Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

had a heart so overflowing with kind and amiable affections towards all men. Mr. Johnson was brought up by his parents strictly as a Methodist, and until he received the doctrines of the New Church, he was a sincere member of that community. He was even then an extensive reader of metaphysical works, generally approved by that body, together with general works on science and philosophy, in which he took much pleasure. Taking into account the limits of his education, his faculties were evidently of a superior order, as he appeared to enjoy great facility in the apprehension of things generally, and especially of those which were deemed by many very abstruse. But a sincere mind, zealous for the truth, and making it the simple object of research, will rarely be found able long to resist the powerful light of the doctrines of the New Church. Mr. Johnson being now compelled to apply his metaphysics, in refutation of the New Church doctrines, against which he found them powerless, could scarcely avoid making a similar application of them to his own dogmas. But this exercise of his mind was fatal to his own peculiar tenets. They could neither bear it, nor admit of being bolstered up by all the power of his ingenuity and metaphysics united. At length there was nothing left for him but to embrace the doctrines of the New Church, which he found to be at the same time both scriptural and rational, or to refrain the exercise of all his intellectual faculties, and believe, as is usually the case implicitly, the dogmas of religion in which he had been educated. Only those who have experienced the painful struggle, in undergoing such a change, can duly appreciate it. In a mind truly in earnest for salvation, esteeming all other things but as dross in comparison, the relinquishment of the only means of its attainment, according to previous convictions, must be attended with much tormenting fear, till fully convinced and satisfied that error has been supplanted by the truth. Mr. Johnson was a subscriber to Mr. Bradley's Lectures, when they first came out. He had not then embraced the New Church doctrines, at all events, not fully; as he thought he should be able

to refute that on the Resurrection, joined by a local preacher among the Methodists, more learned than himself, but inferior in mental ability, they undertook to prepare for the press a refutation of the Lecture; Mr. Johnson was to supply the matter, and the other to arrange it for the press. They commenced the undertaking, which continued for some time to make satisfactory progress. At length Mr. Johnson could proceed no farther: and when his friend began to complain for want of fresh matter, Mr. J. told him to finish it himself, if able, as he had done all he was able to do. Of course no refutation appeared. He soon after became a zealous member of the New Church, read the writings with close attention, and acquired a very extensive and accurate knowledge of the doctrines. Among his old associ ates, he beat down all opposition to them with the greatest ease; at the same time advocating among them, with great ability, their truth. Among New Church friends he gained considerable esteem; and by some of them, the writer in particular, he was loved and revered, as the best and most faithful friend he ever had in this world. He feels deeply how inadequate he is, in this memoir, to do justice to a friend he loved so much and so worthily. Often has he been guided by him in a right path,in important business of the Church, even when his own mind was full of hesitation how to act for the best. On these occasions the writer has many times been instrumen tal to much good in the Society, by putting his friend's advice into practice. He cannot but lament and feel his own loss, in the removal of his friend to the spiritual world, though he is as confident as he can be, without actual demonstration, that, in the change, his friend is liberated from many troubles of this life, and will soon be received into the joy of his Lord in some heavenly society, where his already enlarged mind will find, in the reciprocal love of minds of similar character and capacity, an amplitude of all his faculties, filled perpetually with unspeakable delights. I may just add, that Mr. Johnson having preached among the Methodists, has frequently given occasional services of this kind in our own Temple.

J. W.

ERRATA.-In some copies of the July No., at page 249, line 14 from bottom, for "complimentary," read "complementary;" and at page 269, line 19 from top, for "understood," read "misunderstood."

[blocks in formation]

To the Editor of the Intellectual Repository.

SIR, Although there are numerous and highly pertinent references to the above-named subject in the pages of your periodical, the author of the following remarks is not aware that they contain any article or series of articles exclusively confined to it, and on that account submits, with all deference to your better judgment, the propriety or impropriety of laying them before your readers.

In all disputations respecting the great and all-important doctrines of Divine Truth, nothing perhaps is of more essential moment than a clear understanding of the terms employed, and a candid and unequivocal application of them according to their plain and generally received acceptation. A strict adherence to this would, in numerous cases, bring to a speedy conclusion many of those controversies which seem productive of nothing but ill-feeling between the contending parties, and which, fortunately for society, generally disappear in the very waste of words which they have created.

There is no charge more frequently urged against the advocates of the doctrines of the New Church than that of their denying the very truths for which they so earnestly contend. Thus, for instance, when the doctrines of the Supreme Divinity of the Lord, of the Holy Trinity, of the Atonement, of the Resurrection, of the final Judgment, &c., are set forth in all their fulness, and with such force of evidence as to render them invulnerable by the shafts of infidelity, they who have performed this service in the cause of truth, are often rewarded for their labours of love by being told that they deny the faith, and are worse than infidels. And why and whence this most serious charge? Simply, we presume, because New Church writers reject the definitions of those and other doctrines as offered by their opponents, and prefer in their stead definitions that are in strict accordance with Scripture and reason, with common sense, and with all that can be known of the immutable laws N.S. NO. 57.-VOL. v.

SS

of divine order. Lest, therefore, we should in the present case fall under the charge of denying the doctrine which we intend to advocate, we hereby formally declare our firm belief of the same as presented to us in the Scriptures, and in accordance with the rule of procedure, which, by implication at least, we have above proposed, shall offer a definition of the term Imputation, and by that definition shall strictly abide.

The term Imputation does not occur as a noun either in the Old Testament or in the New, but seems to have found its way, as such, into the English language through the medium of the French, and is evidently a derivative from the Latin verb Imputare, which corresponds to the Greek verb Aoyığoμaı, and also to the Hebrew verb, which signify to account, to reckon, to ascribe, to attribute, to think, to esteem, to infer, &c.

To quote instances of all these shades of signification, and of others which might be added to the list, would far exceed the limits within which our remarks must necessarily be confined. The reader is respectfully requested to trace them for himself, with the assurance that the result will amply repay his labour. One remark only we would here offer, and that is, that when he has traced the whole, and has compared the passages in the Sacred Writings where the word in any of its forms occurs, with those passages in which it is to be found in what are termed the profane, he will find that, collectively, if we may so say, they signify-to infer or conclude, after stating the reasons on both sides, and, as it were, balancing the account. Now this clearly implies, nay, necessarily involves the idea of the administration of strict justice: hence, wherever the original term, or any of its derivatives is used, whether in a good, or in an evil sense, we shall find that the actual existence of the respective qualities of good or of evil, is always presupposed in the person or thing of which such imputation is predicated.

It

In illustration and proof of this position, we may select the case of Abraham, respecting which so much has been written pro and con, by theological combatants, that Paul and James, two of the Lord's inspired apostles, are supposed to have differed so widely in their opinions as to stand in need of "reconciliation" at the hands of their successors. is said of Abraham, (Gen. xv. 6.) that when Jehovah promised him that his seed should be numerous as the sand of the sea, he believed in Jehovah, and he counted it to him for righteousness (justice). This language is commonly explained as meaning that Abraham, when he believed the promise then made to him, and had his faith counted, or imputed to him for righteousness, was then, and thereby pardoned as a guilty sinner, and, “in consequence of his faith in the promised Messiah,

treated as though he had been righteous, by being forgiven and accepted, for the sake of the Saviour in whom his faith terminated." But this is a merely gratuitous assertion, and, moreover, confounds things that differ. Justification is perhaps the most inapplicable term that could be chosen to designate pardon or forgiveness, being much more nearly allied in signification to the term sanctification than to pardon. But we can be at no loss to ascertain the precise import of the term righteousness as designating what was imputed to Abraham, since the apostle James has plainly shewn that it was obedience to the command of God. From first to last, the history of the patriarch Abraham shews that, as the representative of all the true Israel of God, as the father of the faithful, that is, of all who walk in the steps of his faith, his obedience was such as to obtain for him the high appellation of "THE FRIEND (piλos, lover) OF GOD." Here, then, we have an incontrovertible instance of the true nature of the imputation mentioned in Scripture as the act of the "Judge of all the earth," whose judgment never is, neither indeed can be, any otherwise than according to truth. Now we are distinctly informed by the apostle Paul, that it was not for Abraham's sake alone that the record of this imputation was made in Scripture, but for the sake of all, whether Jews or Gentiles, who are of, or who hold the faith of Abraham. (Rom. iv. 16, 23, 24.) Accordingly we find the Lord designating such, and such only, as his friends, (piλoi, lovers) where he says: "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." (John xv. 14.) "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John xiv. 15.) And with these declarations of the Lord we have in perfect harmony the testimony of his disciple and apostle John: "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." (1 John v. 3.) Can any thing more clearly prove than these passages do, that what is said in Scripture to have been imputed to Abraham, unto, or for righteousness, and what is actually imputed to all who hold the faith of Abraham, is not a merely nominal thing, but really and substantially obedience to God's commandments ?

Were farther proof of this necessary, it might readily be found in the words of the Lord addressed to the Jews who refused obedience to him, while they boasted of being the seed of Abraham, and of having God for their father. "I know," said he, "that ye are Abraham's seed, but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you." "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the work of Abraham. ye seek to kill me; this did not Abraham. If God were your Father, would love me." (John viii. 37, 39, 40.)

ye

But now

Reputed orthodox writers, however, uniformly, and universally object

to this view of imputation on the ground that it involves human agency in the matter of salvation, and contend that that faith which is imputed to man for righteousness stands in direct opposition to obedience or work of any kind on the part of man, pressing into their service as the foundation of their solifidian scheme, every expression which Paul found it necessary to use in convincing the Jews of the abolition of the Mosaic ritual. We can see no necessity for this over scrupulous attempt to represent faith in God as something which is incompatible with, and even exclusive of every thing which could be considered as an act of obedience to God; or what dislike the orthodox should have to the term work as only another word for obedience; or why they should deny that faith forms any part of man's obedience to God, since the Word of God plainly teaches that it is Jehovah who worketh all our works in us; (Isa. xxvi. 12.) and since hearing, obeying, and believing are so frequently used by the sacred writers as convertible terms. A modern advocate of the solifidian system has said: "Many consider believing as a work, and think that if that were imputed unto righteousness, a man must be justified by works. But the apostle never speaks of believing as a work; on the contrary, he continually opposes it on this subject to all works of every kind."*

Truly welcome is this writer to all the benefit of his discovery; it will make nothing against our argument so long as we have Paul's Lord and Master's declaration to those Jews who asked him what they should do that they might work the works of God, to whom he replied: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (John vi. 29.) Were it not actually recorded in the writings of the class of men of whom we are now speaking, it could scarcely be believed that, so jealous are they of the freeness and fulness of what they term grace in the salvation of man; so fearful of admitting the bare idea that man is rendered just or righteous, and esteemed as such in the sight of God, only in as far as he acts justly and "doeth righteousness,”—that when they come to define the faith by which alone they say man is justified, they make it to be "simple credence and nothing else," and affirm that, in as far as it has to do with justification it is devoid of moral excellence. "I hold," says the author just quoted, "that sinners are justified through Christ's righteousness by faith alone, or purely in believing that the righteousness of Christ which he finished on the cross, and which was declared to be accepted by his resurrection from the dead, is alone sufficient for their pardon and acceptance with God, however guilty and unworthy they are." This is no distorted view of the sentiments of * M'Lean's Works, Vol. II. p. 387.

+ P. 83.

« AnteriorContinuar »