Page images
PDF
EPUB

prefer the creature to the Creator, their mind and conscience defiled and seared; yet says the Universalist, the soul of man retains the integrity of its purer nature, and does not participate in the wickedness of his sinful career, though its promptings are lost sight of in the whirl of unbridled appetites. We take the teaching of God for our guide and protest against the incoherent croakings of error. After making this tremendous and down-hill progress in error, it would not seem strange to find, that Universalists declare, that either there is no sin in the world, strictly speaking; or else that

God is the author of sin.

We need not be very lengthy either in our quotations, or remarks on this subject, to prove that the position is argued by Universalists as correct and sound; nor need we add many arguments to show the groundlessness and utter futility. of such a position-Who can believe that sin is sin or wrong-doing, while it is said to be agreeable to the will of God, as well as, that he is the first cause of sin.

6

Mr. Ballou anticipates the objection that the orthodox would promptly urge against the correctness of his reasoning, therefore he says, "Perhaps the reader, by this time, is ready to say, according to this reasoning, there can be no such thing as real evil in the universe.' If by 'real evil' be meant something that ought not to be, in respect to all the consequences which attend it, I cannot admit of its existence." In plain language, if sin be something which is wrong in all respects and in every feature, from beginning to end, in its influence present and remote, then there is nothing like "real evil," or sin in the universe. Yet such is the nature of sin; otherwise circumstances may have the magic influence of changing the character of a positive wrong, and that which is wrong at one time may be right at another time. Thus wrong may become right,

and why may not right become wrong under certain circumstances? Any position of this kind must be grossly absurd, for an action which is contrary to the will of God must always necessarily be wrong-its character is as unchangeable as the will of God is immutable; and the only influence which circumstances can exert is to screen the wrong-doer from guilt. For instance-An insane man may commit suicide, though the action can never be right, but be always wrong, for it is opposed to the will of God, yet he is not criminated with the action, for the reason, that he was laboring under the influence of insanity. So a right action may lose its virtue, when performed by a compulsory influence-No one is praised for activities, when he is not under the government of right motives, and a voluntary choice.

Mr. Ballou most clearly declares that God is the author of sin in the most significant sense. He supposes the objector to declare, that, according to his reasoning, God is the author of sin, to which he replies, "that God may be the innocent and holy cause of that which, in a limited sense, is sin." How can the Lord produce sin in any sense, and still be innocent? Can his will conflict with his will and still be holy? Strange! Again; he says, "If it should be granted, that sin will finally terminate for good, in the moral system, it will then be necessary to admit that God is its first cause." "If God produced an agency, and that agency produced sin, it argues that God is the first cause." Here we have plain language, that God is the author of sin in its primary sense, inasmuch as he created a being, who committed sin against God. This argument rests on the presumption, that the Lord created man as cor、 rupt as he now is, and that he is controlled by this corrupt nature as absolutely as by fate.

What discordant notes are uttered by this class of Bible

[ocr errors]

expositors! The one declares with emphasis, that man was created in moral character as clean as a piece of white paper, and that the soul never becomes an accomplice in guilt; while another declares that God created man with a corrupt physical organization, adapted to be the prolific source of all the moral evil in the universe, and that God is the primary cause of sin. Above all this, that sin is introduced into the universe as means for an end, and that it "will finally terminate in good;" so that more good will be the result of the existence of sin in the world, than could have been produced without it. If so, then the more moral evil, the greater good will be realized. Let us therefore sin, that good may abound. Upon such profligate teaching the Apostle Paul pronounces an unqualified condemnation.

Now if God be the author of sin in a primary sense, and the animal nature of man only as controlled by God for the necessary production of moral evil; and moral evil introduced into the world to consummate a greater good, then what turpitude can there be attached to sin and what desert of punishment? Can God consistently, either in this life or in the life to come, punish man for his corrupt animal constitution, or for its legitimate fruit, when they assert that he is the author of both? We should suppose not. To us it appears evident, that either sin is no sin and that man is no free agent; or else that God is not the author of sin. For sin is a voluntary action in defiance of the will of God, and as God can never act against his will, and since it is self-evident that sin does exist; therefore God can not be the author of sin, and man must be a free agent, and the sole producer of moral evil.

There is one passage of Scripture introduced to support the position that God is the author of moral evil, or sin. It may be found recorded in Is. xlv. 7. "I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I the

66

Lord do all these things." In order to show that this passage has been grossly wrested from its proper and original import may be of considerable importance in this connection, since so much stress is laid upon this passage to prove, that God is the author of sin. Some of the expressions are evidently figurative, and in this mode they are frequently used in the Bible. The term "light" signifies prosperity, and "darkness" adversity and public calamity. A few passages will prove this. Job, xviii. 5. “Yea, the light of the wicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine." Ps. xxxvi. 9. "For with thee is the fountain of life in thy light shall we see light." Ps. xcvii. 11. "Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart." Ps. cxii. 4. "Unto the upright there ariseth light in the darkness." See also Prov. iv. 18. and Is. cviii. 8.

2 Sam. xxii. 29. "For thou art my lamp, O Lord; and the Lord will lighten my darkness." This was the language of David when overwhelmed with sore afflictionFor the darkness of adversity the Lord will send the light of favor and prosperity.

The common use of these expressions accords with the conceptions of the people in that age of the world. The people, especially the heathen nations, imagined that the government of the world was intrusted to the hands of two deities, the one, the source of all blessings and prosperity, and represented by the element of light; and the other, the origin of all evil, suffering and public calamity, represented by darkness. Under this delusion, the Persian king was laboring, (in reference to whom the first part of this chapter (Is. xlv.) treats; therefore he imagined that the prosperity of his reign was afforded by the god of light; and that all adversity proceeded from the god of darkness. The Lord here wishes to teach Cyrus that there existed but one eternal and true God, who was the Creator and Preserver and

Governor of the universe-that he was the Author of prosperity and adversity, and that he raised up one kingdom and demolished another he gave light, and darkness. In order to explode the religious system of the heathen Magians relative to the character of the Governor of the universe, and teach Cyrus the character of the true God, the spirit of God made use of such language as used in the passage under consideration.

"And create evil." Before the Lord is charged as being the author of sin, and this passage is lugged in to sustain the correctness of the charge, it should first be proved, that the term “evil” in this place means sin. To us it appears, that it implies nothing more than public calamity. In this sense, it is used in the Scriptures. Job. xxx. 26. “When I looked for good, then evil came unto me; and when I waited for light, then came darkness.” Matt. vi. 34. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Recompense to no man evil for evil."

17. "
"All the days of the afflicted are evil.”

Rom. xii. Prov. xv. 15. Let the Bible be

its own expositor, and it will guide us into the broad day of truth; it will give a consistent view of the character of God, the doctrines of the Bible, and the moral government of the world.

If we have given a consistent interpretation of the passage, then it affords not even the shadow of an argument to show that God is the author of sin. That we have given the true import of the passage, no unsophisticated person will attempt to deny.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY DENIED.

Embracing views such as we have been rebutting, there is nothing strange that Universalists should unqualifiedly reject the doctrine of total depravity as understood by orthodox theologians. The language of Ballou on this subject.

« PreviousContinue »