Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

"He foreordains the

Judas to sin. So says the writer. existence of sin as really as the existence of holiness, and he predestinates to wrath as really as to mercy."*

Dr F denies, not only divine efficiency, but the absolute dominion of motives. "We affirm that the causes in kind which originate sin, being inseparably inherent in a moral universe, may so accumulate in degree, under every system of providence and government which can be pursued, as to render sure the occurrence of sin."+ "His purpose is, not only to use the law, but so to carry on his works of creation and providence with a universe, as to secure the highest possible amount of obedience. obedience-to-sin, he will do all that

-

And if he prefers

is possible to secure

obedience in his creatures: and if it is not possible to secure from them all that he prefers, he will secure all that is possible."

Dr F takes up above fifty pages in proving that God could not have prevented sin. And the bare supposition that he rejected a sinless universe which was possible, for the sake of displaying his glory, seems to fill the writer with horrour. And he imagines the angels, on hearing the story, to unite in saying, "Show us a God who, able to advance the holiness of the universe forever and to protect it from all the inroads of sin, does nevertheless, in the choice of his heart respecting a whole universe, actually reject such protection, and prefer to gratify his subjects with a mere exhibition at the expense of the sin and misery of one or many of his subjects; and we shall always see him purposely leading off the holy into sin and preferring

[blocks in formation]

their rebellion to obedience:-and in all his conduct towards sinners, from first to last, we shall never see any wisdom, any goodness, any holiness, any justice, any mercy, but the mere caprice that starts aside from all, simply to make an exhibition which throws eternal horrour into all our hearts. God on the throne stepping aside from the office of ruler and protector, to assume the mere pageant, and sacrificing to his caprice multitudes of his creation."* This, I am aware, is said in opposition to the theory that God chose the existence of sin merely to honour himself. But it is bold language. In my lips it would be blasphemy; for I believe that God could have prevented sin, and would, had he not seen it a means of blessing the universe by filling it with his glory. Now who would have thought, after this daring attack upon one of the conceivable motives for permitting sin, that the writer was willing to have it understood that he was not certain whether sin was voluntarily permitted, (that is, could have been prevented,) or not? "We have ventured to assert that a demonstration cannot be obtained from the hands of man either on the side of the affirmative-or-the negative."+ Amidst all these bold and confident arguments against the power of God to prevent sin, he repeatedly stops to tell us that he means no more than that the thing is possible or probable or highly probable: and he actually charges Dr Woods with "injustice" for alleging that Dr Taylor had maintained this point as true, when, (as it is said,) he had only spoken of it as possible. I hope we shall have no more 621, Second Note.

* 644.

1 648.

books written to bring the world to believe as cardinal truths what the writers themselves deem only possible.

And why on this subject should there be a doubt? God cannot control the mind by efficiency nor yet by motives; for it is confidently alleged that sinners are competent to resist any influence which he can bring to regene rate them. Can he then keep every creature in the universe in all ages right by any providential influence? If I understand Dr F, this last is the influence to which he often refers. He says "that God, not only entertains the purpose to treat his subjects according to their character, but also to regulate, in the best manner possible, all that influence in his kingdom which determines character. God can vary his own acts in the creation of moral agents and in his providence and government over them, in ways that are endless; and as it is through these acts that he controls and regulates the influence which determines character, he can vary that influence in ways as endless."* "Mancannot tell what a single change in the present providence of God will certainly effect in the volitions of a single being." One had spoken of the "series of conditions" in which God places his creatures, and Dr F says, "By conditions we are to understand here precisely that kind and degree of influence which meets each individual at each time he acts." Now will any one pretend that by this providential influence God could have prevented sin, when he could not prevent it by efficiency or by motives? But Dr F's whole system is built upon the assumption that God has employed all sorts of influence to the utmost limit

[blocks in formation]

of his power, to promote the holiness of the universe, and particularly of this world, in all its generations I suppose. Whether he would admit that God can send the Gospel to the heathen, or light to the ignorant in Christendom, faster than he does, I doubt. He may think that all the influence God could have employed could not have sent more than one Noah to the antediluvian world, or more missionaries to the heathen in the early ages or now. In the infinite complication of God's affairs, what particular difficulties may be contemplated as lying in the way, I know not. Dr F introduces another hinderance,-the want of the prayer of faith. "He could with propriety do more for the salvation of men-if more acceptable prayer were offered for the object.-God prefers that men would at all times and in all places offer up acceptable prayer; and he does all that he can wisely to excite them to the performance of this duty."* If God cannot make his people pray, it is wonderful that he should bind himself not to do the best he can for the salvation of others, for which he is so anxious, until his backward people have permitted him. If he cannot control them, it would seem wise for him to act without their prayers, and not suspend the salvation of his creatures, and even his own benevolent agency, on the will of his unmanageable children,— whom he can manage to keep Christians, but whom he cannot cause to pray aright.

But whether it is allowed or not that by all sorts of influence God does the best he can for each individual; it is easy to see that, so far as providence is concerned, less is

actually done for one than for another. Some are heathen; some are brought up in ignorance in a Christian land; some cannot read; some are blind; some are deaf and dumb; some die young. But it ought not to be overlooked that these providential diversities, especially as they relate to a Gospel land, do not distinguish the elect from the nonelect. Among those most favoured with light, many appear to perish in their sins; and from among the ignorant and neglected, many rise up to the Christian character. These then are not the decisive influences to be taken into account in determining whether God does more for the elect than for the non-elect. The question is, does he do more by his Spirit?

This question Dr F studiously avoids answering, though pressed by Dr Tyler. "That writer, [Dr Tyler,] inquires, Who made Peter and Judas to differ? We sup pose that question, in the mouth of Paul, was applied to a totally different subject from salvation.-Who distinguisheth thee with gifts? But were we to apply it to the subject of salvation, the question as used by Paul would mean, Who saved Peter? not, Who kept Judas in his impenitence? Who saved Peter? God, who interposed and induced him to repent: [not, controlled him by motives, but, applied motives which he foresaw Peter would allow to prevail.] But did he not interpose for Judas without success? We know not how far he may have gone in that particular instance; but we know that he goes far in favouring salvation in the case of many who perish, and charges on them the very guilt of refusing his grace and hardening their hearts. But says that writer, [Dr Tyler,] If God did

« AnteriorContinuar »