The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1878-04-03


as that of child to hsImany are seeking to do
father, whether it be good Zen seek to persuade as
or bad. What mean is, that there is a progressive
that it is independent ofhoness' to fit us for glo
his standing son i'll lry 2. 81.
/. behaved or well behaved The walk of believer
is equally a SON. So. ais Tsiation to God, is IL
Christian walking rightjhs same character as that
or walking wrong, IS aIof . Shild to his father
Christian still and that isvSetherit be bad good
the very reason is OF bat mean is, that it is
such consequence etc independent of his stand
II ing. A son ibehaved OF
iaoI.behaved is equally q
lres So Christian walk
as or walking wrong
- Christian still, and
tnst is the very reason II
Il lis of such consequence.
| IL right (as in our last lec-
Il ure it is walk of ccm-
| munion in divine favor
and conscious blessing
If wrong, it is matter OF
| chastisement from God
but in grace because Of the
standing" P. "a.
| The question is not whether the language of this
tract teaches the truth but does it teach Antino-
mianism2 Nv. de r. B. declares in effect, that
the substitution of Jesus Christ for the sinner
causes the perfect righteousness of Christ to be i'm
puted to the sinner, and hence, as he terms it, the
standing of believer is perfect, complete in
Him." God looks at Christ, and sees in Him the
perfect character or Standing of justified be-
liever-hence no progressive holiness can entitle
him to, or fit him for glory. But does it therefore
follow that the believer is not to obey the law Of
God that he is not as far as in him lies, to con-
form his walk and conversation to the require.
ments of Gods Word? This tract asserts no such
thing, but on the contrary, in variety of forms of
speech. asserts the obligation of believers to the
obedience of holiness. The very next paragraph
in this tract, continuing and enlarging the line of
thought, contains these sentiments:
Every Christian is bound to walk right, be-
cause his walk is first of all in regard to God.
believe this to be principle true in all Gods peo
ple and worthy of all earnest consideration In the
Old Testament we see this principle brought out
God gave them certain standing The moment
this is established, He looks for walk in keeping
but it is ever God who maintains the Standing
Hence, to touch the standing of the saint is to
touch the position of Christ, and that God must
wrong God deals with him as father with child
As we read in Heb. xii 6, He scourgeth every
son whom he receiveth if ye endure ohastening
God dealeth with you as with sons for what son
is he whom the father chasteneth not? But, if ye
be without chastisement. whereof all are partakers
| then are ye bastards. and not sons. -. We have
had fathers of our flesh which corrected us
after their own pleasure; but he for our profit
that we might be psrtakers of his holiness. (Vs
6-l0) This chapter in Hebrews brings out the
details of the Christians training and establishes
two great principles. simple but important in their
place, G., the, L2rdNIesds his own. specially
thso3gh uois sSotsd, iofs.ys sh5 0daeteang. Iney
who are not His own He does not lead.' "a
Word to Young Believers" pp IA, rs.
Now this may not be an accurate statement of
the Bible doctrine-but that is not the question at
issue. Is this writer guilty of teaching Antino-
mianism Would it rejoice the heart of an "Anti-
noman negro to learn that he is bound to walk in
obedience to Gods commandments submit to
be led by the Lord; failing to do so he must ex
pect to be scourged and classified by the Divine
Father? Antinomianism is the denial of the pro-
position that the law of God is the measure of duty,
or that personal holiness is obligatory upon Chris
tians. Does "W. de R. B." repudiate the divine
law as measure of duty, or teach that personal
holiness is not required Of Christian believers?-
Does he not teach the very reverse
u
uary, 1872:
"The notion of progressive sanctifcation is false
and the work not to be expected. The evil nature
in me is not at all weakened by grace, but rather
| inhamed. Ii | have faith, have the standing ;;
and am not to doubt my faith because of a sup.
posed deficiency of fruits; because to conclude it
| true faith by any frames in myself, or works oil
self. is sheer legalism. "-Southern Presbyterian
Revte,o January, 1872.
The question is, whose words are these2 DR..
Dabney says they are not the words of &c. H. M
in "Notes on Genesis. ~ In his letter published in
the Southern Reuiei0, April, 1877, he says: IL
my memory serves me right, it 1.-THE above quota
tion) is from little anonymous book, entitled
Word to Young Believers, by w. de r. B., o
Dublin"
The Doctors memory did not serve him right
The words quoted are not in the little anonymou!
book. The doctrine taught in those words is moi
there. In Dr. Dabney's article of February 9th
he tells US that this quotation was designed tt
mean, "These are in substance the views of W. d'
R. B." Then these six lines are not quoted at all
Why, then the inverted commas, and the closinl
apostrophes2 Is DR.. Dabney in the habit of sum
ming up the docrinal teachings of other men il
his own words, placing quotation marks before ant
after the sentences, and having perfected his owl
ideal of what the heresy ought to be, does he eav
his opponent to bes= oafafn Of words he neve
used This ought NIT SO to be.
DR.. Dabney's reference to the stolen pig may
q choice bit of humor, but it is unfortunate as al
illustration. DR.. d. has pig in his possession
= N. 90 kho t1okh
came lawfully by the pig through the agency o
Mr.. NJ 1t happens to leak out, however, ths
MIR. M. never owned, and never gave or sold pi
to DR.. D. A suspicion arises at this point
question of title. Inquiry is made by intereste
parties, and they learn from Dr. D. that b
"bought nice pig from Mr.. X, stock-raiser.
D Forthwith the iDqusitors apply to Mr.. X, and b
, solemDy AYERS that he never gave or sold pig I
DR.. D., and further, that he does not now, an
! never did, own pig What thenP
Does not the question come back with redouble
energy, and accumulating interest to the minds
court, jury and spectators Where did DR.. Da
o neg get that pig 2"
@ disclaim all thought of disparagemens to IL
j. Theological Seminary, or to the Presbyteris
n Church in this article. The matter is confined
t two men, one of whom is living, the other has gol
n to the bar of God. If take up the pen, it is b
g cause he has laid it down forever. have no
n sire to see Dr. Dabneys reputation assaed or i
{? jured-very far from it, But the facts of this ca
e have certainly shown that he has written hastil
A upon very serious and important theme. In tt
haste he has done injustice to worthy men wi
% may not be profound theOlogans, but they are Sc
-e wants of Christ. DR.. Bedsoe's defense of the
g. brethren may not have been in the very best tas
r. his language may have been too severe; b
10 those who. knew him most intimately, knew, that