1 20 Musings by Camp- Fire and Wayside 



to be sought for itself, not for any of its adjuncts 

 or consequences. But I cannot think of God as a 

 being of one idea. He is holy and loves holiness, 

 but he is also benevolent and delights in joy-giving. 

 When two things are as inseparably interlaced and 

 interdependent as holiness and happiness, and when 

 God is equally holy and loving, I see no extra 

 orthodoxy in metaphysically separating the practi- 

 cally inseparable, and in putting one before the 

 other — much less in saying that God is devoted to 

 the one and indifferent to the other. It is not good 

 Scripture and it is poor philosophy. Indeed, it 

 seems to me that the idea of the divine sovereignty 

 received a false coloring from taking kingly sover- 

 eignty — which everywhere prevailed on the earth 

 in the times when the doctrine was formulated — as 

 its type and illustration. Napoleon Bonaparte 

 sought his own glory with utter indifference to the 

 consequences to his fellow-men. He was a Corsi- 

 can nobody. His object was to concentrate upon 

 himself the effulgence of all the crowns and all the 

 power of Europe. Napoleon was not a type of 

 God. He was the reverse and the opposite in every 

 particular. The only difference which need here 

 be emphasized is in regard to glory-seeking. Napo- 

 leon sought to bring the rays of glory upon himself, 

 for his own magnificent illumination. God seeks 

 to extend the rays of his glory to his creatures. 

 The one was concentration, the other is its exact 

 opposite, diffusion. The one was selfishness, the 



