Part 6 (2/2)
Perhaps justly. We are no less fallible than others.
In matters which have engaged the attention of the learned, and in which they have differed, a.s.surance is not perhaps to be expected. But as we are forbidden to call any man master, we have ventured to judge for ourselves respecting the meaning of the text, and now lay before the reader the result of our attention to it; not wis.h.i.+ng to obtrude our opinion upon him; but leaving him to form his own as he may find occasion.
Some suppose that a person must be willing to be d.a.m.ned for the glory of G.o.d, or he cannot be saved; and this scripture hath been alleged in proof. After a few observations, _to shew that the supposition is erroneous and absurd; we shall exhibit the various constructions which have been put on the text, by several expositors; then give our own sense of it; and close with a few reflections_.
The supposition that man must be willing to be d.a.m.ned, in order to be saved, is in our apprehension, erroneous and absurd. It supposes a desire of G.o.d's favor to be an unpardonable offence; and a contempt of it a recommendation to his regard! It supposes that G.o.d will banish those from his presence who long for it; and bring those to dwell in it who do not desire it! A supposition, which, in our view, carries its own confutation in it. For the all important inquiry is, confessedly, how to obtain salvation? The solution which the supposition exhibits, is this, _by being willing not to obtain it_!
G.o.d cannot issue an order, making it the duty of man to be willing to be d.a.m.ned. To be willing to be d.a.m.ned, implies a willingness to disobey G.o.d, refuse his grace, and continue in unbelief and impenitence! Should we suppose it possible for G.o.d to issue the order, obedience would be impossible, and equally to those of every character. The hardened sinner, cannot be thought capable of love to G.o.d, which will dispose him to suffer eternally for G.o.d's glory. He may do that which will occasion eternal sufferings, but not out of obedience to G.o.d--not with design to glorify him.
Neither can the awakened sinner be considered as the subject of such love of G.o.d. They see indeed the evil. Awakened Sinners are not lovers of G.o.d. They see indeed the evil of sin, and are sensible of its demerit? that they deserve destruction. But this doth not reconcile them to destruction, and make them willing to receive it. They tremble at the thoughts of it, strive against sin, and cry after deliverance.
Were they willing to be d.a.m.ned, they would not be afraid of being d.a.m.ned, or seek in anyway to avoid it.
It is equally impossible for the saint to be reconciled to d.a.m.nation as will appear, by considering what it implies. It implies the total loss of the divine image, and banishment from the divine presence and favor! It implies being given up to the power of apostate spirits, and consigned to the same dreary dungeon of despair and horror, which is prepared for them! It implies being doomed to welter in woe unutterable, blaspheming G.o.d, and execrating the creatures of G.o.d, ”world without end!”
When people pretend that they are willing to be d.a.m.ned for the glory of G.o.d, they ”know--not what they say nor whereof they affirm.” They leave out the princ.i.p.al ingredients of that dreadful state. Bid they take them into the account, they would perceive the impossibility of the thing. To suppose it required is to blaspheme G.o.d--to pretend that man can submit to it, is to belie human nature--to conceive that a child of G.o.d can reconcile himself to it, is to subvert every just idea of true religion. To require it, G.o.d must deny himself! To consent to it, man must consent to become an infernal! The statement of the case is a refutation of the scheme.
But if G.o.d's glory requires it, will not this reconcile the good and gain their consent?
G.o.d's glory doth not--cannot require it. ”The spirit of the Lord is not straightened.” Human guilt and misery are not necessary to G.o.d's honor.
It is necessary that divine justice should be exercised on those who refuse divine grace; but not necessary that men should refuse divine grace. ”As I live, saith the Lord G.o.d. I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live.”
Such is the language of revelation; and the measures which G.o.d hath adopted relative to our guilty race speak the same language. He hath provided a city of refuge, and urges the guilty to ”turn to the strong hold.”--He weeps over obstinate sinners who refuse his grace? ”How shall I give thee up? How shall I deliver thee?” But rejoiceth over the penitent, as the father rejoiced over the returning prodigal.
G.o.d would not have provided a Savior, and made indiscriminate offers of pardon and peace had he chosen the destruction of sinners, and had their ruin been necessary to his honor. But G.o.d hath done these things, and manifested his merciful disposition toward mankind.
We have no need to ”do evil that good may come. Our unrighteousness is not necessary to commend the righteousness of G.o.d.”
How then, are we to understand the prayer of Moses, placed at the head of this discourse--_blot me, I pray that, out of thy book which than hast written_?
As this is one of the princ.i.p.al pa.s.sages of scripture which are adduced to support the sentiment we have exploded, a few things may be premised, before we attempt to explain it.
I. Should it be admitted that Moses here imprecated utter destruction on himself, it could not be alleged as a precept given to direct others, but only as a solitary incident, in the history of a saint, who was then compa.s.sed with infirmity. And where is the human character without a shade? This same Moses neglected to circ.u.mcise his children--broke the tables of G.o.d's law--spake unadvisedly with his lips--yea, committed such offences against G.o.d, that he was doomed to die short of Canaan, in common with rebellious Israel.
II. The time--in which it hath been particularly insisted that a person must be willing to be d.a.m.ned for G.o.d's glory, is at his entrance on a slate of grace; but Moses had been consecrated to the service of G.o.d long before he made this prayer. Nothing, therefore respecting the temper of those under the preparatory influences of the spirit can be argued from it.
III. Should we grant that Moses here imprecated on himself the greatest evil, a sense of other people's sins, and not a sense of his own sins, was the occasion. But,
IV. No sufferings of his could have been advantageous to others, had be submitted to them for their sake. Had he consented to have been a castaway--to have become an infernal, as we have seen implied in d.a.m.nation, this would not have brought salvation to Israel. Moses'
hatred of G.o.d, and his sufferings and blasphemies, would not have atoned for the sins of his people, or tended in any degree to turn away the wrath of G.o.d from them.
It seems surprizing that the whole train of expositors should consider this good man as imprecating evil on himself for the good of others, when it is obvious that others could not have been benefited by it.
For though expositors differ respecting the magnitude of the evil, they seem to agree that he did wish evil to himself, and pray that he might suffer for his people! We have seen no expositor who is an exception.
<script>