* Dr. Edward Beecher, in his Conflict of Ages, p. 96, gives his valuable testimony as follows: ‘‘ The Princeton Review alleges. and as far as [ know correctly, that ‘ there is not a creed of any Christian Church in which the doctrine that inherent corruption, as existing prior to voluntary action, is of the nature of sin, is not distinctly affirmed.’ ”
+ Dr. Edward Beecher’s Conflict of Ages, book I, chapters viii., ix:, and x
ae ee
ae
FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 77
| but to face them in their full significance, and to adapt cuarrer » our speculations to the unquestionable facts. at It is here that the agonizing but unavoidable question arises as to the reconciliation of this state of facts with
the character of a just, holy, and merciful Creator. If God had seen fit to shed no light whatever upon this dark subject, it would still undoubtedly be our duty to exercise an unquestioning faith in him, and to appease our reason by the plea of mystery. But men must de- mand, and ought to demand, the full development of every element of relief from this great moral enigma
_ which God has graciously vouchsafed to give us in his Word. The ultimate intuitions of right are themselves
a direct revelation from God, and when legitimately in- _terpreted and applied, they are of as high authority as any dogma of theology. It is absolutely impossible for
a devout mind to admit that God can be the immediate author of sin, or that he can treat a creature whose natural claims upon him, as a creature, have not pre-
_ viously been justly forfeited as worthy of punishment.
_ The most orthodox theologians agree with the Ration- alists on the following points :—
1. God cannot be the author of sin. Points of f° 2. God cannot originally create agents with an in- Wont
ment
_ herent corrupt nature effectually predisposing them to Mane sin, for that would constitute him the author of sin. theo- And as a matter of fact he did create mankind and the oe angels holy—that is, with a positive, pre-existent disposi- #om*!s's tion inclining them to virtue.
8. God will not inflict either moral or physical evil ‘upon any moral agent whose natural claims as a depen- dent creature have not previously been justly forfeited.
4. Hence every moral agent ought in justice to enjoy a fair probation—that is, a trial so conditioned as to
afford at least as much opportunity of success as liability
78 THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT.
cana to failure. Hence arise two distinct and unavoidable
a
questions, which have been anxiously discussed by the philosophers and theologians of all times.
Why does 1. WHY, that is, on what ground of justice, does God
God allow :
a sinful disposi-
tion to b
’ trans- mitted ?
inflict this terrible evil, the root and sum of all other evils, upon every human being at the instant his exist-
“ence commences? What fair probation have infants born in sin enjoyed? And WHEN and wuHy were their rights as new-created moral agents forfeited ?
Howisit 2. How—since we must believe that God originally
trans- mitted ?
creates every moral agent with a nature predisposed to virtue, and since as a matter of fact he did so create the first man——How, so that the author of the nature is not
the author of the sin, is a sinful disposition originated In~ —
every human being as soon as he begins to exist ?
It is self-evident that while these two questions relate to the same subject, they are themselves essentially dis- tinct, and they must be treated as distinct, unless we should leave the entire subject in confusion. It is one thing to inquire how it is possible that sin shall originate as a connate predisposing cause of sin in every new-born infant, and yet the Maker of the infant not be the cause of the sin; and a very different thing to inquire WHY, on what ground of justice, this direful calamity is brought
- upon those who have not previously offended in their
own persons. The former question may possibly be solved by reference to some ascertainable physiological law of natural generation; it may have its ground in some general relation which all individuals sustain to the genus to which they belong. But the latter question essentially relates to the administration of the divine government, and to the character of those ultimate moral principles upon which it proceeds. If this important distinction had always been kept clearly in view, much of the obscurity, and of the error too, which have marred
FEDERAL HEADSHIP OF ADAM. 79
speculations and controversies on this subject, would have cmarrex been avoided. Endeavouring, therefore, to keep it steadily "* in view, I proceed to give a summary statement of all
the important solutions of both these questions which
have been offered. |
All opinions upon this subject may be classified upon two distinct principles.