Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

"interpretation was peculiarly favourable to their sentiments "which they defended against the Church."

To this I reply, FIRST, It has already been shewn, both in reality, and by the testimony of St. Augustine, that this chapter, even when understood as applicable to a man under the law and not yet regenerate, is adverse to the Pelagian doctrine. (See pages 613, 638.)

SECONDLY. It may have happened, that the Pelagians supposed the chapter might be explained in reference to a man placed under the law and not under grace, without any consideration of the controversy in which they were engaged with the orthodox.

THIRDLY. It cannot favour the sentiments of the Pelagians, that the apostle is said in this chapter to be treating about a man under the law; but this might be favourable, that they adduced such a description of a man who is under the law, as they knew was accommodated to strengthen their sentiments. For they said, that "a man under the law is he who, by the power and instinct "of nature, (which was not corrupted in Adam,) is able to will "that which is good, and not to will what is evil; but who, "through a depraved habit, was so bound to the service of sin, "as in reality and actually he was not able to perform the good "which he would," &c. This false description of the man might also be met, not by denying that the subject of this chapter is a man under the law, but by refuting that description. For heretics are not heretical on all subjects and in every point; and it is their usual practice to intermix true things with those which are false, and frequently on true foundations to erect a superstructure of falsehoods, I repeat it, on true foundations, which by some artifice or by manifest violence are perverted to the support of falsehoods.

5. It is objected besides, "It is impossible for this opinion not "to be heretical or allied to heresy, when we see one PROSPER "DYSIDEUS, a Samosatenian man, who is deeply polluted by a "multitude of heresies, interpreting Romans vii. in reference to a "man who is not yet under grace but under the law: Which he "undoubtedly would not have done, had he not understood that through it he had a mighty support for his own heresies."

66

REPLY.-This Objection is truly ridiculous:-as if he who is a heretic ought to err in all things, and can speak nothing that is true, or if he does utter any truth, the whole of it must be referred to the confirmation of his heresy. Even the very worst of heretics have, in some articles, held the same sentiments as those of the Church. It is a well-known fact, that the ancient heretics endea

voured, and indeed were accustomed, to interpret many passages of Scripture against the orthodox, in such a way as they could not injure their several heresies. Yet these very passages are, even at the present time, explained by our theologians against the sense of the ancient orthodox, and in accordance with the interpretation of those heretics: But such persons are not, on this account, to be denominated "the favourers of heresies."

But I am wishful to have it demonstrated to me what affinity my explanation of Romans vii. has with Arianism or Samosatenianism. If the same person, who is either an Arian or a Samosatenian, is likewise earnest about the perfection of righteousness in this life, he will deny that this chapter ought to be understood as relating to the regenerate, not as he is either a Samosatenian or an Arian, but as he is a Pelagian or a follower of Cælestius.

If it be allowable to reason in this manner, then the opinion which explains this chapter as referring to a man under grace, will itself labour under great prejudices, from the fact,—that it is generally so interpreted by the Jesuits, and by their leaders, who are the sworn enemies of the church of Christ and of the Truth, and, at the same time, the most able retainers of the Popish church, that is, of a church which is idolatrous, tyrannical, and most polluted with innumerable heresies. Away then with such a mode of argumentation as this, about the explanation of any portion of Scripture! Let it never proceed from the mind or the lips of those persons who, with a good conscience, have undertaken the defence of the Truth. Who does not perceive, that arguments of this kind are employed for the purpose of abashing and unsettling the minds of ignorant and unexperienced hearers; that, being blinded by a certain fear and stupor, they may not be able to form a judgment on the Truth, nay, that they may not dare to touch the matter under controversy, through a vain fear of heresy! Such artifices as these are notorious; and all men of learning and moderation are aware of them: Nor are they capable of proving injurious to any persons except to the unlearned and the simple, or to those who have spontaneously determined to wander into error. For we have shewn, that this chapter has been understood in the same sense as we interpret it, by many Doctors of the Church, who declared and proved themselves to be the most eminent adversaries of Arianism, Samosatenianism, and of other heresies, and the most strenuous defenders of the true doctrine concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Gracious Lord! what a wide and ample plain is here opened for those persons who feel a pleasure in thrusting out the

most able and efficient assertors of Catholic Doctrine, into the camp of heretics, under this pretext,-that they interpret certain passages of Scripture, which have been usually adduced for the refutation of heresy, in such a manner as not to enable other persons to attack heresies with those passages so interpreted.

6. LASTLY. This my explanation is burdened with another objection, that "it differs from the Confessions of all the "Reformed Churches in Europe, for the establishment of which "such a multitude of Martyrs have shed their blood.”

This argument likewise, I assert, is employed, not for teaching the truth, but to inflame and blind the minds of those who listen to it, [pra furore] through the indignation which they conceive. For I deny, that, in any Confession,-whether that of the French, the Dutch, the Swiss, the Savoy, the English, the Scotch, the Bohemian, or the Lutheran Churches, or of any other, there is extant a single article that is contrary to this interpretation, or that is in the least weakened by this interpretation of Romans vii. It may indeed possibly have happened, that some portion of this chapter has been used in some Confession for the establishment of a doctrine which cannot be confirmed from it, unless it be explained as relating to a regenerate man who is under grace. But how does this circumstance militate against him who approves of the very same doctrine, and defends it in an earnest and accurate manner, by adducing several other passages of Scripture in its support? Such a man affirms this alone,-that the true doctrine, in whose defence it has been cited, is not sufficiently well defended by this passage of Holy Writ. And what man ever shed his blood, or was compelled to shed it, because he was of opinion that this chapter ought to be explained in reference to a regenerate man, and not to a man who is under the law?

I speak with freedom, and frankly declare, that, while I am listening to such reasons, I am scarcely able to govern and restrain myself from openly crying out, through grief, that God would have mercy on those who teach these things, and would put within them a good mind and a sincere conscience, lest, while rushing headlong against conscience, they at length receive due punishment for the demerit of malignant ignorance: Or that He would be pleased to hinder their attempts, or, at least, that He would render them abortive, lest they should injure the Truth which has been Divinely manifested, and the church of Christ! For I cannot put any milder construction on such expressions, when they proceed from men who are endued with knowledge and understanding.

[blocks in formation]

All those matters contained in Confessions are not equally necessary. All the particulars in any Confession are not confirmed by the blood of those who are dragged away to the stake not for the whole of that Confession, but on account of some part of it. And we know that many thousands of Martyrs have sealed the truth of the Gospel with their blood, who were never questioned respecting this article of the perfection or imperfection of righteousness, and who never expended any thoughts upon it: I refer now to this Question, "Are those who, through Christ, "are justified and sanctified, able in this life to fulfil the law of "God without any defect, through the assistance of Christ and "the Spirit of grace?" For all Christians are well assured, that, without the grace of Christ, they are not able to do any good whatsoever. Wherefore the use of this kind of argument must be laid aside by those who are good and conscientious inquirers after the truth, and who endeavour to preserve her when she is 'discovered.

FOURTH PART.

THE OPPOSITE OPINION IS APPROVED BY NONE OF THE ANCIENT DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH,

1. THE Ancients who have interpreted this Chapter as relating to a Man under Grace, and the Moderns who give it a similar Interpretation, differ very materially from each other: Because, by the Good which the Apostle says he wills and does not, and by the EVIL which he says he wills not and does, the Ancients understand only the NOT-INDULGING IN CONCUPISCENCE, and the INDULGING in it; while the Moderns understand GOOD and EVIL actually performed.-2. That such was the Opinion of the Ancients is proved by Citations from Epiphanius, Augustine, Bede, and Thomas Aquinas.-3. The Difference between these two diverse Explanations of Good and Evil is so great, in the Judgment of the Ancients, that, according to both Explanations, they cannot agree with a regenerate Man. This is proved by Citations from Augustine, Bede, Thomas Aquinas, and Hugh the Cardinal.

THESIS. The meaning which the greater part of our modern Divines ascribe to the apostle in this chapter, is not approved by any of the Ancient Doctors of the Church, not even by Augustine himself; but, by many of them, it was repudiated and rejected.

IN THIS Thesis I do not assert, that none of the Ancient Doctors

has interpreted this chapter as relating to a man who is regenerate and placed under grace: For I have already confessed, that St. Augustine and some others give it that interpretation. But I affirm, that the interpretation of our divines differs from the explanation of those Ancients in a point of great moment; and so great is this difference, that, except by a forced construction and a meaning contrary to the mind of those old authors themselves, the moderns are unable to confirm their opinion on this subject by the authority of the Ancients. This will, I think, be proved with sufficient accuracy, if it be shewn that those things which the apostle attributes to this man, are received by our divines in a widely-different acceptation from that in which they were understood by those among the Ancients, who explained the chapter as relating to a man under grace: Indeed the moderns receive it in a sense so far different and dissenting from this explanation of some of the Ancients, that these very Ancients have entertained the opinion that these attributes, [in Rom. vii,] when received according to their modern construction by our divines, do not agree with a man who is regenerate and under grace, but with one who is placed under the law.

The truth of this affirmation I will now proceed to point out in the following manner :-That GOOD which the apostle says he indeed wills but does not, and that EVIL which, he says, he wills not and yet does, are interpreted by most of our divines as referring to ACTUAL GOOD AND EVIL. And they explain the EVIL by that very deed which is committed, with the consent of the will, through the lusting of the flesh against the lusting of the Spirit; in like manner, they explain the GooD by that very deed which a man indeed lusts or desires to do according to the Spirit, but which he does not actually, perform, being hindered by the lusting of the flesh. Let the Commentaries of our divines be examined, and it will at once be evident that this is their interpretation of the chapter; and this is openly declared by those who, on this subject, are opposed to me in opinion.

But when St. Augustine, and all those ancients whom I have had an opportunity of perusing, interpret this chapter as referring to a man who is regenerate and placed under grace, they assert that the EVIL which the Apostle says he would not but did, is to lust or desire: But they interpret the Goon which he says he would but did not, by not lusting or coveting; yet they make a distinction between these two,-lusting and going after their lusts,— and not lusting and not going after their lusts. In a manner nearly similar, the apostle St. James denotes this difference in

« ZurückWeiter »