Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

penitent through its moral power? It is the very purpose, operation, and definition of the sprinkling. And both these writers just quoted prove it, when they insist so much on the marvellous effects that have followed the preaching of Christ crucified; especially in the case of the Moravian missionaries, who made no impression on the Greenlanders by preaching the common truths of religion, until they held up a suffering, bleeding, dying Saviour, then the effect was immediate and astonishing. Omitting all other remarks on such facts, we have only to say, that we see in them nothing which favors any other views of this subject so much as our own. They prove that the death of Christ is calculated to have, and does have, a prodigious effect on the hearts and consciences of men. We devoutly believe it, and consider it one great purpose, if not the chief efficacy, of that event.

It

If we have not exhausted all patience, we would consider one other view. It is one that appears to pervade all Calvinistic reasoning on sin and forgiveness, justice and mercy. may be briefly presented in this form. God is just and true, as well as holy. He has said, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Now, if that soul escape death, if by its own repentance it can avert the threatened punishment, where is the veracity of God, where the dignity or safety of his government? This is the argument. We could not believe sensible men would advance it, had we not so often seen it in their books, and recently heard it from their lips. Its fallacy is twofold. Of God's veracity, it is to be remembered, that, while He has said, "The soul that sinneth shall die," He has also said, "The soul that turneth from its sin shall live." His veracity is pledged for the one assurance as solemnly as for the other. Besides, every one knows, that all the divine promises and threatenings of moral good or evil are conditional. Look at Hezekiah. Look at Nineveh. Look at the many instances in the history of the ancient people, in which God is said to have repented of the evil that he had threatened, and withheld it, on account of the penitence and prayers of individuals or communities. But what are we attempting to establish? — that God will not reject and destroy those who return from their wanderings to serve him. The very attempt seems to us almost profane, and we leave it. But will those who differ from us explain how the difficulty is avoided on their own hypothesis. There stands the sentence, "The soul that sinneth, it shall

VOL. XVIII.

N. S. VOL. XIII. NO. II.

21

die." Christ dies, and that soul is saved. But where is God's veracity? You have but adopted another method of avoiding the same fancied difficulty. You have only supposed another condition to have been annexed to the threatening; with this difference, that your condition was not named, while ours was distinctly announced at every proclamation of the law. "Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin." "Turn yourselves, and live ye.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'But the dignity of God's government and the safety of his kingdom, where are they? It is not safe to forgive sin on repentance. No government can abide such a process. No law can stand. It is not safe.' That is, if sinners are forgiven on repentance, all men will repent! Of all superficial reasoning, we cannot recall any that surpasses this. Take it in Dr. Beecher's strong terms. "It is not a subject of momentary doubt, that pardon upon the simple condition of repentance would break the power of every human government on earth.' Granted. But would it break the power of the divine government? Pardon upon the simple condition of faith, would break all human governments. Forgiveness purchased by the sufferings of a substitute assuredly would. But let the quotation proceed. "And does God govern the universe, upon principles which would fill the earth with anarchy, and turn it into a hell?" If we believed that God governed the world on the principles of vindictive justice and vicarious suffering, the punishment of the innocent to save the guilty, and the punishment of the guilty, though penitent, to save the law, we should fear to answer that bold question. And if a question can be framed, that will go to the conviction of a Calvinist and the destruction of Calvinism, it would seem to be such an one as this. On the other hand, we do not see what kind of anarchy would follow the forgiveness of any who had forsaken their sins. Let earth be filled by those who have been induced by the Gospel to turn from Satan to God, and it would present a scene unlike any that we have supposed to be intended by 66 а hell."

One of two radical errors infects all such reasoning. Either it is supposed, that repentance means only sorrow for sin without a change of character, or it is forgotten that there is an infinite difference between human and divine systems, perfect and imperfect knowledge or power. The first error has been

* Beecher's Sermon on the "Gospel according to Paul."

[ocr errors]

noticed, and is too palpable to detain us. The second is common even with good writers and otherwise acute reasoners, Mr. Abbott covers many pages with the case of Dr. Dodd, to show, that, notwithstanding his previous character, his deep contrition, the universal sympathy, and countless petitions for mercy, that unhappy man could not be pardoned because it was not safe; and the inference seems to be, that it is never safe for God to pardon an unpunished offence, however deeply repented of. Here things finite and infinite are confounded. Human and divine laws have entirely different objects; the first, to protect the community, the last, to impress and purify the heart. And it is singular, that Mr. Abbott, who well defines the difference in another place, did not see its application here. In truth, this writer has overturned his own reasoning, by the simple remark and the all-important distinction, "Dodd was not punished for guilt, he was punished for crime." It is so with human governments always. They deal with crime; God deals with guilt. They look to the act; God to the motive. They arraign the hand; God the heart. A man may meditate murder; can the law reach him, can men touch him, if he do not commit it? God can reach him, and will judge him. So of forgiveness. Human governments never forgive in the sense in which God forgives. They cannot. They may release from prison and corporal punishment. But God releases from guilt and its sting. For this he has graciously interposed, to deliver us, not from vengeance, but from guilt. For this Christ lived and died, to save us from our sins, not from sanguinary justice. "He shall save his people from their sins." He came to remove the cause, more than the consequences. Salvation itself is deliverance from sin, rather than from its effects, for some of them must follow it. Forgiveness is remission of sins, and sins cannot be remitted unless they are forsaken.

-

Let men think of their sins. Let them see in their own guilt the only obstacle to forgiveness and salvation. There is no obstacle, there never was, there never can be, in the character or laws of God. There is no obstacle in the promises or threatenings of the Gospel. It is SIN, and nothing else. Let the promises and threatenings of the Gospel, the truth of God, the life and death of Jesus, rebuke this sin, awe, subdue, melt it into submission, penitence, and obedience. With these forgiveness comes. In these there is salvation. Christ died,

not to make God willing or able to forgive, but to make man capable of being forgiven. "God, having raised up his son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." Christ "died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them and rose again."

[ocr errors]

ART. II. - Manual Hebrew Grammar. For the Use of Beginners. By J. SEIXAS. Second Edition.

WE recently invited the attention of our readers to some remarks on the classical instruction of boys; and we embrace this occasion to continue the subject, in connexion with the book, the title of which we have given above. We take this method, because the principles on which Mr. Seixas's Grammar is made deserve an attentive examination, and will serve to introduce some remarks on the study of the elements of Latin and Greek grammar. No apology is necessary for bringing the subject of classical instruction repeatedly before our readers. The amount of time wasted by the young in this department. of study ought to awaken the attention of all who have ability and opportunity to examine the subject. Every step in the course of classical instruction should be investigated, till the faults of the prevailing system are discovered and corrected.

A favorable opinion of Mr. Seixas's Grammar was expressed in our pages on the appearance of the first edition of the work. The commendations then given need not be here repeated. Preparatory to the remarks which follow, however, we would say, that the method pursued in this Grammar, and the principles on which the method is founded, are widely different from those of most grammars, and are, we believe, demonstrably

correct.

We proceed to exhibit the method employed in this Grammar, compared with the method of grammars in general use; and then, to examine the principles on which these methods respectively are based.

The first peculiarity noticeable, on opening the Hebrew Grammar before us, is the absence of paradigms. This pecu

1

liarity constitutes the leading characteristic of the work, and to this our attention will be principally directed. For the convenience of our readers, as well as to subserve the main object of our remarks, we shall take our illustrations of Mr. Seixas's method and principles from the Latin Grammar.

We will suppose, then, a Latin Grammar put in our hands, made on the same principles as the Hebrew Grammar before us. Its chief peculiarity, at first view, is that it has no paradigms. Before judging of the expediency of an omission apparently so important, it is proper to inquire, what substitute is provided to answer the same end?

Instead of paradigms, we find tables of terminations, indicative of the relations and circumstances of the words to which they are attached. To illustrate in nouns of the first declension, instead of repeating the series, penna, pennæ, &c., through all the cases and both numbers, the terminations simply are given, as, a, æ, am, arum, as, &c., to indicate respectively the relation in which the thing expressed stands in different places. Thus, arum signifies of, and also expresses the plural number. When this is understood by the pupil, the word pennarum is instantly rendered of pens, without going through the process of declension from the nominative singular, till he comes to the given form. The association is direct between arum the termination, and of, which it always indicates. It is not the least of the advantages of this method that it leaves the teacher at liberty to bring before his pupil only one or two of the most common terminations, and those expressive of the simplest relations, at first, leaving the more difficult ones to be learned, after practice has made the easier ones perfectly familiar. But on this point we shall speak more particularly in another place. Let us pursue the illustration we had begun, by means of the verb.

The paradigm, which in the Latin verb contains near two hundred forms, is omitted. Its place is supplied by a table, - giving the various terminations which indicate the circumstances of the action. Thus the pupil, when he meets with a verb, the number, person, &c. of which he does not instantly recognise; instead of being sent to hunt through the labyrinth of hundreds of forms, till, haply, he lights on the form corresponding to the one in his lesson, is taught to look directly at the termination, and to associate, directly with it, its proper signification. Thus in legimus, for example, the termination

9

« AnteriorContinuar »