« السابقةمتابعة »
least some countenance given to it in Matt. xix. 28. But our motive in introducing this specimen of Dr. Whately's reasoning is to shew in one instance, what occasionally happens to him in others, that, having confuted an error, or at least displayed in strong colours his reasons for exploding a particular sentiment, he forgets to examine whether his own explanation will better endure the test. Thus, after much and ingenious argumentation on the difficult passage referred to, he comes to this conclusion, founded, he says, on a close examination of the context:
"The most reasonable interpretation, therefore, of this passage seems to be that which was adopted by the most ancient divines (namely, Chrysostom and others); to whom the more attention is due in a question of this kind, because they used the Greek language, in which Paul wrote, and were accustomed probably to the use of the same words in the same sense in which he employs them. They understand the Apostle to mean by the word which we translate judge,' the same as 'condemn.' Any one who takes the right course, by so doing, condemns,-in the New-Testament language, judges,' -those who, with equal opportunities, choose the wrong. This was the case with the Corinthian Christians (or saints); who, by embracing the Gospel, judged (in this sense) their unbelieving neighbours, to whom it had been proposed and who rejected it; they had set these an example of faith which they had not followed; and they also, as far as they conformed their lives to the spirit of the Gospel, condemned and put to shame by their example the gross vices of those who continued pagans." View, pp. 137, 138.
Let us, then, translate the passage accordingly; for we presume, that, as we are to understand the Apostle to mean by the word which we translate " judge❞ the same as "condemn," we may so translate it throughout the passage, there being no intimation of any change of meaning. Thus, then, it stands: " Does any of you, who has a matter of complaint against his neighbour, dare to be condemned before the unjust, and not before the saints? Know ye not that the saints condemn the world?" [We translate in the present tense, in compliance with our author's directions pp.
Dr. Whately, as we have seen, does not undertake to decide positively as to the intermediate condition of the soul, but merely professes to shew, that
"Each of the two opinions, however, has been held by able and pious men; and I am convinced that a person may be blameless in point of faith, whichever of them he inclines to, provided he do not speak too positively on so obscure a point, or demand the assent of others, where the Scriptures do not speak, or, at least, do not speak decidedly." pp. 45, 46.
Yet we find Dr. Whately himself drawing inferences with respect to the final condition of the blessed, from incidental notices in Scripture, with quite as much confidence as those do who contend against a suspension of sense during the interval. For instance: upon the doctrine that Christians will know and distinguish each other in heaven, and retain their previous attachments-on which the Bible says what some may regard as surprisingly little-he reasons thus:
"It is supposed, for example, that particular friendship will be swallowed up in universal charity; and that any partial regard towards one good man more than another is too narrow a feeling, and unworthy of a saint made perfect. Do we then find any approach towards this supposed perfection in the best Christians on earth? Do we find that in proportion as they improve in charity towards all mankind they become less and less capable of friendship,-less affectionate to their relations and connexions, and to the intimate companions whom they have selected from among their Christian brethren? Far from it: it is generally observed, on the contrary, that the best Christians, and the fullest both of brotherly love towards all who are of the rity and benevolence towards all their fellow-creatures, are also the warmest and steadiest in their friendships. Why then should it be otherwise hereafter? with universal benevolence in heaven more Why should private friendship interfere than it does on earth? but there is a more
household of faith,' and of universal cha
decisive proof than this: no one can suppose that a Christian in his glorified state will be more exalted than his great Master here on earth; from Him we must ever remain at an immeasurable distance: we hope, indeed, to be free from the sufferings of our blessed Lord in his state of humiliation here below; but never to equal his perfections. Yet he was not incapable of friendship. He certainly loved indeed all mankind, more than any other man ever did; since (as St. Paul says) 'while we were yet enemies, he died for us:' He loved especially the disciples who constantly followed him; but even among the Apostles He distinguished one as more peculiarly and privately his friend-John was the disciple whom Jesus loved.' Can we then ever be too highly exalted to be capable of friendship?
who have been dearest friends on ear th should not, when admittted to that happy state, continue to be so, with full knowledge and recollection of their former friendship. If a man is still to continue, (as there is every reason to suppose) a social being, and capable of friendship, it seems contrary to all probability that he should cast off or forget his former friends, who are partakers with him of the like exaltation. He will indeed be greatly changed from what he was on earth, and unfitted perhaps for friendship with such a being as one of us is now; but his friend will have undergone (by supposition) a corresponding change. And as we have seen those who have been loving playfellows in childhood, grow up with good and with like dispositions, into still closer friendship in riper years, so also it is probable that when this our state of childhood shall be perfected in the maturity of a better world, the like attachment will continue between those companions who have trod together the Christian path to glory, and have walked in the house of God as friends."" View, pp. 222–227.
“I am convinced, on the contrary, that the extension and perfection of friendship will constitute great part of the future happiness of the blest. Many have lived in various and distant ages and countries, who have been in their characters, (I mean not merely in their being generally estimable,) but in the agreement of their We agree, in the main, with the tastes, and suitableness of dispositions, author in these views, and think we perfectly adapted for friendship with each see much in Scripture to favour other, but who of course could never meet some of them; but not more, we in this world. Many a one selects, when he is reading history, a truly pious Chris- believe, than may fairly be adduced tian, most especially in reading sacred his- in favour of an intermediate state of tory, some one or two favourite charac- consciousness, both as regards those ters, with whom he feels that a personal that are saved and those that perish. acquaintance would have been peculiarly delightful to him. Why should not such In both instances, the positive evia desire be realized in a future state? A dence will probably have greater wish to see and personally know, for ex- weight in proportion as the testiample, the Apostle Paul, or John, is the mony of revelation is more deeply most likely to arise in the noble and purest studied, and made the subject of demind; I should be sorry to think such a wish absurd and presumptuous, or unvout and frequent reflection. We likely ever to be gratified. The highest are inclined, also, to think (and we enjoyment doubtless to the blest, will be rejoice to quote Dr. Whately's words the personal knowledge of their great and beloved Master; yet I cannot but think in confirmation of this persuasion) that some part of their happiness will "that more is revealed to us" on consist in an intimate knowledge of the these subjects" than many persons greatest of his followers also; and of those of them in particular, whose pecusuppose; so far at least, revealed, liar qualities are, to each, the most pecu attain, if not certainty, yet strong that reason aided by Scripture may liarly attractive. In this world again, our friendships are limited not only to those probability on many points concernwho live in the same age and country, but ing which some men think it vain to to a small portion even of them ;—to a small portion even of those who are not inquire" (View, p. 213). At the unknown to us, and whom we know to be same time, in regard to the whole estimable and amiable, and who, we feel, subject, it must ever be remembered, might have been among our dearest friends. that it is not either earthly friendship, or any thing that refers to created objects, that constitutes the bliss of heaven: the vision and the favour of God are the consummation of the expected enjoyment, with special allusion also, frequently made in
Our command of time and leisure to cul
tivate friendships, impose a limit to their extent they are bounded rather by the occupation of our thoughts, than of our affections. And the removal of such impediments in a better world, seems to me a most desirable, and a most probable change. I see no reason again why those
the Epistles, to the presence of Christ the whole law of Moses; or only the ceremonial law, in opposition to the moral? Dr. Whately contends that it is the whole law, and undertakes the defence of the position as follows:
and his now glorified body, through which a new medium of access and communication is opened between God and man, the infinite Creator and his beatified creature. It is only in subordination to this that construe Dr. Whately's statement that the extension and perfection of friendship will constitute great part of the future happiness of the blest." The "great part" will be the ecstatic intercourse of the soul with its Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier; every thing else must be infinitely little in the comparison: and with regard to the mutual communion of the blessed, and the recognition and friendship, which we believe to be a scriptural doctrine, the attachment must be of a nature which we are not in our present state able to comprehend; as friendship upon earth implies preferences and exclusions, which cannot, we conceive, exist in a world of celestial knowledge, celestial holiness, and celestial love. We strongly recommend, to those who feel interested in the whole of this question, a work lately published, entitled " Recognition in the World to come, or Christian Friendship on Earth perpetuated in Heaven; by the Rev. C. Muston, A.M." The author has collected a large body of proof on the subject, and we think fully substantiated the affirmative side of the question.
We now pass on to another topic namely, Dr. Whately's bold position of the invalidity of the whole law of Moses; a position which we have been concerned to see adopted in quarters where we should not have expected to find it. St. Paul, indeed, certainly speaks of the abolition of the law. Thus, in Rom. vii. 6, he
"Now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held ;" in 2 Cor. iii. 13, The children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished;" in Gal. v. 18,
If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." But the question is, What law is abolished? Is it
"Let us but adopt the obvious interpretation of the Apostle's words, and admit the entire abrogation, according to it was originally designed for the Israelites alone, and that its dominion over them ceased when the Gospel system commenced; and we shall find that this concession does not go a step towards establishing the Antinomian conclusion, that moral conduct is not required of Christians." Difficulties, pp. 168, 169.
him, of the Mosaic law; concluding that
He has thus cut the Gordian knot, but we cannot think he has untied it : he has asserted that a particular specified evil would not result from the admission of the doctrine; but this neither proves the doctrine nor disproves it. The distinction between the ceremonial law of Moses and his moral law, it may be admitted, is not in so many words laid down by St. Paul, or any other of the sacred writers; yet it is frequently assumed and implied: for instance, in the fifteenth and twenty-fourth Psalms, the description of him who shall be admitted to the holy hill of the Lord is borrowed wholly from the moral, and not at all from the ceremonial enactments of the law. Again; the distinction is very plainly drawn in Hosea vi. 6, under the opposite names of "e mercy and "sacrifice; as it is also under similar forms in various other parts of the Old Testament; for example, Ps. 1. 8—15, and Jer. vii. 22, 23. It is further remarkable, that our Lord, in his Sermon on the Mount, besides his solemn declaration in Matt. v.18,19, explains the moral law as given by Moses, and assigns to it its spiritual import; and when he afterwards sums up the whole law in two commandments, he does not propose them as a new rule of action, but adduces them from the very text of Moses, as conveying the two principles on which "hang all the Law and the Prophets." The second of them is again explicitly deduced by St. Paul from the second table of the
Law. Moreover, the frequent references in the Epistles to the Ten Commandments forbid the idea of their authority being at an end (Eph. vi. 23; James ii. 8, 11; iv. 11; 1 Tim. i. 8-11).
What, then, does St. Paul mean when he speaks of the Law as abolished? He evidently means the whole of that law which was peculiar to the Mosaic dispensation; and not any part of that which was binding before the time of Moses, and which only received a fresh sanction from being comprehended in his code. From this statement, indeed, Dr. Whately cannot well dissent; for he teaches that the distinctions between right and wrong are not to be learned from the Mosaical law, but are altogether independent of it. "These distinctions," he says, "not having been introduced by the law of Moses, cannot, it is evident, be overthrown by its removal. But, surely, if it has pleased God to record the unalterable laws of human duty in the books of Moses; if they contain, with the exception of some incidental notices in the patriarchal ages, the first written record of his will on that important subject; that written code cannot lose its validity merely because some other enactments, which are incorporated with it, are withdrawn. Indeed, by promulgating the Ten Commandments under different circumstances from the ceremonial law, writing them upon tables of stone, and causing them to be deposited for a perpetual remembrance in the ark, which is the symbol of his Gospel covenant, the Supreme Lawgiver has apparently signified their perpetual obligation, and their unlikeness in this respect to those ritual and political institutions which were, for the first time, communicated to the people through Moses.
But this view of the subject, so far as St. Paul's writings are concerned in it, Dr. Whately considers, though he admits it to be "substantially correct," as "leaving a considerable difficulty unsolved."
"For it cannot be denied that he does CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 353.
speak, frequently and strongly, of the termination of the Mosaic law, and of the exemption of Christians from its obliing the assertion, without even hinting gations, without ever limiting and qualifyat a distinction between one part which is abrogated and another which remains in full force." pp. 166, 167.
Without entering at any length upon the matter of this objection, we are satisfied that we sufficiently meet it when we state our conviction that the extent of meaning to be attached, in any one instance, to the word law," in the Apostle's use of it, must be determined by the nature of the subject under discussion. Thus: if he is speaking of the justification of a sinner before God, he excludes from that work the whole law-moral, civil, and ceremonialbecause there is no law given which can give life to a transgressor (Gal. iii. 21, 22). If, on the other hand, he is speaking of the rule of Christian duty, he may still leave the ceremonial and political portions of the law out of his consideration, because they are no longer binding; and never indeed, with the exception of the general law of sacrifice, were binding, except upon the people of Israel. But the moral precepts of the law he is so far from excluding, that we contend they are the foundation of all his practical exhortations (Gal. v. 14). Again if he alludes to the condemnation of the wicked, he refers to the moral law of God, as that alone which, whether known by express revelation or by natural conscience, will give its warrant to the final sentence (Rom. ii. 12-15). If, on the contrary, he speak of condemnation, in reference to a true believer in Christ, here again he excludes the whole law of God, moral, civil, and ritual, from having any power to condemn him (Rom. viii. 1, 2). The distinctive phrases, moral law, ceremonial law, and political law, not having been then introduced, there was, in fact, no other course to be pursued than that of leaving the extent of the term, Law, itself, to be determined by the subject referred to. So now it is not 2 P
unusual to say, that a certain action is contrary to law, without specifying whether it is the canon law, the statute law, or the common law, that is violated, although commonly only one of the three is broken, while yet many actions are condemned by them all.
Indeed, if the distinction for which we contend be not admitted, the inevitable consequence is, that we are left without any written law at all in Scripture for our guidance; as indeed Dr. Whately admits, in the following passage and elsewhere.
"Now this was very far from being the Apostle's view of the Christian life. Not only does the Gospel require a morality in many respects higher and more perfect in itself than the law, but it places morality, universally, on higher grounds. Instead of precise rules, it furnishes sublime principles of conduct; leaving the Christian to apply these, according to his own discretion, in each case that may arise; and thus to be a law unto himself. Gratitude for the redeeming love of God in Christ, with mingled veneration and affection for the person of our great Master, and an exalted emulation, leading us to tread in his steps-an ardent longing to behold his glories, and to enjoy his presence in the world to come-with an earnest effort to prepare for that better
world-love towards our brethren, for His sake who died for us and them-and, above all, the thought that the Christian is a part of the temple of the Holy Ghost,' who dwelleth in the church-even the Spirit of Christ, without which we are
none of his,' a temple which we are bound
to keep undefiled;-these, and such as these, are the Gospel-principles of morality, into a conformity with which the Christian is to fashion his heart and his life; and they are such principles as the Mosaic dispensation could not furnish." pp. 178-180.
We readily admit that the Gospel supplies motives to obedience beyond those which the Law directly furnishes; and such are some of the motives adduced in this passage. But motives and principles cannot stand in the place of a law, though they supply the strongest inducements to the observance of it; and, consequently, if the Law remains, the addition of these Gospel motives is no inconsiderable aid towards its fulfilment. Dr. Whately is as far opposed as any man can be to Antinomian laxity and licen
tiousness, but the principle he here advocates appears to us to afford it the strongest countenance and support; for it may be that there are some men who, after they have received the humbling and cheering truths of the Gospel, run wild into extravagance and error, from not admitting the restraints of a written law, which would keep them in the path of duty, and assume the liberty of being a law to themselves; and this although their minds and affections are far from being so disciplined by temptation and experience, and so purged from a tendency to sin and corruption, as to to qualify them for the task of self-legislation. No rational creature has been left without some direct and positive law from his Creator; and certainly not man, who, as Zophar said, is born like a wild ass's colt: and we seriously believe, that, when a man has been once emancipated from a legal spirit through faith in the atoning grace of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, there cannot be a more wholesome employment for him than the study of the spiritual and heart-searching requisitions of that moral law which is written for his guidance in every part of the Bible, but more especially in the Ten Commandments, and the Divine commentaries upon them; the study of which will daily
convince him more and more of his great deficiencies, and, by keeping him humble, and yet elevating the tone of his morality and the purity of his desires, prompt him to say, as David did, "My delight shall be in thy commandments, which I have loved: my hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and my study shall be in thy statutes" (Psa. cxix. 47, 48).
A right decision upon this question is the more important, because upon the answer to it depends the obligation to observe the Lord's-day, as a Divine institution, which Dr. Whately gives up, grounding its obligation solely upon ecclesiastical appointment. This, however, is a very different thing. St. Paul distinguishes between those directions