Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

by the legal attachment of its peculiarities to its property, does not in some degree sanction them in this? Is there not here an effort to perpetuate and immortalise separations and differences? Nay, supposing a particular sect to be in every point the exact image of the apostolic model, does it not, by the act referred to, sanction that in other churches, (by supposition wrong,) which will for ever prevent their becoming right, by for ever depriving them of the liberty to listen to, and to copy from, itself? What is the use of controversy under such circumstances? If controversy does not aim at the conviction of adversaries, and action corresponding to that conviction, what does it aim at? But if each party, before they begin, are to take measures to prevent their acting, in spite of the convictions which discussion may produce, where shall we find words adequately to describe conduct like this? When, O when, on this system, can Christians come to see 'eye to eye?' When can schisms and dissensions cease? How shall roots of bitterness be removed? what era, without a miracle, or without convulsions in civil society, will the church be one,-one alike by Truth and Love ?"

At

So does our unknown friend conclude his remarks; in which we find much substantially to agree with, and but little which we should be disposed to controvert. His remarks on Christian Union, in the latter quotations, we commend to the serious consideration of all, who, though themselves loving the Lord Jesus, are, by any sectarian ground of communion, hindered from shewing their oneness with all who are united to Him.

To the writer of the Article* we should be inclined to say many things if he were personally known to us: we would press on him the importance of his own words, "action corresponding to conviction." It is not enough for us to say, that anything is wrong, and then quietly to do it; or declare a thing to be right, and then to avoid it honesty in the things of God is "action corresponding to conviction." "Whatsoever is not of faith, is SIN." If congregational bodies be admitted by any, to be contrary in constitution or practice to the word of God, the union of such an one with such a body, cannot be "of faith;" and, therefore, the conclusion is inevitable, that his continuing in such a communion is sin.

We are, it is true, surprised that this article has appeared in the Eclectic. Its condemnation of the existing arrangements of Congregational churches, and its longing for Christian union, are what we had little expected to have seen there; but we are truly thankful to find inquiry as to what is the truth of God going on, especially when it is in quarters where we should not have looked for it. We truly desire to love all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity; and thus when we can use the arguments of any brother, known or unknown, which would be likely to influence the consciences of any, we are glad to do so; and thus, copious as our extracts have been from our unknown friend's paper, we trust that our readers will not judge them to be too extended. For ourselves we may say, that if we had not been hindered by want of space, we should have willingly inserted the whole

What does the disclaimer of Socinianism mean, which we find near the end of the Article? We cannot see who could have suspected the Eclectic of being Socinian from this paper being inserted in its pages, unless there were other, and different grounds for the suspicion. Of this, of course, we can say nothing. The very article before this, is one on "the Saviour's right to divine worship," so that, unless there be something connected with the Electic, of which we do not know, we cannot tell why the questionings of this paper should lead to such a suspicion.

We have often spoken strongly in the pages of the Inquirer, but we never deemed it needful to say, that we are not Socinians,-nay, we should have thought that such a statement would only raise a suspicion that we had something to conceal. A man who is loud in boasting that he has not committed any given crime, would at once be suspected of being guilty. We should have no more thought of saying that we are not Socinians, than that we are not highwaymen : -we speak of Jesus of Nazareth (as the Scripture does), as being our Saviour, Lord, and God-and that is enough; if the Eclectic does this, why should it fear? if not, a change in conduct would be the only thing which would allay the suspicion, for loud disclaimers could do nothing but confirm it. We repeat that we do not intend to make any charge in asking the question, we insinuate nothing-we only ask, why should questions about the propriety of congregational trust-deeds, cause those who make them, to be suspected of a Socinian taint?

[blocks in formation]

of such a paper in our pages. The same reason we have to assign for the delay which has occurred in our notice of the subject.

One thing will interest us:-how will the writer in the Eclectic ACT? Will he succumb to acknowledged evil; or will he hold fast the word of God, and obey the Lord Jesus at all hazards? We know not; but we feel quite sure of this, that after his truthful answer of "No," to the enquiry-" Are we Protestants ?" he must either go forward or backward. If he does not advance towards truth, he will actually be retreating from it. We pray for him, and for any others in a similar state, that they may not be contented with desires after union as Christians, or with confessions of of the evil with which they are surrounded, but that they may act, and thus shew that they prefer following truth like Luther, instead of questioning concerning error like Erasmus-that they may be helpers, instead of hindrances, to those who desire to obey the Lord.

FINNEY'S "LECTURES TO PROFESSING CHRISTIANS.”

We give a few extracts from this work which exhibit the tendency of a certain school of modern theology. We desire that our Christian readers may consider well how dangerous such contradictions of the Gospel are, and how needful it is that we should be firm in upholding the truth of God, whatever be the perversions which any may choose to introduce.

We believe that Mr. Finney enjoys no small degree of popularity amongst a certain class of religionists in this country as well as in America; and that his writings have been widely circulated and read. His lectures on revivals find many to admire and to recommend them (witness the fact of the London reprints being announced in the title as containing prefaces by John Angell James and Drs. Payne and Beman), so that however offensive some things may be deemed, yet he stands on the whole as a popular writer on religious subjects.

We believe that it is, therefore, particularly needful to warn Christians, lest they should, by any apparent zeal for God contained in his writings, be so misled as to look on him as an intelligent teacher; or on his writings as containing an exposition of the truth of the Gospel.

The following extracts shew how utterly unsound his views are; they are taken with one exception from his lecture "On Justification by Faith." We might have multiplied quotations exhibiting false doctrine on other points; but we prefer shewing how false his statements are both with regard to our condition by nature, and to the means of our having peace with God.

"Sinners often plead their sinful nature as a justification. This excuse is a good one, if it be true. If it is true, as they pretend, that God has given them a nature which is in itself sinful, and the necessary-actings of their nature are sin, it is a good excuse for sin; and in the face of heaven and earth, and at the day of judgment, will be a good plea in justification. God must annihilate the reason of all the rational universe before they will ever blame you for sin; or, if he gave you a nature that is in itself sinful. How can your nature be sinful? What is sin? Sin is a transgression of the law.* There is no other sin but this. Now does the law say you must not have such a nature as you have? Nothing like it" (p. 326).

We know that the law does not tell us to have a nature different from what we have; for the law being given to Israel, was the manifestation of sin as it exists in man. The law could bring no one into blessing, because "it was weak through the flesh" (Rom. viii. 3); the evil which is in man's very nature hindering him from possibly obeying the law. We need not follow Mr. Finney through the plea which he puts into the mouth of an objector as to God having given a sinful nature; the fall of man must be blotted out from the word before God can be charged with this.

We have facts before us: "the flesh," "sin that dwelleth in me," "the carnal mind which is enmity against God," are treated of in the word, and they are spoken

*This definition of sin rests upon an erroneous interpretation of 1 John iii. 4. "Sin is lawlessness," is the true meaning of the word. Had this definition of sin been true, what would have been the meaning of "Sin taking occasion by the commandment," and other similar passages? The word is often rendered unrighteousness.

of as being sinful in their own selves. Now according to Mr. F.'s dreadful statements a sinner may plead the abominable corruption of his nature as a good justification for sin! The innate desire of wickedness is made a justification for its outbreaks!

"When the sinner talks about his sinful nature as a justification, he confounds these innocent appetites and susceptibilities with sin itself. By so doing, he in fact charges God foolishly, and accuses him of giving him a sinful nature, when, in fact, his nature in all its elements is essential to moral agency; and God has made it as well as it could be made, and perfectly adapted to the circumstances in which he lives in the world. The truth is, man's nature is all right, and is as well fitted to love and obey God as to hate and disobey him" (p. 327).

Where does the word of God call our proclivity to sin by any such soft name as "innocent appetites and susceptibilities ?" If these tendencies be not sinful, how could it be said that any one " is drawn away of his own lust and enticed" (Jas. i. 14)?

Sin in principle inheres in us: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, who can know it?" (Jer. xvii. 9). Not that man was such when he was formed by God; all the creation was "very good," but the fall has caused the entire deflection from God; so that man is turned from Him in will, desire, and affection. "The desires of the flesh and of the mind" (those very appetites and susceptibilities which Mr. Finney calls "innocent"), are the very things of which the Apostle speaks (Eph. ii. 3), the fulfilment of which characterises the children of wrath. The utter corruption of our nature is constantly spoken of amongst the things which separate us from God. The Apostle's argument in Romans v. turns much upon this: "The wages of sin is death.” Now infants who have not committed acts of transgression, die; this proves their sin, and shews us the wide range which the curse embraces, involving all the race of Adam simply because they spring from him: "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners." If the only sin were acts of transgression, none could be sinners but those who had personally transgressed, and the only estimate which could be formed of guilt would be the number and magnitude of the offences committed by an individual. But no enumeration of sins can ever meet the amount of sin, the corruption of the flesh, the taint of our nature; just as a man's lameness exists not merely when he tries to walk and shews his inability, but also it is equally there when unmanifested.

It is most important never to overlook the corruption of our nature. If we deny this, we shall not see death to be part of our moral condition: it will sink in our thoughts into a mere physical accident, or natural circumstance, instead of telling us of the humbling fact of our utter departure from God. We should also have very low views of the work of our blessed Lord, if we were to respond to Mr. Finney's judgment about sin as it exists in our nature. And it might further be well asked, In what did He differ in His nature as man from us?

If man's nature were “all right," what need could there be of an atonement? A mere addition of power, so as to hinder us from committing sin, would have been sufficient; and then we might, by our own righteousness, have entered into life. Mr. F. says, "Do you inquire what influence Adam's sin has then in producing the sin of his posterity? I answer, it has subjected them to aggravated temptation; but has by no means rendered their nature itself sinful" (p. 328). Now could not God, by a mere act of power, have enabled us to meet the " aggravated temptation" of Satan? and would not this have been sufficient? In truth, aggravated temptation might have been borne, and yet many of the children of Adam have perhaps remained sinless, if there had not been evil within responding to the temptation from without.

"If sinners are really unable to obey God, this is a good plea in justification" (p. 328). "It is naturally impossible that a rational being should ever blame himself for not doing what he is conscious he had not power to do" (p. 329).

These two extracts sufficiently prove that Mr. Finney is utterly ignorant of the reason why the law was given; it was a command to obey God, but its object was to manifest the sin which was lurking in the heart: "The law was added that the offence might abound." As to the second passage, we will only say, that such a sub

ject is not to be taken up upon "rational" grounds; and that the inability is in

itself" sin in the flesh."

“Gospel justification is not the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Under

the Gospel, sinners are not justified, by having the obedience of Jesus Christ set down to their account, as if he had obeyed the law for them, or in their stead. It is not an uncommon mistake to suppose, that when sinners are justified under the Gospel, they are accounted righteous in the eye of the law, by having the obedience or righteousness of Christ imputed to them.......This idea is absurd and impossible, for this reason, that Jesus Christ was bound to obey the law for himself, and could no more perform works of supererogation, or obey on our account, than any body else.......But if his obedience of the law is set down to our account, why are we called on to repent, and obey the law ourselves?" (pp. 332, 333).

"Justification, by faith, does not mean that faith is accepted as a substitute for personal holiness, or that, by an arbitrary constitution, faith is imputed to us, instead of personal obedience to the law" (p. 333)

"Faith is accounted for just what it is, and not for something else that it is not" (p. 334). Justifying faith is holiness, so far as it goes, and produces holiness of heart and life, and is imputed to the believer as holiness, not instead of holiness" (p. 334).

The Scripture says, "He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. v. 21). "Christ is the

end of the law for righteousness, to every one that believeth" (Rom. x. 4). Thus do we see, that as He bore our sins, so is His righteousness made ours. He took on Himself that which was not his own, our guilt and condemnation; and just so does He transfer to us that which is not our own, even His righteousness. Let human sophistry contend for ever against the grace of God as revealed in Christ, the gracious gift of righteousness, by substitution, will ever remain as the rock of the Christian's joy and peace. We do not attempt to trace through the maze of error which Mr. Finney brings forward; we simply desire to place a few portions of the Truth of God in contrast with it.

Faith is counted for righteousness, although it is not itself righteousness. Thus we read, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." 'Now, it was not written for His sake alone, that it was imputed to Him, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus, our Lord, from the dead" (Rom. iv).

[ocr errors]

66

A believer is justified before he brings forth any fruits of holiness. It is substantially a denial of the Gospel, to affirm that any good works, or personal holiness, are pre-requisites to our justification. God is "He that justifieth the ungodly." It is equally a denial of the Gospel, to affirm that a sinner's justification is in respect of any anticipated works which God knew that he would bring forth; and we declare, without hesitation, that statements such as Mr. Finney's corrupt the Gospel altogether, confusing and blending what ought to be kept most distinct. By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast; for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them" (Eph. ii. 8-10). It is quite true, that a Christian ought to bring forth fruit; but his fruit had nothing to do with his being accepted. It is not a mixture of faith and works that gives salvation, but, on the contrary, our salvation is "not of works." Had it been otherwise, what should we have done? Our fruits are not acceptable, as possessing any perfectness in themselves; and thus we either should have for ever remained afar off, or else God would have accepted a tainted offering, and thus have compromised His holiness. But, blessed be His name! He accepts a believer in His Son; and His blood gives acceptance to our persons, so that having eternal life, we can serve God without fear, because we know His love.

Had we to look to fruits of holiness in us as part of our justification, we should never have peace, for we should always feel how utterly inadequate all our holiness must be to meet the holiness of God; but, oh! how different is every thought! when we know that by believing, we are at once justified from all things; and that Christ" is made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." Imperfect as we are in ourselves, we "are complete in Him," and in Him have completely all that we need; so that all that we can aim as to attainment here, is but reaching forward to grasp, and to manifest in our mortal bodies, that

which is already true of us in Christ, as being believers in Him. Mr. Finney says on the contrary :—

"Nor does justification by faith imply that a sinner is justified by faith, without good works, or personal holiness" (p. 334).

"When we say that men are justified by faith and holiness, we do not mean that they are accepted on the ground of law, but that they are treated as if they were righteous, on account of their faith, and works of faith. This is the method which God takes in justifying a sinner.... ..If they repent, believe, and become holy, their past sins shall be forgiven for the sake of Christ" (p. 336). This kind of doctrine is admirably described by John Newton :

"Some call Him a Saviour in word,

But mix their own works with his plan;
They hope He his help will afford,

When they have done all that they can.

If doings prove rather too light,

A little they own they may fail;
They purpose to make up full weight,

By casting His name in the scale."

After the above extracts, there follow, in the same discourse, so many true statements, and so much that is mostly unexceptionable, that it seems surprising that the same individual could be the author of the whole. But whatever we find stated respecting the standing and security of a believer, must not be looked on by a Chistian reader, as though it could be disconnected from the principles previously laid down-the whole must be taken together; and if the Gospel be utterly perverted in one part, no seeming admission of subsequent truth ought to be regarded as in any way undoing the evil; nay, it ought to be looked on as making it the more dangerous, because more disguised. But though in this part of his book, Mr. Finney has spoken of the security of a believer, it consists very ill with some other parts, such as the following:-"Christian lady! have you never doubted, do you not now doubt, whether it be lawful for you to copy these fashions brought from foreign countries, and from places which it were a shame even to name in this assembly? Have you no doubt about it? And if you doubt, and do it, you are condemned, and must repent of your sin, or you will be lost for ever" (p. 64).

Is this the way in which the Scripture speaks? Is it thus that we are called on in the Word to abstain from conformity to the world? Now, we think, that it is evident, that if a person can make such a statement as the above, and hold views on justification so wholly erroneous, that his doctrine of the security of a saint must be very different ftom that of the Word.

It is very recently that we have noticed in our pages the false doctrines of Alexander Campbell of America. Now, those which are contained in Finney's Lectures are, in one respect, much of the same kind. There is the same utter denial of human depravity, and the same desire to add something to the ground of justification. Campbell adds baptism to faith. Finney adds our becoming holy. Many who would be shocked by the seeming grossness of the one, will not be startled by the apparent sanctity of the other's addition. Much in Finney's book is plausible, and many there are who are willing to be caught by plausibilites, instead of humbly learning the truth which God reveals in his Word.

We believe that now the efforts are very numerous which are made to set aside the simple Gospel, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved;" and on this account we feel that it is especially incumbent to warn any of the children of God, as we may have opportunity, against the forms which the perversions of the Gospel assume. Let any thing be added to faith in Christ, be it great or little, be it good abstractedly, or bad abstractedly, as a ground of a sinner's justification, it is a denial of the Gospel, a turning aside from the grace of God; and he who preaches this "other gospel," is, on the authority of the Holy Ghost, accursed." It is one thing for the soul of a sinner to be quickened unto God; it is quite another thing for such a one to be aroused by strong and novel statements. latter is comparatively easy, and a false gospel may effect it. The former is the work of the Holy Ghost, and His especial instrument is the preaching of the Gospel

of Christ.

66

The

He who denies human depravity, affirming that the susceptibilities and appetites

« PredošláPokračovať »