Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

considered, that nothing would be gained by giving ministers large salaries under the expectation that they would make a better use of property than its present possessors. I should object utterly, to their engaging in any lucrative business. And with the venerable Mr. Scott, I have many fears on the subject of their marrying rich wives. Nor should I in any case be willing to see a rich man enter the ministry, unless his mind was fully made up to consecrate himself and his property both, to the service of his Lord. But if they are distinguished by genuine Christian humility, self-denial, and attachment to Christ and his kingdom, rich men may become eminent instruments of ministerial usefulness. They may occupy stations from which other ministers are ordinarily precluded. They may enter the waste places of many generations, and raise them up from their ruins, they may proclaim the unsearchable riches of Christ in newly settled regions, where but for them no herald of mercy would be seen, they may exhibit the light of truth in places where destructive error holds an almost universal sway; or if called in the providence of God to minister to firmly established Christian societies, there are ways enough in which they may do good with their property, and under circumstances calculated to give increased weight to their ordinary ministerial labours.

To the general object of increasing the number of ministers, an objection is made which it may be of use to consider. It is asked, is there not danger that the number of ministers will exceed the demand for them? To this I answer, first; The danger, if it exist, must be very remote; as must be evident to every one who is but partially acquainted with the numerous

calls for ministers from various parts of our land, calls again and again reiterated; and often ceasing, only because those who make them, despair of obtaining the object of their wishes. But, secondly; The supply of Christian ministers can never, strictly speaking, be said to exceed the demand, until every portion of the inhabitants of the globe shall be furnished with a minister. This is an object at which the Christian church should steadily aim; nor should they relax their exertions, until it is accomplished. How far removed this point is, may easily be ascertained, by computing the number of ministers requisite to form an adequate supply for Christian countries, and adding to this the number demanded by the millions of the heathen. The only prudential question which can properly be raised on this subject, is, whether there is danger that ministers may be multiplied faster than they can find access into destitute and antichristian countries. If we were to provide ministers only for those who already are prepared to receive and support them, though even on this principle, the present rate of supply is greatly inferior to the demand, our work would be contracted within comparatively narrow limits. But the whole world is to be supplied with ministers. And reason and experience alike teach that they must depend principally for their support upon Christian beneficence. Is there not danger then that ministers may be multiplied faster than they can be placed and maintained in proper spheres of action? This has indeed been alleged. But when we consider, that the number of places in various parts of the world, able and willing, in whole or in part, to maintain ministers for themselves, is continually increasing, and that the more extensively Christianity

is diffused, the more numerous and rapid will be the additions to the number of these places; when it is considered also, that very many ministers make for themselves fields of labour without any demand upon the general benevolence of Christians; and when it is farther considered that by giving a new impulse to one department of Christian enterprise a similar impulse is communicated to every kindred department of Christian enterprise -that by promoting the cause of ministerial education, we promote

also the cause of Christian missions -when all this is considered with

a comprehensive view of the past history of the church, and the present state of the world, we shall be constrained, I think, to admit, that as fast as ministers are raised

up,

God in his providence will open for them a door of utterance, to publish the glad tidings of salva

tion.

To give an additional impulse to the cause of ministerial education, so intimately connected with the great cause of evangelizing the world, is the sole object of this paper. If the particular subject of it be important, and the views exhibited be found just, let the Christian public affirm, more decidedly and more emphatically than they have yet done, that is the duty of pious young men of property to devote themselves to the ministry; let parents cheerfully educate their pious sons for the great and good work of converting this sinful world unto God; and let pious young men of property, remembering that where much is given, much also will be required, rejoice to consecrate themselves peculiarly to the service of Him who has redeemed them by his blood, and sanctified them by his Spirit.

[blocks in formation]

THE IMMUTABILITY OF GOD CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO PRAYER.

THE nature of the divine immutability with its bearings on practical religion affords a highly interesting though oft-trodden field of theological discussion. It is the design of this essay to describe the view of the immutability of God which seems most consonant with reason and Scripture, and then to consider more particularly its bearing on the duty of prayer.

Some suppose that God is immutable in such a sense as to exclude is incompatible with existence from all succession. Change, it is said, eternity.

But this is not self-evident. Succession is compatible with an eternity to come. Why I apprehend this argument is an not equally so with an eternity past. invention of those who have wished to prove a priori the creation of the world out of nothing. Matter is not from eternity because mutable; for change is incompatible with existence from eternity. Is it really better than a groundless asser

tion?

It is said, again, there is no succession with God, because to him, past, present, and future, are the same; in short, time is in no sense

predicable of Deity. And what is the origin of such an idea? All the qualities or relations of things, it may be replied, are perceived or conceived by us according as we are formed to be impressed by constituted, things may produce them. And on beings differently very different impressions. Thus, forms, colours, and sounds, we cannot suppose, are perceived by beings without our bodily senses as they are by us.

So the more abstract relations of things, such as time and space, analogy leads us to conclude, are viewed differently by minds differently formed. Now as the Infinite Spirit is not invested

with the bodily organs of hearing and taste and sight and smell, and therefore cannot be supposed to perceive as we perceive, the corresponding qualities of material objects, so we may suppose that things, as succeeding each other in time, do not produce the same impression on the divine mind as on ours. Aside from this analogical argument I know of no ground for the opinion that time is in no sense applicable to the Deity, and this argument is obviously of little worth.

Once more; it is said there is no succession with God because change implies imperfection. But this, as a universal proposition, is by no means self-evident, nor do I know that any thing can be said in its support.

A few considerations appear to render it probable, on the other hand, that there is succession with God.

The created universe presents a scene of perpetual change. Every changing atom of this universe is under the continual observation of its Creator. To every change, then, of every particle, it would seem, there must be a corresponding perception, change of state, in the divine mind. Must we not suppose, then, successive perceptions with God?

Again, when we conceive of the Deity as creating the world, we necessarily conceive of him as exercising an act of will directed to that specific object. Now an act of will spread out through eternity is inconceiveable; or if supposed, would either produce no effect at all, or a uniform eternal effect. Such a volition supposes no reason whatever, why any event, as for example, the creation of the world, should take place at one moment of duration rather than another.* The universal law of cause and

*Ch. Sp. Vol. I. p. 417.

effect teaches that every event must be immediately connected with its cause in time, if not in place; and can it still be said that the creative volition was exactly the same in all respects, exactly as efficient, one thousand years before, as at the moment when the world sprung into existence? The same reasoning will equally apply to every other instance of the divine agency. Have we not reason, then, to suppose successive volitions with God?

Once more; it was said above that God perceives all events as they rise. We may advance farther, and say that he perceives them with corresponding emotions. Before conversion, God abhors the sinner. After conversion, he loves the Christian. Must we not suppose, then, successive affections with God? Is it replied that God immutably hates sin, and immutably loves holiness? True. But this is a general proposition describing the abstract character of God; and instead of disproving, positively implies, that whenever an individual passes from sin to holiness, there is a corresponding change in the particular affection of God towards him.

In thus attributing succession tothe Deity, successive perceptions, successive volitions, and successive affections, let it be understood, nothing is meant, that shall in the least detract from the divine perfection. It is simply saying there is time with God. His knowledge is in all respects perfect, yet he knows events as past, present, and to come; his knowledge of things past is perfect remembrance; his knowledge of things to come, perfect anticipation. And so in the exercise of volition and affection, he has continual and distinct reference to the past, the present, and the future.

Whether God is immutable in such a sense as to exclude all suc

session, is, perhaps, a question which we can never with certainty decide. I would only say that reason offers nothing of any weight in favor of such an opinion, much against it, and that the Scriptures every where present views of Deity more intelligible, and more agreeable to the common sense of mankind. The question returns, in what respects is God immutable? I answer, the only immutability which the divine perfection requires, and the Bible upholds, is immutability of knowledge, immutability of disposition, as the necessary result of these, immutability of purpose, and lastly, immutability of power.

1. God is unchangeable in his omniscience. It would be absurd to suppose that by any act of his own, his knowledge should be diminished; and with regard to external causes he is infinitely, above their influence.

2. God is unchangeable in his infinite goodness. Such benevolence of disposition must be an unfailing source of the greatest and purest enjoyment. In himself, therefore, he cannot but choose to remain thus kindly disposed; and against his choice it is certain that no external influence can prevail.

3. If God is unchangeable in his omniscience, and unchangeable in his infinite goodness, we infer that he is unchangeable likewise in his purposes. To effect a change of purpose in any mind, you must effect a previous change either in its view of circumstances, or in its disposition, or in both. But if God is unchangeably omniscient, his views of circumstances are unalterable. He can never know either more or less than he has known from eternity. If God is unchangeably good, his disposition is unalterable. And hence, as in knowledge and goodness he changes not, so his purposes must be forever the

same.

4. God is unchangeable in his

omnipotence. That Jehovah will not voluntarily resign his power we are well assured; and it is an absurdity in terms to say that any foreign force can diminish the power of him who is omnipotent.

In presenting the Scripture proof, I shall cite only those passages which are most explicit and direct. "The counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations." "I am God and there is none else; I am God and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure."

"But he is in one mind, and who can turn him." These passages variously assert the immutability of the divine purpose. The two following no less explicitly declare the general immutability of God. "I am the Lord, I change not." "Every good gift and every perfect gift cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness neither shadow of turning."

A difficulty is wont to attend this subject in the minds of some in regard to the efficacy of prayer. If God is thus unchangeable, how may we hope that our prayers will avail aught before his throne. Here reference is not had to that happy immediate influence which the prayer of sincerity must always exert on the mind of the suppliant, throwing it into the humble and penitent frame which alone becomes sinful creatures like us, and which best prepares us for enjoyment as well as duty. This kind of influence the difficulty does not contemplate. It regards, rather, if we may so speak, the procuring efficacy of prayer, that which secures the particular blessing desired and requested. To state the difficulty again, how can our prayers procure from God the favors we desire, unless we first suppose

some change effected in the divine purpose?

This difficulty, it is apprehended, may be removed by a careful observation of the nature of prayer, and the mode of its procuring efficacy.

We derive our conceptions of God, of the mode of his existence, of his attributes, and of his relations to the created universe, very much by analogical reasonings from what we find in ourselves. To a certain extent, this is perfectly proper, and indeed indispensable. When the Scriptures tell us that God is infinitely powerful, to comprehend their meaning, we must first form some conception of power from our own experience, and then extend that conception to the utmost limits of imagination. So probably all our conceptions of the infinitely glorious attributes of Deity, must be derived ultimately from their faint shadowings in the frail imperfect creature man. And perhaps all our knowledge of God must be found in our own minds by a similar analogy. But we are in continual danger of forming erroneous conclusions by extending our comparison too far, till we have made the infinite God almost if not altogether such an one as ourselves. When we would arrive at a correct apprehension of any part of the divine character, we are not to satisfy ourselves by simply ascertaining what is that trait as it exists among mankind. We are to view it in connexion with the other properties of Deity, and modify our conception of it, till it shall perfectly harmonize with the rest. In this way then let us contemplate God as the hearer and answerer of pray

[blocks in formation]

erly, of one's desires, towards an acknowledged superior. Whenever we address a prayer to a finite being, we expect, however faintly, first, that our prayer will prove to have been the means of a desired end; secondly, that this end will be accomplished through the agency of the person addressed; thirdly, that this agency will arise from a corresponding change of purpose, and fourthly, that this change of purpose will be the effect of information we have to communicate, or if this be already possessed, of influence we can otherwise exert over the disposition and feelings of the individual. If we despair in any one of these points, we despair of success, and withhold our request; indeed, we should think it irrational and absurd to present it. Such were probably the prayers anciently offered to the pagan deities. And such, in far too great a degree, we have reason to fear, are the prayers often offered by unreflecting mortals at the throne of Jehovah.

But the infinite Majesty of heaven whom we adore is not altogether such an one as ourselves; and when we address our petitions to the throne of his grace, it becomes us to remember into whose presence we have ventured to approach, and by the conceptions, feeble as they must be, which we form of his nature and perfections, restrain and modify our hope of acceptance.

Now let us examine these particulars which enter into the import of prayer as addressed to a finite being, and observe in how many of these particulars the import of prayer is changed when addressed to the infinite Jehovah. To consider them in the reverse order, we can never expect, in the first place, to communicate any information to the Deity, or in any way to change his disposition. We can neither increase nor diminish his knowledge

« VorigeDoorgaan »