Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

dered spiritual, furnishes an easy and constant view of things. To which I answer, If the carnality of the mind were owing to its darkness, it would be so. But Mr. M. has himself told us a different tale, and that from unquestionable authority. "Our Lord," he says, "asks the Jews, Why do ye not understand my speech? and gives this reason for it, even because ye cannot hear my word; that is, cannot endure my doctrine." Works, Vol. II. P. 110.

Now, if this be just, (and who can controvert it ?) it is not easy to conceive how light introduced into the mind should be capable of removing carnality. It is easy to conceive of the removal of an effect by the removal of the cause, but not of the removal of a cause by the removal of the effect.

But, whatever difference may remain as to the order of operation, the idea of a previous principle is held by Mr. M. as much as by his opponent. Only call it "divine illumination, by which the dark and carnal mind is rendered spiritual," and he believes

it.

In endeavouring to show the unfairness of the contradiction which I alleged against him, Mr. M. loses himself and his reader, by representing it as made to the act of the Holy Spirit in imparting spiritual light to the soul while carnal, whereas that which I alleged against him respected the act of the creature in discerning and believing spiritual things while such. If God's communicating either light or holiness to a dark and carnal mind be a contradiction, it is of Mr. M's framing, and not mine: but I see no contradiction in it, so that it be in the natural order of things, any more than in his " quickening us when we were dead in trespass. es and sins," which phraseology certainly does not denote that we are dead and alive at the same time! The contradiction alleged consisted in the carnal mind's being supposed to act spiritually, and not to its being acted upon by divine influence, let that influence be what it might. It would be no contradiction to say of Tabitha, that life was imparted to her while dead: but it would be contradiction to affirm that while she was dead God caused her to open her eyes, and to look upon Peter!

Mr. M'Lean has, I allow, cleared himself of this contradiction, by admitting the sinner to be made spiritual through divine illuVOL. III.

55

mination, previously to his believing in Christ; but then it is at the expense of the grand article in dispute, which he has thereby given up; maintaining, as much as his opponent, the idea of a previous principle, or of the soul's being rendered spiritual antecedently to its believing in Christ.

The principal ground on which Mr. M'Lean, Mr. Ecking, and all the writers on that side the question, rests their cause is, the use of such language as the following: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever.-Of his own will begat he us, WITH THE WORD OF TRUTH.-I have begotten you THROUGH THE

GOSPEL.

On this phraseology, I shall submit to you and the reader two or three observations:

First: A being begotten, or born again by the word, does not necessarily signify a being regenerated by faith in the word. Faith itself is ascribed to the word as well as regeneration: for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God: but if we say faith cometh by the word believed, that is the same as saying that it cometh by itself. Mr. M. has no idea of the word having any influence but as it is believed :* yet he tells us that faith is "the effect of the regenerating influence of the Spirit and word of God."† But if faith be the effect of the word believed, it must be the effect of itself. The truth is, the word may operate as an inducement to believe, as well as a stimilus to a new life when it is believed.

Secondly The terms, regeneration, begotten, born again, &c. are not always used in the same extent of meaning. They sometimes denote the whole of that change which denominates us Christians, and which of course includes repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ; and in this sense the foregoing passages are easily understood. But the question is, whether regen. eration, or those terms by which it is expressed in the scriptures, such as being begotten, born again, quickened, &c. be not sometimes used in the strictest sense. Mr. M. confining what I had said on the subject of regeneration as expressed by being begotten, born again, &c. to the term itself, is " confident it bears no such + Ibid p. 113.

* Reply, pp. 16-34.

meaning in the sacred writings." (p. 17.) But if a being born again, which is expressive of regeneration, be sometimes used to account for faith, as a cause for its effect, that is all which the argument requires to be established. If it be necesssary to be born again in order to believing, we cannot in this sense, unless the effect could be the means of producing the cause, be born again by believing. Whether this be the case, let the following passages determine.

John i. 11-13.-He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, EVEN to them that believe on his name : which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. I can conceive of no reason why the new birth is here introduced but to account for some receiving Christ, or believing on his name, while others received him not. Calvin appears to have ordinarily considered regeneration in the large sense as stated above and therefore speaks of it as an effect of faith. Yet, when commenting on this passage, perceiving that it is here introduced to account for faith, he writes thus: "Hereupon it followeth, first, that faith proceedeth not from us, but that it is a fruit of spiritual regeneration; for the evangelist saith (in effect) that no man can believe unless he be begotten of God; therefore faith is an heavenly gift. Secondly: That faith is not a cold and bare knowledge: seeing none can believe but that he is fashioned again by the Spirit of God. Notwithstanding, it seemeth that the Evangelist dealeth disorderly in putting regeneration before 'faith, seeing that it is rather an effect of faith, and therefore to be set after it.” To this objection he answers, that "both may very well agree," and goes on to expound the subject of regeneration as sometimes denoting the producing of faith itself, and sometimes of a new life by faith.

John iii. 3.-Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. On this passage, Dr. Campbell, in his notes, is very particular, proving that by the kingdom or reign of God, is meant that Messiah in this world; and that ou duvara (cannot) denotes the incapacity of the unregenerate to discern and believe the gospel. The import of this passage is, in his apprehension,

this--" The man who is not regenerated, or born again of water and Spirit, is not in a capacity of perceiving the reign of God, though it were commenced. Though the kingdom of the saints on the earth were already established, the unregenerate would not discern it, because it is a spiritual, not a worldly kingdom, and capa. ble of being no otherwise than spiritually discerned. And, as the kingdom itself would remain unknown to him, he could not share in the blessings enjoyed by the subjects of it.-The same sentiment occurs in 1 Cor. ii. 14."

1 Cor. ii. 14. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spritually discerned. Mr. M. in his Discourses on the Parable of the Sower, says, "It is a doctrine clearly taught in the scriptures, that none have a true understanding of the gospel but such as are taught of God by the special illuminating influences of the Holy Spirit. We are expressly told that The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. And in answering an objector, who asks, “What particular truth or sentiment is communicated to the mind by the enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit, and which unenlightened men can have no idea of?" Mr. M. says

It is not pleaded that any truth or sentiment is communica. ted to the mind by the Spirit besides what is already clearly revealed in the word; and the illumination of the Spirit IS TO MAKE MEN

PERCEIVE AND UNDERSTAND THAT REVELATION WHICH IS ALREADY ""* GIVEN IN ITS TRUE LIGHT.

Mr. M.'s object through this whole paragraph, seems to be to prove that the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit is necessary in order to our understanding the scriptures; but if so, it cannot be by the scriptures as understood that we are thus illuminated, for this were a contradiction. It cannot be by any particular truth or sentiment, revealed any more than unrevealed, that we possess eyes to see, ears to hear, or a heart to understand" it. If the illuminating influence of the Holy Spirit consisted in imparting any

[ocr errors]

*Sermons, pp. 78. 80, 81,

particular truth or sentiment to the mind, even that which is revealed in the scriptures, where would be the mystery of the opeeration? Instead of being compared to the operations of the wind, of which we know nothing but by its effects,* it might have been ranked among the operations of motives as suggested by man to man, or at least, as put into the mind by the providence of God so ordering it that such thoughts should strike and influence the mind at the time. But this would not answer to the scriptural accounts of our being quickened who were dead in sins, by the power of God; even by the exceeding greatness of his power, according to that which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead.

Mr. M. has taken great pains to show the absurdity of my reasoning on this subject; yet the sum of it is this, That which is necessary in order to understanding and believing the word, cannot be by means of understanding and believing it.

All true knowledge of divine things is, no doubt to be ascribed to the word as the objective cause, the same way as corporeal perception is ascribed to light. We cannot see without light; neither can we understand or believe spiritual things but by the word of God. But the question does not relate to what is objective, but subjective; or, if I might speak in reference to what is corporeal, not to light, but discernment. Mr. Ecking speaks of light shining into a dark room, and of the absurdity of supposing there must be some principles of light in this room which disposed it to receive that which shone into it. (p. 68.) But if by the light he mean the gospel, he should rather have compared it to light shining upon a blind man, and have shown the absurdity, if he could, of supposing it necessary for his eyes to be opened ere he could discern or enjoy it. There is nothing in a dark room to resist the light, but that is not the case with the dark soul of a sinner. The light shineth in darkness, but the darkness comprehendeth (or, as Campbell renders it, admitteth) it not.

* Such is the meaning of John iii. 8. according to Campbell, and all other expositors that I have seen.

↑ Ezra vii. 27.

« AnteriorContinuar »