Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

had infinite wisdom deemed it proper. From these scriptural views of the subject, I am obliged to conclude, that God possesses the power of governing moral agents in all their freedom of action, so as to fulfil his promises, and preserve the plans of his infinite wisdom. Some writers, in accounting for the introduction of moral evil, say, that it was necessary to make men moral agents, and making them such, they were liable to sin of course? I wonder if any Christian would apply this reasoning to the saints in heaven. I shall now proceed to state the doctrine of the text more distinctly. When it is asserted that the counsel of God shall stand, and that he does all his pleasure, the assertion may be taken in the most general sense as implying complete success in all the designs of Deity, whether they relate to the management of particular parts of the system, or to the creation and government of the whole. That God had a plan in view when he created the world, must be conceded by all who acknowledge his existence. This is the necessary result of his wisdom and intelligence. We believe that no rational agent ever undertook any important work without a plan. And to deny a plan or purpose to the Deity at the creation of the world, would be to deny him common rationality. Now, this plan or purpose is the Divine decree, and the only question is, whether it has or has not been defeated. This, I believe, is the true point at which the Calvinist and Arminian must separate.

The Calvinistic system maintains, that the purpose of God never has been defeated. The Two principal points brought into this discussion, relate to the origin of moral evil, and the limited success of the gospel; and we do not suppose that the divine purpose has been overruled in either of these

cases.

In the first case, as to the origin of moral evil, the only question which can be proposed here, is, did God permit sin, or the existence of sin, contrary to the will of God? This is, no doubt, a difficult question, and on this point many persons have formed their creed from a kind of necessity. We must believe something in the case, and on a fair view of the subject, it is certainly easier to believe that God foresaw and permitted sin, than that his plans were defeated by its introduction. The permission of sin contains the whole difficulty of the Divine decrees in relation to sin. The Westminster Confession in speaking on this subject, resolves the Divine decree into the permission of sin, and the holy bounding of the sinner. This holy bounding presents no difficulty to our conception; it is mcrely the restraining of the sinner; the holding of him back from the perpetration of crimes to which his inclinations might lead; or the preventing of his evil dispositions from taking effect to the injury of his fellow creatures. that God, who views sin with infinite abhorrence, should permit its existence, is what forms the difficulty. And the only solution we can give of it, is, that the Divine Being had motives worthy of himself, but entirely unknown to us, for that permission. But with this difficulty before me, I find it much easier to believe that God freely permitted sin, than to believe that his purpose was defeated by its introduction. For if the first act of sin defeated the divine purpose, every subsequent act was a new defeat, and upon this ground defeats are so multiplied, that the Divine Being would seem to be almost excluded from the government of the world. It will be kept in view that the bare permission of sin, is only suffering the moral agent to act, and not interfering with his moral agency.

The only other point, at which it could be supposed that the Divine will was successfully counteracted, relates to the limited success of the gospel among men. This is also a point of great difficulty. It comprehends in substance the doctrine of election, and all the mysteries which belong to it. There can be no doubt, that the plan of redemption is a scheme of infinite benevolence towards our guilty world. "God has commended his love," in sending his Son to die for us when we were enemies. But after all this manifestation of love, and this expensive preparation in the death of his Son, why is the success of the gospel so limited? Has the conversion of the world been arrested, because the arm of the Lord is shortened that he cannot save?

It will be remembered here, that there is no controversy about the freeagency of man; nor do we suppose any contrariety between the secret and revealed will of God. We allow the Arminian brother to say, and we go with him in saying, that the grace of the gospel is fully offered to all who hear it, and that all who are willing to receive the gospel shall be saved; but this does not remove the difficulty. When we, or when our brothers of other denominations preach the gospel to sinners, we find a majority of them unwilling to receive it. They turn from it with contemptuous neglect, and often exercise the most malignant feelings against those who press the offer upon them. The sinner's unwillingnes to receive the gospel, is what stops every thing; and how is it to be removed? At this point there

is only one resource for either Arminian or Calvinist. They must look to God for the removal of this obstacle. When the sinner is once willing to receive the gospel and use the means of grace, the great difficulty is overcome; but it is God, and he alone, who can give him this willingness. A willingness to receive the gospel, is the first step in religion; it is the beginning of conversion, and the bestowment of it, is the work of God. The making of the sinner willing to obey the gospel, is the first step in religion; it is the beginning of conversion, and the bestowment of it, is the work of God. The making of the sinner willing to obey the gospel, is conversion or effectual calling. God gives this to some, but not to all; and his previous determination to give it, is his electing grace. It would be in vain to say here, that God gives to all men sufficient grace. I ask, for what is the grace given sufficient? It is no doubt sufficient to render sinners inexcusable, but it is not sufficient to make them Christians; otherwise all would be Christians. But the manner in which God conducts this work shows that his hand is in it. Under the preaching of the gospel, sometimes the worst sinners in the whole community are taken while others are left. The greatest profligate is moved, his heart is opened to receive the truth, and he repents; whilst a better man than he, sitting in the same seat, and hearing the same message of salvation goes away unaffected, and determines to reject the grace of God. These are facts of every man's observation, and they prove undeniably that conversion is the work of God. Should I be asked here, why God converts some and does not convert all? why he makes some willing and leaves others unwilling? my reply is, that I can give no satisfactory answer. I cannot tell, why God permitted sin at first, when he could have prevented it; neither can I tell why he converts some sinners and does not convert all. My Calvinistic creed, would indeed allow me to say, that if the church would pray more fervently for the event, more sinners would be converted, And I have no doubt that the whole church,

Arminian as well as Calvanistic, when it does pray most efficiently, feels the conviction, that all converting grace is in the hand of God; that God is able to move the hardest hearts; and of course they feel, that sinners by rejecting the gospel, cannot diminish the sovereignty of God, nor frustrate his holy purposes. The supposition that God can convert all sinners, while he only converts some, must establish the doctrine of election. Indeed the - whole doctrine of the sovereign purpose of God as to sin and its consequen ces, may be comprised in the following summary. It contains God's determination to create the world; to sustain moral agents in existence; to permit sin in certain cases; and to convert some sinners to eternal life, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The non-conversion of other sinners is the same as the continued permission of sin.

On the other hand, the Arminian system, or any system which differs from that just stated, must suppose that the divine purpose has often been defeated. Perhaps few men would be willing to assert this, in so many words; but the whole reasoning of the case leads to this result. There can be but one question on this subject; Does God " do all his pleasure?" or can the moral agency of the creature defeat the purpose of God? Now let a man carry this question with him, in reading on the Arminian controversy, and ask himself at every turn of the argument, does this suppose a defeat of the divine purpose? and he will find the whole scheme predicated on the supposition, that the will of God has been overruled in numberless instances. And here I would request the Arminian brother, to pause and consider. Would it not be better for us to believe that we are in darkness as to many things in the management of the divine government; and that God may do many things which are holy, just and good, of which we cannot understand the propriety, than to suppose that the sovereign purpose of God has ever been overthrown?

The grand difficulty which separated Christians on this subject, lies in the supposition, that a holy God could have consented to the existence of sin. This difficulty has thrown its perplexities over the reasonings of the whole world. It led many heathen philosophers to the conclusion, that there must have existed from eternity an evil as well as a good principle, and that they were employed in the counteraction of each other. Others supposed that there was an inherent evil in matter, so untractable and ungovernable, that God could not regulate things according to his own will, in any material system. These whims have long since been exploded in christendom. The independent evil principle is gone, but his ghost is not laid yet. Many pious divines think they see in moral agency, that untractable and ungovernable something, which leads to moral evil contrary to the will of God. A very res. pectable writer has lately asserted, that sin may be necessarily incident to the best system of moral agency. This sentiment is essentielly Arminian, and to me, if I believed it, would be very uncomfortable. Sin necessarily incident to the best system of moral agency! I would ask if the redeemed in heaven are not in the best state of moral agency? Can there be any holy obedience to God from creatures who are not moral agents? And are we then to suppose, that contrary to all the promises of eternal life in the word of God, and contrary to all the gracious purposes of God himself, sin may be necessarily incident to the state of the redeemed in heaven? May actually enter heaven contrary to the will of God, and destroy the happiness of the just made perfect? These are serious questions. If we could believe, that

after having entered heaven, we could lose our happiness after millions of ages, or after millions of millions of ages; it might still have been good for us, not to have been born. This opinion is at war with all proper notions of the sovereignty of God. It destroys the sentiment which the Christian feels, when he says with the Psalmist, "The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice." In the prerogative of God, we need more than protection from external enemies; we need a power which can save us from ourselves. When we subscribe the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, we believe that God will save us from ourselves; and notwithstanding our weakness and sinfulness, conduct us to heaven. And even the Arminian, who does not, in form, subscribe that doctrine, believes that the grace of God will uphold him, so long as he looks to him for that grace. This is another point at which pious feeling brings Arminians and Calvinists very near together. They all expect to stand by the power of God, and repose on his promises. But they are all wrong, and the whole foundation of their confidence is broken up, if sin be necessarily incident to the best system of moral agency, notwithstanding all that God has willed to the contrary. I suppose indeed, that the respectable writer alluded to, did not intend to apply his reasoning to this subject, and he would probably admit, that God is able to confirm moral agents in holiness in some cases, though not in all. But for my part, I think the promise of eternal life to the believer, gives us the assurance that God is able to confirm moral agents in holiness, whenever his infinite wisdom sees proper to do so. I can see no difference between the power neces sary to confirm in one case, and that which would be necessary in another; especially as the Divine Being has the forming of all moral agents in his hands, and could, if he please, create them with all the principles most favorable to such a confirmation in holiness; besides, I think, the conversion of some depraved sinners, and the leading of them to confirmed holiness in heaven, implies at least as much power as would have been necessary to have confirmed our first parents in Paradise.

The view which I have here exhibited of divine sovereignty, as it does not suppose the moral agency of man impaired, presents no greater difficulty to the understanding, than the doctrine of divine foreknowledge. Foreknowledge undoubtedly supposes the certainty or fixedness of events. If God foreknows that a thing will take place, that thing must take place; and all the difficulty lies in reconciling the certainty or fixedness of events with the moral agency of man. To avoid this difficulty, however, Mr. Wesley and athers have told us that foreknowledge does not properly belong to God; that indeed the knowledge of God is infinite, comprehending all events; but then he does not view things in succession, as past or future, but as continually and eternally present; that with God, all times are an eternal NOW. Whether this notion of the eternal presence of events to the divine mind be correct, we shall not stop here to enquire. But certainly this doctrine ac complishes nothing in the present argument. For according to this doctrine the Divine Being, viewing all things as present at all times, must at this moment view as a present event, the condemnation of every sinner who will be condemned at the day of judgment, although many of those sinners are not yet born.

He

Dr. Adam Clark has marked out for his followers a different course. denies the infinite knowledge of God altogether. He believes that God could have foreknown every thing if he had chosen, but that he determined

not to know certain things, and that this determination afforded the occasion for the introduction of sin and misery into the world. To say that Dr. Clarke's scheme is unsatisfactory, is to say too little; for it imputes more than weakness or ignorance to the Deity. It supposes that God imposed a voluntary ignorance upon himself in the management of his affairs as universal Governor, which has resulted in the infinite misery of many of his creatures. Now according to all our notions of governments, voluntary ignorance or ngelect in a governor is a crime, the guilt of which must be measured by the consequences resulting from it. But I will not press this subject. I am persuaded Dr. Clarke was not aware of these consequences, and would not have defended them. Still, however, the consequences natu rally arise from the scheme, and to avoid them we must reject the Doctor's scheme itself.

My observations on this subject have been directed to two points, both of which are necessary to be kept in view, for the understanding of the subject. The first of these points is moral agency, or the freedom of the human will. There is no truth of which the mind is more conscious, than of the freedom of its own actions, and any scheme of divine sovereignty that would contravene that truth is inadmissable. And it is also to be understood, that whilst we maintain the moral agency of man, we maintain the use of human means. Some appear to think, that if all future events are certainly fixed, the use of means has no place in the system. In answer to this I would remark, that the objection, if it applies at all, is as applicable to our temporal as to our spiritual affairs. Now I have never met with any man who did not admit, that divine foreknowledge comprehended all our temporal concerns; and what God foreknows, will certainly come to pass. God foresaw from eternity, in what circumstances we would come into this world, and in what condition we would go out of it. But does the certainty of his knowledge, make our efforts unnecessary? At the beginning of every year God foreknows to a single grain, what will be the produce of our fields, and the amount of our harvest for that year; but does this certainty of events make it unnecessary for us to plough and sow? If not, neither does the certainty of events, make the use of means unnecessary in the spiritual world. In religious matters, means are as necessary as in our temporal concerns, and they are even more certain of attaining their end, because, more manifestly accompanied by a divine promise.

The other point which we attempted to establish in consistency with the freedom of the human will, is that the scheme and purposes of God are not overthrown. This we consider as the main pillar of divinity. "The Lord reigneth, let the earth rejoice." If any wicked beings or principles in existence, can overthrow the purpose of God; the hopes of the Christian are lost; the purchase of redemption is lost; and the government of the world and of all worlds has passed into the hands of the enemies of God.

We shall now conclude this subject by a few practical observations. And in the first place, the doctrine of the divine sovereignty, rightly understood, furnishes the mind with agreeable contemplations, in surveying the past events of the church. The church has experienced many changes and perils; we have sometimes seen her at the brink of ruin, but an invisible Lord has raised her up. The whole world has sometimes combined for her destruction, and there seemed to be nothing, so far as human eyes could see, to prevent the accomplishment of the purpose; but an invisible hand came to her deliverance. When she passed through the deep waters, they did not overflow her; and when she passed through the fire, the sparks did not kin

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »