Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

If it be argued, that it is not to augment his own glory, but to secure it and maintain it in its proper splendor, it argues it to be of a perishable nature, and that it would decay, were it not for the continual vigilance of the Almighty, in preserving it. If it be argued, that neither of these objects is right, but that it is the manifestation of his glory to intelligent beings, which is the grand design or object of God, in all his acts, without any reference to the effect which this manifestation has on those to whom it is made, we say, the object has now dwindled into annihilation; there is not the smallest imaginable atom of it left. To suppose, that any rational being can wish, or desire, to accomplish any piece of labor, without having any reference to the consequences, is too glaringly absurd, to need refutation. Now the nature of the proposition, which we are examining, confines the motive of Deity within himself, and himself from his creation. In order therefore, to look at the Almighty as he is by this doctrine represented, we must look at him as destitute of a creation, and view him abstractly from all his creatures. But may we ask, what title to give that being of whom we speak? The name Jehovah, truly has reference to his self-existence and to his character as the giver of existence, also. The name God, implies a being who is worshipped. Lord, signifies a possessor. I am that I am, has reference to an unchangeable being, but does not determine a being of goodness. I ask, again, what do we know of an Almighty, only by his works? If his existence can ever be determined, by any other means, we are ignorant of the way. What do we know, but by our senses? Have we any sense of good, or evil, that does not concern created beings? We may say, if we please, that God acts for his own essential good,

abstractly from his creation; but what do we mean by it? An action, for the good of any being, presupposes that being in want; and if in want, then not infinitely happy. If God be not infinitely happy, he never can be. We inquire further, by what data, can we determine that God is a good being? Can we determine it by any other criterion, than by the effects of what he does, as it concerns his creatures? The truth undoubtedly is, that just as far as we can look into creation, providence and redemption and see the harmony and beauty of them, and see that all were calculated for the good of created intelligences, whom these things concern, we are satisfied, that he, who conducts the whole, is a good being. And if we say he is good, without this understanding, we acknowledge a proposition, for which we are unable to offer the smallest reason. Again, is it not wrong to make a separation where the Almighty does not? Is he not perfectly joined to his creation? Do we not live, move, and have our being in God? Were we not created of his fulness? Had Deity any thing of which to create beings but his own eternal nature? We know it has been said, that God created all things out of nothing, &c,; but such an idea never will be imbibed by us, until we can form, in imagination at least, a notion, of how much nothing it takes to make the least imaginable something. If all things were created of the infinite Jehovah, as great a part of his creation as we take from him, so great a proportion we take from his fulness. God never could be more than infinite, in his fulness; then, to take the smallest creature from him, which he created of that infinite fulness, you have left something less than infinity. Now if it be argued, that God acts for the good of himself, considering his

creatures to belong to his fulness, we are perfectly agreed: But, to say, that the Almighty has, or ever could have a motive, in action, that did not embrace every consequence that could arise from what he did, would be limiting his omnisciency; or, to say, that he did not intend good, to all whom his acts concern, would be limiting his goodness, and an impeachment on his justice.

We have before, in this work, contended, that all the attributes, which we ascribe to God, we call good, on account of the advantages which we derive from such principles. We are told of a God who acts for his own benefit, abstractly from his creation; and that, in millions of cases, he finds it most for his glory to make his rational, hoping, wanting creatures endlessly miserable; and this is called goodness. We are likewise told of a devil, who acts for his own gratification, and who delights in making God's creatures miserable; and this is called badness. But, for our part, according to such statements, as the difference between goodness and badness, is so small we can hardly distinguish it. It is profane, in our opinion, to attribute a disposition to the Almighty, which we can justly condemn in ourselves. A man, who should act from such a selfish principle as is attributed to God, would render himself wholly unworthy of the protection of common law. And shall we thus represent our kind and merciful thousand streams of goodness continually flow to his wanting and needy creatures? No; let every vibration of sense within us acknowledge his bountiful hand, which is never closed.

Father, from whom ten

We have already labored, in this work, to show, that sin is finite, and not committed against an infi

nite law. We shall, however, now call into examination a subject something like it, which is, that of penalty; as it is contended, that the penalty of God's law is endless punishment, &c.

We first inquire, why does a legislature affix penalties to laws which it makes? Answer, the first reason is, the strength and security of government. 2d. That the punishment may serve to reclaim the delinquent. 3d. That the punishment of a criminal may serve to deter others from the commission of like crimes. 4th. In many cases, to keep the delinquent, by confinement or death, from doing any more mischief.

Now let us look into the government of an Almighty Being, and see how the matter of penalty will operate there. Observe the penalty is endless misery. We ask is this necessary, to secure the government of an Almighty Being? Would his government be in danger, if this penalty were not enacted to his law? Supposing a legislature of men had the power in their hands, of causing all the community, on whom its laws were binding, to love their laws, in every requirement, and with vigilance to attend to the faithful discharge of their duties in all things, would it be necessary for them to enact penalties to their laws? Allowing the legislature to have such powers, who, in the world, would say, it is not best to exercise it; that it is better to have penal laws, and let the people have their wicked obdurate hearts, so that now and then we may have a poor criminal to execute? can hardly believe, that any will contend, that penalty is necessary in the law of God, in order to secure his government. Is there any scruple respecting God's power to turn the hearts of his creatures as he pleases?

We

If there be not, then there is no need of a penalty in his law, in order for the security of his govern

ment.

2d. Is this penalty necessary, in order to reclaim the delinquent? Answer, that is impossible. The penalty being endless punishment, it can have no object in reclaiming the punished. The execution of such a penalty on any of God's creatures, would prove the contractedness of his goodness, as no possible good could be communicated to a victim of such punishment. Divine truths says, God is good unto all, and his tender mercies are over all his works. say, God is good to a creature of his, whom he irrevocably dooms to endless torments, is a violation of our senses; and no person, in a moment of sobriety, will believe it. It is then evident, that such a penalty would not be necessary to reclaim the sinner.

To

3d. Is it necessary to inflict such a penalty on the transgressor, in order to deter others from the commission of sin? Answer, no; for, according to the doctrine which we are examining, the first transgression committed, involved the whole human race in the delinquency; and an execution of such a penalty, would be the endless misery of the whole family of man; there would not have been one left to be deterred from sinning, or even to tell the news!

4th. Is such a penalty necessary in order to keep the sinner from sinning any more? So far from that, this penalty would fix the delinquents in a situation, in which they could do nothing but sin, to an endless eternity. No moral being can be miserable as suffering conscious guilt, without sin; therefore, in order for endless misery to be inflicted, endless transgression is necessary.

« ForrigeFortsæt »