Слике страница
PDF
ePub

real difference in the views of our orthodox divines. They all hold alike, that without the influence of the Spirit the sinner will never turn to God. They all hold alike, that means are necessary, that is, that we have no right to expect conversions without the intervention of the gospel; and they do equally urge upon mankind the use of means, as above explained, i. e. they urge men to look at the truth, and, in view of it, to give their hearts to God,— to "think of their ways and turn unto the Lord." On this topic, then, (although the old theory of a sinful nature back of the will, may still embarrass a few, and slightly modify their views of the way or manner in which the gospel is the power of God unto salvation,) yet there is now a substantial agreement in every thing worth contending for; and as the nature of the human mind, with reference to the subject of accountability, is more closely examined, and as man is contemplated (in relation to the government of God) as a responsible moral agent only in the exercise of choice, the agreement here spoken of, it is believed, will be progressively more and more entire.

3. A further question, incidentally growing out of the general subject before us, is,-When do mankind become sinners? at birth, or before birth, or after birth? On this question there is a little diversity of opinion, but no more, it is thought, than has always existed. By those who think, that sin consists only in voluntary action, and can be predicated only of a moral agent, and does not consist in any essential property of the soul, or in any thing antecedent to moral action, the time when mankind begin to sin, is of course referred to the beginning of moral and accountable action. And, as it is impossible to decide with absolute precision, the exact period when moral, accountable action does begin, they choose to say, that mankind become sinners as soon as they are capable of sinning; and that this capableness of sinning, if it is not at the exact moment of birth, commences so early in their existence, that it is proper for all the great purposes of instruction, to speak of it as existing from the beginning of their days. These are the views of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Fitch. They hold, that man is not only a sinner, just so soon as in the nature of the case he can be, but that this period is "very early." So early, that it is a proper use of language to say, in general terms, "from his birth," leaving, of course, this language to be interpreted by the nature of the case. They do not deny, that it may be true when interpreted strictly, nor do they affirm that it is true as thus interpreted. The exact instant, within the limits already specified, they leave undetermined,-affirming, however, the unfailing certainty, that whether man becomes a moral and accountable being at birth, or after birth, the moment accountable action commences, is the moment when he begins to sin; and that from that moment he continues to sin and

?

them

only to sin, till by special divine interposition, he is arrested in his sinful career and converted to God.

Some, however, dissenting from this view, have chosen to affirm, that man is a sinner literally from birth, if not even from an earlier period. The ground of this affirmation has always till of late been, (as we supposed,) an assumption of a sinful or criminal nature in man, antecedent to moral exercise. This ground, however, seems now to be abandoned, on account, we suppose, of the many insuperable difficulties with which it is embarrassed. The ground has of late been taken, (if we understand the discussions on this subject,) that mankind are literally, at birth, voluntary and accountable agents, and actual sinners against God; that the newborn infant is a responsible subject of God's moral government, and actually sins with a knowledge of its duty, and in the same sense with the adult sinner, violates moral obligation, does wrong, ought to be penitent, and to change its moral character; for a being that can sin, we suppose, can repent when it has sinned, and is in duty bound to do so.

Now, with the correctness or incorrectness of this theory, we have at present nothing to do. We have stated it, only that we might be able to see what is the precise difference between those who hold it, and those who neither affirm nor deny it, but simply say, that man becomes a sinner very early, as early as he becomes an accountable being; and that this is so early as to make it entirely proper to say, in general terms, "from his birth." Now, what is the real amount of difference on this point between the contending parties? Not (as has sometimes been said) that one of the parties supposes mankind to be born holy. This sentiment is equally discarded by all parties. Not that mankind are born without any foundation of moral character, and that they become possessed of such a foundation at some period subsequent to their birth. Not that there is any want of certainty as to what men's moral character will be, as soon as they have a moral character, be that time when it may,-for both parties alike hold that that character will be sinful, and only sinful. Not that Adam's sin has had no influence to secure the occurrence of this result,-for both sides are perfectly agreed in this fact. Not that all men, when sinners, are not justly punishable with eternal death,—and that they must be so punished except as they become interested in Christ. What, then, is the difference which is to cause, and to justify the dissemination of, suspicion, and alarm, and discord, through the churches? Merely this, that some think men sin as soon as they can sin, and that this is certainly very early, may be from their birth, and at all events must be soon after, they do not know so exactly when, as to be sure of the precise point of time. Others think, that they do know, and that this moment is the

exact moment of birth, or when man becomes a living soul. This is precisely the whole difference, while both agree that men sin infallibly as soon as in the nature of things they can, except as prevented by divine grace; and all seem now agreed, (however they may have formerly differed on this point,) that the infant mind, equally with that of the adult, becomes sinful only in the exercise of a free, voluntary, accountable moral agency, and not by the creative power of God. How much, then, is it that the contending writers on this point differ? and how important is the difference?

4. Another point in the discussion relates to the condition of those who die in infancy. The question which is raised concerning them, being,-What becomes of them after death?—are they saved, or are they lost? The opinion of all is, that they are saved; but as to the way in which they are saved, there is some slight difference of opinion. Some suppose that they are saved only through faith and repentance, as adults are, or at least through a change in the essential properties of the soul, which will prepare them to put forth the moral exercises of faith and repentance, as soon as they become capable of it. Others suppose, that if there truly is such a thing as children's dying before moral agency commences, and of course before accountability begins, they may be "saved" in the sense of being prevented from sinning against God, and that this prevention will be for Christ's sake, and as a part of the reward of "the travail of his soul." In such a case, God would lay his hand upon them, in the first opening of their moral powers, as he did on Adam, and, by a sanctifying influence, prepare them for the enjoyments of heaven. Delivered in this way from the natural results of their fallen state, and admitted to the society of the just made perfect, they will cast their crowns at the feet of that Savior, for whose sake alone there is any mercy for a lost race. But, without adopting any decided theory on the subject as to the precise manner in which beings who are not supposed to be moral agents can be saved, they acknowledge that the subject, whichever side be taken, is attended with difficulties. For the moment we become doubtful whether any being (an infant, an idiot, or a maniac,) is an accountable moral agent, we are at a loss, also, what place to assign him under a moral government, which rewards and punishes its subjects according to moral character. If, then, there are beings who pass into eternity before the commencement of moral agency, the ordinary laws of moral government cannot be applied to them on the ground of previous moral character, and we can only leave them in the hands of a just God.

The foregoing are some of the more important questions which have grown out of the original, and at first the only point in debate, to wit, What is the nature of sin? Is it an innate and essential pro

perty of the soul, or is it something which cannot, in the nature of things, exist, except in the exercise of the faculties of an intelligent and voluntary being? On this great leading question, however, there seems now to be a general agreement among reflecting men. Every thing that has the nature of criminality or ill-desert,-call it what you will, taste, disposition, propensity, or nature,-is now almost universally regarded, in New England, as the voluntary act of a moral and accountable being. Many of our southern brethren, however, have been supposed to differ from New England divines on this subject; but, if we understand an able writer of the Presbyterian church, whose work has appeared since these remarks were first penned, the difference is rather in words than in things. This work, entitled a "Review of Spring on Native Depravity," is introduced to the public with very high commendations, by the Rev. Dr. Brownlee, of the Dutch Reformed church, of the city of New-York; and coming with such a sanction, it is certainly entitled to more than ordinary consideration. It is not our purpose to dwell on the former part of it, in which the writer endeavors to show, that Dr. Spring's theory of actual sin from birth, is absurd and erroneous, and totally at war with the principles of the Presbyterian and other reformed churches. We wish rather to call the reader's attention to the account which this writer gives of that propensity or state of the infant soul, out of which actual sin proceeds. In doing this, if we mistake not, he utterly disclaims the idea, that criminality, or moral turpitude, constitutes any part of that state. "Infants," he says, "are born with a sinful propensity, inherited from Adam, which is an effect of the curse pronounced in Eden. They are by nature prone to evil,— by nature depraved,-by nature lost,-by nature under condemnation. This is their state by nature, a state of passive power, naturally but not morally evil." pp. 38, 39. Accordingly, he reasons against Dr. Spring, as to those texts of scripture which have been supposed to imply that infants are the subjects of moral turpitude or depravity, and denies that they can, "in the nature of things, be morally depraved or corrupt." p. 57. And, to show conclusively that he excludes all idea of moral turpitude or criminality from the words "sin," "sinful," "depravity," "iniquity," when applied to infants before moral agency, he carries back this native sin or depravity into the very womb; and says of David's confession, Psalm 51-55, "This sin and iniquity, were before he was born." p. 47. Now, if these are the views of Dr. Brownlee and others, who suppose themselves to differ from the New-Haven divines, the difference is in words, and not in things. Both agree, that infants are born with a propensity to actual sin; that this is a great natural evil, but not criminal; and that moral turpitude consists in the intelligent and voluntary action VOL. V.

84

of a moral being. On this point, the writer believes, all divines of every name are really agreed; for it is the testimony of our moral consciousness, that criminality is inseparably connected with moral agency.

II. The remaining topics in the controversy may be included under the reasons, in view of which God was pleased to permit the existence of sin. What are these reasons? The discussion of this subject was first opened by a note inserted in the before mentioned Concio ad Clerum of Dr. Taylor, as that discourse was printed and given to the public,-for it was not in the sermon as preached. It was thrown out to the religious public in that form, as a mere suggestion respecting a possible method of accounting for the introduction of sin, without adopting the theory, "that sin is a necessary means of the greatest good." At that time an attempt was making in the city of New York, to establish the doctrines of atheism;-an attempt, we may add, which, in respect to the number, the talents, and the zeal of those engaged in it, and in respect to many other and incidental favoring causes, was, probably, the most powerful and best concerted ever made in this country, to infuse the poison of infidelity into the very heart of the nation. One of the positions publicly taken and widely circulated, by means of printed cards, and in other modes, was thus stated: "Sin exists,-Could God have prevented it? If he could, and did not, where is his benevolence? If he could not, where is his omnipotence? Who can answer this?" The inference for the reader to form, was this: There cannot be an infinitely powerful and benevolent being, or he would have prevented The whole strength of modern universalism, it is well known, is made to rest on the same basis, as exhibited in the following short argument: God, as a benevolent being, desires the final happiness of all men. God, as an omnipotent being, has power to accomplish the final happiness of all men. All men, therefore, will at length find themselves happy. Besides these, the reasonings of various other classes of enemies to divine truth, were built on the assumption, that God permits sin for the sake of making a happier system by it, when it could easily have been kept out of the system, and that therefore it is a "good thing" in its place, even the "best thing" that could be put there, as the means to an end. And if so, why should we wish to remove it? A God of infinite benevolence and power, (if there be such a being, the atheist would add,) will take care himself of the happiness of his system. Why should we wish to interfere with it, and especially to destroy that in the system, which is "the necessary means of the greatest good?" If sin is necessary to this end, surely we ought not to try to get rid of it, either in ourselves or others.

« ПретходнаНастави »