Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Christ, and justification, were subsequently very extensively adopted. The following is a specimen of his language: "Although the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of obedience of a perfect righteousness are united by an undivided conrection, and from the former the latter can be rightly inferred, et, it ought not to be confounded with it." *

The concluding sentence of the treatise above referred to is the following: "And thus far we have labored to illustrate the truth in relation to the forgiveness of sins. And we have proved, that when understood without synecdoche, it is not the whole of our justification before God; but only a part of it, even absolution from the punishment of eternal death due to our sins, for he sake of the satisfaction of Christ. But understood by sydoche it embraces at the same time the imputation of rightness to eternal life." + And on p. 541, when answering ctions, he says: "The fourth objection is that the Scripput forgiveness of sins and justification for the same, defines the latter by the former, Rom. iv. But I answer, this is done by synecdoche: because the forgiveness of sins the prior member of justification, which embraces the impuon of Christ's righteousness, by the grace of God united with an indissoluble connection, although distinct in reality." ‡ mar, however, because he departed only thus far from the Deived doctrine on these topics, was long regarded by many et Calvinists with distrust, and as an innovator. Before we leave the present topic for the purpose of taking the subject of Faith, we hope to be excused for adverting to

"Ac quamvis individuo nexu remissio peccatorum, et imputatio dientiae seu perfectae justitiae sint conjuncta: ideoque ex priori crum recte concludi possit: cum eo tainen confundi non debet." 1. 38. col. 2.

"Atque hactenus de remissione peccatorum, ad veritatis illustranem egimus: eamque sine synecdoche acceptam, non esse totam rain Deo justificationem probavimus: sed tantum partem illius; upe a poena mortis aeternae, peccatis nostris debitae propter risti satisfactionem absolutionem: per synecdochen vero acceptam, m justitiae imputationem ad vitam aeternam simul complecti." "Quarto objectio est: Scriptura remissionem peccatorum, et juscationem, pro eodem ponit, et hanc per illam definit, Rom. iv. spondetur, hoc fieri synecdochice: quia remissio peccatorum est hus justificationis membrum, quod ex gratia Dei, individuo nexu, i conjunctam habet justitiae Christi imputationem; quamvis re istinctam."

two or three things that have lately grown out of the discussions on Justification in the American churches. We shall refer to them as briefly as is possible.

1. The definition which has recently been given of the term pardon is the very definition which the later reformers give of justification, and yet it has been maintained, and still is by professedly strong Calvinists, that pardon and justification are so essentially different as to constitute a breaking point of com munion. See e. g. Polanus. He says: "Proprie loquendo justificatio peccatoris non est remissio ipsa peccatorum, sed absolutio a condemnatione." Wendeline, Cloppenburg, etc. use the same language in relation to it. Yet the definition of pardon referred to, is actually a literal rendering into English of their definition of justification: viz. "Pardon is a release from obligation to suffer punishment." *

2. It has also been thought exceedingly erroneous to deny that "the righteousness" of God our Saviour really and properly becomes ours. But the following is the unvaried language of the reformers in relation to it: "Nothing therefore is more impious than to assert that the essential righteousness of the Creator is the righteousness of creatures. For from thence it would follow that we possessed the righteousness of God him self, yea, the essence of God, and that we are Gods." This passage is from Ursinus. ‡

3. But there are other instances of departure from the views of the Reformation, on the topic before us, which it is proper to notice. Views have been maintained as Calvinistic, which are a much more serious departure from the theology originally pronounced Calvinistic, and the opposites of which agree surprisingly with the venerable men whose testimony we have adduced.

One of these views is, that innocence and righteousness are not the same thing. We do not recollect, however, a single

* See Dr. Junkin's Vindication, p. 133.

† Mr. Barnes " denies that the righteousness becomes ours - this is again plain and positive." Vindication, p. 133.

† "Nihil igitur magis est impium, quam dicere, essentialem justitiam Creatoris esse justitiam creaturarum. Inde enim sequeretur, nos habere ipsius Dei justitiam, imo Dei essentiam, et Deos esse!" Erplic. Cat. ad Quaest. 64. p. 354.

§ " My third remark is, that in the very 'Defence,' he [Mr. Barnes] gives evidence of the truth of the charge [in relation to justification).

writer among the primitive reformers, who did not strenuously maintain the converse of this proposition. The reader, by referring to the preceding quotations, will perceive the justice of this remark, at least to some extent. Abundance of other instances could be easily produced, if necessary, from the divines before Dr. Gomar, who, I believe, wrote his commentaries about A. D. 1625, or later. We cannot conceal our surprise that this doctrine has now been repudiated so unceremoniously, especially since it met with no opposition from the Calvinistic churches even so late as the time of the first President Edwards. In his treatise on Original Sin, (Works, Vol. II. p. 411) written against Dr. Taylor of Norwich, that illustrious divine remarks as follows: " In a moral agent, subject to moral obligations, it is the same thing to be perfectly innocent as to be perfectly righteous. It must be the same, because there can be no more any medium between sin and righteousness, or between being right and being wrong in a moral sense, than there can be a medium between straight and crooked in a natural sense." In fact, this very illustration was employed by some of the older Calvinists. And yet those brethren who complain of this view as heretical, profess to entertain on all topics in dispute the very doctrine of the Reformation; and they are very much alarmed lest that doctrine should be subverted by those who, it now appears, with the greatest strictness and accuracy maintain it. 4. The following strikes us as a much more alarming deviation from the principles of primitive Calvinism, than any yet referred to. The sentiment has been advanced, and has been, like the preceding, very extensively endorsed, that Adam was - not created righteous. This has been openly and without con-tradiction (as yet), conceded to Pelagians and Socinians, that "Adam was not righteous." * And we regret to be compelled, by our impartiality as a historian, to say that this sentiment is attempted to be justified by the same mode of reasoning resorted to by Dr. Taylor of Norwich in maintenance of the same principle. That this may be fully manifest to the reader,

The very concluding sentence proves it: 'In the very passages adduced by the prosecutor on this charge, I have taught that God admits the sinner to favor, and treats him as if he had not sinned, or were righteous.' Here is a reiteration (says Dr. Junkin) of the very error charged, that not sinning and righteousness are the same thing." Vindication, p. 135.

• See "Vindication," p. 135.

we give the language referred to, and place in juxtaposition it that of Dr. Taylor.

1. The language of Dr. Junkin.

"Now innocence is freedom from guilt, the state and condition of a moral being who has not transgressed. It is rather a negative than a positive quality or condition. Adam, the moment of his creation, was innocent. Righteousness implies positive quality, activity in compliance with law; and if the law prescribed a course, and proposed a reward, the compliance must cover the whole course, the obedience must be entire and positive, in order to its being entitled to the reward. Adam had rectitude of nature and was innocent, but he was not righteous."*

2. The language of Dr. John Taylo

"Adam could not be originally ated in righteousness and true b ness, because habits of holiness c not be created, without our knowles concurrence, or consent; for holin in its nature, implies the choice consent of a moral agent, witl which it cannot be holiness."t

It was against this tenet that Edwards directed the pow of his mighty mind. See Orig. Sin, Part II. Chap. I. Sect Works, Vol. II. p. 406-417. Even John Wesley, in "Original Sin," and Richard Watson, in his "Theologi Institutes," not only refute it, but speak of the principle w the utmost abhorrence. These men, though Arminians, vien the principle as opposed not so much to any particular syste as in direct contravention of the gospel itself.

The earlier history, also, of this sentiment, is sufficient stamp it with suspicion in the minds of Calvinists. Just as expressed in the foregoing quotations, it is almost the ipsisst verba of the Polish Socinians, who flourished contemporaneou with the Reformers. They were the most strenuous as well the ablest opponents of Calvinistic theology that its advocal have ever had to contend with. In proof of the identity of the language with that above quoted, we cite the Confession Faith approved by their churches. It is entitled Compendi lum Socinianismi. The title of Chapter II. is De statu priù hominis ante lapsum, that is, Of man's primitive state befo the fall: and Section I. thus reads: "Our churches teach th Adam was created truly good, and without sin, Gen. i. E cles. vii. Yet not with any original righteousness; seeing the this is perfectly voluntary, and not natural. It is what th

• "Vindication," ut sup.

† "Original Sin."

man might have obtained by obedience if he had wished it, yet the thing itself he had not." *

The reader cannot but be forcibly impressed with the striking contrast between the preceding quotations and the pointed condemnation of both their sentiment and phraseology by the reWormers. We will add only one brief specimen of the kind, from the admirable Syntagma of one of the most celebrated of the Calvinistic reformers. His words are: Damnamus Osiandrum, qui primum hominem ex creatione justum, neque injustum fuisse asseruit: that is, "We condemn Osiander, who asserts that the first man was neither righteous nor unrighteous by creation." Syntag. Tileni. Soc. 33. Thes. 44. p. 211. Osiander's doctrines were expressly written against by Calvin, Ursinus, and all their celebrated orthodox contemporaries.

The remaining two sections of this Article, viz. The Views of the Reformers on Faith and the Active Obedience of Christ, deferred for the want of room in the present No. of the Resitory. They have been prepared with much labor and search, and contain a portion of dogmatic history, which is well suited to exert a corrective influence in some parts of the American churches at the present time.-EDITOR.]

• "Ecclesiae] Docent illum [scil. Adamum] fuisse creatum a Deo bonum quidem et absque vitiis, Gen. i. Eccl. vii. Non tamen cum Miqua originali justitia: cum haec sit perfectio voluntaria, non naturafis, quam homo poterat quidem si voluisset, obediendo comparare ed reipsâ tamen non habebat."

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »