Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

written by Mr. Johnson of Liverpool, fell in my way, containing sentiments different from those of the generality of writers, to whom I had been accustomed to look up with respect. Though I was not at that time competent to form a judgment on such subjects: yet they being in a manner forced upon me, I was obliged to do as well as I could.

"As to the pre-existence of Christ's human soul, it seemed to me in itself a strange conceit, and such as I should never have thought of in reading the scriptures. The texts on which it was founded seemed to be forced into the service, especially the eighth of Proverbs, and Psalm cxxxix. 15, 16. and though some who professed to believe in the divinity of Christ were partial to the notion, yet I suspected it was invented to undermine that important doctrine. I found one of the principal arguments alleged for it was, that as God was one, without a being of a different nature from himself, there could have been no council of peace, relative to the salvation of men. But this I perceived went to deny the eternity of the divine counsels, which would be nearly equal to denying a God: for a being without counsel, purpose, or design were no God.

"Concerning the Sonship of Christ I had more hesitation. I conversed with my friend Diver upon it, who was favourable to Mr.

Allen's idea; namely, That Christ is called the Son of God, not as a divine person, but as assuming human nature, and being both God and man. He, however, very generously advised me to read the New Testament, with an eye to the question, and to observe as I went along, whether in any instance where Christ is represented as the Son of God, it respected him as a divine person, antecedent to his incarnation; and whether the scripture name for Christ's pre-incarnate person was not the WORD, rather than the Son of God?

"In reading and thinking on the subject, I met with the following passages, which appeared to me to admit of no other fair interpretation, than that which I was invited to reject. John v. 18. Gal. iv. 4. Heb. i. 8. v. 8, 9 and 1 John iii. 8. By looking into my volume of Essays, p. 169, you will perceive these to be the principal grounds of my present sentiments on this subject.

"The peculiar opinions of Mr. Johnson laid faster hold of me. There was something imposing in his manner, by which a young and inexperienced reader is apt to be carried away. His denial of God's having decreed to permit sin, and his notion of the purposes of grace being executed upon the elect, even though sin had never intervened, much entangled me. It seemed as if he were concerned to vindicate his Creator from being the author of sin; and

[ocr errors]

in this view, I could not but approve: but on the other hand, his scheme appeared to have no foundation in the scriptures, as all the grace given us in Christ Jesus supposed the intervention of sin. And respecting the decree to permit sin, I was one day conversing with a friend upon it, who observed, 'It is a fact, is it not, that God has permitted sin? and can it be a reproach to his character that he should decree to do what he has done?'

"This remark carried conviction to my mind, I saw that if there were any thing inconsistent with the divine perfections in the affair, it must be in permitting evil, and not in the decree to permit it. If the one were right the other could not be wrong, unless it were wrong to determine to do what is right. But to say that it is wrong for God to permit evil, is either to arraign the divine conduct, or to maintain that evil exists without being permitted. I perceived, too, that Mr. Johnson availed himself of the ambiguity of the word permit, and because it signifies on some occasions to give leave, would have it thought that God could not be said to permit it. After this I thought but little more of it, but rested in this, The Judge of all the earth will do right!

"In reviewing some of these questions, which occupied my attention at so early a period, I have seen reason to bless God for

preserving me at a time when my judgment was so immature. When I have seen the zeal which has been expended in maintaining some such peculiarities, I have thought it a pity. They have appeared to me as a sort of spiritual narcotics, for which when a man once gets a taste, he will prefer them to the most wholesome food. It was in recollection of these things that I lately wrote in an Essay on Truth as follows:- A man who chews opium or tobacco, may prefer them to the most wholesome food, and may derive from them pleasure, and even vigour for a time; but his pale countenance, and debilitated constitution will soon bear witness to the folly of spending his money for that which is not bread.'

A. F."

K

in this view, I could not but approve: but on the other hand, his scheme appeared to have no foundation in the scriptures, as all the grace given us in Christ Jesus supposed the intervention of sin. And respecting the decree to permit sin, I was one day conversing with a friend upon it, who observed, 'It is a fact, is it not, that God has permitted sin? and can it be a reproach to his character that he should decree to do what he has done?'

"This remark carried conviction to my mind, I saw that if there were any thing inconsistent with the divine perfections in the affair, it must be in permitting evil, and not in the decree to permit it. If the one were right the other could not be wrong, unless it were wrong to determine to do what is right. But to say that it is wrong for God to permit evil, is either to arraign the divine conduct, or to maintain that evil exists without being permitted. I perceived, too, that Mr. Johnson availed himself of the ambiguity of the word permit, and because it signifies on some occasions to give leave, would have it thought that God could not be said to permit it. After this I thought but little more of it, but rested in this, The Judge of all the earth will do right!

"In reviewing some of these questions, which occupied my attention at so early a period, I have seen reason to bless God for

« AnteriorContinuar »