hostility. Between these two conditions, the Creator has left no alternative. Hence, the very act of apostasy-and that is the very essence of sin-is such a turning away from God as constitutes, in and of itself, the assumption of a hostile attitude, the embrace of aversion to him, and the submitting of all the powers to this hostile tendency. And, since all the powers are comprehended by this alien influence, it is evident that there is, in the apostate, nothing upon which can be predicated the possibility of his unaided return; but, on the contrary, the aversion will continually bear the being farther away from God, and widen, forever, the gulf between. To this purpose is the testimony of Paul:-"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” -Rom. vi. 16. Thus the sinner sells himself a slave to his own sins, and comes into bondage to his own apostasy.

Such was the case with Adam. Not only did he transgress the command of his Maker,-not only did he violate the rule of righteousness, but, in so doing, he turned away from God, in a revolt which embraced his entire nature, pervaded his whole being, and possessed every power. In entering upon trial, he enjoyed a perfect moral freedom. He had power and liberty to choose holiness or sin, to embrace evil or good. By his apostasy, he submitted himself to an absolute tyranny of corruption, a most degrading servitude to sin. So that now, no longer able to choose the good or work righteousness, he was free only to evil, and led captive in chains of enmity to God, to work wickedness with greediness.

Not only so, but the apostasy, in which he thus plunged, attached to him, not merely as he was a distinct and individual person, but as he was the head and fountain of the race. Comprehending and involving his whole being and nature, it attached, at once, to all who were in that nature, his seed; binding them with him in the crime of the apostasy thus wrought, in the depravity thus embraced and the penalty thus incurred.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE PERMISSION OF MORAL EVIL.

HERE a difficulty is urged, respecting the power, goodness and holiness of God. How can it be reconciled with these, that moral 1. Phases evil has a place under his government?

of Optimism. Plato represents Socrates as quoting from Anaxagoras the doctrine, that Nous, or Wisdom, was the originating cause of all things. Upon this, Socrates reasons that, if it be so, the Wisdom by which all things are regulated will dispose each in such a way as will be best. If, therefore, it be the wish of any one to ascertain the reason of a thing, in what way it is originated, or perishes, or is, he must discover, in regard to it, in what way it is best for it either to be, to endure, or to do any thing.*

The doctrine thus hinted by Plato was, by Leibnitz, incorporated into his system of Christian philosophy, and constituted the fundamental principle in his great work, the Tentamina Theodicæ. In his controversy with Dr. Samuel Clarke, he says, "Not mathematical principles, (according to the usual sense of that word,) but metaphysical principles, ought to be opposed to those of the materialists. Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle in some measure had the knowledge of these principles; but I pretend to have established them demonstratively in my Theodicea, though I have done it in a popular manner. The great foundation of mathematics is the principle of contradiction or identity; that is, that a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time, and, therefore, that a is a, and cannot be not a. This single principle is sufficient to demonstrate every part of

*Platonis Phaedon, xlvi.

arithmetic and geometry; that is, all mathematical principles. But, in order to proceed from mathematics to natural philosophy, another principle is requisite, as I have observed in my Theodicea: I mean the principle of a sufficient reason; viz., that nothing happens without a reason why it should be so rather than otherwise."* This principle of a sufficient reason, Leibnitz thus uses in the Theodicea :-"The infinite wisdom of God, joined to a no less infinite goodness, could not but choose that which is best. For, as a less evil has something of the nature of a good, so a less good has somewhat of the nature of evil, if it place an obstacle in the way of a greater good; and there might be something to be mended in the works of God, if there were room for doing better. And, as in mathematics, where there is neither maximum nor minimum, nor any thing distinctive, all are made equal, or, if that does not take place, nothing at all can be done, so also of perfect wisdom, which is regulated by rule, no less than the processes of mathematics, it may be said, that unless among all possible worlds there had been a best, God would have produced none. . . . And although all time and space were filled, yet will it always be possible for them to be filled in an infinite variety of ways; and an infinite variety of worlds would be possible, from which it behooved God to select the best, since he may do nothing except according to the rule of supreme reason."† In fact, the Tentamina Theodicææ is throughout designed as an illustration of this doctrine. Stapfer was a professed disciple of the Leibnitian philosophy. In his Institutes of Theology, he enters into an exposition and defence of the opinion in question. He thus states the standard of excellence to which the universe is referred, in pronouncing it the best:-"The divine intellect represents all things distinctly to itself, and therefore knows instantly what means are most fit to accomplishing his end.

*Correspondence between Leibnitz and Clarke, p. 19.

+ Leibnitii Tentamina Theodicææ, Pars Prima, ? 8.

"Capite tertio præcipua religionis Christianæ purioris dogmata in nexu suo exhibuimus. De capite autem hoc tenendum, quod in primis ejus sectionibus, quæ Theologiam naturalem spectant, Wolfiana secuti simus Principia, Theodicæamque Leibnitianam."-Stapfer's Preface.

But, since God decreed to produce this in preference to all other possible worlds, it is therefore demonstrated to be best adapted to his end, and therefore, also, the most perfect." "He is called independent who has in himself nothing the reason of which is in any other thing. But God is independent: hence it is impossible to conceive any thing in his infinite perfection, the reason of which is contained in any other being but himself. Hence no other being can contribute any thing to his infinite perfection; and in relation to God, nothing whatever can be called good, unless so far as it may be a representation of his infinite perfection. Since in relation to God a thing is good as it is a representation of his infinite perfection, and since the infinite perfection of God is to be understood no otherwise than as embracing all the divine attributes, or the whole fulness of God, therefore in relation to God nothing can be accounted good, but what has respect to all his attributes, either as a symbol or shadow of them."*

This doctrine, according to which, the present system of the universe is the best that is possible, is known as the optimistic, or beltistean, theory. It was adopted by Edwards, and became a conspicuous feature in the theology of New England, constituting the plea by which the divines of that school justify the efficient agency which they attribute to God in the existence of sin. But the doctrine, in passing into the theology of Edwards and his followers, experienced a fatal transformation, by which its identity was lost. This change consisted in the substitution of "fitness to secure the greatest happiness to the greatest number," instead of, the will and nature of God, as the standard of excellence to which reference is had.

Edwards, speaking of the providence of God respecting sin, says, "There is no inconsistence in supposing that God may hate a thing as it is in itself, and considered simply as evil, and yet that it may be his will it should come to pass, considering all consequences. I believe there is no person of good understanding who will venture to say he is certain that it is impossible it should be best, taking in the whole compass *Stapferi Inst. Theol., tom. I. cap. iii. sec. iv. 28. 889, 407, 408.

and extent of existence, and all consequences in the endless series of events, that there should be such a thing as moral evil in the world. And if so, it will certainly follow, that an infinitely wise being, who always chooses what is best, must choose that there should be such a thing. And if so, then such a choice is not an evil, but a wise and holy, choice. And if so, then that providence which is agreeable to such a choice is a wise and holy providence." In a marginal note appended to this sentence, he adopts the language of an English Arminian writer, who says, "It is difficult to handle the necessity of evil in such a manner as not to stumble such as are not above being alarmed at propositions which have an uncommon sound. But if philosophers will but reflect calmly on the matter, they will find that, consistently with the unlimited power of the Supreme Cause, it may be said, that in the best-ordered system, evils must have place." If the Author and Governor of all things be infinitely perfect, then whatever is, is right; of all possible systems he hath chosen the best, and consequently there is no absolute evil in the universe."

Bellamy was very earnest in support of the same doctrine. He says, "I believe that the infinitely wise and holy God, in every part of his conduct relative to the intellectual system, does that which is really wisest and best for him to do, most for his own glory and the good of the system in the whole; and therefore that God's present plan is of all possible plans the best,—— most for his glory and the good of the system." Says a more recent writer, "Let it be understood that the doctrine does not contemplate sin as, on the whole, or in the operations of the divine government, an evil. It is no deduction from the sum of the greatest good. It is an evil, only in the limited views and experience of finite beings. Considered as an event of the divine government, it comes in on the ground of benevolence, and not in the character of sin, or evil. It is a part of the system of benevolence; as much a part as any other event, or series of

events. It is, therefore, not to be viewed as a detached and

* Edwards on the Will, Part IV. § 9.

† Vindication of Discourses on the Permission of Sin, Sect. 2.