صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

LECTURE II.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

GENESIS VI. 5.

AND GOD SAW THAT THE WICKEDNESS OF MAN WAS GREAT IN THE EARTH,

AND THAT EVERY IMAGINATION OF THE THOUGHTS OF HIS HEART WAS ONLY EVIL CONTINUALLY.

Argument II. THERE is a change wrought in the elect in some part of their lives, which gives them the first holy principle; of course they had no holiness before.

That this change introduces the first holy principle is apparent from the names by which it is called. Of these the most remarkable are, the new creation and new birth. If these names are not utterly insignificant they import the BEGINNING of LIFE. Now in the language of scripture spiritual life is holiness.* As then the first birth or creation is the beginning of natural life, the new creation or new birth, if these terms have any meaning, must be the beginning of holiness. To say that these names denote a progress in spiritual life, is

* Rom. vi. 4-13. and viii. 6, 10. and xi. 15. Eph. ii. 1. Col. iii. 3.

to say that the new creation or new birth is repeated upon Christians every day. But why call a progress in life a creation or a birth, rather than by any other name to be found in language. To be consistent you must call the progress from youth to manhood a creation and a birth.

The very phrases new creation and new birth carry in them an intimation that the first creation or birth was totally defective and must be entirely done over again, that the defect can be remedied by no other means, that we remain what the first creation or birth made us until new made and new born, and that something is produced in this change which did not exist before. What is a new creation if nothing new is created? What is a new birth if nothing new is born?

This argument must be conclusive if the terms under consideration really denote the beginning of spiritual life in the soul. Of three things one. They denote the beginning of spiritual life in the soul, or the progress of that life, or something distinct from inward holiness. To apply them to the progress of that life is exactly like calling the advance from youth to manhood a creation or a birth. That fancy must be given up. Only this alternative then remains: either the terms denote the beginning of holiness in the soul, (and then the argument is irresistible,) or they denote something distinct from inward holiness. The latter has been asserted. The only way attempted to avoid the force of this argument has been to allege that

nothing more is meant by the new creation than a conversion from pagan or Jewish darkness to the profession of Christianity, and nothing more by the new birth than an introduction to the visible Church by baptism. The decisive question to be tried then is this, Do these terms denote the production of real holiness of heart, or a mere introduction to the visible Church, from a pagan, Jewish, or Christian state?

Before putting this question to trial I will make two preliminary remarks.

First, if these terms denoted that revolution which took place at the translation of men from -pagan or Jewish darkness and sin into the light and holiness of the Christian state, it is not necessary to suppose that they expressed merely or chiefly the outward change. Even if what was visible was so denominated, it is natural to suppose that it was so called, not as a hypocritical show, but as the expression and evidence of the change within. We call the visible figure of a human being a man, though it is the soul that chiefly constitutes him such. If there is such a thing as inward holiness, there is such a thing as outward holiness, and in the languages of men the outward and inward character will be called by the same name. speak in the absolute form of a man's conversion, without meaning to say that conversion is a mere visible change. We call a man who is externally good, a good man, and one who makes a credible profession of Christianity, a Christian, though we

We

know that these names imply and chiefly express an inward character. Honest man, friend, and all the terms descriptive of character, are daily used in the same way. But because you apply such appellations to men whose hearts you cannot know, is it to be inferred that there are honest men, and friends, who are not so in heart? If the visible churches to whom the Epistles were written were called "saints," holy brethren," "faithful," "beloved of God," "elect," "justified," "sanctified in Christ Jesus," "partakers of the divine nature," "children of God," "joint heirs with Christ," it is not necessary to suppose that these titles denoted an outward character and condition only, unless indeed Christianity is altogether an outside thing, not at all intended to cleanse the fountain of action, or form the temper for a future life.

Secondly, if the terms under consideration really denoted an inward change in Jews and pagans, the same change must be wrought in people in a Gospel land, unless they already possess the temper denoted by the terms. If any can be found who are not what is really intended by new creatures and new born, it is plain that they must be created and born anew. But whether all the inhabitants of Christendom, or even all within the pale of the Christian Church, do possess such a character, will appear when the import of these terms comes to be examined.

[ocr errors]

Now for the trial of the question. Do the terms new creation and new birth denote the production of real holiness of heart, or a mere introduction to the visible Church, from a pagan, Jewish, or Gospel state? Let us examine the two phrases separately.

First, of the new creation. It is by this operation that "the new creature" or 66 new man" is formed. What account then have we of the new creature or new man?

To be a new creature is to be in Christ: "We are His workmanship created IN Christ Jesus." Unless then a union to the visible Church actually unites one to Christ, something more is meant by the new creation. It is absolutely necessary to be a new creature in order to be in Christ: "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature." Unless then a union to the visible Church is essential to a union with Christ, something more is meant by the new creation.*

Here let us settle once for all what is meant by being in Christ. To be in Christ is to be so housed in Him as to be completely sheltered from condemnation: "There is-now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." It is to be "members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones:" "So we being many are one body in Christ." It is to have a sure title to all the promises. The promises were all made to Christ, and are repre

[blocks in formation]
« السابقةمتابعة »