ART. IV. ON FALSE PRINCIPLES OF BENEVOLENT ACTION. By REV. R. W. DICKINSON, New-York. To secure to an investigation of this subject that candour of attention which its importance demands; and at the same time, to disclose the grounds of those conclusions to which we have attained, we shall prefatorily advert to the argument* which Paul held with certain Jews who had urged a sophistical objection against the rectitude of the divine government. "If, notwithstanding our impiety, God adhere to his promises; if our impiety serve both to illus. trate and confirm that plan of justification which is disclosed by the gospel, and the divine faithfulness be rendered even more conspicuous"- "What is your conclusion, then," interposes the Apostle, " that God cannot in justice punish the unbelieving Jews? If this conclusion be legitimate, how shall God judge the world? He cannot institute righteous judgement unless he render to every man according to his deeds." Unable to meet this argument, the objector (as is usually the case with disputants who are reluctant to acknowledge themselves defeated, or to embrace the truth.) has no alternative but to repeat his objection in other and stronger terms-" If through my impiety and unbelief, God's fidelity be illustrated in so signal a manner as to redound to the greater glory of his own Name; how can I be justly condemned, since my conduct has absolutely furthered his sovereign plans!"-" And why may we not, then," rejoins the Apostle, "do evil that good may come, as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say? Your objection necessarily resolves itself into the principle, that the end sanctions the means;-a principle which should be reprobated by every righteous man; and which cannot fail to ensure the destruction of all by whom it is adopted." The object for which this principle was adduced, and the light in which it was viewed, would seemingly afford abundant evidence that it was neither adopted, nor in any wise countenanced by the Apostle Paul. Yet was the slander' perpetrated and notwithstanding the repeated efforts which have been made by the defenders of the faith, in every age, : * Rom. iii. 5-8. to disabuse the credulous mind, it has descended to our own times-thus establishing the truth of a remark which we have somewhere met with; "when the world has once got hold of a lie, it is astonishing how hard it is to get it out of the world." But we need not be surprised, when it is considered, that such is the deceitfulness of the human heart, that to secure the gratification of its lusts, it can with equal facility seduce reason and pervert the Word of God. What principle of evil has not the human heart in its native selfishness originated and endeavoured to establish? The high with the low, the erudite with the illiterate, have alike become at times the dupes of their own pride or lust; while some systems of ethics have displayed more of the natural workings of the depraved heart, than the logic of a mind scripturally enlightened. Thus is it, with the Moral Philosophy of Dr. Paley; than which, though it has stood high in the estimation both of Universities and Churches, no system of modern date is so fraught with mischievous and debasing tendencies. Resolving all virtue into prudential obligation, he has made the criterion of right or wrong in actions to consist in their general consequences. By the aid of theory, therefore, he discovers that the apostolic prohibition, though not at all understood by the vulgar mind, is truly philosophic in its import-Let us not do evil that good may come; i. e. "let us not violate a general rule for the sake of any particular good consequence we may expect; which is for the most part a salutary caution, the advantage seldom compensating for the violation of the rule." Thus, as a fair inference from this construction, it appears, that we may do evil whenever we deem it to be expedient, that strictness of moral principle may bend, if ever it interfere with prospective good-Whatever is expedient is right; evil has changed its nature from which good ensues. But if such be the true import of the Apostle's prohibition, he acted on principles of expediency. He was, then, slanderously reported only in this respect, that he had violated a general rule for the sake of some particular good consequence; and this slander was the result of sheer ignorance, inasmuch as the maxim, "let us not do evil that good may come," on which the Apostle intelligently acted, * Paley's Moral Philosophy. Book II. Chap. VIII. was, in the mouths of his slanderers, "a maxim without meaning!" This construction affords a very easy explanation of the slander which was circulated respecting Paul; and it would admirably harmonize with the context, did it not tend to overthrow the whole of the preceding argument. Aside from the phraseology and connexion of the text, there is nothing either in the writings, or in the conduct of the Apostle Paul which can sanction this construction; or from which it can be inferred that he adopted this principle of expediency. We are told, however, that "he made himself all things to all men, that by all means he might save some, that he did this for the gospel's sake." True: this is Paul's testimony of himself to that benevolence which blended in his character, firmness of principle with urbanity of address; but where is the evidence, that in his efforts to conciliate he ever compromised truth; or did evil for the gospel's sake? To the Jews, he became as a Jew. How? not by acknowledging the obligation of the ceremonial law; on the contrary, he provoked the enmity of the Jews by boldly asserting that it had been abrogated by the coming of the Messiah. Still, though it was no longer binding on the conscience, some of its ordinances might be observed through prudential considerations. Thus, by occasional conformity to ceremonial observances for the purpose of mitigating existing prejudices, did the Apostle become as a Jew; but whenever his conformity was required on the ground of obligation, he steadfastly declined. Hence, though he circumcises Timothy from motives of prudence, we find him on another occasion resisting some false brethren who endeavoured to bring him back into bondage to the law. He would not give place to them by subjecting Titus to circumcision; and for this reason, that the truth of the gospel respecting the Gentile's freedom from ceremonial observances, might remain with the Galatians. For the same reason also, when Peter fearing them which were of the circumcision withdrew and separated himself from the Gentiles,-thus virtually compelling them to live as did the Jews, Paul openly withstood him to the face, maintaining that the Gentiles were released from the Jewish institutions, and exhorting them to resist every attempted imposition of the Jewish yoke, to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free. Accordingly it was by mingling with the Gentile's without any regard to the distinctive ceremonials of the Jews, that he became as without law that he might gain the Gentiles who were without law. To the weak he became as weak, by abstaining from meat which had been offered to idols; not because it was unlawful to eat such food, but lest he should wound the conscience of a weak brother by influ encing him to eat contrary to his own scruples. In like manner he made himself servant unto all, by making the gospel of Christ without charge; though he was aware of his right, that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. The principle, then, on which Paul acted, so far from sanctioning this false expediency, was simply a principle of accommodation to the prejudices of those for whose spiritual welfare he was solicitous; while even this, was in rigid subordination to the principles of the gospel. Never led to do, or to tolerate that which was wrong in its own nature, or rendered so by its probable consequences, it was only in relation to things indifferent, or right in themselves, and plainly conducive to his usefulness-where there could be no just occasion for injurious misrepresentation, that he was compliant for the sake of the gospel. Unless, therefore, we are at liberty to argue from things indifferent, or innocent in themselves to positive violations of rectitude, (than which, no mode of argumentation can be more unfair), we can deduce from Paul's example no sanction for doing evil that good may come. Sufficient for him, that the Lord had spoken, he was not to be seduced by a mistaken prudence into any sacrifice of integrity; or by a sickly benevolence into any violation of the will of God. The path he trod, was the same which had been trodden by his Lord and Master; and no suggestions of personal, or of relative good, ever induced him to stop, or to deviate. The doctrine of expediency was no more sanctioned by the Apostle's conduct, than it is involved in his writings. "We are slanderously reported. We never said, let us do evil, that good may come. We never acted on the principle-its adoption by the authors of this calumny, seals their just damnation." But let us examine, for a moment, the maxim, "let us do evil, that good may come." Satan has seldom forged a more cunning weapon in furtherance of his dire designs. What so ingeniously suited to penetrate and conquer the virtuous mind? "Vice is a monster of so frightful mein, If such be the effect of too frequent converse with vice, how much more readily may our affections be seduced, when vice presents itself before us in the habiliments of virtue. Let the conscience be never so tender and scrupulous, how great must be the danger of deception, when Satan is transformed into an angel of light. Hence, the dangerous attractiveness of the principle under consideration. "Strictly speaking," says the celebrated advocate of the system of expediency, "that cannot be evil from which good comes." What phraseology can be more plausible? Evil is no longer Evil-transformed in its nature, it has become piety towards God and benevolence towards man. Conscience is accordingly quieted. Moral principle is seduced; good and evil are confounded, and the mind is virtually principled to evil. Evil is committed, not with the hesitancy of conscious guilt, but with the confidence of conscious rectitude; not against the remonstrances of conscience, but with the approbation of a conscience misguided. To be aware of guilt, is the first step to reformation; but when evil has been mistaken for good, it is cherished as good. Thrice linked are the chains which it throws around the perverted reason and seduced affections. There is little or no hope of ultimate liberation from its thraldom. Silent as may be the influence of vice over the mind, its reign is complete. Thus, ex. gr. the virtuous mind shrinks from the thought of pollution; but under the conceived necessity of promoting the cause of public virtue by the exposure of vice, let it become familiar with those things, of which, as Paul said, it is a shame to speak, and unknowingly to itself, it has virtually yielded up its virtue. Thus, too, may a man become the unconscious victim of Intemperance, when assuming the mien of the Goddess of Health, she daily presents to his lips her poisoned chalice for the medicinal cup. Thus, also, under the garb of Be * Paley's Moral Philosophy. Book II. Chap. VIII. VOL. IV. 49 |