H

jraWh

it Doctrine of $m, anb its Ration to gtbxbak

SERMON,

DELIVERF.D IN

BROOKLINE, FEBRUARY 18, 1877,

BY

REV. HOWARD N. BROWN.

BOSTON:
Printed by F. A. Searle, 262 Washington Street.
1877.

}t §octrim of $>in, anb iis Ration to HUbiirals.

SERMON,

delivered in

BROOKLINE, FEBRUARY 18, 1877,

BY
REV. HOWARD N. BROWN.

BOSTON:
Printed by F. A. Searle, 262 Washington Street.
1877.

SERMON.

" SO THEN, WITH THE MlND, I MYSELF SERVE THE LAW OF GOD ; BUT WITH
the Flesh, the Law of Sin." — Rom. vii. 25.
THE problem of evil has furnished a never-failing
theme for discussion throughout the whole history
of the Christian church. It is a discussion of which
the world in this latter day has grown somewhat
weary, and which it has put under lock and key, as
it were, to be rid of its clamor for some brief while.
Evil is here, and the important fact is that we are
forced to do daily battle with it, whatever may have
been its origin and whatever is its significance in a
theological sense. Better to give one's self earnestly
to the task of conquering the evil, thinks the modern
world, than to spend one's energies in trying to explain
its presence, when that explanation — were it at last
found — would in no wise increase or alleviate the
necessity of fighting what is plainly our enemy. If
one's country is invaded by a foreign foe, the pressing
duty of the hour is to get him tumbled out again over
the borders ; not to sit down and speculate on the
causes which led to invasion, or to set about proving

that it is a part of the general plan of history. And
yet no general fights in entire ignorance of the strength
and character of his enemy. If evil is our foe, we
need to know something of what it is, where and how
strongly it is entrenched. I by no means propose to
bring up here the whole problem, which,- as it has
assumed shape in human thought, is largely a mass
of vapors. But there are some gleams of certainty
shining through it, which, besides being of help in a
general way, are of special interest at this particular
time, when there is more than usual attention paid to
theological affairs. The view of sin is in some sense
the key to a theological position. If the theologian
is strongly fortified there, he is not easily overthrown.
If he should prove weak at this point, he will find it
difficult to maintain himself; because this is one of
the not very numerous points where theology- comes
in direct contact with the world of actual facts. We
have here some measure other than the mind's own
premises by which to test the validity of its views.
We can appeal to things as they are, and test opinion
by the extent to which it includes or explains the fact
of evil as we have it before our eyes. The men who
have undertaken to demolish the liberal thought which
here in New England has acquired so considerable a
foothold are shrewd enough to see this, and have at
tacked the view of sin as they affirm or suppose it to
be held by the liberal church. It may be worth while
to see whether these champions of the old theology
have found the true key of our position, or whether
they are only congratulating themselves on a barren
victory over some incidental outwork upon which we
place no dependence.

It is doubtless true, as we are often assured, that
people who think themselves advanced in religious
thought do very often grievously misconstrue the old
doctrines. These doctrines are not so foolish and
superstitious as we are at first inclined to think them.
On the contrary, there is a very solid basis of truth
under them ; and one has quite as often to complain
of the way in which the orthodox world misinterprets
its own creeds as of the creeds themselves. And so
has the position taken by liberal thought been entirely
misunderstood. Its belief is not that self-contradictory,
atheistic, and revolutionary set of ideas which is now
and again held up to the shuddering abhorrence of
mankind. Here, now, are two views of evil which are
said to characterize liberal theology, — first, that sin is
a means to greater good ; and, secondly, that ¦ it is
nothing which debars the soul's entrance to heaven.
Undoubtedly private speculation has advanced both
these views against the old theology. But that they
at all represent the heart and substance of any gener
ally received view of evil, is not to be for an instant
supposed. And what has been said in regard to evil
as a means to good . has not been put forward as an
explanation of the entrance of sin into the world.
God's punishments for sin are remedial, and not vin
dictive. Their object is to correct wrong tendencies,
and not merely to vindicate a law. This is for the
most part what men have meant by saying that " every
fall is a fall upward." We need not go back to the
question why some are created low down and others
high up in the scale of being. But, that being the
evident fact, liberal thought has undertaken to say

that through sin and suffering and repentance the
base-born may rise to purer estate. However, here is
not where the main issue is joined. Neither is it
upon this other point, : — whether the righteous and
sinners are , to be saved alike. There has been but
one affirmative declaration of that kind ; and that, so
far from coming out of free thought, was based strictly
upon scriptural interpretation. The early Universal-
ists were in thorough accord with the Evangelical
denominations, except in this : they said, " If Christ
died for all, then all must be saved." But they never
supposed that the sins done in the body were to follow
the soul into heaven. When Mr. Moody' exclaims,
"Away with a religion which teaches that thieves and
drunkards and murderers are to stand in God's holy
places," he is crying out for the removal of a religion
which never had existence. Nobody ever believed
that heaven was to be, like this earth, a place where
the just and unjust should meet together. It has only
been a question of the way in which men were to get
rid of their sins. And, if it is a part of men's belief
that, through their intervention, God will fit any single
blackened soul during the instant before death to ap
pear in robes of purity the instant after, why should
it seem to them such a monstrous supposition that
God can do this for all souls and without their inter
vention? But this is not the point of difference be
tween old and new schools of thought ; for the moralist
affirms, with a stronger emphasis than ever the church
did, that they who violate God's laws cannot see
heaven, here or hereafter, till they learn to obey them.
This, too, is made a reproach to the liberal name, 

that it insists so strongly upon the value of good
works. So that, curiously enough, we are accused of
holding two directly contradictory views, neither of
which thinking people do entertain. It is said of us
at one time that we make conduct of no consequence,
by teaching that the evil-doer is as sure of heaven as
any one ; and at another time it is said that we make
conduct of altogether too much importance, by teach
ing that good deeds give the only fair title to heavenly
joys. Into such mazes will the bewildered human
intellect sometimes flounder.
But now the point of difference between the old
and new. thought is not as to the origin or signifi
cance, but in regard to the nature and extent, of sin.
What is that in human nature that we call Evil, and
what is its power among men ? Christianity, as free
thought interprets it, has its answers to these ques
tions ; and, if one can show these to be false, he will
easily quench all heresies. But, until then, it matters
not what theories of the origin of evil are set up or
pulled down. Some of us think that theologians
have, for the most part, set to work in quite a wrong
fashion to shape the answers to these questions. It
would seem the rational procedure to make human
nature the subject of some study, if one wished to
determine what in it was good and what evil. And
yet the study of man himself in all ways seems to
have been about the last expedient to which thinkers
have resorted. Who ever pretended that the doctrine
of total depravity was reached by paying heed to the
lessons of fact ? Who „ ever, by patient observation
of this person and that, finally arrived at the conclu-

sion that all men were totally depraved ? This doc
trine was established in a very different way. It was
deduced as a consequence or corollary from positions
already taken, without any pretence of fitting it to
anybody's view of the fact itself. Thus, as the mind
of this present age declares, theologians have been
led to adopt fictitious notions both in regard to the
nature and extent of sin. Evil, as I suppose they
might define it, is that in man which wickedly and
maliciously rebels against the law of God, which, all
the while, • it privately knows ought to be obeyed.
The supposition is, that the heart of man is naturally
bent upon mischief, and, in an unregenerate condition,
will deliberately choose to break, rather than obey,
God's laws. Now, such a definition as that is purely
a work of the imagination. Men never could have
derived it from any observation of each other, or from
an intelligent study of the New Testament. Such an
idea enters into neither the Gospels or the Epistles.
The view of sin there taken is indicated by this say:
ing of Paul's, — " With the mind, I myself serve the
law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin."
Christianity was founded on a clear recognition of
the double nature of man. On this side, he belongs
to the brute creation. He has instincts and passions
like other animals. But at the same time he be
comes the incarnation of another and higher — a
spiritual — nature ; and these two must of necessity
be at strife. The lower nature has its law, which
embodies its good. The higher nature has also its
tendencies which urge it toward its highest welfare.
The man's problem is always, how to subdue the ani-

mal within him so that he can fiffd^hfe spiritual good.
The Struggle of the animal is continually to 'esdape
the man's domination and pursue its own ends, which
are not bad so far as the animal is Concerned, but 'are'
destructive to the spiritual nature. That,1 1 take it, .is
the New Testament view . of evil. The lower nature-
does not see or "acknowledge the authority of ¦ the"
higher. To the natural man, the law of God is fool
ishness, Paul says over and over again. The theolo
gians have said that the natural man does see' that he
ought to obey the spiritual man, but wickedly chooses'
to do otherwise. But Jesus and Paul have both
clearly given their opinion that the evil element in
man is only evil because it is blind to a good higher
than that embodied in its own law. Certainly there
can be no doubt as to Paul's view ; and, to my mind;
Christ's words upon the cross, " They know not what
they do," is sufficient evidence that he attributed to
those who sinned against him no consciously evil
intent, but only ignorance. They were under the
dominion of the lower nature, which is indeed at
enmity with God's higher law; but only because it
must obey its own law, which was given by creative
wisdom to insure its good. There is over again in
man's heart the struggle which he has fought with
nature for dominion. No one thinks of attributing
evil intent to rocks and brambles and wild beasts
because they resist man's efforts. They have their.
Own existence to maintain, and the strife on their part
is perfectly legitimate. So the body has its life to
live, its wants to meet, and its appetites to gratify. It
knows nothing 'of the law of 'the spirit; and: it. is im-

IO
possible to fasten moral guilt, in the theological sense
of that term, upon it. Moral guilt, whatever that
may be, must belong to the spiritual nature. But
that is pure, and can never become impure. It can
no more be corrupted than light can be tainted. The
rule of animal passions will, indeed, drive it out of
the soul, but cannot transform it in the least from its
original nature. By our very understanding of the
word itself, spirituality can never become gross and
sensual ; for sensuality is unspiritual, which means
that it lacks spirituality. You might as well say that
the intellect can become idiotic, the fact being that
idiocy is a lack of intellect. So evil is a lack of the
spiritual nature ; not the disposition of the natural
man to pursue the end of his life, for that is what he
was made to do. Neither is it any tendency of the
higher life to seek lower purposes than those for
which it was created ; for the man only gives himself
up to low desires in the absence of the higher life.
Guilt belongs to the spiritual man, and consists in his
failure to exert himself to secure the dominion that he
ought to possess. This notion that man is ever con
sciously at war with his Creator is pure myth. The
animal cannot discern the things of the spirit, and so
cannot be at war against them knowingly. The spirit
is bound, by the laws of its being, to observe the re
quirements of its life, which are truth and holiness.
Its only fault — parent of all the sin in the world — is,
that it allows the flesh to triumph over it. The lower
nature does not see that its purposes are base. The
higher can 'never, by any possibility, ally itself with
the lower, but often contents itself with interposing

II
nothing more than a mild protest against its rule.
This, one may say, is where the theologian has failed
to read the facts of life, and is the root of much of his
blundering. He has supposed that sin was a con
scious violation of law, — that the power in man which
breaks the law means to rebel against it. But I defy
any one to produce an instance from real life which
supports that supposition. Paul's case is the case of
every man that sins. What he would do he cannot,
or thinks he cannot; that which he does he allows
not. Here is a thief. Does he not know that it is
wrong to steal? Undoubtedly he does (Paul says,
"/ myself serve the law of God "). But there is
something in him which recognizes no law against
theft. The savage sees no reason why a piece of
property should belong to one more than to another.
It is the savage who steals ; and the man's crime is,
that he allows his savage nature to get the mastery.
Society with its penalties comes to the rescue, and
seeks to awe the. savage by fear, till the conscience of
the man can hold him in subjection. That will ap
pear to be the real fact about all crime. Evil is the
remnant of chaos still surviving in a world upon which
divine order has acquired a foothold. Chaos is not
to blame for what it is, but is, all the same, to be con
quered, and brought under the sway of the higher
nature. Therefore the new thought, consciously or
unconsciously, is shaping for itself some such defini
tion of evil as this, — that it is the blind tendency of
lower forms of life to usurp control over the spiritual
part of man. Cease to cultivate your garden, and it
instantly goes- back to weeds, which grow all the

ffg
ranker because of; the previous cultivation of the soils
In like manner will 'instinct and appetite take posses
sion of one's mind, if they be not checked, and,- findr
ing so much to feed upon, will make the man even"
more brutal than the brute. But we cannot charge.
upon the soil that it has a choice for weeds, rather
than for useful plants;, and no more should human
nature be made to suffer the reproach of loving evil
rather than good.
Most of us, I suppose, feel, about the present revi
val, movement, that we partly agree and partly disagree
with, it. . It is well, I think, to put our finger upon just
that thing, in which it seems to us false, that we may
h.either denounce it. or commend it unintelligently.:
We ;d6 not work with, it, and would not if we were
asked ; and we ought to be able to say definitely why.
_ Some object to it because it is attended with excite
ment. But nothing coi*ld be more foolish than to
assert .jth.at excitement is invariably bad. It some
times produces good and sometimes evil results ; and
we have in' this case no' reason for asserting that ex
citement is only or chiefly bad. Some do not at all
believe in sudden conversions..: But there is good evi*
dence that they are. often, at least, genuine and effec
tive; and this .objection furnishes no good ground for
condemning the .movement. On the whole, we find
ourselves^, saying' that these evangelists are evidently
.ear-best and sincere men, who will do much good, —
.perhaps not any lasting'harm. But still there is some
thing in their enterprise which seems to us out of
accord with, the nature, of things. It is, I think, that
this old definition, .pf, sin. fills their minds and warps

their spirits. They attack evil: as if it were a power
in conscious rebellion against the Most High. There
is too little of the love and pity of Christ in their
words, and too much of the vindictive ring of the old
prophet Isaiah. They do not recognize the fact that
man's lower nature was created for good purposes,
and has a work of its own to do upon the earth.
Every instinct and tendency which crosses the path
of the higher law is to them of fiend-like nature.
They think there is something in man which deliber
ately plots against the kingdom of God. Their
method with the woman to whom Jesus said, " Go,
and sin no more," would be to frighten her with pic
tures of the divine wrath, and make her feel th^t God
hated her", until she would acknowledge that she had
been trying all her life to thwart his purposes. This
is why we cannot work with these men. They find
something in human nature %hich Christ did not see,
and which to no sober sight has existence. We dis
trust, in some measure, all work which proceeds upon
the basis of such an unfair and fictitious view of life ;
and we are. inclined a little to resent as impertinent
the zeal that is born of it. Of course, if a man bursts
into, our parlor to tell us that our house is on fire,
though he has only been alarmed by the glow from
.our hearth, we thank him just the same for his good
.motives. But if he threatens to deluge us with water,
and insists that we shall put out our. fire because it
may lead to a conflagration, we naturally resent it a
little as an unwarrantable intrusionr*f One can see
how, upon this theory that there * is . a demon irj the
human heart luring it toward eternal destruction, men

should feel themselves at liberty to go all lengths in
the endeavor to snatch others from their peril. But,
being perfectly assured that there is no such demon
there, we must be pardoned for feeling that not even
the good motives of such people can entirely protect
them from the charge of impertinence.
I would not be so far misunderstood as to have it
supposed that I am making any attack upon this
movement. I simply desire to give an account of my
own position, and to say wherein 'the movement seems
to me based upon a false position. I think we shall
find that our distrust and dislike centres in the defi
nition of sin which underlies it ; and, so far as this
definition is untrue to fact, the results of the revival
must be incomplete. It is capable of doing much
good work. It can help those whose minds have lost
control of their bodies to regain self-command. Upon
this theory that their ovin desires are entirely corrupt
and depraved, and under the stimulus of strong men
tal excitement, men will rouse all their spiritual ener
gies to attack the appetites and passions of the lower
nature. Indeed, one may question whether it is possi
ble to save some men from evil without bringing them
into contact with some such huge galvanic battery as
this revival movement. It lends men temporary
strength with which to reinstate the spiritual nature.
It takes them from our gutters and sets them upon
their feet But it can do very little toward teaching
them how to walk. Indeed, it discourages them to
some extent from trying to walk at all ; and this, one
sees sadly enough, is its weakness. " See," it says to
men, " here is your patch of garden all overgrown with

i5
weeds! They are devils, these weeds, hungering
and thirsting for your immortal soul. Cut them down
and you are saved." But the weeds are not devils.
They are what the teeming soil of human nature pro
duces when no higher form of life is cultivated.
Viewing them, and the tendencies which produce
them, as outside of God's Providence, men are not led
to turn these tendencies to any higher use. Their
righteousness becomes an asceticism, which ignores
a part of God's law as entirely as does self-indulgence,
and which, as all history teaches, is sure to break
down sooner or later. Cut the weeds down and
plant anew ! This should be the command. But the
revival itself can only attend to getting the rank
growth destroyed ; and the consequence is, that, after
the excitement is over, the weeds, too often, all come
back again. Too often, but not always. The earth
is in some degree made faire* by such efforts, and it
need not matter to us that they who engage in them
are over-confident of their results. But this we can
not agree to, — that it is true', or helpful to hold as true,
that the evil under which the world suffers is a power
intelligently seeking the overthrow of the kingdom of
God. That is the quicksand upon which the old
theology has tried to stand, and which will not bear
its weight. That is the falsehood which weakens,
impairs, and very seriously limits, the work of the
great body of the church. This revival, for one
thing, deals with men not wholly as they are, but
partly as it holds them to be in its imagination, and
consequently cannot deal with them in a thoroughly
effective fashion. It is necessary to be strictly loyal

i6
toifact in all one's undertakings, no less in ^fitting
soiils for heaven than in building one's house; and the
fact is that all powers of humanity are ordained of
God. Not one of them is the creation of Satanic
agencies, j It might be asked, What difference does it
make whether what we call evil is blindly or intelli
gently at war with higher laws, since in either case
the natural man is to be fought and subdued? It
matters this much, at all events, — that the passion
aroused in a conflict with devils is itself most devilish;
so that, upon the old theory,, the very effort to destroy
sin creates it anew. '
One must learn to be as stern and inflexible as the
very nature of things in repressing what is unworthy
to live; but, when opposition to the lower nature
becomes tinged with hate, the animal has partly
usurped even the throne of the spirit itself. Further
more, as has been said* the old definition of sin puts
men too exclusively upon the work of rooting some
thing out of their natures, and does not insist with
sufficient emphasis upon 'the necessity of turning the
energies now expended through low methods to
higher uses. We must wield the sword of the spirit,
not to destroy some imaginary demon, but to keep
within their own province the forms of a lower order
of life, which are not so much wicked as ignorant.
But now, aside from its bearing upon this revival,
this view ought to teach us some practical lessons.
It ought for one thing to teach us patience with the
world, with ourselves, and with each other, and should
fill us with confidence- in the final escape from evil
of all that. live. For the kingdom of God is, in some

*7
sense, a new order in nature. Christ stands to us as
the type of a new and higher kind of life ; and, from
the beginning of the world's history, the higher- has
been predestined to have dominion over the lower.
This battle now being fought out in human hearts is
no new one in the history of life. . What is it but the
same contest between the various orders of existence,
which took place before man's introduction to the
earth, brought forward to a new stage of action ? One
by one, successive laws have been brought into play ;
and each has conquered for itself dominion over those
already in existence. The law of the spirit is the last
that has come upon earth, and that is still making
its way to power. The struggle between higher and
lower is never a doubtful one, even in the individual
heart, were there time enough for it to there work itself
out to the end. In the life of humanity, however dark
the prospect to our eyes, the spiritual nature is abso
lutely certain of complete triumph in the end. It is
only a question of time. So that, to all these cries
that now or never is the time to rescue' society from
general ruin, one may turn a totally deaf ear. Society
is not going to ruin. On the contrary, it was never
so far from destruction as it is to-day. Men look
into the future, and paint for us the dire ills that they
see there shaping themselves. But we may also look
into the future, and see that man will more and more
continually serve the law of God. Because that law
has not to overthrow any malicious principle in human
nature, but simply to prove itself in human experience
the only true guide. In our own struggles to bring
our lives into more exact harmony with the teachings

1 8
of the spirit, we need never lose courage. I think,
quite as much as faith in God, men and women need
faith in themselves, — confidence in the spiritual side of
their natures, which allies them to the strongest power
entering into life. And this I would say not only of
those who are striving to make headway against actual
temptations, but to those who are forced to deal with
all the darker moods inspired by hard experience.
The spirit is stronger than all these, and will live them
all down. Have patience, and wait for the slow growth
of the soul to deliver you from all unworthy tendencies
and haunting shadows.
For another thing, this view of evil will show us the
basis for Christian charity, — the way in which the world
shall grow into obedience of Christ's great law of love.
It is impossible to love, or even to pity men, if one
believes in witchcraft, or open league with devils.
Possession by devils there may be, or at least a man's
unrestrained passions and desires may become devils.
But any deliberate sale of one's soul to evil powers
there never was and never can be. As a matter of
fact, you find that men who have entertained the old
view of sin have taken what they called Justice rather
than Love, as their watchword, and have been guilty
of most ferocious cruelty. You cannot even pity a
man when you believe that his whole nature is bent
upon the destruction of every good thing. But when
you perceive that he is simply ridden by blind passions
or prejudices, — that there is something noble within
him which is made the victim of his lower nature,  you
can pity him ; and when you see deep enough into his
condition, ypu can even begin to love him.

19
Let us dismiss entirely from our minds this fiction
of a world which hates goodness, and is on the verge
of perishing in consequence. It is true that men and
women do often make a very lame business of setting
up laws and resolutions, and trying to observe them.
But it is also true, for the most part^ that the schemes
and systems of their devising are very impotent con
trivances. It is the unconscious wisdom of the race
which saves it ; and in like manner there is a vast
amount of unconscious virtue in the world worthy of
all confidence and respect. Most people are a great
deal wiser and better than they themselves know, or
than they get the credit of being. The mass of man
kind makes no sort of pretension to saintship ; but has
nevertheless a very deep sense of duty, and does with
its mind serve, with some degree of fidelity, the law
of God. Because here and there sin is actively burn
ing, there is no sense in pretending that the world is
on fire. Let us go our ways, relying upon the superior
power of that spiritual life which has been so abund
antly poured into the world ; and let us look into the
faces of our fellows, not to find wild-eyed demons
peering through a mask, but to see the tender and
wistful look of human souls, struggling through what
ever mass of evil to catch some glimpse of God's
outer day.