« ElőzőTovább »
where there is no imputation of sin, the ground is given up of ever knowing the Divine hatred of any thing by his righteous judgments inflicted on them, either in this world, or the world to come. Therefore, the common painful dissolution of infants plainly proves that they are some way sinful in the sight of God." He proceeds to argue the same thing from infant baptism—“For there can be no occasion for baptizing any but sinners, in the name of a Saviour and sanctifier.”
If we are not mistaken, we have shown that the various theories of original sin, or of the relation of Adam's first sin to the sin of the race, which have been devised to avoid the difficulties in the federal hamartiology, rather increase than obviate them, while they labor under the disadvantage of being less in harmony with the obvious sense of Scripture, the methods of Providence, and a Scriptural soteriology. With the realistic Augustinians, like Drs. Schaff and Shedd, we are in entire harmony, except in their realism as set against covenant representationism. They can and do adopt in sincerity the essential truths in regard to original sin, even to the minutest ipsissima verba of our confession. Doing this, we are at one with them, until they press their realism against the federal scheme. Then we feel called to show that we gain nothing and lose much in substituting this solution for that of Turrettin and most of the Reformers.
In conclusion, we offer a summation of the whole subject, which may present the strength of the latter system in a new light. We believe that, if not held in all of its parts by any given majority of Christians, each of its separate elements is held by its own majority of them.
1. The vast majority, not only of Calvinists, but of Christians, hold that the race so had its probation in Adam's first trial, that it fell in his fall, and the consequences of his sin to himself passed over to his posterity.
2. The majority hold that his descendants did not sin in him really and literally.
3. A great majority hold that death is the penalty of sin, and includes every kind of penal evil.
4. A great majority hold that death thus extending to soul and body was visited upon Adam and his posterity, by virtue of “a judgment unto condemnation” for his first sin.
5. A great majority hold that Adam's sin was so reckoned to the account of (imputed to) the race, that its loss of the Divine favor and communion with God, and, by consequence, its lapse into sin was a visitation in judgment for that sin.
6. A great majority believe that evil inflicted on moral beings for sin, in support of law, is punishment, and that the present degradation of our race came in this way.
7. A great majority believe that Christ bore our sins, only as he bore their penalty, became a curse for us, and had the chastisement of our peace laid upon him, and hence that sin may be so imputed to or reckoned to the account of those who did not personally commit it, that they shall bear its penalty. If this is possible in one extraordinary case, it may be in another.
8. A great majority believe that Christ is the second Adam, of whom the first was a type, inasmuch as being con. demned for the sin of the first Adam, we are justified by the righteousness of the second. “As by the disobedience of one, many were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous.
Herein are found the elements of the true doctrine of original sin. They might almost claim the semper, ubique, ab omnibus
These pregnant words of Pascal cannot be gainsaid. “It is astonishing that the mystery which is furthest removed from our knowledge (I mean the transmission of original sin) should be that without which we can have no knowledge of ourselves. It is in this abyss that the clue to our condition takes its turns and windings, insomuch that man is more incomprehensible without this mystery than this mystery is incomprehensible to man.'
ART. V.-The Witness of Paul to Christ. By Rev. STANLEY
LEATHES, “Boyle Lectures for 1869." Rivingtons.
Toe Boyle Lecturer is limited to the task of “proving the Christian religion ”-80 runs the will of the illustrious founder—" against notorious infidels, viz.: Atheists, Theists, Pagans, Jews, and Mohammedans, not descending lower to any controversies that are among Christians themselves.” Has Mr. Leathes transgressed the limits assigned him in entering into controversy with those who deny that the resurrection of Christ is vital to Christianity? Is the denial of Christ's resurrection equivalent to giving up Christianity? These questions are pertinent here, because Mr. Leathes has been blamed for his strictures on the views of Dr. Davidson. The latter, in the second volume of his "Introduction to the New Testament,” takes the ground that " Christianity does not fall with the denial of the resurrection, especially as the fact is reported in a manner so contradictory and susceptible of different interpretations.” Mr. Leathes argues that Christianity rests on a dogmatic basis, which a man cannot forsake without forfeiting the Christian name. He considers it, therefore, within his province, as Boyle Lecturer, to dispute the position taken by Dr. Davidson. It is somewhat surprising to find the Contemporary Review (Broad-church as it is), under the editorial care of Dean Alford, taking Mr. Leathes to task, and advancing the sentiment that we have no right to deny that any man is a Christian who says he is.” This is certainly a new application of the doctrine of homo mensura. be room for difference of opinion as to what is the minimum of Christian knowledge and belief which will entitle a man to rank as a Christian, but there can be no doubt, surely, with regard to the fundamental character of the doctrine of the resurrection. Reducing Christianity to its lowest terms, this doctrine will be found of such vital importance, that tn deny it is to repudiate the religion of Jesus. It might be considered unjust to class the deniers of the resurrection among the “notorious infidels” whom Boyle had in his mind, to wit:
Atheists, Theists, Pagans, Jews, and Mohammedans, and yet it is certainly true that the controversy is not one "among Christians themselves.” We have, to be sure, the authority of Mr. Morell for speaking of “Unitarian Christians," and by men of his school we should be thought very illiberal. But, inasmuch as the entire scheme of redemption derives its significance from the union of Godhead and humanity in the person of Christ, we cannot consider those entitled to the name of Christians who believe that Jesus is still in his grave.
A Socinian theology finds the doctrine of the Resurrection inconvenient, and a theology which denies the penal and vicarious character of Christ's death would not be the loser if the doctrine were taken away. We do not mean to impute to Dr. Bushnell any doubt in regard to Christ's triumph over the grave, when we say that his theory of the atonement would be more consistent without the doctrine of the resurrection than with it. The moral influence theory stands in no need of a Divine Redeemer, and, therefore, would be none the weaker if the proofs of Jesus' resurrection were untenable. Christ's work was only to set an example and manifest his sympathy for men, it might reasonably be argued that the scope of his mission is not curtailed by denying his resurrection. But believing, as we do, that his death was a penal and substitutionary sacrifice, we are compelled to regard his divinity and resurrection as fundamental truths. We cannot, therefore, throw open the door of liberality so wide as to regard every man as a Christian who says he is one. On the con. trary, we consider it one of the most dangerous features of current infidelity, that it gains respectability and countenance by being baptized with a Christian name. Christian people are greatly imposed upon when they give shelter to ideas of infidel birth, because they come recommended by men who call themselves Christians.
We are, to a great extent, indebted to the epistles of Paul for our uncompromising views regarding the cardinal doctrines of the faith. Paul was the chosen instrument through whom the Holy Ghost gave full expression to these doctrines. We are correct, therefore, in regarding the Apostle of the Gentiles as the greatest stumbling-block in the way of all advocates of
“advanced views.” Heterodox theologians of every shade would breathe more freely if the way were clear to dispose of the Pauline writings.
In dealing with the thirteen epistles attributed to Paul, the enemies of evangelical theology have three courses open to them. They may endeavor to prove (1) that the epistles are forgeries; (2) that they have been misinterpreted; or (3) that Paul alone is responsible for the teaching embodied in them.
Any one of these would serve the canse of Rationalism, and each has been perseveringly tried.
The first has the advantage of being more thorough-going and destructive. For, if it can be proved that the epistles usually attributed to Paul are forgeries, that puts an end at once to all appeal to them. Renan, in that case, might feel greater confidence in saying that “ Paul is coming to the end of his reign."
The task of meeting the attacks of destructive criticism be. longs to those who have made New Testament introduction a specialty ;-and has been accomplished with a thoroughness which sets the question at rest in the minds of all who are not obstinately prejudiced. In fact, it requires but little critical learning to perceive that the conclusions reached by critics of the school of Baur are of the most arbitrary kind. To determine beforehand what Paul ought to write, and then condemn nine well-authenticated epistles because they do not meet the critic's idea of Pauline authorship, is, to say the least, a very high-handed proceeding. Yet this is, in plain English, just what has been done.
The point, however, which concerns us in this article is, that there are four of Paul's epistles which the most reckless critic acknowledges as authentic. We take up our New Testament with all the more confidence when we know that even Baur admits that the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians came from Paul's pen. Negative critics have halted too soon in their work of destruction, and, singularly enough, have left unquestioned the very epistles which contain the most pronounced expression of Pauline doctrine.
We are willing to test our convictions regarding the fundamental doctrines of Christianity by these epistles. Is it possi