spoke in accordance with a prophecy that Jesus should die for that nation and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad; so, we doubt not, that God will overrule every human expedient whether for the purposes of Religion or Reform, to the ascendancy and extension of His church; to the greater power and more complete triumph of the gospel of His grace. Nevertheless, no more than the iniquitous Caiaphas, will he be justified in the sight of the holy and heart-searching God, whose evil principles of religious or benevolent action have been overruled for good.

We proceed, now, to a final and closer inspection of this principle. It has been virtually conceded that the alledged motive in behalf of doing evil; or a questionable mode of procedure was the real motive. This admission was indispensable to the candour of logical argumentation, the whole system of expediency being founded on good intention but is not its basis more ostensible than real? It is wrong to impute sinister motives to any one whose actions accord with truth and duty; nor is it consistent with the dictates of charity to believe that the seeming interests of benevolence are not sincerely respected by some who have adopted the principle of expediency; or with a knowledge of human nature, to deny that many may be seduced into the honest opinion that the end justifies the means. The remark of an ancient writer, may be fitly applied, perhaps to not a few at the present day. O quam honesta voluntate miseri errant; "With how good a meaning these poor souls do evil."

But with all due credit for the motives alleged, let us reflect whether the "favouring too much of good intentions openeth not the gate to conceits and novelties." Whether "the taking an aim at Divine matters by human can do less than breed mixture of imaginations."* If motives be a sufficient justification, then one is right, no matter what expedient for doing good he may adopt; no matter what his mode of preaching; what his business; what his pious frauds; what evil he may do; and indeed, the usual apology for erring human nature is-" O, he means well." Good intentions, therefore, should not divert our scrutiny from the na

* Lord Bacon's Essay on Superstition.

ture of the principle of action, nor preclude our forethought of the motives which it is calculated to awaken. Admitting that the avowed motive of Expedientists is the actnal motive of their actions, is it a right motive? Should not known duty, and by consequence the glory of God be our only governing motive; and not the motive of doing what in our view will promote good. Does God hold us responsible for the results of our efforts; or for the discharge of known duty? Are we to be rewarded according to the good which God accomplishes through our instrumentality; or according to the faithfulness of our endeavours as his obedient servants? How great the antithesis which subsists between Duty and Expediency. The former demands selfdenial; the latter favours self-indulgence. The one primarily respects God; the other, man. The one implicitly confides in God; the other leans to its own understanding. The one is satisfied with being an humble instrument; the other changes the nature of actions and overrules events. The one favours humility; the other stimulates pride. It is enough for Duty, that Thus saith the Lord; Expediency must be wise above what is written. With duty, the foolishness of God is wiser than man; but expediency exalts the foolishness of man above the wisdom of God.

The bare fact that Expediency but lightly esteems the authority of God's law, and the gospel of his Son, is of itself sufficient to brand its motives with suspicion. Can that be a right motive which impels to the commission of evil? Is it probable that the avowed motive is the real motive? What room is here afforded for the most alarming selfdeception! Look well to that Motive! It may be selfishness in the garb of benevolence.-It may be hypocrisy beneath the mufflers of religion-it may be sin, in the borrowed purity of holiness. How many instances of doing evil to produce good, might, in the experience of too many, be distinctly traced to a love of sinful pleasures-to the selfexaltation, or the self-aggrandizement not unfrequently attending transgression-to the disagreeable inconvenience and trouble attending the discharge of little duties-to a secret hankering after evil.

But we have already intimated more than sufficient to call attention to the dangers attending the adoption of wrong principles of action. "Let us do evil that good may come.' Who does not perceive that it is a mere apology

for selfishness and sin; for the love of profit or convenience; of power or fame; of pleasure or ease? It proves alike the conviction of duty and the love of the world; and at the same time its peculiar adaptedness to stifle the former and gratify the latter. If duty be known, it cannot be violated with impunity.-If known sin be committed, conscience must be quieted by sophistry.

Should we accord the reality of the motive alleged for doing evil, it is of no avail in justification of the act. As vice and immorality are attended with baneful consequences; and as civil punishments are proportioned to the tendency of offences to destroy the public weal, an impression has been induced that the guilt of sin consists in the injury and misery which it occasions. Hence, the fancied legitimacy of the principle, that any thing may be done which is probably conducive to practical good; but directly opposed to its validity stands the nature of sin as represented by the word of God. Sin does not consist in the injury which has been done to man-The consequences of evil should be distinguished from its nature. Sin itself is any transgression of the law of God. It is moral opposition to the will of God. It is committed against God-the author of the law; and not against man-the subject of law. Its nature cannot be changed but by the prostration of moral authority. Should good be the consequence of any sinful act, the act itself would not be cancelled.

The phraseology of this maxim is designed to deceive. Nothing is good which in its own nature does not promote the divine glory. It may be called good, but it is evil. A clean thing cannot come out of an unclean thing. The end cannot justify the means. A sinful act whether trivial or heinous, committed from whatever motive, is still sinful. It is disobedience to God.-It cries into the ear of righteous Heaven.

But the sin of doing evil that good may come, is attended with no ordinary aggravation. The very principle implies that good cannot be effected without the instrumentality of evil. It consequently impeaches the tendency of the divine commandments, and the adaptedness of the gospel. It supercedes moral obligation and the authority of the church of the living God, by human reason. It arrogates the power of dispensing with the discharge of duty to God, whenever it sees proper. It opposes itself to God; or

rather, wrests from his hand the authority of moral legislation-supercedes the necessity of his overruling providence, and precludes the fulfilment of his promises, or the accomplishment of his gracious purposes. To do evil that good may come, is an insult the most gross; it is rebellion the most treasonable, to high and holy Heaven. It is a sin of the deepest dye; and their damnation, who do evil that good may come, is emphatically just.

According to the very language of Inspiration, this is the will of God, even our sanctification. This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. This is our duty, that we search His word, and observe to do, and not to violate, all that is written therein. This is the highest and most virtuous exercise of our faculties, not to speculate concerning the propriety of obedience, and the expediency of disobedience, but to observe his statutes to do them; not by our theoretic reasonings to supercede the obligation of the divine precepts, or to evade the restrictions and the limitations which God has affixed to certain precepts, but to abide by the law and the testimony. Indeed, as it has been philosophically observed, "there is no surer mark of a false and hollow heart, than a disposition to quibble away the clear injunctions of duty and conscience."*

Considering the authority and perfections of the Great Ruler of the Universe, who can doubt that the direct tendency of the laws which He has enacted, is to subserve and to secure the greatest possible good of his intelligent creatures. If the gospel is the wisdom of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, is it not impious to entertain even the supposition, that without the aid of human contrivances, it is not adequate to every needed reform? Or, that God will not render his blood-bought church, independently of the policy of worldly wisdom, the grand instrument of evangelizing the world?

To resist every temptation to evil, whether it be the comfort, the profit, or, what is not dissimilar, the good of evil-to resist the devil, though he appear in the garments of angelic loveliness, imperiously behooves every Christian; and not less necessary is it, at the present crisis, to be on our guard lest the principle of reform impeach the gospel; lest human policy invade the province, or undermine the

* Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.

authority of the Church. Sophistry may seduce our reason, or lull our conscience into a false repose. The desire of doing good may render us reckless of the propriety of the means. To do good, is primarily to be good; to do good, is to be, rich in those good works which the Scriptures enjoin; to bring men under the influence of the Gospel, rather than of human societies; and the greater our respect and obedience to God's revealed will, the wider will be our benign influence. To be respected and influential among our fellow men, is to show them that we are proof against seduction; that under no pretence would we do evil; that our piety in temptation differs from our piety out of temptation, only by its purer radiance. He who is seen doing evil for the sake of benefiting others, will find others shrewd enough to suspect that he might do them wrong for the sake of benefiting himself. But he who humbly desires to render himself approved in God's sight, will show by his deportment, that God controls his reason, as well as claims his affections; that he pursues God's favour with more earnestness than the favour of man-God's glory with more zeal than his own gain; that he obeys God's will before any of the world's maxims, though obedience lead him to selfdenial, toil and sorrow; that he exalts God in his "heart of hearts" whenever any of His requirements clash with human authority; aye, that he has a heart to do good to others, despite of the evil they may have done to him; that he is willing to deny himself for the sake of truth and duty; that he can discharge known duty, though the advocates of expediency should deem him mad or foolish; that he can do what God has commanded, and trust him for consequences. Such a one has put on the shield of faith, the breast-plate of righteousness, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. The weapons of his warfare are not carnal, but spiritual; and it is in accordance with his practical belief, that they and they only will be mighty through God to the pulling down of strong-holds; and to the ultimate triumph of the Redeemer's kingdom in this guilty, wretched world.