صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

of the Christian faith, should differ so widely as they seem to do in their exposition of these doctrines; contending with much plausibility, without advancing one step towards mutual conviction.

Take, for instance, the subject of regeneration in its connection with baptism. Some speak of regeneration as if it denoted the absolute perfection of holiness; that consummation of the Christian character, when evil habits and evil propensities have been so entirely subdued, and the love of God and of Christ so deeply rooted in the heart, that thenceforth perseverance to the end can be no longer doubtful. Now they who affix to it so very enlarged a signification, observing (what is too evident to be denied) that multitudes who have been baptized into the Christian faith never attain, or even seem to approach, to such entire perfection of character, scruple not to stigmatize all who contend for the inseparability of baptismal and spiritual regeneration, as superstitiously ascribing to the sacrament of baptism an effect to which it appears to be altogether inadequate. On the other hand, they who agree with our Church in maintaining the inseparability of the one from the other, understand by regeneration nothing more than that first prin

ciple of holiness, that beginning of the spiritual life, of which baptism is not only the sign, but also the pledge, assuring us of its actual conveyance. Thus far, and thus far only, they extend the meaning of spiritual regeneration; and this, and this only, they maintain to be given in baptism. The ultimate efficacy of the gift they acknowledge to be still dependent upon our subsequent growth in grace. The great difference, therefore, between the contending parties originates in their different acceptation of the word regeneration; and so long as that discordance continues, it is impossible that their respective tenets should be made to harmonize. Yet is it no less evident, that, though this appears to be merely a verbal strife, it produces real and irreconcileable opposition, on a point of doctrine intimately connected with the grounds of our acceptance under the Christian dispensation.

Again, (as has been already suggested,) on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, agreement or disagreement will chiefly depend upon the acceptation in which the parties respectively admit the terms of the proposition. If one man understands by faith a reliance upon salvation through Christ, without reference to any conditions necessary to

render it available, his notion of justification by faith only will be very different from that of him who uses the term faith to denote a reliance upon that salvation, accompanied with the performance of such conditions. And here, again, though the difference may arise out of verbal misapprehension, the result is a manifest contrariety of sentiment on a point of vital importance.

Free grace is another phrase liable to similar misapplication. It is not strictly a scriptural phrase. But it expresses what St. Paul means when he says, "We are justified freely by "God's grace, through the redemption that "is in Christ Jesus"." In its most obvious signification, it denotes that the salvation of mankind in general is the free gift of God, unmerited on their part, and effected by the merits and mediation of Christ. In this sense it is perfectly consistent with those conditions annexed to the promises of the Gospel, which are implied in that faith by which we are justified. But they who deny that our salvation is dependent upon any such conditions, denote by free grace a special act of mercy, by which God arbitrarily calls certain individuals alone to salvation, and works in them irresistibly by his Holy Spirit. This also

b Rom. iii. 24.

is a difference vitally affecting the character of the Christian covenant; and, therefore, however capable the words themselves, abstractedly considered, may appear to be of either of these constructions, the conclusions drawn from them cannot possibly harmonize with each other.

These observations may serve to shew that verbal disputes are, in their effect, of much greater importance than many are wont to suppose; and that in all discussions on subjects of holy writ, the first care should be that the parties clearly understand each other as to the signification of the terms they use, in maintaining their respective positions. For this purpose, not only the analogy of words must be attended to, but the analogy of the faith also. Where either of these is disregarded, no satisfactory result can be expected. Every proposition, and every corollary deduced from such proposition, will appear to the opposite party to be more or less different from his own, so long as he applies certain particular expressions in a sense different from that in which they are applied by others.

It appears to be chiefly owing to misunderstandings of this kind, that the great body of the clergy in our Church are, in the present day, so frequently and so unjustly

reproached by a party among their own brethren, for not preaching evangelical doctrine. They whose minds are prepossessed, whether in a greater or a less degree, with Calvinistic views of the Christian faith, attach to most of the expressions relating to the Christian covenant a somewhat different meaning from that in which other members of our Church interpret them. They apply, for instance, the words calling, election, and predestination, to the operation of certain irrespective Divine decrees in the salvation of particular persons, and not to the general privileges of all who are admitted into the covenant. Their interpretation of the terms regeneration, justification, free grace, and the like, is naturally made to correspond with this peculiar system; and when others question the accuracy of any such interpretation, a charge is too frequently retorted of denying the doctrine itself which those words import. Yet what is this but assuming the very point in debate? For if it can be shewn from the analogy of Scripture language, or of Scripture doctrine, that those expressions will not bear such meanings, except by a forced adaptation of them to that particular hypothesis; the accusation will then recoil upon those by whom it is advanced. Disputes so originating, and

« السابقةمتابعة »