nation. The Irish people have always been remaikable for their fidelity ; the Enoljsh for lionesty ; the Germans for truthfnlness. These national traits, as revealed in individuals, are not the effect of self-discipline. They are innate, hereditary dispositions, as obvi- ously as the physical, mental, or emotional peculiarities by which one people is distinguished from another. And yet by the common judgment of men this fact in no degree detracts from the moral character of these dispositions.
The Testimony of Scripture.
3. This also is the plain doctrine of the Bible. The Scriptures teach that God made man upright ; that the angels were created holy, for the unholy angels are those which kept not their first estate ; that since the fall men are born in sin ; that by the power of God, and not by the power of the will, the heart is changed, and new dispositions are implanted in our nature ; and yet the Bible always speaks of the sinful as sinful and worthy of condemnation, wiiether, as in the case of Adam, that sinfulness was self-acquired, or, as in tlie case of his posterity, it is a hereditary evil. It always speaks of the holy as holy, whether so created as were the angels, or made so by the supernatural power of the Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. And in so doing the Bible, as we have seen, does not contradict the intuitive judgment of the human mind, but sanctions and confirms that judgment.
Tlie Faith of the Church.
4. It need hardly be added that such also is the faith of the Church universal. All Christian churches receive the doctrines of original sin and regeneration in a form which involves not only the ])rinciple that dispositions, as distinguished from acts, may have a moral char- acter, but also that such character belongs to them whether they be innate, acquired, or infused. It is, therefore, most unreasonable to assume the ground that a man can be responsible only for his voluntary acts, or for their subjective effects, when our own con- sciousness, the universal judgment of men, the word of God, and the Church universal, so distinctly assert the contrary. It is a matter of surprise how subtle is the poison of the principle which has now been considered. It is not onlv the fundamental ))rinciple of Pelagianism, but it is often asserted by orthodox theologians who do not carry it out to its legitimate results, but who, nevertheless, allow it injuriously to modify their views of some of the most impor- tant doctrines of the Bible. On the assumption that no man can be
Ill PART II. Ch. v. — original STATE OF MAN.
ju(|o;od, can be either justified or condemned except on the ground oF his self-acquired personal character, they teach that there can be i!o innnedlate imputation of the sin of Adam or of the righteousness of Christ; that the only ground of condemnation must be our self- acquired sinfulness, and the only ground of justification our sub- jective righteousness ; thus subverting two of the main pillars of evangelical truth.
Objections Considered.
The difficulty on this subject arises in great measure from con- founding two distinct things. It is one thing that a creature should be treated according to his character ; and quite another tiling to account for his having that character. If a creature is holy he will be regarded and treated as holy. If he is sinful, he will be regarded and treated as sinful. If God created Adam holy He could not treat him as unholy. If He created Satan sinful, He would regai'd him as sinful ; and if men are born in sin they cannot be regarded as {'vQi^ from sin. The difficulty is not in God's treating his creatures according to their true character, but in reconciling with his holiness and justice that a sinful character should be acquired without the creature's personal agency. If God had created Satan sinful he would be sinful, but we should not know how to reconcile it with the character of God that he should be so created. And if men are born in sin the difficulty is not in their being regarded and treated as sinful, but in their being thus born. The Bible teaches us the solution of this difficulty. It reveals to us the principle of representation, on the ground of which the penalty of Adam's sin has come upon his posterity as the reward of Christ's righteous- ness comes upon his people. In the one case the. penalty brings subjective sinfulness, and in the other the reward brings subjective holiness.
It is a common objection to the doctrine that holiness can be concreated and sinfulness hereditary, that it makes sin and holiness substances. There is nothing in the soul, it is said, but its substance and its acts. If sin or holiness be predicated of anything but the acts of the soul it must be predicated of its substance ; and thus we have the doctrine of physical holiness and physical depravity. The assumi)tion on which this, objection rests is not only an arbitrary one, but it is obviously erroneous. There are in the soul, (1.) Its substance. (2.) Its essential properties or attributes, as reason, sensibility, and will, without which it ceases to be a human soul. (3.) Its constitutional dispositions, or natural tendencies to exercise