The GOSPEL TRUTH

LECTURES ON THE

MORAL GOVERNMENT OF GOD.

 By

 NATHANIEL W. TAYLOR, D. D.,

1859

VOLUME I

 

SECTION II:

THE MORAL GOVERNMENT OF GOD

AS KNOWN

BY THE LIGHT OF NATURE.

 

LECTURE X:

 

Third leading proposition continued, viz.: God governs with rightful authority. -- God Is benevolent -- 2. The present system not only may be, but is the best possible to the Creator. -- (a) It Is better than none. -- Happiness greater than misery in this life. -- Results in a future world. -- (b) It is the best possible. -- No proof that a better could be adopted. -- The present, in its nature and tendencies, Is the best conceivable, and therefore the best possible. -- This argued under two heads; 1. From its general form as a moral system, in respect to the kind of beings and the kind of influence used. -- 2. From its particular forms as a moral system, as involving influences from the nature and tendencies of moral action, from moral government, from an equitable moral government, and the same with a gracious economy. -- Remark.

 

 

IN the two preceding lectures, I have attempted to show that there is no proof against the benevolence of God, by showing that the present system, with its results, may be not only better than none, but may be the best possible to the Creator.

 

I now proceed,

 

To offer direct proofs of his benevolence.

 

Before I adduce the proposed proof, I will give an illustration of the argument on which I rely. A system under which evil exists, may be shown by decisive evidence to be the best possible system. It is obvious however, that this must be shown in a somewhat different manner from what it would be were there no evil connected with the system. To illustrate then by an example: a physician may perform the best possible operation of which the case admits, in amputating the limb of a patient, notwithstanding the pain which is inseparable from it. If all that can be shown in the case is, that the evils connected with the operation may be either inseparable parable from the necessary means of the greatest good, or may be themselves the necessary means of the greatest good, then, although the operation would not prove the physician to be benevolent, it would oblige us to admit that he may be benevolent, notwithstanding these evils. The question, when judged of merely by the facts now supposed, ought to remain undecided; or rather, cannot be decided in the negative. To this point, our preceding discussion respecting the question of the divine benevolence, so far as it depends on the existence of evil, has conducted us.

 

Let it now be supposed, that to amputate the diseased limb is better than to do nothing, and that there is no evidence that the physician has not done the best thing in his power, and there is good reason to believe the benevolence of the physician in the act. This may be said to be the lowest ground on which we are authorized to believe that he is benevolent. It is however, sufficient for this belief.

 

We will now suppose a stronger case--that the amputation of the limb is known to be the necessary means of the greatest good, and that all the evils connected with it either may be inseparable from it, so far as the power of the physician to prevent them is concerned, or may be themselves the necessary means of the greatest good. In such a case we have better grounds for awarding to the physician a benevolent design in the operation.

 

We will now suppose a case still stronger. Suppose not only that the amputation of the limb is known to be the necessary means of the greatest good, and that all the evils connected with it, except those which are the necessary means of the greatest good, are inseparable from the operation beyond the power of the physician to prevent them; that they result solely from the voluntary intemperance of the patient himself, and this when the physician does every thing in his power to prevent them, and the only legitimate conclusion is, that he is as benevolent as had this class of evils not existed. If we still further suppose, in respect to the other class of evils, viz., those which are the necessary means of the greatest good, that they become thus necessary only by the perverseness of the patient himself in his intemperance, then the conclusion is, that the physician is as benevolent as had these evils not existed, while these evils become themselves proof of his benevolence.

 

On these suppositions, it is obvious that the benevolence of the physician is as fully proved by the supposed operation, as the using of the best means of the best end can prove him to be, or as had results in good, without the slightest degree of evil, followed in the case. If now we suppose once more, that he combines with this operation every other expression of real kindness, then more indisputable and decisive proofs of benevolence could not be furnished. By all these forms of proof, it is now claimed that the benevolence of God is evinced to the human mind by that system of things, with its results, which he has adopted.

 

The argument as a whole, may be thus stated in a hypothetical form, with the conclusion:

 

If there is no proof, so far as results are concerned, that God could have adopted a better system than he has adopted--if this system, in view of its results, is better than none--if this system be the best possible to God, and so the necessary means of the greatest good possible to him to secure--if all the evil connected with the system is either inseparable from the best system, in respect to divine prevention, or is the necessary means of the greatest good possible to God; and if God, in addition to all this, actually shows kindness to his creatures, in every other conceivable form which is consistent with the greatest good possible to him--then it will follow, that God is benevolent--even as benevolent as had the best possible, or best conceivable results, been actually secured.

 

Having attempted to show that the present system may be not only better than none, but the best possible, I now proceed to show as I proposed:

 

2. That it is not only better than none, but is the best possible to the Creator.

 

(1.) The present system is better than none. This I propose to show:

 

First. From the comparative amount of happiness and misery in the present world.

Secondly. From the results of the present system in a future world.

 

I appeal --

 

First; to the comparative amount of happiness and misery in the present world.

 

We claim then, that the amount of happiness so far transcends the amount of misery, as to put an end to all doubt on the question, whether the present system with its results is not far better than none. To contemplate the actual experience of men, and to institute such inquiries as the following, must decide this question. Where is the individual to be found who does not at every moment of life enjoy so much in present possession, or in hope of future good, as to render his existence desirable? How few--how very few are the instances of calamity and suffering with which manifold and rich blessing are not combined--how few individuals within our own knowledge, who are not enjoying every useful and necessary gift of divine bounty, and prepared and qualified to enjoy any additional happiness that might be furnished! Who is not ready to welcome the knowledge or information that gratifies curiosity to be entertained with the humor of the wit, or the ingenuity of the artist? What an amount of all that can be called human misery, is chiefly imaginary; and how may that which is real be diminished by contentment, by submission, or by resorting to available sources of happiness. Even when war, famine and pestilence pour in their floods of suffering and distress, how large a portion of the wide earth, untouched by their desolations, exhibits scenes of joy and gladness, while the sufferers themselves cling to life through the remembrance of joys that are past, or the hope of those that may come! In short, when we look over the world and see all its millions with exceptions which scarcely are to be thought of, retiring to rest every night, with the quiet and assured anticipation of the supply of the essential wants of tomorrow, and reflect that this is founded only on the uniform experience of the past, how can we fail to pronounce this a happy world--one at least in which existence is far better than non-existence? If we turn our thoughts to the innumerable sources of enjoyment in the animal, rational and moral departments of creation--if we contemplate the invisible existence that peoples every leaf, the sportive mazes of the insect tribes that abound in the atmosphere and the waters the notes of joy which are heard from every grove, the delighted activity of the larger animals, the wonderful provision made for their supply of food, the obvious and nice adaptations in their nature and condition for their comfortable or joyous existence; if we consider man's capacity for enjoyment from the wide creation around him, through the organs of sense, and the amount of good which would in this way be furnished, were the means of it never perverted; if we think of the numerous channels of higher pleasures which are opened to man in his intellectual and social nature, and reflect how these are supplied by the everflowing streams of divine bounty in all the tender relations of life; and then reflect on the annihilation of all these earthly joys in the utter darkness and desolation of non-existence, how can we either wish not to have been or to cease to be?

 

If we contemplate men as moral beings, how are the vicious and guilty even exempted by divine compassion from the overwhelming agonies of remorse!--how are the virtuous solaced and gladdened as with the peace of heaven! Nor ought we to overlook the capacity of happiness involved in the very nature of moral beings; what a condition of perfection and of bliss it places within their power, and one not to be despaired of, but rather to be hoped for and expected by the well-founded belief of the enrapturing truth, that God is, and is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

 

If now we take the most gloomy view of human existence, so far as it can bear on the present inquiry, we can at most find but here and there an individual bosom so desolate of all good, so oppressed with present griefs and gloomy forebodings, as to consent to plunge into the dark gulf of non-existence, while myriads are exulting in life and its joys. How would these myriads, instead of counting their existence undesirable, prefer its endless duration as it is, rather than hazard a diminution of their happiness by any essential and yet uncertain change in their condition? Supposing the prospect of improvement to be fair and promising, very few with the uncertainty remaining whether the change would not be for the worse instead of for the better, would rationally in their own view incur its risk. This shows how we value life, being so well satisfied with its blessings, that to hazard the uncertainties of a change in our condition of existence, would be deemed the height of folly. It shows how readily, were the alternative a great diminution of happiness or non-existence, we should prefer the former, and how appalling would be the prospect of ceasing to be, compared with our present existence and the abundance of its joys. Everything in human society, in the devices of man, the laws made to protect human life, the remedies used to heal diseases, the safeguards from accident and danger, the provision of food and raiment, in short, every preservative of life, shows that its loss is esteemed the greatest to which man in this world is liable. To preserve life is the great end to which human solicitude has ever been directed, and for which human ingenuity and skill have been exhausted. Nor can there be a doubt that it would still be so, were death known to be an eternal sleep--at least to such an extent, as to show how highly man values the existence which his Creator gives him in the present world.

 

Should it here be said, that I have now taken but a partial view of the results of the present system--that, although it be true that our earthly existence merely, is greatly to be preferred to non-existence, yet there is a future state, and a majority of men actually leave this world with that character, which insures their future unmingled and endless misery--I answer as before, that if we suppose a majority of men to die in sin, the light of nature does not decide that the present life is the whole of man's probation; and that therefore it may be true, that the design of God to recover men to virtue and to happiness, so conspicuously manifested here, will secure the perfect happiness of far the greater part of mankind hereafter. Indeed, this cannot, from the light of nature, be shown to be in the lowest degree improbable. Here then I might form a conclusive argument for the divine benevolence, thus: as there is no evidence that God is not doing all the good in his power, or that he could adopt a better system than the present; and as the present system, in view of its results in the present world, is better than none, it follows that God is benevolent.

 

But not to rest the argument on this ground merely, I remark secondly, that the present system, in view of its results in a future world, is better than none. Here it may be asked, with some degree of incredulity, what can we know, or rationally believe, under the mere light of nature, respecting the allotments of men in a future state? I answer, we can know all that which legitimate evidence warrants us to believe; and the declarations of God on this subject are not the only kind of evidence of which the case admits. His doings may as truly indicate his designs, and tell us what will be their results, as his declarations.

 

Here then I appeal to what has already been shown respecting the present system. I shall however but briefly appeal to these facts, intending more particularly to consider them in a subsequent argument, to show that the present system is the best possible to the Creator. The same facts show that the present system is better than none, as they evince the designs of God toward men in a future state.

 

The facts to which I refer are briefly these: the creation of the most perfect beings in kind; the end of their creation, as indicated by their nature, which is the best conceivable; the actual giving of the best law, or rule of action; the administration of a moral government involving this perfect law, and a strict adherence to the principles of perfect equity, and not only this, but connected with it, an economy of grace; every thing in the condition and circumstances of man fitted to restore him to virtue and happiness, and to secure him in this state of perfection; while no change is conceivable, which would add perfection to the system as the means of this high end. What then can we--ought we to believe, will be the results of such a system in a future world? Will this high design of a Being of infinite wisdom and power be wholly defeated? Will our present state, so bright with the smiles of his mercy, be followed by one only dark and dreadful, under the frowns of his anger? When God is so clearly aiming to restore man to holiness and happiness, is there nothing to hope for but universal sin and exact retribution? True it is, that from the light of nature alone, we cannot in all respects give a definite answer to the present inquiry. But we are constrained to give one that is general, and altogether decisive on the point before us. The nature of the present system, so clearly and extensively benignant in its design, proves that this design will not be wholly abortive, but in some good degree accomplished. This system, begun by infinite wisdom and power, and carried onward through all the generations of men, clearly indicates results in a future state corresponding with its own benignity and grace. To hesitate or doubt on this point, especially in view of the infinite natural perfection of the Being whose design it is, is to do violence to the laws of belief, as well as to disregard and distrust the only possible proofs of the divine placability.

 

In view then of what we must suppose will be the actual results of the present system in a future world, we must also believe that the present system, viewed in relation to these results, is better--far better than none, and the best possible to the Creator.

 

The way is now prepared to offer direct proofs of the benevolence of God from his works.

 

Argument I. The first argument is, that there is no proof, so far as results are concerned, that God could have adopted a better system than the present, and there is proof that the present system is better than none. That there is no proof so far as results are concerned, that God could have adopted a better system than the present, I have already attempted to prove, by showing that it may be such a system notwithstanding the existence of natural and moral evil. If what has been said on this subject be true, then their existence is to be wholly laid aside as entitled to no consideration in the argument. We have shown that all existing evils may be either the necessary means of the greatest good possible to the Creator, or in respect to divine prevention may be incidental to the best system possible to the Creator. Of course if there be other facts, which, were there no existing evil, would be sufficient to prove his benevolence, then as the existing evil furnishes no proof that he is not benevolent, or that the present system is not the best possible to the Creator, this evil must, in a fair argument, be laid out of consideration. The present system may be, notwithstanding the existence of the evil, the best possible to the Creator.

 

Again; it has been shown that the present system is better than none. And if this is true, and there is no evidence that God could have adopted a better system than the present, then it follows that the present system is the best possible to the Creator, and that he is therefore benevolent.

 

It may be well to remark here, that the argument, according to the illustration of it before given, is cumulative. When we have established the two premises of the foregoing argument, we have furnished a valid proof of the divine benevolence, and therefore in each of our remaining positions we shall increase the proof.

 

I now offer a second general argument:

 

Argument II. The present system in its nature and tendencies is the best conceivable, and therefore the best possible to the Creator.

 

I have said that the proof of the divine benevolence is cumulative. What I claim for it in this respect is, that when as in our first argument, it is shown that in view of the results of the present system, it is the best possible to the Creator, then if in view of the nature and tendencies of the system, it be shown that it is the best conceivable, we have still further proof that it is the best possible to the Creator, and so much additional proof of his benevolence. The nature and tendencies of the system, if they can be shown to be the best conceivable, now become in view of the perfection of the system as judged by its results, so much uncounteracted and independent proof of the highest possible perfection of the system; proof as decisive and complete as were the system actually followed by the highest conceivable good which it is fitted to produce. Nor is this all. But when, as we have shown, not only there is not the least counteracting evidence from any other source, but the present system, judged of by its results, is the best possible to the Creator; then each and every adaptation, fitness, tendency of the system to the production of the highest conceivable good, is so much additional proof that the Author of the system designed the highest conceivable good: and is therefore so much additional proof of his benevolence in adopting the system. In this mode of reasoning then I now proceed to show that the present system is the best possible to the Creator, by proving that in its nature and tendencies it is the best conceivable system.

 

This I shall attempt to show:

 

1. From its general form as a moral system; and

2. From its more particular forms as such a system.

 

That the present system then is the best conceivable, and therefore the best possible to the Creator, I argue --

 

1. From its general form as a moral system. As a moral system in distinction from any system not moral, it is in kind the best conceivable. It is so, if we consider the kind of beings and the kind of influence which it involves.

And first in respect to the kind of beings. These are of course moral beings; and as such are formed in the image of God himself. No other work of the Creator could so employ his wisdom and his power--no other creatures could be so exalted in the scale of existence--no other product could so manifest the infinitude of his natural attributes. On no other could he look with so much self-complacency. "There is," said Augustine, "but one object greater than the soul, and that object is its Creator." Had God then not adopted a system of creation including moral beings, the highest place in the scale of created being had been vacant, and without them the interval between mere animal existence and God himself, had been unoccupied.

 

What then had been a system of creatures, endowed only with animal sensation, compared with a system of beings capable of holy affections and holy activity, and each and all capable of possessing perfect, even the highest degree of happiness conceivable? If God were good, what else could he do but create mind-beings in his own image, with intelligence to know himself, his character, his will, his designs, his works; with hearts to burn with love, with wills to obey his perfect will with conscience to feel the high deservings of right and wrong moral action, and to sway all the powers of the soul in the harmony of perfect virtue; beings with sympathies and social tendencies, capable of living in the past, the present, and the future--capable of entering into fellowship with God, and of awakening his confidence and his complacency as the executors of his high counsels; beings so powerful in intellect, as to be able to look with open face on the full effulgence of his Godhead, so capacious of heart as to receive the fullness of joy at his right hand, and who thus filled with all the fullness of God, might stand around his throne as mirrors of his own creation, to reflect the light of his glory forever? For such a creation what shall be substituted? The present system then, in respect to the kind of beings which it includes, is the best conceivable, and in this respect, there being no counteracting evidence, furnishes another independent and decisive proof of the Creator's goodness.

 

The same thing is true of the present system, as it employs a moral influence. After what has been already said, I may assume the position as incontrovertible, that the universal and perfect holiness of a moral creation is necessary to the highest conceivable happiness of such a creation. It is equally undeniable, that the kind of influence which is peculiar to a moral system, is indispensable to the production of holiness in the least degree in moral beings. It is of course necessary to the highest degree of holiness, and therefore to the highest degree of happiness.

 

In this view of this kind of influence, and of the system which includes it, the system has all the value which would pertain to a moral creation made perfectly blessed by perfect moral excellence. And who can estimate the worth of an influence which is indispensable to such a result? Who will attempt to conceive of any other as its substitute? Nor is this its only feature. There is a high and ennobling pleasure in using this influence, nor scarcely less in feeling it. To uphold and move the material universe in all its regularity and beauty, to give form, and life, and activity to the whole intelligent creation--to pervade, sustain, and animate all as the handiwork of Omnipotence, is a source of high delight to the infinite Author of all. But to influence mind--to be the author of that system of truth, of evidence, of motive, which is adapted to control and direct intelligent, free, moral beings, and to secure the high end of their existence--fitted to accomplish such a result in beings with powers adequate to defeat it--to bring forth an influence which shall give absolute perfection to a moral universe for eternity, without in the least infringing on the noble prerogative of their freedom, imposes a new demand on omnipotence, and imparts a grandeur and glory to God's dominion, which excludes from thought every other.

 

At the same time, to be the subject of such influence--to live under that system, and those manifestations of truth, which are thus adapted to move moral beings, and to secure such results--a system which has tasked the wisdom and the power of the infinite Being, and whose results can fail only through the perverseness of creatures, when in respect to the kind of influence God could do no more; to have such interests placed within one's own power--committed to choice, enlightened and guided by intelligence to comprehend them--to be able to secure the result designed by an act of will, and if secured, to say, "I have done it, when I could have done the opposite"--to live under a system, where the alternative is the self-perfection or self-destruction of an immortal being--this is to occupy a place of exaltation and dignity, which none can transcend or equal. If such a being rises, what a height of glory! If he falls, what ruin! The alternative is indeed tremendous, but is demanded by the essential perfection of the system, and its foreseen and glorious results. Every tendency justly estimated is adapted to a successful and triumphant issue. The influence from the doom foreseen is only salutary. It can be incurred only by voluntary perversion and fault; it can come only by. the great law of choice between life and death, without which a more dreadful ruin must come to all--without which the infinite Being himself must sacrifice his perfect character, and with this his perfect blessedness.

 

Such then is the influence which is involved in the present, as a moral system. How degrading to creatures, how unworthy of a perfect God, were any other in its stead! How repulsive, how revolting a system of coercion--or rather, what degrading absurdity in the thought of controlling moral beings by physical agency, or by the mechanism of cause and effect! The mind, created in God's image, must be governed, if at all, by the influence which moves him in all his doings--even by that truth which fixes and reveals the eternal relations of things, and gives the soul its life in perfect holiness and perfect bliss. Without this influence of the system, what will become of its issues, in all the self-complacency, free, voluntary, joyous activity, and eternal triumphs, of which perfected moral beings are capable? On this influence in distinction from every other, these results all depend. Its tendency is to produce such, and only such--even the highest conceivable good of the best conceivable system of creatures. This tendency of this influence in a system which is better than none, and which, for aught that can be shown to the contrary, is the best possible to the Creator, is as conspicuous, and as obviously designed by its Author to secure its benign and blessed results, as were they actually secured. The present system then, as it involves a moral influence in distinction from any other, is the best conceivable, and in this respect furnishes another independent and decisive proof of God's benevolence.

 

That the present system is the best conceivable, and therefore the best possible to the Creator, I argue-

 

2. From its more particular forms as a moral system. Here I appeal to it as comprising four particular forms of a moral system: that influence to secure perfection in character and in happiness, which results from the perceived nature and tendencies of moral action; the influence of a moral government; that of an equitable moral government; and that of an equitable moral government under a gracious economy.

 

In the first place, the present system comprises that influence to secure perfection in character and in happiness, which results from the perceived nature and tendencies of moral action. These are plainly and impressively manifested in the constitution and condition of the human mind. I need not here repeat the facts on this part of the subject, which have been so recently presented. In view of them, I may ask, what more in this respect could God have done? The answer is, nothing--which for aught that appears to the contrary, would not have been for the worse. If we contemplate the knowledge of truth which is thus given to every mind, in its source, its nature, its power, can any thing, be conceived in this respect to heighten the excellence of the system? It is knowledge of the fixed and immutable relations of right and wrong, given in the very nature and elements of our being; knowledge of good and evil in their highest conceivable degrees, and of the only means of obtaining the one and avoiding the other; knowledge of all that man need to know as a being made for immortality, that he may secure his perfection in character and in happiness; knowledge, which is pressed upon thought and susceptibility in experience, and as it were every moment; knowledge, which can be practically resisted and counteracted only by the most desperate violence and infatuation of which moral beings are capable; knowledge which even when thus resisted puts its firm grasp on the conscience and holds it there: still opens the bright visions of hope in the self-complacency of virtue, and reveals the terrors of self-condemnation in the remorse of guilt, and thus distinctly and at every step of life is telling man of a retribution in that heaven or hell which he carries in his own bosom; knowledge therefore which is fitted so far as knowledge, from these sources can be, to secure in the best manner and in the highest degree, man's perfection in character and in happiness.

 

This tendency of this knowledge is as manifest as were the result actually secured. It is furnished in a system which is not only better than none, but which for aught that can be shown to the contrary, is the best possible to the Creator. It is therefore as obviously designed by the author of the system to secure the result Which it is fitted to produce, as were that result actually secured. The present system then, as it comprises that influence from the perceived nature and tendencies of moral action, which is fitted to promote the highest blessedness of God's moral creation, furnishes another proof of the highest conceivable perfection of the system and of the benevolence of its author.

 

In the second place, the present system comprises a moral government. Moral government in the lowest import of the terms, includes a moral governor, a rule of action as the expression of his will--good promised to obedience and evil threatened to disobedience. These things, though they do not necessarily include the equitable administration of a moral government, are essential to what can be properly called a moral government. Without now insisting on the equity of God's moral administration over men, still he is administering a moral government over them, and such a moral government as is consistent with the system's being the best possible, and also better than none. In this view of a moral government, I claim that it is an excellence which is essential to the perfection of the system. Let then the present system without, be compared with one which includes a moral government, and be contemplated in relation to the great end of a moral system. What would it be, when compared with one which exhibits the infinite Creator of men, as also their sovereign Lawgiver and Judge? In this relation that great Being is presented to the mind as taking a deeper, stronger interest in the moral conduct of his moral creatures as the means of their perfection and happiness, than in any and every thing besides. In this relation he makes a clear expression of his preference of right to wrong moral action on the part of every subject, and shows them that their highest interests can be secured only by obedience to his will. With their happiness and misery at his disposal, he authorizes only the expectation on their part that all depends on their conduct. Whatever conviction of duty then we may suppose men to derive from any other source--what additional strength and power must be given to that conviction by the clear and decisive promulgation of the will of God in exact accordance with it! How feeble and fluctuating--how evanescent, easily forgotten and disregarded the conviction derived from one source only, compared with the same derived from both; how must the conviction of duty first obtained from our nature and condition and the tendencies of moral action, be impressed by its known coincidence with the will, the law of Him who holds all destiny in his hands! While our very being reveals the absolute and unalterable law, that if we would be happy and not miserable we must be good, the execution of this law is made known in the immutable will and resistless power of an infinite being. But if we suppose no moral government over this world, then no evidence can be found of a retribution for the right and wrong doing of men. The distribution of good and evil in this world is not in the lowest sense retributive. Aside from God's relation as, a moral governor of men, legal sanctions--good and evil awarded to sustain authority--a Judge to approve and condemn, to reward and to punish are not to be thought of. But with a moral governor in view, and he no other than the infinite Creator of all, holding the allotment in the happiness and misery of every creature in his power, and giving a full indication of his purpose to make them in a high degree happy or miserable as they obey or disobey his will, what other influence can be substituted for this, in a system which is better than none, and which for aught that can be shown to the contrary, is the best possible? It is an influence which can be viewed in such a case as tending only to good, and to good in the highest conceivable degree. The present system therefore, as it comprises a moral government on the part of God, has another excellence which is essential to its highest conceivable perfection, and in this respect furnishes another independent and decisive proof of the benevolence of its author.

 

In the third place, the present system includes an equitable moral government. There is a sense in which the equity of a moral administration or of a moral government may imply the benevolence of the moral governor. I use this language however as I have before said, merely to characterize what may be called his providential dispensations as being in accordance with the principles of equity, whether we suppose him to be a benevolent or a selfish being. In other words, by the equity of God's moral administration over this world--I mean that his providential dispensations are what they would be on the supposition of his perfect benevolence, without assuming that such is his character. In this sense the equity of his administration whether he be a benevolent or a selfish being, consists in his giving the best law or rule of action, and in annexing to this law those sanctions in good and evil which express his highest approbation of right and highest disapprobation of wrong moral action, and which are requisite as such expressions to sustain his authority.

 

I claim to have shown already, that God is administering in the sense now stated, an equitable moral government over men, and that without so doing it would be impossible that he should show himself to be entitled to the least respect as a moral governor. The impossibility of this on the supposition of his not giving the best law, will not be denied. So if we suppose him to annex to the best law, less degrees of natural good and evil than the highest as the sanctions of his law, it would show that he approves of right moral action less than supremely, and disapproves of wrong moral action less than supremely. Such a manifestation of feeling toward these objects would be decisive; that he does not regard things as they are; that he does not act on the principle of eternal rectitude that of regarding the best kind of action as the best, and the worst kind of action as the worst; that instead of showing himself disposed to sustain his authority, and to employ this influence for the welfare of his kingdom, he acts on principles of partiality, favoritism, injustice, tyranny; that he is therefore a selfish and malignant being, and in no respect entitled to the homage of his subjects, or to the throne he occupies.

 

But in the present system, instead of thus subverting his authority as a moral governor by disproving his benevolence, God, as we have seen, adheres to strict equity in his moral administration. He gives the best law or rule of action, and by the requisite legal sanctions, expresses the highest approbation of right, and the highest disapprobation of wrong moral action. He does the very things in these essential respects which he would do were he a being of perfect benevolence; the very things, without which he cannot prove his benevolence and sustain his authority as a moral governor. For what other higher or better influence can be substituted for this, for the purpose of securing the greatest amount of right moral action, and thus the greatest amount of happiness, in a moral creation? Could any higher or better influence for the purpose be derived from natural good and evil, considered as merely so much motive employed to secure right and prevent wrong moral action? Could it result from giving any other law than the best--from expressing in the form of law any other preference than of the best kind of action? Could any higher or better influence for the same purpose result from legal sanctions, considered as the expressions of any other particular feelings or emotions toward right and wrong moral action, than those of the highest approbation of the one and the highest disapprobation of the other? In these respects plainly, no other influence conceivable can possess the same salutary tendency. In this way only can he manifest those attributes of a perfect moral governor, which we call his holiness, justice;--holiness in all its love and complacency toward moral excellence, and in that inaccessible purity which recoils from, and in that withering abhorrence which forbids the approach of the least moral defilement; justice in that serene and awful majesty of its inflexible purpose to sweep a rebellious world into the abyss of ruin, rather than suffer the least obscurity or infringement of his right to reign. Under no other manifestation of God, could obedience to his will be rendered as the will of a perfect being. There might indeed, be a moral system, and moral influences, and if you please, a moral government; but there could be no moral government in the hands of a perfect being; none in that distinctive character which results from the absolute prerogative of rightful dominion. Unless we see God through the medium of an equitable administration, we cannot see him as immutably holy and just, and can therefore never confide, love, and obey. In a word, it is only through an equitable moral administration, that God as a moral governor, can manifest his perfect character.

 

Now I do not say, that such an administration necessarily excludes all opposing evidence on the question of his moral character; but that when it exists, as it does in the present case without the least opposing evidence--when it exists as an element of a system, which, in view of its results, is, so far as we have seen, the best possible to the Creator, it can be viewed only as an essential element of the perfection of the system, and as such, another and decisive proof of its perfection and of the benevolence of its Author. In such a case, what other view can be taken of his giving his perfect law--perfect in its precept, and perfect in its sanctions--except that of the most unequivocal and decisive expression of his supreme and benevolent preference of right moral action, and as its consequence, the highest possible happiness of his moral creation? What can be the design of making such an expression of these feelings, in this most impressive form conceivable, except that by so doing he may secure this result? Were this actually accomplished by this means, who then could doubt its adaptation to the end, and the benevolent design of its Author? But its tendency to this result is a matter of absolute knowledge, and would be no more obvious than it now is were the result actually produced. And now, when the design of its Author to secure this result, instead of being obscured by the slightest shade of evidence to the contrary, is confirmed by the manifestation of his benevolence in every other form, this design is as conspicuous and undeniable as is the tendency to this result of the same element of the system. Neither can be denied or doubted. The design of God in administering an equitable moral government over men, in order that the end should be produced, for which it is perfectly adapted, stands forth as conspicuous as were that end actually accomplished in the highest conceivable happiness of his moral creation. In view then of the equity of God's moral administration, we say that it is one element of the best possible system, which is not only an indispensable, but an independent and decisive proof of equity in principle; thus revealing on the throne of moral dominion, a God (if perfect holiness and perfect justice, and of course, a God of perfect benevolence.

 

In the fourth place, the present system is the best conceivable, as it includes an equitable moral government under an economy of grace. That God is administering such a government over men, I persuade myself has been shown in former lectures. We have seen that the manner in which he distributes good and evil in this world entirely harmonizes with an economy of grace; that while there is nothing in the whole history of his providence inconsistent with the strict principles of equity in his administration, there are still decisive intimations that he has not abandoned these principles--that every thing in the manner in which he treats this world of transgressors, clearly and impressively bespeaks his will that they should return to duty and to happiness, rather than continue in sin, and die forever. We see him furnishing to all the most decisive proofs that their highest happiness can be found only in obedience to his will--drawing them to repentance by the most powerful influence, that of manifested kindness; by those "cords of love and hands of a man," which, it would seem no perversity of heart could resist; dispensing natural evil, under the kindest forms of necessary moral discipline or paternal chastisement, with the obvious design to reclaim and bless his disobedient children--making the present state of man most obviously one of trial and of discipline, and as such, designed and fitted to form his character to permanent virtue and happiness--placing man's present enjoyment so far and so clearly in his own power, as to show beyond the possibility of doubt, that a universal and perfect moral reformation would transform the world, darkened and afflicted as it is by sin and its woes, into a primeval paradise; thus in every conceivable form and mode of dispensation, clearly evincing his power to sustain such a system of justice and of grace--forbidding a surmise either of malignant intention, or of weak and indulgent connivance at iniquity, and so rendering every other supposition inadmissible, except, that while he sustains the principles of eternal righteousness inviolate, he is, in the fullness of love and mercy, aiming to restore a lost world to duty, to favor, and to happiness. Thus does the great Creator present himself to his guilty moral creation, A JUST GOD, AND YET A SAVIOUR.

 

Here then we see the crowning excellence of the present system. I shall not attempt to specify in detail those parts of God's providence which are eminently fitted to extend and heighten our admiration of this system of justice and of grace. To sustain the principles of eternal righteousness unsullied and unobscured, and show himself placable to the guilty, and even solicitous to reclaim and bless--to uphold in all their stability the pillars of his throne, and yet give it the attractions of a throne of grace--this is a system which combines with every other conceivable excellence, the highest, brightest of them all, that of an economy of grace. The present system then, in another respect, i.e., as including an economy of grace, is the best conceivable.

 

The argument for God's benevolence, as thus furnished by the light of nature, may be thus presented. The present system with its results, is better than none; notwithstanding the evil which exists, the system may be the best possible to the Creator; while in its adaptations and tendencies to good, it is in every respect the best conceivable. God therefore is benevolent. Were a physician to perform an operation on a patient, which were better than to do nothing, and though connected with some pain, might still be the best possible, and in respect to all its tendencies, were it ascertained to be the best conceivable operation, who would doubt his benevolence.

 

Were it however my principal object here to prove the benevolence of God, I might proceed greatly to increase the force of the present argument. For having once shown, on the premises now presented, that God is benevolent, it were perfectly legitimate to infer not merely that all existent evil may be consistent, but that it is consistent with his benevolence, either as the necessary means of the greatest good, or as incidental in respect to his prevention, to that system which is the necessary means of the greatest good.

 

In respect to natural evil, viewed as it must be, as the necessary means of the greatest good, instead of furnishing an objection to his benevolence, it becomes an additional proof of it. As to moral evil, viewed as it must now be: viz., as incidental in respect to divine prevention to a system in which God has done all that was possible to prevent it, and to secure universal holiness in its stead, it leaves the benignity of his design unobscured; and we are obliged to say, there is all the proof of God's benevolence, which there would have been, had the universal and perfect holiness and happiness of his moral creation been the actual result.

 

Having arrived at this point, I might bring forward, as still further proofs, furnished in the fact that he shows kindness to his creatures in every conceivable form which is consistent with their greatest good; and this, not in respect to its salutary tendencies and relations, in view of which it has given so much force to our preceding arguments, but under two very different relations: viz., as so much good or enjoyment merely, and as such, all that in degree, which is consistent with the highest good of the recipients; and also, as so much good conferred on sinful, ill-deserving creatures, whom, as a benevolent and just God, he might have utterly destroyed. To all this good, we must add the grand and glorious results of that system of grace and mercy in future and eternal happiness, as conferred on guilty beings whose endless destruction had been alike consistent with justice and benevolence.

 

Here let us then advert, first, to what had been the proofs of God's benevolence, had perfect holiness and happiness actually resulted to his moral creation. We have this proof at hand, for we have proved that he most truly and sincerely designed this result. Let us now advert again to what would have been the condition of this world of transgressors, had God, as he might, displayed his benevolence and been just, instead of displaying his benevolence in pardoning grace. Let the fearful results of exact retribution in the woes of the second death, be compared with the riches of his long-suffering, and the everflowing streams of his providential bounty in this world, and with (as our previous argument authorizes us to expect in the world to come) the eternal blessedness of a multitude which no man can number, of pure, holy, and happy spirits, so vast, so glorious, that the few incorrigibly wicked whom necessity confines in the prison of state, shall be only as an unnoticed speck amid the overwhelming glory of the whole.

I have thus attempted to exhibit the proofs of God's benevolence, as shown by the light of nature. And what other or higher proofs could be furnished by his works or his doings, I am compelled to say, is beyond my power to conceive. Contemplated as a state of trial and preparation for results in eternity, the nature, the condition, and the prospects of man, manifest infinite wisdom and power, directed by infinite goodness, aiming at results which shall forever tell the Creator's capacity to bless. To specify an imperfection, or suggest an improvement, defies the power of the human intellect. This world then, must be esteemed not as furnishing merely some faint intimations, some slight grounds of conjecture that God is good, but as presenting to every eye that witnesses the operations of his hands, one of the brightest theaters of his infinite benevolence--a scene in God's creation, in which, counteracted indeed in its fullest results by human wickedness, it only awakes to new and unheard of desires and efforts to bless: benevolence which shines forth like a sun, when all that might seem to obscure its light, only serves to give new warmth and splendor to its beams. For in what brighter forms of love and goodness could God appear, than as the God of redemption to this guilty, lost world?

 

If now I have proved that God is a being of perfect benevolence, it follows that he administers his moral government over this world in the exercise of rightful authority. Having before proved that God administers a moral government over men in some proper import of the phrase; having shown that he administers his moral government in equity and in the exercise of rightful authority; I have established my leading proposition, that

 

GOD ADMINISTERS A PERFECT MORAL GOVERNMENT OVER MEN.

 

I conclude with one reflection on the views which have been given of the moral government of God over this world, viz.:

 

How undesirable that Christianity were not a revelation from God. If Christianity is not a revelation from God, still every thing of vital importance to man which Christianity says, S TRUE, except its grand peculiarity, the manner in which this world's redemption from sin is achieved--every thing is true, except its discovery of a triune God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in their respective relations to the work of man's redemption from sin. If Christianity is not a revelation, still there is an infinite being who has given existence to creatures, formed in his own image, and destined to live and to act, for weal or for woe, through a coming eternity. For the accomplishment of his eternal counsels, God has assumed the high relation of a perfect moral governor of these creatures of his power. Perfectly benevolent, he is also inflexibly just. He will never sacrifice the majesty of law, the glory of his moral dominion, and the happiness of his moral creation, in tenderness to rebels. His throne stands in all its grandeur on the pillars of eternal justice, and, though changed into a throne of grace, still in all its darkness and tempest, it speaks undiminished terror to the determined transgressor. It is changed into a throne of grace, but only to the rebel who is penitent and contrite in heart. It is a throne of grace, that, with its attractions and its charms, it may win rebellion to loyalty.

 

If then, Christianity is not a divine revelation, every thing (I mean every thing substantial, for I certainly admit that Christianity sheds a new and brighter light on all moral truths), with the exceptions made, which Christianity teaches, IS TRUE. Every thing respecting God, man, time, and eternity--every relation of God to man, and of man to God--every relation, tendency, and consequence of right and wrong moral action every foundation of hope, ground of fear, retrospect of the past, reality of the present, prospect of the future--the same probation, the same law, the same economy of mercy, the same judgment and retribution, the same heaven and hell--all, all in every great and substantial respect, is the same. Christianity, with the exception made, is only a republication in brighter characters, of the truths of God and of nature--of God and nature immutable as its author. If Christianity then is not a divine revelations where are we? Just where we are if it is a revelation, with this difference, the light it sheds on the scheme of redemption is extinguished! How the perverseness of rebels is to be subdued to love, and if subdued, how can a just God receive them to favor; here all is mystery unsolvable--darkness impenetrable, even appalling! Man, a sinner, and guilty as he is, I admit might repent, and might hope for mercy from his Maker. But would he? Man, in the bondage of sin, what chains so strong?--man, dead in sin, what death so hopeless? who shall deliver? what power shall raise to life, give health, and strength, and beauty immortal to this victim of sin and death but the power of him who made him? Man, I said, might hope for mercy. But with a clear perception of his fearful guilt and God's fearful justice; when looking at a sin-avenging God as he must, and asking, how can such a God show the same abhorrence of sin and yet forgive, which he would show by the endless destruction of a rebellious world, then it is that the fears and dismay of guilt take hold on the spirit, and hope trembles, faulters, expires. I say not that it must be so, but that it always has been, and always will be, at least with exceptions not to be named. For remember, it is not the hope of the infidel that--we need--the hope that God is unjust--the hope like his, that reposes in a selfish, malignant deity; it is not the hope which fancy and the love of sin beget, and which rushes fearless on the thick bosses of Jehovah's buckler, without knowing who or what he is; it is the hope which looks upon a just God, and with a sense of his righteous indignation, reposes sweetly in his mercy. And yet there is so much terror here, there is so much midnight darkness and thunder, that the feeble rays of mercy do not suffice. Guilt will look up with confidence only when it sees the throne of God upheld by the man that is his fellow. Take away "the incarnate mystery," extinguish the light which reveals the great atonement of Christianity, (ignorance and presumption might indeed hope in a selfish deity, in an unjust God, find realize a just perdition), but extinguish this light, the light which reveals God's mercy through his Son, and let in the terrors of guilt and of God on this sinful world, and how would they weep and howl in the frenzies of despair! Thanks -- may I not say it--thanks to the impostor, if such he was, who devised the great atonement of the gospel. Falsehood--can we say less?--falsehood is better than truth! Imposture? Falsehood? No. Here is the seal of God. It is just the atonement which man needs, the atonement which he must have, to embolden conscious guilt to approach a spotless God; the only atonement which will in fact, give hope and peace and heaven to a guilty world. God devised it. God revealed it, that all other manifestations of his mercy might not be in vain. With no known instance of actual forgiveness, with no formal declaration of God that he will forgive, with the burden of conscious guilt upon us, and with no possible conception of any expedient by which God could show mercy, we should in fact, be conducted to the most fearful forebodings of wrath. In this midnight of gloom and terror all our research and all our reasonings would actually terminate. And back again to this midnight, from the light which beams upon us from the gospel of God would the infidel conduct us. Let him go, if he will, into all this darkness and dwell amid its terrors. Let him go, if he will, to the bar of a just God on the footing of his own righteousness, and be tried by his innocence or his merit; let him trust an unjust, selfish, malignant deity, for he has no other God. But give me hope in a God of mercy. I speak what you feel, and what I feel, when I say, I am a sinner--a sinner against a holy, just, and perfect God. I need his mercy. I am a guilty, lost immortal. I need deliverance from deserved and endless misery. Oh! hide not from me the mercy, the abundant mercy of God in Christ Jesus.

 

Return to MORAL GOVERNMENT Table of Contents