Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

If

or constrained to sin, while they | hardening the hearts of sinners, actually love sin and hate holiness. the effect produced was a free, If they would only keep in view voluntary choice. He made them the meaning of their own objection choose to act as they did, and as against God's hardening their there was no resistance on their hearts, they would be condemned part, so there was no compulsion out of their own mouths, and si- on his. Compulsion always imlenced by their own feelings.- plies resistance on the part of the What can be more inconsistent person compelled. Joseph was than to complain, that they can- compelled to go into Egypt, benot resist the will of God, when cause he did all he could to resist they do not desire to resist it? the overbearing power of his or to say that they are compelled brethren; but God did not compel to sin, when they love to sin, and them to turn a deaf ear to all his roll it as a sweet morsel under cries and entreaties, because they their tongue? chose to gratify their malice and revenge. So, sinners are never compelled to sin by the divine operation upon their hearts, because the divine operation makes them willing to sin. It implies a plain contradiction to suppose, that sinners endeavour to resist that power or will of God, by which they are made willing to do evil. this were possible, then it would be possible for God to compel them to sin: but it is not possible that they should oppose the power which makes them willing to act, and therefore it is not possible that God should, in any case, compel them to act. Hence they have no cause or right to ask, "Why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will ?" Did they really desire and endeavour to resist his will in hardening their hearts, they might indeed with great propriety make this demand; but since they always cheerfully comply with his will in hardening their hearts, they have no ground to complain of him, though they have good reason to condemn themselves. Accordingly we find, that those who were hardened, did freelyacknowledge their own criminality. Joseph's brethren said. one to another, "We are verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us; and

3. The effect produced by the divine agency in hardening the hearts of sinners, demonstrates that there is no compulsion in it. The effect produced is a free, voluntary choice. God makes them choose to act in the very manner in which they do in all cases act. We have an account of many whom God actually hardened; and all appear to have acted freely and voluntarily under the divine agency. Joseph's brethren chose to act in the most unfeeling and cruel manner, when, according to the divine prediction, and under the divine influence, they threw him into a pit, and sold him into Egypt. Pharaoh, whom God actually hardened, and whom the apostle refers to in the passage under consideration, chose to disbelieve the miracles of Moses, and disobey the express commands of God. The heathen nations, whose hearts were hardened, chose to come out in battle array against Israel, by whom they were destroyed. Judas chose to betray Christ for thirty pieces of silver, though he was forewarned of his certain per dition. And the Jews, whose eyes were blinded and whose hearts were hardened, chose to crucify the Lord of glory, and reject the counsel of God against themselves. In all these instances of God's

we would not hear."
raoh had called for Moses and
Aaron in haste, he said, "I have
sinned against the Lord your God,
and against you." And again he
said, "I have sinned this time:
the Lord is righteous, and I and
my people are wicked." And Ju-
das the son of perdition freely ac-
knowledged the criminality of
what he had done under the in-
fluence of his hardened heart.
"Then Judas, who betrayed him,
when he saw that he was condemn-

The

When Pha- | nor any voluntary opposition to it. Whenever men are under compulsion, they feel the power that compels them, and their own desire and inability to overcome that power. Samson, after he had lost his locks, was compelled to be bound; and he felt the power of those who bound him, but found himself unable to overcome it. This holds true in all cases of compulsion. person compelled, feels a power, which he endeavours, but cannot overcome. If sinners, therefore, ed, repented himself, and brought were compelled to be hardened by the divine operation upon their again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, say- both the power that operates upon hearts, they would necessarily feel ing, I have sinned, in that I have them, and their own endeavour and betrayed innocent blood." Thus the conscience of every hardened inability to oppose and overcome that power. But do they ever feel sinner, will sooner or later condemn him for his own hardness of either of these things? Did Judas heart. The reason is, he is willing heart, or any opposition to that infeel the divine influence upon his to be hardened. If sinners really fluence? All that he felt, was a wished, desired, and endevoured to counteract the divine influence willingness to betray Christ for by which they are hardened, then raoh feel the power that hardened thirty pieces of silver. Did Phathe fault would fall upon God, and his heart, or any desire to resist it? not upon themselves. But this is All that he telt was a strong and never the case, and of conse- voluntary propensity to destroy the quence, they are as justly to be people of God. And it is as true blamed and punished, as if they now as ever it was, that sinners do sinned independently of God. The not feel nor oppose that divine indivine influence on their hearts fluence, by which they are hardendoes nothing but make them wil- ed. They feel themselves entirely ling to act, and it is their willing-free and voluntary as to all their ness to act, which alone constitutes their guilt. Their choice is their fault, and this choice God charges upon them, and they have no right to charge it upon him. Their sole objection against the divine agency is, that God compels them to sin, but this objection has no foundation in nature, and therefore they are altogether criminal for the hardness of their hearts. This will further appear, if it be considered,

4. That sinners are conscious to themselves, that God does not harden their hearts by compulsion, because they neither feel his operation

internal affections and external conduct. But if God actually hardened their hearts by compulsion, they would naturally feel a struggle and opposition to his hardening influence. They would be conscious of his influence, and conscious of their own exertions to overcome his influence. And since they never do have this consciousness, they know that there is no ground for their objection, that he compels them to sin. They know that they never felt his power operating upon their hearts, and that they never felt any opposition to a power they never felt. They know, therefore, by their own

constant experience, which is the highest kind of knowledge, that God never does compel them to sin, and that their only plausible objection against his hardening their hearts is absolutely groundless.

Now, if God can both soften and harden the hearts of men, without compulsion, or the least obstruction to their moral agency; then there is no room for the supposition of a self-determining power in moral agents, which Arminians maintain, and upon which they build their whole system. This observation may be illustrated and confirmed by the remarks of Monsieur Bayle, one of the most ingenious and learned men that France ever produced. In his life of Arminius, speaking of his controversy with the Calvinists, he observes,It were to wished that he had male a better use of his knowleage." To this he subjoins the following note, which is extremely luminous.

"I mean, that he had governed himself by St Paul's rule. That great apostle, inspired by God, and immediately directed by the Holy Ghost in all his writings, raised to himself the objection which natural light forms against the doctrine of absolute predestination; he apprehended all the force of the objection; he proposes it without weakening it in the least. God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. This is St. Paul's doctrine, and see here the difficulty which he starts upon it: "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" This objection cannot be pushed further. Twenty pages of the subtilest Molinist could add nothing to it. What could they infer from it more than that in Calvin's hypothesis, God will have men to sin? Now this is what St. Paul knew could be objected against him. But what does he answer? Does he seek for

All

distinctions and mollifications?— Does he deny the fact? Does he in part only? Does he enter into any particulars? Does he remove any equivocations in the words? Nothing of all this. He only alleges the sovereign power of God, and the supreme right which the Creator has to dispose of his creatures as it seems good to him, Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Christians ought to receive a definitive sentence here; a judgment final and without appeal, in the dispute about grace; or rather they ought to learn by this conduct of St. Paul, never to dispute about predestination, and at the first motion to oppose it in bar against all subtilties of human wit, whether they offer of themselves, while they are meditating on that great subject, or whether another suggests them. The best and shortest way is, to oppose this strong bank betimes against the inundations of arguments, and consider the definite sentence of St. Paul, as those immoveable rocks, whose foundation is in the midst of the sea, against which the proudest billows cannot prevail, but turn to froth, and dash and break themselves upon them in vain.

If ever it be safe, to give the mind some exercise on points of this kind, at least we ought to sound a retreat betimes and retire behind the bank I spoke of. Had Arminius acted thus, as often as his reason suggested to him difficulties against the hypothesis of the reformers, or at all times when he found himself called to answer any disputants, he would have taken a perfectly wise and apostolick course, and made use of the lights of his understanding just as he ought to have done. Arminius was no way pressed to oppose the common doc trine; he did not believe that an

begin with it, since he was doomed to come to it soon or late? He is mistaken who imagines, that after having entered the lists with a great disputant, he will be allowed to tri

one run the hazard of salvation by following the hypothesis of Calvin. Let us see another circumstance by which he rendered himself inexcusable. To a system full of great difficulties, he substituted another sys-umph only because he had gained tem, which, to speak truly, draws after it no less difficulties than the former. One may say of this doctrine, what I have said of the innovations of Saumer. It is more vehement and less constrained, than the opinion of Mr. Amyraut, but after all, it is no better than a palliative remedy; for the Arminians have soon answered some objections which, as they pretend, cannot be refuted on Calvin's system; but they find themselves exposed to other difficulties, which they cannot get clear of but by a sincere acknowledgment of the infirmity of the human mind, and the consideration of the incomprehensible infinity of God. And was it worth while to contradict Calvin for this? Ought he to have been so very delicate in the beginning, seeing in the end he must have recourse to such an asylum? Why might he not as well

some advantage over him at beginning. A wrestler, who should outrun his adversary three parts or more of the race, does not win the crown, unless he perseveres his advantage to the end of the course. It is the same in controversies; it is not sufficient to parry the first thrusts. The replies and the rejoinders must all be satisfied, till every doubt is perfectly cleared. Nor this is what the hypothesis of Arminius, nor that of the Molinists, nor that of the Socinians, is able to do. The system of the Arminians is only fit to obtain some advantag es in those preludes of the combat in which the forlorn hope is detached to skirmish; but when it comes to a general and decisive battle, it is forced to retire, as well as to rest behind the incomprehensible mystery." PHILONOUS.

FOR THE HOPKINSIAN MAGAZINE.

MR. EDITOR,

In your number for August, p. 468, are Extracts from a Sermon, sent you by A MODERATE CALVINIST, which he seems

to approve, but which he apprehends

some may think incorrect' I acknowledge myself to be of that number; and having waited, with some degree of impatience, to see objections to some things advanced in the Extracts, from an abler pen, I at length, reluc tantly avail myself of the liberty, which the plan of your work gives to free and candid discussion,' to send you the following brief

REMARKS

UPON THE EXTRACT FROM A SER-
MON.

There are several things in the
Extracts, which are viewed as cor-

6

6

rect and scriptural. That Adam. in his primitive state, was a publick person, the constituted head of the whole race' that by or through his one offence,' in transgressing the positive law, under which he was placed, all mankind were constituted sinners'-that death has passed through unto all men, because all have sinned-that the economy, under which Adam was placed, was not to decide, ultimately, the eternal state of mankind, but only to determine the state in which they should come into being that the benefit of the Saviour's interposition, is not only the resurrection of all men from the grave, but the deliverance of

[ocr errors]

many from the tremendous penalty | of their own offences'-these are = positions, which the scriptures warrant, and against which there can be no valid objection.

But, there are some other things in the Extracts, which are considered as very exceptionable. Among these are the following:

--

1. It is a sentiment advanced in the Extracts, that mankind are in a state of sin, and are corrupt in nature, BEFORE they are actual sinners. What does the author mean, by a state of sin, and a corrupt or sinful nature, distinct from actual disobedience, and antecedent to all sinful exercises? A sinful nature, if there were any such thing, must be either voluntary, or involuntary.—If voluntary, it is actual; for all action consists in free, voluntary exercises. But if involuntary, it is not of a moral nature, and can, with no more propriety, be called sinful, than a disordered intellect, or a diseased limb. "Sin is the transgression of the law." The law requires disinterested love to God and man: the opposite of this, in which every transgression essentially consists, is selfishness. In selfishness, therefore, all sin consists. There is no such thing as passive, or dormant sin-sin in principle and nature, and not in act and practice. sin is actual, i. e. voluntary.

any

All

2. It is implied, if not expressly asserted in the Extracts, that sin is, in some sense, imputed to mankind, before they have actually transgressed. But, how can sin be imputed to men, before they have sin? And how is it possible that men should have sin, before they actually transgress; if it be true, that all "sin is the transgression of the law," and consists in free, voluntary, selfish exercises? To impute that to any one, as a crime, in which he was totally passive, is as mani

festly unjust, as to blame a man for being born deaf or blind.

6

3. By those, who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,' the author of the Extracts supposes infants are meant. But, what authority has he for such a supposition? According to his own theory, infants have not sinned at all: they may possess a corrupt nature; but they are not chargeable with having committed sin. By those, who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,' we are not to understand such as had not sinned actually; for there were no such persons-nor are we to understand such as had not sinned in a publick capacity; for this was true of all who lived from Adam to Moses: we must, therefore, understand, by those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,' such as had not sinned against a positive law: and such were the greater part, who lived at that period. The universality of death proved that all had sinned. "And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" but not only infants, but also, the greater part of the adults who lived between Adam and Moses, sinned only against the law of nature, the

law written in their hearts,' and not against a positive prohibition, after the similitude of Adam's transgression.

6

4. According to the theory advanced in the Extracts, infants are punished for the sin of Adam. The author considers Adam as not only the head, but the representative of the whole race;' so that his sin, in eating the forbidden fruit, has been, in some sense, imputed to infants.' Adam, in his capacity of common head, was arraigned before his Judge, and the sentence was pronounced, "Dust thou art, and unto dust

6

« AnteriorContinuar »