Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

though at the same we admit a great variety in the degree of guilt attached to different sins.

[ocr errors]

66

(2.) With respect to the sin against the Holy Ghost; we find it recorded, (in Matt. xii. 24.) that when Christ had wrought such miracles in the sight of his enemies, that no room was left for further cavil, they asserted, that "he did not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils." It was on this occasion that our Saviour alluded to the sin against the Holy Ghost, which he declared to be unpardonable. On this subject we observe: (1.) Our Saviour makes a distinction between blasphemy against the Son of Man, and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. The former, they were guilty of, when upon hearing his doctrine, and seeing his life, they still called him, "a deceiver, a glutton, and a wine-bibber." (Matt. xi. 19.) (2.) The power by which his miracles were wrought, and which was afterwards communicated to the Apostles, is throughout the New Testament called the Holy Ghost. Hence, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost consisted in

3 See Turretin Ins. Theol. L. 9. Q. 4.

The Article assigns as a reason for not denying pardon to sin after baptism, that every such sin is not the sin against the Holy Ghost. This inference is valid our Saviour says, that "all sin shall be forgiven, but that against the Holy Ghost." But every sin after baptism is not the sin against the Holy Ghost; therefore, every such sin is not unpardonable.

attributing his miracles to an evil spirit. (3.) The reason of this sin being unpardonable, seems to be this: though the Pharisees had blasphemed the Son of Man, yet there were means left of convincing them of his being the great Prophet, sent of God. But when they had those means set before them, and saw plain and uncontested miracles performed, and when, instead of yielding to them, they set up such an opposition, which might have been as reasonably declared against every miracle that could have been wrought, then it was not possible to convince them. They had the highest degree of evidence and proof, and their rejection of this implied their

This interpretation, is to me far from satisfactory, for these reasons: 1. The miraculous powers conferred on the primitive Christians, were of two kinds, powers of acting, such as healing diseases, raising the dead, &c., and those which consisted in the internal illumination of the mind, such as discerning of spirits prophesying, &c. The former are always called "the Spirit," and the latter, "the Holy Ghost," (See Matt. xii. 18, 28. c. x. 8. compared with John vii. 38. and Acts vii. 55.) 2. In v. 38. of this chapter, the same persons whom our Saviour had before addressed, ask him for a sign, and he instantly promises them that of the resurrection. Now a sign could only be given to them as a mean to their future conviction. But this is totally irreconcileable with their having committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, which consists in the individual being beyond the reach of mercy. See Whitby and Scott. in loc. Turretin Ins. Theol. L. 9. Q. 14. and Kettlewell's Meas. of Obed, B. 5. c. 6. Bishop Burnet's opinion, howis supported by Tillotson, on Matt. xii. 31. and Limborch, Theol. Ch. 1. 5. c. 4. sec. 24.

ver,

rejection of all future evidence. Such impenitence is plainly unpardonable. (4.) Since this sin consists in opposition to miracles, and since miracles have ceased, it cannot now be committed.

These terms being thus explained, the assertion of the Article is proved by the following texts: 1. When our Saviour was asked, what limits he set to the number of faults that we were bound to pardon in each other, by the day, declared that though our brother's sins against us exceeded even so vast a number as seventy times seven; yet, "if he turns again, and repents," we are still bound to forgive. (Matt. xviii. 22. and Luke xvii. 4.) Now, our pardoning the offences that may be committed against us, is made the measure on which we may expect pardon from God. (Matt. xviii. 35.) It therefore follows, that according to the sincerity of our repentance, our sins are always forgiven. 2. St. Paul, in the beginnings of Christianity, in which it being as yet unknown to to the world, was liable to be corrupted, still ordered the Corinthians to receive back into their communion the incestuous person, whom, by his own directions, they had delivered to Satan; (1 Cor. v. 5.;) and gives as a reason for this conduct, "lest he should be swallowed up by overmuch sorrow." (2 Cor. ii. 7.) 3. St. Peter's denial, his repentance, and his being restored to his Apostolical dignity, seem to be recorded partly on

this account, to encourage us, even after the most heinous offences, to return to God, and never to reckon our condition desperate. And if this is the nature of the new covenant, then the Church, which is a society formed upon it, must proportion the rules both of her communion and censure, to those set in the Gospel."

Some texts, however, seem to imply a contrary doctrine. Thus, (in Heb. vi. 4.) it is said to be "impossible to renew again unto repen"tance those who were once enlightened, and "have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been "made partakers of the Holy Ghost, if they "shall fall away." And (in 1 Jo. v. 16.) "There " is a sin unto death, for which men are not to

[ocr errors]

pray." On these texts it may be observed, 1. That among the Jews, some sins were punished with a total cutting off, and this perhaps gave rise to the designation of a sin unto death. 2. The text from Hebrews evidently refers to those, who being not only baptized, but also having received a share of the extraordinary ef fusion of the Holy Ghost, had totally renounced the Christian religion, and apostatized from the faith. Now, such persons could not be received

a See Homily of Repentance: Kettlewell's Meas. of Obed. B. 5. c. 1. Goodman's Penitent Pard. B. 3. c. 1., and Pearson on the Creed, Art. 10.

b The word translated " enlightened" (pwTIO0EVTEC) frequently has this meaning. See Whitby in loc.

again to repentance, since nothing could be done toward their conviction, which had not been already done, and proved to be ineffectual. Hence it is evident, that there was no ground for applying this text to such as had fallen away in times of persecution, for as they had not those miraculous means of conviction, so they could not sin so heinously as those had done, who after having seen and felt, yet revolted from the faith.

ARTICLE XVII.

OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION.

PREDESTINATION TO LIFE IS THE

EVERLASTING

PURPOSE OF GOD, WHEREBY, BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD WERE LAID, HE HATH CONSTANTLY DECREED BY HIS COUNSEL, SECRET TO US, TO DELIVER FROM CURSE AND DAMNATION, THOSE WHOM HE HATH CHOSEN IN CHRIST OUT OF MANKIND, AND TO BRING THEM BY CHRIST UNTO EVERLASTING SALVATION, AS VESSELS MADE TO HONOUR. WHEREFORE, THEY WHICH BE ENDUED WITH SO EXCELLENT A BENEFIT OF GOD, BE CALLED ACCORDING TO GOD'S PURPOSE, BY HIS SPIRIT WORKING IN DUE SEASON; THEY THROUGH GRACE OBEY THE CALLING, THEY BE JUSTIFIED FREELY, THEY BE

« AnteriorContinuar »