Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

writers of the party, and probably not among those who have written at all.

Thirdly, Let it be considered, Whether Dr. Priestley's own views of Philosophical Necessity do not amount to the same thing as those which he alleges to the discredit of Calvinism; or, if he will insist upon the contrary, whether he must not contradict himself, and maintain a system, which, by his own confession, is less friendly to piety and humility than that which he opposes. A state of unregeneracy is considered by Calvinists as the same thing which Dr. Priestley describes as "the state of a person who sins with a full consent of will, and who, disposed as he is, is under an impossibility of acting otherwise; but who," as he justly maintains, "is nevertheless accountable, even though that consent be produced by the efficacy and unconquerable influence of motives. It is only," continues he, "where the necessity of sinning arises from some other cause than a man's own disposition of mind, that we ever say, there is an impropriety in punishing a man for his conduct. If the impossibility of acting well has arisen from a bad disposition, or habit, its having been impossible, with that disposition or habit, to act virtuously, is never any reason for our forbearing punishment; because we know that punishment is proper to correct that disposition and that habit."* Now, if it be consistent to punish a man for necessary evil, as Dr. Priestley abundantly maintains, why should it be inconsistent to exhort, persuade, reason, or expostulate with him; and why does he call those Calvinists "the most consistent," who avoid such addresses to their auditors? If the thoughts, words, and actions of unregenerate men, being necessarily sinful," be a just reason why they should not have exhortations addressed to them, the whole doctrine of Necessity must be inconsistent with the use of means, than which nothing can be more contrary to truth, and to Dr. Priestley's own views of things.

As to our being passive in regeneration, if Dr. Priestley would only admit, that any one character could be found that is so depraved as to be destitute of all true virtue, the same thing would fol

* Doctrine of Necessity, pp. 63-65.

low from his own Necessarian principles. According to those principles, every man who is under the dominion of a vicious habit of mind, will continue to choose vice, till such time as that habit be changed, and that, by some influence without himself. "If," says he, "I make any particular choice to-day, I should have done the same yesterday, and should do the same to-morrow, provided there be no change in the state of my mind respecting the object of the choice."* Now, can any person in such a state of mind be supposed to be active in the changing of it; for such activity must imply an inclination to have it changed; which is a contradiction, as it supposes him at the same time under the dominion of evil, and inclined to goodness?

But, possibly, Dr. Priestley will not admit that any one character can be found, who is utterly destitute of true virtue. Be it so: he must admit that, in some characters, vice has an habitual ascendancy: but the habitual ascendancy of vice as certainly determines the choice, as even a total depravity. A decided majority in parliament carry every measure with as much certainty as if there were no minority. Wherever vice is predominant, (and in no other case is regeneration needed,) the party must necessarily be passive in the first change of his mind in favor of virtue.

But there are seasons in the life of the most vicious men, in which their evil propensities are at a lower ebb than usual; in which conscience is alive, and thoughts of a serious nature arrest their attention.. At these favorable moments, it may be thought that virtue has the advantage of its opposite, and that this is the time for a person to become active in effecting a change upon his own mind. Without inquiring whether there be any real virtue in all this, it is sufficient to observe, that, if we allow the whole of what is pleaded for, the objection destroys itself. For it supposes that, in order to a voluntary activity in favor of virtue, the mind must first be virtuously disposed, and that by something in which it was passive; which is giving up the point in dispute.

Dr. Priestly often represents "a change of disposition and character as being effected only by a change of conduct, and that of

* Doctrine of Necessity, p. 7.

long continuance."* But, whatever influence a course of virtuous actions may have upon the disposions, and however it may tend to establish us in the habit of doing good, all goodness of disposition cannot arise from this quarter. There must have been a disposisition to good, and one too that was sufficiently strong to outweigh its opposite, ere a course of virtuous actions could be commenced; for virtuous action is nothing but the effect, or expression, of virtuous disposition. To say that this previous disposition was also produced by other previous actions, is only carrying the matter a little farther out of sight; for, unless it can be proved, that virtuous action may exist prior to, and without all virtuous disposition, let the one be carried back as far as it may, it must still have been preceded by the other, and, in obtaining the preceding disposition, the soul must necessarily have been passive.†

Dr. Priestley labours hard to overthrow the doctrine of immediate divine agency, and contends that all divine influence upon the human mind is through the medium of second causes, or according to the established laws of nature. "If moral impressions were made upon men's minds by immediate divine agency, to what end,” he asks," has been the whole apparatus of revealed religion?"‡ This, in effect, is saying, that if there be laws for such an operation upon the human mind, every kind of influence upon it must be through the medium of those laws; and that, if it be otherwise, there is no need of the use of means. But might he not as well allege, that, if there be laws by which the planets move, every kind of influence upon them must have been through the medium

* Doctrine of Necessity, p. 156.

+ Since the publication of the second edition of these Letters, it has been suggested by a friend, that there is no necessity for confining these observations to the case of a man totally depraved, or of one under the habitual ascendancy of vice: for that, according to Dr. Priestley's Necessarian principles, all volitions are the effects of motives: therefore every man, in every volition, as he is the subject of the influence of motive, operating as a cause, is passive; equally so, as he is supposed to be, according to the Calvinistic system, in regeneration.

Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 221.

of those laws; and deny, that the Divine Being immediately, and prior to the operation of the laws of nature, put them all in motion? Might he not as well ask, If an immediate influence could be exercised in setting the material system in motion, of what use are all the laws of nature, by which it is kept in motion? Whatever laws attend the movements of the material system, the first creation of it is allowed to have been by an immediate exertion of divine power. God said, Let there be light, and there was light; and why should not the second creation be the same? I say the second creation; for the change upon the sinner's heart is represented as nothing less in the divine word; and the very manner of its being effected, is expressed in language which evidently alludes to the first creation-God, who commanded the light to shine out of dark- ` ness, hath shined into our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ. Not only scripture, but reason itself, teaches the necessity for such an immediate divine interposition in the changing of a sinner's heart. If a piece of machinery (suppose the whole material system,) were once in a state of disorder, the mere exercise of those laws by which it was ordained to move, would never bring it into order again; but, on the contrary, would drive it on farther and farther to everalsting confusion.

As to election, Dr. Priestley cannot consistently maintain his scheme of Necessity without admitting it. If, as he abundantly maintains, God is the author of every good disposition in the human heart; and if, as he also in the same section maintains, God, in all that he does, pursues one plan, or system, previously concerted; it must follow, that wherever good dispositions are produced, and men are finally saved, it is altogether in consequence of the appointment of God; which, as to the present argument, is the same thing as the Calvinistic doctrine of election.

So plain a consequence is this from Dr. Priestley's Necessarian principles, that he himself, when writing his Treatise on that subject, could not forbear to draw it. "Our Saviour," he says, seems to have considered the rejection of the gospel by those

[blocks in formation]

[LETTER VI. who boasted of their wisdom,* and the reception of it by the more despised part of mankind, as being the consequence of the express appointment of God: At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes ; even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight." To the same purpose, in the next page but one, he observes, that God is considered as "the sovereign disposer, both of gospel privileges here, and future happiness hereafter, as appears in such passages as 2 Thess. ii. 13. God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."

:

If there be any difference between that election which is involved in Dr. Priestley's own scheme, and that of the Calvinists, it must consist, not in the original appointment, or in the certainty of the event, but in the intermediate causes or reasons which induced the Deity to fix things in the manner that he has done and it is doubtful whether even this can be admitted. It is true, Dr. Priestley, by his exclamations against unconditional election, would seem to maintain, that, where God hath appointed a sinner to obtain salvation, it is on account of his foreseen virtue: and he may plead, that such an election is favorable to virtue, as making it the ground, or procuring cause of eternal felicity; while an election that is altogether unconditional, must be directly the reverse. But let it be considered, in the first place, Whether such a view of election as this does not clash with the whole tenor of scripture, which teaches us that we are saved and called with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to the divine purpose and grace given us in Christ Jesus before the world began-Not of works, lest any man should boast. At this time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more

* Query, Were not these the rational religionists of that age?
+ Doctrine of Necessity, pp. 140-142.

Considerations on Difference in Religious Opinious, § III.

« AnteriorContinuar »