Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

But the argument, if admitted, proves too much. If the fallibility of my understanding is a reason why I should exclude no person from my charity who bears the christian name, it is as good a reason why I should look with indulgence on the grosser errors of infidelity. If the deist, who rejects revelation entirely, should assert his claim to my charity as a candidate for heaven, I should on this sweeping principle, have nothing to say. He might tell me that the human intellect is weak and imperfect, and that he is as liable to be right in rejecting revelation, as I in receiving it; and might call me intolerant and arrogant, if I were to withhold from him my charity. Surely that argument must be unsound which annihilates the difference between christianity and infidelity.

2. Another argument which the advocates of a universal catholicism urge with great confidence, and which is closely connected with the preceding, is founded on the alleged obscurity of scripture. These doctrines, say they, if revealed at all, are so indistinctly taught, that it would be unreasonable to make them a condition of christian fellowship. If God had intended this, doubtless they would have been revealed so clearly, that every one would have felt the evidence to be irresistible.'

We We are not disposed to deny that there are some things in scripture which we do not fully understand; that there are insulated passages, concerning which we can only conjecture the meaning; and we are willing even to grant that on the minor parts of christian faith, which have no immediate bearing on the essential doctrines of religion, there may be a difference of opinion, growing out of actual obscurity. But to make this concession in regard to any of the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, would be a palpable absurdity; for it is as gross a reflection on the character of God to suppose that he should make a revelation so obscure and indistinct that we could

not by the proper use of our faculties understand it, in respect to its prominent and commanding features, as it would be to say that he has not accommodated our intellect to the truth which he requires us to receive. Such conduct, instead of being conformable to our notions of the divine goodness, would present our merciful Father, in the attitude of making a most unreasonable and unjust requisition.

The charge of obscurity, however, in regard to the important truths of religion, has no foundation in fact. We do not hesitate to say that the language in which these doctrines are revealed, is as unexceptionable and unequivocal, as any language that could have been chosen. We remember an instance in which a student of theology, who had doubted concerning an important doctrine of scripture, told his instructor that if that doctrine were true, it was so important, he was sure it must have been revealed in a more direct man

ner.

What language would you have chosen, answered the instructor, more direct than the language of scripture. He then repeated a form of words in which he thought that the doctrine could not be evaded. Very well,' replied the instructor, you have hit upon the Apostle's own words.' The young man looking wild and disconcerted said, 'But what do you suppose the Apostle meant? Why I have always been accustomed,' answered the venerable clergyman, 'to suppose that he meant as he said.' It is worthy of remark, moreover, not only that the passages of scripture which contain any important doctrine are sufficiently explicit, but they are numerous enough we should suppose to satisfy the most unreasonable. No one of the leading truths of scripture is found only in a single passage, so that if we have made one passage yield to the arts of criticism, we have a multitude more staring us in the face, all of which must be despatched before the offensive doctrine can be exterminated.

3. The plea for universal charity is often made on the ground of the sufficiency of the scriptures as a rule of faith. It is said that all christians agree in believing the bible to be the word of God; and that it is arrogant in any one to make his particular interpretation of scripture, the standard to which all others must conform in order to be entitled to his christian charity.

We wish it distinctly understood that we are not among those who advocate the most rigid terms of christian communion. We do not believe that the formularies and standards of our churches ought to comprise any thing more than a general outline of the christian system. But the question whether we have a right to demand as a pre-requisite for christian fellowship any explicit declaration of faith, beyond a general belief in revelation, is identified with another question, whether we have a right to know the religious sentiments of those with whom we associate in christian ordinances. That we have a right to this knowledge, seems to us clear from the fact that some degree of it is essential to christian communion. A man who holds the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, and attaches to them their due importance, can have no more communion with one who professedly rejects them, than light has with darkness. Communion implies a union of sentiment and feeling; but in the case supposed there is neither. If then, we have a right to know the sentiments of those whom we admit to our christian fellowship, we have a right to demand an explicit declaration of them; and we have a right to presume that they use language in the sense which common usage has affixed to it. The man who spurns the great and fundamental doctrine of atonement is as ready to declare his belief in the bible as the most correct and evangelical christian; and can it be a question whether I have a right to be informed of his creed, when he pre

sents his claim to my christian charity?

To illustrate the fallacy of this argument, let us suppose the following case. I have a friend who is professedly a deist, and rejects the bible as a mere forgery. He practices many of the social virtues, is candid in his external deportment, and in short, is what the world calls a strictly moral man. He has been accustomed to contemplate the perfections of God as they are displayed in the natural world, to admit the doctrine of providence, and to think and speak reverently of the divine character. Still he has the bible in his hands and deliberately rejects it as the work of an impostor. None of us who believe the bible ourselves would venture to say that such a man is fit for heaven. We could not but feel that he is condemned already. demned already. I have another friend whose external conduct is equally exemplary with that of the infidel, and he moreover professes to believe the Bible to be the word of God; but he finds in it no traces of the doctrine of atonement, or of the influence of the Spirit in renewing the heart, or of any of those commanding truths by which christianity is chiefly distinguished from natural religion. Now if I subtract the difference between these two characters, all that remains in favour of the professed christian is a vague assent to the truth of the Bible, which when I come to analyze it, amounts to nothing. And yet if the argument which I am considering be good, I am to receive the latter to my bosom as a christian, and to declare to the former that he can have no place within the arms of my charity. If the infidel should complain of me for partiality, and for making a distinction where there was no difference, I could only tell him that I was tied up to liberal maxims which would not allow me to do otherwise.

We cannot but think that it is an abuse of language, as well as a departure from strict honesty, for a man to assume the christian name, who

rejects the doctrines of the christian religion. Who would not say that that philosopher was convicted of absurdity who should call himself a disciple of Locke or Newton, because he believed that this is Locke's or Newton's book, and yet should reject all that was peculiar in their respective systems? Would it not be equally absurd for me to call myself a christian if I, while acknowledging the Bible to be the word of God, should reject the doctrines it contains ?

4. It is said that the differences among christians are unimportant; and that it is giving too much weight to them to make them the occasion of our withholding christian fellowship. That there are differences of opinion among christians that are unimportant, we are ready to admit; and we would be among the last to make any slight differences, the ground of withholding any mark of christian affection. But the universal catholicism of which we speak, regards with equal lenity, the slightest deviation, and the widest departure from truth. It looks with as much complacency on the man who under

mines the foundation of the christian fabric, as upon him who defaces a little, some unimportant part of the superstructure. It either admits the sweeping conclusion that there are no fundamental doctrines in the gospel, or else it is chargeable with the inconsistency of recognising that mau as à christian who openly rejects them. If the former be true, that there are no fundamental doctrines in our religion, then the gospel is annihilated, for it is absurd to suppose a superstructure without a foundation. If we admit the latter part of the alternative, viz. that a man may be a christian and still deny the fundamental doctrines of the christian religion, besides being reasonably taxed with an absurdity, we make christianity and infidelity words of the same meaning. The melancholy truth is, and we regret that we are obliged to state it, that some of the differences at the present day do respect the very vitals

of our religion. One important question that is pending at the tribunal of public opinion, respects the very foundation of the christian's hope. It is whether Jesus Christ actually made an atonement for the sins of men, or whether he died merely to set us an example of pious submission. The fact then, that is assumed in the argument which I am considering does not exist. Then differences are important; and if we extend our charity to all without discrimination, it must cover some, who to say the least, are within sight of the hideous gulf of infidelity.

5. Another argument by which the plea of universal charity is supported is founded on the maxim that it is no matter what a man believes, provided his life be good.' There is so obviously an absurdity on the very face of this maxim, that we should almost be ashamed to attempt to refute it, if it were not so commonly urged, and particularly if we had not heard it repeated with considerable confidence by a liberal gentleman who occupies one of the most distinguished clerical stations in our country.

If by a good life' here be intended only a discharge of our common, social obligations, an observance of those maxims by which the intercourse of society is regulated, then we admit that there is no necessary connection between a correct faith, and a good life. A man, for aught we know, may be as punctual in the payment of his debts, as much given to hospitality and many other social virtues, who should adopt the grossest system of error, or even be a downright infidel, as the man who believes and attaches its due importance to ev ery article of christian doctrine. But to say nothing of the motives and principles which lie at the foundation of this 'good life,' let us see whether the maxim thus understood, reflects the highest honour upon the character of God. It supposes either that he is so weak and short-sighted as not to inspect the operations of the heart, or else, that he has made a

compromise with the sinner that his law and character may be treated with contempt, provided the tongue and feet and hands are moved in such a manner that the rights of society shall not be invaded. Who would not tremble to admit an inference which should exhibit the jealous and heart-searching God, in such an attitude?

But

lence, and from compassion to his pressing necessities; but you could not be in the strict sense his bosom friend, or discharge the duties of such a friendship, if you had no evidence concerning his character. Equally necessary is it that we should have that evidence concerning the character of God and our relations to him, which is revealed in the Bible, in order to our discharging the duties which are required of us. The duties, we repeat it, are founded upon the doctrines; and if we reject the latter, or regard them with indifference it is idle to talk about giving heed to the former.

There is another view to be taken of this subject which will confirm the remark we have just made. All will admit that that man's life cannot be good who lives in a deliberate and constant violation of any of God's commandments. Now the very fact that God has given us a revelation, implies a command that we should receive its doctrines; for the supposition that we are at liberty to receive them or not, would be to charge the Most High with trifling. But he has explicitly and pointedly commanded us to receive the record which he has given us of his Son; that is, to believe the truths which are revealed to us in the gospel. If therefore, the maxim be true, that it is no matter what a man believes provided his life be good, it follows that a good life may consist with a deliberate violation of the commandments of God.

But we believe that more than this is frequently meant by those who contend for a good life,' as superseding the necessity of christian faith. They include in it not only the duties which we owe to each other, but the higher duties which we owe to God. let us see whether the maxim appears any more consistent, in the light of this explanation. Among the most important duties which we owe to God, are those which grow out of the peculiar relations between him and us, which are made known to us exclusively in the Bible. Now if we believe not the only record in which these peculiar relations are revealed or what is the same thing, if we do not believe the great doctrines of scripture, how are we to practice those duties which grow immediately out of them. If for instance, I believe that I am not a sinner, how can I discharge the very first duty which God requires of me, viz. repentance? Or if I am convinced that Jesus Christ has made no atonement, how shall I in any measure discharge the debt of gratitude which I owe to God, by thankfully and cordially availing myself of it. It will help us to detect the fallacy of this maxim, if we apply Besides, does not this maxim anit in a case which is more level to our nihilate the importance of revelation, comprehension. Only conceive what and cast a blot upon the character of would be necessary to enable you God, in having given it to us? If it faithfully to discharge the duties of a is no matter what a man believes, it friend. Before you could admit any is no matter whether he believes the one to your heart, you would feel as Bible to be a Divine Revelation or if it were necessary that you should not; or in other words, it is no mathave some knowledge of his character whether he be a christan or an inter; else there would be nothing on which a friendship could be founded. You might perform acts of kindness and hospitality towards him, from a general obligation of benevo

fidel; for all that distinguishes the
christian and infidel viz. a belief, or
disbelief of the gospel is on this
principle, entirely unimportant.
If it be said that none are entitled

to the comforts of this liberal maxim, except those who profess a general belief in the divinity of scripture, here again we cannot but put in a word in favour of the claims of the infidel. We insist upon it, and we think we have made it appear under a former head, that the whole difference between some who nominally admit the bible to be a divine revelation, and those who utterly deny its authenticity consists in words. At any rate, if the infidel chooses to claim the charity of the liberal christian on the ground of this very convenient maxim, we know of no reasonable way in which the claim can be evaded. (To be concluded.)

[blocks in formation]

In the chapter before us, the Apostle states at large the reasons why Christ, as Mediator, took upon himself human nature, and like man was made a little lower than the angels. It was that he might be capacitated to obey the law, and suffer its penalty, in our stead. But the atonement consisted principally in suffering. Hence his people are said to be "sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all;" and in the context it is stated that "it became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." In order therefore to suffer for sin, he assumed our nature, or in other words "a true body and a reasonable soul." In this sense both he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified are all of one, and are brethren.

Omitting other considerations suggested by the text, we shall show that believers are related to Christ, and then contemplate some of the properties of this relation.

I. Believers are related to Christ. In some respects both he and they are on a common standing as members of the same family, for he is not ashamed to call them brethren.

1. They are all of one Heavenly Father, and are called sons. Christ is called the Son of God in regard to his official character as Mediator; John x. 37, and also in reference to his miraculous conception, Luke i. 35. Saints also are sons of God by virtue of their regeneration, their adoption, and their union to Christ by faith.

2. They are all of one earthly father, Adam. As all the inhabitants of the world are brethren, being the descendants of one common parent; so Christ himself, being descended from the same origin, is the brother of us all, in a physical sense, and this is the relationship chiefly intended in the text, as is evident from the ex

planation given in the succeeding ver

ses. "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren."

3. Believers are Christ's brethren, because they are all to share with him in the blessings of the heavenly inheritance. Being children of the same Father, they are heirs to the same eternal patrimony. In this manner the Apostle reasons. "If children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Nor does Christ himself disown the kindred, for in his intercessory prayer he desires the Father to treat them as his fellow-heirs. "Father I will that they also, whom thou hast given me be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me." And he promises "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

« AnteriorContinuar »