« FöregåendeFortsätt »
in the world to come; that, in the unknown ages of futurity, Christ shall be the great deliverer of perishing spirits.
The former teach, that sin is its own immediate adequate punishment. The latter avow that it is not, but that its heaviest punishment is often very remote, and forms no part of the sin.
All sin, say the first, proceeds from the body, or is caused by the animal propensities, which alone are depraved and unholy. All sin, say the latter, proceeds from the soul or heart, and is the product of the will, in which the depravity of our natures inheres.
Ultraists believe that man never sins, except when the animal overcomes the spiritual man; so that the sinner is more unfortunate than guilty. Restorationists claim, that under such conditions, man never sins, as it cannot be wrong to do what cannot be avoided; but that he always sins voluntarily, knowing the act to be wrong, and being able to abstain from the specific wickedness of which he is guilty.
Ultraists believe, farther, that man can attain to perfect moral virtue only in the absence of temptation. Restorationists, that temptation may call forth and strengthen the moral virtues, so as to be made a means of attaining to holiness. The former class hold that faith, repentance, and moral discipline, appertain only to the present state. The latter, that they are extended to the next. Lastly, Ultra-Universalists believe that man, considered as a rational soul, is essentially divine, being the offspring of God by direct generative emanation. While Restorationists teach that man's nature, so far from being divine, is inferior to that of angels, and that instead of proceeding from God by generative emanation, it is a creation by the power of his word, in the same sense as is the human body.
Such, then, are the differences between these two classes of modern Universalists, and such are the doctrines they hold and teach.
This is not the place to discuss the merits of the theories which have passed before us, or to reason for or against them; but a few reflections in conclusion may be, perhaps, admissible.
The first difficulty which meets us is this: Universalism does not appear to have been received by the founder of Christianity. The earliest date which the Restorationism of the present time can show, is 1800. And under any form, it did not exist until the days of Origen, in the third century. If the present system of Restorationism, therefore, be the true doctrine of the Bible, we are under the necessity of believing that the world never had the truth until 37 years ago; or if the oldest form of the doctrine be admitted as the proper one, not only must the moderns acknowledge that their present views are incorrect, but they must admit also, that for more than two hundred years after Christ, the whole world was wrapped in heathenish darkness and ignorance. But if these difficulties make against Restorationism, what will be said of Ultraism? There has been, indeed, an attempt made, to show that the doctrine of no future punishment was held by the Gnostics, who, the writer said, were "the immediate successors of the apostles," and, as he probably supposed, were therefore possessed of the true doctrine, (Univer. Mag. of May 28, 1831.) But the idea that Ultra-Universalism is a Scripture doctrine, and yet that its first adherents were the Gnostics, is about as absurd as to talk of an episcopal succession through Pope Joan.
If the system cannot be suspended upon this peg of antiquity, it must fall into the year 1818, or thereabouts, and claim Hosea Ballou for its author; and then how gracefully will it stand out to receive our homage as the doctrine of the apostles, and, more than all, of Jesus Christ; and with what strict propriety Mr. Ballou can claim more honor from us and from posterity than Martin Luther himself, since he only substituted one error for another, while Mr. Ballou has dug out of the ruins of eighteen centuries the lost truth, and restored it again to a deceived and suffering world, saving them thereby from their delusion and misery, and bringing to light before them life and immortality. The very modern style of this system is evidence against it; for though we are not disposed to plead prescription, it can hardly be supposed that God, ever good and watchful over the interests of his creatures, would have allowed them to remain in ignorance of the truth so universally and so long.
There is another fact which has already been alluded to, which ought not to be forgotten. It is the vast multiplicity of changes in the systems founded on this one proposition, All men will finally be holy and happy. Origen, the German Anabaptists, the Libertines of Holland, the English Unitarians, the Rellyan and the Winchesterian Restorationists, the Modern Restorationists, and the Ultra-Universalists, who have as bodies, or in part, embraced the doctrine, have all done so on different grounds, and defended themselves by different arguments.
We certainly may be allowed to ask, why is this? Does the truth require such change? or is this rather an error, which can never be successfully defended, and therefore constantly calls for new experiments? We certainly incline to the latter opinion, and see not how we can do otherwise. A difficulty growing out of these changes, turns much to the account of Universalism. One never knows what to refute. He may begin with a theory which has had volumes written to illustrate and defend it; but, before his refutation is completed, the system may undergo some new metamorphosis, and his labor is lost.
The time, however, we think is coming, when all possible changes will have been passed through, and when each having received a proper condemnation, the whole system of absurdity and error will go into merited oblivion.
But this will not take place as yet. For a little season this heresy will lift up itself on high. For a season its friends will rejoice in the midst of their triumph. Perhaps the flood of fire will roll over all the churches, withering and destroying every green thing. But other days shall follow those of trial. Humbled before God by the prevalence of error, hardened for the warfare by the miseries of persecution, having a piety purified from every corruption by the necessity of the times, and armed by Heaven for the holy work, the children of the Lord shall bestir themselves-shall put on strengthand the truth shall be made glorious in the eyes of all men; while error, hurled from the throne of its power, shall sink into the pit from whence it came up, and men shall rejoice together, that the destroyer of the Lord's heritage has perished for ever.
ART. III.-The Elements of Political Economy. By FRANCIS WAYLAND, D. D. President of Brown University, and Professor of Moral Philosophy. New-York: Leavitt, Lord, and Co., 1837. 1 vol., 8vo., pp. 472.
By Professor HOLDICH, of the Wesleyan University.
OUR design in this article is to draw the attention of our readers to this important branch of science. Into mere matters of abstract science, it is not the intention of this work very extensively to enter. Its department is of rather a different character. But there are some sciences so intimately connected with the happiness and with the morals of mankind; so closely allied to the interests of religion, and the advancement of the divine purposes on earth, that we should be justly chargeable with criminal neglect as public journalists, should we pass over them in silence. Such we conceive to be the case in regard to the science of Political Economy; and if we can only succeed in conveying to our reader the impressions on our own mind in relation to it, he will admit that it is every way worthy of his attention. Let it be remembered, therefore, that our object is only to excite inquiry, and lead to investigation: we write for the uninitiated, not for the adept. If the latter find but little in this article to interest or entertain him, our expectations will not be disappointed.
But what is Political Economy? The word economy is compounded of two Greek words, oikos, a house, and vouopa, law, and therefore signifies the law of the household, or domestic management. It is used altogether in reference to the production, consumption, and distribution of wealth. The epithet, political, extends the application of economy to the entire body politic-the whole community. Political economy, therefore, is the science of public wealth, and treats upon the production, consumption, and distribution of wealth, among the entire community.
But what is wealth? We answer, every thing material that has exchangeable value; every thing that contributes to the comfort, the happiness, the improvement, or convenience of human beings, and for which men are willing to give value in return. It has been the mistake of some, to consider wealth as consisting only of money. But money is only an item of wealth, and is valuable just in proportion to its utility. The farmer knows that his horses and ploughs are a part of his wealth, as much as the money in his bureau; and the merchant knows that the cash in his till, and the goods upon his shelves, are alike parts of his wealth. This will prepare us in part to appreciate the assertion, that Political Economy is connected with human happiness; since, upon its being correctly understood, and followed out in practice, depend, in a great degree, the elements of our physical happiness, and the means of our intellectual and moral improvement. How it affects our religious interests, we shall see more clearly hereafter.
From what has been already said, we may see, to some extent, the immense importance of this science to the statesman. Statesmen are the guardians of the public prosperity, and they generally assume more or less the office of directing and encouraging public production. If, then, they do not understand the laws of production, if they be ignorant of the true sources and means of creating wealth,
or, in other words, if they be ignorant of the principles of Political Economy, how shall they know what measures to adopt? How can they understand the true interests of the country? How shall they know when to encourage, or when to repress, any peculiar modes of production; whether it would be safe to do either; or, if it would, what are the most effectual means for gaining the end? A statesman, ignorant of Political Economy, is like an empiric in medicine, who knows nothing of the science of physiology. If he prescribe remedies for his patient, he does it altogether in the dark, and at hazard. Ignorant of the laws of our animal constitution, he may administer stimulants, where we need sedatives; or he may prescribe depletion, when we need a tonic; and at the very time when he designs to restore the health of the patient, he may be dealing death-blows to his constitution. Such is precisely the relation of the incompetent statesman to the economic condition of the country. And yet, I greatly fear, that if every statesman who is defective in this matter were to resign his seat, we should have no small number of vacancies to fill.
Hence we see again, that Political Economy is a science which ought to be generally diffused throughout the land. We have no civil officers by hereditary right. They must be found among the people at large. And as every man is eligible to office, every one ought to furnish himself with the requisite qualifications, or else renounce all claim to such privileges. The man who suffers himself to be put in office who is destitute of the knowledge proper to his station, sacrifices the interests of his country to a criminal selfishness. If this be not knavery, we leave others to find a better name for it.
But farther, civil officers are but the selected agents of the people: the people, therefore, in respect to them, are the principal. Now, in all such relations, it is requisite that the principal have at least some general knowledge of the subject on which he requires the assistance of an agent. If he have not, he can neither trust his own judgment in the selection of his agent, nor exercise a judicious supervision of his doings. This is the case in civil affairs more than in any other department of agencies. The skill and knowledge of the lawyer and the physician are more within reach of our examination. The mode of treatment is submitted directly to our personal scrutiny; prescription and result are more obviously connected; cause and effect are open to investigation. In legislation it is not so. Here, causes and effects are wider apart; there are more intervening agencies; the effects of a certain measure are so blended with other measures, and certain results so liable to be assigned to false causes, that it requires much greater stretch of thought, and breadth of survey, to take in and comprehend the whole. Hence arise the ridiculous notions about legislative capacity to encourage domestic industry; the constant harpings upon the balance of trade; the uses and value of money; all of which, and many other points, are so frequently the subjects of demagogue declamation, and which have so imposing an appearance to the
* I must beg indulgence for using this word in an unauthorized sense. But I know no other that conveys the precise meaning.
minds of the ignorant. Were the knowledge of this science more widely diffused, we should not see men so often elevated to office for merely popular blandishments, for a certain glare and tinsel of character, nor yet for the possession of mere military or professional talents. Nor would our truly competent statesmen so often feel themselves compelled to truckle to popular prejudice and clamour, and enact laws at variance with the true interests of the nation, because the people will have them. Ignorance is the bane of a republic, and the fruitful mother of all commotions and disasters.
But what has the science of national wealth to do with our moral and religious condition? "Much every way." It is universally admitted, I believe, that comfort in life, and easy circumstances, are favorable to good morals. That in proportion to the facilities of subsistence, and the multiplication of the comforts of domestic life, and the improvement of the social state, the temptations to certain kinds of vice are diminished. Hence we generally, not to say invariably, see a thriving community in a healthful moral condition, and comparatively ready to attend to the claims of piety. On the other hand, poverty, wretchedness, and vice, generally go together; and a community of such persons is almost inaccessible to religious influence. It is perfectly natural to draw our conclusion as to the moral state of a village or hamlet, from its external appearance. Where every thing seems to smile in prosperity, where neatness, comfort, and good taste prevail, we expect to find a virtuous and happy people. Where we see much physical misery, we expect a proportionate moral and social degradation. Such is the established connection in our thoughts; and it is founded as well on principles of sound philosophy, as on the basis of Christian truth. I do not deny that there may be occasional exceptions; but this would not overturn a general law, nor disprove the general tendencies of which we speak. The exceptions may be always otherwise accounted for.
The connection between national wealth and national religion is not less obvious and intimate. We have already said that competency is favorable to morality; and, by withdrawing temptations to vice, and leaving the mind free from many distressing anxieties, it lays the heart more open to religious truth; and the mind is more at liberty to reflect upon a future world, when the claims of the present become less urgent. It was the judicious prayer of the wise son of Jakeh, "Give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me; lest I be full and deny thee, and say, who is the Lord? Or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain ;" Prov. xxx, 8, 9. Now, Political Economy has for its object the general diffusion of competency and comfort. It directs us in the most profitable employment of industry and capital, and natural agencies. It teaches how to render the labor of the operative most productive, and it tends to make the wealth of the capitalist the encouragement and the reward of the industrious. Its tendency is to equalize the blessings of fortune, or at least to multiply the means of human comfort, happiness, and improvement, and more generally to diffuse them.
Again, it shows the connection which exists among the various