COMPARISON
OF NATURE AND MORALITY
(continued…)
Other
theories
- 13 - J.
H. Waggoner
are
projected to prove that God does not exist. This is complaisant—it is
accommodating; it does not deny His existence; its object is only to prove that
he is not needed! that everything existed by chance; it acts by chance; and the
interference of an all-wise, supreme, personal God, could only destroy the
harmony of the work!
Great is
the philosophy of the nineteenth century, and modest and reverent as it is
great! We think there is but one reasonable and allowable construction that can
be put upon the phrase, namely: They are the laws which the Supreme Being made
for the government of nature. The Infinite Creator, He who made nature,
subjected her to the operations of those laws, under which she is held in
control. And, of course, those laws are within the power and under the
direction of their Maker.
That which
we term a miracle is but a temporary suspension of, or change in, the
operations of those laws. And this can require no greater exercise of power on
the part of the Almighty than to set, and to keep, these laws in operation. It
is truly strange that men, of ability and intelligence in other respects, will
deny that there are any but natural laws, or laws of nature. They ignore the
distinction between natural and moral laws. But when judged in such a light the
laws of nature are found to be imperfect and incomplete. In what respect? In
this, that they present no standard of right, and are therefore no sufficient
guides for human action. We cannot shape our conduct after such a model with
reference to the rights of our fellow-men. As lovers of the most expansive
benevolence, we may strive to imitate nature when she spreads abroad her
bounties: her precious fruits and golden grain. But again she withholds these,
and famine is the dire result. Shall we imitate nature in the desolations of
the whirlwind, the earthquake, and the pestilence? Shall we indiscriminately
spread ruin and destruction around us, involving alike the innocent and the
guilty, the gray-headed and the prattling child? All answer, No. But each hand
that is raised to check such a mad career practically acknowledges that nature,
which is so blindly worshiped by many, presents to us no example worthy of our
imitation.
The
Atonement - 14
Thus in
fact the laws of nature do not and cannot satisfy the aspirations of man; no
one can accept them as a standard of action, no matter what his theory may be,
because they are destitute of the element of morality.
We cannot
trace a single moral element in their frame-work or their execution. He who
studies them intelligently must be convinced that they are designed solely for
a natural system,—not at all for a moral system.
And this
being so, it follows that they have no penalties, but only consequences.
On this
point many well-meaning men err, who recognize the distinction of moral and
natural law; they speak of the penalties of the laws of nature, when no such
penalties exist. The violations of natural laws are attended with consequences,
uniform in operation, so that in nature we see an unbroken series of causes and
effects, the results being the same whether issuing upon a responsible or an
irresponsible object, regarding no distinctions of moral good or evil.
That the
laws of nature have no penalties must be apparent to all if we consider the
fact that they are never accepted as, or considered, a judicial system. In
executing penalties there must be a consideration of the just desert of the
crimes committed. But there is no such consideration, there is no
discrimination whatever in the case of a consequence of the violation of
natural law. In this respect the operations of natural law are as blind and
unreasoning as nature itself.
There is
implanted in man a sense of justice, or convictions of right, to which he finds
no counterpart in the operations of nature.
These
convictions are entirely on a moral basis.
This sense
of justice is erected in the human mind as a tribunal, a judgment seat, whereat
we determine the nature and desert of actions. And mark this truth: before this
tribunal we always arraign the actions of intelligent agents, but never the
operations of natural law. And in this, what is true of one is true of all; and
it shows that all, whatever their theories may be, do in fact and in practice
make a proper distinction between moral and natural laws. This should be well
and carefully considered.
The prime
distinction between moral and natural laws is this: the first has respect to
intention—the other has not.
Fire will
burn us, and water will drown us, whether we fall into them accidentally or
rush
- 15 - J.
H. Waggoner
into them
madly. The little child, who is yet unconscious of any intention of good or
ill, suffers as certainly and as keenly on putting its hand into the fire, as
the man of mature mind who presumptuously does the same thing. And should the
man willfully and maliciously set fire to his neighbor’s house, and the child,
playfully and without intention of wrong, do the same thing, all would blame
the one and not the other.
And were a
judge, in the administration of law, to visit the same penalty upon the man and
the child, because the actions and results were the same, all would detest such
a perversion of justice. Thus we not only find men acting upon the difference
between moral and natural laws, but we find them also with great unanimity
judging of the actions of moral agents according to their intentions.
But the
operations of natural law cannot thus be judged, and its consequences, often
miscalled penalties, have no regard whatever for the claims of justice. As
before said, the child is burned in the fire as certainly as the man; the good
suffer under a violation of nature’s laws as severely as the most hardened and
brutal.
The idea
cannot be too strongly impressed upon the mind that, confined in our reasoning
to the present state, to observation without a written revelation, justice
cannot be attained unto nor vindicated. A moral system is necessary, and the
idea of probation must be accepted, in order to meet the requirements of
justice.
Another
point should be noticed. When the demands of a moral law and a natural law
conflict, as they often do in this mixed state of good and evil, men always
give preference to the former, unless their sensibilities are blunted. And they
are often false to the theories which they have adopted to be true to this
fact. We sometimes meet with men who deny these distinctions; who assert that
there are no laws aside from the laws of nature; yet they act in harmony with
the propositions herein set forth. Should one refuse to attempt to rescue his
fellow-man from impending destruction by fire, and plead in extenuation that it
would have involved the violation of law, as he must have been somewhat burned
in the effort, they would, as readily as others, abhor his selfishness.
Here they
recognize the distinction claimed, and place the moral duty of assisting our
neighbor above conformity to natural law.
(to be
continued)
(Excerpt
from-) THE ATONEMENT-AN EXAMINATION OF A REMEDIAL SYSTEM IN THE LIGHT OF NATURE
AND REVELATION. (1884)
BY ELDER J. H. WAGGONER
No comments:
Post a Comment