(_b._) Habitual disobedience, or vice.

(_c._) Wilful violation of human law; crime.

(_d._) Diseased moral state, as selfishness, bad temper, &c.

4. SPIRITUAL EVIL.

(_a._) Wilful alienation from G.o.d, or perverse choice.

(_b._) Spiritual inability.

Now, we see that in all these divisions of evil,-physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual,-it is found in the two forms of active and pa.s.sive evil. In the latter form it is disease, and independent of the will.

Returning, then, to the Orthodox view of evil, which it is our business to examine, we find already that it has the advantage of the Liberal theology in recognizing this pa.s.sive side of evil, which we may call _disease_. It is true that Orthodoxy has not yet succeeded in coming to any clearness on this question, and has not yet any firm, intellectual hold of the main points of its argument. Examples of this confusion are quite common. Not to go back to the Calvinistic and Arminian controversies, which were but a revival of the Augustinian and Pelagian dispute; not to recur even to the Hopkinsian and Edwardian discussions,-we have only to refer to the differences between new and old school theology in the Presbyterian Church; to the trial of Dr. Beecher; to the book of his son Edward; to the divergence of Andover from New Haven, and Princeton from Andover.

Unsettled, because superficial, views of evil are at the roots of all these controversies.

-- 5. Doctrine of the Fall in Adam, and Natural Depravity. Their Truth and Error.

The first point of the doctrine of evil regards the Fall, including the doctrine of depravity.

Modern French philosophers have dwelt much on what they call the solidarity of the human race. By this they mean that two individuals are not independent of each other, like two trees standing side by side, but like two buds on the same tree or bough. There is a common life-sap flowing through them all. Let the life of the tree be attacked anywhere,-in its roots, its trunk, its limbs,-and all these individual buds feel it. Yet each bud has also a life of its own, and develops its own stalk, leaves, blossom, fruit. It can be taken from its own tree, and put into another tree, and grow. So it is with separate men grafted into the great tree of mankind. No one lives to himself, nor dies to himself.

If one suffers, all suffer. The life of mankind, becoming diseased, pours disease into all individual men.

Now, is there not something in this doctrine to which our instincts a.s.sent? Do not we feel it true that we inherit not our own life merely, but that of our race? and is not this the essential truth in the doctrine of the fall?

It is true that we fell in Adam. It is also true that we fell in every act of sin, in every weakness and folly, of any subsequent child of Adam. We are all drawn downward by every sin; we are lifted upward, too, by every act of heroic virtue, not by example only, but also by that mysterious influence, that subtile contagion, finer than anything visible, ponderable, or tangible,-that effluence from eye, voice, tone, manner, which, according to the character which is behind, communicates an impulse of faith and courage, or an impulse of cowardice and untruth; which may be transmitted onward, forward, on every side, like the widening circles in a disturbed lake,-circles which meet and cross each other without disturbance, and whose influence may be strictly illimitable and infinite.

No doubt, sin began with the historical Adam-the first man who lived. "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." But still more true is it that we fell in the typical Adam-Adam who stands for innocent, ignorant human nature before temptation; truest of all, that we _fall_ in Adam, because we are, each of us, at first an Adam.

We are all in the garden; we are at first placed in paradise; and each has in himself all the four _dramatis personae_-Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and the Voice of G.o.d. Adam is the will, the power of choice, the masculine element, in man; Eve is the affection, the desire, the feminine element, in man; the Voice of G.o.d is the higher reason in the soul, through which infinite truth commands,-i.e., the higher law; and the Serpent, the lower reason in the soul, the cunning element, the sophistical understanding, which can put evil for good, and good for evil. The garden is our early innocence, where there is no struggle, no remorse, no anxiety; where goodness is not labor, but impulse. But, when we go out of the garden, we enter a life of trial, till we reach the higher paradise, the kingdom of heaven; and then joy and duty become one again. Then-

"Love is an unerring light, And joy its own security."

From paradise, through the world, to heaven; from Egypt, through the wilderness, to Canaan; from innocence, through temptation, sin, repentance, faith, to regeneration,-such is the progress of man.

To me, the belief that I fell in Adam is not an opinion fraught only with sadness. This tide of life which comes pouring through me comes from ten thousand ancestors. All _their_ sorrows and joys, temptations and struggles, sins and virtues, have helped to make it what it is. I am a member of a great body. I am willing to be so-to bear the fortunes and misfortunes of my race.

It is true that I find evil tendencies in me, which I did not cause; but I know, that, for whatever part I am not the cause, I am not accountable.

For this part of my life I do not dread the wrath, but rather claim the pity, of my G.o.d. My nature I find to be diseased-not well; needing cure, and not merely food and exercise. I can, therefore, the more easily believe that G.o.d has sent me a physician, and that I shall be cured by him. I can believe in a future emanc.i.p.ation from these tendencies to vanity, sensuality, indolence, anger, wilfulness, impatience, obstinacy-tendencies which are, in me, not crime, but disease; and I can see how to say with Paul, "Now, then, it is no more _I_ that do it, but SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME."

If, now, we return to the consideration of the Orthodox doctrine of the fall, as set forth by the Westminster a.s.sembly, we shall find it to be half true and half false. It states _truly_ (chap. 6, -- 1) that our first parents sinned, and also (-- 2) that by this sin they fell from their original righteousness; for this only means that the first conscious act of disobedience by man produced alienation from G.o.d, and degeneracy of nature. This was no arbitrary punishment, but the natural consequence. The creed also says _truly_ (-- 3) that this corrupted nature was conveyed to all their posterity; for this only means, that, by the laws of descent, good and evil qualities are transmitted; which all wise observers of human nature knew to be the fact. It is also _true_ (-- 5) that this corrupt nature does remain (to some extent at least), even in the regenerate, in this life.

So far, so true. Sin, as disease, began with the first man, in his first sin, and has been transmitted, by physical, moral, and spiritual influences, from him to us all.

But now we find complicated with these truths other statements, which we must need regard as falsehoods. Tried either by reason or Scripture, they are palpably untrue, and are very dangerous errors.

The first error of Orthodoxy is in declaring transmitted or inherited evil to be total. It declares that our first parents "were _wholly_ defiled in all faculties and parts of soul and body," and that _we_, in consequence, "are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil." This statement is indefensible. But we shall consider this in another section on "Total Depravity," and only allude to it now in pa.s.sing.

Another error, however, and a very important one, is to attribute the _guilt_ of Adam and Eve to their descendants. This is the famous doctrine of _imputation_, which is now rejected by all the leading schools of modern Orthodoxy. That we can be _guilty_ of Adam's sin, either by imputation or in any other way, seems too absurd and immoral a statement to be now received.

But though many intelligent Orthodox teachers and believers do now reject the imputation of Adam's sin, they admit what is just as false and just as immoral a doctrine. They make us _guilty_ for that part of sin which is _depravity_, as well as for that which is _wilful_.

Whatever, either of moral good or moral evil, proceeds from our nature, and not from our will, has no character of merit or demerit. The reason is evident, and is stated by the apostle Paul. We are only guilty for what we do ourselves, we are only meritorious for what we do ourselves: but what our nature does, we do not do. "Now, then, it is no more _I_ that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

Professor Shedd, late of Andover, some years ago published a very able essay in the "Christian Review," the t.i.tle of which was, "Sin a Nature, and that Nature Guilt." This t.i.tle is a sufficient refutation of the essay. A man could not utter a more palpable contradiction, if he said, "The sun solid, and that solid fluid," or, "The earth black, and that black white."(14)

There are two kinds of moral good and two kinds of moral evil, which are essentially different. The two kinds of moral good may be named _moral virtue_ and _moral beauty_; the two kinds of moral evil may be named _guilt_ and _depravity_. Now, so far as goodness proceeds from a beautiful nature, it is not virtuous, and so far as sin proceeds from a depraved nature, it is not guilty. We can conceive of an angelic nature with no capacity of virtue, because incapable of guilt.

We can also conceive of a nature so depraved as to be incapable of guilt, because incapable of virtue.

-- 6. Examination of Romans, 5:12-21.

The famous pa.s.sage in Paul (Rom. 5:12-21), which is the direct scriptural foundation claimed for the doctrine of Adam's fall producing guilt in his posterity, is in reality a support of our view. The only other pa.s.sage (1 Cor. 15:22) where Adam is referred to, declares that we all _die_ in him, but by no means a.s.serts that we _sin_ in him.

The pa.s.sage referred to runs thus (Rom. 5:12-18):-

Verse 12: "As by one man sin entered into the world,"-

(Paul here refers to the fact that sin BEGAN with the first man.)

"And death by sin;"-

(By means of the sin of one man, _death_ entered.)

"And so death pa.s.sed upon all men, for that all have sinned."

(Rather "death _came upon_ all men, _because_ all have sinned." The Vulgate has here _in quo_, "in whom;" that is, in Adam. So Augustine. But even those who, like Olshausen, contend for Augustine's views, admit that ?f? ? here is a conjunction, equivalent to _because_, and not a relative.)

The next five verses (13, 14, 15, 16, 17) const.i.tute a parenthesis, and refer to an objection which is not stated. Some one might say, "How could all sin, from Adam to Moses, when there was no law till Moses? and you, Paul, have said (Rom. 4:15), that 'where there is no law there is no transgression.' "

Paul replies that "sin is not _imputed_ without law;" that is, as I think evident, it is not regarded as _guilt_. A man who sins ignorantly is not _guilty_; but he _suffers_ the consequences of his sin, which are depravity of his nature, or moral death. "Sin is not imputed," says Paul; "but death reigns." Those who do not sin "after the similitude of Adam's transgression,"-that is, who do not violate a positive command,-nevertheless are depraved morally, and are dead spiritually. The Hottentots and Fejee Islanders violate no positive law given them by G.o.d, and consequently are not guilty of that; but because they violate (even ignorantly) the laws of their moral nature, they are depraved morally.

We see, then, that Paul distinctly recognizes the distinction made above between _sin as guilt_ and _sin as depravity_.

He distinguishes between sin as sinfulness, or unconscious transgression (? ?a?t?a), and sin as conscious transgression of a known command (pa??as??).

The consequence of the first is death, or moral and spiritual depravity; the consequence of the second is condemnation, or a sense of guilt.

Sinfulness, bringing with it depravity (the general demoralization of human nature), began with Adam. All became involved in sinfulness, and consequently all partook of the depravity which belongs to it as its wages.

It should, however, be observed that it is not the purpose of Paul to teach anything about Adam. His intention is to teach something about Christ. He refers to Adam's case as something they all are acquainted with; he compares Christ's case with it both by contrast and resemblance.

But his object is not to instruct us about Adam, but about Christ. He uses Adam as an example to enforce his doctrine about Christ. Through Christ, goodness and happiness were to come into the world. He ill.u.s.trated this fact, and made it appear probable, by the fact which they already knew-that through Adam sin and death had entered the world. If it seemed strange, in an age in which men were so disunited, that one man should be the medium of communicating goodness to the whole human race, they might remember that Adam also had been the medium of introducing sin to the whole human race. If the Jews wondered that Christ should bring salvation to those who were not under the law, they might remember that Adam had brought death to those not under the law, and who did not sin as he did.