Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Ah! could not infinite wisdom think you, find out a way, to accomplish that glorious design, without the agency of that hell-deserving conduct of Judas? Was Judas so main a spoke in that mighty wheel which rolled salvation to our world? If through the fall of Judas, salvation is come to the world, what shall his reception be but life from the dead? It was also said of Christ, that of the people there were none with him; and that he trod the wine-press alone, but how can this be true, if he had so powerful an assistant as Judas ? Again; we are told that God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. Let any man say, if he dare, that to be tempted, in this text, does not mean, to be seduced to the commission of crime. If so, to what a conclusion are we conducted? Why, according to Mr. H. (page 74,) "The great Jehovah, by so disposing of motives in his providence," (say the thirty pieces of silver,) that Judas is tempted to the commission of one of the most heart-appalling crimes, that ever disgraced our fallen world!

We shall now endeavour to show that the all-wise and great Jehovah, was not dependent on sin, or sinners, for the accomplishment of his benevolent designs; and that we are not indebted to Judas, the Jews, nor yet Pilate, for our salvation, but to the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ did not die by reason of the wounds he received. This is proved two ways, 1. from his own words. "No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." John x. 18; "Who by the eternal spirit, offered himself without spot to God." Heb. ix. 14; "My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death." Observe, this was before he was nailed to the cross. 2. This is proved by a view of several circumstances attending his death. 1, He died much sooner than was usual for persons crucified; he lived but three hours after being nailed to

the cross;

while it is said that it was usual for persons crucified, to live from three to five days. 2, His strength remained firm to the last; so that he cried with a loud voice at the moment he gave up the ghost. How do these facts accord with the dogmatical assertions of Mr. H. when he says, "He must be betrayed; there must be such a character as Judas; he must be tempted," &c ?

But it may be said that some other passages, speak a very different language.-"Him being delivered, by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God, ye have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified and slain." Acts, ii. 23."Who was delivered for our offences ?" Rom. iv. 25.—“The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men to be crucified." I answer: The two first of these texts prove, that God so loved the world, that, by his determinate counsel, and according to his fore-knowledge, he delivered his son, 1, into organick life, to fulfil all righteousness by a life of perfect obedience. 2. Into the hands of divine justice, to suffer death as a sacrifice for the redemption of the world.The last of the above texts proves that Christ was perfidiously delivered into the hands of men, by one who said, "What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you". If this sense of the text is doubted, the parallel place in Matthew will decide it. "Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the son of man is betrayed to be crucified." Math. xxvi. 2.-Now that God delivered his son in the former sense, is a great truth; but it remains for our opponents to prove, that, by so disposing of motives in his providence, he led Judas to betray his Master. I think we had better keep to the scripture account of the "disposer of motives" in this case. That informs us, that "after the sup, SATAN entered into Judas-;" and another passage declares that, the devil put it into the heart of Judas to betray him.

Here the scriptures abundantly testify that the devil was the disposer of motives in the case of Judas; Mr. H. however, thinks it "absurd to suppose that some events are deter◄ mined" (by the Lord,) "and others not ;" of course he would have us understand that God was the great first cause of the temptation, sin, and ruin of Judas; the devil being only a tool in the hand of the Lord, by which he accomplished his eternal purposes! Now can we hesitate one moment, whether to believe the assertions of Mr. H. or the scripture account? I think not. But it may be asked how this view of the subject, can be reconciled with that passage which says, that the Jews had been the betrayers, and murderers of the Lord Jesus? I answer; 1, We all agree that Judas betrayed him. 2. Hatred is the essence of murder. "He that hateth his brother is a murderer." I. John, iii. 15: and the Jews manifested their disposition as far as they could by their works. To illustrate this by a common similitude; suppose a man from malice afore-thought, way lays his neighbour by night, for the purpose of murdering him; at length, as he supposes, he hears his foot-steps-he fires upon him-but behold he kills a deer! Is he not a murderer? So in the case of the Jews: they had the disposition-they used their exertionsand yet he died independent of them. There is another text which is often brought to support the system we oppose, "Thou couldst have no power against me, except it were given thee from above." John, xix. 11. That this text makes nothing for that system, will appear when we reflect, that the power in question, and which is said to be given from above, was the power of civil authority. 1. That the Jews had not the power of life and death, while subject to the Romans, is a notorious fact; and one, which they themselves acknowledged, by saying, "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." 2. This is also evident from the

question of Pilate;-"Knowest thou not that I have power to release thee, and have power to crucify thee?" 3, This will appear still more evident, from a consideration of what our Lord added-"Therefore, he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." I can see no reason for what our Lord added, on the Calvinistic scheme; for wherein was the sin of Judas the greater, on the supposition that the authority which Pilate had received from above, was a power perfidiously to take away the life of the Saviour without cause? But on the other ground, it is plain and easy.1. Judas knew that Pilate possessed that civil authority by which he could take away life. 2. He must have known something of the disposition of Pilate. 3. And therefore, he knew at least, that there was a danger, that he would yield to the blood-thirsty and clamorous Jews; and therefore, was his sin the greater.

But will Mr. H. say, that God the Father, chose to have his Son murdered, and for this purpose so disposed of motives in his providence, as to lead Judas to deliver up his Master? If so, who hath the greater sin!! This is an awful consequence I grant, but it lies at the door of the Calvinistic system.

The sum is, civil authority is ordained of God; but the same God who gave it requires that it be exercised in justice and judgment; and that he who possesses it, shall by no means condemn the innocent, and clear the guilty. Will our opponents then say, that God, by a disposition of motives in his providence, led Pilate to yield to the wishes of the people, and condemn the innocent Saviour, and clear the guilty Barrabbas? If they do, it is hoped they will no more charge those who oppose such a system, with want of "propriety," and "candour." Why should Mr. H. feel so disagreeable on account of what he calls "violent hostilities,"

and "unreasonable prejudices?" According to him, the Lord, by a disposition of motives before the mind, leads people to these hostilities and prejudices! Yes, and he may find more comfort still, for all these events are for the greatest possible good of the universe! And indeed I find some comfort myself; for if the doctrine which I oppose is true, yet I could not so well secure God's glory, or do so great good to the universe in any other way as by opposing it!! "O heart cheering doctrine,-"Whatever is, is right !"

We conclude upon the whole, that the "connexion of events," forms no argument to prove that God is the author of sin, or, that he has determined its existence. Again he observes:-"It is acknowledged also by all who believe the Bible, that in every event which is conducive to the prosper ́ity of truth, and righteousness in the world, God has an agency." If Mr. H. means by this, that God exerts an agency in "producing" those sins, which have been overruled for his glory, and the good of the world, we deny it, and yet believe the Bible and call for proof. But if he means that God exerts an agency so far as is consistent with man's accountability, we have no controversy with him on this point.

The conclusion therefore, which Mr. H. draws, that "the kingdom of God is promoted without his assistance," has no weight, unless sin as such, promotes the kingdom of God; and if so, it is to be hoped that he will no more preach against it. And why should he? If God is infinite in wisdom, (according to Mr. H.) he certainly must know how much sin it is best on the whole should exist; and if he be infinite in power, he certainly can, and will produce just so -much sin, and prevent the existence of all the rest. "But are not" (says he,) "events so connected, and interwoven, as to render it impossible that all such events should be deter

« AnteriorContinuar »