Images de page
PDF
ePub

faculties capable of deciding with certainty, what they will not admit. We can pronounce without hesitation with respect to some things, that they are absolutely irreconcileable with those attributes. To say that we have not faculties for this, is to say, not that our knowledge is limited and imperfect, but that it is actually nothing. There may be a thousand cases, like those stated by Dr. Woods, which, previous to experience, we could not have foreseen, nor should have expected, which when first proposed present difficulties, but which are yet capable of being accounted for in a satisfactory manner, and reconciled with that justice and goodness, with which they seem at first to be at variance. But other cases, it is evident, may be supposed, which would admit of no such explanation. And what I contend is, that the orthodox doctrine, as to the natural "character of man, and the manner in which God designates the heirs of salvation" (p. 25) is of this kind; and that Dr. Woods' assertion (p. 27)" that the facts he has there stated, and which are known to all, are as far from being agreeable to what we should naturally imagine the infinite goodness of God would dictate, as the fact that men are subjects of moral depravity," cannot be supported. There is no such analogy between the cases, as to warrant the conclusion. For we can see, with

respect to the former, how they may be consistent with the moral perfections of God; but we can make no supposition, upon which we shall be able to perceive, that the latter can be so. The reason is, that, with

respect to all the former cases, such as the promiscuous suffering and rain brought upon men by plagues, hurricanes, and earthquakes, the cruelties and horrors of the slave-trade, and the darkness and ignorance to which so large a portion of the human race are by the inevitable circumstances of their condition subjected, the evil is not final and remediless, but is partial or temporary, and may be considered as inflicted for the purpose of discipline; and the single consideration, that it makes a part of human probation, and that the subject of it may yet, by the manner in which he conducts under it, be an infinite gainer in the whole of his existence, relieves it from all objection arising from any supposed inconsistency with the justice or goodness of God. But the doctrine of the native depravity of man, taken in its connexion with the whole scheme of which it is a part; personal unconditional election, a complete atonement made for those, who are thus ordained to eternal life, and their regeneration by a special irresistible influence of the spirit of God; and what is the necessary and infallible consequence of all this, the equally unconditional reprobation and final and everlasting ruin of all the rest of the human race, certainly admits of no such reconciliation with any notion we can have of the moral perfection of the Author of our being.

As Dr. Woods, however, makes no attempt to show how they are capable of being reconciled; as he has virtually admitted that they are incapable of being perceived by us to be consistent with each other; and

has contented himself with endeavouring to prove the several doctrines as matters of fact, upon the principle, that if he can clearly prove them to be doctrines of scripture, he is not bound to show how they can be consistent with the divine perfections, it is unnecessary to say any thing more to show, that the imputation of which he complains is not removed. I shall therefore proceed directly to the consideration of the evidence upon which the several doctrines in question rest, as matters of fact.

LETTER III.

THE discussion introduced by Dr. Woods in his fourth Letter, and pursued through the fifth and sixth, relates to "the natural character of man." As the question, "what is the natural character of man," lies at the very foundation of the controversy between Unitarians on the one hand, and Trinitarians and Calvinists on the other, it will prepare us for a fair discussion of it, to examine in the first place, what is the precise difference of opinion between them on the subject.

Heretofore, those who claimed the title of Orthodox, and professed to follow the doctrine of Calvin, were satisfied with the language used by the Westminster divines in the Catechism and Confession of Faith, in which the doctrines of that reformer are expressed with remarkable precision and distinctness.

In them

the doctrine, which respects the natural state of man since the fall, and in consequence of that event, has two parts. They represent the first sin of our first parent, as imputed to all his posterity, who are said to have sinned in him, and to have fallen with him; and they teach the entire corruption of man's nature, that he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil,-under the displeasure and curse of God, and liable to all punishments in this world and that which is

to come.

It seems that the first part of this account, though it was formerly reckoned one of the principal tests of Orthodoxy, more zealously maintained than any other, is now given up. It is wholly omitted in the Creed adopted by the Theological Institution in Andover. It is expressly given up by Dr. Woods. "The Orthodox in New England at the present day," he tells us, p. 44," are not chargeable with the erroneous opinions held by their predecessors. The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, in any sense, which those words naturally and properly convey, is a doctrine which we do not believe." This change in the opinions of the Orthodox, and advance toward what we believe to be right views, we are glad to witness ; and have no doubt that the same correct mode of thinking and reasoning, which has led to it, will lead also to the rejection of the other part of the doctrine, which has heretofore been considered as inseparably connected with it. We think that further reflection will con

vince them, that they are inseparably connected-that if the imputation of Adam's guilt is a solecism, and inconsistent with the moral character of God, it is equally so, that, in consequence of it, all his posterity should come into being with a nature so totally corrupt and inclined to sin, as to be incapable of any good.

I could have wished that Dr. Woods had given a more distinct and compact definition of the doctrine he meant to defend on this point, that there might be no mistake of the question between us. From scattered expressions, however, and from his having made no exception with respect to this part of the doctrine, I think we are to conclude, though he chooses to express it in somewhat softened and qualified language, that he holds it in its full extent. By such expressions as the following, (p. 31,) "by nature men are subjects of an innate moral depravity ;"....." while unrenewed, their moral affections and actions are wholly wrong." (p. 43,) "All without exception by nature, or in consequence of their natural birth are in such a state of moral impurity, as disqualifies them for the enjoyments of heaven, unless they are renewed by the Holy Spirit." And (p. 46)" Adam's transgression had such a relation to his posterity, that in consequence of it, they were constituted sinners, and subjected to death, and all other sufferings, as penal evils;" he means all that is meant by the following expressions in the Assembly's Catechism and Confession of Faith. "The corruption of his nature by which he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly

« PrécédentContinuer »