CHAPTER XLV. THE PEOPLE REJECTING THE AUGUSTINIAN SYSTEM.—POSITION OF

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.