The divine character vindicated. A review of some of the principal features of Rev. Dr. E. Beecher's recent work, entitled: "The conflict of ages; or, The great debate on the moral relations of God and man."

Front matter

* * we Y peebiltl ae ae >

2 Aa

- i Deo ee o- iy

Contents

Objections considered. Endless misery consistent with goodness . ; * Other phases of the subject .

Its biblical relations . .

Difficulties resulting from free-agency, moral existence, and limited evil . ty ° m The rule applied to man’s natural endowments Degradation of free-agency . . .

Introduction

——

T's principal reasons for this work may as well, perhaps, be mentioned here.

1. In the first place, I have, for many years, regarded the “ great debate on the moral relations of God and man,” as the most momentous and important of any ever opened to the human mind. It takes precedence, in my own thoughts, to all others. None can for a moment compare with it. For even the great primal truths of the being of a God, and of the soul’s immortality, are dependent on its results for much of their interest and value. Indeed, everything which men hold as most dear, is wholly dependent upon it. All our spiritual hopes, all our immortal interests, hang upon its issue.

Whether we are living under a Divine system, which seems, to use the searching words of the. late pious John Foster, “to be overspread by a lurid and dreadful shade ;” which the good Saurin vi : INTRODUCTION.

‘termed “a mortal poison” to his own heart; « rendering nourishment insipid, pleasure disgusting, and life itself a cruel bitter:” “a system,” in the language of the humane Channing, “ which makes existence a curse, and wraps the universe in gloom ;” a system, in looking into which, with a penetrating but sensitive intellect, the ‘eminent Dr. Barnes was forced to exclaim, “ My soul is dark, parx, DARK !’’—or whether we are really under a Divine government, which is, in its whole spirit and character, truly parental; in which no suffering is pefmitted except for ultimate good ; no sin possible but such as is finite ; no retribution inflicted but such as is disciplinary ;—a system under which, no wrongs, on our part, will ever be visited in wrongs upon us in return; where nothing of injustice, or even of the spirit of retallation, exists, or can exist, on the part of the

‘Ruler; where the great moral principles of honor, and of right, and of love, even, according to our highest and best conceptions, infinitely perfected, are evermore truly and faithfully administered ; so that, whatever of sin or of suffering may prevail for a season, the existence of each and every individual shall be to him, on the whole, an infinite blessing :—these are great questions. The imagination can grasp none greater. They are ques-

INTRODUCTION. Vil tions, compared with which, those that are absorb- } ing the lives and thoughts of our most profound statesmen, jurists, philosophers, and men of. science, sink into utter insignificance and nothingness!

2. In the second place, the recent book of Dr. . Beecher, entitled the “ Conflict of Ages,” is, in some respects, one of the most interesting, in its general treatment of this subject, of any which I have ever read. Though dealing with some of its most abstruse particulars, and wading through many a musty volume of dogmatic theology, it has nothing that is stiff, or cold, or formal about it, but is a most vital, fervid, and genial utterance. It comes from the warm heart of a living Christian. And there is atone of candor and manli-— ness pervading it which is exceedingly refreshing. It easily wins the conviction of a good mind, that the writer of it is no mere religious partisan, who loves a creed more than truth, or popular opinion more than God; no lazy scholar who has turned author to kill time; no theological gladiator, who has come out to flourish his weapons, and utter words of bravado; but that he is a man, and a Christian ; with a strong and humane heart beating within him; one who felt it to be a sacred duty which he owed to God, to religion, and to humanity, to help solve, if possible, these great

Vili INTRODUCTION.

and oppressive moral problems, which have hung like an incubus upon the church for centuries. And, whatever errors I may ehdeavor to point out in his views, I must confess that he has uttered them apparently in the spirit of a kind and sincere earnestness ; anxious more for truth and good than all things else, and whose whole soul, with its best energies, was given to the work before him.

It has seemed to me, also, that this volume of his, coming, as it does, from this peculiar source ; from one who deservedly stands high in the ranks of New England orthodoxy ; and addressing itself, in words of manly and genuine regard, to all Christians, must, in all probability, gain a very general hearing, and, by mingling in a wide field of thought, command a greater influence than. almost any kindred publication of modern times. Its adoption of an entire new ground of defence for the articles of the church creed; its rather startling proposition to harmonize the conflicting dogmas of what is popularly termed. evangelical religion, by a method hitherto unknown, or, at least, merely hinted at; and also, what must seem to many minds as the extravagance of the theory which he calls to his aid for this purpose ; will, doubtless, serve to invest it with an attraction not i

INTRODUCTION. 1x found in similar works, and render it sought for and read by thousands who would, otherwise, never have attempted it. At any rate, it can hardly be doubted, that, whatever may be the character of its effects, they will be somewhat striking and wide-spread. Few, in this age of activity, can read so earnest and vigorous a production, wholly uninfluenced. They must think of it. They must reflect upon it, and it will constitute no trivial portion of those elements which are so rapidly modifying and changing public opinion upon the subject of our religion.

That it will accomplish its author’s chief purpose, in the way by which he evidently intended that it should, I have no great reason to believe. That it will do something like this, or even better than this, In another way, I confidently expect. Directly and immediately, it may seem to do but little, but indirectly and ultimately, I think that it will do much to help introduce better views of God, and truth, and human destiny, than those which now prevail. It gives anew complexion to the great conflict. It develops its hostile elements in a new light. It shows, I think, conclusively, that they are, in their very nature, antagonistic. There is no possible mode of readjustment which can harmonize them. Nothing 1* x INTRODUCTION.

short of an entire re-construction of some of them, with new materials, can effect a perfect reconciliation. And while a large share of the great body of orthodox Christians, and especially the younger portion, whose views are not'so rigidly fixed, will hesitate, and probably refuse to acknowledge our author’s solution of the difficulties in question, yet, he has so arrayed these difficulties in all their frightful magnitude, that they must shrink from an open acknowledgment and defence of the dogmas involving them, and finally compel a resort to those which are more rational and consistent.

It would really seem that those who have heretofore nominally accepted the prevailing views concerning entire native depravity, and infinite retribution, must see, in the light of his argument, the gross dishonor which they reflect upon the Divine character, and shrink from longer reproaching the Supreme Being with imputations which must render his name forever revolting. To accept our author’s theory, I think, they will not. To reject it, and still cling to their present eternally hostile dogmas, I think, they cannot: and I must therefore regard them as in a much more hopeful condition than they would be otherwise.

The demand for a just, and righteous, and good

‘INTRODUCTION. xi

Being, whom we may love, reverence, and adore, is a demand of the soul itself. A general atheistic condition can never be expected. And if the soul requires a God, and will not content itself without one, it requires also that He shall be infinitely deserving of all its deep love and trust. Demon-worship is fast becoming obsolete. Fear, servile fear, as a religious influence, is rapidly losing its ancient hold upon the public mind. Everywhere men are rising up and proclaiming, in a voice “loud as. the sound of many waters,” that they will have a good God, or no God. Everything now seems rapidly tending to this result. And among the tens of thousands who are daily living “without God in the world,” O how many are doing so because they can see no good Being whose guidance they may implore, and into whose arms of love they may cast themselves!

As I regard it, therefore, our author has done an invaluable service to true religion, in placing before the Christian world a clear and convincing view of the utter and fatal antagonism between - the Divine character and the dogmas referred to: and I cannot but believe, contrary to his own conviction, that the result will be, to some extent, at least, such a radical modification of these dogmas xii INTRODUCTION.

as will finally render them harmonious and consistent with the Divine nature. The truth is, that something of this kind must be done. Some effort must be made to reconcile religion with the reason and the hearts of men, or skepticism and irreligion will become triumphant.

Will our author’s new theory answer this purpose? I apprehend that it will not. I do not think that it can possibly be proved to general acceptance. J am led to this opinion, chiefly, from the fact, that even admitting his view of a pre-existent state, in which men sinned and fell, and from which they have brought into this world the elements of their depravity, there are still many other considerations, which are untouched by this view, and which involve difficulties to my mind equally as great as those which he thus attempts to remove. Not only does it fail in point of substantial evidence, but it does not serve, by any means, to vindicate the divine character. And if this is found to be the case, as I sincerely believe that it will, then there appears to be no other alternative. These opposing doctrines must be thoroughly re-examined. Those portions of them which are found defective or wanting in proof, must be given up. Nothing but thoroughly established facts—facts which ad-

INTRODUCTION. Xili mit of no resistance—must be admitted, if they serve to perpetuate the conflict. In this case, it is easy to see which class of these hostile forces ee must finally give way. This I have already inti- rer «

mated. We can never give up the essential honor,

justice, and goodness of God. Men will not long . yw. give up their hold on these, even if they are pre- “ é vailed upon to do so for a little season. They will ultimately see that when this is yielded, all else that is valuable goes with it. On this point, I am happy to avail myself of the forcible language of our author: “If His honor is at stake, all else must give way. What are creeds, institutions, or denominations, in comparison with Him for whose honor they are professedly made, and for whom alone they avow a desire to exist?” (p. 445.) We can never succeed in such a contest with the perfections of the Almighty. They constitute an impregnable fortress. Our modes of attack may serve to obscure, but they can never wholly destroy them. They stand before us in all the sublime majesty of infinite and eternal realities. There they must stand forever. And were it possible for us to succeed in their final overthrow—could we in any way bring up opposing forces which would vitally impair or ruin them—it would be a result from which we should i]

XiV INTRODUCTION.

suffer the most after all. It would leave us in the lamentable condition of king Pyrrhus—we might vain the battle, but we should be ruined in the war!

8. In the third place, it is with such views and feelings that I have felt impelled to approach the further discussion of the great questions involved in “The Conflict of Ages.” I have hoped, in doing this, that I might help forward what I have apprehended would be the indirect results of that work. Sincerely believing it to be indispensable to the interests of Divine truth that the character of God should be maintained in all its purity and perfection, I have desired to assist in so re-modelling the conflicting dogmas of the church, that this dreadful antagonism shall no longer work its mischief in the world. I cannot but regard Dr. Beecher’s mode of explanation as radically defective. I do not believe that his theory is true, or can be fully sustained. It will not end the conflict, but only prove that it must be done in some other manner. That true views of depravity and retribution will appear perfectly in harmony with the Divine character, I am fully satisfied. To assist, if possible, in the establishment of such views, is my most earnest desire. I would aid in opening a way by which the reason and the heart

INTRODUCTION. a may be reconciled to God—to so exhibit Him, that he may be regarded as the “‘One altogether lovely ”’°—whose ways, in his moral government, are holy, just, and good—and, who is really deserving of all the deep homage of all human souls. -

It is my sincere conviction that this only can interpose an effectual barrier to the present tide of atheistic speculation, or check the rapid and mournful tendencies of the age to a condition of religious indifference which is almost, if not quite, as fatal.

We can hardly hope to remove these evils until we can reach the causes in which they originate. Many of these causes, as I am often told by the skeptic, are to be found in irrational creeds and contradictory dogmas. And, until these are reformed, the greatest hindrances to the full success of the gospel, and the spiritual redemption of society, will remain unmoved.

Cannot this be accomplished? Cannot the Divine science of religion, like any other science, be so exhibited as to win alike the assent of all minds which are turned to it in a spirit of candor? Must it not be in itself quite as rational and consistent as any other system.of truth ?

I see no reason to think otherwise. It seems to me that there is no science which is characterized

Xvi INTRODUCTION.

by more of simplicity, and harmony, and beauty, than the religion of Jesus Christ. And, in the humble but earnest endeavor to exhibit more of this harmony, I have seriously approached the task of reviewing some of the principal features of Dr. Beecher’s late book.

I have not done this without some degree of hesitancy and reluctance, I must confess. I thought that I had hardly the time or means at hand to render it the most ample justice, even if I had the ability otherwise. Still, hurried along by weighty considerations, already suggested, I would do what I can, under the circumstances, trusting that I shall at least do our author, or his volume, or the great cause of religious truth, no actual wrong.

If wiser heads, and abler pens, shall enter upon this same field, as I can hardly doubt that they will, I shall only be the more rejoiced-in the hope of the speedy and final conquest of truth.

I sincerely ask that the respected author, whose work I am about to consider, may be assured, in ease these pages should ever come under his notice, that, if I have rightly understood him, the main current of our prevailing purpose runs together. I have altogether mistaken him if his leading wish was not to wipe those dreadful staing of reproach from the Divine character, which the

INTRODUCTION. XVll

- church has allowed to rest upon it for so many ages—to exhibit the entire harmony between it and the religion of Jesus—and to so reconcile the reason and the hearts of men to the true Christian system, that through this they may become united. to our Heavenly Father. Such, too, is my first wish, and my most fervent prayer.

I trust, therefore, that he will not regard me in the light of a mere disputant, desirous chiefly of a theological combat—not, indeed, as wishing to attack any man’s views or opinions for so very low and unworthy a purpose—but only consenting to do this, principally, because the best interests of Christ’s kingdom are honestly thought to demand it, because a felt pressure of duty urges me to the work. His volume has shown us that such a discussion is not necessarily dry and tedious in its character, or inconsistent with candor, courtesy, and kindness, to those who differ from us. And, though J do not hope to give to my treatment of the subject the pervading interest which he has thrown over his, or win so favorably the attention of the public mind, still, if a love of truth that is stronger than the love of sect or creed, and a genuine regard for the spiritual interests of our race, shall serve to render it acceptable, he shall

Xvill INTRODUCTION.

have no occasion to complain of my manner, whatever he may think or say of my matter.

At any rate, however he may be disposed to regard this review, or its author, is of very little comparative importance after all. It would be pleasant indeed to know that he had rightly apprehended the purpose of the one, and the spirit of the other. But all this weighs as nothing in the scale against the almost infinite magnitude of the subjects which this discussion involves. These are of too fearful import to be crowded out by other thoughts. The vital interests and the thrilling hopes which hang upon their issue—these will all remain when our work on-earth is finished. They will, doubtless, agitate millions of souls long after we are gone. Other and distant ages will come up to consider them, when our very names perhaps are forgotten. For they are subjects which concern, not us alone, but all men. They are not for the present hour only, but for all time—aye, for eternity!

4, Finally: I desire merely to add, that what has constituted the chief determining motive in the decision to put forth this review, springs from a deep and unwavering conviction of the truth of the essential principles assumed or advocated by it, and a sincere wish to impart some portion of

INTRODUCTION. X1x the serene joy with which they have filled my own soul, if possible, to the souls of other men. I am far too happy in their possession to be very selfish -in this respect. They comprise the chief treasure of my soul. In their radiant light, the darkest scenes of human life are relieved by gleams of hope, and the rising mist of tears is adorned with the bow of promise. They are my supreme source of comfort. They render God an unfailing refuge. All things else which I love in life, are not for one moment to be compared to them.

And, were I compelled to so dread an extremity —were I driven to choose between parting with them, or with the being which God has given me, — the task might seem severe indeed ; but it would not be one over which I should long hesitate. If I know my own heart, I should say at once, Either leave me these, or give me back that non-existence - from the calm depths of which His own free will has raised me !

REVIEW.

Chapter I

ANALYSIS OF THE WORK, 80 FAR AS IT IS CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL TO THE PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW.

1.—Misadjustment of the moving powers of the Christian System.

FotLowine a very winning introduction, our author commences the main body of his work with an endeavor to show that there is a vital conflict in the working forces of the present orthodox system. In the incessant warfare which has been going on in the church ever since the third and fourth centuries ; in the contests of Augustinians with Pelagians, in former times, and between “Old-School” and ‘ New-School” theology in our own day; he finds unmistakable evidences of something radically hostile to each other in the different views of the great body of the church, as these are professedly held in common. He compares their action to the two wheels of a steamship, one of which revolves forward and the other backward. These moving powers of the Christian system, as he terms them, are summed up in the following words:

“1. A true and thorough statement of what is involved in the fallen and ruined condition of man as a sinner. »

“2. A full development of the honor, justice, and benevolence of God, in all his dealings with man, so made as, in the first place, to free him from the charge of dishonorably ruining them, and then to exhibit him as earnestly and benevolently engaged in efforts for their salvation, through Christ, after they have been ruined by their own fault.” (pp. 16,17.) Each of these he regards as indispensable, in the great work of the moral renovation of men. And what renders them conflieting, in his view, is nothing inherent in the doctrines themselves, but is caused by merely a traditional mes-adjustment.

The views of human depravity, as maintained essentially by Augustine, Calvin, the Reformers, and all of the present day who are acknowledged as evangelical, are true, as he believes. It is also true, as is virtually maintained by all those, that God is honorable, just, and good, in all his original dealings with men. But between these two facts, as now generally held, there is entire hostility. Like the wheels of the ship referred to, they act against each other. Here is the grand central point, from which “The Conflict of Ages” has sprung.

It has formed the ground-work of almost endless debates, and has called out an immense amount of intellectual and moral force, which ought to have been expended more directly in the great work of human salvation. Here, then, the heart of the main controversy is laid open, and our author hopes, by a new process, that he may so re-adjust these conflicting forces that they shall, hereafter, work harmoniously together.

Chapter II. Analysis Continued

2.—The principles of honor and right stated and defended.

From the foregoing presentation of the main difficulty, Dr. Beecher passes to a clear and most conclusive proof of all its main features. He shows that the two conflicting facts are each firmly and fatally held by the great body of his church.

First ; the principles of moral rectitude, as they relate to the Supreme Being. ‘“ What, then,” he asks, “are the principles of honor and of right, by which the conduct of God ought to be regulated in his dealings with his creatures, and especially with new-created minds?” (p. 19.) In reply to this question, he takes, as I think, the only proper ground, namely,—that the human mind seizes upon these principles intuitively ; that our convictions concerning them are not the result of any logical process, but flow from the laws of our moral nature; that those principles are seen by the reason, just as external objects are seen by the eye; and with such precision and certainty that we may very properly call it the voice of God speaking through our moral constitution. These moral judgments of ours, are, in his view, quite as reliable as any principle or rule which could be drawn from the Holy Scriptures. ‘ Forgetful of this fact,’ he says,—alluding to those who think more of God’s “verbal revelations” than of any other,—“they have often, by unfounded interpretations of Scripture, done violence to the mind, and overruled the decisions made by God himself through it, and then sought shelter in faith and mystery. To avert, therefore, such results,” he proceeds “to show that there are divinely-given convictions as to honor and right, * * * which God has made the human mind to form with intuitive certainty, and which he designed to be a divine disclosure of the principles by which he regulates his own conduct.” (p. 20.) This fact, he proceeds to establish by the most abundant proof, drawn, not from unregenerated minds alone, but from the greatest and best in his church, as well as from the Holy Scriptures. Calvin and Melancthon, Drs. Chalmers and Alexander, together with Professors Stuart, Hodge, — and Tholuck, are quoted at large, as confidently

holding to this belief; and it is amply deduced also from the current tenor of the revealed word. 9 ad

Thus; Paul’s clear declaration that the gentiles, or heathen, do really have an active working conscrence within them, though they have no written revelation, shows that the law of God had been written on their hearts: and the fact that they were in the habit of morally judging of each other,—“ accusing, or else excusing one another,”—(Rom. 2 :15,) equally shows that they had a rule of right in their moral nature. On this ground God judges them, and has a right so to do. This moral sense, Christ also appeals to, in the question,—‘* Why, even of yourselves, judge ye not what is right ?”—and the appeal establishes the view that this intuitive idea of rectitude is really of divine authority.

Our author states four points to which these principles have especial reference.

“1, The distinction that ought to be made between the innocent and,the guilty.

“2. The distinction that ought to be made between original constitution and responsible moral character.

‘3. The relations and obligations that exist between great and powerful minds and such as are more feeble and limited, and especially between the great self-sustained mind and such as are inferior and dependent.

“4. The obligations of the Creator to new-created beings, as to their original constitution, powers, circumstances, and probation.”

“On all these points,’ he adds, “ God has made'the human mind to have decided intuitive convictions as to what is consistent with equity and honor.” (pp. 28, 29.) It may be proper to observe, here, that there is no position, in the volume under consideration, chosen with more care than this, or defended, in every respect, with more conclusive authority. I would call particular attention to-it now, not only because our author regards it as fundamental and important, but, also, because I regard it as a position not to be successfully controverted, and as a rule which I shall have occasion to use freely in the course of this review. :

“T deem it therefore important,” he affirms,— “nay, essential—to show that the position which I shall hereafter assume is pot improper rationalism, but a doctrine of the word of God, as clearly revealed as the doctrine of depravity itself. God himself declares that the intuitive perceptions of the human mind, as to honor and right, are a revelation from the creator,—a divine law of supreme and binding authority. God himself enjoins ifon men, as asacred duty, to judge by them. He does not feel honored by any defence which disregards them. Nay, he admits that his own conduct is amenable to judgment by these principles, and defends himself by an appeal to the same.” (p. 26.)

‘We must therefore of necessity assume, not only that there are judgments concerning honor and right which God has made the human mind to form with intuitive certainty, but that they are common to God and to man. This is a fundamental doctrine of the bible. To test any alleged acts of God by such principles, is not improper rationalizing. God not only authorizes, but even enjoins it as a sacred duty. To this point I call special attention.” (p. 27.)

After proceeding to show that the statements of Turretin, Watts, the Westminster divines, and the Princeton school also, involve all which is claimed in this exposé of the principles of honor and right, he closes his presentation of them in the following eloquent terms :

“Jt has been the great evil of other ages that principles like these, although avowed, have not been consistently carried out. They need to be exalted, made prominent, and insisted on. If true at all, they are to all created beings the most fundamental and most momentous truths in the universe of God. They are like a full-orbed sun, in the centre of ali created existence. No system can be truly seen but in their light. No system can be true which really contravenes them. For God is all glorious, all holy, all just, all honorable, all good. He cannot but observe the true principles of honor and of right. For, though he often dwelleth in the thick darkness, and deep clouds are his pavilion, yet now and evermore righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.” (p. 49.)

CHAPTER II.

ANALYSIS CONTINUED.

3.—Application of Principles.—Staiement of the Doctrine of Human Depravity.

Tse application of the foregoing principles to the Divine Economy, justifies our author in the following inferences: 1. If God as an infinite parent creates inferior or dependent minds, especially for an eternal destiny, he is under the strictest moral obligation to feel and act towards them in a manner honorable, just, and kind, and with a careful regard to their highest and best interests. “Ts not this the dividing line betwen the divine and the satanic spirit?” 2. God eannot hold his creatures responsible for anything of which they are not really and truly the authors. For nothing belonging to their original constitution can he hold them accountable, but only for that moral character resulting from the use of powers conferred. 3. As God requires moral rectitude of us, he will abide by these rules himself. He will not violate his own laws. 4. He will not in any way make one being accountable for that in which -he does not participate, but which wholly belongs to another. 5. As men are created with a view to their endless existence, they should be endowed with such an original constitution as would be most favorable to their ultimate enjoyment. For whatever belongs to their nature, God is responsible; and if that nature, anterior to their choice or action, is radically deranged or corrupted, he has not dealt justly by them. 6. God should place his creatures under circumstances as favorable as possible to the highest good of all. (pp. 31—88.) In fact, these principles, according to the free acknowledgment of standard orthodox writers whom he quotes, involve, in new-created beings, ‘Cas the essential basis of a fair probation, a good original constitution, well proportioned powers, and a decided and powerful bias to good, resulting | at first in actual and perfect obedience to the law of God.” (p. 47.) _ Here, then, we have one wheel of the theological ship; one of the antagonistic forces in the moving powers of Christianity; one of the two great parties between whom the conflict of ages has been going on.