060. I. Leading Questions Of Providence.

I. Leading Questions Of Providence. The divine providence cannot be formulated under any single law, nor as operative in any single mode. This is obvious in view of the many spheres of its agency. As we found it helpful to distinguish the spheres of God’s creative work, so may we find it helpful to distinguish the spheres of his providential work. There is ample ground for such distinction, and for the analysis of the question. In this method we may relieve the doctrinal treatment of much perplexity, and in the end attain a clearer view of providence. We need the statement of some general facts as preparatory to the more definite analysis.

1. Providential Conservation and Government.—The doctrinal treatment of providence recognizes both a conserving and a ruling agency. This is the first distinction to be noted, and the broadest and deepest of all. There is ample ground for it in the Scriptures, and also in the nature and relations of created existences. A conservative providence of God is clearly expressed in the Scriptures. As the creation of all things, and of all In the most comprehensive sense, is ascribed to God, so is their preservation: “And thou preservest them all” (Nehemiah 9:6). “O Lord, thou preservest man and beast” (Psalms 36:6). He calleth by name the hosts of heaven, the stars of the firmament, and upholdeth them by his great power, so that not one faileth (Isaiah 40:26). “For in him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17).

It is the sense of Scripture, in many places and in many forms of expression, that all things are subject to the ruling providence of God. The earth and the heavens, the forces of nature, the seasons of the year, the harvests of the field, the fruits of the earth, the powers of human government, the allotments of human life are all thus subject. It is needless to cite, or even to give in substance, the many texts, or even a selection of the many, which contain this truth. A brief reference may suffice (Job 5:10; Job 9:4-10; Job 36:26-32; Job 37:6-18; Psalms 74:12-17; Psalms 104:1-30; Psalms 105:6-7; Isaiah 45:7; Jeremiah 5:23-24; Jeremiah 33:20; Jeremiah 33:25; Joel 2:21-27; Matthew 6:25-34; Acts 14:17). In the reigning and ruling of the Lord there is the sense of a universal governing providence. The texts which express this truth are not merely prophetic of an ultimate universal dominion, nor restricted to the idea of a distinctively spiritual kingdom, but give the sense of a present and perpetual government of all things. “Thine, Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honor come of thee, and thou reignest over all ; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all” (1 Chronicles 29:11-12). “He ruleth by his power; his eyes behold the nations: let not the rebellious exalt themselves” (Psalms 66:7). “The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruletli over all” (Psalms 103:19). “And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunders, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth” (Revelation 19:6). The nature and relations of created existences point to the distinction between the preserving and ruling offices of providence which we find in the Scriptures. Even the conservation of the orderly forms of material existences carries with it the sense of providential government. Otherwise, we must think this perpetual order the determination of original laws of nature, without any perpetual agency of God. This is the baldest deism, false to the Scriptures, and offensive to the religious consciousness. The distinction we make is yet more manifest in the relations of providence to the sentient and rational forms of existence. The uniformities of nature are of great value to both, but absolute uniformities would often be at painful odds with their interests. If the sustenance of the living is with the providence of God, the forces of nature must be subject to his sway. For the interests of the human race there must be a ruling as well as a preserving providence.

2. Universality of Providential Agency.—We here need little more than a statement of this universality. It has already appeared, especially in the explicit words of Scripture. If we hold a providence of God in any proper sense, we must rationally think it universal. The special reason for its present statement lies in its intimate relation to the further analysis of the question of providence. The more extended the field of providence the more numerous are the spheres of its agency, A proper distinction of these spheres is necessary to the analysis of the question.

3. Distinction of Providential Spheres.—The two spheres of God’s preserving and ruling providence are commensurate in their universality, but distinct for thought, and really distinct for the manner of the divine agency therein. There is also the distinction between material being and its orderly forms; and the divine agency in the preservation of the one and in the preservation and government of the other must give rise to different questions in the doctrinal treatment. Again, there is the distinction between the material and animate spheres, wherein there are different questions for the doctrinal treatment of providence. Finally, there is the profound distinction between free and responsible personalities, on the one hand, and all the lower forms of existence, on the other. With such distinctions in the spheres of providence there must be distinctions of mode in the divine agency.

4. Distinctions of Providential Agency.—We have prepared the way for these distinctions by the statement of the different spheres of providence. The conservation of matter as being—if there be such an office of providence—and the conservation of its cosmical forms must be through different modes of the divine agency. In the first that agency can have no respect to either the spatial relations or the dynamical qualities of the elements of matter, while in the second it must have exclusive respect to such relations and qualities. There is thus in the second a governing agency which determines the collocations of matter or directly modifies the working of its forces, while there is no place for such a manner of agency in the first. From the purely material, whatever its mechanical or chemical form, we pass into a new and higher form of existence in the sphere of the animate. There is a new and higher force in the living organism. The agency of providence must be in adjustment to this new and higher force and to the definite forms in which it works. Forces themselves are hidden from our immediate view, but the manifest difference between the orderly forms of the merely physical and the organic forms of the living clearly points to a distinction of providential agencies in the two spheres. Finally, there is the profound distinction between personal mind and all the lower forms of existence. With this distinction, there cannot be the same law of providential agency for the former as for any sphere of the latter.

Nothing is yet concluded or even discussed respecting the working of providence in the different spheres of finite existence. The aim has been to justify the position that the divine providence cannot be formulated under any single law, nor as operative in any single mode. It must be studied and interpreted in view of the manifold and diverse spheres in which it may be operative, “What may be the truth of a providence in one may not be the truth in another. If it should even appear that in some one sphere there is no evidence of a providence, it would not follow that there is no providence in others. If it could be made clear that God is the only force operative in material nature, it would not follow that there is neither power nor personal agency in the human mind. Hence an absolute providence in the former would leave the way open for a very different mode of the divine agency in the latter. An absolute continuity in the order of physical sequences could not disprove a divine providence within the realm of mind. Such facts are of value in the study and interpretation of providence in the different spheres of its agency.