Page images
PDF
EPUB

not, Messrs. Williamson, Rogers, Thomas, and Skinner, are acting a more conspicuous part in this discussion than they get credit for. As I have several times alluded to the subject, I will take the present time to give my views of the government of God.

1. God is a moral being, having moral attributes, which must be unitedly and harmoniously displayed in any scheme of government, which he may adopt and bring into existence. He is underived in his existence, and absolutely independent of all other beings, hence has a right to introduce and establish a government based on his own character.

2. If he establish a government, that government must be moral, because no other would be adapted to his character as a moral being. A government strictly and entirely paternal, would not be suited to the divine character. It would possess only one element, and that not adapted to any one of the divine attributes. The term father, as applied to God, is a relative term, hence does not indicate an essential element of the divine character. Would God bring into being a government to exist forever, and be extended over all beings and worlds, and yet not based upon any one of his attributes? The idea needs only to be stated, to be refuted. Common sense rejects the notion at first sight.

3. A government suited to the moral character of God, must afford opportunity for a display of the moral attributes of God-goodness, wisdom, and holiness. No other than a moral government could do this. We can conceive of a government not moral-a mechanical government, made up of a concatenation of undeviating cause and effect, every link of the chain moving every other link, and God moving the whole or like a regular train of machinery, every part acting upon every other part with irresistible power. But such a government would not be moral, for two reasons: 1. It would afford no opportunity to display the moral attributes of God, goodness and holiness. Any scheme of government that would leave these attributes out of its relations and provisions, could not be moral, and would be unworthy the character of a moral governor. It might require wisdom to construct such a government as above described, but nothing but power would be needed to keep it in motion. The power of God must sit at the head of this great piece of mechanism, turning the great iron wheel, whose resistless cogs set the whole in motion, and impart an impulse to the least and most insignificant part of the machinery; while every other attribute of God is left unprovided for in its operations. In this case, fate, irresistible fate, would alone preside over the destinies of all beings and worlds. This would not be a moral government, because,— 2. There could be no such thing as moral character pertaining to the subjects of it. There would be no moral freedom, and where there is no moral freedom, there can be no foundation for moral character. Under such an arrangement, every thought, word and deed, would be necessitated; hence, man would be neither rewardable, nor

punishable. As there can be no moral character without moral
freedom, so where there is no moral character, there can be no mo-
ral responsibility. Under such an administration, therefore, all
accountability would commence and terminate in God. As the
gentleman, in his fondness for rhetoric, has given an extract from
Milton, I will reciprocate the favor, by giving a passage from the
same "heaven-born poet, who seemed at home where angels bash-
ful look," not less distinguished for its truth than its poetry :-
"Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.

Not free, what proof could they have giv'n sincere
Of true allegiance, constant faith, or love,
Where only what they needs must do appear'd?

I formed them free, and free they must remain

Till they inthral themselves: I else must change
Their nature, and revoke the high decree,
Unchangeable, eternal, which ordain'd

Their freedom; they themselves ordain'd their fall."

(Book 3rd.)

4. Under any other than a moral government, there could be no such thing as moral happiness. Physical happiness might exist, but moral happiness must be excluded. The power of choice is essential to moral happiness. That which we may not choose, either in its reception or continuance, is not properly a source of happiness to an intelligent moral being. Hence, under a government in which irresistible fate presides and determines all actions, there can be no such thing as moral happiness. This is farther confirmed by the fact, that a consciousness of having done right is essential to moral happiness; but such consciousness cannot exist under a government where the actions of men, or the results at which they arrive, are all necessitated. Mr. Austin takes the position, that the government of God is so constructed, as to result, of necessity, in the holiness and happiness of all men. To this I answer, such a result cannot be made certain, except under a government of necessity: and we have seen that this would be both unadapted to the character of God as a moral being, and, excluding moral freedom, would be inconsistent with the happiness of moral subjects. The government for which my friend contends, so far from securing the holiness and happiness of all men, would exclude all holiness and happiness from the universe. If it would annihilate hell, it would also annihilate heaven. So anxious is the gentleman to pull down the house of the Philistines, that he is willing, like Sampson, to perish in the general destruction.

5. The true government of God, described as moral, and for which I contend, is based on the moral attributes of God, and is the only form, so far as we can understand, which can promote the happiness of moral beings. And we must suppose, as God is a benevolent being, that the happiness of his creatures, in connection with his own glory, would be the leading object of any sys

tem of government originated by him. This object he provides for, First, by placing them all in a state of holiness and happiness, adapting them to the government, and the government to them, so that happiness to them would result from harmony with their relations and obligations. Secondly, by giving them moral freedom, that they might be subjects of moral desert, and have the consciousness of rectitule, which is an essential element of true happiness. Thirdly, by giving all necessary means and facilities for continuing their original happiness, together with the power of choosing to improve thein; hence, if they forfeit their happiness, the fault is their own. They do it in violation of the principles of God's government, the benevolent design of their Creator, and in direct misimprovement of the noble endowments of their constitution.

"I ordained their freedom,

They themselves ordained their fall."

Thus God gets all the glory for all the good that arises to his creatures, from that governmental arrangement he has established, while he is exonerated from all blame, for any evil that may flow to his subjects, since it results from their voluntary disobedience. God gave them power

"Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall."

We regard these views as sound-that is, well agreeing with reason, scripture, and human consciousness. If they are not so, my friend can show wherein.

But the gentleman may say, why did God create at all, if he foresaw that some would abuse their constitution, and become miserable? Answer: To have done otherwise, would have been to withhold existence from millions of intelligent beings, who would be perfectly holy and happy in a boundless duration, simply to accommodate with a non-existence, those who would have as much power as any others to be happy, but who, in their abuse of his laws, it was foreseen, would bring down destruction on their own heads. Let me illustrate here. My friend is fond of illustrating the divine government by a reference to human governments, when it suits his purpose. Suppose the general government of the United States, having control over the subject, were about to bestow the blessings of a good education upon all the people. It might be foreseen by the knowledge and sagacity of the law makers, that some individuals, among the mass of society, would make an abusive and criminal use of that blessing. They might become counterfeiters and great adepts in forgery, by being furnished with such a power as education gives. But would it be right to withhold the blessings of a good education from the whole community, simply to accommodate with a state of ignorance, those who, if they had knowledge, would abuse it? Is this consistent? Does it accord with the principles of good government, with the wisdom of men even, to say nothing of the wisdom of God?

:

Again, Mr. Austin may ask, why not withhold existence from those who it is foreseen would be miserable, and give existence only to such as would be happy. I answer, this would be to violate the principles of his own government, and contravene the divine impartiality and besides this, by withholding existence from those who would be miserable, were they allowed to exist, existence must also be withheld from those who would be happy. Let me illustrate again. Suppose that God sees that some father in this assembly will abuse his powers and blessings, and forfeit his final felicity. He may at the same time foresee that the posterity of this father will be obedient and holy subjects, and secure endless happiness in heaven. The father has as much power to be happy as the children. To give him existence, under such circumstances, is doing him no injustice, because he has all the power and means necessary to happiness: but to withhold existence from him, would contravene the divine benevolence, by withholding existence from his posterity, who, if allowed to exist, God knows would be holy and happy in a boundless duration. This is farther illustrated by reference to the parable of the tares of the field: (Matt. xiii. 28 :) "Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Will thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest, I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn." Our Lord's explanation of this parable, (verse 38,) is as follows; "The field is the world, (theatre of human existence.) The good seed are the children of the kingdom, (his holy and obedient subjects,) but the tares are the children of the wicked one," (disobedient subjects.) The point to which your attention is particularly directed is, that the tares could not be removed, without removing the wheat; that is, to withhold existence from one part of the race, because they would make themselves miserable, would be to withhold it also from those who, if allowed to exist, would be forever holy and happy.

Though I have already sufficiently replied to Mr. Austin's arguments drawn from the intention, desire, sovereignty, paternity and love of God, by giving each a particular consideration, yet, independent of this, they are all answered by the foregoing views of the divine government. These arguments are based on a false view of the divine administration, and to make them plausible, my friend must first disprove the fundamental principles, which I have shown must enter into a plan of moral government. The mistake of my friend seems to be, in confounding things radically different, that is, confounding physical and moral laws. He don't seem to see the difference between unintelligent, irresponsible matter, and

intelligent moral beings, as subjects of divine government. I know that in the physical world, where there is neither intellect nor responsibility, Gol's laws are fixed and uniform, and there is no power to interrupt them, except in the Being who gave them. In the moral world, however, the case is different; for though the moral laws of God are in themselves fixed and uniform, yet their action is not on inert substances, but upon intelligent moral agents, whose voluntary obedience or disobedience must determine the question of their happiness or misery, as results flowing from the fixed and uniform laws of God's moral kingdom.

I now leave this subject for the present, and pass to notice the passage of scripture Mr. Austin has quoted so often, together with the theory he has attempted to rear upon it. The passage commences with the 19th verse of the 8th of Romans, and includes five verses. "For the earnest expectation of the creature, waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly," &c. The theory which Mr. Austin builds upon this passage, is, that in order to make the human race holy and happy, God saw it would be best, first to subject him to sin and misery. He accordingly created him in an imperfect and impure state; in a state of unavoidable subjection to sin, and its consequences. In connection with this, he established laws, and introduced dispensations, adapted to take men out of that state of subjection, and bring them into the "liberty of the sons of God;" and that the whole course of God's administration has been intended to carry forward the human race, from this state of origi nal imperfection, to a state of final holiness aud happiness. This theory of human progression, we pronounce false, for the following reasons:

1. It contradicts the scriptures. The scriptures say God created man in his own image The image of God is free from defect: therefore, the least that can be said of man's original state, is, that he was free from intellectual and moral defect. Moreover, God looked upon his work and pronounced it good; which he could not have done. if any part of it had been imperfect and impure. In adition to this, the scriptures charge man's sin and misery upon his defection from original rectitude, not on his unwilling subjection to vanity. “God made man upright, and he has sought out many inventions." This directly contradicts Mr. Austin's theory. "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me." How can this be reconciled with the gentleman's theory of progression. In this case, the gradation goes the wrong

way.

2. This theory contradicts tradition. I do not present tradition as sufficient proof, of itself, but as having weight in the argument. A tra lition is universal amongst heathen nations, that there has been a time when the human race was far more virtuous and happy than now; a time when the gods held intercourse with men. The

« PreviousContinue »