wliicli determine acts, and which are not themselves acts, if men did not intuitively recognize the fact that principles as well as acts may have moral character.
TJie Moral Character of Acts determined hy the Principles whence they flow.
3. So far from its being true that in the judgment of men the voluntary act alone constitutes character, the very opposite is true. The character of the act is decided by the nature of the principle by whicii it is determined. If a man gives alms, or worships God from a selfish jjrinciple, under the control of a disposition to secure the applause of men, those acts instead of being good are instinct- ively recognized as evil. Indeed, if this Pelagian or Rationalistic principle were true, there could be no such thing as character ; not only because individual acts have no moral quality except such as is derived from the principle whence they flow, but also because character necessarily supposes something permanent and control- ling. A man without character is a man without principles ; i. g., in whom there is nothing which gives security as to what his acts will be.
Argument from Scripture.
4. The Scriptures in this, as in all cases, recognize the validity of the intuitive and universal judgments of the mind. They everywhere ilistinguish between principles and acts, and every- where attribute moral character to the former, and to acts only so far as they proceed from principles. This is the doctrine of our Lord when he says, " Either make the tree good, and his fruit good ; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt : for a tree is known by his fruit." (Matt. xii. 33.) " A good tree can- not bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." (Matt. vii. 18.) It is the inward, abiding character of the tree that determines the character of the fruit. The fruit reveals, but does not constitute, the nature of the tree. So it is, he tells us, with the liuman heart. " How can ye, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good things : and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things." (Matt. xii. 34, 35.) A good man, tlierefore, is one who is inwardly good : who has a good heart, or nature, something within him which being good in itself, produces good acts. And an evil man is one, whose heart, that is, the abiding, controlling state of his mind, being in itself evil, hab-
110 PART n. ch. v. — original state of man.
itiKilIy (loL>s evil. It is out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, mur- ders, adulteries, fornicutions, thefts, false witness, and blasphemies. These terras include all voluntary acts, not only in the sense of deliberate self-determination, but also in the sense of spontaneous acts. They moreover include all conscious states of the mind. It is, therefore, expressly asserted by our Lord, that moral character attaches to what lies deeper than any acts of the will, in the widest sense of those words, but also to that which lies lower than con- sciousness. As the greater part of our knowledge is treasured uj) where consciousness does not reach, so the greater part of what con- stitutes our character as good or evil, is lower not only than the will but even than consciousness itself. It is not only however by direct assertion that this doctrine is taught in the Bible. It is con- stantly assumed, and is involved in some of the most important doctrines of the word of God. It is taken for granted in what is taught of the moral condition in which men are born into this world. They are said to be conceived in sin. They are children of wrath by nature. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, ^. e., carnal, morally corrupt. The Bible also speaks of indwelling sin ; of sin as a principle which brings forth fruit unto death. It repre- sents regeneration not as an act of the soul, but as the production of a new nature, or holy principle, in the heart. The denial, therefore, that dispositions or principles as distinguished from acts, can have a moral character, subverts some of the most plainly revealed doctrines of the sacred Scriptures.
The Faith of the Church on this Subject.
5. It is fair on this subject to appeal to the universal faith of the Church. Even the Greek Church, whicli has the lowest form of doctrine of any of the great historical Christian communities, teaches that men need regeneration as soon as they are born, and that by regeneration a change of nature is effected, or a new prin- ciple of life is infused into the soul. So also the Latin Church, however inconsistently, recognizes the truth of the doctrine in question in all her teachings. All who die unhaptized, according to Romi'.nists, perish ; and by baptism not only the guilt, but also the pollution of sin is removed, and new habits of grace are infused into the soul. It is needless to remark that the Lutheran and Reformed churches agree in holding this important doctrine, that moral character does not belong exclusively to voluntary acts, but extends to dispositions, principles, or habits of the mind. This is involved in all their authoritative decisions concerning original righteousness, original sin, regeneration, and sanetification.
§ 6 ] PELAGIAN AND RATIONALISTIC DOCTRINE. Ill
The Moral Character of Dispositions depends on their Nature and 7iot on their Origin.
The second great principle involved in the Scrii)tural doctrine on -this subject is, that the moral character of dispositions or habits depends on their nature and not on their origin. There are some who endeavour to take a middle ground between the rationalistic and the evangelical doctrines. They admit that moral character may be predicated of dispo'^itions as distinguished from voluntary acts, but they insist that this can only be done when such dispo- sitions have been self-acquired. They acknowledge that the fre- quent repetition of certain acts has a tendency to j)roduce an abiding disposition to perform them. This is acknowledged to be true not only in regard to the indulgence of sensual appetites, but also in regard to purely mental acts. Not only does the frequent use of intoxicating liquors produce an inordinate craving for them, but tlie frequent exercise of pride or indulgence of vanity, con- firms and strengthens a proud and vainglorious spirit, or state of mind ; which state of mind, when thus produced, it is admitted, goes to determine or constitute the man's moral character. But they deny that a man can be responsible for any disposition, or state of mind, which is not the result of his own voluntary agency. In opposition to this doctrine, and in favour of the position that the moral character of dispositions, or principles, does not depend upon their origin, that whether concreated, innate, infused, or self-ac- quired they are good or bad according to their nature, the arguments are the same in kind as those presented under the preceding head.
1. The first is derived from our consciousness. In our judg- ments of ourselves the question is what we are, and not how we became what we know ourselves to be. If conscious that we do not love God as we ought ; that we are worldly, selfish, proud, or suspicious, it is no relief to the consciousness, that such has been our character from the beginning. We may know that we were born with these evil dispositions, but they are not on that account less evil in the sight of conscience. We groan under the burden of hereditary, or of indwelling sin, as deeply and as intelligently as under the pressure of our self-acquired evil dispositions. So also in our instinctive judgments of other men. If a man be addicted to frivolous pursuits, we pronounce him a frivolous man, without stopping to inquire whether his disposition be ipjiate, derived by inheritance from his ancestors, or whether it was acquired. On the contrary, if he manifests from his youth a disposition for the
112 PAKT II. Ch. v. — original STATE OF MAN,