CONFUSING MORAL DISTINCTIONS.
The fact that the purposes of God are accomplished in spite of the evil done by men, and that the evil done by men is overruled in the interests of God’s kingdom, should not for a moment blind our eyes to the fact that the evil done by man is always and everywhere evil, and that it is not in the slightest degree palliated or excused by the excellence of the purposes toward which it seems to have contributed. The moment we have admitted that God chooses unrighteous methods to advance his purposes, we have struck at the root of the conception of God as a righteous being. If he does that, you can not make it out that he has any moral character whatever. Whatever else he is, he is not a being that supremely loves righteousness and hates iniquity. The Christian is justified in saying, with David, “The Lord reigneth, . . . let the earth rejoice.” Like Isaiah, David took great comfort because he believed that Jehovah sat upon the circle of the heavens. They believed that the wrath of man should praise him, and the remainder he would restrain. But never for a moment did David or Isaiah lose a perception of the fact that evil is always evil, and that it does not in the slightest degree lose its character of evil by being overruled to advance the divine purposes. This line of reflection is of the greatest importance to-day, because we observe that men who ought to know better,—some ministers of the gospel and missionaries,—are using language in a way that obliterates the clearest moral distinctions. Frequently during the last year we have heard statements like this: It may be that the relation of the advanced nations toward the backward races, and of Christendom toward the Chinese Empire, has not been morally defensible. We would admit that grievous injustices have been committed; but, for all that, we believe that the interests of civilization have been promoted, and the cause of Christian missions has been advanced. Now it is proper to rejoice that these ends, in the providence of God, have been promoted; but such a mode of statement gives color to the notion that the methods are palliated and atoned for by the excellence of the ends that have been served. In this matter it seems to us that there is only one consistent attitude for those who believe that God is essentially a God of righteousness. It is to denounce and refuse to condone injustice, fraud, oppression, treachery, and unrighteous aggression, no matter how directly they may appear to promote the interests of civilization or religion. The moment a man allows his belief that God will overrule the wrath of man to condone unrighteous methods, he has begun to confuse fundamental moral distinctions. The truth is that evil is always evil, and however it may be overruled to serve beneficent ends, it is always wicked; the face of God is always set against it, and it always involves an eternal loss. God does not, and can not, choose such methods. He overrules them, but he does not condone them. They never lose their character of evil in his sight. There always was a better way to achieve the end in view, and God would have achieved that end in the better way, if the self-will of man had not chosen the evil. Why, the sin of Judas can be amply and triumphantly defended by the identical reasoning that is employed to palliate national injustice; for the sin of Judas directly contributed to the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the world.