Page images
PDF
EPUB

The next Hebrew word above alluded to, is, which primarily signifies breath, but is applied in its secondary meaning to the incorporeal spirit. Job asks, chap. xxvi. 4-" Whose spirit came from thee?" It is a question which Job puts to Bildad, in the cutting reply which he makes to the allegations of his friend. Solomon has used the same term, Prov. xx. 27, with application to the soul of man; "The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord." But there is a passage in Isah. Ivii. 16, which is very decisive. "For I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." This solemn declaration of Jehovah concerning the souls which he had made, must have reference to the incorporeal spirit, and decides the meaning of the term as here used. It can have no other application consistent with the scope and design of the preceding and subsequent verses.

The remaining Hebrew word is which has nearly the same signification as the first, and is trans. lated breath, wind, air, and spirit. It is very often used to denote the immaterial soul of man. We cite a few of the many. The prayer of Moses and Aaron is worthy of notice, Num. xvi. 22. "And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation." Moses used the same form of expression," God of the spirits of all flesh," as is recorded in Num. xxvii. 16. In the thirty-first Psalm, verse 5, we have the words of David, "into thine hand I commit my spirit." To the same purpose is the sentiment of Solomon, Eccl. xii. 7 "The spirit shall return unto God who gave it." In the prophecy of Ezekiel, chap. xi. 5-" Thus saith the Lord-I know the things that come into your mind, every one of

them." Evidently this mind is the spirit of man recognised in the other passages by the same Hebrew word, and which in Zach. xii. 1, it is said, "the Lord, who stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundations of the earth, and form. eth the spirit of man within him." These passages are sufficient to show a prevalent meaning in the use of those terms in the Old Tes tament a meaning which need not be mistaken, and which cannot, without violence to the plain im port, be applied to any thing else than the immaterial soul of man. Can any man read attentively these and hundreds of other similar passages, without perceiving that such a spirit is ascribed to man, and that it constitutes by far the noblest part of his being? We think not. But we have yet to examine some passages of the New Testament, where we find the same principles recognised.

The Greeks used several terms to designate this immortal and incorporeal principle. More commonly two are used in the New Testament, viz. vμ and "x", but vos and Savoia are sometimes used. These words are not invariably used in the same sense, nor are they precisely synonymous in their meaning. What we affirm is, that the sacred writers have used all these terms to denote the same thing. We have not room to discuss the various meanings of πνευμα, nor is it necessary, since the prin ciple which we allege is so conspicuous throughout the New Testament. It is doubtless true, that πνευμα, like the Hebrew word for which it is used in the Septuagint, means breath, air, and wind. But it may be doubted whether the New Testament writers ever use it for wind. It is rendered wind in but a single passage, John iii. 8, and the correctness of that translation is questionable. However that may be, it is perfectly certain that the

New Testament writers applied this word to something belonging to man, and something distinct from the body which it inhabits. It was this μ which Jesus yielded up and commended to the hands of his Father, Luke xxiii. 46. It was the same which the martyr Stephen besought the Lord Jesus to receive, Acts vii. 59. It is the same which knows the things of man, as stated in Paul's interrogatory to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. ii. 11. It is that in which we are commanded to glorify God as well as our bodies, 1 Cor. vi. 20. It is the same which is described as completing the first man Adam, 1 Cor. xv. 45. But quotations might be extended to very great length. All the New Testament writers use this term for an immaterial and immortal soul,

The other word, vxn, is frequently used by the same writers in the same sense as TV, but is more commonly applied to life. We had marked seven or eight different shades of meaning, in the one hundred and four times which it occurs in the New Testament. But it would extend this article to unreasonable length to give them here. We cite a few passages to show one of its common meanings, Matth. I. 28" Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; bat rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." To the same purpose as it respects the meaning of xn, is Matth. xvi. 26. "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul; or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul." See also in Luke xii. 20-"This night thy soul shall be required of thee." In Acts xiv. 2, mind is used in the translation" But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and made their minds evil-affected against the brethren." See also Phil.ĭ. 27, and Heb. xii. 3. In Heb. x. 39, it is said Ch. Adv.-VOL. X.

[ocr errors]

of believers, we are " of them that believe to the saving of the soul." In James v. 20-"he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death.” We mention but one passage more, found in the first epistle of Pet. iv. 19. "Wherefore, let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing as unto a faithful Creator." An examination of these passages, to say nothing of many others which occur, are sufficient, not only to show a common meaning of the term, but to prove the doctrine, so fully ascertained from the Old Testament, of a spiritual existence, antecedent to all its acts, and distinct from its exercises.

For the Greek words vous and Savoia which are sometimes figuratively used for mind or soul, we refer the reader to some of the passages where they may be found. Rom. i. 28, also vii. 23 and xii. 2; Eph. iv. 17, 23; 1 Tim. vi. 5, and 2 Tim. iii. 8. In these passages, if we mistake not, vous will be found to indicate man's immaterial soul. The following passages may furnish a specimen of the same meaning attached to the use of diavola, Eph. ii. 3" fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind," Col. i. 21"Alienated and enemies in your mind." See also Heb. viii. 10, also x. 16; 1 Pet. i. 13; 2 Pet. iii. 1. To all these many other passages both from the Old and New Testament might be added, which teach in plain terms that man has a soul or mind incorporeal, a simple, spiritual substance. This is a first principle in our philosophy, and which bears the test of divine revelation. We have spent more time on this topic, than was perhaps necessary to prove the truth of the doctrine. But as it lies at the foundation, it seemed proper to give a somewhat connected view of the revealed fact.

The next radical principle to be 2 K

examined is, that the mind possesses three distinct faculties, which we call understanding, heart, and will,

But this, with the other principles,
will constitute the subject of a fu-
ture number.
F..

Review.

review of scott'S THIRD VOLUME.

Concluded from page 231.

We proceed to offer some concluding reflections, and they shall be brief, on particular points in the character and theology of Calvin. We of course allude to his doctrines relating to the predestination and election of Almighty God. These are the chief grounds of odium against his theology, for which we at once frankly avow that some cause was given. He carried his metaphysical deductions from Scripture beyond the statements of the inspired oracles; he employed the word reprobate in a sense in which it does not occur in the Bible; he alluded too frequently to the secret will and purposes of God, and spoke of men in that point of view so as sometimes to seem to contradict the general tenor of Scripture, and the universal practice of the inspired teachers; and he framed too boldly a system, which was drawn, as he conceived, from Scripture principles, but certainly not found explicitly in the sacred volume.

The consequence of this admixture of over-statement was, that a controversial air was given to Protestantism; that the Lutheran churches were by degrees cooled in their communion with those of Switzerland, and the separation occasioned by the Sacramental question was widened. And, what is worse, the first encouragement was given to all those subsequent systems and courses of preaching, which, going far beyond Calvin, and omitting the sound and practical views, which, in his theology,

corrected his opinions on predestination-paved the way for the Calvanistick controversy, and for that decline in vital religion and really Scriptural truth which overstatements invariably occasion. Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism, cold-hearted orthodoxy without spiritual life, and the acerbity of theological debate throughout the Reformed churches, were in no small measure the consequences of Calvin's incautious language.

But after this admission, let it still be remembered, that his doc. trines upon the deep and difficult subject of the Divine purposes, were, upon the whole, no peculiarities of his; that they were not his main subject; and that on nearly all the additional points which have been called Calvanism in later times, he took the opposite side to that which his supposed followers occupied. We will briefly corroborate these statements.

more

With regard to the first, it is remarkable, as Mr. Scott justly observes, that we pass through than half of the twenty-eight years of Calvin's ministry without even hearing of the question of predestination. His sentiments were before the world on that subject, and he never varied respecting it; but no controversy arose upon it among Protestants. Calvin, though he reduced the tenets he held on this head to a more regular system, and sometimes carried them, as we have remarked, to a faulty excess, yet invented none: he has said nothing which St. Augustine had not said eleven hundred years before he was born. And what is more important, he rather softened

than aggravated what had previously been taught by Luther, Melancthon, Zuingle, and others in the earlier period of the Reformation. As that blessed work proceeded, the other churches sunk back, and Geneva went somewhat beyond them, without being considered as furnishing the least ground of variance between them. To the last, Calvin venerated and loved Melancthon, and used to call him "The Divine ;" and it was not till 1552 that he published his work on Predestination.

We entirely concur with Mr. Scott's observation on this point, and especially on the fault of imputing motives to pious and devout men who take different views of this profound question. Let the facts be allowed, that man is capable of nothing spiritually good by himself, and that it is God who worketh in him to will and to do of his good pleasure, and the doctrines of the Divine purposes, in whatever way they are explained, or if they are even wholly abstained from in public discourses, will not disturb Christian unity. We have not room for the passage to which we allude, pp. 47-49; but we must cite two remarks of much moment. The first is in the second volume of the Continuation, p. 218. "It can hardly have failed to be observed how very undefined, how popular, and almost entirely practical, are all those passages which have been adduced either by Dr. Milnor or myself, from this great Reformer's (Luther) writings on the subject of the predestination of men to eternal life. In fact, both he and Melancthon but sparingly apply the doctrine to the great and awful subject of human salvation, to which, in modern times, we are apt almost exclusively to apply it; the term Predestination seems, in the apprehension of numbers, synonymous, or nearly synonymous, with election or its

opposite; though it is obvious that the former term has an unlimited extent, while the latter is confined to one particular subject. And it is in the wide view, rather than the restricted one, that both Luther and Melancthon seem chiefly to contemplate the doctrine."

The other passage is in the volume before us. It relates to the interpretation of particular texts of Scripture. The text is the much controverted one, Romans vii.; but the remark is peculiarly applicable to the passages which speak of the Divine purposes.

"It is to be regretted that those who have strongly taken opposite sides of the question respecting this important pasoverlooked the obvious fact, that, accordsage of Scripture, should so often have ing to the general view which they take of the meaning and application of the whole will be the interpretation which they respectively put on particular phrases or sentences. Ile who understands the passage at large to describe the experience of the true and even advanced Christian, qualifies his exposition of the clauses "carnal, sold under sin"-" the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that do I," &c. so as to render them compatible with that interpretation. He, on the other hand, who reduces the passage to little more than a description of the protests of conscience against prevailing depraved inclination, must at least equally lower down the meaning of the sentences, "I delight in the law of God after the inner man"-"the evil which I would not, that do I"-"now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me," &c. to make them at all agree with such an interpretation. Let each party apply to the other's general interpretation his own exposition of particular parts, and he will find it easy to fix upon his opponent charges of absurdity, and even impiety, which by no means really belong to pp. 207, 208.

him."

So much for the doctrines themselves, as propounded by Calvin. The proportionate space which they occupy in his theology should next be noted in order to form an impartial view of the case. For instead of these deep questions filling the volumes of Calvin, there is little comparatively on the subject in them. Even in the Institutes they

occupy only about a twentieth part of the work. The longest chapters are on Prayer and the Moral Law. Out of eight hundred pages, scarcely more than fifty are allotted to this mysterious topick; and not only so, but all the other doctrines, precepts, and warnings of Scripture, hold their proportionate position in his instructions; a position more prominent, more extensive, more influential, than the one to which so much objection is raised. Read his learned and most able Commentaries from one end of the seven folios to the other-you find the most luminous and conscientious exposition of the Holy Scriptures a penetration which solves almost all difficuties-an honesty and good sense which seize on the main point-a fairness and impartiality which seem to know no system. After three centuries, the Commentaries of John Calvin remain unrivalled. The doctrine of predestination was not his great subject; it was not that which mainly engaged his powers, much less that on which he exclusively dwelt.

Our third remark was, that on almost all the additional points which have been called Calvinism in later times he took the opposite side to that which his supposed followers occupy. We can only enumerate; we cannot quote. Calvin held the universality of redemption, and expressly avowed his belief of it, as if carefully to prevent any mistake as to his opinion, in his will. Four times within a few lines does he on one occasion assert the universality of the promises and offers of the Gospel. On free will, he is far more moderate than Luther or Melancthon in their early writings. He did not hold the ductrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to all his posterity; he maintained the authority and obligations of the moral law as the rule of life: he enforced the necessity

of evidences of faith being appealed to; though, in opposition to the Popish doctrine of perpetual doubt as to the acceptance, he sometimes seemed to confound the assurance with the essence of faith; he scruples not to use the word condition as indispensable to acceptance with God; he allows the term co-operation, on the part of man, after grace received. On final perseverance, he is so moderate, that he

"speaks of the 'special call,' when by the inward illumination of the Spirit, God causes the word preached to sink into the heart,' as for the most part vouchsafed only to the fathful;' but sometimes communicated to those who, on account of their ingratitude, are afterwards forsaken and struck with greater blindness.'" p. 578.

These points practically modify, and guard, to an extraordinary degree, his doctrine of the Divine purposes; and we mention them in justice to a great name, of which a wrong estimate has been very ge nerally formed.

We should have been glad, if our space allowed, of adding va rious other extracts; but we must content ourselves with referring, without citation, to the letters to our Reformers in England, pp. 387, 464, 469; the passages illustrating Calvin's views of baptism, pp. 251, 305, 312, 423, 415, 466, 468, 551, 592, 594; and those which detect the mischiefs occasioned by new doctrines, and an unsteady changeable mind, which are well deserv ing of notice, at pp. 95, 97, 158, 162, 172, 251, 272, 347, 355, 362, 364, 377, 379, 382, 453, 456, 459, 469, 480, 505.

We might, in justice to the author, add numerous passages illustrative of the soundness of mind, the moderation in doubtful points, and the impartiality which he has displayed throughout his work. We can afford space only for a brief specimen. The following are of the highest order. The propo

« PreviousContinue »