ORIGINS 



even from our consciousness. This monstrous 

 barnacle is not of the essence of our faith. It 

 must be as offensive to God as it is to truth. 



It was the view of Schopenhauer that the 

 "essential element in human nature, and finally 

 in the whole of reality, consists in a mys- 

 terious impulse toward life, a blind restlessly 

 struggling will wholly unguided of reason. . . . 

 In nature intelligence yields place entirely to this 

 vital impulsion; such knowledge as is here devel- 

 oped merely subserves the interests of self-pres- 

 ervation. ' ' ( Eucken : ' l Problem of Human Life, ' ' 

 511.) This will or impulse of Schopenhauer may 

 be compared to what Augustin called sin in 

 human nature. Schopenhauer regarded existence 

 as a calamity. If Augustin had frankly taken the 

 view that human existence was to be deplored, 

 then it would have been consistent to regard the 

 passion toward reproduction as sinful. 



If the doctrine of Original Sin grew from such 

 a root as this, then the whole subject needs to be 

 restudied and restated in the light of what we 

 now know of human nature, conditioned as it is 

 by a physical or animal foundation. 



Augustin was orthodox and Pelagius was het- 

 erodox ; but from the view of the modern student 

 Pelagius 's statements are verbally nearer the 

 truth than are those of Augustin. This may be 

 the mere accidents of words that have in reality 

 changed their content. It is altogether likely that 

 Pelagius was not so near modern belief as his 



