Page images
PDF
EPUB

creation of our nature, is the maker of man; but for the healing of the disease of this nature, became man.

[ocr errors]

Again, this doctrine may be refuted by express testimonies from scripture; and ought therefore to be rejected as unsound. Gen. v. 3, "Adam begat Seth in his own image." Job, xiv. 4, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?—not one." Psalm, li. 5, "For I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." Rom. v. 19, "By the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners." Ephes. ii. 2, "And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others;" that is, we were born subject to condemnation, because born in a corrupt state. From all which passages, it appears that original sin does not consist merely in guilt, or liableness to punishment; but in a moral depravation of the whole nature; and that it is not contracted by imitation, but by generation. Paul often speaks of that which we call "original sin" under the general name of "sin." In Rom. vi. 8, he speaks of the "old man" being crucified; of the "body of sin" being destroyed; and in chap. vii. he speaks of being "sold under sin," of no good thing dwelling in his flesh; of evil being present with him when he would do good; and of being led captive by the law of sin" in his members.

Another cogent proof of the heterodoxy of this doctrine may be derived from the baptism of infants, which certainly supposes that they are conceived and born in sin.

It is also worthy of observation that spiritual regeneration is, in scripture, continually put in contrast with "the flesh," and with our fleshly birth. But where is the propriety of this, if the flesh is naturally free from stain?

And finally, the catholic church has ever held an opinion contrary to the one which is now opposed. Augustine, in his second book against Pelagius and Celestius, expresses most explicitly what we maintain: "Whosoever," says he, "contends that human nature, in any age, does not need the second Adam as a physician, on the ground that it has not been vitiated in the first Adam, does not fall into an error which may be held without injury to the rule of faith; but by that very rule by which we are constituted christians, is convicted of being an enemy to the grace of God."

It is again disputed, whether concupiscence, or that disease of our nature which renders us prone to sin, is itself of the nature of sin. This the papists deny; we affirm.

They allege, that whatever exists in us necessarily, and is

not from ourselves, but from another, cannot be of the nature of sin; but this is the fact in regard to concupiscence, ergo,

&c.

Answer. In a merely political judgment this may be correct, but not in that which is divine. And if the principle here asserted was sound, it would prove too much: it would prove that even the acts of concupiscence are not sinful: for there is a sort of necessity for these, supposing the principle of concupiscence to exist in the soul.

It is next objected, that that which is wholly the work of God, as is the whole nature of man, cannot be corrupt, and therefore whatever belongs to this nature as it comes from the hand of God, cannot be otherwise than free from sin.

If there were any force in this argument, it would prove that there could be no such thing as sin in the universe, for all creatures are not only dependent on God for existence at first, but for continuance in being every moment; and if the power of God could not, consistently with its purity, be exerted to bring into existence the children of a corrupt parent, in a state of moral corruption, neither could it be to continue. their being, which equally requires the exertion of omnipotence. But the truth is, so far as human nature or human actions are the effect of divine power, the work is good: the essential faculties of the mind and members of the body are good, and the entity of every human act is good; but the evil of our nature is received by natural generation, and is the consequence of the fall of our first parent, and the sinfulness of our acts must not be ascribed to God, " in whom we live and move," but to the perversity of our own wills.

But they allege, that God inflicts this depravity on the race of men, and therefore it cannot partake of the nature of sin, without making God its author.

To which it may be replied, that God inflicts it, as it is a punishment, but not as it is sin; that is, he withdraws all divine influence, and all the gifts of innocence with which the creature was originally endued, in just judgment. Does not God in just displeasure for obstinate continuance in sin, often send blindness of mind as a judgment: in the same manner, he can inflict that pravity of nature which we bring into the world with us as a punishment for the sin of our first parents: that is, he withholds all those gifts and all that influence which are necessary to a state of moral purity. The texts of scripture which might be adduced to establish the doctrine

which has been advanced, have already been cited, and need not now be repeated. But Albert Pighius asserts, that the divine law only prohibits vicious acts, not the latent qualities of the mind: the command says, "Thou shalt not covet," but it does not say thou shalt not have a disease which may induce you to covet. It is true, the act only is mentioned in this prohibition, but the disposition is doubtless included: as in the sixth commandment, it is only said, "thou shalt not kill;" and in the seventh, "thou shalt not commit adultery;" but we know from high authority, that in the one case, the law is violated by sinful anger, and in the other, by a wantón desire; so in the eighth commandment the act of theft only is forbidden expressly, but we know that to covet our neighbour's goods, is sin; and in like manner, although the tenth commandment only prohibits expressly the act of concupiscence; yet undoubtedly the disease, or corrupt disposition from which the act proceeds, is included by implication in the prohibition. And this will appear very clearly by considering the preceptive part of the law: this requires that we should love God with all our heart and mind and strength; and of course, whatever in us that is opposed to a compliance with this command is forbidden, but such an obstacle is this discase of concupiscence, therefore this being forbidden by the holy law of God, is sinful. Infants, therefore, are children of wrath, because they have in them a disease of irregular propensity, although it has not yet been exerted.

Pighius still urges the objection, already refuted in another form, that no law can prohibit equitably, what it is impossible for the creature to avoid; but the infant can no more avoid being born with a proneness to irregular indulgence, than it could avoid coming into the world with the sense of touch or taste; he concludes, therefore, that concupiscence is not prohibited in the tenth commandment.

Now we answer, as before, that if it is true, that nothing is forbidden which cannot be avoided; then, sinful acts are not forbidden, for with a nature labouring under the disease of concupiscence, sinful acts cannot be avoided; and so the argument is not sound, since it proves too much; nay, the renewed themselves cannot avoid sin in this life, as Paul abundantly teaches in the 7th of Romans; therefore, God does prohibit what we cannot avoid, and does command what we cannot perform.

The author then proceeds to refute the opinion of the Flac

cians, that original sin corrupted the substance of the soul; an opinion industriously propagated by Flaccius Illyricus, one of the most learned of the reformers; and which was embraced and pertinaciously maintained in several places in Germany. But as this error is not now maintained by any with whom we are acquainted, we do not think it necessary to exhibit the elaborate and conclusive arguments by which Sohnnius refutes it.

As we stated before, our object in giving an abstract of this treatise, is not so much to defend the doctrine of hereditary depravity, as to give a correct view of the state of opinion on this subject at the time of the reformation and afterwards. And it cannot fail to occur to the intelligent reader, that none of the objections now made to this doctrine are new, or supported by any new arguments. The whole ground of controversy now occupied by the various discordant opinions, has been gone over before. And the result will probably be as before, that while those who adhere strictly to evangelical doctrine will continue to maintain the old doctrine, its opposers will deviate further and further from orthodoxy. There has never yet been an instance in the history of the church of the rejection of any doctrines of the gospel, where the opposers of the truth have been contented to stop at the first step of departure from sound doctrine. If they who first adopt and propagate an error are sometimes restrained by habit, and by a lurking respect for the opinions of the wise and good, as also by a fear of incurring the censure of heresy, from going the full length which their principles require; yet those who follow them in their error will not be kept back by such considerations. Indeed, the principles of self-defence require, that men who undertake to defend their opinions by argument, should endeavour to be consistent with themselves: and thus it commonly happens, that what was originally a single error, soon draws after it the whole system of which it is a part. On this account it is incumbent on the friends of truth to oppose error in its commencement, and to endeavour to point out the consequences likely to result from its adoption; and to us it appears that nothing is better calculated to show what will be the effect of a particular error, than to trace its former progress by the lights of ecclesiastical history.

REVIEW OF LUTHER'S LETTERS, BY DE

WETTE.

Dr Martin Luther's Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken, vollständig aus den verschiedenen Ausgaben seiner Werke und Briefe, aus andern Büchern und noch unbenutzten Handschriften gesammelt, kritisch und historisch bearbeitet von Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, Professor der Theologie zu Basel.

Erster Theil. Luthers Briefe bis zu seinem Aufenthalt auf Wartburg. Nebst Luthers Bildniss. Berlin, 1825. Pp. xxviii. 605, 8vo. 1825.

Zweiter Theil. Luthers Briefe von seinem Aufenthalt auf Wartburg bis zu seiner Verheurathung. Berlin, 1826. Pp. 680.

The extraordinary fame of the great reformer has given a value to every production of his pen, in the estimation of the protestant world. In addition to the voluminous works which he prepared for the public, and which were so diligently studied by our fathers, his familiar letters have been sought out and collected; notes of his ordinary discourse have been offered in print; the remnants of his rudest draughts, adversaria, and heads of arguments, and even notes, quittances and household memoranda, have been rescued from oblivion, and set forth in volumes.

No name in the history of the reformation holds so high a rank as that of Luther. When Calvin, or Zuingle, or Beza, or even Melancthon, are named with praise by their respective admirers, there is immediately manifested a reluctance, on the part of many, to accord to them the unmingled applause which all sects and schools of reformed Christians unite in bestowing on Luther. And yet, strange as the assertion may appear to some, and long and sedulously as the character of this wonderful man has been examined, we venture to maintain that few men have been more misunderstood. There are, indeed, certain prominent traits which strike at once the apprehension of the most unobservant, and in which all the various and discordant representations agree; as in the many portraits of his

« PreviousContinue »