God would be unhappy, if he were not to act as he pleases. This must be admitted. But, who can believe, that there is any want of happiness in the Supreme Being? From the very nature of the case, the proof is conclusive, that God is a Sovereign, of necessity, uncaused, eternal, and absolutely independ

ent.

2. By the great diversity among the creatures which God has made. If we go back in our thoughts to a period, in past eternity, when nothing existed but God, must it not have depended on his Sovereign pleasure, whether any creatures should have existence, or not? If any, what? and how many kinds? Therefore, the very existence of creation proves the Sovereignty of the Creator. Still more clearly does the great diversity in the creation, prove the Sovereignty of the Creator. Look at this great globe. Why such diversity of soil, of roots, of herbs, of flowers, plants, trees and animals? Cast an eye at the visible. heavens. Why does one star differ from another star in glory? Why such diversity among God's rational creatures? Men, Angels, Cherubim and Seraphim? Because their glorious Creator is a Sovereign, and was pleased in this way to show his sovereign pleasure. On the face of creation, the Sovereignty of the Creator is inscribed in capitals, as large, fair, and legible, as his existence.

3. By the vast variety, which God has been pleased to make in the circumstances of his creatures. With respect to the angels of light, what an amazing difference! Some of them, preserved unto eternal glory, others cast out of heaven, and reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Now, it appears to be utterly in vain, to deny the Sovereign agency of God in the fall of angels. We may admit one of three suppositions on the subject, either, 1. That God designed a certain number of the angels should fall; or, 2. That he designed they should not fall; or, 3. That he had no design about

it. But, to suppose that God had no design about the revolt of the angels, is to suppose them, for a time at least, independent of their Maker; for if they were constantly dependent on their Maker, they could not have fallen without his designing that event. And to suppose any creature independent for a single moment, is to suppose that creature possessed of an incommunicable perfection of the Godhead. And to suppose that God designed the angels, who have actually fallen, should not fall, is to admit that he is not able to accomplish his designs, of course that he is capable of being disappointed and unhappy. But, who can admit such an idea of the Supreme Being? It only remains, therefore, that we admit, that God, in his holy, wise, and benevolent Sovereignty, actually designed, and effected the difference between the elect, and the fallen angels. And these observations apply, with equal truth, propriety and force to the fall of man.

God was pleased to create man in his own image, and to place him in the garden of innocence and joy; but not to keep him there. And what an awful difference between our first parents, in Eden, holy and happy, and the same guilty pair attempting to hide themselves among the trees of the garden from the presence of the Lord! And yet, had it not pleased the Lord that such a difference should exist, he certainly would have prevented it. But, agreeably to his eternal and sovereign purpose to distinguish men from the angels that fell, Jehovah soon revealed his designs of mercy in the promise of a Savior. And in all his subsequent dealings with mankind, God has most wonderfully displayed his absolute Sovereignty.

The old world, he swept away with the flood, except Noah and his family. Sodom and Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain, God destroyed with a shower of fire and brimstone from heaven, but saved, as by an angel's hand, Lot and his two daugh

ters.

And if we trace the footsteps of divine Providence under the

Gospel dispensation, we see the Sovereignty of God at every step. While some nations are favored with the light of the Gospel, others are covered with the darkness and horrors of heathenism. And when the Gospel is preached, it is foolishness, and a stumbling block to some, to others, in the same nation, state, town, neighborhood, and even in the same family, it is the wisdom of God, and the power of God unto salvation. This vast variety in the condition of creatures, demonstrates the Sovereignty of the Creator. And the same sentiment is decidedly, and authoritatively, settled,

4. By the Sacred Scriptures. When God condescends to describe his own character to his servant Moses, he does it in those emphatic words; "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy." Ex. xxxiii: 19. When Jehovah would distinguish himself from all the dumb idols of the nations, he does it in this remarkable declaration, "My counsels shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." Isa. xlvi: 10. And the Great Teacher from heaven asserted the doctrine under consideration, when he rejoiced in spirit, and said, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes; even so, father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." Luke x: 21. And according to the vision of the beloved John, Rev. iv: 11, the redeemed in glory ascribe to God the very attribute of the Godhead, which is our theme. "They cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." We only add the testimony of the sweet singer of ancient Israel, Ps. cxxxv: 6, "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven and in earth, in the seas and all deep places."

*20

MODERN NON-RESISTANCE.

By the Rev. John M. Whiton of Antrim.

A class of men, the Modern Non-Resistants, affirm that war, even to repel invasion, is unlawful; that in no case, not even that of the murderer, may human life be taken; that self-defence, by other means than moral suasion or flight, is wrong; that punishment is inadmissible; that men must yield up their property on demand; that civil government is a violation of human liberty, and has no rightful existence. Some would modify these views in part, while others assert them in all their length and breadth. One of the main supports they claim from the Bible, is the passage, Matt. v. 38-42. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away." Is their interpretation of these precepts right or wrong? Are they to be understood literally and strictly, or with limitation?

As in other books, so in the Bible, many things, general and absolute in form, must be restricted in the interpretation: otherwise they clash with other passages, and with the nature of things. "Thou shall not kill." Shall we understand a limitation? Or say that we must not kill animals for food; must not kill the noxious insect, the poisonous serpent, the rabid dog? "Owe no man any thing." Shall we restrain the prohibition to needless, foolish, dishonest debts, or hold that a man may not incur a debt of a single dollar, even to feed a starving family? "Pray without ceasing." Shall we limit the sense to regular and stated acts of devotion, or affirm that men must pray without sleep or intermission? Clear instances these, of the necessity of supplying restrictions to some general precepts. Of course, the passage first cited, may be subject to the same law. Is it so ?

It may aid our enquiry to trace the results of a literal and rigorous interpretation. "If a man smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also." Permit, yea, court the second blow, by presenting the other cheek. “If a man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also:"—and by parity of reasoning, thy horse, thy whole "Give to him that asketh of thee." If a man, able to work,

estate.

prefer to live by begging; if he ask money to spend in intoxication or gambling, deny him not. "From him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away." If a madman would borrow a deadly weapon; or a swindler, money never to be repaid, refuse him not. Such are the absurdities of a strictly literal interpretation. There must be a limitation, drawn from good sense, from the nature of things, and from other parts of the word of God.

66

But where are the limits to be drawn? Guided by the light of Scripture, it will not be difficult to ascertain. The occasion of the prohibition was the precept of the Jewish law, “ An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." Had a man wilfully maimed another, by putting out his eye, or striking out his tooth, he should himself be punished with the same infliction. It was a rule to guide the Jewish Courts, a part of their criminal Jurisprudence; but never intended to authorize private retaliation, or allow men, when injured, to take the law into their own hands, and avenge their own wrongs. But the Scribes and Pharisees had perverted the precept from the intention of a Judicial rule to the magistrate, in the due execution of justice, into an allowance of private revenge. In a similar manner had they perverted other parts of the divine law, as the prohibitions of murder and adultery, into an implied allowance of inferior outrage, or mental impurity; and the requisition of love to our neighbor, into a tacit permission of hating an enemy. Christ exposes and condemns these perversions. Aiming his censure, not against the original permission to the Magistrate to punish the evil doer, but against the perversion of that rule into an allowance of private retaliation, he says, "Resist not evil”-it may mean, the evil or injurious person. Repel not one outrage by another. Be not judge in your own case; take not the work of punishment into your own hand; but if redress be necessary, seek it from the law of the land. The thing really forbidden, is, not the administration of penal justice by government, but personal revenge.

In the passage, plead by Non-Resistants, are specified three kinds of injuries: injuries of the person, as smiting on the cheek; injuries of property, as taking a coat by an unjust lawsuit; injuries of personal liberty, as in pressing or compelling one to go a mile, or perform some other labor.

As to the first class, injuries of the person, he says, "If any one smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also." A strictly literal construction would involve the absurdity of inviting the second blow. Rather than do this, by presenting the other cheek, the most ultra NonResistant would admit the lawfulness of flight, or inducing by moral