him he is independent of every
other ecclesiastical power. True, he may be censured, deposed and excluded
from a given sect or party, but his people only have to declare themselves
independent, and that they choose to retain him as their religious
teacher, and no one can harm him as to his professional employment or his
support.
Thus it is that the pastors of churches have fewer of those difficulties
to meet which restrain the chief theological leaders of a sect.
We are now prepared to notice the present position of theologians in this
country.
It has been shown that the chief theological conflicts, since the days of
Augustine, and also the chief sects, have resulted from attempts to throw
off the dogma introduced by him in some one of its developments. Thus the
conflict headed by Luther was against the substitution of external rites
and forms resulting from man’s helpless depravity for an internal
principle of love and obedience.
The conflict commenced by Arminius was to maintain man’s ability to do
something by his own efforts to gain eternal life, in opposition to the
utter inability taught by Calvinism.
The conflict commenced by Wesley and his associates, was to rouse men from
a resting in outward rites and forms and educational training, by making
instantaneous regeneration a practicable aim, and one to be secured by the
use of “the means of grace.”
The conflict commenced by President Edwards was to remedy the Calvinistic
tendency to hopeless inefficiency and waiting for God to regenerate, by
insisting on man’s ability to obey all that God requires.
The conflict led by the New Haven school of divines, was, in fact, an
attempt to cut up the Augustinian system by the root, in maintaining that
sin consists in the _wrong action_ of a right nature, and not in a
depraved nature and its inevitable results.
All these controversies have been carried on, more and more, in the
audience of _the people_, who, in the meantime, have been continually
advancing in mental culture and knowledge.
Especially has this been the case in this country, where religion has been
freed from civil restraints. Several of the religious sects have been so
divided on these matters as to involve civil suits to settle questions of
property, thus bringing theologians and lawyers on to the same arena. And
thus discussions on theological points were reported in secular papers.
This was the case in the rending of the Presbyterian church into the Old
and New‐school sections. During this controversy, some of the most honored
and talented of the clergy were suspended from their pulpit duties and
threatened with dismission from theological professorships, solely on the
charge of denying certain points of doctrine of the Augustinian system.
And the highest judicature of the nation was called to decide whether the
men thus charged had, or had not so departed from orthodox creeds as to
warrant the loss of place and income.
In this discussion, the endowments of colleges, of theological schools,
and of church property, were so at stake, that the laymen all over the
land were obliged to inquire into and understand the merits of a
discussion strictly metaphysical and theological.
In Massachusetts, at one time, the whole State was excited by the question
whether there were any other _churches_ except the _congregations_ that
worshiped together and supported the minister. This question was argued
before the highest court of the State, and decided in the negative, while
for years the controversy was prolonged.
Meantime, the study of mental science has been introduced into both
colleges and schools all over the land, and the sons, and even the
daughters of our farmers and mechanics, have gained clearer and more
discriminating views on such subjects than can now be found in the
writings of Aristotle, Plato, and the wisest men of past ages.
Phrenology, also, has drawn maps of the mental faculties, so that even the
senses have been trained to aid in metaphysics.
The pulpit, the press and public lecturers now, when they refer to the
_intellect_, the _susceptibilities_, the _will_, _the moral powers_, and
use other metaphysical terms, are understood by all.
In short, the human mind has developed in all directions, until it is
impossible any longer to conceal absurdities under cover of hard names and
metaphysical abstrusities, especially when the practical concerns of this
life, as well as the life to come, are equally involved.
Meantime, the most vigorous and acute minds in the various opposing sects
and theological schools, have been exhibiting, in magazines and
newspapers, the difficulties and absurdities each finds in the creed and
teaching of all who differ, while it is the laymen who read and pay for
these periodicals. In these, and many other ways, the discussions which
once were confined to metaphysicians and theologians, have come before the
people, and the Augustinian system has been more and more clearly
exhibited as contrary to the moral sense and common sense of mankind.
A few years since, Dr. Edward Beecher published the _Conflict of Ages_, in
which, with a calm and Christian spirit and in a popular form, was set
forth the difficulties consequent on the Augustinian system, which for
ages have agitated all Christendom.
In this work, it is shown that there are “principles of honor and right”
which all theologians agree in maintaining that God must and does regard
and obey; that these principles are violated by God on the supposition
that he has brought mankind into being in this world with a depraved
nature; and finally, that all theories as yet invented by theologians to
relieve the Creator from such an imputation are failures, except the
theory, which is there presented, of _a pre‐existent state_, according to
which, mankind were created with perfect natures, which they ruined by
sinning, and came into this life to be restored to their former perfect
state.
Much that appears in the early portion of this work is from this source.
Still more has been gained from that work in the clear manner in which it
is there proved, that the Bible does not teach that the sin of Adam had
any effect on “the nature” of the human race, and that the interpretation
given to the passage in Romans v., which is the chief one claimed as
teaching this doctrine, not only has been interpreted wrong, but is
contrary to the rendering of the whole Christian world from the apostles
to Augustine.
In other words, the _Conflict of Ages_ came before _the people_ with the
claim, that the Augustinian theory of a depraved nature consequent on the
sin of Adam, as taught by all theologians of the great Catholic and
Protestant sects, is contrary to the moral sense of mankind and entirely
unsupported by the Bible.
This work was read, not only by theologians and pastors, but by
intelligent laymen, to an extent never known before of a strictly
theological work.
And what was the ground taken by theologians of all schools? They were
bound to show to the people, in opposition to this work, if they could,
that this Augustinian dogma _was not_ contrary to the moral sense of
mankind, and that it _was_ taught in the Bible.
But not a single attempt of this kind has ever been made. This universal
_silence_ is as direct a confession of inability to reply as ever was
known in the theological world. All that ever has been attempted has been,
to show that the theory of a preëxistent state, offered by that author,
affords little or no relief, and is without scriptural authority.
The words of a distinguished theologian and editor of a theological
quarterly, addressed to the writer, express the case exactly: “Your
brother has succeeded in throwing us all into the ditch, but he has shown
us no way to get out.”
That is to say, so long as the doctrine of a _depraved nature_ that
insures “sin, and only sin,” in every unregenerate mind, is maintained,
there is no _satisfactory_ way yet devised of proving the wisdom and
benevolence of God, by the concessions of theologians themselves.
At the same time, the _Conflict of Ages_, in removing the chief passage in
the Bible relied on for proving that _in consequence of Adam’s sin_ the
nature of all men has become depraved, has equally removed the evidence
most relied on to prove that there is any such _depravity of nature_
taught in the Bible at all.
This universal, tacit concession of theologians of all schools, in
reference to this famous passage of Scripture, had no little influence in
bringing before the public the volume entitled _Common Sense Applied to
Religion, or the Bible and the People_ before referred to.
In this work, the _principles of common sense_ and the _nature or
construction of mind_ are by the author exhibited more at large than in
this volume. And the common‐sense system of religion as thus educed is
also set forth, though less completely and extensively than in this work.
The laws of language and interpretation also are introduced into that work
for the purpose of showing (in the second volume not yet published) that
the common‐sense system is also taught in the Bible.
But preliminary to this, it was seen to be important to apply the
principles of common sense to prove that the Bible is a collection of
_reliable_ records, of _reliable_ revelations from the Creator to mankind.
It was seen also, that if the Augustinian system is really taught in these
writings, _it is impossible to prove them to be reliable revelations_ from
God, as is set forth at large in chapter 34 of this present volume.
For this reason, in the Addenda to the first volume the Augustinian theory
is introduced, and very briefly shown to be, not only contrary to the
common sense and moral sense of mankind, but also without support from the
Bible.
Before publication, this work was sent to a large number of those regarded
as among the most acute and profound theologians of the several classes
described herein, with the request that if they detected inaccuracies as
to _facts_, or _fallacious reasonings_, they would point them out for
revision. In making this appeal it was stated that the writer had little
taste for metaphysics or theology, and had been driven to them in the
stress of great sorrow and under a tremendous pressure of motive as
narrated in the Introduction.
Several of those thus addressed, returned criticisms and remarks in reply.
The book was then issued, in which the author appeared not in the attitude
of a teacher, but as an inquirer. And the closing inquiries were:
Are these principles of common sense accepted?
Is _the system_ of natural religion evolved by their aid accepted?
Is the Augustinian theory of depravity, as tried by these principles and
the rules of interpretation, supported either by reason or the Bible?
The work, as thus revised, was again sent to these same theologians, and
it was noticed in most of the periodicals.
The result was the same as was accorded to the arguments of the _Conflict
of Ages_. Some criticisms on style, language and minor matters appeared in
the notices of the book, but the above main questions thus submitted were
met with an ominous _silence_.
None of the theologians of any school has pointed out any misstatement of
any specific fact; nor have they attempted to dispute the principles of
common sense set forth, or the results of their application in the
_system_ thus evolved. Nor have they attempted to show that the passage in
the Bible on which the Augustinian theory chiefly rests, is sanctioned by
the interpretations of the apostolic ages, or that the interpretation of
it in the _Conflict of Ages_, is incorrect.
Moreover, in the columns of the Independent, in reply to their notice of
her work, the following statement was made by the author:
“The case stands thus: I am aiming to present, in a short and
popular form, in my next volume, the _evidence_ that, in the
Bible, we have _reliable_ and _authoritative_ revelations from the
Creator, and to educe from these documents the true answer, not
only to the question, ‘What must _we do_ to be saved?’ but to the
grand question of my own profession, ‘What must we do the most
effectively to train the young mind to virtue and immortality?’
“At my first step I am met by ‘Young America,’ with such an
honest, amiable, and powerful leader as Theodore Parker. Regarded
as holding the creed in which I was educated, and most of my life
have advocated, I am thus interrogated:
“ ‘Is not the Creator the author of the constitution of mind?
“ ‘If the Creator _had power_ to make it right and yet has made it
wrong, is he not proved by _his works_ (the only mode of learning
his character) to be unwise and malevolent, and is not a
_reliable_ revelation from such a being, to teach the way of
virtue and happiness, impossible?
“ ‘Do you not claim that the Bible teaches that God _has proved_
his power to make mind perfect by creating angels and Adam with
_perfect minds_, and at the same time, as a penalty for the sin of
the first parent, has made such a constitution of things, that
every human mind comes into existence with a ruined and depraved
nature, that never _can_, or never _will_, act right till God re‐
creates it, while as yet, for the great mass of mankind, he never
remedies this wrong?
“ ‘Do you not claim that the Bible teaches that no human being has
any right and acceptable feelings or actions till God thus re‐
creates the mind?
“ ‘If the Bible _does_ teach thus, we can find a nobler Creator
and more perfect system of religion by the light of nature without
any revelation at all, while the God of the Bible, by its own
showing, is _proved_ unworthy of confidence as a teacher of the
way to virtue and happiness.’
“Pressed by these questions, I have searched the Bible in vain to
find any such doctrines in its pages. I find nothing of the kind,
and so I acknowledge that I have been in the wrong, and relinquish
the Augustinian dogma in which I have been educated, as
unsupported either by reason or revelation; and first privately
and then publicly ask for _any evidence_ to sustain it.
“I come before the public, not as a teacher of metaphysics or
theology, but as an _inquirer_ for the truth. I state, as nearly
as I am able, the difficulties I have met, and take every possible
method to avoid mistake and misrepresentation in regard to the
opinions of both those with whom I agree and those from whom I
differ.
“I assume that theology is capable of improvement; that Protestant
divines are no more infallible than Catholic; that a humble and
teachable spirit is the distinctive mark of a Christian teacher;
and that the courage and manliness that can acknowledge mistakes
is not only more Christian, but even in the eye of the world, is
more honorable and dignified than any assumption of infallibility,
however well sustained.
“In publicly meeting such an amount of talent, learning, and
influence as seems now to be arrayed against me, I deem that it in
no way implies a presumptuous or self‐confident spirit. I concede
that many of those I thus meet are my equals or superiors in
natural abilities, and certainly all are so in learning. I believe
also they are men of conscientious integrity, and that, probably,
most of them, would go to the stake rather than knowingly to
sacrifice their allegiance to truth, duty, and God. And I believe
that if I have any special mission in this matter, it is to
illustrate the truth that _common sense_, without any unusual
talents or learning, united to a sincere desire to learn and to
obey the truth, are sufficient for all men and all women, in all
important decisions for this life, and as much so for the life to
come.
“Nor do I regard this as a resort to old and _unpractical_ meta‐
physical abstrusities. It rather involves that great _practical_
question of life, before which all others fade into
nothingness—that question which meets every parent and every
teacher for every child—which meets every human being, as in
sorrow, or disappointment, or sickness, or death, the soul asks
from its Creator help and guidance for the dread and eternal
future. Instead of leading to metaphysical and theological
abstrusities, my hope is to entice from their dark and sorrowful
mazes to the plain and cheerful path of common sense.
“The great question involved is, have _the people_ a reliable
revelation from the Creator in the Bible, and are they qualified
to decide what are its true teachings on that great question of
life, ‘What must we do to be saved?’
“And at the same time, the great practical question for my sex is
no less at issue, ‘How are we best to train the mind of childhood
to virtue and eternal happiness?’ These questions surely are
capable of being, and should be, discussed in the language of the
common people, and not in those scholastic and metaphysical terms
which they can not, and will not seek to comprehend.
“In these circumstances I endeavor first to meet the charge of my
friends of the Independent, that I have misrepresented the views
of that class of theologians with whom they fraternize, and with
whom I claim to agree.
“I offer the following as the exact words in which I have heard
the New Haven divines express their opinions, and which, on my
application, were sent to me as a correct statement of their
views, as taught for more than a quarter of a century, in the New
Haven School of Theology.
“They maintain 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.
They do not maintain that man has full power to _change_ his
depraved nature without divine aid, for they have never supposed
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, they have always opposed the use
of language by my father and Mr. Barnes of a corrupt nature, not
sinful.’
“I present this as an exact statement of my own views, and I claim
that, on the point of the native character of the human mind, it
is the _Pelagian_ ground in opposition to the _Augustinian_, and
that no _third_ ground is possible. If I am wrong in either
particular, I ask to be enlightened by the editors of the
Independent, and by the New Haven divines themselves. I claim also
that, so far as I can see, this is the _only_ ground on which the
argument above stated, as that of ‘Young America,’ can be
successfully met.
“I understand the editors of the Independent that they occupy the
Augustinian ground, and I therefore appeal to them, as well as to
the theologians of Princeton, Andover, Union, and Lane, to
instruct me and the public _wherein_ I have misstated their views,
and above all, to instruct us how, with this dogma fastened to it,
the Bible can be sustained against the above infidel argument. In
reference to this, should any thing be attempted, I offer these
questions for attention:
“Is there any passage in the Bible that teaches that the minds of
the angels or of Adam were not made exactly like those of the
descendants of Adam, and subjected to the same slow and gradual
process of acquisition and development?
“I have looked and inquired in vain to find any such passage, or
to find any person who ever found one.
“Is there any passage in the Bible that teaches that the _nature_
or constitution of the mind of man is not _the best that is
possible in the nature of things_? I have never been able to find
any.
“Is there any passage in the Bible that teaches that man has
received a _ruined nature in consequence of Adam’s sin_?
“I have read long arguments from Dr. Hodge of Princeton, proving
that there is no such thing taught in Romans v., the only passage
ever claimed to teach this doctrine that I ever heard of. My
brother, Dr. E. Beecher, thus concludes a long argument on this
subject in the Conflict of Ages: ‘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 God’s word.’ ”
The high, moral and intellectual character of the gentlemen to whom this
appeal was thus made, forbids the idea that they would allow such
statements and arguments and appeals to go unnoticed if they felt able to
afford any light in reply to these questions. It was their highest duty as
teachers of theology, if they could do it, to show how to answer the
argument of “Young America” against the Bible as containing the
Augustinian dogma; to show that the passage introduced above as a specimen
of the Pelagianism taught by the New Haven divines either _is not_ the
doctrine they teach or is not Pelagianism; to show that there _are_ some
passages in the Bible that teach that the nature or the constitution of
man is not the best possible in the nature of things, and _is_ different
from that of the unsinning angels or unfallen Adam; and finally, to show
that there _is_ some passage in the Bible that teaches that the depraved
nature of man was caused or occasioned by the sin of Adam.
Not only the professors and editors thus addressed, but all the
theologians of all schools, so far as the writer can learn, have
maintained a profound _silence_ on all these questions. The _Independent_
also declined any _discussion_ thus: “We have no intention of surrendering
our columns to a _theological_ or _psychological controversy_ such as
might be introduced by the communication we now publish.”
The writer after this, in several cases, suggested to some of the most
active and intelligent minds in some of the above theological seminaries,
to endeavor to secure a full discussion of these topics in their lecture
rooms, and was told, in reply, that all such efforts were decidedly
discouraged.
She also addressed notes to several editors of the secular press to see if
their columns could be used for the purpose. From the one whose past
freedom led to the expectation of an affirmative answer, the reply was,
that he had promised his orthodox friends that he would not _needlessly_
introduce _heresy_ into his paper, and that the greatest of all heresies
was _common sense_!
Finally, on consulting one of the most shrewd and best informed publishers
in regard to the future volume, he expressed the opinion that “in whatever
else theologians differed, they were all united in the determination that
the investigation proposed by the author _should not be permitted_.”
This being so, the author has concluded, and the public probably will
conclude, that the most profound and acute theologians of this country
have relinquished the idea of attempting any farther defense of the
Augustinian dogma.