The _laws of God_, in regard to voluntary action, are those _invariable_
arrangements in mind and matter by which happiness or pain are connected
with certain feelings and actions.
Thus it is an _invariable_ arrangement that pain shall be connected with
touching fire, and pleasure with seeing the light. So in regard to the
intellect; pleasure is _invariably_ connected with the exercise of wit and
humor, and disgust with folly and fatuity. So the moral sense is
_invariably_ pleased with truth, justice, and integrity, and pained by the
opposite.
Whenever, therefore, we discover what _invariably_ affords pleasure or
pain, we discover one of the laws of God.
To discover these laws, and to believe in them, is as indispensable to the
right action of mind as light is indispensable to perfect eyes in order to
see.
The first lesson of every new‐born spirit is to discover the laws that
relate to its own enjoyment. Whenever a child chooses any thing which
secures enjoyment without harm to itself or to others, it is acting as its
Creator designed, and this action is therefore right. And whenever it
chooses what will cause needless pain to itself or to others, it acts
wrong. Most of the choices of a little child are of what is right as
giving enjoyment without harm.
The grand law of God, as learned by experience, is that every mind must
_sacrifice_ the lesser for the greater good in gratifying its own desires.
When the interests of others are not concerned, the child must always
choose not what it desires the most, but what is best for itself. It is
the first labor of the educator to make a child understand and obey this
first part of the law of sacrifice.
But where the feelings and interests of others are involved, the law of
God is, that the lesser good of the individual shall always be sacrificed
to the greater good of the many. Each mind of the great commonwealth is to
act, not to make self‐gratification the first thing, but to make the
greatest possible happiness with the least possible evil for the whole
commonwealth the predominant purpose. And such is the system of the
Creator that whatever is for the best good of the whole is for the best
good of each individual.
Thus it appears that _obedience to the laws of God_, _physical_,
_intellectual_, _social_, _and moral_, is to be chosen as the ruling
purpose of each mind. And this is _the mode_ by which all rational beings
are to promote the end or design for which all things are made, (_i.e._,)
happiness‐making on the greatest possible scale for the great
commonwealth.
NOW it is very certain that no human mind is able, by its own solitary
investigations, to discover all the physical, intellectual, social, and
moral laws of God.
Many of these laws we can learn by experience, but for the greater portion
we are dependent on the instruction of others. Therefore _truth_ on the
part of educators, and _faith_ on the part of the learners are as
indispensable to the right action of mind as is light to the right action
of the eye in seeing. Not a “dead,” merely intellectual belief, but a
“saving faith” that controls the feelings and conduct.
We now are enabled to define the kind of _inability_ as to obeying the
laws of God, which inevitably attends every mind that commences its
existence in this world. As yet there have never been perfectly _true_
educators of young minds, while perfect _faith_, that is to say, “saving
faith,” in the teachings that are true is as much wanting. The young child
can not be made to understand, and therefore can not believe, or have
faith in many of the laws of God and the penalties connected with them.
This no one will deny.
Several Classes of Moral Actions.
There are several classes of moral actions. The first class includes those
which _in all cases_ destroy the best good of man. Of these are wanton
cruelty to helpless creatures, and ingratitude in returning needless evil
for good. In regard to such the mind, by its very constitutional impulses,
revolts from them and feels them to be wrong without any process of
reasoning. So also all those actions that in all cases cause enjoyment
without evil, are instinctively felt to be right without any reflection.
But there are many actions that are entirely dependent on circumstances
for their moral character. Thus to punish a little child in one case would
be cruel and wrong, in another it might be benevolent and right. To take a
woman, when not married to another, for a wife is right, but wrong if she
is married. And so with thousands of other actions.
Again, some actions that do no harm to any individual at a given time, are
wrong because they would be destructive to general happiness, if generally
allowed; or, in other words, they are wrong in _tendency_. Thus, in a
given case, a lie might do a great deal of good and no immediate harm. And
yet it would be wrong, because leaving it to every man’s discretion when
it was _best_ to lie would in the end destroy all confidence in human
testimony.
Again, many of the laws of God can be discovered only by long experience
of many communities. As soon as experience has shown that any practice
will do more harm than good, then the law of God is discovered and it
becomes obligatory. Thus the question of polygamy has been settled. Thus,
too, the vending of alcoholic drinks has been decided to be wrong as a
general practice.
Here comes up the distinction between wrong choices that deserve blame and
punishment, and those that do not. In the natural system of the Creator
all violations of law are followed by the natural penalties without any
reference to the motives, knowledge, or ability of the agent. All
questions among men, as to blame and retribution, have reference to the
_adding_ of other penalties and rewards in the present or future state. It
is only in regard to such that the questions of blame, of justice, and of
mercy are to be debated. Without revelation we have no evidence that the
natural penalties of law are ever suspended, either as a matter of justice
or mercy. In the case of great crimes and wrongs, that _additional_
penalties are to follow in a future state is what all men fear, and this
it is which induces self‐inflictions to secure pardon for sin.
Now these are distinctions existing in all rational minds, and are
continually referred to in every‐day life. But it is impossible for any
but an omniscient being to decide on all the motives that regulate the
actions of others, while even our own motives are often so hidden and
complex that we are blinded as to their true character.
The language of common life does not always recognize these distinctions.
When a wrong action is done the actor is called a wrong‐doer, and is
blamed for the deed. And the fact that he believed that he was acting
right, and even that he practices self‐denial in performing what is
imagined to be a duty, though it palliates, does not ordinarily end all
displeasure. For in multitudes of cases the ignorance of duty results from
pride or selfish neglect of inquiry. And few are competent to decide how
far the ignorance is a misfortune and not a fault.
It is owing to this fact that most of the language of life assumes that
all violations of law are blamably wrong, and are to be punished here or
hereafter. In the most common use of the term, “sin is the transgression
of law.” At the same time men recognize the distinction between sins of
ignorance and willful sin.
Sin and Holiness.
The preceding, then, warrants the definition of _sin_ as “_the
transgression of law_,” whether known or unknown. The question of the
rectitude of penalties _added_ to the natural consequences of violated
laws, is confined to those sins which are attended by a knowledge of law
and ability to understand and obey.
These distinctions and definitions are important because a large class of
theologians maintain that sin is the voluntary transgression of _known_
law, and make this definition the foundation of their assertion that all
men have power to be perfect in conformity to all law, meaning by this all
the laws of God that they _know_ and _believe_. On this theory _sin_ is
the transgression of _known_ law, and not of that which is unknown. And on
this theory one way to keep children from sin would be to keep them in
ignorance of God’s laws.
The writer maintains that this limited use is not the common meaning.
Mankind do not stop to settle the question whether men were ignorant of
what was right, before they decide that they sin. Often such ignorance
results from an unwillingness or indolence that prevents attention, and
few can decide how far our ignorance of law results from guilty neglect.
It is true that when a perfect and innocent inability to know law is
proved, the _added_ penalties of statute law are remitted. But still the
_natural_ penalties are unremitted.
The word _holy_ in its original use signifies _set apart_ or _consecrate
to the special service_ of some deity. Thus the vessels of a temple, the
priests and the building are called holy in this sense. In reference to
moral acts or choices, this term is used as recognizing the fact that a
mind may be voluntarily consecrated or devoted to the service of God by
right action, or obedience to his laws. God himself is called holy on the
supposition that there are rules of right and wrong in the nature of
things, independent of his will, and that his will is conformed to these
rules, while men are called holy in reference chiefly to the will or
service of their Creator.
In the Creator holiness signifies perfect voluntary conformity to that
which is _for the best_ according to the eternal nature of things. In men
perfect holiness is perfect conformity of will to the laws or _will_ of
God, both absolutely and in motive or intention. A mind is consecrated to
God when its _ruling purpose_ is to obey him in all things. In this use of
the term holiness in man, is what can not be _created_, as it is a
voluntary act of his own mind.
The question whether Adam was created with “a _holy_ nature,” while his
posterity begin existence here with an “unholy nature,” must be settled by
a clear definition of the words employed.
If the term “nature” refers to the construction of the mind itself as made
by God, a holy nature must signify that organization and combination of
the natural powers of mind, which is the best possible for a mind in its
appointed place in the best possible system.
If, on the contrary, the term “nature” refers to that character of mind
consequent on its own volitions, then a holy nature can be caused or
created only by man himself as the sole _producing cause_ of his own
volitions, God being the author or cause of this nature only in the sense
in which men are causes of voluntary action in other minds, viz.,
_occasional causes_ by the use of _motives_ or objects that excite
desires.