Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

knowledge in question. And if any one should ask how it can be, that they should not sooner come to the knowledge of what is duty, the question involves the same difficulty (and no more), as if one should ask: Why did not God create all men and make them complete moral agents, thousands or millions of years sooner than he has done? One thing is very clear in respect to our moral accountability, and this is, that men will never be punished as actual sinners, so long as they cannot commit actual sin. Be this period sooner or later, heaven will never exact an account of talents not committed to our charge.

There are some things in morals which are too plain to be proved; and I am almost ready to say, that the question before us appears to be one of those things. The sacred writers do not express themselves as if they had once thought, that they must needs formally affirm, or establish by a course of reasoning, that sin is a transgression of law, and that without a knowledge of law there can be no sin. They appear to hold as a matter universally conceded, not only that there can be no knowledge of sin without a knowledge of law, but that sin itself cannot exist or be committed without such a knowledge, or (in other words) that "where there is no law there is no transgression." The case of wilful ignorance alone is to be excepted from these remarks. The consequence of such a state of feeling among inspired authors is, that what we meet with in them respecting the nature of sin, is only what is said obiter, i. e. what is now and then thrown in to give intensity to other declarations, by referring the reader to principles already known, established, or rather spontaneously conceded, by every reasonable mind.

Such an assumption of the truth before us the Saviour makes in that solemn declaration of his to the Jews: "If I had not come and spoken to them [the Jews], they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin," John 15: 22. And again: "If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin," John 15: 24; i. e. if I had not disclosed my true character to them by the miracles which I have wrought among them, then they would not have contracted their present guilt in rejecting me. In both of the present cases, the declaration of the Saviour, I readily concede, is not to be regarded as absolute and universal, but as extending to the sin of unbelief and of rejecting him. But the principle sanctioned is altogether the same as that for which Vitringa

contends, viz., that sin can be predicated only of cases where there was a knowledge of what was required and of what was forbidden, i. e. of legal precept. In the declarations of Jesus, he takes it for granted that this principle is self-evident. He only declares that the unbelief of the Jews is such that it cannot be excused, because they had enjoyed an opportunity of knowing what the truth is, and had neglected and abused it.

So again, in the Saviour's conversation with the Pharisees, after he had restored sight to the man born blind; Jesus had said: "For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see, and they which see might be made blind" (John ix.), when the Pharisees, who were highly offended, replied: "Are we blind also?" What is the reply of him who is the light of the world? "Jesus said unto them: If ye were blind, ye should have no sin." Of course, the meaning is not here: If ye were physically blind;' it may be thus expressed: If ye were unable to see any moral or spiritual light, then ye would have been guiltless; but now, your case is very different from this. You yourselves acknowledge that you see; therefore, your sin remaineth.'"This," said the Saviour on another occasion, in conversation with Nicodemus, "is the condemnation [of unbelievers], that light is come into the world, and men have loved darkness rather than light." It is not because they could not see any thing of the light, that they are condemned; it is because that, while they might or did see its glory and excellence, they still preferred the darkness. In John 1: 5 it is said, in our English Version: "The light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not, avro ou xarlaße; this should be rendered, did not apprehend, i. e. did not take hold of, embrace, or receive it; for did not comprehend it seems not to be the shade of idea meant to be conveyed here. I take the sentiment to be the same which is exhibited in the passage taken from the conversation of the Saviour with the Jewish ruler.

Need I appeal, finally, to the often repeated and solemn assurance, that "God will render to every man according to his deeds?" Rom. 2: 6. Must it be again repeated, "that the Son of Man will reward every man according to his works?" Matt. 16: 27; that "they who do good shall come forth to the resurrection of life, while they who do evil shall come forth unto the resurrection of damnation ?" John 5: 29. In these, and other cases almost without number, the idea always insisted on is, that

what men have done, their actions, their transgressions, the actual violations of law whether by commission or omission (for omission always amounts to the doing of something which God has forbidden, under present circumstances, instead of doing one's duty)—in a word, the acts, the voluntary acts of menare those things for which men are either rewarded or punished. Of course I mean here, not merely such actions as are external, but all actual, voluntary, internal desires and affections of the soul, which are contrary to what God has required.

The very names of sin, in Hebrew and Greek, are all of an active nature. Such a meaning has up, 11, na; such an one has ἁμαρτία, ἐπιθυμία, παράβασις. The very verbs which express the idea of sinning are so essentially active, that they have not even a passive voice; I mean that there is no passive form among them, when they convey the meaning to sin.

Add to all this, the great Judge of quick and dead has told us explicitly, as has already been hinted, that the heathen will be judged in the day of retribution, only for such sins as are committed against the light of nature: "As many as have sinned without law, shall perish without law; and as many as have sinned under the law, shall be judged by the law," Rom. 2: 12. It is scarcely necessary to remark here, after what has been already said, and what indeed lies upon the very face of the whole sentiment, that law means revelation in this passage. So then, they that have no light of revelation, are not accountable for the privilege or benefit of it, but only for the light of nature. "The Gentiles . . . who have not the law, are a law unto themselves; ... these shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing and excusing," Rom. 2: 14, 15.

Thus it appears from the very elements of our nature, from "the law written on our hearts," i. e. our consciences, and from God's holy word, that sin is to be regarded as a violation of known law a violation committed by a rational, free, moral being. He must be rational; for the stones, and trees, and brooks, and rivers, do not and cannot sin. He must be a free agent; for if he is not, then his actions are not his own, and he of course is not accountable for them. Those who have no reason which enables them to choose, or those who are physically compelled to act against their wishes, are not charged by justice, and are not properly chargeable, with sin. He must, moreover, be a moral agent; for brutes, and madmen, and non **OND SERIES, VOL. I. NO. II. 38

compotes mentis, even though they were in some sense free, are not moral agents, and therefore they cannot sin.

Apart from theological dispute, it seems to me that there is not an enlightened rational man on the face of the whole earth, who would ever deny these principles. All men spontaneously admit them in legislation, in dispensing justice, in governing, in reasoning-about every thing except theology. A man might as well deny that he has a soul, as to deny that he has one which spontaneously assents to these principles in regard to real criminality.

Such then are some of my leading reasons for believing that Vitringa has rightly defined sin. But whilst I say this, I am fully aware, as I have already intimated above, that all the questions which can be raised, are not decided by these considerations, plain and palpable as they are. It has already been remarked, that those who differ from the views of Vitringa, will still admit his definitions and principles to be correct, so far as they go; i. e. they will admit that these apply, with entire correctness, to all actual sin. But they aver at the same time, that the question is not at all decided by this, whether there is or is not such a thing as original sin, imputed or inherent, which is not reached by these definitions, and to which none of these principles, however plain and just with respect to actual sin, can be properly applied.

On this question views different from those of Vitringa have often been presented, and efforts made to shew, that sin, properly so called, may and does exist antecedent to any actual and voluntary transgression of the divine law. But there is not time nor space enough remaining, to permit us to enter on the discussion of this part of the subject. The prosecution of it must therefore be reserved for a future number.

ARTICLE II.

CAMPBELLISM.

By Rev. R. W. Landis, Jeffersonville, Pa. [Concluded from p. 130.]

§ II. Direct Arguments against Campbellism.

It has already been intimated that Mr. Campbell's views of faith are such as have allowed him to ridicule, in a very indecent manner, the doctrine of the saving influence of the Spirit of God in repentance and regeneration. The faith which he contends for, he says, is "purely historical." "It is one of the monstrous abortions of a purblind theology for any human being to be wishing for spiritual aid to be born again. Transfer such an idea to the first birth, and to what an absurdity are we reduced!" This is a specimen of his ridicule.

According to Campbellism, a belief of the "facts recorded in the gospel," connected with immersion in water, constitutes the real Christian. As we are about to present, in this section, a brief synopsis of direct arguments against the system, we will first, in connection with what has been already advanced, subject the above position to a short examination.

We

Does the belief of the "naked facts recorded in the gospel," constitute a believer, in the Scripture sense of that term? fearlessly answer in the negative.

The precise point in debate is illustrated by the following occurrence related by Dr. Jennings, (Debate, p. 39). A young, but intelligent female, was urged by a proselyting follower of Mr. Campbell to be immersed; and was told that if she "historically believed the gospel, or the history of our Lord Jesus Christ," that it was all the faith required. She replied, that she could not doubt the reality or sincerity of her historical belief of all that was contained in the Bible;-that she was as conscious of the existence of this belief, as she was of her own existence ;—but that she was no less certain, that this belief was different from that faith which is the peculiar characteristic of all the true disciples of Christ, because it did not exert any suitable or lasting influence either upon her heart, or life. The reply was found unanswerable.

It is not our intention to enter into the controversy on the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »