other, but deprecate both as positive evils; the one, because it annihilates; the other, because it corrupts Christianity. And I protest I cannot conceive a stronger confirmation of their arguments than the combined history of persecuting Asia and patronizing Europe. If an angel were sent from heaven to teach the non-interference system, could he make the matter plainer, or place it in a more striking point of view? True it is, that in Europe Christianity survived the hated connexion. But O how altered! That God should permit this horrible war upon his church in one region, and this little less horrible alliance in another, is indeed a mystery, unless it were intended to fix indelibly on every mind the grand truth for which we now so earnestly contend, that Christianity equally abhors persecution and patronage. But that the black, the bloody, the disgraceful page of ecclesiastical history, should be adduced as a proof that Christianity depended for its existence upon civil patronage, does appear most astonishing. Will Mr. B. venture to affirm, that if Christianity had neither been persecuted nor patronized by the civil power, it would have been lost to the world, and that we at the present moment should have been sent; but we will never admit it as a reason for depressing and degrading it, by placing it under the patronage of the civil power. His fourth reply (p. 63) is, that though "much unjust and savage persecution has taken place under pretence of supporting and protecting the Christian religion," yet" that even this state of things is not without its use." Certainly, as our poet sings, All partial evil's universal good, All discord harmony, not understood. and dangerous for mortal hand to But this is a double-edged sword wield. Mr. B. would scarcely advocate the doing evil that good may come, or anticipate persecution among the bleshowever, he does, I am not prepared sings of his new Holy Alliance. If, to deny him this solitary advantage. Sermons, I find I should be trespassing AN ADVOCATE FOR A RELIGIOUS SIR, Pagan idolaters, worshiping stocks and M stones? If not, why does he print, in large letters, that the existence of Christianity is, under Providence, ENTIRELY OWING TO THE PROTECTION AND PATRONAGE OF THE CIVIL POWER? Should he not rather have said, that the corruption of Christianity is, by Divine permission, entirely owing to the protection and patronage of the civil power? Nothing can be more totally groundless than this argument from history appears, and yet it is evidently the basis of all Mr. B.'s reasoning, the foundation of all his newly acquired notions on the subject (p. 27). It is a favourite to which he frequently recurs, and which he seems to consider unassailable. Surely it is the ignis fatuus which has for once dazzled and misled him, as he was groping about in the gloom of the dark ages. His second and third replies (pp. 59 and 62) are an elaborate proof that there is much good in Christianity, even in its most depressed and degraded state, to which we most cheerfully as July 14, 1820. R. BELSHAM says, [p. 347,] that "some of your Correspondents, whose zeal seems to outrun their information, appear to be desperately angry with me for having presumed to assert that Christianity might be benefited by the liberal and judicious interference of the civil power." Now, Sir, I beg to observe, that the principle against which I endeavoured to contend, was very different from that which he has now stated, viz. "That Christianity required the support and patronage of the civil power." Either, therefore, the Reverend Gentleman has forgotten what he preached and printed, or he may have been convinced by his third Sermon, that the principle which he enforced in his first was untenable, and be desirous of backing out. I am very happy to see such a change in his sentiments upon this point: I thank him most cordially for his admirable defence of the right of Unbelievers to impugn the validity of those evidences which we believe to be amply sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity; and I trust a full recantation of the position, that our religion requires the patronage of the civil power, will prove him to be in every respect entitled to the honourable appellation of A NONCONFORMIST. man is idolatry, is true sanctity in him."* And as he takes infinite delight and complacency (so to speak) in the comtemplation of his own transcendent excellencies, so he approves and rewards the faint reflection of these perfections in his creatures. Hence, we Modern "Orthodox" Notion of Fu- are enjoined to be holy in our measure and degree, 66 as God is holy, and perfect as he is perfect." ture Punishment. HITHERTO we have considered what are termed the natural attributes of the Deity; let us now make some reflections on the moral ones, namely, his holiness, justice and goodness. Holiness in man, is sanctity of the heart and obedience of the life, in the sincere and diligent performance of the duties of piety, benevolence, and selfgovernment, according to the light and means afforded him, natural or revealed. It is not a humanity without godliness, or, a saintship without humanity," for such are imperfect characters: but the union of faith and works, piety and charity: and, in proportion to our attainments in these indispensable and connected duties of religion, are the degrees of our holiness and virtue. The holiness of the Deity consists in the purity, rectitude and perfection of his nature; and cannot be separated, even in idea, from his essential benignity. We may possibly conceive of power, wisdom, and knowledge, without goodness; but cannot thus apprehend the attribute of holiness. We should instantly reject the notion of a holy man, or a holy angel, without benevolence; and cannot avoid connecting these ideas in our conceptions of the Divine holiness." He is glorious in holiness," and to be worshiped "in the beauty of holiness." "His holiness lies in a conformity to himself; this includes his acting like and for himself. All his decrees and dispensations are congruous to his glorious perfections. He would hate himself, if, in any thing, he acted contrary to these, because then he would disa gree with himself. Self-seeking in creatures is monstrous and incongruous, and rather matter of shame than of glory; but for God to seek his own glory, is his eminent excellency. To do all things for ones-self, which in VOL. XV. 30 It is true, this holiness includes his perfect and infinite hatred of sin; but this, simply considered, appears to be no bar against a change in the moral state of the sinner, but rather implies the contrary. For, "What is hatred of sin, as attributed to God?-If we consider this, as it is in us, a passion of the soul, so it is not in God. The absolute perfection of his nature excludes it. But God's hatred of sin, is his perfect aversion of it, as contrary to himself: an aversion without perturbation, as with us, and is nothing but his holy will and nature averse to sin: to sin, as sin, and not sin, as it is in this or that person. He can no more love sin in his own people, than in the worst of men. God hates nothing but sin primarily; therefore he forbids nothing but sin, and all his judgments are threatened only against it, and sin is the only procuring cause of their execution. It is true, he hates the persons of wicked men, but not as men or creatures simply, but only as sinful creatures. He hates them for sin, and for nothing else."† To the same effect, speaks another orthodox writer, Mr. Burkitt, on Rom. ix. 10: "Nothing renders any one the object of God's hatred but sin. He does not hate the Devil himself, as he is his creature, but only as a sinner. God adjudges none to eternal perdition, but with respect to sin:" so that the infinite holiness of God, in itself considered, seems only to require a change in the moral state of the transgressor, but not necessarily his everlasting punishment. But this leads us to consider the infinite justice of the Supreme Being; in the nature of which attribute, it is commonly supposed, there are sufficient grounds for a belief in the doctrine of eternal punishment. "Justice," says Dr. Hartley, "is that which gives to every one according to his deserts; at least as much as his good deserts require, and not more than is suitable to his evil ones." This, though an accurate definition of human justice, may be thought not strictly applicable to the Divine; for since the Deity gives to all, and receives from none, how can he be considered as obliged to the performance of any particular action? But we must beware lest here, as well as in other respects, from erroneous principles, we misre present the Divine character and conduct, and tarnish, as far as in us lies, one of the brightest jewels in the celestial diadem: nor need we entertain any doubt or hesitation in this matter. For though, as Creator, the Deity places his creatures in different eircumstances, both of mind and of body, and in his providential dealings respect ing nations and individuals, acts upon principles of which we cannot always discern the reasons; yet, as a moral Governor and a final Judge, he proceeds according to known and ésta blished rules, and continually appeals, in his holy word, to the minds of his rational offspring as to the equity of his dispensations." Are not my ways equal?" "He shall judge the world in righteousness, and the people with 'equity." There is a variety of important considerations in religion arising from reflections on the Divine justice, which, if the reader's patience be not quite exhausted, may admit of further amplification: and a leading one on the score of natural theology, in proof of a future state, depends upon this great principle; and the argument amounts to this that if there be one virtuous, miserable and oppressed person in the world; or one prosperous, habitual transgressor, there must be a future state: because, without this, we cannot cherish satisfactory and adequate ideas of this glorious perfection. For, though we can infer the being and bounty of the Deity from the things that are, and his holiness and justice in themselves, from the natural tendencies of things, which in their correspondent effects may be considered as incipient punishments and rewards; yet, his absolute, strict, remunerative, * Woollaston's Religion of Nature. perfect, and impartial justice, remains veiled behind a dark cloud, not to be withdrawn till the great day of retribu. tion; when, by means unknown to the disciple of nature, but more explicitly revealed in the gospel, the Master of the house shall return and demand an account of his servants, when the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." For if we begin with inanimate matter, though the term justice may not here be strictly proper, yet it is plain that, when created and modified, there are certain uses, fitnesses and relations to which it is applicable, and to which other uses and applications would be utterly unfit. Thus we cannot suppose such a glorious body as the sun, formed merely to shine in empty space as in a trackless desert, where neither his light nor heat could be of any use and advantage. Accordingly, we find that it is placed in the centre of numerous revolving globes, filled, as we justly believe, with proper inhabitants, where scarcely one ray of his splendour is lost, enlightening, fructifying and animating the whole. Nor can we imagine that a world of inanimate matter would be created, furnished only with herbs and trees and flowers; or, at best, with insects and birds and beasts and fishes; since all these, from the defect of reason, are confined to a narrow sphere; could never regulate the subordinate parts of nature, nor offer any oblation on the divine altar, in returns of veneration, gratitude and praise : accordingly we read, that when all these were prepared, "there wanted yet a man to till the ground." Nor was man himself, though constituted lord of all below, and favoured with frequent divine communications, sufficient to his own happiness. Paradise itself required the superintendence of a rational agent, and paradise itself would have been a desert, without the blessings of correspondent society. Now, what is fitness or rectitude as to inanimate matter or inferior beings, acquires the name of justice when applied to rational agents; for though the Deity cannot, properly speaking, be indebted to his creatures, yet he will be just to his own perfections, and ultimately treat them according to their moral character and state; and therefore, though it is strictly true to affirm that a thing is right, because God doth it, yet it is equally true that he doth it because it is right. "Though he is under no law without himself, yet he hath a law in his own nature.” * Thus, as just observed, we cannot suppose, upon the principle of mere justice only, that he would suffer an innocent being, or (if you dislike the term) a rational being in a state of positive favour with his Maker, to lie long under oppression, torment and misery, without some remuneration here or hereafter. This would be utterly in compatible with all our ideas of divine justice. And in this view, the life, death, resurrection and glorification of our Saviour Jesus Christ, furnish a striking and important argument. Our Lord was not impeccable, or incapable of sinning, for then he could have had no merit; but he was immaculate, or never did actually transgress. He never committed any act which had the formal nature or essence of guilt. He was subject to every human infirmity, and "in all things tempted as we are, yet without sin." " Other saints may possibly have excelled him in the exercise of particular virtues: John Baptist was a greater mortifier than Jesus himself; and if we observe his whole history, though without sin, yet the instances of his piety were the actions of a very holy, but of an ordinary" (imitable) "life. The lives of some in ecclesiastical history seem told rather to amaze and to create scruples than to lead us in the evenness and serenity of a holy conscience; and they appear to be represented holy by way of idea and fancy, if not to promote the interest of a particular family or institution; but our Lord, in his external actions, where alone he is imitable, did so converse with men, that they, after his example, might for ever converse with him. Some have had excrescencies and eruptions of holiness in uncommanded duties, which, in the same particulars, we find not in the life of Christ; but here is the distinctionthey that have done the most beyond have also done some short of their duty. In the greatest flames of their shining virtues they prevaricated something of the commandment; but no man ever * Wisheart. did his whole duty, save only the holy Jesus." * Hence it is worthy of remark, that in all the personal prayers of Christ upon record, though we meet with every other essential requisite of prayer humility, adoration, submission, pe tition, and thanksgiving; yet we never meet with the smallest allusion to that which always constitutes an essential part in our prayers-confession of sin ș for he had no sins to confess. Having thus briefly considered the remunerative justice of the Deity, as eminently exemplified in the person of our Saviour, we shall offer a few more remarks on his punitive, or, as com monly termed, his vindictive justice. the It will be acknowledged by all, as already observed, (except by the gloomy advocate of unconditional reprobation,) that this phrase can be applied to the Deity only figuratively, and that we had better use the term vindicative than vindictive; rage, hatred and revenge being the most abominable and detestable passions that we can ima gine in men or devils, which we cannot for a moment suppose in the idea of an angel, and which are infinitely im possible to be regarded as subsisting in the Divinity, before whom heavens are not clean, and who chargeth even his angels with folly." " Vengeance is inine, and I will repay, saith the Lord," is urged by St. Paul, as a reason for not avenging ourselves, be cause God alone is the proper judge of actions, Rom. xii.; as if he had said, You are incompetent judges of men's hearts, and of the motives of their conduct; resist, therefore, every tendency to a spirit of malice or revenge; leave the punishment of the delinquent to God, who alone knows when and where and how to punish, and who will finally do you ample justice; for he hath said, speaking after the manner of men, "Vengeance is mine, and I will repay." Do you, therefore, "give place unto wrath," and "overcome evil with good," and thus you will fulfil the enigmatical advice of the wise man, and "heap coals of fire" upon the heads of your enemies; you will either be fully satisfied of the Divine equity in their punishment, or melt them down into another temper and dispo * Bishop Taylor's Life of Christ. sition, and convert even an enemy into a friend. Rejecting, therefore, the idea of infinite vengeance or implacable wrath, which are one and the same, as utterly inapplicable to the Divine character, we may consider the punitive or vindictive justice of the Almighty as a branch of his justice in the abstract, "which is nothing else but the absolute rectitude and perfection of his nature ;" and in a relative view, as "that invariable will, by which a total difference will be made between the righteous and the wicked-the former most gloriously rewarded, and the latter severely punished:" + but if there be any force in the preceding arguments, there is nothing that we can conceive in the simple idea of divine justice, either in an absolute or relative sense, which should lead us to conclude that the sufferings of the impenitent will be strictly and properly everlasting. But it is said, that sin is an infinite evil, because committed against an infinite being. Far be it from any of us to detract from the essential evil and malignity of sin! It is that one great, comprehensive evil, which the Scriptures, perhaps obscurely, intimate to have procured the fall of some of the angelic hosts, which banished Adam from paradise, brought diseases and death into the world, and which, while inherent in the rational nature, must for ever separate from the Divine presence and favour. But the question here is not respecting the nature of sin in the abstract, as to which there can be no dispute; but as to its absolute perpetuity, either in itself or in its effects; and we employ words without ideas, if we say, that in these senses sin is an infinite evil. To say that sin is eternal and infinite in its own nature, is manifestly absurd, as well as impious: it is to revive the ancient error of the Manichees, who hold an intelligent principle of evil, eternally opposing and counteracting the goodness and energy of the Deity. Such a notion, in the present state of religious light and knowledge, you will scarcely venture to espouse. Would you then, on the other hand, invest with the attribute of infinity, an accident, a • Wisheart. + Petitpierre. faculty, a mere privation, the birth of time; which can only subsist in created natures, and which, in the person of our Saviour, and probably of many of those superior beings who, in the immeasurable scale of the intellectual world, " left not their first estate," never subsisted at all? To say that sin will be infinite in its effects, is the very proposition we have been endeavouring to disprove; and which we must still decline to receive, till we see better reasons produced for it than those which have hitherto been offered. It is true, all sin is committed against an Infinite Being; it is enmity against God, in its nature, though not always in the intention of the sinner. Hence David says, "Against thee only have I sinned;" nevertheless, as Job ob"extend to serves, it cannot reach or him." "Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art, and thy righteousness may profit the son of man." 66 Nor can the Divine glory and majesty require, according to our conceptions of them, an eternal punishment for the sins of time. The glory of God is either his essential or his reflex glory. The former is unchangeable; the latter may indeed be dimmed and tarnished by the transgression of the creature; but surely not for ever! As he is the first principle of all things, so he must be the last end of them: his holiness requires that all his works should return and give glory to their original!"'* What satisfaction or complacency can he derive from ruin; what glory from the destruction or eternal misery of his creatures? In reality, this opinion doth not admit of proof à priori, by the confession of eminent divines; + and Dr. Clarke himself, in the close of his remarks above alluded to, quotes some Heathen writers as agreeing, "that the punishment of the incorrigible should be awvios, without any determinate or known end:" which appears to be giving up the question; for, however protracted may be the period of future sufferings in particular instances, would you deny to the Supreme Mind that inherent prerogative which all wise legislatures have conferred upon earthly sovereigns—a Wisheart. + See Doddridge's Lectures. |