Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

unable, to renounce sin for the service of his Maker. Thus the very distinction between natural and moral inability, which the orthodox clergy of New England, have with one voice, pronounced the basis of the sinner's obligation, is according to this theory entirely subverted. The work of the Spirit does not consist in making the sinner willing to serve God, but in changing his constitutional propensities.

5. That man may be an accountable being, according to Dr. Tyler's principles, he must be a saint, that is, partly holy and partly sinful. Man cannot be accountable without natural ability to put forth holy, as well as sinful acts. But, if as Dr. Tyler maintains, a previous propensity to sinful actions is necessary to the existence of such actions, then a previous propensity to holy actions is also necessary to their existence. Both propensities therefore are necessary to a natural ability for moral exercises, and of course to moral accountability. But with both these propensities, man, Dr. Tyler will acknowledge, must be partly holy and partly sinful; that is, he must be a saint. If therefore man is an accountable being, he is, by birth and propagation, not a totally depraved sinner, but a saint.

[ocr errors]

6. This theory subverts the doctrine of Edwards, that the will is as the greatest apparent good,' in the objects of choice or preference. Dr. Tyler condemns the Christian Spectator for maintaining that sin arises from our choosing the good presented by the objects of temptation, to the various natural appetites. "The universal sinfulness of mankind," he contends, "is not to be attributed," on this scheme, "to their nature as its cause, but to the circumstances of temptation in which they are placed." He has therefore devised the theory of a propagated propensity to sin itself a propensity totally unique in kind, which finds its end or object, not in the good presented in the things around us, but solely in the act of transgression. If then man loves the world or any other object more than God, and chooses it as his portion, he loves or chooses it, not for any good to be derived from the object of affection or choice, but solely because he has a propagated propensity to that particular state of mind called sin. Thus, man does not choose or love an object supremely, in view of any good, either real or apparent in the object of affection or choice, but he loves purely for the sake of loving, and chooses purely for the sake of choosing!

7. According to Dr. Tyler's theory, sin must be good in itself, and the only real good to man as a moral being. The ultimate object, and the only object of this propagated constitutional propensity to sin,' is sin itself. But we know, that the ultimate object of every constitutional propensity in man, is some

gratification, pleasure or enjoyment. This is implied in the very nature of a constitutional propensity, since otherwise it would be a propensity to nothing. Of course, sin in itself, must be pleasure or enjoyment to the mind, i. e. good in itself. According to the same philosophical principle, holiness cannot be good in itself to man, without a propensity to holiness. But none will pretend, that man has a propagated propensity to holiness. Sin therefore, to man considered as a moral being, and as he is constituted by his Maker, is the only real good to man.

8. According to Dr. Tyler's philosophy, man in the act of becoming holy, must be supremely selfish. He cannot, if Dr. Tyler's principles are correct, become holy, without some change in the nature, or constitution of his soul-he cannot without a propensity to holiness. Of course, according to Dr. Tyler, when man becomes holy, he does so, to gratify a new created constitutional propensity to holiness; i. e. for the pleasure, or happiness there is in being holy. But Dr. Tyler maintains that "every moral being, destitute of benevolence, and actuated by self-love, (or a regard to happiness) is necessarily a selfish being." Strictures, p. 22. Man therefore in the act of becoming holy is necessarily a selfish being.

9. Dr. Tyler's theory is inconsistent with undeniable facts. Adam and Satan with his companions, all sinned. Whence came their first propensity to sin? Whatever expedient Dr. Tyler may devise to account for the first propensity to sin in these creatures of God, one thing is certain, viz. that being without father and without mother, they did not become the subjects of such a propensity by propagation.'

10. According to Dr. Tyler's theory, the divine Lawgiver seems to have entirely mistaken, in regard to man, the proper object of legal prohibition and penalty. The radical evil in this case on Dr. Tyler's theory, is not that men do wrong, or act wrong, with power to do right; for like the lion and the ox, they only act out the nature which God has given them. But the radical evil, lies in the constitutional propensities, which God has given to men. The divine law therefore, it would seem, should forbid men to have, and punish them for having, those constitutional propensities, which they derived exclusively from their Creator. The divine Lawgiver therefore, in making moral action, or what men do, the object of legal prohibition and penalty, seems to have entirely mistaken the proper object of law in respect to

men.

11. The terms of salvation, and the exhibition of motives to comply with them, are, according to the same theory, a delusive mockery. These all imply that the reason why men are not

saved, is that they do not act that they do not repent, believe, and love. But on this theory, it might as well be said, that such is the reason, why the beasts of the field are not prepared for heaven, for these are no more destitute of the requisite capacity for such action, according to Dr. Tyler's theory, than men are. The true and only reason, according to this scheme, why sinners are lost, is not that they do not act, but that God does not; it is not that they do not repent, believe and love, but that God does not change their constitutional propensities. The motives of the gospel, might with the same propriety be addressed to animals as to men; and under the summons of God to immediate repentance, the only rational course for a man to pursue, is to wait for his Maker to give him a new constitutional propensity.

12. According to Dr. Tyler's theory, what is commonly called Regeneration by the Holy Spirit, is unnecessary. This change according to sound orthodoxy, is confessedly a moral change, consisting in a new voluntary affection of the heart. But the change and the only change in man, which requires a divine interposition, according to Dr. Tyler's theory, is a constitutional change -a change in the very nature of the mind-a change in its propagated propensities. Let the Divine Spirit effect this change-let creative power take away one constitutional propensity and give another, and the work is done. A propensity to holiness will as infallibly flow out in holy action, as a propensity to sin, in sinful action. Let this change in the constitutional properties of the soul be effected, and man without any further influence from the Spirit of God, not only can change, but he cannot help changing, his own heart.

13. Dr. Tyler's theory supports the Arminian doctrine, of the necessity of grace to restore moral agency to man. His theory implies, that the nature of man was so changed by the fall of Adam, as to involve the absolute loss of natural ability to obey God. This, we have already shown. But if God, in such a case, requires any duty of man, he is bound in justice (grace, Arminians call it) to enable man to fulfil the requirement by the assistance or power of his Holy Spirit. If the loss consists in want of intellect, or the power of choice, or capacity to be influenced by the motives to obedience, that loss must be supplied, or the demands of the law and gospel are unjust.

14. Dr. Tyler's theory supports the Arminian doctrine of the self-determining power of the will. In every act of preference or choice, we choose the object of some constitutional propensity. This is implied even in Dr. Tyler's theory, since otherwise a constitutional propensity to sin, would not be necessary to account for sin. But the object of a constitutional propensity to sin, is sin itself. Now sin itself as distinguished from a constitutional propensity to

sin, must be a sinful preference, choice, or volition. It follows therefore, that when we choose sinfully, we choose a sinful choice ;i. e. we choose a choice, or will to will.-Farther: according to Dr. Tyler, sin or a sinful choice cannot be accounted for, without supposing a constitutional propensity to this choice. But this choice, as we have seen, cannot take place without being chosen by a previous choice, and hence this previous choice must be in the same predicament. There must be a propensity to that, and a previous choice of it, and so on ad infinitum. Dr. Tyler's theory therefore involves the Arminian doctrine of the self-determining power of the will, with its ad infinitum absurdity.

."

15. To sin, according to Dr. Tyler, must be the chief end of man. If the theory of propagated sin is true, man has no propensity towards the objects of right affection or choice. He has not what Edwards considers as essential to a moral agent, viz. 'a capacity of being influenced by the motives to right action.' In respect to any capacity of happiness from the objects of right affection, man as he is constituted by his Maker, is like a stone or a corpse. He is therefore, considered as a moral being, capable of deriving happiness only from sinning. His very nature, the properties of the mind which are propagated like those of the body,' must be transformed by creative power, or man can derive no happiness from the service of his Maker. As the lion must eat flesh, and the ox grass, to answer the end of their being; so man to be supremely happy, or to attain the highest happiness of which his nature is capable, must sin. Sin is not only good in itself, and the only good to man, but according to Dr. Tyler, it is also the necessary means of the greatest good. To sin therefore, is obviously and undeniably, the very end of man's creation-the highest end of his being--the chief end of man. Man's chief end is not to glorify God, and enjoy him forever; and the Westminster catechism is flatly contradicted.

Such are some of the reasons which have led us, in common with President Edwards, to reject the theory, that there is in man a specific propensity to sin, distinct from the natural appetites implanted in our race at the first creation. As that great writer has justly remarked, this theory is in no degree necessary to account for the existing phenomena; while it is fraught with consequences equally dishonorable to God, and subversive of the great principles of moral agency.* It is a revealed fact, that eve

In order to account for a sinful corruption of nature, yea, a total native depravity of the heart of man, there is not the least need of supposing any evil quality infused, implanted, or wrought into the nature of man, by any positive cause or influence whatsoever, either from God, or the creature; or of supposing that man is conceived and born with a fountain of evil in his heart, such as is any thing properly positive. I think a little attention to the nature of things will

ry individual of our race, sins, and as to moral conduct does nothing but sin, from the commencement of his moral being, until he is renewed by the Spirit of God. If this fact be referred, not to variable circumstances, such as example, education, etc. but to the permanent principles of our nature, under all the appropriate circumstances of our being, then are we truly said to be by nature sinners, without making it necessary to suppose, that the constitution of the mind is itself sinful.

There is, however, a sense of the term nature, which has sometimes given rise, we believe, to a confusion of ideas on this subject. When we are told, that by the promises of the gospel, we may be made partakers of the divine nature," the term is obviously used, to denote, not the constitution of the divine mind, for of this we can never partake, but the governing purpose or controlling affection of that Being, whose character an apostle has described by the word Love. In this sense of the term, it is correct to say, that a renewed man has a holy nature, and an unrenewed man a corrupt or depraved nature. As it is a hereditary fact, that every descendant of Adam in the long line of generations, is the subject of this depraved governing purpose, or controlling affection, it might be said in this sense of the term, that we inherit from our first parent, "a corrupt nature," and are the subjects of a "hereditary depravity." Such language however would be liable to be misunderstood, and for this reason we should not use it. But this is not the sense in which the term nature is used by Dr. Tyler, and those who adopt his theory as given above. He is endeavoring to account for the existence of this depraved purpose in our race; and he does it by tracing back this purpose to a "propagated" propensity to sin, existing as he tells us "constitutionally," and resembling other propensities which "run in the blood." All this shows, that the term "nature," and "native," as he employs them, are used in their primary sense, to denote the constitution of the human mind itself. And while we would not intimate, that Dr. Tyler really embraces the conclusions which we have deduced from his theory; we ask whether he ought not to do so, to be consistent with himself?

be sufficient to satisfy any impartial considerate inquirer, that the absence of positive good principles, and so the withholding of a special divine influence to impart and maintain those good principles-leaving the common natural princi ples of self-love, natural appetite, &c. to themselves, without the government of superior divine principles-will certainly be followed with the corruption; yea, the total corruption of the heart, without occasion for any positive influence at all: And that it was thus in fact that corruption of nature came on Adam, immediately on his fall, and comes on all his posterity, as sinning in him, and falling with him."-Edwards' Works, vol. ii. pp. 532-3.

« EdellinenJatka »