Symud i'r prif gynnwys

She ^lonthlg Uibhxga: A REPERTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT & A RECORD OF CHRISTIAN WORK AMONG THE CALYINISTIC METHODISTS or PRESBYTERIANS of WALES. Vol. V. No. 6.] JUN"E, 1889. Price One Penny. ©ffjics cm5 ©Bjrtsticmiip. Lectures delivered to the Students in the year 1865, by the late Rev. L. Edwards, M.A., D.D., Principal of Bala College. Written by ft. Leigh Roose. Lectuee VI. JUSTICE AND BENEVOLENCE. In our former Lecture we have attempted to show that Justice is one of the main elements of morality, and we take Justice in its widest sense to signify what is right; for the word is derived, as you are aware, from the ;Latin Jus, right. But though there can be no morality without Justice, it cannot be denied that some authors seem to have erred by attending too much to this element, and omitting altogether the consideration of Bene¬ volence. It may, perhaps, appear to some of you that there is no essential difference between the two, and you may be inclined to ask, Whether the eternal requirements of Justice do not demand that you should act bene¬ volently as far as it is in our power to do so ? And if we ought to be benevolent, that is, if we ought to do good,—Where lies the difference "between Benevolence and Justice ? It may assist you to understand this matter if you raise your thoughts to God as the great source of all morality. In one respect you may say that God cannot but be benevolent; for " God is love." But still we must admit that there is a fundamental difference between His acts of benevolence and His acts of justice. What He does from Benevolence proceeds from His Will; while His acts of Justice proceed from the necessity of the Divine Nature. If we confound these two, we are led into endless mazes of error; we destroy the Divine Sovereignty of God on the one hand ; or on the other hand we must hold that He punishes the sinner merely as an arbitrary act -of His Will. This is the difference between equity and sovereignty. God punishes the sinner because He cannot do otherwise, and this is equity; but He provided a way of Redemption from His own good pleasure, without any necessity that He should have done so, and this is what we mean by Divine Sovereignty. This of itself may suffice to prove that Justice and Benevolence are essentially different. But as a further illustration, we may advert to those circumstances in ■which Justice and Benevolence seem to come into collision. For example : "The simple truth on some oocasions may appear prejudicial to the interests of