Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

It has been admitted by political writers that absolute monarchy would best secure the happi- . ness of subjects, if a ruler could be found, uniting the requisite ability with perfect integrity. But such has been the abuse of power intrusted to man, that we are naturally prejudiced against unlimited control, emanating from any source. Probably there is, in the minds of many, some latent comparison between earthly rulers and the King of kings, which gives a forbidding aspect to the idea of absolute sovereignty. There is a general admission of the truth that God has a right to preside over his own material empire, and, in the common acceptation of the term, to govern his own intelligent creation. But the human mind is disposed to revolt at the thought that He should work all things after the counsel of his own will. (Ephes. 1. 11.) The strength of prejudice, in relation to this truth, will be diminished by a view of the divine perfections. Unlimited power may be safely trusted with a being of unlimited capacity and unbounded goodness. Such is the character of the high and holy One who bears the sceptre of universal dominion.

Says the apostle: Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, (the Creator of the starry heavens,) with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (James 1. 17.) If we can believe and love this declaration, we shall bless tħe Most High and honour him that liveth for ever, although his “ dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation : and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth : and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, what doest thou ? (Dan. 4. 34, 35.)

But, whether we do, or do not love this truth, the absolute sovereignty of God is a solemn and unchangeable verity. The Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back? (Isa. 14. 27.) For who hath known the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him are all things : to whom be glory for ever. Amen. (Rom. 11. 34–36. with Isa. 40. 12–17: Rev. 4. 11.) I proceed, now, to consider divine sovereignty as related to the salpation of sinners. Exhibited in this form, it is called purpose, decree, foreordination, election, and predestination-words expressing, so far as they concern the present subject, the same idea. But the meaning of all these terms has been grossly misapprehended, and consequently, the most violent prejudice has been excited against the doctrine which they are used to denote. Some writer very properly says: By PREDESTINATION, we neither understand fate, tyranny, or unreasonable acts of power. The English, Latin, and Greek word, rendered predestination, means in theology, (not what Johnson defines it,' “a fatal decree," quoting Shakspeare as authority,) but it signifies deliberation with one's self, and resolving, and determining, and ordering beforehand, what shall be done, when it shall be done, where it shall be done, and how it shall be done, including all the causes and means, first and last, for its certain accomplishment.' This is a correct definition of the several terms employed to express the sovereign pleasure of God in the salvation of his chosen people. They are all used to represent the simple fact, that God AlWAYS DESIGNED TO DO WHATEVER HE DOES.

The truth of this doctrine is now to be illustrated.

There is an important distinction between foreknowledge and foreordination, but they are intimately connected, and may be profitably considered together. By foreknowledge in God, we mean that he knows, or perceives future events ;

[ocr errors]

that is, he knows whatever shall exist, before it has taken place. That which, to created beings, is future and uncertain, is so clearly perceptible by his Omniscient mind, that he “ calleth those things which be not, as though they were.” (Rom. 4. 17.) But the foreknowledge, or strictly speaking, the knowledge of God, should be considered in its two-fold relation to his own acts, and the conduct of his intelligent creatures. If God designs to do whatever he does, in the order of time, he first purposed what he would do, and thus knew what he would do, because he was sure that nothing could either induce or compel him to change his mind. Every rational being who acts intelligibly, must act in accordance with a previous purpose. In the highest sense is this true of Infinite Intelligence. It is written : Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. (Acts 15. 18.) He declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done. (Isa. 46. 10.) Now if God is perfect, he so wisely matured the plan of creation, and the future administration of his moral government, that he can change none of his own works for the better. No improvement can possibly be made in his counsels, and, therefore, he can have no inducement to vary them. And if he is perfect in knowledge, the fact, viewed in connexion with his other attributes, renders it evident that he must

be of one mind, and none can turn him-must be without variableness, or shadow of turning. As it concerns his own works, therefore, including every one of his acts, the predetermination of God seems necessary to the foreknowledge of his own conduct.

But, is the same foreordination of human actions necessary in order to the foreknowledge of these actions. Evidently not. The tender mercies of the Lord are over all his works; and he controls all things according to the counsel of his own will. But the accountable, and therefore, free agency of man, must occupy an important place in the divine administration. Some writers, in view of the perfections of God, and the passages which state in various forms, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day, (2 Pet. 3. 18.) have supposed that all things are to him an “eternal now.” It is difficult to comprehend the meaning of this expression, and its propriety admits of a question. If the knowledge of all things, or the certainty of every future event, has been always present in the divine Mind, is it true that unexisting things have been always present? In my apprehension, to say a thing is present which does not exist, involves the absurdity of affirming that an event precedes its own existence.

The Scriptures assert that God, from the certainty of future events, calls things that are not as though they

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »