« AnteriorContinuar »
on the throwing of dice, on any game of chance or skill, evince the immorality of betting on the result of an election. But this is not all. Every man who makes a wager on the result of a pending election, puts two persons at least--himself and the other party in the transaction—under a strong temptation to use, directly or indirectly, corrupt and fraudulent means of influencing the result. Whatever honor there may be among thieves, there is none among gamblers, save that which pays “ debts of honor” at the expense of honesty; and he is fit only to be plucked, who believes that a gambler will not cheat him if he can. The man whose moral principles are so infirm that he has yielded to temptation, and has hazarded his money on such a chance as this, will of course be tempted-and the probability is that he will be effectually tempted-to yield his connivance, at least, to measures and proceedings against which he would otherwise have protested with honest indignation.
No honest man, who is tempted to show his confidence in the success of his party, by the offer or acceptance of a wager, should permit himself to forget, for one moment, how directly, and with what force of motive power, this widely tolerated practice operates to promote and procure the crime against the right of suffrage. If you offer any man a wager on a pending election-or what is the same thing, if you accept his offer of a wager—what is that you promise him? What is the nature of your contract with him? You have said to him, in effect, just this: “Sir, there is a certain sum of money deposited in safe hands; if your party will manage to get votes enough into the ballot-boxes to carry your candidate into office over the candidate of my party, the money shall be yonrs.” The man with whom you have made such a contract is not likely to be overscrupulous in the use of means. He can af. ford to occupy his time—he can afford, if the wager is large, to hire other men who shall employ their time and their welltried skill in all the low and villainous arts by which the people are defrauded of their right to choose their own servants. And if the practiced criminals who infest great cities, and who, having made political knavery their speciality, know
how to crowd false votes into the ballot-boxes in spite of every precaution-as practised burglars know how to carry on their trade in spite of improved locks and the metropolitan police—can find men enough to promise them money in this way; they have a fund at their command, with which they can accomplish anything. Thus a party without one honest chance of success may sometimes be carried into power by the funds which the unprincipled, heedless, gambling avarice of its adversaries has placed at its disposal.
We have taken it upon ourselves, in this Article, to hold up before the public one great political danger of our country-a danger growing every year more formidable—a danger for which, as we have intimated, no one party is alone responsible. The danger is, that the ever increasing facilities, and ever multiplying instruments for the perpetration of the great crime against the right of suffrage, will be used more and more, on all sides, in times of high political excitement, and soon, perhaps, at every return of a popular election; and that thus the public sentiment in regard to the atrocity of the crime will be more and more demoralized, and the public confidence in what purports to be the expression of the people's will, and in all the working of our republican institutions, will be more and more impaired, till the nation shall perish in its own corruption.
The trust which God has committed to the free citizens of these states, is such as was never before committed to any people. As we think of that great trust, and of the great interests of humanity, throughout the world and through all coming ages, which are dependent on the fidelity with which that trust is kept ;—as we remember how manifestly and rapidly, according to the testimony and the mutual crimination of all parties, this crime against the right of suffrage, this foulest and most loathsome forın of treason against the very principle of popular self-government, is permitted to increase;as we see how little sense there seems to be of the extreme baseness of all collusion with such a crime ;--as we see how the conviction seems to spread that frauds of this kind are an inevitable incident, if not a necessary clement in political affairs; we cannot but ask ourselves, Will not God be avenged for such an abuse of such a trust? Will not the displeasure of God manifest itself against a people so trusted, who permit so great a trust to be taken from them, not by violence which they cannot resist, but by demoralizing influences which they might suppress and eradicate, but which, in their folly, they neglect? Such a people need only be left to themselves, and how speedily will they work out their own signal punishment! Children will be their princes—no, not children but men far more unfit than children to bear the symbols of authority; men known as criminals, and guilty of the groșsest frauds in private as well as in public affairs, will rule over them; and they will be “oppressed every one by another, and every one by his neighbor."
ARTICLE X.-REPLY TO THE METHODIST QUARTERLY
We find in the Methodist Quarterly Review, for January last, some editorial strictures upon our discussion of Dr. Taylor's work on Moral Government, which call for a brief reply.
Our readers will remember that in that Article, after exhibiting the somewhat extreme views of several of the New England divines upon the reason for the Divine permission of evil, we observed that the principle froin which their inconsistencies flowed, is by no means peculiar to themselves; and that we referred briefly to both Catholic and Arminian writers, as having shared in the same erroneous scheme. In particular, we quoted the language of Wesley, as showing that “the same views which Edwards maintained of the increased blessedness derived from the introduction of sin, Wesley himself expressed about the results of the fall.” For this statement we are taken to task; and charged with “misrepresenting" something—it does not appear, very exactly, what. As we made no comment, and placed no construction upon the language which we quoted, and as the correctness of the quotation is not questioned, we are somewhat at a loss to know in what the alleged misrepresentation consists.
The editor of that Journal proceeds to declare that the passage in question “affirms only what every body holds to be true, that in our remedial system a particular evil has been overruled by God, so as to eventuate in a higher good to our race, all the thanks being due to God, and none to the evil.”
What is meant by the phrase "a higher good” in this langnage of our critic, as compared with that which is not a good at all but only “a particular evil,” is not very clear; but the vague and unmeaning language of the critic falls far below the simple and definite utterance of Wesley, for which it is substituted. The great founder of Methodism generally had a meaning in his speech, a meaning too distinct to admit the use of any ambiguous phraseology; and he has not been guilty of attributing, as his defender does, to God, the poor glory of educing from evil a good which is merely a “higher” good than the evil itself. He asserts in the very sharp and definite terms which we quoted, that "mankind have gained by the fall a capacity,"
“First, of being more holy and happy on earth; and secondly, of being more happy in huaven, than otherwise they could have been."
Now most certainly Wesley here teaches that mankind have now a “capacity of being more holy and happy," in consequence of the fall, “ than otherwise they could have been"--more holy and happy through God's dispensations toward them in a fallen state, than they could have been “ otherwise "--that is, had the race continued in its integrity. God has then educed from the fall, by his peculiar treatment of mankind, a holiness and happiness superior to anything which they could “ otherwise” have attained.
Now it is impossible to distinguish this view from that of Hopkins, Edwards, and West, which we discussed and opposed. If a higher good than could otherwise have been attained, is to come through that remedial system of which sin is the indispensable antecedent, then sin is necessary to the perfection of the moral universe. The remedial system cannot exist unless sin shall have taken place; and as the remedial system involves higher degrees of holiness and blessedness than were otherwise possible, it is as clear as anything can be, that sin is an indispensable condition of the highest results in the universe of God. No form of language, therefore, which the New England divines did, or could, employ, could more decisively express the doctrine which Dr. Taylor so earnestly repelled.
Instead of its being true, then, that Wesley taught that only a higher good " has resulted from God's overruling of sin, his doctrine is that the highest possible good has resulted; men are more holy and happy “than otherwise they could
ave been.” Instead of the passage teaching only “what