Where all must full or not coherent be,

66

And all that rise, must rise in due degree,

Then in the scale of reasoning life, 'tis plain,
There must be somewhere such a rank as man."

And then, in answer to the question so often started, Why could not man have been created perfect, without liability to sin? why was he not placed higher in the scale of being—why not made an angel?" he proceeds as follows:

"Presumptuous man, wouldst thou the reason find
Why made so weak, so little, and so blind?
First, if thou canst, the harder reason guess,
Why made no weaker, blinder and no less-
Ask of thy mother earth why oaks are made
Taller and stronger than the weeds they shade.
On superior powers

Were we to press, inferior might on ours;

Or in the full creation leave a void,

Where one step broken, the great scale's destroyed.
From nature's chain whatever link you strike,

Tenth, or ten-thousandth, breaks the chain alike.”

Admitting, therefore, what, perhaps, no one is prepared to deny, that God can create a relatively perfect world, or a world not liable to evil, and people it with a race of perfect beings not liable to sin: this world may, nevertheless, hold as important and necessary a place in creation as that. Nay, it may be that without just such a world as this, inhabited by just such beings as men, the whole machinery of the universe, as at present arranged, would be imperfect in its structure and working. Manifestly this earth, with its myriad immortal intelligences, is not formed without a purpose. Without these, the space which they fill in the circle of organic and spiritual existence would be blank; and there would be one link wanting in the golden chain of being which stretches, on

either side of us, to the infinite above, and the infinite below.

The fact that man was made relatively imperfect, that is, imperfect in the sense of liability to sin, is proved by the fact that he is a sinner. He was not created a sinner, for sin is the result of voluntary action. He was not created depraved, but pure and innocent. He yielded to temptation, and so fell away from his primal innocence into transgression. The author of Ecclesiastes states the case very correctly and tersely, when he says, "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." viii. 29.

That this constitution of man and its consequences entered into the original plan of the Creator, and is not an after accident, or an unlooked for result, is distinctly stated by the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans : "The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope; because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." viii. 20, 21. See the whole chapter.

Now here we are certified in the most unqualified terms, that the creature man, or the human race, was made subject to vanity or imperfection, for wise and beneficent reasons; and with express reference to the fact that, when the purposes of this subjection to evil are fully accomplished, then man is to be delivered from the bondage of corruption and death into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Whatever may be thought of this position of Paul, there can be no difference of opinion as to what he meant, or what

he intended to say. lieved and taught that we were subjected to this imperfect condition by the Creator himself. It was designed in the beginning for a special purpose; and has not, since then, come to pass contrary to his expectations. Bishop Bloomfield renders the passage in this form: "For the world (i. e. God's creatures) was made subject to imperfection, corruption and misery (not by any will of its own, but by Him who thus subjected it), yet with a hope (on their part) that this very creation (i. e. these his creatures) will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, &c. Corruption may perhaps be meant to be taken both in a moral and physical sense, to denote both liability to sin, and to disease and death." Of course, then, vanity" must be taken to mean the same things, for the words are plainly synonymous, and refer to the same condition; the creature being delivered from the same thing to which it was subjected; in the one case called "vanity," and in the other "corruption."'1

It is clear enough that he be

66

It is plain, then, that God, as the Creator of mankind, when he determined upon the nature of their physical and moral condition on earth, determined

1 Maratórns, vanity, occurs in only two other passages of the New Testament. Eph. iv. 17, "in the vanity of their mind;" where the moral element is manifestly involved, as verses 19 and 22 plainly show -"lasciviousness and all uncleanness with greediness;" and 2 Peter ii. 18, where the same statement applies, as the next words show-" lusts of the flesh and wantonness." Oopa, corruption, is found not only in 1 Cor. xv., but also in such passages as these: "having escaped the corruption that is in the world," "servants of corruption," 2 Peter i. & ii., illustrating its use in a moral as well as in a physical sense. Whitby and others argue elaborately for the corruption of death as the only meaning of “ vanity.”

.

that it should be such as involved the liability to physical and moral evil; and, consequently, as the apostle says, he "made man subject to vanity," or imperfection. He "subjected" him to this condition, with a clear foresight and intention respecting all the trials and sorrows, the spiritual conflicts and temptations, the failures and conquests, as well as the decay and destruction by death of the mortal body, which this constitution of things would naturally bring in its train.

But, of course, all this was with a view to the greater good that is to come of it. This condition was not ordained for its own sake, as a permanent thing; but as a means to a beneficent and glorious end, as a school wherein we are to be taught and trained for a higher sphere of life and action, both in the present and in the future. Dr. Jonathan Edwards, who was regarded as the highest authority in theological metaphysics, says, with great good sense, in his famous work on the Will:-" I believe there is no person of good understanding, who will venture to say he is certain that it is impossible it should be best, taking in the whole compass and extent of existence, and all consequences in the endless series of events, that there should be such a thing as moral evil in the world. And if so, it will certainly follow, that an infinitely wise Being, who always chooses what is best, must choose that there be such a thing." Again, he says:-"It is not of a bad tendency for the Supreme Being thus to order and permit that moral evil to be which it is best should come to pass; for that it is of good tendency is the very thing supposed in the point in question, and

good is the actual issue in the final result of things.".

Turnbull, in his "Principles of Moral Philosophy," which Edwards quotes approvingly, states that "God intends and pursues the universal good of his creation; and the evil which happens is not permitted for its own sake, but because it is requisite to the greater good pursued.'

And if we give a little attention to the details of the question, it will not be very difficult to discover how the conflict with the imperfections and evils of

And with these agree the following Unitarian testimonies:-"The origin of our liability to sin, we can explain only by referring it to the will of our Maker." Again:-" We hold that God is master of evil, not merely physical but moral-master of his creation, and able to overrule all evil for moral good, so that at last, when his work is consummated, the good shall be triumphant and complete."

I think it would be difficult to show that the above premises of Edwards and Turnbull do not involve the conclusion which it is the purpose of this volume to establish. If" good is the actual issue in the final result of things," of moral evil or sin, in one case, why not in all cases? The principle is the same; and it surely is as easy for God to realize a great result as a little one. And if, in the permission of evil, "God intends and pursues the universal good of his creation," there seems an end of the argument; for if he intends and pursues it, he will certainly accomplish it, and the good of the whole can only be accomplished in the good of each particular part. BISHop Warburton, who could not believe in endless punishment, says, very truly:-" Though the system of the best supposes that the evils themselves will be fully compensated by the good they produce to the whole, yet this is so far from supposing that particulars shall suffer for a general good, that it is essential to this system, to conclude that at the completion of things, when the whole is arrived to the state of utmost perfection, particular and universal good shall coincide." And commenting on Rev. xx. 14, “death and hell cast into the lake of fire," he says:—“ The sense of the whole seems to be this, that at the consummation of things (the subject here treated of), all physical and moral evil shall be abolished."

For the quotations, see EDWARDS on the Will, Part iv., Sec. ix., or Works, vol. ii., p. 254, Edit. 1829. TURNBULL'S Philosophy, vol. ii., pp. 42, 35, 37. Christian Examiner, numbers for Nov., 1853, and March, 1861. WARBURTON'S Works, vols. xi., 26-30; v. 407.