Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The

York in 1852, giving an analysis and an exegetical commentary, exhibits an advance as compared with Professor Stuart's, in fulness of matter, and, upon the whole, also, soundness and satisfactoriness of exposition. We do not entirely concur with him in his mode of explaining the applications made of the Old Testament in the New, and on some particular passages we cannot concur in the view he adopts. But his style of exposition may be characterised as in general sensible and judicious; and the commentary may be regarded as a useful one. Lectures of Maurice have very little of an expository character; they are prefaced by a long examination of Newman's theory of development, on which many good things are said, though, we think, they had better been said somewhere else; and the doctrinal expositions that are given, are not only, for the most part, rapid and cursory, but also vitiated in respect to what may be called the heart of the whole epistle, by the author's wonted substitution of the incarnation as the one and all of Christianity, for the Redeemer and his word of reconciliation for sinful men. It cannot be said of any of these works, or of all of them put together, that they supplant the gigantic production of Owen, of which we are glad to see a new edition begun to be issued, uniform as to paper, type, and appearance, with the recent edition of Owen's Miscellaneous

ritings. The editor, Dr Goold, is also subjoining notes and abstracts at proper places, which go far to adapt the commentary to present times, and render it in some respects a fresh production. We would particularly notice in the first volume, which is all that has yet appeared, an excellent resumé of the objections raised in more recent times against the Pauline authorship, and the replies given to them, at the close of Owen's dissertation on the subject. Such editorial annotations and remarks, as appear in this volume, will, if continued throughout, add very materially to the value and usefulness of the edition; and we trust every encouragement will be given to the undertaking, which must be one involving very considerable labour and expense.

ART. II.-The Inability of the Sinner to Comply with the Gospel, his Inexcusable Guilt in not Complying with it, and the Consistency of these with each other, Illustrated, in Two Discourses on John vi. 44. By JOHN SMALLEY, D.D. New York, 1811. THIS little treatise has long been accounted standard among those who attach importance to the distinction between natural and moral inability, which it elaborately explains and vindicates.

It is for the most part characterised by candour and good judgment. It clearly and ably sets forth much important truth. If we were to indicate objections to it, we should call in question certain portions of it, which seem to represent the inability of the sinner as being of the same sort as that of a man to perform any outward act, which he is no way unable, but simply indisposed to do.-(Pp. 10, 11.)

These instances, however, are few, and aside of the main drift of the treatise. The grand principle which it maintains and successfully vindicates is, that men labour under a real inability to obey the gospel; that this inability is moral, and therefore culpable, yet not for this reason any the less real and invincible, except by divine grace. A still more material fault is a mistaken, or defective, or confused view, (we hardly can say which) of the nature of sinful blindness and spiritual illumination.-(Pp. 42 et seq.) Just views on this subject are obviously necessary to any clear and complete analysis of man's inability. With these abatements, many important things are said, and well said, in these sermons by the author, who was among the most judicious and weighty of the circle commonly known as the New England divines. He protested ably and earnestly against the extravaganzas of Emmons. He contributed largely to give the distinction of natural and moral inability that prominence which it has had in American theology.

The peculiar prominence which this distinction has obtained among us has given rise and currency to opinions in relation to it equally peculiar, especially in certain sections, and among certain theological coteries of this country. It is the boast of those who make the most of it, that it was born into the light, not merely in these United States, but in a province of them, whence it has irradiated our land; or, at all events, that its true import and uses have here first been duly developed; that what is American in it constitutes its value, and is entitled to the support of all good Americans, surely of all loyal New Englanders.

For ourselves, we have long ago learned to distrust, and jealously scrutinise all opinions in theology that are merely national, provincial, or sectional in their origin or prevalence. We look with especial jealousy upon theological provincialisms in reference to subjects like that in question, which touch the very vitals of Christian experience. In regard to these, all Christians are of necessity, as to all that is essential, illuminated by the Spirit and guided by the Word of God. A merely casual, local, and variable type of doctrine on a subject which enters as an integral element into all our conceptions of sin and grace, has not one chance in a thousand of being true, if

it be either opposed to the doctrine steadfastly held by the great body of the people of God of all ages and nations, or if it has been unknown or ignored by the church as a whole. If a given opinion in relation to this class of subjects be merely a German, or French, or English, or American opinion, and that too of recent origin, while it is disowned by the great mass of the saints of all ages and nations, the most formidable presumptions lie against it. That cannot be a part of the faith of God's elect which is unknown to, or repudiated by God's elect. If it prevail for a while in variable forms among the Christians of some province, or denomination, or party, it is much more likely to prove some casual eddy in the stream of doctrine, deflected for the time by some temporary barrier out of its true course, than to be in the true current, which has its sources in the Infinite Mind. So far as any views of essential Christian doctrine are local, temporary, provincial, idiosyncratic, they are likely to prove false. Those which have commanded the assent of enlightened Christians as a whole will survive all occasional opposition or neglect. They are catholic doctrines held by the true church catholic and universal. The gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

In regard to the subject of the discourses at the head of this article, we suppose that all who come within the outermost verge of evangelical doctrine agree,

1. That man by the fall did not lose any of the faculties or capabilities that are essential to manhood. The essential properties of human nature inhere in every human being, fallen or unfallen, regenerate or unregenerate.

2. That by the fall, human nature, in all of the race, has been corrupted, without being destroyed, and that this corruption infects not the essence of the soul, but only the moral state and working of its faculties and powers.

3. That this corruption of nature involves an inability, of some sort at least, to good, to right moral action, and especially to self-purification or renovation.

4. That this inability is moral, as arising wholly from moral corruption, and pertaining exclusively to our moral nature and state; that it is therefore our sin, and so in the highest sense culpable and worthy of condemnation.

5. That, therefore, this inability is no excuse for the nonperformance of any duty for which it disables us, much less for itself, since it is itself the most fundamental, fontal sin.

6. That the only inability which excuses a failure to fulfil any command that would otherwise be binding, is such as disables for it when the moral state is itself right; and which no degree or perfection of holiness could remove. It is an obstacle or hindrance that would render it impossible, were we as sin

less as the man Christ Jesus. Thus it is agreed that a man cannot justly be required to lift a mountain, or a child or idiot to govern a nation with prudence and success; neither can they be properly blamed for failing to do these things. And this for the obvious reason, that were they as holy as Gabriel, they have not the faculties or powers which render it possible.

While this comprehends the substance of that wherein there is agreement, so, justly understood, it comprehends the substance of what is true and important on the subject. But the principal diversities of opinion in respect to it arise from diverse conceptions of the meaning of those little but important words, "moral" and "sin," and so of the phrases, "moral corruption," "moral inability," "moral state," "sinful corruption," &c. And here the chief Americanisms in this branch of theology lie.

[ocr errors]

It is undisputed that, in fallen man, sin is co-extensive with his moral nature; and that if we determine what is properly included in his moral nature, we determine the extent of his sin and moral corruption: or if, starting from his sinfulness, we ascertain its extent, we shall also thus define the limits of his moral nature, and hence the true reach of his moral corruption and inability.

To the question, What is sin? our received translation of the Bible answers, and, as far as it goes, answers right, "Sin is the transgression of the law." The original Greek, thus translated, however, answers, Sin is avoura, i. e., lawlessnesswhich includes not only a positive overleaping of, but a failure to come up to, the law-most exactly rendered in the definition of the Shorter Catechism: "Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God." Nor do we know of any who object to this definition. But one imporant school of theologians practically ignore it, when they insist that moral quality pertains only to acts done in conscious violation of known law, and in support of this dogma triumphantly quote the text, "Sin is the transgression of the law." It is plain, that if "sin be any want of conformity to the law," all other questions implicated with this subject depend for solution on this, "What does the law require?" All will agree that the obedience it requires is a moral obedience; and that in the light of its demands we can surely learn the extent of our nonconformity to it, of our moral corruption, and our inability to keep it. By the law is the knowledge of sin."

66

Before proceeding directly to answer this question, it will assist us better to understand the status quæstionis for our present purposes, if we just bring to view some of the chief varieties of opinion as to the requirements of that law, which is exceeding broad. For it will be found that this is one of those

sources from which the more important divergent currents in theology take their rise. Superficial views of sin and grace, and of the whole circle of Christian doctrine, always involve low conceptions of the divine law, and, sooner or later, of God its Author.

A numerous class restrict moral quality and responsibility to acts of the soul committed in view of known law. Of these again, some contend that the only acts which can be sinful or holy are of the nature of a purpose or determination to pursue a given course or object, formed by a power of choice with a supposed power of contrary choice, and which the soul can therefore make or unmake at any moment. With such theorists, of course, moral inability means simply, that the sinner at present purposes to sin, but may at any instant, when he shall see cause, form a counter purpose, and thus make himself holy. That is, it means nothing at all. It is as clear a misnomer and fraud as it would be to say that one who could walk, but will not, is unable to walk. Those who adopt this view hold that the wayward desires and depraved lusts of men are innocent constitutional propensities, void of moral character, except so far as they are sanctioned, or gratified, or fostered by the acts of the faculty of choice and contrary choice just mentioned. This, they say, exclusively constitutes the will and the subject of moral responsibility in man. But there are few who can persuade themselves that no merit or demerit attaches to the desires and preferences of the soul, until they have ripened into deliberate purposes. On the contrary, they know full well that all such purposes are prompted by these spontaneous inclinations of the soul, are formed to gratify them, and derive their character from them.

Another and much larger class, therefore, say that the law of God extends to these spontaneous exercises of desire, longing, or preference, with reference to moral objects-whatever the law requires or forbids. They pronounce not merely the purpose to do evil, but the lusting for it, sinful. And they are surely right, according to Scripture, conscience, and the universal and intuitive judgments of mankind. For, says Paul, “I had not known sin, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." But But many who go thus far, restrict all moral quality, and so all sin, to the exercises of the soul. They deny that those states of the soul which dispose it to sinful exercises, whether of desire or purpose, are themselves sinful. At all events, they deny that any innate habits or dispositions, which are not the product of its own exercises, possess this character. Yet, as it is a familiar fact of consciousness, that men cannot at pleasure, by any mere purpose, or fiat of will, reverse the current of their affections and desires, it is evident that

« AnteriorContinuar »