Objections.
The objections to this doctrine, it must be admitted, are many and serious. But this is true of all the great doctrines of religion, whether natural or revealed. Nor are such difficulties confined to the sphere of religion. Our knowledge in every department is limited^ and in a great measure confined to isolated facts. We know that a stone falls to the ground, that a seed germinates and produces a plant after its own kind ; but it is absolutely impossible for us to understand how these familiar effects are accom])lished. We know that God is, and that He governs all his creatures, but we do not know how his effectual controlling agency is consistent with the free agency of rational beings. We know that sin and misery exist in the world, and we know that God is infinite in power, holiness, and benevolence. How to reconcile the prevalence of sin with the character of God we know not. These are familiar and universally admitted facts as well in philosophy as in religion. A tiling may be, and often certainly is true, against which objections may be urged which no man is able to answer. There are two important practical principles which follow from the facts just men- tioned. First, that it is not a sufficient or a rational ground for rejecting any well authenticated truth that we are not able to free it from objections or difficulties. And, secondly, any objection against a religious doctrine is to be regarded as sufficiently answered if it can be shown to bear with equal force against an undeniable fact. If the objection is not a rational reason for denying the fact it is not a rational reason for rejecting the doctrine. This is the method whicli the sacred writers adopt in vindicating truth.
It will be seen that almost all the objections against the doctrine of original sin are in conflict with one or the other of the principles just mentioned. Either they are addressed not to the evidences of the truth of the doctrine whether derived from Scripture or from experience, but to the difficulty of reconciling it with other truths; or these objections are insisted upon as fatal to the doctrine when they obviously are as valid against the facts of providence as they are against the teachings of Scripture.
The Objection that Men are Responsible only for their Voluntary
Acts.
1. The most obvious objection to the doctrine of original sin is j.yfounded on the assumption that nothing can have moral character as a^^^^P^ voluntary acts and the states of mind resulting from or pro-
252 PART n. Cn. Vm. — SIN.
duced by our voluntary agency, and wliicli are subject to tlie power of the will. This objection rests on a principle which has already been considered. It reaches very far. If it be sound, then there can be no sucli thing as concreated holiness, or habitual grace, or innate, inherent, or indwelling sin. But we have already seen, when treating of the nature of sin, that according to the Scriptures, the testimony of consciousness, and the universal judgment of men, the moral character of dispositions depends on their nature and not on their origin. Adam was holy, although so created. Saints are holy, although regenerated and sanctified by the almighty power of God. And therefore the soul is truly sinful if the subject of sinful dispositions, although those dispositions should be innate and entirely beyond the control of the will. Here it will be seen that the objection is not against the Scriptural evidence of the doctrine that men are born in sin, nor against the testimony of facts to the truth of that doctrine ; but it is founded on the difficulty of recon- ciling the doctrine of innate sin with certain assumed principles as to the nature and grounds of moral obligation. Whether we can refute those principles or not, does not affect the truth of the doc- trine. We might as well deny all prophecy and all providence, because we cannot reconcile the absolute control of free agents with their liberty. If the assumed moral axiom that a man can be responsible only for his own acts, conflicts with the facts of experi- ence and the teachings of Scriptures, the rational course is to deny the pretended axiom, and not to reject the facts with which it is in conflict. Tiie Bible, the Cluirch, the mass of mankind, and the conscience, hold a man responsible for his character, no matter how that character was formed or whence it was derived ; and, therefore, the doctrine of original sin is not in conflict with intuitive moral truths.
Objection Founded on the Justice of Grod. 2. It is objected that it is inconsistent with the justice of God that men should come into the world in a state of sin. In answer to this objection it maybe remarked, (1.) That Avhatever God does must be right. If He permits men to be born in sin, that fact must be consistent with his divine perfection. (2.) It is a fact of expe- rience no less than a doctrine of Scripture that men are eitlier, as the Church teaches, born in a state of sin and condemnation, or, as all men must admit, in a state which inevitably leads to their becoming sinful and miserable. The objection, therefore, bears against a providential fact as much as against a Scriptural doctrine. We must either deny God or admit that the existence and univer*