« PrécédentContinuer »
least some countenance given to it 136, 137.] And, if the world is in Matt. xix. 28. But our motive condemned by you, are ye unfit for in introducing this specimen of Dr. the least causes? Know ye not that Whately's reasoning is to shew in one we shall condemn angels ?” [This instance, what occasionally happens is certainly future.)
is certainly future.] -“ How much to him in others, that, having con- more temporal causes?”–Our readfuted an error, or at least displayed ers will hardly think the difficulty in strong colours his reasons for ex- removed, or the sense mended, by ploding a particular sentiment, he this new construction. forgets to examine whether his own Dr. Whately, as we have seen, does explanation will better endure the not undertake to decide positively as test. Thus, after much and ingenious to the intermediate condition of the argumentation on the difficult passage soul, but merely professes to shew, referred to, he comes to this con- that clusion, founded, he says, on a close “ Each of the two opinions, however, examination of the context:
has been held by able and pious men;
and I am convinced that a person may be “ The most reasonable interpretation, blameless in point of faith, whichever of therefore, of this passage seems to be that them he inclines to, provided he do not which was adopted by the most ancient speak too positively on so obscure a point, divines (namely, Chrysostom and others); or demand the assent of others, where the to whom the more attention is due in a Scriptures do not speak, or, at least, do question of this kind, because they used not speak decidedly.” pp. 45, 46. the Greek language, in which Paul wrote,
Yet we find Dr. Whately himself and were accustomed probably to the use of the same words in the same sense in drawing inferences with respect to which he employs them. They under- the final condition of the blessed, stand the Apostle to mean by the word from incidental notices in Scripture, which we translate · judge,' the same as condemn.'
with quite as much confidence as Any one who takes the right course, by so doing, condemns,--in those do who contend against a susthe New Testament language, judges,' pension of sense during the interval. those who, with equal opportunities, For instance: upon the doctrine that choose the wrong. This was the case
Christians will know and distinguish with the Corinthian Christians (or saints); who, by embracing the Gospel, judged (in each other in heaven, and retain this sense) their unbelieving neighbours, their previous attachments-on which to whom it had been proposed and who the Bible says what some may regard rejected it; they had set these an example as surprisingly little—he reasons thus : of faith which they had not followed; and they also, as far as they conformed their
“ It is supposed, for example, that parlives to the spirit of the Gospel, con
ticular friendship will be swallowed up in demned and put to shame by their ex
universal charity; and that any partial ample the gross vices of those who con- regard towards one good man more than tinued pagans.” View, pp. 137, 138. another is too narrow a feeling, and un
worthy of a saint made perfect. Do we Let us, then, translate the passage then find any approach towards this supaccordingly; for we presume, that, posed perfection in the best Christians on as we are to understand the Apostle earth? Do we find that in proportion to mean by the word which we mankind they become less and less ca
as they improve in charity towards all translate“ judge” the same as con- pable of friendship,—less affectionate to demn," we may so translate it their relations and connexions, and to the throughout the
passage, there being intimate companions whom they have seno intimation of any change of mean
lected from among their Christian bre
thren? Far from it: it is generally obing. Thus, then, it stands: “ Does served, on the contrary, that the best any of you, who has a matter of Christians, and the fullest both of brocomplaint against his neighbour, therly love towards all · who are of the dare to be condemned before the household of faith,' and of universal cha
rity and benevolence towards all their unjust, and not before the saints ? fellow-creatures, are also the warmest Know ye not that the saints con- and steadiest in their friendships. Why demn the world ?” [We translate then should it be otherwise hereafter in the present tense, in compliance with universal benevolence in heaven more
Why should private friendship interfere author's directions pp. than it does on earth ? but there is a more decisive proof than this : no one can sup- who have been dearest friends on earth pose that a Christian in his glorified state should not, when admittted to that happy will be more exalted than his great Master state, continue to be so, with full knowhere on earth; from Him we must ever ledge and recollection of their former remain at an immeasurable distance : we friendship. If a man is still to continue, hope, indeed, to be free from the suffer- (as there is every reason to suppose) a ings of our blessed Lord in his state of social being, and capable of friendship, it humiliation here below; but never to seems contrary to all probability that he equal his perfections. Yet he was not should cast off or forget his former friends, incapable of friendship. He certainly who are partakers with him of the like loved indeed all mankind, more than any exaltation. He will indeed be greatly other man ever did; since (as St. Paul changed from what he was on earth, and says) · while we were yet enemies, he unfitted perhaps for friendship with such died for us :' He loved especially the a being as one of us is now ; but his friend disciples who constantly followed him; will have undergone (by supposition) a but even among the Apostles He distin- corresponding change. And as we have guished one as more peculiarly and pri- seen those who have been loving playvately his friend—John was the disciple fellows in childhood, grow up with good whom Jesus loved.' . Can we then ever and with like dispositions, into still closer be too highly exalted to be capable of friendship in riper years, so also it is profriendship?
bable that when this our state of childhood “ I am convinced, on the contrary, that shall be perfected in the maturity of a the extension and perfection of friendship better world, the like attachment will will constitute great part of the future continue between those companions who happiness of the blest. Many have lived have trod together the Christian path to in various and distant ages and countries, glory, and have walked in the house of who bave been in their characters, (I mean God as friends.'” View, pp. 222—227. not merely in their being generally estimable,) but in the agreement of their
in the main, with the tastes, and suitableness of dispositions, author in these views, and think we perfectly adapted for friendship with each see much in Scripture to favour other, but who of course could never meet
some of them ; but not more, we in this world. Many a one selects, when he is reading history,-a truly pious Chrisa believe, than may fairly be adduced tian, most especially in reading sacred his- in favour of an intermediate state of tory,—some one or two favourite charac- consciousness, both as regards those ters, with whom he feels that a personal that are saved and those that perish. acquaintance would have been peculiarly delightful to him. Why should not such In both instances, the positive evia desire be realized in a future state? A dence will probably have greater wish to see and personally know, for ex- weight in proportion as the testiample, the Apostle Paul, or John, is the mony of revelation is more deeply most likely to arise in the noble and purest studied, and made the subject of demind; I should be sorry to think such a wish absurd and presumptuous, or un- vout and frequent reflection. We likely ever to be gratified. The highest are inclined, also, to think (and we enjoyment doubtless to the blest, will be rejoice to quote Dr. Whately's words beloved Master ; yet I cannot but think in confirmation of this persuasion) that some part of their happiness will “ that more is revealed to us ” on consist in an intimate knowledge of the these subjects “ than many persons greatest of his followers also ; and of those of them in particular, whose pecu- that reason aided by Scripture may
suppose ;-so far at least, revealed, liar qualities are, to each, the most peculiarly attractive. In this world again, our attain, if not certainty, yet strong friendships are limited not only to those probability on many points concernwho live in the same age and country, but ing which some men think it vain to small portion even of those who are not inquire” (View, p. 213). At the unknown to us, and whom we know to be same time, in regard to the whole estimable and amiable, and who, we feel, subject, it must ever be remembered, might have been among our dearest friends. that it is not either earthly friendOur command of time and leisure to cultivate friendships, impose a limit to their ship, or any thing that refers to extent: they are bounded rather by the created objects, that constitutes the occupation of our thoughts, than of our bliss of heaven : the vision and the affections. And the removal of such favour of God are the consummation impediments in a better world, seems to me a most desirable, and a most probable of the expected enjoyment, with spechange. I see no reason again why those cial allusion also, frequently made in
the Epistles, to the presence of Christ the whole law of Moses; or only the and his now glorified body, through ceremonial law, in opposition to the which a new medium of access and moral ? Dr. Whately contends that communication is opened between it is the whole law, and undertakes God and man, the infinite Creator the defence of the position as follows: and his beatified creature. It is “ Let us but adopt the obvious interonly in subordination to this that pretation of the Apostle's words, and adwe
construe Dr. Whately's mit the entire abrogation, according to statement that “ the extension and it was originally designed for the Israel
him, of the Mosaic law; concluding that perfection of friendship will consti- ites alone, and that its dominion over tute great part of the future happiness them ceased when the Gospel system of the blest.” The “great part” will
commenced ; and we shall find that this be the ecstatic intercourse of the concession does not go a step towards esta
blishing the Antinomian conclusion, that soul with its Creator, Redeemer, and moral conduct is not required of ChrisSanctifier; every thing else must bein- tians.” Ditficulties, pp. 168, 169. finitely little in the comparison: and He has thus cut the Gordian knot, with regard to the mutual communion but we cannot think he has untied it: of the blessed, and the recognition and he has asserted that a particular spefriendship, which we believe to be a cified evil would not result from the adscriptural doctrine, the attachment mission of the doctrine; but this neimust be of a nature which we are ther proves the doctrine nor disproves not in our present state able to com- it. The distinction between the cereprehend; as friendship upon earth monial law of Moses and his moral implies preferences and exclusions, law, it may be admitted, is not in so which cannot, we conceive, exist in many words laid down by St. Paul, a world of celestial knowledge, ce- or any other of the sacred writers; lestial holiness, and celestial love. yet it is frequently assumed and imWe strongly recommend, to those plied : for instance, in the fifteenth who feel interested in the whole of
and twenty-fourth Psalms, the dethis question, a work lately pub- scription of him who shall be adlished, entitled “ Recognition in the mitted to the holy hill of the Lord is World to come, or Christian Friend
borrowed wholly from the moral, and ship on Earth perpetuated in Hea- not at all from the ceremonial enactven; by the Rev. C. Muston, A.M.”
ments of the law. Again; the disThe author has collected a large tinction is very plainly drawn in body of proof on the subject, and Hosea vi. 6, under the opposite we think fully substantiated the names of “mercy
” and “ sacrifice; affirmative side of the question. as it is also under similar forms in
We now pass on to another topic— various other parts of the Old Tesnamely, Dr. Whately's bold position tament; for example, Ps. 1. 8-15, of the invalidity of the whole law of and Jer. vii. 22, 23. It is further Moses ;—a position which we have remarkable, that our Lord, in his been concerned to see adopted in Sermon on the Mount, besides his quarters where we should not have solemn declaration in Matt. v.18,19, expected to find it. St. Paul, indeed, explains the moral law as given by certainly speaks of the abolition of Moses, and assigns to it its spiritual the law. Thus, in Rom. vii. 6, he import; and when he afterwards says, Now we are delivered from
sums up the whole law in two comthe law, that being dead wherein mandments, he does not propose we were held ;" in 2 Cor. iii. 13, them as a new rule of ction, but “ The children of Israel could not adduces them from the very text of stedfastly look to the end of that Moses, as conveying the two prinwhich is abolished ;” in Gal. v. 18, ciples on which“ hang all the Law “ If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are and the Prophets.” The second of not under the law.” But the ques- them is again explicitly deduced by tion is, What law is abolished ? Is it St. Paul from the second table of the Law. Moreover, the frequent refer- speak, frequently and strongly, of the terences in the Epistles to the Ten Com- mination of the Mosaic law, and of the *mandments forbid the idea of their exemption of Christians from its obliauthority being at an end (Eph. vi. ing the assertion,—without even hinting
gations, without ever limiting and qualify23; James ii. 8, 11; iv. 11; 1 Tim. at a distinction between one part which is i. 811).
abrogated and another which remains in What, then, does St. Paul mean
full force.” pp. 166, 167. when he speaks of the Law as abo
Without entering at any length lished ?!Heevidently means the whole upon the matter of this objection, of that law which was peculiar to the
we are satisfied that we sufficiently Mosaic dispensation; and not any
meet it when we state our conviction part of that which was binding before that the extent of meaning to be the time of Moses, and which only attached, in any one instance, to the received a fresh sanction from being word “ law,” in the Apostle's use of comprehended in his code. From it, must be determined by the nathis statement, indeed, Dr. Whately ture of the subject under discussion. cannot well dissent; for he teaches Thus: if he is speaking of the justithat the distinctions between rightfication of a sinner before God, he and wrong are not to be learned excludes from that work the whole from the Mosaical law, but are al. law-moral, civil, and ceremonialtogether independent of it. “These because there is no law given which distinctions,” he says, “not having can give life to a transgressor (Gal. been introduced by the law of Moses, iii. 21, 22). If, on the other hand, cannot, it is evident, be overthrown he is speaking of the rule of Christian by its removal. But, surely, if it has duty, he may still leave the cerepleased God to record the unalterable monial and political portions of the laws of human duty in the books of law out of his consideration, because Moses ; if they contain, with the they are no longer binding; and exception of some incidental notices never indeed, with the exception of in the patriarchal ages, the first written the general law of sacrifice, were record of his will on that important binding, except upon the people of subject; that written code cannot Israel. But the moral precepts of lose its validity merely because some
the law he is so far from excluding, other enactments, which are incor- that we contend they are the founporated with it, are withdrawn. In- dation of all his practical exhortations deed, by promulgating the Ten Com- (Gal. v. 14). Again : if he alludes mandments under different circum
to the condemnation of the wicked, stances from the ceremonial law, he refers to the moral law of God, writing them upon tables of stone,
as that alone which, whether known and causing them to be deposited for by express revelation or by natural a perpetual remembrance in the ark, conscience, will give its warrant to which is the symbol of his Gospel the final sentence (Rom. ii. 12-15). covenant, the Supreme Lawgiver has If, on the contrary, he speak of conapparently signified their perpetual demnation, in reference to a true obligation, and their unlikeness in believer in Christ, here again he exthis respect to those ritual and poli- cludes the whole law of God, moral, tical institutions which were, for the civil, and ritual, from having any first time, communicated to the people power to condemn him (Rom. through Moses.
viii, 1, 2). The distinctive phrases, But this view of the subject, so
moral law, ceremonial law, and polifar as St. Paul's writings are con
tical law, not having been then incerned in it, Dr. Whately considers, troduced, there was, in fact, no other though he admits it to be “substan- course to be pursued than that of tially correct,” as “ leaving a con- leaving the extent of the term, Law, siderable difficulty unsolved.” itself, to be determined by the sub
“For it cannot be denied that he does ject referred to. So now it is not Christ, Observ, No. 353.
unusual to say, that a certain action tiousness, but the principle he here is contrary to law, without specify- advocates appears to us to afford it ing whether it is the canon law, the the strongest countenance and supstatute law, or the common law, port; for it may be that there are that is violated, although commonly some men who, after they have reonly one of the three is broken, while ceived the humbling and cheering yet many actions are condemned by truths of the Gospel, run wild into them all.
extravagance and error, from not adIndeed, if the distinction for which mitting the restraints of a written we contend be not admitted, the in- law, which would keep them in the evitable consequence is, that we are path of duty, and assume the liberty left without any written law at all of being a law to themselves ; and this in Scripture for our guidance; as although their minds and affections are indeed Dr. Whately admits, in the far from being so disciplined by tempfollowing passage and elsewhere. tation and experience, and so purged
“ Now this was very far from being the from a tendency to sin and corrupApostle's view of the Christian life. Not tion, as to to qualify them for the only does the Gospel require a morality task of self-legislation. No rational in many respects higher and more perfect creature has been left without some in itself than the law, but it places morality, universally, on higher grounds. direct and positive law from his Instead of precise rules, it furnishes sub- Creator; and certainly not man, lime principles of conduct ; leaving the who, as Zophar said, is born like a Christian to apply these, according to his wild ass's colt: and we seriously own discretion, in each case that arise; and thus to be a law unto himself.' believe, that, when a man has been Gratitude for the redeeming love of God once emancipated from a legal spirit in Christ, with mingled veneration and through faith in the atoning grace of affection for the person of our great our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Master, and an exalted emulation, leading us to tread in his steps—an ardent
there cannot be a more wholesome longing to behold his glories, and to enjoy employment for him than the study his presence in the world to come-with of the spiritual and heart-searching world—love towards our brethren, for His requisitions of that moral law which sake who died for us and them—and, above is written for his guidance in every all, the thought that the Christian is a part of the Bible, but more espepart of the temple of the Holy Ghost,' cially in the Ten Commandments, who dwelleth in the church-even the and the Divine commentaries upon
Spirit of Christ, without which we are none of his,' a temple which we are bound
them ; the study of which will daily to keep undefiled ;-these, and such as convince him more and more of his these, are the Gospel-principles of mora- great deficiencies, and, by keeping lity, into a conformity with which the him humble, and yet elevating the Christian is to fashion his heart and his life; and they are such principles as the
tone of his morality and the purity Mosaic dispensation could not furnish.” of his desires, prompt him to say, as pp. 178–180.
David did, “My delight shall be in thy We readily admit that the Gos- commandments, which I have loved: pel supplies motives to obedience my hands also will I lift up unto beyond those which the Law directly thy commandments, which I have furnishes; and such are some of the loved ; and my study shall be in thy motives adduced in this passage. statutes” (Psa. cxix. 47, 48). But motives and principles cannot A right decision upon this quesstand in the place of a law, tion is the more important, because though they supply the strongest upon the answer to it depends the inducements to the observance of it; obligation to observe the Lord's-day, and, consequently, if the Law re. as a Divine institution, which Dr. mains, the addition of these Gospel Whately gives up, grounding its motives is no inconsiderable aid to- obligation solely upon ecclesiastical wards its fulfilment. Dr. Whately appointment. This, however, is a is as far opposed as any man can be very different thing. St. Paul disto Antinomian laxity and licen- tinguishes between those directions