DOCTRINAL TRACTS
OF THE
4artzhbtcian VurbitcRatii    2tmrirttte.
VOL. I.
DEPiOSITORIES:
PHILADELPHIA: PRESBYTERIAN HOUSE, 386 CHESTNUT STREET.
NEW YORK: IVISON & PHINNEY, 178 FULTON ST.








No. 1.
EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
WHETHER Christ died for all men, or for a part only?
is a question which has been much agitated, since the Reformation, though, according to Milner, the Church, from
the earliest ages, rested in the opinion that Christ died for
all.  He does not except even Augustine, whom Prosper,
his admirer and follower, and a strict Predestinarian, represents as maintaining that Christ gave himself a ransom
for all;* so far at least as to make provision for their salvation, by removing an impediment which would otherwise
have proved fatal. The early Christians seemed to go upon
the principle, that as salvation was indiscriminately tendered to all, it must have been provided for all, and thus
made physically possible to all where the gospel comes;
otherwise, the Deity would be represented as tendering that
to his creatures which was in no sense within their reach,
and which they could not possibly attain, whatever might
be their dispositions.
Among those who leaned strongly to what are called the
doctrines of grace, the maxim was adopted, " That Christ's
death was sufficient for all, and efficient for the elect." By
which they seem to have intended, that while Christ's death
* Vol. II. page 445.




2             EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
opened the door for the salvation of all, so far as an expiatory sacrifice was concerned, it was designed, and by the
sovereign grace of God made effectual, to the salvation of
the elect.  Their belief was, that Christ died iotentionalty
to save those who were given to him  in the covenant of
redemption; but it does not appear that they supposed
his death, considered merely as an exriatory offering, had
any virtue in it, in relation to the elect, which it had not
in relation to the rest of mankind.  With respect to the
ultimate design of this sacrifice, or the application which
God would make of it, they doubtless supposed there was
a difference; but in the sacrifice itself, or in its immediate
end, the demonstration of God's righteousness, they could
see no difference. In this view, it was precisely the same
thing, as it stood related to the elect and to the non-elect.
The sacrificial service was one and the same, appointed
by the same authority, and for the same immediate purpose, and performed by the same glorious Personage, at
the very same time. It wanted nothing to constitute it a
true and perfect sacrifice for sin, as it stood related to the
whole world; it was but this true and perfect sacrifice, as
it stood related to the elect. Any other view would have
overturned its sufficiency for all mankind; for it was not
the sufficiency of Christ to be a sacrifice, but his sufficiency
as a sacrifice for the whole world, that they maintained.
And in perfect accordance with this, they held that this
most perfect sacrifice was efficient for the elect. But how
was it efficient? Not by its having in it any thing in
regard to the elect which it had not in regard to others;
for, intrinsically considered, it was the same to both, a trlze
and perfect sacrifice for sin; but it was the purpose of
God, in appointing it, that it should issue in the salvation
of his chosen. This was the use he intended to make of
it; nay, it was a part of the covenant of redemption, that




EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.               3
if the Mediator performed the sacrificial service required,
he should see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied.
There was, therefore, an infallible connection between the
death of Christ and the salvation of his people; and, of
course, his death was efficient in procuring their salvation,
it being the great medium through which the saving mercy
of God flowed, and connected both by the purpose and
promise of God with the bestowment of that mercy.
But even all this does not suppose that the death of
Christ, considered simply as a sacrifice for sin, had any
thing in it peculiar to the elect, or that in and of itself it
did any thing for them which it did not do for the rest of
mankind. The intention of God, as to its application, or
the use he designed to make of it, is a thing perfectly
distinct from the sacrifice itself, and so considered, as we
believe, by the Church antecedent to the Reformation. In
no other way, can we see, how their language is either intelligible or consistent.
Whether the Reformers, as they are called, were exactly of one mind on this subject, is not quite so certain.
But that Luther, Melancthon, Osiander, Brentius, UCcolampadius, Zwinglius, and Bucer held the doctrine of a general atonement, there is no reason to doubt. We might
infer it from their Confession at M2arpurge, signed A. D.
1529, as the expressions they employ on this subject are
of a comprehensive character, and best agree with this
sentiment. From their subsequent writings, however, it
is manifest that these men, and the German Reformers
generally, embraced the doctrine of a universal propitiation. Thus, also, it was with their immediate successors,
as the language of the Psalgrave Confession testifies.
This Confession is entitled, "A Full Declaration of the
Faith and Ceremonies professed in the dominions of the
most illustrious and noble Prince Frederick V., Prince




4            EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
Elector Palatine." It was translated by John Rolte, and
published in London, A. D. 1614.
"Of the power and death of Christ, believe we," say
these German Christians, " that the death of Christ (whilst
he being not a bare man, but the Son of God, died,) is a
full, all-sufficient payment, not only for our sins, but for
the sins of the whole world; and that he by his death hath
purchased not only forgiveness of sins, but also the new
birth by the Holy Ghost, and lastly everlasting life.  But
we believe therewith, that no man shall be made partaker
of such a benefit, but only he that believeth on him. For
the Scripture is plain where it saith,' cHe that believeth not
shall be damned.'"
It would be unnecessary to take up time to show
that the Lutheran Divines, with scarcely a single exception, from that period to the present, have declared in
favour of a universal atonement.  It could scarcely be
otherwise when we consider the great reverence in which
they held their distinguished leader, who, on various occasions, expressed himself most decidedly upon this subject. To give but a single instance.  While speaking
of the blood of Christ, the inestimable price paid for our
redemption, (in his commentary on 1 Peter i. 18,) he
remarks that no understanding or reason of man can comprehend it: so valuable was it, "that a single drop of
this most innocent and precious blood, was abundantly sufficient for the sins of the whole world.  But it pleased
the Father so largely to bestow his grace upon us, and
to make such abundant provision for our salvation, that
he willed that Christ his Son should pour forth all his
blood, and at the same time to give this whole treasure
to us."
WTe know what the opinion of the Church of England
was, by the language of her thirty-first article, which is




EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.               5
in these words: "The offering of Christ once made, is
that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for
all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual;
and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone;"
and with this agree the words of the Heidelberg Catechism, in the thirty-seventh question, which state that
" Christ bore, both in body and mind, the weight of the
wrath of God, for the sins of all mankind, to the end
that by his sufferings as a propitiatory sacrifice, he might
redeem our bodies and souls from eternal damnation, and
acquire for us the grace of God, justification and eternal
life."
We are well aware that many who have expounded
this catechism, have adopted more limited views; and
that toward the close of the sixteenth century, there
was not a little -zeal displayed, in some of the Reformed
Churches, in Germany and Holland, and other parts of
Europe, in defence of what was called particular redemption. Yet, in the Synod of Dort, there were many able
advocates for the doctrine that Christ died for all, in the
only sense in which it is contended for now, by that part
of the Calvinistic school who plead for a general propitiation.  The delegates from England, Hesse, and Bremen
were explicit in their declaration to this effect. But all
were not of the same mind; and, therefore, though they
agreed upon a form  of words, under which every man
might take shelter, still it wears the appearance of a compromise, and is not sufficiently definite to satisfy the rigid
Inquirer.
But some may be curious to know in what light this
subject was viewed by Calvin, a man who, from the extent
of his erudition, and the viyour of his faculties, exerted a
mighty influence over his contemporaries, and the generations which succeeded him.  Seldom, indeed, has the
1t




6            EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
world seen such a man. Fearless as he was able, he examined every subject with care, and penetrated farther
into the great doctrines of the gospel, probably, than any
other divine of that or of preceding ages.  What did he
think of the doctrine of atonement? Did he consider it
in the light of a universal provision for the whole human
race, or did he suppose it restricted in its very nature to
the elect? In his Inlstitutes, which he wrote in early life,
and which display an astonishing measure both of talent
and research, some have supposed that he favoured the
doctrine of a particular or limited atonement.  The truth,
however, is, so far as I can judge, that he carefully avoids
committing himself on this point, and uses language on
all occasions of such a general and indeterminate character,
that it is not easy to discover what were his real sentiments. The probability is, that the subject had not then
been much agitated, and that he thought it enough to
keep to the language which was generally adopted by the
Church. He often asserts that the death of Christ was a
full and perfect sacrifice for sin-that it takes away sinthat he died for us-and that we are purged by his blood;
but he does not teach that any man's sins are put away
until he believes, but he plainly teaches the contrary.
Having occasion to quote these words of the apostle,
"Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom  God hath set forth
to be a propitiation through faith in his blood," he remarks, "Here Paul celebrates the grace of God, because
he has given the price of our redemption in the death of
Christ; and then enjoins us to betake ourselves to his
blood, that we may obtain righteousness, and may stand
secure before the judgment of God." But why betake
ourselves to his blood, that we may obtain righteousness
or justification, if his death, considered simply as a sin,




EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.                7
offering, actually took away our sin, and reconciled us to
God?  For myself, I have no doubt that he considered
the sprinkling of Christ's blood as essential to a real and
effective propitiation as the shedding of it.  Ilis blood shed
was the meritorious cause of our reconciliation, or the
grand means by which it was effected; but this effect was
never actually produced except in cases where his blood was
sprinkled or applied, and that this blood is applied in no
case antecedent to faith, and without faith.  His doctrine,
then, appears to me to be this: That Christ's death was
the only full and perfect sacrifice for sin; that as such,
it laid the foundation for God to be propitious to a world
of sinners, even the whole human family; but that it
actually reconciled him to none, so as to take away their
sin and entitle them to life, till they repented and believed; but that to all such there is an actualpropitiation,
an effective reconcilement or at-one-ment, because by faith
they lay their hands upon the head of the bleeding victim,
and his blood is sprinkled upon them or applied to their
souls. But whatever might have been his opinions in
early life, his commentaries, which were the labours of his
riper years, demonstrate in the most unequivocal manner
that he received and taught the doctrine of a geiieral or
~universal atonement.  This is distinctly asserted by Dr.
Watts, and several striking examples of his interpretation
given. But having examined for myself, I am prepared
to say that he takes the ground of a universal atonement
in almost every controverted text on this subject in the
New Testament.  Hear him on Matthew xxvi. 28: "This
is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for
many, for the remission of sins."  "Under the name of
many," says Calvin, "he designates not a part of the
world only, but the whole human race. For he opposes
many to one, as if he should say lie would be the Re



8            EXTENT OF TIIE ATONEMENT.
deemer, not of one man, but would suffer death that he
might liberate many from the guilt of the curse. Nor is it
to be doubted that Christ, in addressing the few, designed
to make his doctrine common to the many.'Nevertheless,
it is at the same time to be noted, that in distinctly addressing his disciples in Luke, he exhorts all the faithful to
appropriate the shedding of his blood to their own use.
While, therefore, we approach the sacred table, not
only this general thought should come into the mind,
that the world is redeemed by Christ's blood, but that every
one for himself should reckon his own sins to be expiated."
He expounds John iii. 16 in accordance with the same
views. " God so loved the world that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not
perish, but have eternal lbfe."  By the world, according to
him, we are to understand "genus humanum," the human
race collectively, and not the elect as a distinct portion
of the world.  "God hath affixed," saith he, "a mark of
universality to his words on this occasion, both that he
might invite all promiscuously to the participation of life,
and that he might cut off excuse to the unbelieving;"
and this universality is indicated, he tells us, not only
by the term  whosoever, but by the term  world.  " For
though God finds nothing in the world worthy of his favour,
nevertheless he shows himselfpropitious to the whole worltl,
since he calls all men without exception to faith in Christ,
which is nothing else than an entrance into life."
His remarks on 1 Corinthians viii. 11, 12, are still more
decisive. "And through thy knowledge shall thy weak
brother perish for whom Christ died." Here the question
is, what is meant by the weak brother perishing?  Calvin's
paraphrase is, "If the soul of every weak person was the
purchase of the blood of Christ, he that for the sake of
a little meat plunges his brother again into death who was




EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.                 9
redeemed by Christ, shows at how mean a rate he esteems
the blood of Christ." His observations on Hebrews x. 26,
are of the same decisive character.  Paul declares "that
if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge
of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."
This Calvin interpreted of those who openly apostatize
from the truth and renounce their Christian professionand to such, he says, there is no more a sacrifice for sins,
because they have departed from the death of Christ and
treated it with sacrilegious contempt-but to sinners of
any other description, even to lapsed Christians, "Christ
daily offers himself, so that no other sacrifice need to be
sought for the expiation of their sins."
It is obvious that Calvin considered apostates as standing in a different relation to the death of Christ from
what they once did, and different from that of other sinners under the dispensation of the gospel.  That once
his death might be regarded as a sacrifice for sin, available
for them, but now it was otherwise; having despised him
and being rejected of God, there remained to them neither
this sacrifice nor any other, but only a fearful looking for
of judgment and fiery indignation which shall consume the
adversaries.
Again, on 1 John ii. 2, "He is the propitiation for our
sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole
world."  "Here," says Calvin, "a question is raised, how
the sins of the whole world were atoned for? Some have
said that Christ suffered for the whole world sulciently, but
for the elect alone efficaciously.  This is the common solution of the schools, and though I confess this is a truth, yet
I do not think it agrees to this place."
See also on 2 Peter ii. 1, "There shall be false teachers
among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies,
even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon




10           EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
themselves swift destruction."  Upon this, Calvin remarks,
"Though Christ is denied in various ways, yet, in my
opinion, Peter means the same thing here that Jude expresses, namely, that the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness. For Christ has redeemed us that he might have
a people free from the defilements of the world, and devoted
to holiness and innocence. Whoever, therefore, shake off
the yoke and throw themselves into all licentiousness, are
justly said to deny Christ, by whom they were redeemed."
To the same purpose are his remarks on Jude, verse
fourth: "Turning the grace of God into lasciviousness,
and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus
Christ."  "His meaning is," says Calvin, "that Christ is
really denied when those who were redeemed by his blood
again enslave themselves to the devil, and as far as in them
lies, make that incomparable price vain and ineffectual."
It is but candid, however, to allow that in some passages where the word all is brought into question, this
writer supposes that it signifies all of every kind, or all
sorts, rather than all, every one. But this he might easily
do and consistently maintain as the doctrine of the New
Testament, that the death of Christ was a full and perfect
sacrifice for the sins of all men absolutely. This doctrine
he most certainly did maintain, as several of the extracts
from his writings now presented clearly evince. We need
not be afraid, therefore, that our Calvinism will be essen.
tially marred by holding the doctrine of a general propitiation, unless we wish to be more Calvinistic than John
Calvin himself.  But as we should call no man master,
upon earth, but examine for ourselves, and take our
opinions from the living oracles, let us hear what the
Scriptures say upon this subject.
To facilitate our inquiries, I propose to consider the truth
of the following positions:




EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.               11
First. That the death of Christ was a true and proper
sacrifice for sin.
Second. That though his death was of vicarious import,
as were the ancient sin-offerings, yet it was not strictly
vicarious.
Third. That this sacrifice bore such a relation to the
sins of men, that a way was thereby opened for the restoration of the whole human family to the favour of God.
Should these propositions turn out to be true, we shall
be at no loss how to answer the question which stands at the
head of this lecture.
First. As to the first position, that Christ's death was a
true and proper sacrifice for sin, there will be no dispute,
as this is common ground to all Calvinists, and to all,
indeed, who do not virtually give up the doctrine of atonement. Still it may be well to remark that the language
of Scripture, on this subject, is clear and precise. Christ
is called the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins
of the world. He is said to have given himself for us, an
offering and a sacrifice to God.  It is affirmed that he
needed not, like the high priests under the law, to offer up
sacrifice daily, first for his own sins, and then for the sins
of the people; for this he did once when he offered up himse.f  He is expressly called the propitiation for our Sins,
and God is said to have sent him into the world for the
purpose of making propitiation, and of making it by his
death. The whole system of Jewish sacrifices, as well as
Patriarchal, were but types of his one great sacrifice when
he offered up himself, and demonstrate his death to be a
true and proper expiatory offering. But this is a point on
all hands conceded.
Second. Was his death, then, of vicarious import simply? or was it strictly vicarious?
That it was of vicarious import cannot reasonably be




12           EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
denied, if we compare it with the legal sacrifices, or
attend to the express language of Scripture on the sub.
ject.
The victims under the law were vicarious offerings;
they suffered in the room and stead of the offerer, and
thus far there was a transfer, not of sin or guilt, strictly
speaking, but of its penal effects; suffering and death,
only, were transferred, and this is what is meant by
putting the iniquities of the sinner upon the head of the
victim, and of the victim's bearing the iniquities of the
sinner.
To suppose a literal transfer, either of sin or ofpunishment, would be to suppose something which is entirely
unauthorized by the language of Scripture, and at the
same time to involve the absurdity of making a man and
even a beast guilty by proxy.  Sin, guilt, ill-desert are
in the very nature of things personal; and punishment
presupposes guilt, and guilt in the subject; neither the
one nor the other is properly transferable.  Or, to use
the language of Magee: "Guilt and punishment cannot
be conceived but with reference to consciousness, which cannot be transferred."
While we would maintain, therefore, that the sufferings
of Christ were of vicarious import, because he suffered
in the room of sinners, and bore the indications of Divine
wrath for their sakes, we cannot subscribe to the opinion
that they were strictly vicarious, if by this is meant that
the sins of those for whom  he suffered, their personal
desert and their punishment, were literally transferred to
him. We maintain the doctrine of substitution, but not
such a substitution as implies a transfer of character,
and consequently of desert and punishment.  This we
think to be impossible; and unnecessary, if not impossible.
It was enough that there should be a transfer of sufferings,




EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.               13
and these, not exactly in kind, degree, or duration, but
in all their circumstances amounting to a full equivalent
in their moral effect upon the government of God. WTTe
hold that Jesus died in the room of the guilty; that though
innocent himself, he was made sin for us, or treated as a
sinner on our account, and in our stead; that the Lord laid
on him the iniquities of us all; and that he bore our sins
in his own body on the tree, by suffering what was a full
equivalent to the punishment due to our offences. But
this, we think, is all the substitution which the Scriptures
teach, all that the nature of things will admit, and all that
was necessary to effect the same moral ends in the government of God which would have been effected by inflicting
on the transgressor the penal sanctions of his law. This
brings us to our third position.
Third. That the sacrifice of Christ bore such a relation
to the sins of men —that a way was thereby opened for
the restoration of the whole human family to the favour of
God.
I say the sins of men, for it does not appear that his
sacrifice bore any specific relation to the sins of the rebel
angels. For them no sacrifice was appointed, but justice
seized at once upon its victims, and thrust them down to
hell, where they are reserved in chains under darkness
unto the judgment of the great day. And but for a sacrifice, which did honour to the Divine Law, and rendered
it consistent for a holy God to treat with rebellious man,
it is not easy to see why the arm  of justice was not uplifted to avenge its insulted rights, in the immediate and
interminable punishment of our apostate race. Be this,
however, as it may, it is an undeniable fact, that Jesus
took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of
Abraham, and was in all things made like unto his
brethren of the human family. In that very nature in
2




14          EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
which the law of God had been broken and dishonoured,
did Jesus appear to put away sin, by the sacrifice of
himself. But this, it will be said, it behooved him to do,
if he were to expiate the sins of his people only, and if
his death had not the remotest reference to the sins of
the finally lost. Granted: but must it not also be allowed,
that if he had intended to make provision for the whole
human family by pouring out his blood, it behooved him
neither to be nor to do any thing more than he actually
did? As a Person of infinite dignity, he accomplished
that very service in that very nature, and in all those circumstances of touching interest, which alone would have
been requisite had he intended to make atonement for the
whole world absolutely. This is so obvious as generally
to be admitted. It is allowed on all hands, that he atoned
for all sorts of persons, of all nations and all ages of the
world; and that the sacrifice he offered was of sufficient
value to have redeemed the whole human race. But how
did he atone for any, but by obeying the law in that very
nature in which they had disobeyed it, and by suffering
in that very nature, a moral equivalent to the evil which
they had deserved to suffer, as the just award of the same
righteous law? But this nature, let it be remembered,
is the common nature of man, and if rendering a service in this nature would amount to an atonement for one,
why not for another, and another, until the whole were
included? That such might be the case, it is easy to see;
and that such, in fact, was the case, it would be very natural to presume.
The leading circumstance which constitutes the connection between Christ and those for whom his sacrifice is available, is that he obeyed the law in their nature, and in the
same nature suffered its penalty, or that which was equivalent. All had reproached or dishonoured God alike, by




EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.              15
trampling upon the authority of his law; Christ assumes
their nature, and by his obedience and sufferings magnifies
the law and makes it honourable. They with one voice
had proclaimed that the law was not good, nor God worthy to be obeyed. Christ reverses this statement, and
proclaims in the ears of the universe the purity of God's
character, and the excellence and importance of his law.
Nay, he condemns sin, vindicates God's holiness, and shows
his unalterable determination to uphold the authority of
his government; since, in the very expedient he has
adopted for dispensing mercy, he will not forgive sin,
without an adequate satisfaction to the right of his injured majesty, considered as the moral head of the universe. All this Christ did in man's nature, and with
reference to the sins of men, and more than this he need
not do, and could not do, by offering himself a sacrifice
for sin. What is there, let me ask, in the nature and circumstances of this great sacrifice, which should limit its
availableness to a part of the human race? Did it not
bear sufficiently upon the conduct of the whole? Did it
not condemn sin-all sin-the sin of one man as much as
the sin of another? Did it not vindicate the Divine holiness, and the purity and excellence of that law which man
had broken? Did it not evince God's determination to
sustain the authority of that law, while it exhibited his
boundless compassion toward a world of rebels?  What
more would we have in it, or what other or greater moral
influence would we have it exert, had it been designed as a
sacrifice of expiation for the whole human family? As for
ourselves, we regard the whole scheme of atonement in
the light of a remedial law; that it was adapted to counteract the ruins of the fall-and that in its very nature
it contained a provision coextensive with those ruinsthough in its application, for wise and holy purposes, an




16           EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
important difference will be made. But here we shall be
told, that if we have not left out of our statement, we have
not sufficiently exhibited one all-controlling circumstance,
to wit, the actual substit'ution of Christ for, and in behalf
of, those for whom he suffered; that to constitute his sufferings an available sacrifice, it was necessary not only
that he should die in the nature, but in the room of sinners;
and that he might die -in their nature without dying in
their stead.
Our reply is, that we consider the death of Christ as a
vicarious sacrifice, and offered in behalf of all men; because,
from the very nature of the case, it could scarcely be otherwise, he dying in their nature, and in circumstances equally
fitted to make him the substitute of all. He did and suffered what he must have done, had he been the substitute
of all, and so far as we can discern, nothing less or more;
what he did and suffered bore the same relation to sin
and holiness, to the law and government of God, as it
would have done, had he offered himself for all; nay, we
consider it impossible that he should, by his obedience and
death, have condemned sin and magnfied the law, and this
in man's nature, without doing it with reference to every
man's sin, and the dishonour which every man had cast
upon the law.  His sacrificial service was open and public,
performed in the face of the universe, and gave out a testimony which was heard through all worlds, and a testimony
which bore as strongly upon one man's sin as another's,
and upon the righteousness of God, in his condemnation.
Nay, whatever was the language of this solemn transaction
concerning God or man, equally respected all men, and
God in relation to all. We could not doubt, therefore, that
so far as Christ was the substitute of any man, he was the
substitute of all men, were we to look only at the nature
of his sacrifice, and the purposes it was immediately de



EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.               17
signed to answer in the moral administration of God. But
the Bible has not left us to general principles here; it has
furnished us with facts and declarations upon the subject
which we think ought for ever to put this matter to rest.
Look a moment at the doctrine of sacrifice taught from
the beginning, but with more explicitness under the dispensation of Moses. For certain transgressions, and some of
them of a moral character, every sinner among the Israelites was required to bring a victim, over whose head he
was to confess his sin. This victim was afterward to be
slain, and offered by the priest as a sin-offering unto the
Lord, for the purpose of making an atonement for the soul.
The life of the victim was accepted for the life of the sinner, the victim being always regarded as his substitute.
Where the service was performed, agreeably to God's appointment, an atonement was made, and sin forgiven, so
far, at least, as to release the sinner from the penalties and
disabilities incurred under the Jewish law. But the victims slain on these occasions were types of Christ, a nobler
victim hereafter to come into the world.  This, so faras I
know, is universally admitted.  But what follows?  Why,
most certainly, unless the Jewish law was deceptive, the
type being the substitute of the sinner, the antitype must
be his substitute also; for it looked to him, and derived all
its significancy and efficacy fiom him.  A typical offering
would be but a mere mockery of the Divine justice and
holiness, considered in any other light than as a prefiguration of the glorious Antitype. Of necessity, therefore,
they must be regarded as closely conjoined. Admit, then,
that every man in the Jewish nation, good or bad, elect or
non-elect, when he brought his sin or trespass offering to
the Lord, was taught, by the very nature of the institution,
that his offering or victim was his substitute, could he
avoid the conclusion that a greater and infinitely more
2*




18           EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
precious victim was his substitute also? Could he understand the nature of this sacrificial service, without perceiving that the type pointed to the Antitype, and that, by the
appointment of God, both stood in the same relation to
him, as a gracious medium through which pardon was to
be obtained, and the Divine favour secured?
Now let me ask, whether it is reasonable to suppose that
such a doctrine as this should be held forth in the Jewish
sacrifices, if, in truth and in fact, Christ is the appointed
substitute for the elect only? I know it is sometimes said,
that the Jewish people were a typical nation, and that
they properly prefigured the true Church of God, or the
whole body of the elect, and, therefore, that their sacrifices
for themselves typified Christ's sacrifice for his people.
But this by no means avoids the difficulty. The Jewish
sacrifices had a language which was distinct and appropriate, and that language was, that every man's victim
brought by God's appointment, was a vicarious offering,
accepted in behalf of the guilty offerer; that this offering
was a type of Christ, and of his great sacrifice, to be made
once in the end of the world; and consequently that
Christ, thus prefigured, stood in the same relation to the
offerer as did the prefiguring victim, to wit, as his substitute, and the only piacular sacrifice on which his faith
ought ultimately to rest. This, we have no doubt, is the
true state of the case. But to show how perfectly futile
the attempt to escape from this argument is, by resorting
to the notion that the Jewish nation typified the Church,
let us look back to the patriarchal ages, where no such
refuge will be found.
It is the common belief of Christians, supported by the
clear indications of Holy Writ, that sacrifices were instituted by God immediately after the fall; that these sacrifices were expiatory, resembling, in all important particu



EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.               19
lars, the sin-offerings under the law. But if these early
sacrificed were of God's appointment, it will not be doubted
that they were obligatory upon the whole human family
during the patriarchal ages, nor that they were typical,
bearing the same relation to the promised seed of the
woman, and to his sacrifice, which the Mosaic sacrifices
afterward bore. What then do we find in this ancient
sacrificial service?  Why that God required every man,
as he did Cain and Abel, to bring their victims, at the
appointed time, and sacrifice them at his altars. Were
these victims, then, the substitutes of the offerers, life
being accepted for life?  There is no room  to doubt.
Did these victims typify the Saviour, and his sacrifice of expiation? Most certainly they did, or they were an unmeaning and unprofitable service. But if typical of Christ, and
the substitutes of the offerers, then Christ himself was
exhibited as the substitute of the offerers, unless you
break up the connection between type and antitype. To
him these offerings pointed, and the worshippers were directed, through the medium of these emblems, to the great
sacrifice which he was to accomplish, when he should come
to break the head of the serpent, and procure the means
of deliverance to a ruined world.
Here was instruction which God himself imparted, and
it exhibits, with the light of a sunbeam, two important
facts, to wit, that the  victims  employed  in  animal
sacrifice were the appointed substitutes of their respective
offerers, and that, being types of Christ, they show him
to be the substitute of the offerers also. Now, as the
rite of sacrifice was universal-instituted for the whole
family of man-how can we escape the conclusion, that a
foundation was laid for this universality, by appointing the
Mediator to appear in human nature, and to offer a sacrifice
in behalf of the whole human family?  Allow a substitu



20           EXTENT OF TIIE ATONEMENT.
tion thus universal, and all appears plain; say, with the
apostle, that Christ is a Mediator between God and men,
and that he, by the grace of God, tasted death for every
mnan; give these expressions their full and unrestricted
import, and there is no difficulty in allowing that the ancient victims were the real substitutes of those who offered
them, and at the same time types of the Lord Jesus, who,
in his sacrificial character, sustained an important relation
to the entire family of man. But deny a substitution thus
universal, and you are plunged into impenetrable darkness.
We have dwelt the longer on this point, because it is
vital to the controversy. If Christ were a substitute for
all men, or died in the room of all, then it cannot be denied that his sacrifice bore such a relation to the sins of
men, that a way was thereby opened for the restoration
of the whole human race to the favour of God. And on
the other hand, if no substitution of this universal character existed, I do not see but that we must restrict the
availableness of Christ's death to the elect only. But
our brethren of the opposite school will probably rejoin:
"If Christ died in the room of all, why are not all saved?
And again, if he died for, or in reference to all, why the
specialty sometimes indicated in regard to the object of his
death? He is said to lay down his life for his sheep, for his
friends, for the Church."
The first of these inquiries we answer by saying, that
if Christ did die for all, so as to make his death available
to their salvation, it will not follow as a consequence that
all will actually be saved; and as to the indication of
specialty in regard to the object of Christ's death, such
as that he died for his sheep, his Church, his friends, these
are all explained by a reference to the ultinmate object
of his death. Doubtless, he died with an intention of




EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.              21
saving those who were given him in the covenant of
redemption; they were the seed to serve him, promised as
a reward for his agony and bloody sweat, and he looked to
their salvation as the fruit of his sufferings, and as the joy
set before him. But such an ultimate design of his death,
which included the application which should be made of it
by the sovereign and discriminating grace of God, hinders
not the availableness of his sacrifice in relation to all, nor
throws the slightest suspicion upon the doctrine whaich we
have advocated in this lecture. Because he died with the
declared design of saving his people, does it follow that
he had no other design? Because this was an ultimate
end sought in his death, is it a just consequence that he
could have had no other end, either immediate or ultimate? Doubtless, whatever follows as the proper result
of his atoning sacrifice, he sought more immediately or
remotely as an end of his undertaking in this infinitely
solemn and amazing tragedy.
But we have not done with this article; that the sacrifice
of Christ stood in such a relation to the sins of vmenb as to
opsen a way for the salvation of all.
We argue this from the parable of the marriage supper,
where it is expressly said, all things are ready, and ready
too, for those who, it seems, in the event never came.
*    *    *   We argue it from  the indefinite tender
of salvation made to all men where the gospel comes.
To us, no maxim appears more certain, than that a salvation offered, implies a salvation provided; for God will not
tantalize his creatures by tendering them that which is not
in his hand to bestow. We argue it from the declared
purpose of God in sending his Son into the world, and
which he has expressed in such a manner as to leave no
reasonable doubt that provision is made for all.  "For
God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten




22           EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life."
By the world here, must be intended either the chosen
vessels of mercy, sometimes called the elect world,-or
the world of mankind at large, without discrimination.
Suppose we interpret it of the elect world.  Then the sentiment will run thus: God so loved the elect world, that whosoever of the elect world shall believe in him, &c.
But.such language is absurd upon the very face of it,
and cannot be supposed to proceed from the lips of unerring wisdom.  Besides, what follows fixes the sense, and
demands a different interpretation.  "For God sent not
his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the
world through him might be saved."  And again, "This
is the condemnation, that light has come into the world,
and men loved darkness rather than light." It is utterly
contrary to the usus loquendi, to interpret the phrase, the
world of God's chosen people.  It signifies often, mankind
at large; sometimes the wicked part of mankind, as distinguished from God's people; and not unfrequently the
earth itself, with all that pertains to it.  (Nor is it doubted
that it is sometimes taken for a part of mankind, instead
of the whole, as when it is said, "tthe world is gone after
him.")  But it is nowhere used, that we have discovered,
for the elect, the Church, or God's redeemed ones, in distincti'on from others. Interpret this passage, then, according to its most obvious signification, and what do we find
but a declaration of God's love to the human race collectively in the gift of his Son, which gift involved in it the
means of their salvation.  He sent his Son that they mi7ght
be saved, not that they should infallibly be saved. His
love was expressed in providing the means, and their
destiny he has made to turn upon the use which they
shall make of this inestimable provision of his mercy.




EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.             23
And hence Christ himself says in the words immediately
following: "He that believeth not is condemned already;
because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Not because a way of salvation was
not provided through means of this Son, (for that he
had asserted in a verse or two preceding,) but because he
had not believed in the name of the only begotten Son,
but despised and rejected him.
Here he assigns the true and only cause of condemnation
to sinners under the light of the gospel, namely, their
unbelief.  But how could unbelief be the cause, at least
the principal cause, if no sacrifice has been offered for
them, and no means of salvation provided? There would
then be another reason for their condemnation, a reason far
deeper and more controlling, to wit, no atonement, nor the
means of one.
We call not your attention to the universal terms so
often employed upon this subject, as that Christ is the
Saviour of all men, that he tasted death for every man,
and gave himself a ransom for all, &c., not because we
suppose these terms ought not to be understood in the
widest sense of universality, but because this ground has
been -trodden over by the parties in this controversy.
We ask you to consider some passages which we think
far more decisive. Look at Hebrews x. 26, 27: "For
if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for
sins; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and
fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries." It
is agreed, on all hands, that the apostle here describes
such as openly and deliberately apostatize from the truth,
and set themselves vigorously to oppose Christianitymen who are given up of God, and irrevocably sealed
over to destruction, as a just judgment for their wicked



24           EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
ness.  Now, with respect to these men he said, there
remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.  The original is
peculiarly strong and determinate.  O1x'n   Ep4 aLyapIP;v
UAozdlELaec Ovl;a-a sacrifice for sin no more, or no longer
remains.  What does this imply, but that antecedent to
this apostasy, there was a sacrifice which might have
availed to take away their sins? But now there is none.
They are left without hope, because cut off, by the just
judgment of God, from any connection with the only
sacrifice which can take away sin. They have trampled
under foot the blood of the covenant; and now, instead of
pleading for mercy, it pleads for vengeance. But what
propriety in this statement, if the blood of Christ was never
an available sacrifice for them, and they never stood in any
other relation to it than the apostate angels-it having,
in no sense, ever been shed for them? Surely, it must be
strange language, to say there remaineth no more a sacrifice
to those for whom there never was a sacrifice. If this
passage stood alone, on the subject before us, I should
consider it as settling the question for ever, that the death
of Christ bore such a relation to the sins of men, as to
open a way for the restoration of the whole human family
to the favour of God. For, if it bore such a relation to
any one soul who is finally lost, with what reason could it
be denied with respect to others?
Look, again, at 1 Cor. viii. 11: "And through thy
knowledge shall thy weak brother perish, for whom Christ
died." But how shall he perish? Why, by being emboldened to eat those things which are offered unto idols, as
the apostle teaches us in the preceding verse, he shall be
guilty of renouncing the living and true God, or which is
equally fatal, confounding him with idols. The apostle
does not say he shall be injured, greatly injured, but he
shallperish; using the very same word which Christ does,




EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.               25
when he says that God gave his only begotten Son, that
men need not per;sh, but have everlasting life; and the
same word which Jude uses, when he speaks of those who
perished in the gjrinsasyjlng of Cfore. It is perfectly idle to
attempt to explain away the solemn and awful import of
this word; and yet if it be allowed its proper signification
— if to perish is to lose one's soul-then men may be lost
for whom Christ died; which concludes unanswerably in
favour of our doctrine, that Christ died for all, or that his
sacrifice bore a solemn and important relation to all.'We draw the same conclusion froln 2 Peter ii. 1, where
the apostle speaks of some who privily bring in damnable
lleresies, del,yin/g the Lord that bought b ct them, and bring
upon themselves swift destruction.  You  have  already
heard the opinion of Calvin upon this text. And though
our brethren of another school have often nibbled at it,
and applied to it the various arts of criticism, still it stands
as firm as the pillars of Hercules against the sentiment that
Christ died for his people only.
If wicked men deny the Lord that bought them,
doubtless they were bozught, and bought by the price of
that blood which alone is an adequate ransom for the
soul.
But we are told that the Lord that bought them was
not Jesus Christ, and of course, that they were not bought
with his blood.  WAho, then, was this Lord, and how did
he buy these wicked men? "Why, the Lord is God the
Father, the Sovereign Ruler of the world, and he bought
these men as Jehovah bought the Israelites, when he delivered them from the bondage of Egypt."  But when was
this interpretation first initroduced?  Can it be found in
any of the ancient scholiasts or glossaries? No. Its modern
date shows its origin; that it has been resorted to, not
from its obvious agreement with the words, but from the
8




26           EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.
necessity of the case. It has been seen that the old interpretation would be fatal to a certain theory; the words
of the apostle, therefore, must speak something else than
what the Church from the beginning has supposed them to
speak.
But let us hear the defence of this novel interpretation.
The word in the original, translated Lord, is 6a7d6or5, and
not KvpLos, the more common appellation of Jesus Christ.
This word, it is said, signifies Supreme Ruler, and is thus
applied to God in several places in the New Testament.
True; but is it not also applied to Christ, and even to men
who sustain the.relation of master to others as their servants?  Whom  does the apostle mean by  and&sr   in 2
Tim. ii. 21, where he says, "If a man purge himself from
these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet
for the master's use?" TWhom does Jude mean by 8EA50r,5
in a passage strikingly parallel with that under consideration, where he speaks of "certain men crept in unawares,
who were of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly
men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and
dcenyilg h  te o07n1  Lord God, even our Lord Jesus Christ,"
as it should be rendered.  The best lexicographers tells us
that this word has the force of domizaus among the Latins,
and may be applied to God as the Supreme Ruler, to Jesus
Christ as the great Head of his Church, or to any head or
master of a family. Nothing is therefore more futile than
the attempt to escape the obvious construction of this passage, by a criticism  upon the word o6Ea`ra;, which in this
very place, Schleusner tells us, is applied to Jesus Christ.
But if God, the Supreme Ruler of the world, is here designated by  SEaro6r5, I should like to know a little more
definitely how he has bought these wicked men, who privily
bring in damnable heresies? Will you say he delivered
them from the bondage of corruption? This neither the




EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.               27
text nor the context declares. But if it were so, what was
the price which he paid for their deliverance?  When he
bought the Israelites, he paid a price for them, and a heavy
price it was; he gave Egypt for them-Ethiopia and Sheba
for a ransom. Was there any thing to correspond with
this, when he bought the false prophets and false teachers
spoken of in this text? According to our judgment, there
was never a harder shift to blunt the edge of plain and
pointed Scripture testimony. But we need not wonder,
because as long as this text stands in the Bible, unperverted, it is entirely fatal to that scheme which contends
that Jesus Christ was a sacrifice for the elect only.
Let me draw your attention to a single remark more.
This important passage has always been considered as
parallel with that in Jude, already mentioned. There is
a striking resemblance in all the important points of character, attributed to these wicked men by the two sacred
writers, and an equally striking analogy in their doom.
But what did they do, besides turning the grace of God
into lasciviousness, and leading a life of brutal sensuality?
What did they do which in a peculiar manner irrevocably
sealed them to perdition?  Why, they denied the  aro7rs?-,
and by 6sEco~r; Jude manifestly intends the Lord Jesus
Christ.




28
THE HIDING-PLACE.
HAILT, Sov'reign love, that first began
The scheme to rescue fallen man!
Hail, imatchless, free, eternal grace,
That gave my soul a hiUiuly-pl(ce.
Against the God who rules the sky
I fought with hands uplifted high;
Despised the offers of his grace,
Too proud to seek a hidiy-plcace.
Vindictive justice stood in view:
To Sinai's fiery mount I flew;
But justice cried with frowning face"' This mountain is no hicllivy-lace."
But lo! a heavenly voice is heardMercy's bright angel then appear'd;
Who led me on a pleasing pace,
To Jesus Christ, rny hidilyg.place.
On him Almighty vengeance fell,
Which must hlave sunk a world to hell:
He bore it fir our guilty race,
And now, lie iis my hidiilg-place.
BREwER.




No. 2.
TiHE
PERSEVERANCE OF THIE SAINTS.
TILE doctrine of the infallible perseverance of the saints
is not, in my opinion, a fulclamcntal doctrine of the gospel.  Of course, people may hold different sentiments respecting it, and be saved; yet I cannot but regard it as a
very  inmportant doctrine, and one which is clearly and
strongly taught in the word of God-one which is, in a
measure, essential to Christian comfort, and greatly conducive to the glory of God.
In offering a few remarks on it, the design of the writer
is not to awaken controversy, or to condemn those Christians who do not believe it. He is far from doubting the
piety of those individuals and churches who hold views on
the point different from those which this tract is intended
to exhibit.  Nay, he is persuaded that in those churches
there are some of the most consistent Christians on earth,
and, perhaps, as many real saints as in our own, or any
other section of the church.  His aim, is simply to state
the ground on which the doctrine of our church is built,
and to answer the objections which are usually urged
against it.
A mere outlinze of the argument, however, is all that is
proposed. And if a large space should be allotted to the
objections which are to be noticed, or if some of these
should be regarded as trivial, let it be remembered that
great stress is often laid on them, and that to pass them by
unnoticed might be construed as inability to remove them.
A free use of italics has been indulged, on account of the




2           PERSEVERANCE OF TIIE SAINTS.
brevity of the argument, to show to the most careless reader
the hinge on which the controversy between Calvinists and
Arminians turns. I will
I. State and explain the DOCTRINE;
II. Offer some ARGUIMENTS in proof of it; and,
III. Notice some OBJECTIONS.
A few words will explain what is meant by the expression, "the perseverance of the saints."
1. By a "saint" is not meant a pefcectly holy person, for
there is not such a one on earth. Nor, running to the other
extreme, do we consider every awakcened and colnvicted sinner a saint, for many are alarmed, excited, and partially
reformed, who are never thoroughly converted. Nor do we'mean mere professional Christianity, for outward profession
often covers hearts at enmity with God. But by a saint is
understood a real Christian —one who has been born again,
John iii. 7 —one who has become a new creature, 2 Cor. v.
17; or, to use a favourite expression of our opponents, one
who has "been soundly and thoroughly converted."  It is
certain that such a person will not perish.
2. When we say that a saint will not fall away and be
lost, we do not mean that this arises from any thing in
the Christian himnse7f, but from the immutability of the
purfpose and promise of God.  If left to himself, the Christian would fall in a moment; and hence arises the propriety
of those cautions, exhortations, and warnings against falling,
which abound in the word of God.
3. When we say a Christian will not fall from grace, we
do not mean that it is impossible to lose mnany degrees of
grace, or to be backsliders to a considerable extent; for this
we admit is a frequent occurrence; but that such will not
fall entirely away, so as to lose all grace and perish eternally.
Dr. Emmons and some other New England divines admit a
total, though they deny a final falling from  grace.  Our
church, in my opinion, very properly denies both; but the
latter is the more important of the two, and it is to this I
shall principally direct attention.
Our doctrine, therefore, is,
"s That no real Christian —no one who has been truly, regencerated and made a new creature in Christ Jesus, WILL
EVER BE SUFFERED TO PERISH ETERNALLY. "




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.               3
ARGUMENTS FOR PERSEVERANCE.
My first arguments shall be founded on the general principles of the gospel; after which express passages of Scripture shall be adduced.
I. The doctrine of Election proves perseverance.  I shall
not here enter fully into this most unpopular subject, but
shall content myself with observing that saints are elected
unto salvation-of course to perseverance. 2 Thess. ii. 13:
"We are bound to give thanks to God always for you,
brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the
beginnilng chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of
the Spirit and belief of the truth."  " God hath chosen,"here is election-" chosen from the beginning,"-here is
the eternity of that election,-" chosen to salvation,"here is the end of that election-" through sanctification
and belief of the truth,"-here isperseverance in grace.  See,
also, Eph. i. 4-12, 1 Pet. i. 1-4: "According as he hath
chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that
we should be holy," &c.; "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the
Spirit, unto obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of
Jesus Christ," —"to an inheritance incorruptible," &c.
Saints, therefore, are chosen or elected to salvation.  The
only question is, whether this election secures salvation?
That it does, is evident from two considerations.
1. The elect can never be deceived or led fatally astray.
Matt. xxiv. 24: " Insomuch that, if it were possible, they
should deceive the very elect." Does not this teach that it
is inmpossible to " deceive" them, so as to ruin them? This
i.npossibility arises, however, not from the wisdom of Christians, but from  the immutable purpose of God to bring
them to salvation.
2. Because at the day of judgment nothizng shall be laid
to their charge.  Rom. viii. 33: " Who shall lay anly thing
to the charge of God's elect?" The apostle challenges any
one to name an accuser, or a charge, which should appear
against them.  Now, the apostles, in the texts I have quoted,
address all saints as elected, and, of course, teach that all
saints will persevere.
II. The doctrine of Efficacious Grace proves perseverance.




4           PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
The manner in which a man becomes a Christian makes it
probable that when once converted, he will never cease to
be a Christian.  His conversion is not of himself: if it
were, he might of himself go back again; but his conversion is an act of Almighty power and sovereigin grace. Eph.
i.-18, 19, and ii. 4, 8. The doctrine of the Bible is that
all mankind are by nature at enmity with God, Rom. vii.
6, 7; that, in order to be Christians, we must be bornt
again, John iii. 7; that those who are born, are born not
of the will of man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God,
John i. 13; that those who are willing to serve him become
willing in consequence of his power, Ps. cx. 3, (and hence
our opponents so often call on God to "come down with
power;") that those who are called are called not of works,
but of grace given in Christ Jesus before the world began.
2 Tim. 1. 9.
From all which we are taught that the cause of a sinner's
coming to Christ is not in himself, but wholly in God.
Now, if God glorifies his power and grace in thus bringing
a sinner to himself, what good reason can be assigned for
his ever casting him off?  The sinner can never be worse
than he was when he was called; and, if God loved him
then, why should he ever after change and hate him?
I will illustrate my argument by a single text, John vi.
44:'" No man can come unto me, except the Father which
has sent me draw him, and I will raise him iep at the last
clay."
Observe, 1. This is a universal proposition, applying to
every man, —"No man can come," &c. 2. The cause of
the sinner's coming to Christ is not in himself.  He never
will come, unless converted by Divile influeznce.  3. When
he does come, his conversion is to be attributed not to himself, but to God alone-to the "drawing of the Father."
4. What shall become of him when he is thus drawn and
has come to Christ? Shall he be suffered to go back? or
shall he be saved?  Our Lord answers the question, "I
woill raise him uEp at the last day."  This is certainly a 2romise, and not a cutrse, and therefore the resutrrection is used
in a good sense for a resurrection to ljfe.  As the term
" life" in the New Testament does not mean mere existence,
but happiness, so the " resurrection" generally means the




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.               5
resurrection of the righteous. Therefore Paul was so anxious to " attain unto the resurrection of the dead." Phil.
iii. 11.
Our Lord, therefore, promises, in this text, that he will
grant eternal salvation to those who are thus drawn to him
by the Father.  And, as all saints are thus drawn, it is
evident they will persevere till " the last day."
III. The nature of the Covenant of Grace, and the character of our Surety. From the 5th chapter of Romans, it
is evident God hath made two covenants with man, the first
with Adam, for himself and all his posterity; the second
with Christ, for himself and all his people.
The design of the second covenant was to remedy the
defects of the first. Heb. viii. 6-13.
Our surety in the first covenant was frail and fallible;
our surety in the present, infallible. Under the first covenant the conditions were neverperformed, and the blessings
were lost.  Had Adam fulfilled the conditions, he would have
been confirmed and all his posterity with him in happiness
for ever.  But our second surety has fuifilled the conditions
and secured the blessings of the covenant for himself and
all his people. He has been admitted into heaven, and
there can be no doubt his people will all be admitted also.
If the atonement was yet to be offered; if the righteousness
by which they are to be justified was yet to be provided; if
the conditions of the covenant were yet to be fulfilled; if
salvation depended on their faithfulness,-there would, indeed, be great uncertainty as to the salvation of saints.
But since our surety has performed all the conditions,
the Father will not break his covenant with the Son by
refusing to save every individual of his people. Ps. lxxxix.
34.
In short, the whole comes to this: —your salvation, O
Christian, depends on Christ's faithfulness, or on your faithfulness, or on both. If it depends on your faithfulness, you
are lost; if on Christ's, you are safe, for "he is faithful
who has promised." If he has promised to be faithful to
you only so long as you are faithful to him, then the whole
depends on your faithfulness at last! And in this case
you are worse off than before the fall, for then you had a
surety in Adam who was perfect, and not likely to fall; but




6           PERSEVERANCE OF TIIE SAINTS.
now you have Nyourseyf for a surety, and are sure to come
short and perish.
But, if Christ be the surety of saints, they are certain to
_persevere.
Thus far I have argued from the general principles of the
gospel, because, as they are admitted, they will have their
force in proving the doctrine of perseverance. But, if I
were arguing with an "Arminian," I would waive all these
principles, which.he would either wholly or in part deny,
and would argue with him from the followingplain5  passages
of Scr'ipture.  D    Please refer to the Bible for the texts
in full.
IV. Because none become saints but those who have been
_previously GIVEN to Christ, and such can never be lost.
John vi. 37, 39: "All that the Father giveth me shall come
to me; and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast
out.  This is the Father's will who bhath sent me, that of
all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should
raise it up at the last day."  Observe the terms "given" to
Christ-" coming" to Christ-" in no wise cast out"-and
"lose nothing"-all cover precisely the same extent.  So
that if one who was given to Christ should not come to
Christ, or one who came should be cast out or lost, the whole
would be falsified.  t    See the text.
Suppose, for instance, the number given to Christ be a
thousand millions, (though we hope ten thousand times that
number will be saved,) then it is evident,
1. Every individual of these thousand millions given to
Christ, shall come to Christ, or become a Christian.  Can
you doubt? Suppose, then, one of them should be overlooked, and should not come to Christ, do you not perceive
the declaration would be false-for "all" who were given
to Christ would not have come to him! It is absolutely
certain, therefore, all will come to Christ.  Suppose them
come.  Shall they persevere?  Yes, for
2. Not one of these thousand millions can be cast out
or lost, without breaking this absolute promise of Christ.
Suppose only one individual, after coming to Christ, should
on some wise be cast out-only one-would not this break
the promise as effectually as though a  zillion were cast
out!  This single text, therefore, secures the infallible per



PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.               7
severance of every saint that ever lived, or ever will live, on
earth.
"Ah, but," says an objector, "though Christ will not
cast him out, he may cast himself out."  Ans. yWTould he
not then be lost?  But Christ says, "I should lose rnothing,"
and adds the positive promise before explained, "And I will
raise him iup at the last day."
Now, if you would duly appreciate the weight of this
argument, bring up all the OBJECTIONS you have ever heard,
-" Perseverance is inconsistent with free aye'cy —tends to
licentiousness-inconsistent with cautions, warnings, falls of
Christians, apostacies, &c.," —bring them all to bear on this
single text, and you will find them "' like snow-balls pelting
a wall of brass," or like noisy waves dashing and breaking
on a rock!
This text, too, will confirm  all that I have said about
election, &e.
Obj. " Coming to Christ is a condition of their salvation."
Ans. Call it' condition," or what you please, it is sure to
take p)lace, for Christ has promised "all that the Father
giveth me shall come to ame."  Their coming, therefore, and
their salvation, are just as certain as though there were no
such "condition" in the case.
V. Saints are Christ's SHEEP, and shall never perish.
John x. 11-29: "I am the good Shepherd: the good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.  As the Father knoweth
me, even so know I the Father, and I lay down my life for
the sheep.  And other sheep I have, which are not of this
fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice,
and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. MIy sheep
bear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and
I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish;
neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.  3ly Father
which gave them me is greater than all, and none is able to
pluck them  out of my Father's hand.  I and my Father
are one."
NOTE 1. Christ knows his people before their conversion,
and calls them his sheep.  Speaking of the yet unconverted
Gentiles, he says, (16,) " Other sheep I have which are not
of this fold, them  also I must briny."  (They were, therefore, not yet brought.) Just so our Lord told Paul of the




8           PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
unconverted Corinthians, " I have much people in this city."
Acts xviii. 10. 2. The conversion of his people is certain
and infallible.  " Them  also I must bring, and they shall
hear my voice."  Their calling, therefore, is absolutely
fixed.  Well, suppose they are called and have become
Christians, will they persevere, or shall they be left to
perish?  Hearken —3. Christ secures to them eternal life.
28, 29: "My sheep hear my voice and they follow me, (he
takes that for granted,) and I give unlto thent eternal life."
Observe, he does not say " will give, if you persevere," &c.;
but " I give" now, immediately.  And what does he give?
MIere temtporary favour, so long as they are faithful? No, he
gives unto them "eternal lcfe."  And, lest some one should
say, though you now favour them, they will by and by
perish, he adds, " and they shajl NEVER perish;" and
lest some one should say, Satan or wicked men will pluck
some of them  out of your hand, he adds, "neither shall
any pluck them  out of my hand;" and lest some caviller
should still object, Thou art but a man, and cannot guard
thy people in all quarters of the world, he rises still higher,
"my Father which gave them  me is greater than all, and
none is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand!" and
lest an obstinate believer in falling from  grace should still
object, "Your Father may be of a  2different mind," our
Lord declares, " I and my Father are onze!"
Thus, by five things as " immutable" as the word of Christ,
those who have heard Christ and followed him may be perfectly sure of perseverance to the end, and of everlasting
life, as the result.
Obj. "Hearing Christ and following him  are conditions
of becoming his sheep." Ans. No, for they were his sheep
before they heard and followed him. (16.) And call them
"conditions," or what you will, they do not make perseverance doubtful; because these will certainly take place,
for Christ has promised they "'shall hear" and be brought.
Of course, they do not oppose the doctrine of the certain
perseverance of every saint.  Bring all the OBJECTIONS to
bear against this also, and you will find the wall as solid
here as before.
VI. THE PRAYER OF CIRIST for all saints secures their
salvation.  John xvii. 9, 20: "I pray for them: I pray




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.               9
not for the world, but for th7em whzich thou, hast given me.
Neither pray I for these alone, but for thcm, also which. shall
believe on mze through their word."
Obj. "Christ here alludes to his apostles." Granted; he
does allude to them princijpally, and some things in the
chapter may allude to them only; but the burden of the
chapter manifestly refers to all his people in every age.
1. Because he speaks of power given himz? over all fles7h,
that he should give eternal life to as many as his Father
had given him, (verse 2.) It seems to be narrowing this
text too much to suppose he alludes onl7y to the twelve
apostles. But supposing him to have had in his eye all his
future people, the sentiment is sublime and grand.  2. But
whether he here alluded to all his saints or not, it is evident,
in the 20th verse, he had in view the whole of his future
church.  "Neither pray I for these (apostles) alone, but
for ALL them which shall believe on me through their word.'
Now, not only all the early converts believed on Christ
through the word of the apostles, but all Christians since
have believed through the same word written; and all future saints will be brought to Christ through the same word
of these apostles.  Hence it follows that, in this prayer, the
Mediator actually interceded for every individual believer.
The only question, therefore, is,- Will his prayer be heard?
or will some one for whom he prayed be lost?  He shall
answer it himself, xi. 41: " Father, I thank thee, that thou
hast heard me.  And I cnew  that THOU HEAREST MIE
ALWAYS, but because of the people which stand by I said
it"' &c.
Before this argument can be destroyed, one of these two
things must be proved-either that Christ did not pray for
all his people, or that his prayer was rejected by the Father!
VII. The CHAIN OF SALVATION proves it. Roim. viii.
30: " Whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and
whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Here Predestination, Calling,
Justification, and Glorification, are represented as so many
links of an Almighty chain. If there be any meaning in
the apostle's argument, the predestination of a person
insures his calling; (i. e. his effectual calling, or conversiont;) his calling insures his justiicatio~n; and his justifi



10          PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
cation insures his glorificat;on.  Do you doubt?  Suppose
the contrary,-break the chain, and see what will be the
consequence.  God predestinates Peter and John; but, in
the event, it appears Peter and John are not called!  Does
not this falsify the declaration of the text-" whom he did
predestinate, them he also called?"  Or suppose Peter and
John are called, but God refuses or neglects to justify
them,-would not this contradict the word of God, "whom
he called, them  he also justbfied?"  Again, suppose Peter
and John are predestinated, called, and justified, but after
all they do not persevere, are never glorified! What a fall
is here!-not of two immortal souls only, but of what is
far greater, the TRUTH OF GOD! And yet we are told of
Saul, Solomon, Judas, &c., that they were called and justified, and yet not glorlfied!  Which will you believe, the
apostle or them?  We are told that the cautions and warnings of Scripture prove it possible to fall away; but here
the Holy Spirit declares it impossible.  Whose word shall
stand, the Lord's or theirs?
Here, then, is a STRONG TOWER, into which the Calvinist
runs and is safe.  Men may rail, but no argument formed
against it can prosper.
VIII. Because NOTHING SHALL SEPARATE CHRISTIANS
FROM  THE LOVE OF GOD IN JESUS CHRIST.  RoM. viii.
35-38: "W TVthat shall separate us from the love of Christ?"
The apostle challenges to name any thing which shall prevent final salvation; and then adds, " For I am persuaded
that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities,
nor powers, nor things -present, nor things to come, shall ever
separate us from the love of God which is int Christ Jesus
our Lord."
From  which it is evident, 1. God loves his people with
an unchangeable love. 2. One reason why Christians are
never separated from his love, is that they are loved, and
not for their own sakes, (not chosen for their merits, nor
rejected for their sins,) but for the sake of Christ Jesus
their Lord. 3. Therefore the apostle had a full assurance
(for this is the meaning of the word persuaded) not only
for himself, but for every saint, that no temptations of the
world, the flesh or the devil, should ever prevent their eternal salvation.




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.              11
Obj. 1" He does not mention Sin."
Ans. 1. Neither does he exceupt it, and those who say he
does except it, should prove their assertion.  2. Sin was the
onlu thing which he or his brethren were afraid of-the
only reason for dreading persecution, famine, peril, death,
devils, &c., was lest these should lead them  into sin.  This
was the only way in which these things could possibly separate saints from the Saviour; and, therefore, when he expresses his firm persuasion that none of these things should
separate them from the love of God, it is the same thing as
saying, these shall never infliuence uts to sin.  God will give
us grace equal to our day. Hence he says in another place,
"'God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted
above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also
make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it."
I Cor. x. 13. 3. Sil is certainly included in the phrase
"things present or things to come."  And if neither things
present nor things to come shall separate, it will be difficult
for an objector, unless wiser than the inspired apostle, to
name any thing that shall separate from the love of God
which is in Christ Jesus the Lord!
IX. Because God hath made the decree of salvation IMMUTABLE for this very purpose, that his saints may have
STRONG CONSOLATION and an ANCHOR to their souls.  Heb.
vi. 17, 18: " Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show
unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel,
confirmed it by an oath; that by two immutable things, (his
word and his oath,) in which it was impossible for God to
lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for
refuge to lay hold on the hope set before us, which hope we
have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast," &c.
Now, 1. Saints are the persons who have "fled for refuge
to the hope set before them." 2. To these God wishes to
give strong consolation, an anchor to their souls, by which
they may ride in safety, however boisterous the storm or
terrible the temptation.  3. How does he accomplish this?
By giving them an immuntable promise, and confirming it by
an oath, that nothing shall ever separate them from his love!
What could be stronger? It appears to me, that if a
man be conscious of having fled to the hope set before him
in the gospel-as many a Christian is, and every Christian




12          PERSEVERANCE OF TIIE SAINTS.
outght to be-for him, under such circumstances, to doubt
his infallible salvation, is to suspect God capable of falschood and pclzjry!
Obj. "He only promises to be faithful in case ice are
faithfcld."  Ans. Not to say that Christ, our surety, secures
outr faithfulness, so that we should be in no danger even on
that supposition,-the Arminian idea that the faithfulness
of God to us depends on our faithfulness to him, would
completely overset this cup of consolation, and render our
strong anchor of no use; for a sinner, even after his conversion, is as unable to stand or to persevere, in his own
strength, as a stone unsupported to remain balanced in the
air. And Christ might just as well take us up in the air
and tell us, " If you remain here without falling, I give you
my wor(d and oath to save you," as to tell us " Mlly faithfulness shall continue as long as yours!"  What strong consolation could there be if salvation were promised upon such
conditions? The cup of strong " consolation" would be
emptied at once.  We should carry the water of life in a
sieve, or draw it from the well of truth in a bucket full of
holes! The anchor might be strong as Omnipotence, and
made fast as the everlasting hills, but we should hold it
only by a cobweb cable!
X. Beceause saints are IKEPT BY THE POWER OF GOD
THROUGIH FAITII UNTO SALVATION.  1 Pet. i. 5: "Who
are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation,
ready to be revealed in the last time."
Note, 1. The saint's safety, " who are kept."' The original word signifies to gualdc, or to keep with a garrison.
Thus 2 Cor. xi. 32: " In- Damascus, the governor kept the
city of the Damaseenes with a garrison, to apprehend me,
and through a window, in a basket, was I let down by the
wall, and escaped his hands."  Christians, therefore, are
represented as in a garrison or castle guarded on every side,
lest the enemy should come in to destroy, or the soul should
escape and be destroyed.  God guards his people on every
side, and there is not even a " window in the wall" through
which he will let them escape.  They are thus " kept" as in
a garrison.  2. Wllo keeps the garrison?  How strong is
the _power employed in keeping them?  The text informs
us, "who are kept by the POWEn   oF GOD."  3. flow long




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.              13
are they kept?-;" Unto salvation, ready to be revealed in
the last time;" and all this " through faith," or in a state
of perseverance in grace.
Now, unless the garrison of the saints is too feeble to
preserve them —unless the power of God is insufficient to
keep them-and unless, after they have attained "salvation
at the last time," they can fall from heaven, I do not see
how it is possible for any of the saints to fail of everlasting
life.  Those who suppose the saints keep themselves, may
well doubt their infallible perseverance; but those who believe that they are "kept by the power of God encamping
round about them  that fear Him," must be excused from
any distrust.
XI. Because GRACE ABIDETH IN ]BELIEVERS and makes
it impossible to sin fatally or unto death. 1 John iii. 9:
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his
seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is
born of God."
Observe, 1. This is a universal proposition, applying to
all Christians.  "Whosoever is born of God."  What is
said of one is said of all. 2. It is impossible for such to
commit sin; "che cannot sin."  Now, we must evidently
except sins of infirmity, deficiency, and partial captivities
to the law of sin, or we contradict the whole Bible, and
make the apostle contradict what he said just before, " If
any man say I have no sin, he deceiveth himself," &c. (i. 8.)
The sin, therefore, of which the apostle here speaks, is of a
different kind; either the unpardonable sin, (as some suppose,) or a witful, deliberate, habitual course of sin, which
appears to me to be the meaning of the Holy Spirit.  "Committing" sin (7roeio al/apresav) is here opposed to "doing
righteousness," (roceyv Jcxaeoavvruv) and as "doing righteousness" is an habitual course of righteousness, so "d doing
sin" is an habitual course of sin. The argument will be
the same whether the sin here referred to be the unpardonable sin, or such a course of sin as implies the person
has no grace.  To one of these the text must refer.  And
it is expressly said that this sin the real saint cannot commit-of course he cannot fallfrom grace.  3. We have the
reason assigned why the Christian cannot fall: "for, or
because his seed remaineth in him."  So far from sin driving
2




14          PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
grace from the heart, as our opponents so frequently assert, it appears from  this that grace is the conqueror, and
drives sin from the heart, and thus makes the believer's fall
impossible.  His seed REMAINETH in him.
Obj. "The argument proves too much, even that believers
have no sin, of arny kinzd."  Ans. " No; it only proves that
they do not live in a course of sin, that they do not follow
sin as a trade, nor work evil." 3 John 11.
Obj. "The text simply means we should not sin." Ans.
Where then is the force of the reason assigned for not commuitting sin, "for his seed rentaineth in him?"  The apostle
evidently meant to assert the impossibility of a saint ever
falling from grace, so as to be entirely devoted to sin.
XII. Because saints are SEALED BY TILE HOTLY SPIRIT
UNTO THE DAY OF REDEMPTION.  2 Cor. i. 22, 23: "Now,
he which establisheth us with you in Christ and hath anointed
us, is God: who hath also sealed us and given us the earlnest
of the Spirit in our hearts."  An "earnest" is a part given
as a pledge of hereafter bestowing the remainder. Eph. i.
13, 14: "In whom also after that ye believed, ye were
SEALED with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the
earnest of our inheritance," &c.  Eph. iv. 30: "Grieve not
the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are SEALED unto the
day of redemption."
2 Tim. ii. 19: " The foundation of God standeth sure,
having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his." The
object of a seal is to distinguish property, and thus the Lord
distinguisheth or marketh " them that are his;" it is also
to coyfirm or establish.  Thus we set our seal to a bond,
and kings set their seal to decrees; and thus God makes his
foundation sure. It is to preserve inviolate, thus we seal a
letter, a cabinet; and, I may add, it denotes secrecy and
value. In whatever sense you understand the word here, it
denotes God's special care and value of his people. It is
set on them to save them from destruction.  It was said to
the destroying angels-" Hurt not the earth, neither the
sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of God
in their foreheads." Rev. vii. 3.
Now, after the saints have been thus sealed, shall they
not be known, of God?-shall they not be established?shall they not stand sure and be saved from  destruction?




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.               15
And, after they have received this seal as an earnest of heaven, shall they be disappointed of the remainder?  This
would be to make the seal of God less security than the seal
of his creatures.  We receive, therefore, the Spirit as the
seal of salvation, and God's earnest of heaven. And this
seal is to secure the saints " unto the day of redemption,"
after which they will be in no danger.
XIII. Because believing is a proof that the believer has
been ordained to eternal life.  Acts xiii. 48: "As many as
were ordained to eternal life believed." This teaches,
1. That some are ordained to eternal life-of course to
perseverance unto the end. 2. That their ordination or
election to eternal life preceded their faith in Christ; and
that therefore they were not ordained to life on account of
their.faith, but for some other reason —even for the sake of
Christ, in whom they were chosen. 3. That this faith was
an evidence of their having been ordained to eternal life.
The argument needs no application. Show me one who
has believed, and I will show you one who has been ordained to eternal life.  Hence our Saviour's solemn declaration, John vi. 47, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
believeth on me HATH (not shall have) everlasting life."
Also, John iii. 36.
XIV. Christians are safe because their life is not in their
own keeping, but is hid with Christ in God.  Col. iii. 3, 4:
"Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
When Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also
appear with him in glory."
Note, 1. Christians are dead-that is, to the world, the
flesh, and the devil; and yet they have life, i. e. spiritual
and eternal life. 2. This life is not left to themselves to
keep, lest it be lost; but the support, continuance, and security of their life are in God. " Your life is hid with
Christ in God."  It is hid, kept as a secret treasure-hidden from Satan, from the world, and in some measure from
the believer himself.  3. Christ is sure to keep it unto the
end.  " AWhen Christ who is our life shall appear, theae shall
ye also appear with him in glory."  It is in view of salvation as a treasure kept by Christ we hear such expressions
as these: " Unto him who is able to keep you from falling,
and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory."




16          PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
Jude 24: "I know whom I have believed, and that he is
able to keep that which Ihave committed unto him  until
that day." 2 Tim. i. 12. On this account saints are said
to be "preserved in Jesus Christ." Jude 1.  And it is this
consideration which gives such force to that promise, "Because I live, ye shall live also." John xiv. 19. Until the
Lord of Life dies again, therefore, the life of his people
is divinely secured.
XV. Because though God may suffer his children to fall
in part, he will not sufer them to perish utterly.  Ps. lxxxix.
30-34: "If his children forsake my law, and walk not in
my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my
commandments; then will I visit their transgression with
the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, my
loving-kindness will I not utterly take from Him, nor suffer
my faithfulness to fail." These words, with the greater
part of the psalm from which they are taken, though spoken
originally of David himself and his natural seed, have also
a manifest reference to 31essiah (the true David) and his
seed. They show,
1. That Christians sometimes wander and fall into sin"they forsake his law and walk not in his judgments."
2. These sins bring sl{feriny.  "I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes."  3. Yet he
will Slot utterly forsake. " Nevertheless, my loving-kindness
will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness
to fail." 4. It is intimated that to take away mercy from
his people would be to take it from Christ, whose people
they are; and that such conduct on the part of God the
Father would be unfaithfulness to his Son, and a breach of
their mutual covenant. "ilAMy loving-kindness will I not
utterly take from Himz, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail;
my covenant will I not break; once have I sworn unto David, his seed shall endure for ever," &c.
For similar promises of unchangeable love, see Isa. xli.,
xliii., xlv., liv.; in short, the greater part of that prophecy,
from. the 40th chapter to the end.
These general promises we see fulfilled in particular instances; as in David, who fell, but soon rose again higher
than ever; in Solomon, who, though he fell far, did not
fall utterly; in Peter, who, though he was suffered to be




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.             17
"sifted by Satan as wheat," was not left in the power of his
enemy.  Just so of all his people,-he may suffer them to
be tempted, but "God is faithful, who will not suffer them
to be tempted above what they are able, and will, with the
temptation, also provide a way of escape." 1 Cor. x. 13. If,
then, GoD Is FAITHFUL, saints are safe.
XVI. Because the Bible takes it for granted of all apostates that they never were Christians. 1 John ii. 19: " They
went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had
been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us;
but they went out from us that it might be made manifest
they were not all of us."
Note, 1. Here were some apostates, or, as some would
say, persons that " fell from grace." "' They went out from
us." But what does the apostle say of them? 2. That
they never were real Christians: " they were not of us." He
does not say " are not," but " were not of us."  They never
were genuine saints —never had real grace.  3. He takes it
for granted that, if they had beenz Christians, they would have
remained so, and woucld have never fallen.  " For, if they
had been of us, they would, no doubt, have continued with
us.'  Observe how positively he denies of apostates that
they ever were Christians; and with what confidence he asserts that, if they had been saints, they would never have
fallen! He does not even argue on the subject; but, as if
the matter would not admit of a question-as if there was
no possibility of its being otherwise —he takes it for granted,
" if they had been of us, they would, no doubt, have continued with us."
So we say of Judas, Saul, Hymeneus, and apostates nowa-days, " if they had been saints, they would have continued
saints." If they had been " once in grace, they would have
been always in grace." And we think it unnecessary to
doubt upon a subject on which the inspired apostle speaks
with so much confidence.  If men will still assert that our
doctrines were first preached by Satan, that they came from
hell, and will stake their soul's salvation that men may fall
from grace, we can only wonder at them, and weep over
them! We will not render railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing. They may talk of their having been once
Calvinists, and of their having tried our system and rejected




18         PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
it. We say of these as the apostle said of errorists in his
day, "They were not of us; for, rf they had been of us,
they would, no doubt, have continued with us."  They
undoubtedly held (or they would not assert it) what they
thought Calvinism; just as the persons mentioned by John
possessed what they thought Christianity; but the apostle
decided that they were mistaken.
In all this I mean not to call in question the real piety
of my brethren. Would I were half as holy as some who
affirm that they " abhor Calvinism!" But this I say, when
they speak against Calvinism, " they know not what they
do;" and peradventure they " will be found fighting against
God 1"
Apostates are generally spoken of as those who never had
grace.  1 John iii. 6: "Whosoever sinneth hath not seen,
Him, neither known Him."  Observe, it is not said, " does
not now see Him," but " hath not seen Him;" i. e. never
saw Him.  So 3 John 11, "He that doeth evil hath not
seen God." Show me a man, then, who now lives in a course
of habitual sin, who has no grace, and I will show you one
that never had grace, whatever he might have professed.
Thus our Lord says of certain self-deceivers, " I never knew
you," Matt. vii. 23; that is, I not only do not know and
own you now, but I never knew and owned you as my true
disciples. Thus the stony ground hearers had "no root in
themselves." Matt. xiii. 21. The foolish virgins had "~ no
oil in their vessels." Matt. xv. 3. Thus the apostates in
Peter (ii. 20-22) are compared to the swine whose nature
was not changed. All these are intimations to us, I think
sufficiently clear, that those who fall away from their profession are to be considered as having never had grace. Yet
you will hear men appealing to their own experience, and
ministers appealing to the experience of their hearers, that
they themselves have fallen from grace, and even pointing to "' swine now wallowing" in sin, as instances of
those who were once of the number and nzature of Christ's
sheep!
That those who teach such doctrines sincerely believe
them, I have no more question than that I sincerely believe
my own; but I ask, how can such doctrines be reconciled
with the general tenor of the word of God, which every



PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.              19
where teaches that " jf they had been of its, they would, no
dotubt, have continued IVith us?"
XVII. Lastly, because the contrary opinion leads to many
ABSURDITIES. It appears to me to follow from the doctrine
of our opponents,
1. That, in respect of the covenant under which we are,
we are worse off than before the fall.  Our state was dangerous enough then, when we had a perfect man for our
surety; but infinitely more so now, when we wretched sinners are our own sureties! And yet the apostle says of
Christ that "he is the mediator of a better covenant, which
was established upon better promises." Heb. viii. 6.  If better than the Sinai Covenant, (which contained some promises
of grace,) infinitely better than the covenant of works.  2.
A man may fall from grace twenty times a day, and twenty
times a day rise into grace again!  Thus that marvellous
change which requires Almighty power to effect-that
renovation of nature which is called a new birth, a new creation, a resurrection from  the dead, becomes a mere trifle!... Thus the Holy Spirit, so far from dwelltng in the believer's heart in peace, is liable to be dispossessed every day,
hour, and moment; to have his temple turned into Satan's
castle, according to the sinner's caprice! 3. Upon this principle, there is nothing in the word of God to authorize an
assurance of salvation for ourselves.  Nay, more: there
can be no certainty of our continuance in grace for one hour
or moment!  For, if our perseverance depends upon ourselves, and there be no promise that a saint shall persevere,
then there is no promise that you or Ishall persevere; and,
therefore, if on our dying bed, and within five minutes of
our end, though we are now full of grace and love and joy,
we cannot be sure but we shall yet sink to hell. For, if God
has made no promise to keep us from falling, he may let us
fall at one moment as well as at another, and even while
the breath is leaving the body Satan may assault, our faithfulness may fail, and from the very verge of heaven, with
GLORY full in view, and angels waiting to receive and bid
us welcome, we may drop-for ever! 4. For the same reason there can be no such thing as assurantce for others, and
we can have little comfort in the death of our pious relatives
and friends.  Though they may have served God from child



20          PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
hood, and brought forth the fruits of holiness till they are
threescore years and ten, and have been burning and shining
lights in their day and generation, we cannot be sure but
they will yet perish! And should they die far from home,
on the ocean, in a strange land, in a delirium, or in any way
in which we could not have evidence of their being in grace
at their last mnoment, we can have no certain or comfortable
hope. In fact, if I believed that the perseverance of a saint
depended on his own faithfulness, with my present views
of human nature, I do not know how I could even hope for
a single friend on earth; and, as to confidence of their salvation, it would be impossible until I saw them pass the gate
of heaven. If there be no absolltte promise to the believer
to keep him to salvation; then, though the apostle Paul
were within five minutes of eternity, and entering the heavenly harbour under the full sail of a perfect assurance, we
could not be SURE, but that in the very article of death, in
the very entrance to the harbour, he might slip his cable, lose
his anchor, or strike on some hidden rock and sink to perdition! Who could tell, in reference to our dying Christian
friends, but that, in the last hour, when heart and flesh were
failing them, Satan might take advantage of their feebleness, and, by a violent assault, make them let go their hold,
and then drag them down to hell! This is not the consolation of the gospel.  The infallible promise of God makes
us confident that he who hath begun a good work in us will
perform it (or carry it on) unto the day of Jesus Christ.
" Grace will complete what grace begins,
To save from sorrows and from sins;
The work that wisdom undertakes,
Eternal mercy ne'er forsakes."
5. It is absurd to poray to God for perseverance, or to
t7hank him for the same.  For, if God cannot cause us to
persevere without destroying our free agency, and if our
perseverance depends upon ourselves, I do not know why
we should pray to God for influence which he cannot consistently grant, or ask assistance from anybody but ourselves.
The psalmist might say, (Ps. cxix. 117,) "Hotc thou, Dns
ap, and I shall be safe;' for he did not believe that "holding up" destroyed his free agency. But those who think
they must hold thermselves up or fall, cannot, according to




PERSEVERANCE OF TI-IE SAINTS.           21
my views of propriety, offer this prayer. If we persevere,
I cannot see the propriety of thankcing God for that for
which we are chiefly, if not wholly, indebted to ourselves.
The apostle might say, (Acts xxvi. 22,) " Having obtained
help of God, I continue until this time;" but we ought to
say, "Having been faithful to ourselves, we have come thus
far."
The above appear to me legitimate inferences from the
doctrine of our opponents. I am aware, however, that these
inferences are some of them in fact denied; and I do not
think it fair to charge on any church inferences from their
doctrine, which they themselves reject.  I am persuaded
that many who reject our doctrine, rely as entirely upon
grace for perseverance, and give to God the glory of salvation as entirely as ourselves. There is sometimes " a happy
inconsistency between men's heads and hearts," so that the
absurdity of their cloctrizes is not always discoverable in
their lives.  But it is fair to draw what you think reasonable
inferences from a scheme, provided you do not represent
your inferences as theirs when they disown them, and to
show what you think the natural tendency of a doctrine,
although the advocates of that doctrine may deny that such
are always its actual effects. This is a liberty which very
few hesitate to take with us, making inferences which we
deny, and attributing to our doctrines a tendency which we
abhor. To this proceeding we have no objection, provided
they will call their children by their own names.
Whether the inferences I have drawn are reasonable or
not, and how far they are practically adopted by those who
oppose the " perseverance of the saints," I shall not attempt
to decide; but they appear to me to be the inevitable consequences of their scheme.
OBJECTIONS.
To the foregoing doctrine some of our Christian brethren
object,
I. That "it destroys free ageny.  God cannot decree the
infallible perseverance of a saint without infringing his
liberty as a moral agent." And they say a great deal about
necessity being inconsistent with liberty, &c.




22          PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
To which we answer,
1. We grant that physical necessity or force is inconsistent with liberty; but moral necessity or certainty, which is
all we plead for, does not interfere with liberty in the least.
2. We do not suppose any other or greater influence necessary
to keep us in a state of grace than to bring, us into that state
at first.  In a word, if conversion by divine power does not
destroy free agency, preservatio7n by the same power will not.
Nothing but divine grace',pholds a Christian for a moment;
and, if this upholding for a momenzt does not destroy free
agency, why should upholding for an hour, or a day, or a
year, or a lifetime, destroy free agency? 3. If God cannot decree the infallible perseverance of a saint without destroying his free agency, then our Lord Jesus Christ was not
a free -agent, for his infallible perseverance was certain and
fixed. Isa. xlii. 1-4.  The same may be said of angels,
whose perseverance depends entirely upon God, and yet they
are free agents.  And the same is true, also, of glorified
sai~nts, of whom Christ says, "because I live, ye shall live
also."  Their perseverance, therefore, throughout eternity,
is as certain as the perseverance of Christ himself; and yet
are they not free?  WE wish no higher freedom.  See
Rom. xiv. 4: "Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able
to make him stand."
OBJ. II. "It tenlSs to licentiousness."
Ans. We cannot always judge accurately of the tendency
of a doctrine, especially if it be one which we do not rightly.untderstanld, which is generally true of doctrines we do
not hold.  The safest rule is to judge of the tendency by
the actual effects.  WVe think the doctrines of our Methodist
brethren, for instance, to be of dangerous tendency. They
think otherwise; and the actual effects prove that we do not understand the true nature or tendency of their peculiar tenets.
Let them make the same allowance for us.  We are quite
sure they do not understand the tendency of our faith; for
we k nozw it tends to purify our hearts.  The certainty of
their salvation did not tempt the primitive believers to licentiousness; why should it have a different effect on us? They
could say, (1 John iii. 2, 3,) "WE know that when he shall
appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
And every man that hath this hope purifieth himself even as




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.              23
he is pure."  Why should the certainty of our perseverance
have a different effect? Especially as we can have no hople,
much less certainty of salvation, unless conscious of presecit
holiness. Besides, this objection has been brought in every
age against the doctrine of Justification by Faith, and the
whole system of Salvation by Grace. Rom. iii. 7 and 31;
vi. 1; ix. 19, &c. The apostolic answer should suffice.
OBJ. III. " The certainty of their salvation is inconsistent with the efforts and laoutrs of saints to save themselves."
The whole force of this objection lies here, that, unless
there be some uncertaintty of success, a person will not labour for success; and, if there was a perfect certainty of salvation, a Christian would not trouble himself to use the
means.
Ans. i. Christ had a perfect certainlty of success and
salvation, and yet he used the means, and laboured with
" strong crying and tears."  2. LPatl had a perfect certainty
of escape from shipwreck, and yet he used the means. Acts
xxvii. In a desqperate case, like that of a condemned and
helpless sinner, untcertainty of escape, so far from being a
stimulus, deadens every effort! Let there be a glimmering
hope, and he will do something; let there be a certainty of a
blessing o07 his ftobrts, and he will strive with all his might.
And Christians can have no certainty of salvation except
through their own efforts.  How can they expect to run the
race without r'unning, or fight the battle without fighting?
OBJ. IV. "The exh7ortatiolzs   cautions, and warnings
of the New Testament prove the possibility and the daneder
of saints falling away."
Ans. 1. There is a possibility and a danger of saints' falling away;" i. ce. to a considerable extent.  They are in
continual " danger" of complying with temptation, of conforming to the world, of sitting down in indolence, and of
falling into sin.  Hence the propriety of all these nmoral
stimulants to activity and watchfulness.  If a soldier, from
the known character of his captain, were sure of winning
the battle, and of the life of every soldier being preserved,
he would, nevertheless, fight, knowing that he would otherwise be knocked down, trodden under foot, wounded, and
disgraced, even though he escaped with life.  Just so,
though Christ has promised that every soldier shall escape




24          PERSEVERANCE OF TIIE SAINTS.
with life, he has not promised he shall escape with 7onour
and receive the crown of victory, unless he fight valiantly.
He may, and often does, leave the indolent and the cowardly
to be wounded, disgraced, and maimed for life. As the
_present comfort of a Christian, therefore, depends on his
activity and holiness, and as his future reiward will be
mneasured by his attainments here, there is the utmost propriety and kindness in administering these cautions and
holding out these encouragements.  2. Viewed in himse/f,
as I have hinted before, there is a possibility and danger,
yea, a certainty of his falling entirely away, unless he strives
and labours. But there is neither certainty, possibility, nor
danger of God's breaking an absolute promise to save all
who come to Christ.
OBJ. V. " Facts of acknowledged saints falling into sin
-such as David, Solomon, and- Peter."  As great reliance
is placed on this argument, I will notice it more particularly.
DAVID.  1. That he died a saint, and is now in heaven,
I believe nobody questions. 2 Sam. xxiii. Of course he
did not finally fall from grace, and his example, therefore, is
nothing to the point. They must bring an instance of a
saint who actually perished.  2. That he fell into sin, and
into a great and complicated sin, is lamentably true. That
his conscience was stunned by his fall, and his spiritual comfort entirely destroyed, I have no question.  But that he
fell entirely from grace, when there are so many clear declarations of God to the contrary in regard to every saint, I
will not admit, except on one condition-that those who assert it will produce some express declaration of God to that
effect.
That the Lord was displeased with David, as he is with
every Christian when he sins, is not denied; but that he
wholly cast him  off is nowhere said, and never can be
proved. That the Holy Spirit took away the "joys of his
salvation" is admitted, but that the Spirit entirely left him
cannot be proved, and the contrary is implied in P.s. ii. 11.
A flame may be damped without being quenched; a seed
may be buried deep without being killed; a man may be
very sick and nigh unto death, and yet not dead; a saint
may fall very far, and yet not be lost; God may chastise, but
will "not utterly" destroy; may " hide his face for a mo



PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.              25
ment, but with everlasting kindness will he have mercy" on
his people. Ps. lxxxix. 30-34; Isa. liv. 8. It remains,
therefore, for them to prove that David became spiritually
dead and was "born again" a second time.
SOLOMON is another instance of a saint supposed to have
fallen from grace.  My reasons for believing that Solomon
neither totally nor finally fell from Divine favour are1. The circumstances of his birth and infancy.  A" Before
he had done either good or evil," in his infancy, it is said
" the Lord loved him," 2 Sam. xii. 24; the same expression
which is used of Jacob, Rom. ix. 13, and denotes his choice
to salvation. 2. The name which the Lord then gave him,
"Jecdediah," or beloved of the Lord.  I do not think an
instance can be brought of a person thus honoured with a
divine name, who was afterward rejected. 2. The Promise
concerning him. 2 Sam. vii. 14, 15. Where the Lord promises to be a father to him, to chasten but not disinherit
him; and expressly distinguishes the favour intended for
him from the mere temporary favour granted to Saul.
4. The reserve expressed, I Kings xi. 4, 6: " And his heart
was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of
David his father. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the
Lord, and went NOT FULLY after the Lord, as did David his
father." This is spoken of him at the time of his greatest
wickedness, even "when his wives turned away his heart
after other gods." (Verse 4.)  5. Commendation after his
death. 2 Chron. xi. 17; Neh. xiii. 26.  6. He wrote the
book of Ecclesiastes (i. 1) when he was an old man, and
confesses the very sins of which the objectors suppose he did
not repent. And the apostle says of the Scripture writers
generally, "Heoly mnen of God, spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost." 2 Pet. i. 21. Thus it appears from the
history itself, as I think, that Solomon did not perish. But,
if all this were blotted out, I would not believe he was lost,
until-7. The ABSOLUTE PROMISES of God in regard to
every saint are blotted out also.*
PETER did not fically fall, as all admit. That he did not
* Were there good reason to doubt of Solomon's salvation, we
might put upon our opponents the burden of proof that he ever
was a real saint, in the sense before defined. But we prefer to
give our real sentiments and interpretation of the Bible.
3




26         PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
totally fall, is evident to my mind from Luke xxii. 32,
where our Lord says, " Simon, Satan hath desired to sift you
as wheat; but I have prayed for thee that thy faith may
not fail;" from which it is evident that his faith did not
entirely fail.
OBJ. VI. " Some acknowledged apostates were once
saints, as Saul, Judas, Ifymeneus, and Philetus."
As to Saul, it is said the Lord " turned him into another
man and gave him another heart," 1 Sam. x. 6, 9; (i. e.
made him a wiser and greater man, to qualify him for the
kingdom;) but it is nowhere said God gave him a new
heart and made him a holy man, and there is no evidence
that he ever had grace.  "But he had the Spirit of the
Lord and prophesied." True, and so had some in the New
Testament, Matt. vii. 23, who "prophesied and cast out
devils and did many wonderful works," and yet Christ says,
"I never knew you."  That is, they never were saints.
Of Judas, it is said that he was once a good man, because
the Lord says, " Have not I chosen you twelve?" John vi.
70. We grant he was chosen to the apostleship, but not to
salvation! Thus the Lord says, " I speak not of you all, I
know whom I have chosen. Ye are clean, but not all."
John xiii. 10, 18.
Obj. " But would Christ call'a devil' to the apostleship,
and send him forth to preach the gospel?  What should we
think of a church now that would send forth a wicked man
to preach the gospel?"  Ans. Which is the worse, to call a
devil unto the apostleship, or to continue him in the apostlesklp after his character is discovered? And did not our
Lord do this? David foretold, many centuries before, that
one of the disciples would be a wicked man, and Christ
knew this well and who it was that should betray him when
he called him to the apostleship.
Obj. " But he cast out devils, and if he were a devil at
this time, then did Satan cast out Satan, which our Lord says
is absurd." Ans. This is a mere quibble.'Suppose Judas
did cast out devils, it was not Satan, but our Lord who
gave him the power and the disposition to cast them out.
Obj. But it is said, "Judas, by transgression, fell." True,
and the same passage states what he fell from, to wit, " the
ministry and apostleship." Acts i. 25.




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.            27
Obj. Jesus says, "Them which thou hast given me I
have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition,
that the Scriptures might be fulfilled." John xvii. 12. The
objection turns on the word "but," as if it implied that the
"son of perdition" was one of those "given to Christ."
And in our English idiom, the inference would be natural.
"But," in the Hebrew idiom, implies no such thing. The
expression no more proves that Judas was one of those
given to Christ, than the expressions (Luke iv. 24, 25) prove
that the widow of Sarepta was one of the widows of Israel;
or that Naaman, the Syrian, was one of the lepers of Israet; or that those whose "names are written in the Book
of Life" were of the class that " maketh a lie." Rev. xxi.
27. See, also, Acts xxviii. 22, and I Cor. ii. 11. " There
shall be no loss of any man's life; but of the ship." Quere:
Was the shfip a man's life?  " Even so, the things of God
knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." Is the Spirit,
therefore, a man?
Ilymeneus and Alexander are also said to have fallen from
grace, because they "put away a good conscience and made
shipwreck of faith." I Tim. i. 19.
Ans. 1. A man may have a "'good conscience" and not
be a Christian, for Paul " lived in all good conscience" before
his conversion. Acts xxiii. 1. And the " faith" of which
shipwreck was made is the doctrine of the gospel. As it is
said in 2 Tim. ii. 18, " Hymeneus and Philetus concerning
the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past
already, and thus overthrow the faith of some." 2. These
apostates are expressly distinguished from trute saints in the
next verse. After mentioning their fall, the apostle says,
" nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having
this seal, the Lord khnoweth them that are his,"-plainly
implying that Hymeneus and Philetus never were really
" his."
OBJ. VII. " The warning given concerning the righteous
in Ezek. xviii. and xxxiii. proves that the righteous may fall
away," &c.
Ans. 1. Look at the olject of the sacred writer, which is
to teach that God will;" deal with men according to their
waays." In the 18th chapter the object is to do away the
parable of the " sour grapes," or the punishment of children




28           PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
for the sins of their parents. The Lord declares that tho
righteousness of a parent shall not save a wicked son; neither shall the wickedness of a parent prevent the salvation
of a righteous son.  And, in the 33d chapter, the object is
to show that no past righteousness shall save a man if he
falls away; and no past sins shall ruin a man if he repents.
There is nothing in this contrary to our doctrine. 2. The
"ryghteousness" here spoken of may be a mere external,
ceremonial righteousness, such as Paul had before his conversion. Phil. iii. 6. And I do verily believe that apparent righteousness, rather than real sanctity, is here spoken
of; and also that the rewards and punishments here more
immediately alluded to, are of a temporal kind.  The contrary, at any rate, never can be proved. We admit that
from such a righteousness a man may fall away.  3. If we
grant that the righteousness here mentioned be real sanctification, it does not follow that a righteous man ever did or
ever will actually fall from grace. The text only makes a
supposition.  A" When a righteous man turneth away from
his righteousness-If he trust to his own righteousness," &c.
Now, we grant if he does this, and when he does this, he
will be lost.
But it is an old maxim in logic, " suppositio non ponit in
esse;" i. e. supposition of a case does not prove its actual
existence.  Suppose "an angel from heaven should preach
another gospel, he would be accursed." Gal. i. 8.  Our
Lord says, "If I should say I know him not, I should be a
liar." John viii. 55. But these suppositions do not prove
that an angel ever will preach another gospel; nor that our
Lord ever will declare a falsehood.
OBJ. VIII. " The breaking off the Jewish branches proves
falling from grace." Rorn. xi. 17.
Ans. 1. The olive-tree from which these branches were
broken off and others grafted in is the visible church. From
this the Jews were cast out, and the Gentiles introduced.
If this is " falling from grace," we do not deny it.  2. That
there was not a single saint lost by the rejection of the Jews,
is evident from the first part of the chapter, " Hath God
cast away his people?   God forbid.  God hath  o0t cast
away his people whom he foreknew.  The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." (Verses 1, 3, 7.) Hence




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.              29
it appears that every elect person or every Christian was
saved. 3. At the conclusion of the account, the apostle
makes this remark: "The gifts and calling of God are
without repentance;" i. e. without any change of mind on
his part-without any recalling of his saving grace.
OBJ. IX. "Paul laboured lest he should be a castaway."
I Cor. ix. 27.
Ans. So did our Lord; he was " straitened until his
work was accomplished," but he had no fear of being finally
cast away. The apostle, in all his epistles, as shown already, expresses his full confidence of the final salvation of
every saint; and, if he ever doubted of his own salvation,
it was because he doubted his conversion.  But I do not believe that, after his being caught up to the third heaven, and
the clear testimonials of a Saviour's love, lie ever doubted
either. In this text he simply intends to show how he lived
and laboured, as an example for them to imitate. He exhorts them to run as Of for a prize, as a racer would, who
knew that if he did not run well he would be disgraced.
Our Saviour compares himself to a thief, to express the
unexpectedness of his coming, though he resembled him in
nothing else.  So the apostle compares himself to a racer,
to show the intensity of his labours, though, unlike a racer,
he was perfectly sure of victory. Hence he says, (26,) " So
run I, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air." See, also, Gal. ii. 2, and 2 Tim. iv. 6-8, 18:
"And the Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and
preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom."
After all, it is not said he was cast away, or that any
saint will be cast away. So that all such texts prove nothing against perseverance.  That we should all run and
strive in the same manner, every Calvinist grants.
OBJ. X. It is said of the Galatians, "Ye are fallen from
grace." Gal. v. 4.  This is an objection drawn from the
mere words of Scripture, without noticing the scope and
intention.  By the same rule I could prove "there is
no God." Ps. xiv. Or that the apostle was a "robber of
churches." 2 Cor. xi. 8.  The doctrine of Scripture, and
not the mere words, is the truth of God.  Now, let any one
glance at the preceding part of the epistle, and he will
readily perceive what "fall" was referred to-even a fall
3*




30          PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
from  the doctrines of grace.  They had "turned away to
another gospel," and, forsaking the doctrine of salvation by
faith, they sought justification by the works of the law.
Therefore, he says, " Christ has become of no effect unto
you, whosoever of you are justifiedl by the law; ye are fallen
fromn grace;" i. e. from the doctrines of grace.  The text
is hypothetical, and no more proves " falling from grace"
than it does "justification by law." And, as none are really
justified by law, how does it follow that any really fall
from grace! Barnes's Notes, in loco.
Observe again, that, if it could be proved that the Galatians fell totally for a time, there is no proof they fell finally,
and therefore here is no proof that any real saint will be
finally lost.  Of course, understand it as you will, it argues
nothing against our doctrine.
OBJ. XI. " Salvation is everywhere offered on condition
of perseverance, which shows that the condition may fail
to be complied with."  Ans. It shows no such thing; but
only that, ~unless the condition be complied with, the blessing
will be lost. This we freely grant. But we contend that
the conditions (if they must be so called) are sure to be
complied with by every one of Christ's people. Thus when
it is said, "If ye abide in me, ye shall ask what ye will."
"Jf ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed."
"We shall reap, 7f we faint not," &c. &c.  It is all certainly
true. But, unless our opponents prove that some real Christian actually fails to " abide," " continue," &c., these texts
will not prove the loss of a single believer.
And I have shown already that these " conditions" are
sure to be performed by all of Christ's people.
OBJ. XII. "It is impossible for those who iwere once enlightened, if they shall fall away," &c. Heb. vi. 4, 6.
The objectors must prove two things:-first, that these
were real Christians; and secondly, that they really fell
away.  But, in my opinion, neither of these things can
be proved.  I see no reason to believe them  real saints.
1. Because these expressions may apply to those who had
only those miraculous external gifts so common in that day.
There is nothing said of these persons more extraordinary
than of the false professors mentioned, (Matt. vii. 22, 23,)
of whom  Christ says, "I never knew  you."  The stony




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.             31
ground hearers " tasted of the good word of God,"-" they
received the word with joy," and yet had " no root in themselves;" that is, were not truly converted. 2. They are
manifestly compared to the barren ground in the 8th verse,
which is a proof the soil of their hearts was never prepared
by the Holy Spirit for a true reception of the seed. 3. The
apostle had no idea real Christians would thus fall away.
"But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of yotu,
though we thus speak." (Verse 9.)
In fact, the whole is a solemn warning to persons who
have been enlightened and convicted, not to stifle their convictions, lest they commit the unpardonable sin.
But, could it be proved these were real Christians, it is
not said they will certainlyfall; but "if' they shall fall
away," &c. And this I have before shown proves nothing
as to the actual event.  Besides, if it proves an actual " falling away," it proves the " impossibility" of recovery! Do
our brethren believe this?
OBJ. XIII. "A sinner may tread under foot the Son of
God, and count the blood of the covenant wherewith he was
sanctified an unholy thing," &c. Heb. x. 29.  From which
it is argued that a man may fall from sanctification and
from saving grace. It is taken for granted in the objection
that " he who was sanctified" is the apostate.  Whereas,
1. It is generally supposed by commentators that the
"Son of God" is here referred to; and, according to the
grammatical construction of the sentence, the " Son of God"
is certainly the last antecedent. And it is equally true of
Christ that he was sanctified and fitted to be the Mediator
"by the blood of the covenant." John xvii. 19; Heb. xiii.
20.  2. But, admitting it to refer to the apostate, it remains
to be proved that the sanctification was any thing m'bre than
external and cerenmonial sanctification.  That both persons
and things are called holy, and said to be sanctified, which
are only externally dedicated to God, we have abundant
evidence in this same epistle. In the preceding chapter, 13th,
22d and 23d verses, we read of a sanctification which had
nothing to do with the heart.  "The blood of bulls and of
goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean,
SANCTIFIETH to the purifying of the flesh," &c. What
sanctification of heart could ever be accomplished by the




32          PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
"blood of bulls and goats?" And yet if a person upon
whom this blood had been sprinkled should despise the ordinance, he would be guilty of " trampling on the blood of
the covenant," for this typified the blood of Christ. In like
manner, if, after having been baptized, and making profession of religion, we break our covenant vows and apostatize,
we "despise the blood of the covenant wherewith we were
sanctified," or separated and dedicated to the service of
God.
The whole, however, is merely a caution against apostasy
from our profession, and does not teach that any will thus
despise the blood of the covenant-much less that any will
fall from real sanctification of heart.  "If we sin wilfully
after having received a knowledge of the truth, there remainzeth no more sacrifice for sin." (26.)  If this proves
"' falling from grace," it proves also that after such fall there
is no recovery! for such persons " there remaineth no more
sacrifice for sin, but a fearful looking for of judgment," &c.
But these texts prove nothing as to the actual event, which
is the thing to be proved.
OBJ. XIV. "If any man draw  ack,7c my soul shall have
no pleasure in him." IHeb. x. 38.
Ans. 1. This is perfectly true in its literal sense, and not
at all opposed to our doctrine. An opposite doctrine would
be horrible.  2. There may be a difference between " drawing back" and " drawing back to perdition."  A saint may
draw back in part; and, if he draws back at all, God will
be displeased with him.  3. Here is the 1"f" again, by
way of caution. 4. It is expressly said immediately after,
that real Christians do not draw back to perdition.  "We
are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them
that believe to the saving of the soul."
OBJ. XV. "A  man may escape the pollutions of the
present world, and afterward fall away," &c. 2 Pet. ii. 20.
Now,' 1. All this may be said of those who are only externally reformed from the infidelity, vice, and immorality
of the world, and have a speculative head kcnowlede  of the
ways of righteousness. That such persons may and do fall
away, we do not doubt. 2. That these persons were not
changed in heart,-that their nature never was renewed, is
evident from the comparisonl used by the apostle on the




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.             33
subject.  He compares them  to "a sow that was washed
returning to her wallowing in the mire." The nature of
the animal was not changed; though externally washed, her
appetites remained the same; she was a sow still. Had her
nature been changed to that of a sheep, she would never
have returned!
Thus I have noticed some of the strongest arguments I
have ever heard or read against the "perseverance of the
saints." There are others adduced of the same general nature, but no more difficult to answer than those I have mentioned.  Some of them are drawn from metaphysics-some
from supposedfacts-and the rest from what is thought to
be imnplied in several passages of Scripture.  If I understand the controversy, the only express declaration of the
fact of falling from grace, which they adduce, is Gal. v. 4.
And that text, as I have shown, evidently speaks of a falling,
not from sanctification, but from orthodoxy.  There is not in
all the Bible, that I have ever seen, a solitary declaration
that any real saint ever actually perished.
That there are cautions and warninys of the most solemn
kind against drawing back at all, we cheerfully admit. But,
as I have brought express declarations of Scripture, and
absolute promises of God that every saint shallpersevere, all
the cautions and warnings and apparent apostasies before
mentioned must be understood as not inconsistent with our
doctrine.
Let me now state in a summary way the arguments which
have been advanced.
RECAPITULATION.
It has been shown that the infallible perseverance of the
saints is clearly implied and proved, in their conversion by
efficacious grace-in their election to salvation-in the predestination of all the called to glory-in the nature of the
covenant of grace, and the faithfulness of their surety-in
the absolute promises made to those who come to Christ,
that they shall never be cast out, and to his sheep that they
shall never perish. And again, because predestination, calling, justification, and glorification are so many links of an




34          PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.
Almighty chain; because neither things present nor things
to come shall ever separate them from the love of God in
Christ Jesus their Lord; because the promises were made immutable and absolute for the very purpose of affording STRONG
CONSOLATION and an ANCHOR to their souls; because the
saints are kept as in a garrison by the power of God, through
faith unto salvation; because grace abides in believers as an
incorruptible seed, so that they cannot live and die in sin;
because all who are converted are sealed by the Holy Spirit
unto the day of redemption, and the gift of the Spirit is
God's earnest of heaven; because the very fact of believing
is a proof of a foreordination to eternal life; because the
life of Christians is hid with Christ, and is kept by him
and not by themselves, and while he lives they shall live
also; because, though God may chastise, he will " not
utterly forsake" his children; because all apostates are
spoken of as proving by their apostasy that they never had
grace; and, finally, because many dangerous absurdities follow from the opposite doctrine —while it spreads darkness
over the dying hours of God's best people, by resting their
hopes of perseverance to the end on their own uncertain
steadfastness, rather than on the UNCHANGING FAITHFULNESS AND GRACE OF GOD.
CONCLUSION.
Thus I have endeavoured to give my views of the " Perseverance of the Saints." I have sought to do it in perfect
charity toward those who differ. Should similar charity be
granted toward us, for their sakes I shall rejoice. For myself, no conduct of others, by the grace of God, shall ever
alter mine. The law of God, the law of love, and not the
conduct of others, is our rule.
The sum of what has been said is this:-There are express
declarations and unconditional promises in Scripture that
every saint, without exception, shall be saved. There is no
express declaration that any saint ever has been or ever will
be lost.  There are many instances of saints falinqg into sin,
but no proof that such persons never rose again. There
are instances of apostates who fell from their profession and
died in sin; but there is no proof they were ever real saints;




PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.            35
and many intimations to the contrary. There are many
cauitions and warnings against falling away; but these are
stimulants to watchfulness, and means of grace as necessary
on our plan as any other. And, finally, salvation is offered
on certain terms; but these terms are sure to be complied
with by all Christ's people.
And now, unto Him who hath loved us with an everlasting love, and therefore with loving-kindness hath drawn us
to himself; unto Him who is able to keep us from falling,
and to present us faultless before the presence of his glory,
with exceeding joy; unto the only wise God our Saviour,
be glory and dominion for ever and ever.




H Y 3M N.
How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in his excellent word!
What more can he say than to you he hath said,
You who unto Jesus for refuge have fled?
In every condition, in sickness, in health,
In poverty's vale, or abounding in wealth;
At home and abroad, on the land, on the sea,
"As thy days may demand shall thy strength ever be.
"Fear not, I am with thee, 0 be not dismay'd!
I, I am thy God, and will still give thee aid;
I'll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,
Upheld by my righteous, omnipotent hand.
"When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,
My grace all-sufficient shall be thy supply;
The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume, and thy gold to refine.
"E'en down to old age all my people shall prove
My sovereign, eternal, unchangeable love;
And when hoary hairs shall their temples adorn,
Like lambs they shall still in my bosom be borne.
" The soul that on Jesus hath lean'd for repose,
I will not, I will not, desert to its foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavour to shake,
I'll never-no, NEVERi-no, NEVER forsake."




No. 3.
HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH
GOD?
BY
ALBERT BARNES.
DEPOSITORIES:
PHILADELPHIA: PUBLICATION HOUSE, 386 CHESTNUT STREET
NEV'W YORK: IVISON & PHINNEY, 178 FULTON ST.




Entered according to Act of Clngress, in the year 1854, by
WILLIAM  PUR VES, Treasurer,
in trust for the Presbyterian Publication Committee, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court
of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON & CO.
PHILADELPHIA.
PRINTED BY I. ASHMEAD.




No. 3.
HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
I. The importance and di2ficulty of the inquiry, How
man can bejust;fied.
THE question "How shall man be justified with God,"
(Job xxv. 4.) proposed by an Eastern Sage, may be regarded as an inquiry by man-by human nature.  It expresses
the deep workings of the human soul in all ages, on one of
the most important and difficult of all subjects. The question means, How shall man be regarded and treated as righteous by his Maker? What methods shall he take to secure
such treatment? What can he do, if any thing, to commend
himself to the favourable regards of a holy God? What can
he do, if any thing, to make amends for the past? What can
he do, if any thing, to turn away future wrath? Can he vindicate himself before the Eternal Throne, for what he has
done? If not, can he see how it is consistent for God to
treat him as righteous? These questions meet us everywhere, and enter into and mould all the forms of religion on
earth. The inquiry, as illustrating and expressing the feelings of human nature, may be considered with reference to
two points:-its importance, and its difficulty.
I. The importance of the inquiry.
(1.) Its importance will be seen by this considerationNo one can be saved unless he is just, or righteous, in the sight
of God. Unless there is some way, by which God can consistently regard and treat us as just or righteous, it is impossible to believe that we can enter heaven when we die.
3




4       HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
Unless man is personally so holy that he cannot be charged
with guilt; or can justify himself by denying or disproving
the charge of guilt; or can vindicate himself by showing that
his conduct is right; or can appropriate to himself the merit
of another as if it were his own, no one can believe,-no one
does believe-that he can enter heaven. Probably there is no
conviction of the human mind more deep and universal than
this, and every man, whether conscious to himself of acting
on it or not, makes it elementary in his practical belief.  If
any one is disposed to call this proposition in question, or if
he is not conscious of acting on it, he will see that it must
be true, by looking at it for a single moment. The proposition is, that no man can be saved unless he is just, or righteous, in the sight of God. Can God save a wicked man as
such and on account of his wickedness?  Can he hold him
up to the universe as one who ought to be saved? Can he
take the profane man, the scoffer, the adulterer and the murderer, to heaven, and proclaim himself as their patron and
friend? Can he connect a life of open wickedness with the
rewards of eternal glory? Nothing can be more clear than
that if a man is made happy forever in heaven, there will be
some good reason for it, and that reason cannot be that he
was regarded as an unrighteous person. There will be a
fitness and propriety in his being saved; there will be some
reason why it will be proper for God to regard and treat him
as righteous.
This view, which is perhaps sufficiently obvious, may be
illustrated by a reference to a human government.  No just
government could become the patron and friend of the pirate
and the murderer, or bestow its rewards on one who, in all
respects, deserved to meet the penalty of the laws. On this
belief also, every man acts in reference to his own salvation.
Each one has a firm conviction that no man can be saved
unless he is just in the sight of God. A man when he thinks
of being saved, always either thinks that he has kept the law




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?              5
of God; or that he has a good excuse for not complying with
it; or that he can make reparation by penances, pilgrimages,
sacrifices, or fastings; or that he can appropriate to himself
the merit of another. He never thinks of finding favour
with God as a transgressor, or on account of his crimes; he
never supposes that his iniquity can be the foundation of his
salvation.  God made the human soul, and he so made it,
that it never could believe that he would save a man because
he was wicked, or unless there was some way in which he
could be regarded and treated as righteous.
(2.) Secondly, the importance of the inquiry is seen from
the testimony of man everywhere.  Ian is apparently greatly indifferent to religion, and it often seems impossible to
arouse his attention to the great and momentous questions
connected with it. But, taking the race together, he is not so
indifferent to the subject as he appears, and could we know
all the secret thoughts and feelings of each individual, we
should find that his indifference is often in appearance only.
There are workings of the soul which are carefully excluded
from public view. There are thoughts, which every man has,
of which he would not wish others to know. There are
deep, agitating, protracted questionings resulting in settled
conviction, or tossing the soul upon a restless sea, which men
would wish to hide from their best friends. There is often
a deep interest in a man's mind on the subject of religion,
when his whole soul seems to the world torpid and inactive,
or when he would repel your inquiries, or when he would
seem as "calm as a summer's morning."
A very slight acquaintance with the human mind, or with
the history of opinions, is all that is needful to see the importance which the inquiry, on the subject of justification,
has assumed in the view of man.
(a) It was seen in the investigations of ancient philosophers. "How shall man be just with God?" was the question which pressed itself on the minds and hearts of the
1*




6       HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
speakers in the book of Job, and it was a question which was
echoed and re-echoed in the whole heathen philosophic world.
Many who are profound and patient students on other subjects, often regard investigations on the subject of religion
as unworthy their attention.  They think them appropriate
themes for contending theologians; for disputatious and
subtle schoolmen; for the feeble in intellect, or for the dying;
but they regard them as having slight claims on a philosophic mind.  But would they go and take lessons of the
masters of science and of profound thought, they would think
differently.  Will such men tell us what points of inquiry
have most occupied the attention of the intellects of other
times? Will they refer to the volumes which contain the
results of their investigations of past ages? Will they let
Socrates once more speak, and Plato give utterance to his
views, and Cicero and Seneca declare what most engrossed
their attention? One thing they will find in all the pastone grand absorbing question they will meet with everywhere
-one query to which all physical science was made subservient. It was the subject of religion; the question of
man's acceptance with God; the grounds of his hope of future blessedness. The real inquiry among thinking men of
all ages and lands has been, "How shall man be just with
God?"
(b) The same earnest searching we find still in the
heathen world. From the recorded views, and the religion
of the heathen, we may learn much about man when he
utters his sentiments without disguise; and what we find
universally among them, we may regard as the language of
human nature. Now there is no one thing expressed with
more uniformity or more earnestness all over the Pagan world
than this question, " How may we be just with God?" It
was the foundation of all sacrifices, penances, pilgrimages,
self-inflicted mortifications. All these things were intended
so to make expiation for sin, or so to appease the anger of




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?              7
the gods, that they who thus performed the rights of religion,
might be regarded and treated as righteous.  Take this inquiry away, and their sacrifices and penances would be unmeaning. Take this away, and the earnestness of their religion would soon cease, and, degenerating into an empty form,
would of itself soon expire.
(c) There is another method by which we may learn the
views of the human soul about the importance of this inquiry. It is by contemplating the soul when under convictions of sin, and reflecting on its prospects about the future
world. Then there is no thought so momentous in the view
of the mind as this, "How shall a man be just with God?"
There are many more persons in this state than is commonly
imagined. There is probably no one who reaches the years
of mature reflection, before whose mind this inquiry has not
at some period assumed an engrossing importance.  With
almost no danger of error, you may assume of every man that
you meet, that his mind either has been, or is now deeply interested on the subject of his salvation, and that in his life
there are periods when no subject appears so momentous as
this. In his moments of solitary musing, or in a time of
bereavement, or under the preaching of the gospel, or when
remembered truth seems to come with new-armed power to
his soul, or when the recollection of guilt seems recalled to
him by some invisible agency, or when lying on a bed of
languishing, this great inquiry has come before him,;" How
may he be justified before his Maker?" How may the guilt
of his sins be washed away? How may he be regarded
and treated as a righteous man? To those who have been
in this state-and who has not been? —it need not be said,
that then no question seems more momentous than this. In
time of revival of religion, the student in a college loses his
relish for his ordinary studies, and almost the capacity to
pursue them, absorbed in the more important study respecting salvation; the merchant loses his relish for his gains,




8       HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
engrossed in the greater inquiry how he may obtain everlasting life; the farmer, the mechanic, and the mariner feel that
they can hardly pursue their wonted employments, for a more
momentous subject has engrossed the soul. The eye may
be on a passage in Horace or Livy, but the thought shall be
elsewhere; and the hands may be employed in labour, but it
shall be performed with a heavy heart, and when toil is pursued almost unconscious of what is done. The calm, fixed,
steady, contemplative eye of the student, and the readiness
of the man of business to leave his counting room and place
himself under religious instruction, show with what intensity
this inquiry has seized on the soul. The busy, the studious
and the gay often become entirely absorbed in it, and
then no honour of scholarship, no amplitude of gain, no brilliancy of pleasure or amusement, seem comparable in value
to the solution of the question, " How shall man be just with
God?"  We need not pause here to consider whether this
is a just estimate which the soul thus puts on the magnitude
of this subject. We are concerned only in getting at the
language of man himself when in his sober moments. It
will at least be conceded that in those moments of profound
absorbing thought; those moments when men of all classes are
willing to turn aside from their usual pursuits; those times'when the great inquiry can make the pleasures of the ballroom and the scenes of the splendid amusement, tasteless, and
can loosen the hold of the votaries of gold on their gains,
and cause the ardent student to turn aside from his books,
that then the- human mind is as likely as ever to judge correctly of the importance of what has come before it. Yet
there is but one sentiment then-that this question absorbs
and annihilates all others.
(3.) There is another consideration which shows the importance of this inquiry.  It is, that the views that are entertained of justification, modify and shape all the other doctrines of religion. It is the central doctrine in the whole




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            9
system, and spreads its influence over every other opinion
which man holds, on the subject of salvation. The views
entertained on this subject, distinguish respectively the Protestant and the Papal communities; divide Protestants themselves into two great parties, evangelical and non-evangelical;
separate heathens from Christians; give form to all the systems of infidelity and Deism, and constitute the peculiarity
of every man's individual faith. When it is known definitely what a man thinks on this one point, it may be known
whether he is a Papist, or a Protestant; a Christian or an
infidel; a heathen or a friend of the Saviour; a formalist or
a devoted servant of God. Luther did not say too much
when he said of this doctrine of justification, that it was the
article on which depended the permanency or ruin of the
church; and with a sagacity equal to that of Talleyrand, when
from a very slight matter he predicted that the throne of
_France would be overturned, Luther saw that the doctrine
of justification would meet every corruption of the Papacy
and eventually overturn the system. The fabric of the
Papacy is an ingenious attempt, originated and arranged
under the auspices of a higher than a human intellect, though
fallen, to delude man with the belief, that there is some
other way by which he may be justified with God, than by
faith in the Saviour. The whole system of heathenism is an
attempt to answer the question, " How man may be justified
with God?" The systems of infidels, and of men who are depending on their own morality, or relying on penances and pilgrimages, are another answer which is given to the question.
If the observations now made are correct, it will be
conceded that this doctrine has an importance which cannot
be over-estimated. If it be so, that no man can be saved who
is not justified in the sight of God; that the race everywhere, in the anxious inquiry of sages, in the systems and
sacrifices of the heathen, and in the deep working of the
soul rendering every other pursuit tasteless and valueless,




10      HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
has shown its sense of its importance, and that it spreads its
influence over every form of belief, the importance of the
inquiry will be admitted.
II. The second point proposed to be noticed as preparatory to a consideration of the subject of justification is,YThe difficulty of the inquiry.
What is the difficulty? Why has the human mind been
so much perplexed in relation to it?  Why may not God
admit man to heaven, and regard and treat him as if he were
righteous? These questions can be answered in a single remark, and the whole difficulty may then be seen at a glance.
It is, that maL, is in fact not righteous.  The difficulty is to
see how God can regyard and treat him as if he were. It is
easy to see how Ifl he were righteous, God could treat him
so, or how he could treat him as a sinner, that is, according
to his real character. But how shall he treat him differently from what he deserves, or as if he had a character which
it is known he has not?  Whatever theories may be embraced by men, or whatever opinions may be entertained on
the subject of religion, it is true as a matter of fact that
these perplexities have been felt by men, that they have
given rise to grave and agitating questions, and that man
has not felt that he could give a solution that was wholly
satisfactory. There is no inquiry which has taken hold on
man everywhere, under all forms of government and opinion,
and in every climate and amidst every degree of progress,
which has not had some real foundation in the nature of
things. The race, in its soberest moments, does not, busy
itself with trifles, and especially will not allow itself to be
troubled and tortured by questions that are of no importance.
The difficulty which has been felt on this subject is therefore
not imaginary, but from the fact that the inquiry has been
so universal, and so beyond the human powers satisfactorily
to explain, it is clear that God meant that it should be re



HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?           11
garded by man as a point to be solved only by divine revelations. The real difficulties in the case, and the state of the
human mind in regard to them, may be illustrated by the
following observations:(1.) There was the impossibility of man's vindicating
himself from the charges of guilt brought against him. If
he could do this, all would be clear, for God will not condemn the innocent. But it could not be done. These
charges were brought in such a way, and enforced in such a
manner that man could not so meet them as to escape the
conviction of their truth. They are brought, where there is
a revelation by God himself in his word; and where there
is not, as well as where there is, by conscience. Man is told
in the word of God that he is a sinner; his recollection of
what he has done, assures him that it is so; the dealings
of God with him, convince him that there must be some
cause of alienation between himself and his Maker; and
every sick bed, and every grave, and every apprehension of
future wrath, confirms the conviction. If man were to undertake to convince himself that he is not held to be guilty,
the argument could not be derived from the dealings of God
with him in this world. It is not easy for a man to satisfy
himself that he is not a sinner, when the earth is strewed
with the dying and the dead; when his best friends are cut
down all around him; when he himself is to die, and when
he is so made that he cannot but tremble at the apprehension of the judgment. If one wished to construct an argument to prove that he is not a sinful man, and that man can
be just with God, he would desire to be removed to some
world where he would not see so many things that seem to
be mementoes of human depravity, and so many evidences
that his Creator regards him and his fellow-men as guilty.
Men have everywhere felt this difficulty. There is no one
sentiment in which men more uniformly agree than in this.
Every man regards every other man as a sinner, and puts




12      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
himself on his defence against him, for his locks, and bolts,
and notes, and bonds, and securities all demonstrate this;
and every man knows that he himself also is a sihner.
There is nothing of which he is better apprised, nothing he
believes more firmly than this. There is not a living man
that could bear the revelation of his thoughts to others for a
single day, and that not merely because others have no right
to know what is passing in his mind, but because he feels
that they are wrong.  Confusion, blushes, shame, and
shrinking would diffuse themselves over every assembly, and
through every crowded thoroughfare in the streets of a great
city, and in every lonely path where strangers should meet
strangers, if each one knew that another was surveying
closely the thoughts of his heart, and saw what was passing
there.  If every man felt that his bosom were so transparent that all the workings of his soul could be observed
by others, no one would venture out of his chamber; no one
would move along the pathways where he might encounter
a fellow man; the thronged places of business would be
deserted, and our great and crowded cities would become
like the cities of the dead. No man would venture, at midnight on the mountain top, or on the lonely prairie, to stretch
out his hands to Heaven, and say, " I am pure as the stars
that shine upon me, or as the God that made them." So
universal is the consciousness of guilt, and so certain does
every man feel, in his sober moments, that he cannot vindicate himself before God. IHowl then shall man be just with
God?
(2.) There is the difficulty which must have been early
apparent to men, and which any one can see now, if the
guilty were saved, or if they were regarded and treated as
righteous.  How could this be done?  MIan does not do it
himself, in reference to those who are guilty, and how could
God? No father feels that it would be proper to regard
and treat an offending child as if he were obedient; no




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?             13
friend acts thus toward one who professes friendship; and
no government acts thus toward its subjects. All order
and happiness in a family would cease at once if this were
to occur; and government on earth would be unknown.
There is a great principle of eternal justice which seems
engraved in the convictions of the soul, that every one ought
to be treated according to character, and that there ought
to be a difference in the divine dealings toward the good and
the evil. But what if God treats all alike?  What if he
makes no distinction in regard to character? What if he
admits all to favour; punishes no one, and rewards piety
and impiety, fraud and honesty, vice and virtue, reverence
and blasphemy, alike with the same immortal crown?
What if the murder of the innocent, and the highest deed
of benevolence were equally a passport to his favour?
What if he met the licentious, and those of virgin purity
of soul, when they came before him, with the same smile
of approbation?  Would not the universe feel that he was
regardless of character? Would it be possible to correct
the impression?
But it will be said, perhaps, might he not pardon the
guilty, and the fact of pardon constitute a ground of distinction which the universe would understand? True, if it
would be proper to pardon in this state of things. But are
there no difficulties attending the subject of pardon? Can
it always be done?  Can it be done to an unlimited extent?
Does a father feel that it is safe and best to adopt it as a
universal rule, that he will forgive all his children as often
as they may choose to offend him, and to do it without any
condition? Any one may easily see the difficulty on this
subject. There are thousands of men confined in penitentiaries; many of them are desperate men, regardless of
all the laws of heaven and earth. Would it be felt to be
safe or proper at once to open their prison doors? Who
would wish to be in the neighbourhood when they should
2




14      HOW SIIALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
be turned impenitent and unreformed upon the world? If
the community is scarcely safe now with all the precautions
and guards of justice, what would it be if they were all
withdrawn? These difficulties must occur to any one when
he asks the question, How can the guilty be justified?
(3.) It is a matter of simple fact that men have felt this
difficulty, and the methods to which they have resorted to
devise some way of justification, show how perplexing the
subject has been to the human mind. We may learn something of the embarrassments which men feel, by the devices
to which they resort to overcome them. Look then for a
moment at some of the methods to which men have been
driven in order to answer the question satisfactorily, How
can man be just with God?
(a) One class have denied the charge of guilt, and
have endeavoured to convince themselves that they are
righteous and that they may safely trust to their own works
for salvation. If this could be done, all would be well.
But the mass of men have felt that there are insuperable
difficulties in the way of doing this. We shall hereafter
inquire whether it is practicable.
(b) Many have endeavoured to excuse themselves for
their conduct, and thus to be justified before God. They
are sensible that all is not right, but if they can find a
satisfactory excuse, that is, if they can show that they had
a right to do what they have done, or could not help it,
they feel that they would not be condemned. And they
are right in this. To do it they lay the blame on Adam, or
on ungovernable passions, or on a fallen nature, or on the
power of temptation, or on the government of God. They
attempt to show that they could do no otherwise than they
have done; that is, they have a right to do it in the circumstances, and of course are not to blame. We shall inquire
hereafter whether this position can be made out.
(c) Many have endeavoured to make expiation by blood,




HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            15
and have sought to be justified in this way. Hence the
sacrifices of the heathen-the flowing blood and burning
bodies of lambs, and goats, and bullocks, and prisoners of
war, and slaves, and of children-offered to appease the
anger of the gods.  Thousands of altars smoke in this
attempt, and the whole heathen world pants and struggles
under the difficulty of the inquiry, How may a guilty conscience be justified with God?
(d) Many have sought the same thing by pilgrimages
and penances; by maceration and scourging; by unnatural
and painful postures of the body; and by wounds which
their own hands have inflicted on themselves.  The victim
of superstition in India lies down beneath the car of his idol,
or fastens hooks in his flesh, or holds his arm in one posture
till it is rigid.  Simeon in Syria, on an elevated column,
spent his years in misery. Antony in Egypt went and lived
in a cave, and Benedict originated the monastic system in
Italy.  Mecca is crowded by pilgrims seeking for righteousness by a visit to the tomb of the prophet; and the shrines
inclosing the bones of the saints are encompassed by throngs
in Italy for a similar purpose; the garment of hair frets and
tortures the body, and the sound of the lash is heard in the
cells of the convent, and the whole system of penance
and self-inflicted torture all over the world is just a commentary on the question, How shall man be justified with
God?
(e) To crown all this, another device has been resorted to.
It has been held that there were extraordinary merits of
saints who lived in former times; that they performed
services beyond what were required, that these merits were
garnered up as a sacred treasure, and are placed at the
disposal of the head of the papal community, to be distributed
at his pleasure to those who are conscious of guilt; and this
is one of the answers given to the question, How shall man
be justified with God?




16      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
From these remarks it will be seen what men have thought
of the difficulty of this question. In these various ways,
human nature speaks out and reveals what is passing in the
bosom. They are the methods to which men have resorted
as the best answer which they can give to this inquiry.
To see the real difficulty, however, we should be able to go
down into the depths of the soul, to guage all the agonies
of guilty consciences; to look at the woes and sorrows which
men are willing to endure that they may be justified, and
then to see how one and all of these plans utterly fail; how
they leave the conscience just as defiled as it was before, the
propensities to evil unchecked, the grave as terrific as ever,
and the judgment-bar as full of horrors. When we stand
and survey these things, we ask with deep concern whether
any one of these is the way by which man can be justified
with God? If not, is there any other way, or is there none?
2. Man cannot justify himself by denying or disproving
the charge of guilt.
The term justify is a legal term, but it is also in common
use, and is intelligible to all. An illustration or two will
make it plain, and will lay the foundation for the train of
thought which will be pursued in this section. A man is
charged with murder. He may put his defence on one
of two grounds. He may either deny the fact of killing;
or admitting that, he may show that he had a right to
do it, or is excusable for it. If the fact of killing is not
made out against him, of course he is just in the sight of
the law, and is acquitted. Or, if the fact be made out or
admitted, he may take the ground either that he did it in
self-defence, or that it was done under such a state of mental
derangement as to destroy responsibility —and he is acquitted.
He had no "malice prepense." He intended no murder;
he committed none; and the law does not hold him guilty
of the charge. A man is charged with trespass. He takes




HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?           17
a similar ground of defence. He denies the fact, or maintains that he had a right to do what he has done. He sets
up a claim to a "right of way"over a field which his neighbour owns, and having established that, he is acquitted, or
is held to have done no more than he had a right to do in
the case. He is a just man in the eye of the law, and may
pursue his owvil business, enjoy the immunities of a good
citizen, the honours of an unsullied name, and protection in
his rights unmolested. It may be added here, that there
is no other way by which a man can justify himself in the
sight of the law.  He could not do it by admitting the fact
of the.trespass, and by paying the fine, or making compensation for the injury done; for, though he might be discharged,
yet this would be no justification of what was done, and
would do nothing toward showing that he was right in doing
it. It does not make a wrong right, either, to intend beforehand to pay for the mischief, or to make amends for it after
the deed is done. This remark will be used hereafter in
examining the attempts which men have made to justify
themselves.
Now if man attempt to justify himself before his Maker,
he must take one of the grounds referred to. He must
either deny the charge brought against him; or, admitting
the facts in the case, he must show that he had a right to
do wheat he has done. If he can do either of these, he will
be justified, for God does not condemn the innocent. We
will suppose then the case of a man arraigned at the bar of
his Mlaker, as we all soon shall be, on trial with reference to
eternity. There are two things that occur to us at once.
WThat is the charge against him?  What is the defence
which he sets up? If there is no charge, he is justified of
course. If his defence is valid, he will be acquitted.
It is necessary then, first to look at the charge which is
brought against man.
The charge is, that he has violated the law of his Maker,
2*




18      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
or is a transgressor. It is that of apostacy or revolt from
God; the entire failure to'keep his laws; living constantly
in the neglect of acknowledged duty; and the habitual commission of known sins. It may be assumed here that every
reader of this Tract is sufficiently familiar with the Bible to
know the nature of these charges, without their being specified
in detail. No one trained in a Christian community can be
ignorant of the account of our race which the Bible gives.
These charges of guilt do not make the impression which
they ought, for these reasons: because we are so familiar with
them; because others are implicated with us; because we
do not cordially believe them. Many a man reads the account
of human nature in the Bible without supposing there is
any thing serious in the matter, or much fitted to trouble
him. There is many a one who would pass a sleepless night,
if he knew there was a charge of petty larceny against him,
which would bring him into court to-morrow, who has no
trouble at the charge of total apostacy and utter revolt brought
against him by God. There is many a one who would be in
the deepest consternation if he knew that his name was before a grand jury in some such connection as his conscience
could easily suggest, who has no alarm at the thought of the
"Grand Assize;" and no dread of the formidable catalogue
of crimes drawn up against him in the secrecy of the divine
Councils. A few remarks will demonstrate that these charges
against man in the Bible ought to make an impression and
that men ought to be willing to look at them. A case or
two may be supposed which will show how men ought
to be affected in view of such charges brought by the
Creator. The case of an officer in a bank may be referred
to. He has been long there, or in other stations in public
life, and has gained a character compared with which all the
gold that the vaults of the bank could contain would be
worthless as the sand. Suddenly, charges are brought against
him of unfaithfulness to his trust. They come from quarters




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?             19
worthy of his attention; are of such a source as inevitably
to gain the ear of the community; are such that his family
must know of them; are sustained by such circumstances
of actual losses in the bank as to render the charge credible,
and are of such a character as to make it necessary for him
to leave his post, disgraced perhaps forever. Now it is not
necessary to suppose that these accusations are true. All
that is designed is to show the effect which charges of guilt
from a respectable quarter usually have on a man's mind.
But suppose he secretly knew they were all true, how could
his conduct be explained, if he was utterly indifferent and
unconcerned?
In regard to the charges which are brought against man
a few remarks may be made here, showing that they should
be allowed to make an impression on the mind.
(1.) One respects the source from whence they come. They
are professedly the charges of our Maker and final Judge.
They are those on which we are to be tried at his bar, and in
reference to which our destiny is to be determined.
(2.) They are the most fearful of all accusations which can
be brought against a creature. No crime can be equal to that
of being an enemy of God; and no offence against human
society can equal in enormity and ill desert, the crimes of
which man is charged against his Maker.
(3.) The charge extends to every human being. No exception is made in favour of youth, beauty, rank, or blood; none
in favour of the amiable, the honest, or the moral; none in favour of those who have endeavoured to wipe away the accusation by their own good living. It is not indeed charged that
one is as bad as another, or that any one is as bad as he can be,
but it is that every one is guilty of violating the law of God,
and is held to be such a sinner that he cannot save himself.
(4.) It is charged that each and every one is of such a character that the eternal pains of hell would be an adequate recompense for his crime. He is held to be under condemnation




20       HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
and to be justly exposed to punishment that shall be severe in
the extremest degree, unmitigated and everlasting. Each one
is held to be such an evil-doer that it would be wrong for
God to admit him to heaven as he is, but not wrong to consign him to unending wo. It is important not to disguise
any thing about this, or to seek to hide it by soft names.
The robber is deemed worthy of the penitentiary; the murderer is regarded as deserving death on the gibbet; and in
like manner it is held in the charges brought against man,
and the threatenings appended to them, that every man deserves the pains of everlasting death, and that if he should
receive what is properly due to him, he would be cast off
from God, and punished forever. Such is the nature of the
charges against man. On these he is held guilty; on these
he will be arraigned. The Bible has two aspects. It reveals
a way of pardon; but it is also the grand instrument of indictment against man. It is designed to reveal his character;
to record his crimes; to overwhelm him with the conviction
of guilt; and be the rule of judgment on the final day. The
question then arises, now to be considered, whether if these
are the charges against man, he can vindicate or justify himself. It has been already remarked that there are but two
grounds to be taken in such a vindication. One is, to deny
the facts charged on man; the other is, if the facts be admitted, for him to show that he had a right to do as he has
done. There is nothing else that can be conceived of in
the case, to be done by him, unless it were to attempt to make
expiation or reparation by extraordinary merit; by penance
or by sacrifice; though this would not justify him for what
he had done, any more than a man's paying a fine made it
right for him to put out his neighbour's eye, or burn his
house. If neither of these things can be done, it will follow
that man cannot be justified by his own righteousness. These
points will now be considered in their order. The first is
that man cannot deny the truth of the charges brought against




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            21
him. In support of this the following considerations may
be urged:(1.) The source whence these charges come. They are
made by God himself. It is assumed here that the Bible is
true, and the argument will be conducted on that assumption.
In another part of this Tract it will be shown that it is equally
impossible to deny the main facts, whether the Bible be true
or false. The position now is that the sinner cannot take
the ground that God has mistaken the facts about man, or
that he has designedly brought a false accusation. It surely
cannot be necessary to go into an argument to prove this,
but an illustration or two may be allowed.
(a) One is that it is impossible for God to mistake on this
subject.  Men often do mistake in reference to character
and conduct. Charges are often falsely brought and men
are often condemned as guilty, on false accusations. This
may be intentionally done; or judges and jurors may be
mistaken; or witnesses may be suborned to sustain the accusation, or those needful for the defence may be absent, or
a combination of circumstances which no human sagacity
can control may seem to confirm the charge of guilt against
the innocent. But obviously no such mistake can occur in
relation to the charges brought in the Bible against man, nor
can man set up a vindication of himself on the ground that
his Maker has erred in reference to the facts alleged.
(b) As little can he urge that the accusation has been
overdrawn; that a degree of guilt has been charged such as
the facts would not justify; or that there has been an intermingling of prejudice or passion that has given a colouring to
the charge, and that a calmer view may modify these accusations. We can easily admit that such things may occur
among men. Judges and jurors are liable to the same passions as other men, and in a time of popular excitement it
may happen that the contagion may reach the bench and the
jury-room, and hence the laws are careful that the adminis



22      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
tration of justice shall proceed with as much calmness and
coolness as possible. It may happen also that false charges
are brought against men because they are obnoxious to those
in power. Many a one who has stood in the way of the purposes of a tyrant, has been removed under the form of law
to gratify the passions of such a man, and many a pure name
has been covered with infamy by the malignity of those in
authority. But it is not needful to show that none of these
things can be alleged by man in regard to the charges
brought against him by his Maker. It cannot be pretended
that God has been hurried into these charges under the influence of passion; or that man is obnoxious to his purposes
and that he would have him removed. The charges are
made with the utmost deliberation. They are made by the
most benevolent Being in the universe; by one who can have
no pleasure in finding out proofs of guilt; by one who, from
his nature, is disposed to make every possible allowance for
weakness and infirmity; by one who sees better than man
can state it, every thing that can be said in his defence;
by one more disposed than any human being ever was to do
justice to all that is amiable and pure. If man wishes to
find a friend who will be kind. to his infirmities, and do
justice to him when the world does him wrong, he can find
no such friend as God.
(c) It may be added here that the charge is one that no
denial affects. It has been deliberately made, and is that
on which we are to be tried. We may deny it, or disregard
it, but it is not affected. Whatever we may choose to think
of it, it does not change the estimate which our Maker affixes
to our characterany more than the private views of a prisoner
at the bar modify the estimate of the judge and jury. God
will pronounce sentence on us according to his own estimate
of our character, and the only security which we can have
that we shall not meet with condemnation,will be in the fact
that our character will be such that he will regard it as not




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?          23
proper to condemn us. But that cannot be by attempting
to deny the truth of the charge which he brings against us,
or by holding him either to be malignant or mistaken.
(2.) To show that man cannot deny the truth of that
which is alleged against him as a violator of the law, it may be
observed, secondly, that so far from obeying the perfect law
of God, he has failed of yielding perfect obedience to the
very lowest rules of morality. The standard at which man
aims is in general low enough, and one which it might be
supposed was sufficiently accommodating to satisfy one who
wished to save himself by his own righteousness. That
standard is, at any rate, at an immeasurable distance from the
holy law of God. Yet let a man take any standard of conduct which he pleased, and he would fail in all attempts to
show that he had always been conformed to it.  Who would
undertake to prove, before any tribunal that could take any
cognizance of the motives, the thoughts, the words as well
as the outward conduct, that he had always been honest, true,
kind, chaste, or courteous? Who would attempt to prove,
that he had on no occasion failed in his duty in the
tenderest relations of life?  What child is there that
would undertake to prove, that he has never failed in
his duty to his father or his mother; that he has always
been as respectful. obedient and grateful as he ought to
have been? Is there no compunction when he sees a father die? Is there nothing which he would wish to recall when he stands by a mother's grave?  What brother
would undertake to vindicate all his conduct toward a sister?
or what friend is there that has never had a feeling toward
his friend which he ought not to have? Who is there that
would undertake to say that he has never failed in the duty
of perfect honesty and truth in the transactions of business? Nay, to come down to a lower standard, who, professing to be governed by the laws of honour, would venture, when he comes to die, to stake his eternal welfare on




24      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
the facts that he has never failed of perfect conformity to
that arbitrary code? Who that professes to be governed
by the rules of etiquette would attempt to maintain that
those laws have always been perfectly observed? Let a
man choose his own standard of action; let him refer to
any code by which he professes to regulate his conductwould he be willing that every thought, and word, and feeling and action of his life should be brought out to noonday,
and that his eternal welfare should be determined by the
issue of the question whether he had or had not been perfectly conformed to that code? If not, how shall he vindicate himself from the charge of sin? And if he cannot
vindicate himself in reference to these low and imperfect
standards, how shall he stand acquitted of the charge of a
violation of the high and holy law of God-that he has
never made a standard or rule of life-that he has never
attempted to obey? The love to his Maker which that requires he has never once attempted to exercise. The holy
duties which that enjoins he has never endeavoured to perform; its sacred injunctions he has never thought of bearing with him to the relations of life, to the counting-room,
to the circles of his friendship, or to the scenes of his
amusement. How, then, will he proceed in attempting to
show that the charges of guilt brought against him are not
true?
(3.) The charges which are brought against man by his
Maker are sustained by all the facts of history.  What
ground would that man take who should attempt to show
that the accusations in the Bible against the race-that it
is sinful and prone to evil —are unfounded and false? On
what would he blse his argument? To what part of the
world-to what historic monument-to what recorded opinions would he turn? Men often feel that the account in
the Bible of the character of man-of the human heartof the tendency of our nature-is harsh and gloomy. They




HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            25
are inclined to think better of the race, and to suppose that
the views in the Bible must have been derived from the
observation of man in a peculiarly dark age of the world, or
were the result of feelings bordering on misanthropy. They
think that man is better than he is there represented, or at
least that, by certain modifications in society, he reaches a
state where that descriution does not apply to him. On
this account it is felt that the charge is one that cannot be
sustained, and that it is not true now that all hope of salvation, on the ground of an upright life, is cut off. But let a
few indisputable facts be submitted to candid men.
(a) One is, that the historic account of human conduct
in the Bible is no worse than in other records. The narration of crimes, of wars, of ambition, of carnage, of blood,
of sensuality, of venality, of political profligacy or corruption of manners there, is no worse than is to be found in
Livy or Suetonius; in Gibbon or Hume.  Every crime
recorded in the sacred narrative has more than one parallel
in the records of profane history, and every sentiment there
expressed about man can be confirmed by any number of
testimonies that the most sceptical could demand.  The
world has been many a time in a state like that described
by Moses as the cause of the deluge; and the earth now
bears up many a city, where all the crimes on account of
which Sodom was overthrown still have an existence. Herculaneum and Pompeii have been revealed, by the monuments exposed to human view from beneath the ashes that
covered them, to have been as corrupt, and corrupt in the
same sense, as the cities of the plain; and a single one of
the capitals of Europe embosoms probably now more revolting sins than they all. There is not an instance of fraud,
corruption, or villany, attributed to man in the Bible, which
has not its parallel in the present age of the world. The
instances of depravity, whose deeds are recorded in the
Bible, find abundant parallels in profane history, and not
3




26      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD'?
one of the names of guilt there referred to surpasses in
wickedness those of Nero, or Tiberius; of Alexander VI.
or his wretched son; of Henry VIII. or Charles II.; or of
the leaders of the French Revolution.
(b) The account contained in the Bible, of human depravity, is sustained by the opinion of the sober and reflecting
in all ages. Those who have given themselves to the contemplation of the condition of the world, have seen it, (the
sad tendency to depravity in human nature,) lamented it,
and sought to correct it; and yet the current of iniquity
has swept over every barrier which man could erect against
it, and sweeps on unchecked from age to age.
(c) The same view of the human character has been
taken by wicked men themselves. Byron had no confidence
in human virtue; Walpole said that every man had his
price; Chesterfield regarded all virtue as false and hollow;
Robespierre and Danton acted under the belief that every
man deserved the guillotine. And
(d) Every man acts on the presumption that every
other man is a sinner, and that no conffidence can be placed
in him without securities, and expects that every other one
will regard him in the same light. This security is not in
human virtue, but in vaults, and bars, and locks and bonds,
and he himself expects to be treated by every other man
as if he had the same character. His head neither hangs
down with shame, nor do his eyes flash with indignation
when he is asked for security that he will pay an honest
debt, or when he is told in a bank, or on exchange, that no
individual or corporation will trust him, without having some
other security besides himself that he is a safe and honest
man. In these circumstances, how can man go before God
and attempt to justify himself on the ground that the
charges against him are not true? Can he take the ground
that his Maker is mistaken, or that he has maliciously
brought a false accusation?




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            27
(4) There is but one other observation which it is necessary to make on this part of the subject.  It is that conscience sustains the truth of all the charges which are
brought.  Man exhibits this very strange and remarkable
characteristic, that he often frames an argument to show
that the race is not as guilty as is alleged, and, perhaps,
succeeds in convincing others; but still his argument does
nothing to affect the proof as it lies in his own soul.
There is that within himself which is to him overpowering demonstration that his arguments are all false, and
that the charges against him are true.  God has so formed
the soul that he has there at all times what may be summoned forth at his pleasure, as a living witness that all
that he has charged on man is true, and that shall render
nugatory in a moment all the reasonings of men about the
uprightness of their own hearts. This proof is found in a
man's own conscience. This is a device by which man
himself is made to coincide with and confirm the views of
the Almighty-to approve where He approves-to condemn
where He condemns.  It stands apart from the deductions
of reason; is little affected by the arguments which men
may employ; is susceptible of being called up to give judgment at any time; often pronounces sentence against the
favourite opinions of the man himself; uniformly declares
judgment in favour of right, and condemns what is wrong,
and is always on the side of God and his claims.  This mysterious and wonderful power is wholly under the divine control. No matter what may be the cherished opinions of
man; no matter how he may call in question the correctness of the divine testimony against human conduct, and
no matter how reluctant he may be to admit the impossibility of being saved by his own works; yet God has power,
at any moment, to summon the mind itself to sustain His
own account of the state of the heart, and to put it into
such a condition as to leave not a shadow of doubt that all




28     uHOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
that He has said respecting its depravity is true.  It requires all the art of a sinner to keep the voice of conscience
silent, and to save hiimself from  its rebukes.  Well he
knows that, if suffered to speak out, it will be in tones of
deep condemnation.  It often does speak out.  In solitude;
in the silence of the night; under the preaching of the
gospel, when the mind in its lonely musings runs back by
some mysterious law of association to the past; in a revival
of religion; on a bed of sickness; or in the prospect of
death, conscience often utters its voice in tones that are so
distinct that they can neither be misunderstood nor suppressed.  These are circumstances when man is most likely
to judge according to truth, and in such circumstances he
is so made as to feel, without a doubt, that the judgment
pronounced by conscience is in accordance with that of the
Most High, and that the views pressed upon his conscience
then, about his own character, are those which will be confirmed by the sentence of the final Judge.  "In thoughts
from the visions of the night," said an ancient sage, "when
deep sleep falleth on man, fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake.  Then a spirit
passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: It
stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image
was before mine eyes; there was silence, and I heard a voice,
saying, Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a
man be more pure than his Maker?  Behold, he put no
trust in his servants, and his angels he charged with folly:
How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose
foundation is in the dust, who are crushed before the
moth!" Job iv. 13-19.
The point that has been now considered is, that man cannot justify himself before God by taking the ground that
the facts are not as charged upon him, or that he has not
in fact violated the law of God.  This has been shown by
these considerations: that it is impossible to believe that




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            29
God would bring a false charge against man; that, as a
matter of fact, man fails of perfect conformity to the very
lowest standard of morals; that the account in the Bible
of the human character is confirmed by all the records elsewhere existing of the character of man; and that, when
man has denied the charge against him, conscience comes
in to confirm the accusations and the decisions of the
Almighty.
III. Mant cannot justify himself by showing that his conduct is right.
In the previous section, it has been shown that man cannot justify himself before God by denying the truth of the
charges brought against him. In other words, he cannot
take the position that the facts, in regard to his character
and conduct, are not such as they are stated to be, or that
his conduct has been, in all respects and all times, perfectly
conformable to the law of God. He cannot take the ground
which could be taken with propriety by sinless angels, that,
as they have never departed in fact or in form from the
strict requirements of a holy law, therefore they can claim
it as a right to be treated as holy beings. Man cannot take
the position before his Maker which a good citizen can before his country, that he has violated none of its laws, and
therefore is entitled to its favour and protection.
The only other ground of defence, or of justification,
which man can set up, is, that it was right or proper for
him to do as he has done: that, admitting the facts in the
case to be as they are charged; that he does not love his
MIaker with a perfect heart; that he violates his laws; that
he is under the influence of unholy passions, and that he
neglects many things which are required of him, yet that
such are the circumstances in which he is placed, that it is
not wrong for him to do as he has done, or that he has
a valid excuse, and ought not to be condemned. His condi3 *^




30      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
tion, he might be ready to admit, is one that is to be pitied;
but his conduct is not such as to deserve blame or punishment.  If a man can make this out, he will not be condemned; for God will not condemn the innocent.  If man
has a good and sufficient excuse for what he has done, there
is no being in the universe who will look more benignantly
on it than the Almighty; for there is no one so ready to
do justice to the innocent, or to allow its proper weight
to all that ought to exculpate.  It is necessary, therefore,
to examine this ground of defence, or to inquire whether
man can set up the plea that he has a right to do as he
has done —to live as he is in fact living.
Man is soon to stand before his'Maker on a high charge
of guilt. If he cannot deny the facts charged on him, he
must take the ground that he has a right to do as he has
done; that he has a valid reason which excuses him; that
he ought to be acquitted, and that his deliverance should
be hailed everywhere with songs and rejoicing, and that he
ought to be received to heaven in triumph.  What is this
ground of defence?  What is its value?  Will it avail on
the final trial?
Here it may be observed that man will not set up the
plea of insanity, though more insane on the subject charged
on him than many who have been acquitted on that ground
by human tribunals.  Man has too much pride and too much
confidence that he is right, and that God is wrong, to urge
this plea. Nor would he maintain that God has no jurisdiction over the case; for nothing is plainer than that he owes
allegiance to the laws of his Maker, and that he cannot go
beyond the limits of his empire. The points on which the
accused sinner must rely, if he would undertake to show that
he is not to blame for what he has done, and to justify himself, must be such as the following:-Either that the constitution of things under which he is placed, is such as to make
it inevitable that he should do as he does; or that he is but




HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            31
acting out the nature which God has given him, and that
therefore it must be right; or that the law of God is unreasonably severe and stern, and he is excusable for not
obeying it; or that the time of preparation for eternity is
too short, and that too great interests are made to depend
on this brief period of existence; or that the penalty is too
severe, and that if a man acts as well as he knows how,
though he does not conform to the holy law of God, he
ought not to be recompensed with eternal torments.  If
these points can be made out, man ought to be acquitted.
If they cannot, has he any other ground of defence on
which he can rely?
1. The first of these grounds of defence is derived from
the constitution of things under which we are placed.  Our
minds, when we set up this defence, go back to the arrangement with Adam, and the effect of his sin on his posterity.
The form of this defence is, that his fhll, by the divine arrange-ment, placed us in far more unfavourable circumstances for
salvation than we would otherwise have been; that his
apostacy made it certain that all his descendants would sin;
that it made it certain that the first act of each moral agent
on earth would be wrong; that there was a strong probability thus created that all his posterity would be lost, and that
all our strong propensities to evil, and our exposure to ruin,
are to be traced to this arrangement. If they who rely on
this ground of defence were disposed to take shelter under
the declarations of Scripture, the defence would be found
in the following statements of the apostle Paul: " Through
the offence of one, many are dead."  " The judgment was
by one to condemnation."  "By one man's offence, death
reigned by one."  " By the offence of one, judgment came
upon all men to condemnation."  "By one man's disobedience, many were made sinners."  The law entered that
the offence might abound," Rom, v. If these things are




32      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
so, how can man be held to be guilty for conduct thus rendered certain and inevitable?
The question now is, whether this can be regarded as a
vindication of the undisputed facts in the conduct of man.
Will it be admitted as a sufficient reason for what we have
done in violation of the holy law of God, when we stand at his
bar? The fact is undeniable that man thus early goes astray,
and that he continues to wander farther and farther, unless
he is restrained or reclaimed.  Is it a sufficient excuse for
this that Adam fell, and that we live under such a constitution that his sinning made it certain that we would sin
also?
N ow, in examining this question, we may admit two
things. One is, that our circumstances, in consequence of
his fall, are in many respects less favourable than they
would otherwise have been; or that incalculable evils have
come upon us in consequence of his apostacy; and the
other is, that there is much about it which neither Revelation
nor human philosophy explains. But these are different
points from the one before us, whether -that act of our first
father is a sufficient excuse or apology for our crimes; or
whether we can take shelter under that constitution as a
vindication from the charge of guilt. In reply to this, two
or three remarks may be made.
The first is, that we are responsible not for his sin, but
for our own. The sin which is charged upon us is not his,
but ours. The question is, not whether his acting as he
did will free us from accountability, or ill-desert, on account
of his act, which is plain enough; but whether it will free
us from ill-desert, on account of our own sins. We could not
be held guilty, i. e. blameworthy, for his sin; and if this
were the charge, the defence set up must be conclusive.
No reasoning has yet shown that man either is or can be
regarded as blameworthy on account of the crime of his
first father.




IIOW SHIALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?          33
Agailn, the fall of Adilam, and the constitution under
which we live, conlpel no one to sin.  Whatever may be
their theories about native depravity, yet clear thinkers universally hold that all which is properly sin, is voluntary,
and there is nothing in which man more consults his
own pleasure than in the course of life which he pursues.
Every profane man means to be profane; every dishonest man prefers to be dishonest; every sensual man has
pleasure in moral corruption.  It is a great law of our
being, that where freedom ends, responsibility ends, and
there is nothing more universally true than that a wicked
man does only what he prefers to do. Nay, the sins which
are charged on him are very often the fruit of long and
deliberate plan; and so attached is he to a course of iniquity,
that no argument or entreaty is sufficient to induce him to
attempt to change his method of life.  So voluntary are men
in their sins, that there is no argument or topic of persuasion which will induce those living in sin, of themselves to
break off their transgressions and turn to God.  A man must
take the ground that he is compelled by the act of Adam
to do what he would otherwise not do, before the apostacy
of our first father can be a vindication from the charges alleged against him.  Further, this plea would neither be urged
nor admitted by man himself in any other case.  In all the
numerous charges brought against men before human tribunals in different lands and ages, it is probable that this has
never once been alleged as a vindication. To no murderer,
thief, pirate, or traitor, has it ever occurred to urge this in
his own defence.  The state of the world has never been
such that it would be tolerated for a moment; nor has the
consideration that Adam fell, and that we are under a constitution where all men sin, ever, probably, in a single instance,
even modified the verdict of a jury. There have been men
on the bench and in the jury-box who have held this as a
theological dogma, or as an excuse for their own sins before




34      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
God; but in a court-room nature speaks out, and no man
would venture to apply such a dogma of theology to a decision of the bench. What would it avail on a charge of
murder before any court in the world?
One other remark: It remains yet to be shown that the
facilities for obtaining the divine favour, by men in their
fallen state, are less than they would have been had they
entered the world in the condition of their first parents.
Are any sent to hell for Adam's sin alone? That remains yet
to be proved. Are any infants lost? Not a particle of evidence has ever yet been furnished of this. Is it beyond
the capacity of children to please God? Let the remarks
of the Saviour about the hosannahs in the temple answer.
Is it less easy for us to obtain the divine approbation and
to be saved, than it would have been if Adam had not
fallen? That remains to be proved. If a choice were to
be made, it would seem to be easier for a fallen being to
believe on Christ and to trust to him for salvation, than for
even a holy being, who was liable to change, to keep a holy
law unbroken forever. And, in fact, both our first parents,
who were holy, and a portion of the holy angels, failed to
retain their uprightness, while God vouchsafes his powerful grace to enable us to believe.  If these things are so,
then man cannot put his defence on the ground that he is
brought into the world under a constitution which made it
certain that he would be a sinner.
11. A second ground of defence to which man resorts in
self-vindication, akin to this, but more common and plausible, is, that he is but acting out the propensities of his nature.  He did not make himself.  He is as God made him.
He is but indulging inclinations which his Creator has implanted in his bosom, and the indulgence of which, therefore, cannot be attended with blame, or followed by tIs displeasure. Can it be wrong for him to look upon the light
of the sun?  Can it be wrong for him to be charmed with




HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            35
the beauty of a sweet landscape, or the pleasant music of a
waterfall?  Can it be wrong for him to allay the demands
of hunger and thirst, to protect himself from cold, and to
provide a shelter from the storm? The innocence of these
things being admitted, as it must be, he applies the concession to all the propensities and inclinations within hint;
to all that has led him to do what is charged upon him as
wrong, and says, I am as God made me, and for that I cannot be held to be guilty.  I ought, therefore, to be acquitted
of the charge of guilt. Let us inquire whether this will
answer as a ground of defence before God.
The most obvious remark in regard to it is, that, if it is
a valid excuse in reference to religion, it is in reference to
human conduct generally. For why may not any man accused of crime urge the same thing in self-defence? Has he
done any thing more than act out certain propensities which
he found in his nature? When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, Hannibal the Alps, Alexander the Granicus, and Napoleon poured his armies on Italy, Egypt, Austria or Russia, did either do any thing more than follow out the inclinations of his nature? Did they not find stirring within
them a spirit of ambition which urged them on to trample
down the liberties of mankind? Did Robespierre or Diderot, Alexander VI. or C.esar Borgia, do any thing more than
act out certain propensities in their souls? Did Torquemada in the inquisition, or Cortes in the butcheries of Mexico,
do any thing but act out what they found within theirs?
And the assassin, the duellist, the murderer, what does he
do more? Is he not as God made him, as much as the
sinner who urges this plea? And would not this plea be as
good for the one as the other?
But, further, this plea is contrary to the convictions of
common sense and the universal judgment of right among
men. If it were well founded, then the true course for
man, if he would please God, would be to give unrestrained




36      HOW  SHALL MIAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
indulgence to every inclination in his bosom. Nay, then
it would be wrong for him to check any of his passions, and
his duty would be to give them the rankest growth and the
broadest indulgence possible; for should not man cultivate
all that God has implanted in his bosom? Then all the
restraints on the passions of children must be displeasing to
God; all the lessons of order, morality, and religion, are a
contravening of his wishes; all colleges, schools, and
churches are a nuisance; all court-houses and prisons are a
violation of human liberty. Then the great benefactors of
the race, and those who have been especially the friends of
God, and have obtained the highest seat in heaven, have
been those who have proclaimed the innocence of universal
licentiousness, or who have furnished the greatest facilities
for the indulgence of passion. From the preachers of religion; from pious princes; from the dispensers of justice;
from the patrons of order and of law; from Paul, Aurelius,
and Hale, the crown is to be transferred to such moralists
as Paine, such princes as Charles II., and such judges as
Jeffries.  But who is prepared to take this ground?  This
view goes against the common sense and the common judgment of men. There are things in man to be restrained, in
order that he may be virtuous.  It is not sufficient to secure
the meed of virtue to say, I am as God made me, and am
but acting out the propensities of my nature.  What, then,
is the mistake which is made in this plea?  What fallacy
is there in it, for it seems to have plausibility and truth?
An answer may be readily given to these questions by making a distinction, which the young man may apply through
life to the noblest purposes of self-improvement.  In the
pleas set up, two things are confounded which are wholly
distinct, anda o be dealt with on different principles-our
constitutional propensities as God made them, and our corrupt propensities which have another origin. The former
are to be cultivated and carried to the highest pitch of per



HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?             37
fection possible; the latter are to be checked, restrained,
subdued. The former are innocent, noble, and ennobling;
the latter are debasing and degrading-" earthly, sensual,
devilish." There are propensities of our nature, and laws
of our being, which God has implanted, and which, if kept
within proper limits, are harmless, or which may contribute
to our highest elevation in the scale of existence. To eat,
to drink, to sleep, are laws of our animal being-harmless
if restrained, debasing if indulged in contrary to the just
rules of temperance; to aspire after knowledge, to seek a
" good name,' to rise to the fellowship of higher intelligences, to bring out and cultivate the benevolent affections,
is to follow nature as God has made us, and never betrays
or debases us. But to follow out the inclinations of ambition, and pride, and vanity, and lust and revenge, is a different thing. These debase and sink to a lower level than
that of brutes; for, in proportion as we may rise, so may we
descend. The star that culminates highest may sink the
lowest, and as woman, if vile, sinks lower than man can,
so man, if debased, sinks beneath the brute.
Men mistake, then, in this.  When they indulge in these
things, they are not, in any proper sense, acting out their
nature. They are not as God made them. They are sunken,
debased, fallen. Let men act according to the great laws
which He has impressed upon their being, and they will be
noble, holy, godlike. Thus acting, man would have met
the approbation of his Maker, and might have pleaded innocent to the charges of guilt. But let him not give indulgence to corruption, and then seek shelter in the plea, "I
am as God made me."
III. A third ground of defence would be, that the law of
God is stern and severe, and that his requirements are of
such a nature, that man has no power to comply with them.
The position which would be taken is, that there is no obligation where there is no ability, and that, as man now
4




38      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
has no power to yield obedience, he cannot be held to be
chargeable with guilt.  The principle here stated seems to
be one that is based on common sense, and that must ever
command the assent of all men who are not blinded by
theory or by prejudice.  It is impossible for man to feel
himself guilty or blameworthy for not doing what he had
no power to do. He may count it a misfortune, or he may experience calamities and suffer losses, because he has no greater
power; but it is not possible for him to feel on this account
the compunctions of remorse.  With the limited powers of
man, it is impossible for him ever to feel himself guilty for
not creating a world, or not guiding the stars, or not raising
the dead, and he cannot conceive that, by any revelation
whatever, or any course of reasoning, or any requirement
laid on him, he should ever feel himself blameworthy for
not doing those things.  If, then, it were so that God has
required of man more than he is in any sense able to perform, the nature which he has given us (and which, in that
case, would be a very strange and unaccountable endowment) would teach us two things: one, that his government
was a tyranny, and the other, that man could not be to
blame. Such a creature, under such a government, might
be made to suffer, but could not be punished; he might
experience pain of body, but he never would know the
pangs of remorse. But is this so? The law itself is the
best exponent of the views of God on this subject, and that
law is clear and explicit. " Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy mind." This is the first and great commandment.
And the second -is like unto it: "Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang
all the law and the prophets." Matt. xxii. 37-40.  Could
any thing be more reasonable than this? God asks nothing
which we have not; nothing which we have no power to
render.  He asks "all" the heart, the mind, the strength,




HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?           39
and he asks no more.  He does not require for himself the
service claimed of angelic powers, but that adapted to our
own; he asks no love for our neighbour which we do not
feel that we are abundantly able to show to ourselves. To
take shelter from the charges against us, under the plea
that our Maker has required services beyond our power to
render, is therefore directly in the face of his own requirements; is to charge him with tyranny where his requirements are as clear as noonday, and as equal as they can be,
and where he has expressly told us that the plea cannot and
will not be sustained:- 0O house of Israel, are not my
ways equal?  Are not your ways unequal?   Therefore
will I judge you, O house of Israel, according to your ways,
saith the Lord God. Repent and turn yourselves from
all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin."
Ezek. xviii. 29, 30.
IV. A fourth ground of defence, on which man charged
with guilt is secretly relying in self-justification, is, that the
penalty of the law of God is unreasonably severe, and that
no consideration can make it right to recompense the errors
and crimes of this short life with eternal punishment. The
ground here taken is, that it would be wUrong for God to
punish man in this manner, and therefore that man has a
claim to eternal life. The inference drawn by the sinner charged with guilt is, that if the penalty is unreasonably severe, he cannot be held to be guilty, and has a
right to disregard the law of his Maker.  Now it is not
designed here to attempt a defence of the doctrine of eternal puishment, or to show that the impenitent sinner will
sufer for ever.  It must be admitted that there are myvsteries on that subject which the human powers at present cannot explain. All that the subject demands is to examine
this reasoning which the sinner sets up in his defence.  Is
the severity of a penalty then, even supposing it to be
wholly unreasonable, a valid excuse for violating law or for




40      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
doing wrong? It is possible to conceive, for such things
have been, that the penalty for the crime of treason may be
entirely too severe; that its execution may be attended with
barbarous cruelty; and that it may be followed by a taint
of blood, and by inflictions on the family of the traitor
wholly unjustifiable by any principles of equity; but would
this be any justification of the act of treason?  Does it
make the betrayal of the state a matter of duty or of innocence? Is it such a meritorious act that he who performs
it has a claim on the offices and emoluments which a sovereign has to bestow on deserving subjects? So in the matter before us. If there are things which we cannot explain
about future punishment; if it has a degree of severity
which we have no means of vindicating; is it fair to infer
that it is r'ig7ht to violate the law of heaven, and has he who
does it a claim  on the crown of glory?  Yet this seems
to be what is involved in this ground of defence which
a man charged with sin sets up.  Would it be reasonable or
proper for him to suppose that God would admit a plea,
drawn from his own alleged injustice and cruelty, as a reason for the habitual violation of his law? But the plea
has no force in another respect.  Our relations to the
administration of justice are not only concerned with the
question what the penalty is, but with the question whether it is practicable to avoid it? There may be reasons
operating in the appointment of a penalty which we do not
understand.  It is only necessary for us to know what
the penalty is, and to have such fireedom that we can avoid
it by a correct life. They who live in England now, or
they who lived under the administration of the laws in
times of greater severity, can have no reason to complain,
so far as appears, of the punishment affixed there to treason.
It can be readily seen, indeed, that there would be much
that would be painful and disgraceful in being drawn on a
hurdle to the place of execution; in being quartered and




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?           41
publicly exposed; in the confiscation of property; the degradation of a family, and the taint of blood. Why should a
good citizen, who did not design to commit treason, complain of it? It would be easy to avoid it, and his knowing
the severity of the punishment should only make him the
more cautious to do his duty to his country.  Least of all,
knowing what the penalty was, could he set up a plea of
innocence when he had betrayed his country, on the ground
that the penalty was severe. Without pursuing this reasoning any farther, may it not be asked whether it is not
just as applicable to the government of God as to a human
administration?
V. There is but one other ground of defence or self-justification which the accused sinner can be supposed to set
up. It is that too great results are made to depend on the
present life; that life is too short, that our days are too few
and fleeting, that our continuance here is too uncertain, that
we are liable to be too suddenly called away, to make it
proper to suspend so great interests on any thing that we
can do here. The accused sinner would take the ground
that eternal consequences demand a longer probation, and
that the longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs was a period quite circumscribed enough to make it proper to suspend
so great interests upon life. Much might be said in reply
to this; but the subject may be made, perhaps, sufficiently
plain by a few remarks.  Reference might be made to the
instances which occur in the life of an individual, or in a
state, where the most momentous and far-reaching results
are made to depend on the action of a moment; but, without dwelling on the numerous illustrations which occur on
that point, two remarks may be made in reply to this ground
of defence: One is, that, as experience has, in millions of
cases, shown, the time allotted to man is ample for a preparation for eternity.  Countless hosts before the throne have
found it so, and millions are on their way to join them who...




42      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
find the period of probation abundant to enable them to preparie for heaven. That all others are not with them in the same
blissful path, is not because life is too short to enter it, but
it to be traced to other causes.  Men require length of days
to amass wealth, or to perfect their schemes of earthly aggrandizement; but the purposes of salvation do not need it.
The giving of the heart to God in sincerity through Jesus
Christ-an act which may be performed in the briefest period which a moral agent lives-is enough to secure salvation.  Wealth or honour could not be secured in that way
in so brief a period; but the salvation of the soul may be.
The other remark is, that this vindication is set up in circumstances which painfully demonstrate that it cannot be
sincere.  Not time enough to secure salvation   Too great
interests suspended on this brief period of existence! Unreasonable to make eternal results depend on the fleeting
hours of this short life. And from whom do these objections come? From those on whom the hours of life hang
heavily, and " who are often wishing its different periods at
an end;" from those who are impatient for some season of
festivity or enjoyment to arrive, and who elude the slowrevolving wheels of time; from those whose days are weariness and sadness, for they have nothing to interest them,
nothing to do; from those whose principal study is the art
of killing time, and all whose plans have no other end; firom
those who waste the hours that might be consecrated to
prayer in needless slumber, and from whose lips each morning, while they are now locked in repose, there mnight proceed the earnest breathing of a penitent heart that would
insure salvation; from those who, over worthless, or corrupting verse, or in the perusal of romances, or in day-dreams,
or at the toilet, waste, each day, time enough to secure the
redemption of the soul.  From such lips and hearts; from
those who live thus, and to whom life puts on these forms,
assuredly the objection should not be heard, that too great




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?           43
results are made to depend on this short life, and that therefore they are blameless in neglecting God.
If these are correct views, then the sinner cannot justify
himself. It has been shown that he cannot deny the reality
of the facts charged on him, and the grounds of defence
which the human heart is disposed to set up in self-vindication have been considered.  It is not improper, at this stage
of the argument, to make a personal appeal to the reader,
and to ask him to consider the views which have been suggested as a personal matter. The conclusion which we
have reached is, that the unpardoned sinner is a lost and
ruined being; that he is under condemnation; that he is
held to be guilty in the sight of God; that he is soon to be
arraigned on charges involving the question of his eternal
welfare, and that, unless he is in some way acquitted of
those charges, they will sink him to ruin. The views
which have been thus expressed, lie at the foundation of the
system of salvation by grace.  They are such as, when felt,
lead to the conviction of sin, and to that sense of helplessness which is preparatory to the reception of pardon and
salvation by the grace of the gospel. If these views produced their fitting effect, they would leave the impression
of guilt, helplessness, and danger on the mind of every one
who is not converted and pardoned.  Sooner or later every
one will feel this.  The sinner may be unwilling to admit
the force of these arguments now; for no one, if he can
help it, will be overwhelmed with the conviction of guilt, or
have his mind unsettled and harassed by apprehensions of
danger. But not always can he put this subject far from
him. He will lie down and die, and those are sad feelings
which the dying sinner has, when he reflects that his life
has been spent in-sin, and that he is dying under condemnation.  He will, from the bed of death, look out tremblingly
on the eternal world-on that shoreless and bottomless
ocean on which he is about to be launched, and it will be




44      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
sad to feel that he is about to enter that vast and fearful
world, an unpardoned sinner. He will tread his way up to
the bar of a holy God; and, little as he may be concerned
about that now, it will be sad to tread that gloomy way
alone, and to feel, as he goes, that he is under condemnation.
He will stand and look on the burning throne of Deity, and
on his final Judge; he will await, and with what an agony
of emotion! the sentence that shall fall from his lips sealing
his eternal doom. Oh, how can he then be just with God?
How vindicate his ways before him?  How stand there
and justify his neglect of his commands, his neglect of
prayer, his neglect of the offers of mercy, his neglect of
his own soul?  How, then, can he show his Maker that it
was right not to love him, not to pray to him, not to thank
him, not to embrace his offer of mercy? How can he show
that it was right for him to live without hope and without
God in the world?  How can he be saved?
IV. Man canlnot merit salvation.
In the previous section it has been shown that man cannot justify himself either by denying the facts charged on
him, or by showing that he had a right to do as he has
done. The inquiry at once presents itself, How then can he
be saved? There are but two ways conceivable: one by his
own merits-that is, that he somehow deserves to be saved;
the other, by the merits of another, or of others.  If it be
in the latter way, it must either be by the merits of Christ,
or it must be because certain eminent saints have done more
than was demanded of them, and that their merits, garnered up and deposited in certain hands, can be made over
to others.  It is not proposed to inquire now whether this
latter method be in accordance with truth, but whether men
can merit salvation for themselves.  They can do it if their
lives are such that they deserve to go to heaven, or if it
would be wrong for God to punish them forever, for' (God




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            45
will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert
judgment." Job xxxv. 12. The importance of this inquiry will be at once perceived, for the great mass of mankind are depending on their own righteousness for salvation, and the grand issue between Christianity and the
world lies just in this point.  There are two subjects of
inquiry, which, if they can be made clear, will conduct to
the truth in the case.
I. What is meant by merit?
II. Can man merit heaven?
I. MWhat is meant by merit?  The word is in common
use, and the common use is the correct one.  We speak of
merit when a man deserves a reward for something which
he has done, or when it would be wrong to withhold it.
He renders to him who employs him an equivalent, or what
is of as much value as is paid him for his services. Two or
three simple illustrations will make the common use of the
word plain, and show its bearing on the question before us.
You hire a day-labourer. You make a bargain with him.
at the outset; he complies with the terms on his part, and
at night you pay him. He has earned, deserved, or merited
that which you pay him; he has been faithful to his part
of the agreement, and the service which he has rendered is
worth as much to you as the wages which you pay him.
You coultl have done the work, perhaps, yourself; but you
preferred to hire him, for you might yourself be more profitably or pleasantly employed. At all events, what he has
done is worth to you all which you pay him, and it would
be wrong, on every consideration, for you to withhold it. If
you choose to give him, any thing more than was specified
in the agreement, it would be a gratuity; but that which
you agreed to give him he has a right to demand, and you
are not at liberty to withhold it. He has deserved or earned
it, for he has rendered you a full equivalent, according to
the terms of the conkract.




46      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
A man enlists to defend his country as a soldier. It
is supposed, in the contract which is made with him,
that his service will be of equal value to his country
with the pay which he receives. By fighting its battles;
by guarding its seacoasts, villages, towns, and hamlets;
by keeping its fields from being trod down by an enemy;
by protecting the lives of aged men, helpless women and
children; and by defending the flag of the nation from
insult, it is supposed that his services are worth full as
much to the country as he receives in his pay. The pay
is graduated, in part, by the best estimate which can be
made of the value of the service which a man can render
in this calling, and the nation would be no gainer by dismissing him from its service.  He complies with the contract, and when he comes and shows his scars, and tells of
his perils and privations, his weary marches and his risk of
life, and his separation from home and friends in the cause
of his country, his country will not grudge him the pittance
that he receives; for he has earned it and merited it, and
it would not be right to withhold it from him.
You employ a physician. The service which he renders
you is regarded as a full equivalent for what you pay him.
What you receive from him in his care, attention, skill, and
sympathy, you consider to be fully equal in value to the
compensation which you give him. Your relief from pain,
your recovery of the use of your bodily powers, or the restoration to your affectionate embrace, in sound health, of a
wife or child, you consider as an ample equivalent for all
which he asks you for his services, and, were an election to
be made, you would much prefer to pay the amount of the
physician's fees, to going through those sorrows again.
What he receives, you feel that on every account he deserves or has earned, and it would be wrong for you to
withhold it.
In each of these cases, that is true which the apostle




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?           47
Paul affirms: "To him that worketh, the reward is not
reckoned of grace, but of debt."  These illustrations will
explain the proper sense of the word "merit." In each
instance, there is an equivalent for what is paid; in each
instance, what is demanded could be enforced as a claim of
right. There is no other sense in which the words merit
or desert can be used. All besides this is favour or grace.
If you choose to give the day-labourer, the soldier, or the
professional man, more than you agreed, or more than his
services are worth to you, you have an undoubted right to
do so; but you would not put it on the ground of his merit
or desert. You would feel that it was a gratuity which
could not be enforced by justice, and where no blame would
be attached to you if it were withheld. If his perils, or
services, or self-denials and sacrifices, were greater than you
anticipated when the contract was made, or if the service
rendered was really of more value to you than the amount
which you are pledged to give him, you may consider yourself bound by equity to give him more; for you feel that
he has earned or merited it.  Thus you would be glad to
compensate, if you could, the wounded soldier who has
perilled all in your defence; and on the same principle, if
you could do it, you would wish to recompense the man
who, at the risk of his life, should save your child from the
devouring flame, or from a watery grave.
II. We come now to apply these principles to the case
before us. Keeping this explanation of the nature of merit
in view, we approach the inquiry, whether man can merit
heaven. Can he be saved because he deserves it? Can
he be so profitable to God that he can advance a just claim
to an admission to the world of glory? If he can, he will
be saved; if he cannot, he should lose no time in endeavouring to ascertain whether there is any other way by
which he may be saved? In reference to this inquiry, the
following considerations may be submitted:




48      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
(1.) Man can render no service to his Maker for which
the reward of heaven would be a proper equivalent. Or,
in other words, the amount of service which he can render
is not such as can be properly measured by the reward of
everlasting life. His service to his Maker and to the universe is not of so much value that he can claim eternal life
as an equivalent. We have seen that this does exist in the
case of the day-labourer, the soldier, and the physician.
We can see a correspondence between the service rendered
and the compensation, in these cases, which makes us feel
that there is a propriety and equity in the reward. But, in
reference to any connection or correspondence between the
service which man can render his Maker and the rewards
of heaven, we can see no such propriety and equity.  The
one does not measure the other.  The universe is not so
much benefitted by the service of man, that everlasting life
and infinite happiness would be only a fair equivalent,
or that wrong would be done if that reward should be
withheld.  Yet is it not a fair principle that this must be
the case if man deserves or merits salvation?  Must there
not have been such an amount or value of service rendered
that it would be injustice to withhold the reward-injustice
such as would occur in the case of the faithful day-labourer,
the soldier, the physician, if their pay was withheld?
That must be extraordinary service rendered to the universe,
or to God, which deserves the glories of an eternal heaven
as its reward.  That is extraordinary service rendered to
you, if a stranger rescues a child from impending death and
restores him to your transported bosom, and you feel that no
compensation which you can make would be more than an
equivalent.  That was extraordinary service which was rendered to their country by the heroes of the American Revolution; and, as the results of their patriotism and perils are
seen in the unexampled prosperity of tile land which they
rescued, we feel that the pension of the old soldier is a very




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?          49
inadequate recompense.  That was extraordinary virtue
which led the father of his country through the trials, perplexities, and perils of that time, and which he evinced
when, having laid the foundation of our liberty, he voluntarily retired to private life, leaving the people in the enjoyment of freedom, and we feel that no wealth which the
nation had to offer, no monument of marble or of brass
which art could rear, would equal the measure of his praise.
But has man any such extraordinary service to render to
his Maker and to the universe? Has he done any thing,
can he do any thing for God and for the empire which He
rules, which would make the wealth of heaven and its everlasting glories only an equitable recompense? Obviously,
there is no congruity, no fitness, no correspondence between
the one and the other, and when men talk about meriting
heaven, or when they feel that they deserve to be saved,
they have not well considered the import of language.
They use it correctly in common life. Is it not right to
ask that it may be used with the same exactness in religion?
(2.) This general principle, which appears so obvious,
may be illustrated with particular reference to the religious
service which men render to their Maker. If man merits
heaven and is to be saved on account of his own deservings,
it will be conceded that the service must be in some way
connected with religion, or of such a nature that it can be
regarded as the service of God. You would not feel yourself bound to pay a day-labourer if, instead of working for
you, he worked all day for your neighbour, or was idle;
you would not think of recompensing a soldier if he slept
on his post, or fought under the standard of the enemy.
There are religious men upon the earth, men who are
honestly engaged in the service of God, and who, in connection with their religious services, are looking for the
rewards of heaven. Our subject, in its progress, demands
that we inquire just here, whether the service which they
5




50      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
render is of such a nature that they merit eternal life? Is
it because they are so profitable to God and his cause that
the rewards of heaven would be only an equivalent for the
service which they render? Let us look a moment at this
matter.
A man who is truly religious renders a real and valuable
service to the cause of virtue and of God.  His existence
is a blessing and not a curse. The universe is made better
and happier because he lives. It would be a loss to society
and to the universe, if his example, his conversation, his
plans of wisdom, his experience, and his generous deeds,
were annihilated, or had not been. When the "rewards"
of heaven are bestowed upon him, it will not be without
some reference to a fitness or propriety that they should be
so bestowed. There will be a sense in which every man
will be "rewarded according to his works."  But, in reference to the bearing of this indisputable fact on the case
before us, there are two or three things that deserve to be
considered.
(a) One is, that your individual existence is not necessary to secure the service which is now actually rendered.
God is not so dependent on you that he could not accomplish his purposes without you, or that, if you should be
removed, service of equal value might not be secured in
some other way. By the great law of his kingdom, the
agency of man is to be employed in the accomplishment of
his purposes; but your individual agency is not indispensable. The services of a minister of the Gospel who is eminently useful, and who is at a time of life, and has a measure of experience and learning, that seems to fit him for an
important station, can be supplied by some one that God can
place in his stead.  When he is taken away, a mighty
chasm, indeed, seems to be made; but his withdrawal soon
ceases to be felt, for others rush in to fill his place; as the
surface of the ocean soon becomes smooth, and it seems to be




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?             51
as full as it was before, though the waterspout has lifted up
and carried away a portion of the mighty deep, or the sun
causes it to ascend in vapours; for streams and rivers all the
while pour into that ocean and it is always kept full. The
man that was so learned and wise that it seemed that no one
else could supply his place at the head of a college, or so
sagacious and prudent that it seemed that some vast plan
of benevolence depended on him, is removed-but the chasm
is soon filled up; just as in storming a city, when the leader
falls, some subaltern steps into his place, and leads on the
conquest with the freshness of youth, and with wisdom and
valour that had been in training for just this breach which
God foresaw would occur. Let us not then suppose that our
services are indispensable to God. Let us not imagine, that
he is dependent on us or is under obligation to us.  In the
bosom of society there are undeveloped powers whih will
more than fill our places; in the church there is piety maturing which can do more than we can do-and the very
purposes of human advancement cherished in the divine
mind, may demand our removal.
(h) The religious man will reflect further that his best
services do not deserve heaven. A man who is truly pious,
and who has any proper sense of his own imperfections, and
of the glory to which he is looking forward, never feels that
there is any proportion between the services which he renders to God here, and the immortal blessedness to which he
hopes to be elevated hereafter.  He renders no service to
the cause of truth and virtue, which, in his own estimation,
is an equivalent for the rewards which he trusts are in reserve for him, and after all his toils he feels that those rewards
will be not of " debt" but of grace, and that he is an "unprofitable servant." God has taken effectual care of this in
his plan of salvation; and whoever he may be that expects
heaven on the ground of his own merit, it will not be he




52      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
who gives evidence that he is truly a devoted and faithful
servant of God.
(c) If, however, at any time this feeling of merit or claim
should arise in the mind of a truly pious man, it is effectually checked by a moment's reflection on the way in which
he has been disposed to engage in the service of God at all.
It is not by any native inclination or tendency of mind; it
has been solely by grace. Whatever service he may render,
the origin of it is to be traced back to that distinguishing
mercy which led him to seek after God, when he was disposed to pursue his own ways; which recalled him when he
was a wretched wanderer from the paths of truth and salvation. The case is like this. You go into a " market place"
and find a man " idle," and inclined to be idle. You reason
and remonstrate with him, and by persevering entreaty and
the offsr of reward, arouse him from his indolence and induce him to spend his time in your service. Now, however
faithful he may be, or however valuable may be the services
which he may render you, he will never feel that any merit
is to be attributed to himself. He owes to you his industrious habits, and all which he can ever secure by his labour.
Or to take a case more in point. You go into a miserable
hovel, and find a wretch in the lowest stages of vice and
misery. He was once a man in heart as well as in form,
but now he has wholly lost the manhood of the one and
almost of the other. He is loathsome by vice and disease,
and is a wretched outcast. He has no wish to be a man
again; he has no energy to arouse him from his condition;
he has no friend to take him by the hand, or even to pity
him in his vices and woes. You take compassion on him.
You clothe him in decent apparel. You remonstrate with
him on his evil course. You remind him of what he was,
and tell him of what he may be still. You rekindle the
dying spark of self-respect; show him that he may yet forsake the paths of vice and be respectable again; gradually




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?           53
breathe into him the wish to be virtuous and pure and happy;
give him a comfortable home to dwell in, and a piece of
land to cultivate as his own; speak kindly to him when he
is discouraged; shield him when he is tempted by his old
companions; offer him ample reward for any services which
he may render you; and he returns to the ways of industry,
and rises to a condition of competency and respectability.
Perchance in doing this, you have lighted on a "gem of
purest ray serene" in that rubbish, and the unhappy wretch
whom you have rescued, had a genius which takes its place
among the brightest constellations of talent, and its light
beams afar on the nations. Yet how will lie feel in these
circumstances?  Will he feel that this is to be traced to his
own merit, or that the wealth or honour which may gather
around him are the measure of his desert?  But for you he
will feel that he would even now have been occupying that
wretched hovel, or more likely would have been in the
drunkard's grave. Whatever he has of moral worth, influence, or reputation is to be traced to you. Thus it is
with the Christian; and feeling this, he cannot regard himself as so profitable to God as to merit the rewards of heaven.
(3.) If it were conceded that the rewards of heaven were
a proper recompense for the religious services which man
can render to God, yet they would not be the suitable reward of those who are commonly expecting heaven on the
ground of their own merits. The truly religious man, as we
have seen, expects heaven, not on the ground of his own
deserts, but through the grace of God. We may, therefore,
lay the case of such out of the question in the inquiry whether men can deserve salvation by their own merits.  The
other class, embracing the mass of mankind, expect to be
saved because they deserve to be saved; or, which amounts
to the same thing, because they do not deserve to be damned.
The ground of their claim is not that they are religious,for they do not profess to be, and not that they render such




54      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
service to the cause of God that the rewards of heaven would
be an equivalent for their services-for they do not profess
to be engaged in his service at all. What then is it? It
is that they are honest, true, faithful to their contracts,
honourable in their dealings, disposed to aid others in their
distress, and courteous in their treatment of their fellowmen. One who leads such a life they suppose does not
deserve to be cast off and made miserable forever; or, what is
the same thing, they suppose that in all-justice and equity,
he ought to be made happy in a future state; that is, that he
may be saved on the ground of his own merits. What is
now the value of this claim? With the principles before us
which have been laid down, let us endeavour to answer this
question. This is the inquiry, Is heaven the appropriate reward of such a life? An illustration or two will make this
plainer than abstract reasoning would do. You hire a man
as a day-labourer. He comes to you at night for his pay.
If he has been industrious according to the contract, and
faithful to your interests, the case is a plain one, and you do
not hesitate.  But you put the interrogatory to him, "Did
you go into my vineyard, and spend the day in cultivating
it for me, and in a careful regard to my interests?"  " No,"
is the honest reply, " but I have spent the day diligently; I
have not been an idle man. I have attended to the cultivation of my own vineyard, and been faithful to my family,
and I may appeal to all my neighbours for my general
courtesy and honesty of life." If you now say that this is
a case which is so palpably absurd that it never could occur,
it may be replied that it has been made absurd on purpose.
Such a man would be only speaking out, in the honesty of
his heart, what is the secret claim of every one who is not
engaged in the service of God, and who yet feels that he
ought to be saved. He does not even profess to be attending to the interests of his Creator or engaged in his service.
You send a clerk into the Western States to collect your




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?              55
debts.  He returns.  "' Have you been diligent and successful in the duty assigned you?"  "I was diligent.  I travelled much.  In all my journey I injured no one; I treated
no one roughly; I addressed no one in any other manner
than in the language required in refined life.  I also entered
valuable lands for myself, and have a prospect of rising to
affluence and respectability."  "But what has this to do
with the reward which would be appropriate for one employed in my service?"  "Nothing," a child would reply.
But has it not just as much to do with it as the claim of a
man who does not profess to serve his Maker, and who lives
only to regard his own interests, has to the rewards of heaven? You have a servant or an apprentice whom you have
a right to punish if he does wrong. You enjoin on him a
specific duty, a duty of much importance to yourself, and
one that is clearly reasonable in its nature. At the proper
time you call him to an account. The.duty is not discharged; the service is not rendered. He pleads, however,
that he does not deserve punishment. He has been steadily
engaged all the while; he has been entirely honest and upright in his dealings with his fellow-servants; he has treated
them with perfect courtesy, and has even acquired an enviable reputation for amiableness of manners; nay, he has more
than once relieved a fellow-servant that was poor, and sick,
and dying. All this is very well, it would be said in reply;
but how can this constitute a claim for the specific reward
which was offered?  How  can it show that he who has
wholly omitted a known and specific duty does not deserve
the punishment which was threatened? With what face
could such a servant claim the reward due to faithful service
in the cause of his master? These plain and obvious principles are as applicable to religion as they are to the common
transactions of life.  God requires of us a specific service.
It is not general and indefinite, or left to our choice as to
what it shall be. It is that we shall serve him; that we




56      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
shall obey his commands; that we shall seek his glory; that
we shall love him, honour him, and treat him as oui God;
that we shall be penitent for our past sins, and be willing
to accept his favour on his own terms; that we shall be
serious, religious, prayerful, believing, holy. If this is
done, he promises heaven. But it is not done. Those now
referred to do not even lay claim to any of these things.
One of the last things that they would claim, or that their
friends would think of claiming for them, is that they are
religious, or that they act habitually from reference to the
will of their Creator. They claim to be moral, honest, true,
urbane, kind, but how can this lay the foundation of a claim
to the appropriate reward of piety? How, in these things,
can they render any service to God, when they do not even
intend it, which would be the proper basis of his rewarding
them in heaven? No more than the day labourer, the
clerk, and the servant carefully attentive to their own
interests, but wholly regardless of the interests of their employers, can expect a reward.
Having thus stated these arguments, to show that man
cannot by any services which he can render, make himself
so profitable to God as to merit salvation, or be of so much
advantage to his cause as to be an equivalent for the reward
of heaven, it remains only to remark,
(4.) Fourthly, that, if he cannot do this by a life of obedient holiness, he cannot by any offering which he has it in
his power to make. The reasons for this are so obvious as
to make it needless to dwell on them. One is, that no
offering which man can make, can be of any advantage or
profit to God. He is made no richer by any oblation of
silver and gold which we can bring him; he has no unsatisfied wants which can be supplied by our ministrations.
"If I were hungry," says he, " I would not tell thee; for the
world is mine and the fullness thereof.  Will I eat the flesh
of bulls or drink the blood of goats?" Ps. iv. 12, 13. An



HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            57
other reason is, that all that we possess is his, and we can
give to him nothing to which he has not already a prior and
supreme right.  " Every beast of the forest," says he, " is
mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the
fowls of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the forest are
mine." Ps. 1. 10, 11. Another reason is, that nothing that
we could offer would be a compensation for our past offences,
or repair the evils which we have done by our neglect of
duty and by our open sins.  "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the High God? Shall
I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a
year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of
rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give
my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for
the sin of my soul?" Micah vi. 6, 7.  And how shall a
man profit God; how lay him under obligation to save him;
how render such service as to be an equivalent for heaven?
Shall he flagellate his own body? Yet how will that profit
God? Shall he gird sackcloth on his loins, or wear an
irritating haircloth garment to torment himself? Yet how
will that benefit his Maker?  Will he go on a pilgrimage
to some distant shrine? How will his Maker be advantaged
by that? Will he shut himself up in a gloomy cell, and
withdraw from the light of the sun, and the moon, and the
stars, and from the society of living men, and doom himself
to wretchedness and wo? But will his God be made more
rich, or happy by such austerities?  Will he seize upon the
objects dearest to his heart, and destroy before bloody altars
the lives which his Creator has given? But will it profit
God if we kill his own creatures, and pour out their blood
before him? If none of these things will do, with what
plea of merit can we come before him? How can we render
such service as to have a claim on heaven?
In view of this train of thought, two additional observations may be made.




58      HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
1. First, we see the falsehood of that system of religion
which speaks of human merit; of the treasured and garnered
merits of the saints of former times. If the principles now
suggested are correct, how can there have been any such extraordinary and superabounding merit in past times that it
may be available now for men? If there were such treasured merit left by the saints of other days, it might still be
a question what claim of right any man has now to distribute it to others; but any such claim of superabounding
merit is alike at variance with the Bible, and with every
just principle of reason. Yet this doctrine is one of the
principal supports of the papacy, and is one of the dogmas
that come to our shores and demand credence in our land,
and of this generation. It will be shown hereafter, that
there is ample merit in him who died to atone for our sins,
to supply all our deficiencies, and the results of which may
be ours. The claim that superabounding merit has been
wrought out by the saints, derogates and almost annihilates
this; and the claim that his merits and theirs are lodged in
human hands to be dispensed or withheld at pleasure by a
priesthood, is one of the principal supports of the most appalling and terrific system of spiritual despotism that has
ever tyrannized over man. Thanks to him who has bought
us our portion, the disposal of the merits of his sacrifice is
committed to no human hands, and can be interrupted by
no human power!
2. This subject is one of direct practical interest to all.
If we are ever saved, there will be a good reason for it-for
nothing is merely arbitrary in the matter of salvation.
There are but two ways possible of being saved-the one by
our own merits, the other by the merits of another. If in
regard to the latter there are no merits of the "saints" on
which we can rely; no merits of parents or pious friends
of which we can avail ourselves, then the merits of the Lord
Jesus constitute the only foreign dependence which we can




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?           59
have. The whole question is then just this. Do we rely
on our own merits for salvation, or the merits of Jesus?
Here the world is divided —the Christian on the one side;
the pagan, the Mohammedan, the infidel, the moralist on the
other.  This single question separates the inhabitants of the
globe into two great parties never to be united.  But if the
principles above suggested are correct, it may be put to
every man-to his reason, his conscience, his heart, whether
he has any merit on which he can rely as a ground of salvation? Has he done any thing for which the equivalent is
to be found in the rewards of an eternal heaven?  Has he
so deserved the rewards of life, has he rendered such services
to his Maker that he can stand at the final bar, where we
all must soon stand, and claim an admission to heaven?
Can he demand it as a right that heaven's portal should be
thrown open to him, and he be welcomed there? If so, on
what ground? What is the basis of the claim? Religiocn?
The unconverted sinner makes no pretension to it.  Repentance?  He has never shed a tear over his sins.  The
love of God? He has no spark of love to that glorious
Being in his heart.  Sacrifices in his service?  He has
made none. An honest endeavour to do his will? He has
never made this the rule of life. What is the service which
he has rendered? What has been the life which he has
led?  What is the state of his account with God?  What
is the condition of his heart? O, let him look at the broken
law of God, his violated Sabbaths, his rejected gospel, his
grieved Spirit, his neglected word; let him look at his own
life of thoughtlessness, selfishness, and vanity; his neglect
of prayer, his pride and opposition to God; let him look at
the sins of childhood and the worldliness and wickedness of
riper years; let him look at the times when God has called
and he has refused, when the Saviour has stretched out his
hands and he would not regard it; let him look at his broken
vows and promises, the times when he promised that he




60      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
would be a Christian if he reached a certain period of life,
the solemn covenant which he made when he was sick, that
if God would spare him he would be his; let him look at
these things and then see whether he has a claim to an admission to heaven, and whether he can be received there
because he has been profitable to God.
V. What is meant by the merits of Christ?
There are few phrases in more common use than the
merits of Christ; few declarations that are repeated more
frequently by ministers of the gospel and others, than that
man can be saved only by His merits; and few things that
are more frequently uttered in prayer than that we plead
His merits only for our salvation. The frequency with
which this expression occurs, and the bearing which it has
on the general subject now under consideration, make it
proper that we should attempt an explanation of it. Common as the use of it is, a formal attempt to explain it is not
often made, and it is to be feared that it is often used without an intelligent apprehension of its meaning.
The phrase does not occur in the Bible; but the idea
which is intended to be conveyed by it exists there as a
vital and central thought in the whole plan of justification
by faith. In the prosecution of this subject it will be
proper,
1. To explain what is meant when we speak of the merits
of Christ; and
2. To show in what his merits consisted.
1. What is meant by the merits of Christ?
The general idea is expressed in the passage-John i. 16:
"and of his fulness have we all received, and grace for
for grace."  There was an "abundance" or "fulness" in
him of which we might partake; that is, there was a completeness-rrjpw/La-which, in our conscious want or deficiency, could meet all our necessities, so that we could re



HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            61
ceive " grace" corresponding with that which was in him.
When we speak of the merits of Christ in connection with
our salvation, it is meant that there was an amount of merit
in his services which he did not need for any personal advantage or for himself; which had been secured with a
special purpose to supply the great and undisputed deficiency of man, and which can be made available to us on
certain conditions, and in the way which God has revealed
as the ground of our acceptance. The main object is not
now to prove that there are such merits treasured up in
Christ, but to explain the language.  Whether the doctrine
be true, and if there be such merit in him, how it may be
available to us, will be the subject of future inquiry. In
the explanation of the subject we may then advert to,
(1.) The doctrine respecting merit laid down in the
last section.  A man merits a reward when he has earned
or deserved it; when he has fully complied with the
terms of the bargain; when his services are worth as much
to you as you pay him. We may recall the illustrations
from the day-labourer, the soldier, the physician, in each of
which cases it was said that the service rendered was fully
equal in value to the pay which was given. The service
measures the pay; the one is equal, or is supposed to be, to
the other.  To withhold the compensation is injustice, or
is palpably wrong. This is the ordinary and proper sense
in which the word merit is used among mnen, and it was in
this sense that we endeavoured to show that man cannot
merit salvation.  We observe,
(2.) That cases may arise where much more may be done
for you than one who is in your employ is strictly bound to
perform. A reference to some of these cases will enable us
to explain the subject before us.
(a) You have a man in your employ engaged under the
ordinary condition of service as a labourer or clerk.  Without any special agreement with him, or without any thing
8




62      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
being said about it in your contract, he is to do what is
commonly understood to be required in that condition of
life; what is usually done by those in the same employment. He is to be at his post at a certain hour in the
morning, and to remain until a certain hour in the evening,
and is to be faithful to his employer's interest, and diligent
in the prosecution of the business entrusted to him. On
these conditions, without any thing more specific, the contract is usually made with clerks, and book-keepers, and
day-labourers, and journeymen-mechanics, and lawyers and
ministers of the gospel.  It is not deemed necessary to be
any more specific than that they shall be faithful to the
interests of their employers, and render the amount of service which is usually expected in that occupation. But it
is very possible to conceive that one may go much beyond
that. He may be engaged at a much earlier hour than is
usual, and may prolong his toils far into the shades of night.
He may evince uncommon tact and sagacity in the management of affairs entrusted to him, and such may be his skill
and success that his services may have a value far beyond
any thing which you had anticipated in the contract. You
would not feel yourself at liberty to turn him off, or to complain if he had not done this; will not feel that he has a legal
claim on you for any thing more than you promised to pay
him, for you did not contract with him for this special service; but you will be likely to feel that lie has a claim of
honour on you; and if, when he leaves your service, you
know of any situation of special advantage that can be obtained, you would feel yourself under a sort of moral obligation to endeavour to secure it for him. Here is something merited beyond what he was bound to do.
(b) A second case. A man in your employ may be
placed in circumstances where he may have an opportunity
of doing something for your.special advantage, though of a
nature which was not distinctly specified- in your contract




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?          63
with him. He may have great sagacity, and may watch
the changes and chances in the market, and enable you to
make important and advantageous purchases; he may be in
possession of intelligence respecting coming changes in the
markets which may be of great service to you; or he may,
by uncommon tact in business, be enabled to save you from
inextricable bankruptcy. Now, if he is a mere book-keeper,
or salesman, you could hardly claim, as a matter of right,
that he should bring his sagacity in these things into your
service; perhaps you would hardly blame him if he took
advantage of it to advance his own interests, provided he
did not injure you. His specific business is to keep your
books correctly, or to sell your goods in the manner in which
you shall direct him, and his sagacity and tact in these departments you have a right to require to be employed in
your service. But your contract and your claim extend no
farther. Yet, if he chooses to go beyond this, and actually,
while he incurs no possible risks, is the means of great advantage to you, an honourable man would feel that he deserved an appropriate acknowledgment.  Many instances of
this kind might be referred to; but these will illustrate the
point under consideration.
(3.) It is necessary to make but one other remark, in
order to see the bearing of these illustrations on the case
before us. Reference has been made to abounding merit;
to cases in which service is rendered beyond what was in the
contract; to that which was wholly voluntary, and yet where
there would be a claim in honour, at least, for a suitable
acknowledgment, or where an honourable man would feel
himself under obligation to bestow a reward. The remark
which is now to be made, is that he who has this extra
claim on you may do what he pleases with the reward which
you may feel willing to give. It may not be needful for
him, or he may not choose to make use of it for himself,
but he may be disposed to make another use of it, which




64      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
will develop some trait of mind that will by no means diminish your respect for his character. Suppose some such
cases as the following in the application of the instances referred to: that he should ask you to aid a younger brother
of his that was just beginning business, and who was
greatly in need of credit; or that, on the supposition that he
should die, you would show kindness to an aged father or
mother; or that you should appropriate the gratuity which
you designed for him to some young man who was struggling to obtain an education.  Or, suppose that the faithful
servant should ask you to release from bondage his wife or
child, in consideration of the extra and quite equivalent
services which he had rendered to you. Or, to take another
case, suppose a friend of his had, in an unhappy moment,
defrauded you, might he not ask you to "set that to his
account?"  In either case, would you not feel that what he
asked he had a right to ask? And would you not be the
more deeply affected with respect for his character by this
request?  He did not perform the extra service for reward.
He did not expect it.  He did not mention it to you.  IHe
did not claim anly reward. But when 0you felt that he had
a claim to it, and pressed it upon him, and would not be
refused, he looked not for gorgeous or gay apparel for himself, or for a purse of gold, or a splendid house; nor did he
ask you to trumpet his fame; but he looked round on those
struggling with poverty, crushed and enfeebled by age,
bound in affliction and iron, or burdened with debts, which
they could never discharge, and asked you to forget him
and to remember them. The developments of such a character would fill your mind with new conceptions of its
beauty, and your heart would be insensibly knit with his.
It will be perceived that these illustrations bear on the
explanation of what is meant by the merits of Christ. His
merit was of this extraordinary or superabundant kind. It
was beyond what could have been demanded of him, and




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?           65
was such that if he chose to ask it, or so designed it, it
could be made available to others. This leads us to
2. The inquiry, in what his merits consisted.  Keeping the remarks already made in view, it will be necessary to show that all that he did when on earth was of
this extraordinary character; that he rendered real service
to the universe for which the rewards given him will be no
more than equivalent; and that his merits were of such a
nature that they may be made available to others.
(1.) All that he did was of an extraordinary character,
or was service which could not have been demanded of him.
This remark is based on the fact that he was divine, and has
no pertinency except on that supposition.  When it is said
that his service, or work, was such as could not be demanded,
it is meant that there was no law or obligation which could
bind the Divinity to become incarnate, to be an humble
teacher of mankind, to minister to their wants with his own
hands, or to make an atonement for their transgressions.
The entire transaction was of a kind which could be enforced
by no law. If He be equal to the Father and one with him,
he was under no law but the infinite and eternal law of his
own divine nature. There was no obligation on him to become a man, a priest, a sacrifice; to toil, to weep, to die.
Another illustration may be introduced here. There is
an heir apparent to a crown. Every consideration of propriety, and perhaps a statute law of the realm, require him
to perform the duties of a son in the palace, and to appear
and act on all occasions as becomes the first man in the
realm next to the throne. But there is no law which requires him to become a day-labourer, or a menial, or that
makes it his duty to go into some peasant's cottage and watch
the long night by the cradle of a dying child. There may be,
perhaps, no law against it if he chooses to do it; but it cannot
be demanded of him. The Son of God in heaven would
appear there always in a manner appropriate to his une6*




66      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD 7
qualled relation to the Father; but what law was there
requiring him  to come down to earth, to be a man of sorrows, to take part in our sadnesses and woes and to die?
If he did this, the service was altogether of an extraordinary character, and was entirely a work of merit.  This
remark is obvious.  Its bearings, if conceded to be true,
are of great importance.  The force and pertinence of this
illustration, as has been already remarked, proceeds on the
supposition that he is divine. If he is not, however exalted as a created being he may be, it does not appear how
he could have any extra merit, and consequently how the
doctrine of justification by his righteousness could be held.
If he is a mere man, or an angel, or an archangel, or creature of any rank, no such extraordinary service could be
rendered-none could be made available to us.
We have seen that man may acquire extra merit from his
fellow-man, merit which may be made available to others.
The question is, why a creature may not do this in reference
to the service of God; and why, if the Saviour were less
than divine, he might not do the same thing for us? The
answer to this question is obvious.  When you employ a
man, you contract for a certain amount of service or of
time.  You do not contract for all that he has.  You contract for what is usual, or what you specify. All beyond
the limits of that contract remains his.  But there is no
such contract, understanding or stipulation, express or understood, between a creature and God. All his powers, his
time, his talents, his service, his skill, his learning, his influence, belong to his Maker.  Of every creature, he demands " all the heart, the mind, the might, the strength."
There is not a moment of time in which a creature can feel
that he is released from the claim of his Maker; there is not a
power or faculty of mind or body which he possesses, that is
beyond the range bf the demand of His law; there is not a
service of prayer, or praise, or sacrifice, which he could render




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?          67
which is beyond the limits of his duty; there is not an act
of benevolence to the poor, the needy, the sinful, or the
dying, he can perform, which he can feel is beyond the
ail-comprehensive grasp of the divine command to do
good. Can a creature of the Almighty put himself into
the midst of a service acceptable to God which he will feel
was not required of him?  Can he love with an ardour
beyond what God requires?  Can he maintain a degree of
fidelity in temptation beyond what is demanded? Can he
stoop to some scene of wo, and do good to a sufferer in a
way which the law which binds him to God did not make
his duty? Can he evince compassion for the sinful and
the sad beyond what the law of his nature and the commandment of his Maker demands? If he cannot, how can
there be such extra merit that it can be made available to
others? And if the Lord Jesus were a mere man, as one
class of Socinians tells us; or an angel of exalted rank, as
another class assures us; or the highest created intelligence, as the Arian affirms, how could he have wrought out
any merit which could be available to us? How could he
have done any thing beyond what he was bound as a creature to do?  How could he so step beyond the limits of
the divine law, as by abounding merit, to save a world. It
is difficult to see, therefore, how he who denies the divinity
of the Lord Jesus can hold to the doctrine of a meritorious
sacrifice on his part, or to the doctrine of justification
through his merits at all; and there is a melancholy consistency in the philosophy and practical faith of those who
deny his divinity, in yielding up the doctrine of the atonement, and then the whole doctrine of justification by faith.
But admit that he is God, equal with the Father, and all is
clear. Then, being under no obligations to become incarnate, being bound by no law to leave the throne of heaven
and seek a home in a manger, a lodging place without a
pillow, a death on a cross, and a burial in the grave des



68      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
tined for another, all this is the work of extra merit, and
may all be available for others.  We see him in our world,
not as a mere man, and thus bound by law to render every
service to the cause of God, but as Immanuel-God with
us-the voluntary messenger from heaven-the equal with
God, performing a service to which no law bound him, and
to which no other powers were adequate, and which therefore may constitute a fulness of merit which may be available for those who have none.
(2.) The second remark is, that he rendered real service
to the universe by his work. His coming, his teaching, his
death, his resurrection, were an advantage to the cause of
God and of virtue, to the full extent of the reward which he
will receive. The universe has been so much profited by
his voluntary and wonderful service in the cause of virtue
and salvation, that there is a propriety that he should be
rewarded for it, and the reward which he will receive is no
more than an equivalent for the value of the service rendered.  It will be asked, What has been the advantage of
his work to the universe? In what way is it to be measured or estimated?  It may be replied, We do not know
fully yet, nor are our minds in a condition now, if they will
ever be, to estimate what is appropriate to " satisfy" him for
the " travail of his soul." But the general answer, whoever
can appreciate its meaning, will be that the value or worth
of his voluntary services is to be estimated by all the evils
which his coming has arrested or prevented, and by all
the happiness in this world and in heaven of which it has
been the cause. If we could ascertain this, we could estimate the extent of his services to the universe, and of
course the reward which is due him, or the amount of
his merit. No attempt can be made by us to gauge the
amount of this merit. All that can be done is to submit a
few hints to illustrate the real nature of the service which
he rendered.




HOW SHALTL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?          69
(a) He did voluntary good through his life. He healed
the sickI; gave sight to the blind; hearing to the deaf, and
vigour to the lame; he restored the maniac to his right
mind, and brought back the poor outcast who " dwelt among
the tombs" to the comforts of home.  All this was doing
good to the world, which if he had not come would not have
been done.
(b) He set a most holy example of virtue to mankind.
He showed what true virtue is; how man should live, and
how he should meet the temptations of the great enemy of
the soul. All this is so much gained to the cause of virtue,
above what would have been if he had not come- and the
value of having one perfect example in a world where there
had been no such standard, and amidst the conflicting
opinions of men on the subject of morals, cannot be estimated.
(c) He taught man by his example how to bear trials.
He himself went through all the usual forms of wo and
grief, and showed in each one of them, how man ought to
endure calamities, and how in them consolation might be
found. But who in a suffering and dying world can estimate the value of such an example?
(d) He taught man the true character of God; the nature
of his law; the kind of worship that would be acceptable to
him, and the way in which the throne of mercy may be approached. But who can estimate the value to a sinful
world of the knowledge of the way of pardon?
(e) He introduced a religion which has contributed everywhere to the promotion of industry, purity, chastity, truth,
honesty, intelligence, and liberty; which has raised one sex
from the deepest degradation, and softened the asperities,
and removed the tyranny of the other; which has led to the
founding of hospitals and asylums, and which will ultimately
put an end to all the forms of evil and vice which tyrannize




70      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
over man; and who can gauge the amount of service which
he has thus rendered to man and to the universe?
(f) He made an atonement for sin-his greatest, noblest
work. He vindicated by his death the honour and the law
of God; and solved the question which has everywhere confounded the human intellect, how justice and mercy can
meet together, and how righteousness can be maintained and
yet the sinner go free. He secured to the universe by his
death, all the advantages which could have been secured by
the everlasting punishment of the sinner himself, and all
the advantages which now result from admitting to heaven
countless millions, who, but for his sacrifice, would have
been eternally wretched: and what finite mind can estimate
the value of this service rendered to the universe?
(g) He checks evil by his gospel and his grace, and turns
the disobedient to the paths of virtue. Take one single example as an illustration of the amount of service which he
rendered-the case of Saul of Tarsus. Think of what he
would have been with his extraordinary talents, his uncommon learning, his vast energy of character, his restless
ambition, and his proud and self-confident heart, if there
had been no atonement, and then of what hle was after he
was converted to the cause of virtue and of truth. Think
of his influence while he lived, in meeting the evils and corruptions of idolatry, in closing temples of polluted worship,
in purifying the fountains of morals, and in diffusing abroad
the principles of pure religion. Think of the good which
has been done since his time, by his incomparable writings
in maintaining the truth, and imparting consolation in a
world of sorrow, and see in the conversion of that man an
instance of the kind of service which the Lord Jesus rendered to the universe.  Then reflect that the case of Saul
of Tarsus is but one of many hundreds of millions-individually less bright, but in the aggregate outshining his, as
the mingled light of the galaxy is of greater glory than the




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            71
twinkling of a single star: and then ask who can estimate
the amount of service which the Son of God has rendered
to the universe?  All that has been done by his holy life
and example; all that has been accomplished on earth by
the influence of his religion; all that his death did to
honour the divine law; all that has been or will be done by
arresting evil and staying the desolations of sin; all the
additions which have been or will be made by redemption,
to the numbers of the heavenly host, and all the immortal
songs and joys of the redeemed in heaven; all these things
are to be taken into this estimate, and will be the measure
of the voluntary service rendered to the universe. by the Son
of God. It remains only, in order to a complete explanation
of the subject, to add,
(3.) That all the merit of his work —all the reward
which he deserved, is available to others.  It is that
superabounding service which has been before referred to,
which can be appropriated in any way that he shall ask.
Not needing it for himself, for he dwells in "the glory
which he had with the Father before the world was," it
can be appropriated to those who are poor and needy, and
destitute of any claim of merit. The reward for all his extraordinary service may be such as he shall wish, and his
heart will not ask augmented glory for himself in heaven as
divine, but will seek it in the elevation and immortal felicity
of the poor and lost upon the earth for whom he died. By
such a reward the universe will lose nothing, but will on
every account be a gainer, and the benevolent heart which
rendered these extraordinary services, may be abundantly
satisfied by asking that the "lost may be saved." It was
on grounds like these that it was said in the promise, "Ask
of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Ps. ii. 8.  Thus too the promise was, "he shall see
of - the travail of his soul;" the fruit of his wearisome sor



72      HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
row, "and shall be satisfied." Isa. liii. 11.  Thus too, in
asking in his parting prayer, that his work on earth might
be remembered, he could use with propriety the strong language when he said, *" Father, I will that they also whoni
thou hast given me, be with me where I am, that they may
behold my glory which thou hast given me." John xvii. 24.
To secure their salvation and the universal spread of his
gospel, he can urge the extraordinary claim of the service
which he has rendered by his life of spotless virtue, his pure
example, his relief of human woes, and the sorrows which
he voluntarily endured, in order that the law of God might
be maintained, and eternal justice asserted even when salvation was offered to men.
If these views are correct, then it follows
1. That we are to look nowhere else than to Chlrist as the
meritorious cause of salvation.  Had it been possible for
any mere created being to have wrought out sufficient merit
to save the soul, the incarnation of the Son of God, and his
death on Calvary would never have occurred.  The moment
it is maintained that man may merit salvation for himself or
for others, the doctrine of the atonement is denied, and the
work of Christ dishonoured; and the doctrine that there are
anywhere or in any hands garnered up the merits of holy
men, of which we can avail ourselves, derogates to just the
extent in which it is held, from the great sacrifice, and is
an attack on the fundamental doctrines of the gospel.  In
our hopes of salvation we have but one place to which to
look. It is not what our own hands have done, or what has
been done by holy men of other times, it is the infinite
merit of the Son of God.
2. The merits of the Saviour are sufficient for the salvation of all mankind.  If the view which has been taken is
correct, it is clear that the benefit which he has rendered to
the universe by his holy obedience and death, are commensurate with any rewards which he may receive in connection




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?             73
with the salvation of men.  " It pleased the Father that in
him" in every respect, "should all fulness dwell," and
alike in his power, his benevolence, his willingness to save,
and the merits of his-work, there is an ample sufficiency for
the wants of all mankind. Needing none of the results of
his great work on earth, for the promotion of his own happiness, all that he did may be made available to others, and
all men may come with equal freeness and confidence.  He
had the promise of an ample and satisfactory reward when
it was said that he "should see of the travail of his soul and
should be satisfied," and on the basis of that promise he
himself uses such language as this, " If any man thirst, let
him come unto me and drink;" " Come unto me all ye that
are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest;" and
"whosoever will, let him come and take the waters of -life
freely." There was no original deficiency in the merits of
the Saviour for human salvation, nor has his merit been exhausted by the numbers that have already been saved.
Salvation in him is like a copious fountain breaking out in
a desert. Such a fountain is free for all who may come.
It stands in the pathway where the multitude move-where
the caravans pass along, and no one has a right to appropriate it to himself. No tribe of men may inclose it or may
obstruct its waters. One company of weary travellers has
as much right there as another, and to no one particularly
appertains the office of dispensing it to the fainting pilgrim.
Any one who will come and kneel down there may drink
freely. And it will never be exhausted. The fountain will
pour out its waters from age to age. The present company
of thirsty travellers will soon pass on. They will pursue
their journey and go off to die, but then the stream will
flow on unexhausted and inexhaustible to the end of time.
So it is with the fountain of salvation. As many of the
present generation as choose may come and partake, and
then as many of the next, and the next, and still the foun7




74      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
tain will flow on unexhausted and inexhaustible. It will
flow just as fresh and just, as full in the last generation that
lives, as it did in the days of the Saviour's personal residence on earth; as it does now; and the last sinner that is to
be saved, will find it as pure and as life-giving to his soul
as it is to ours.
VI. In what sense we arejustified by the merits of Christ.
In the previous sections, it has been shown that man cannot justify himself, and that he has no claim of meriit before
God, but that there is in the Lord Jesus infinite merit of
such a nature, that it may be made available to us. In the
prosecution of this general subject. it is proposed now to
illustrate two points:1. What is meant by justification in the gospel; and
2. In what way we are justified by the merits of Christ.
1. What is meant by justification in the gospel?
The object here is to state what is the exact condition of
a man who is justified. In what respect does he differ from
what he was before? What change has taken place in reference to him? How is he regarded by his Maker differently
from what he was before? What new relation does he sustain
to God, to his law, and to his plan of providential dealings?
These, it will be seen, are important questions which probably every one is disposed to ask who attentively considers
this subject.  They are questions, also, on which serious
mistakes are sometimes made as well by those who attempt
to explain the subject, as by individual Christians in reflecting on this new relation. A few remarks, showing what is
not meant, and what is, will make the subject clear.
(1.) It is not meant that a man who is justified on the
gospel plan, is justified in a legal sense. What it is to be
so justified has been before explained. It is when a man is
accused of a crime, and is able to vindicate himself either
by showing that he did not do the act charged on him, or




HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            75
that he has a right to do it. If he can do either of these
things, or, which is the same thing, if the charge is not
proved against him, he is acquitted by the law, or is held to
be righteous in regard to the offence charged. In the previous sections it has been shown that, in this sense, man
cannot be justified before God, and whatever may be thought
of the argument in the case, it is certain that this is not
the kind of justification described in the gospel. It is needful here to remark; only, that Christ did not. come to aid man
in justifying himself in this sense. He did not come to. take
the part of the sinner against God, and to enable him to
inake out his cause.  He did not come to be his advocate in
the sense of assisting him, in rebutting the charges made
against him;, in showing that the charges had been falsely
laid; in explaining his conduct so that it might not appear
to be wrong; or in offering palliations for admitted criminality.  Whatever, be the, nature of the work which the
Lord Jesus came to, perform, and however he may aid us in
our salvation, it is all done with the concession on his part,
that we are guilty to the full extent which the law charges
on us..
(2.) It is not, in any proper sense, a legal transaction.
Justification by the law is known only in one way —by perfect and uniform obedience.  The law of God, in' conformity with the general principles of law, knows no other mode.
It makes no provision for the' pardon or justification of those
who violate it, any more than a human law does. The
plan of justification in the gospel is a departure from the
regular process'of law; and whatever inferences may follow
from this, either against the system or in favour of it, the
fact is not to be denied.  "But now," says the apostle
Paul, " the righteousness of'God without the law is manifested;" that is, the method of justification in a way different from that known in the law. Rom. iii. 21.  All attempts to show that the plan of justification in the gospel




76      HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
is a legal transaction, or is in accordance with legal principles, have been signal failures, and if there can be no other
justification than that which is properly legal, the whole
elfort to be saved must be given up in despair. Nor does it
mean,
(3.) That the man who is justified ceases to be ill-deserving or guilty in the proper sense of the word. When
a man is justified by law, he is declared to be not guilty
or ill-deserving. But it is not so when a man is justified by the gospel. It is expressly said, respecting this
plan, that God "justifies the ungodly," (Rom. iv. 5,) meaning that it is admitted they are ungodly at the time, or that
they are personally guilty. The act of justification does
not change the nature of the offence, or prove that to be
right which is in itself wrong. Crime is what it is in its own
nature, and is not modified by the manner in which he who
commits it is treated. To pardon a man out of the penitentiary
does not prove that the act of burglary or theft for which
he was committed was innocent; to forgive a man under the
gallows does not prove that he is not ill-deserving for the act
of murder. To be led from any consideration to treat a
man who has injured us as if he had not done it, does not
prove that the act was not wrong; or that he should not
regard himself as blameworthy for having done it. Our
kind treatment of him will not be likely, in any degree, to
diminish his sense of his criminality, and the act of pardon
with which an offender against God is met when penitent,
will not lessen his sense of his own guilt. God never comes
in the act of justification to convince him that he has not
done wrong, but to save him, though it is admitted that he
is a great sinner, and the consciousness that he is a sinner
will attend him and humble him through life. He will lift
up his eyes and his heart with thankfulness that he is a pardoned man; not with pride and self-complacency, that he
is an innocent man.  He will have the spirit of the publi



HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?             77
can, not of the Pharisee. The publican that went down
to his house justified would not go feeling that he was innocent; he would be filled with gratitude that so great
a sinner might be forgiven.
(4.) Justification in the gospel does not mean mere pardon. It has been supposed by many that this is all that is
denoted by it. But there are insuperable objections to this
opinion. One is, that it is a departure from the, common use
of language.  When a man who has been: sentenced to the
penitentiary is pardoned before the term of his sentence is
expired, we never think of saying that he is justified. The
offence is forgiven, and the penalty is remitted; but the use
of the word justif~y in his case would convey a very different idea from the word pardon.  Another objection is, that
the sacred writers have so carefully and so constantly used
the word justify.  If mere pardon or forgiveness were all
that is intended, it is difficult to see why another word has
been constantly employed, and a word so different in its signification. And another objection is, that mere forgiveness
is not all which the case seems to demand. There was required a reinstating in the favour of God; a restoration to
forfeited immunities and privileges, and a purpose in regard
to future treatment which is not necessarily involved in the
word pardon. It may be conceived that, in cases of pardon
for high offences, there would be required, in order to meet
all the circumstances of the case, not only a remission of
the penalty, but a distinct act restoring to the offender or
his family his title, his hereditary honours, and his place in
civil relations. The pardon of Lord Bacon would not have
restored him at once to the bench, nor the forgiveness of
Raleigh to his station in the court of Elizabeth.  In the
case of a sinner against God, pardon respects mainly the
past; justification the purpose of God in reference to the
future.  Forgiveness remits past crimes; justification respects the purpose of God to treat the offender as if he had
7*




78      HOW SHALL. MAN BE JUST WITH GOD'?
not sinned,-and though these may be simultaneous, yet
they may be separated in conception as distinct things. The
one forgives the past; the other reinstates the offender in
the lost favour of God.
(5.) It is not meant that, in the act of justification, the
merits of the Lord Jesus become so transferred to us that
they can be regarded as literally ours, or that his righteousness is in any proper sense our own. This is not true, and
cannot be made to be true. Moral character is not capable
of being transferred from one individual to another; and
however the benefits of what one does may be conveyed to
another, it will always be true that the character of an individual is what it is in itself. It will always be true that
Christ, and not we, obeyed perfectly the law of God; that
Christ, and not his people, died on the cross; and that the
merit of his life and death is strictly his, and not theirs.
It will always be true, also, that they violated the law of
God; that their characters were sinful, and that they
deserved not the mercy of God. No man can really believe that the moral character of one individual can be
transferred to another, and no one should charge the Bible
with inculcating any such doctrine either with respect to the
effect of Adam's transgression on his posterity, or the righteousness of the Redeemer in the salvation of his people.
We are prepared now to remark positively,
~ (6.) That justification on the gospel plan denotes a- purpose on the part of God to treat a sinner as if he were righteous.  It implies an intention not to punish him  for his
sins; not to regard him as any longer under condemnation;
not to treat him as an alien, an apostate, and an outcast; but
to regard and treat him in the future, in all his important
relations, as if he had never sinned. It involves the purpose to shield him from the condemning sentence of the
law and the wrath that shall come upon the guilty; to admit him to the fellowship of unfallen beings; to regard




.HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD.          79
him as entitled'to all the privileges of a child of God, as
if he had not fallen; to throw around him the aegis of the
divine protection and favour to the end of the present life,
and then to admit him to immortal life in heaven. These
things would have been his if he had not fallen; and these
things are now made his in virtue of the merits of the Redeemer. In all his great relations, in all the most permanent and important things that affect him, he is, and is to
be, as if he had not sinned. The main evils of the apostacy in his care are arrested, and it is the purpose to regard
and to treat him as a child of God.
It is important to remark that, in these statements, it is
not designed to affirm that, in all respects, the act of justification places a man in precisely the same situation in which
he would have been if he had not sinned. It is. indeed,
designed to teach that, in the direct divine dealings with
him, he will be regarded and treated as if he were personally righteous. But why, then, it will be asked, does he
suffer and die?  Why is he not removed to heaven, as
Enoch and Elijah were, without seeing death? Why does
the justified man ever pass through severe bodily trials, like
Job or Hezekiah; or experience the evils of poverty and
want, like Lazarus; or why is he called to part with beloved children; or to be thrown into prison, or to lie down
in the sorrow of the most painful form of death, as thousands have already done, and as the children of God now
often do?
It is necessary to make such exceptions or qualifications as
these in explaining the nature of justification.  Though
justified, man is not, in fact, treated in this world, in all
respects, as he would have been if he had not sinned. In
the life to come he will be. But nothing is plainer than
that, in the present life, things occur, in reference to the
treatment of those who are justified, which would not have
occurred if man had not sinned, and which will not occur




80      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?'
in heaven.  Poverty, sickness, bereavement, death, and kindred evils, come upon the righteous and the wicked, the
saint and the sinner, the man who is justfied and the man
who is not. These evils are, indeed, softened and mitigated by religion, and may be among the means by which
the justified man is better prepared for heaven, but still
they exist as evils; and are to be regarded as among the
fruits of sin not removed by the act of justification, and as
furnishing the exceptions or qualifications alluded to when
it is said that, in this life, the justified man is not treated
in all respects as if he had not sinned. The reasons why
the evils of sin are not entirely arrested by the act of justification, and why the believer is not treated in this life, in
all respects, as if he had not sinned, seem to be principally
two:(a) One is, that it is not the nature of religion to arrest or
change the operation of physical laws. It will have an
indirect and gradual effect in checking some of those laws;
but to have made that effect direct and immediate, would
have required a constant miracle. It is not the design of
religion to restore health or property which have been wasted
by dissipation; to check the results of vice in those who
have been led astray by evil example, or to stay the effects
of a life of guilt on our physical frame. A life of virtue
will ultimately do much to accomplish this; but to do it at
once would require the physical power of a miracle. For
the same reason, to be justified does not save from temporal death, and death in accordance with the laws of our
physical being. No one can doubt that God could have
saved us from this, but it would be easy to suggest reasons
why it has not been done.
(b) Another reason why the act of justification does not
secure the same treatment in all respects here as if man had
never sinned, is that he who is justified, and who is at heart
a true believer, is often in circumstances where he needs




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?             81
the discipline of the hand of God. He is not at once made
perfect; and his imperfections, his wanderings, his neglect
of duty, his worldliness, often demand the interposition of
God for his own good in a way which would neither be necessary nor proper in the case of one who had never sinned.
Hence if the Christian sins, he may be recalled even by
stripes. Hence he comes under the regular physical laws
of the divine administration in the world. Hence he is
sick or bereaved.  Hence, like other men, he may be cut
off by the pestilence, may be swallowed up in the promiscuous ruin of an earthquake, or lie down on a bed of long
and lingering disease, and die. Here, he is subject to the
physical laws of our being, and to the administration of a
wise discipline; in the world to come he will be treated
altogether as if he had never sinned. No distinction
will be made between him and unfallen beings, nor will
there be any such remembrance of his own former guilt
that he will occupy a less elevated position, or have less
ready access to the throne than if he had never been a
transgressor.
It was proposed
2. To show how justification is accomplished through
the merits of Christ, or how his merits become available
to us for this purpose. It is not uncommon to say, in
explaining this, that his righteousness is imputed to us,
or that it becomes ours. But, as this language to many
minds does not convey a very definite conception, and as
on other minds it often conveys erroneous impressions, and
seems to be irreconcilable with the common notions of men
about moral character, it is necessary to explain in what
sense we become -justified by the merits of Christ. Perhaps in doing this, also, it may be shown that, so far from
being contrary to the common notions of men about what is
right and proper, it is, in fact, but carrying out, on the most
elevated scale possible, what is practically occurring every




82      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
day in the common relations and transactions of life. It is
to be observed then,
(1.) That we are often benefitted by what others have
done.  The meaning is, that what they have done is of the
same advantage to us, for certain ends, as if we had done it
ourselves.  A case or two, taken from familiar transactions,
will illustrate what is meant, and help to a proper explanation of the subject.  Take the case of'a father and a son.
The reputation of the one is often a passport or recommendation to the other of very great value as he enters on
life.- The son has, as yet, no known character, no acquaintance with the world, no credit. The father has all these.
He is widely known as a man of virtue; he has an extensive and honoured circle of acquaintance; he has ample
credit in the business in which he is engaged. Now, while
it is true that this character and credit belong to the father
as his'own, and cannot be literally transferred to the son, it
is also, true that, for certain purposes, it may be made to
answer the same ends for him as if it were his own. Unless by his own misconduct he shall forfeit the advantage
which he might derive from it, it will be a passport to him
as he enters on life; it will go before him preparing many
hearts to greet him with kindness; it will obtain for him
the confidence of others; it may be the means of securing
for him many a friend and helper when calamities come,
even when his father lies in the grave.  While it will always be true that all the merit and the credit appertain to
his father, and while whatever may be his own subsequent
worth, he will cherish a deep and abiding impression of
that, it is also true that, for certain purposes, he could have
derived no higher advantages in the case, if the character
and the credit had been his own. It would not, indeed,
to all intents and purposes be the same; but there are great
and valuable ends in his passage through the world, which
could be no better secured if all this had been his own.




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            83
The influence of his father's name and character, unless he
forfeits the advantage, will attend him far on, perhaps
entirely through, the journey of life.
Take another common case.  A young man embarks in
business without capital. He has acquired already, it may
be, a character for industry, talent and honesty; but he has
no means by which he can commence the business of his
life. What he wants now is credit. If he had that he
would be sure of success. But he has none, as yet, of his
own. He has had no opportunity to make himself known
to secure the extensive confidence of his fellow-men. You
have had such an opportunity and have done it.  To a certain extent and for certain purposes, you allow him to make
use of your name. You endorse his paper, and agree to
be responsible for him. Now this, to him, in the case referred to, is of just as much value as though the credit attached to your name were his. It will be worth as much to
him in the particular matter referred to as though he himself earned all the influence attached to that name, and
secured, by a long and upright life, the credit which it conveys. There will be, indeed, in other respects, important
points of difference, but not in the immediate use which he
designs to make of the name. He will have a very lively
sense of the truth that he himself has not this credit; that
he is unknown, and that he is under the deepest obligations
to you. Ile will never so far mistake the matter as to suppose that your moral character and worth are transferred to
him, or that he can regard either as, in any proper sense, his
own; but he will consider that this is available for just the
purposes for which he wants it. It is all he needs to secure
the grand object of his life, and is as good to him as if it
were his own.
Further: if we would look over society, we should
find that this arrangement prevails everywhere, and that
we are indebted to it every day. It may be doubtful




84      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
whether we live a single hour, or execute a single plan
of life, without being more or less indebted to it. It is an
influence diffused around us like the air we breathe, or the
sun which shines on our way; or it is like the tissues of
the human frame where each part derives benefits in its
functions from the numerous other parts with which it is
more or less closely interwoven. It enters into the very
texture of society that we avail ourselves of the toils, the
sacrifices, the virtues, and the honoured names of those
with whom we are connected. No man acquires a name
for virtue who does not do much to benefit his children and
friends in this way, and one of the chief stimulants to effort
in parents is, that they may place their children on as high
vantage ground as possible when they embark on life. That
youth enters on life under great disadvantages who cannot
encircle himself with this influence, and who is constrained
to " cut his way" to respectability or to wealth alone. As
a matter of fact, however, there are few that do this. The
name and influence of a father or a friend; a letter of commendation from those who are known and loved, will be a
passport to us in distant climes, and among strangers; will
meet us with its benign influence on the Rhine or the Ganges; will help us where we should otherwise fall into the
hands of freebooters in a foreign land, or when we should
otherwise sink under poverty and want; or on. a distant
shore will raise up for us a friend on the bed of death. He
enters life under the best auspices who can avail himself
most of this without sacrificing his independence or being a
sycophant or parasite; and he is the most foolish and ungrateful of mankind who would willingly renounce all this
advantage, and choose to weather the storms of life and
make his way through the world friendless and alone.
(2.) The second remark in explaining the way in which
we are justified by the merits of Christ, is, that there are
two methods by which we avail ourselves of the benefit of




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            85
the character and virtues of others. The one is, by natural
relationship. This occurs in the case of a child, who, as a
matter of course, derives advantage from the industry, the
character and the credit of a parent. The other is, by an
arrangement made for that end. Instances of this latter kind
occur everywhere. The case of an adopted child is one-a
case where there is no natural relation, and no natural claim,
but where one chooses for any reasons, that the child of
another should be received into his family and treated as if
he were his own.  It occurs not unfrequently in the case of
a matrimonial alliance, where the one party avails itself of
the name and influence and rank of the other, and on that
account has a degree of respect to which, otherwise, there
would be no claim. It occurs in the cases already referred
to, where the use of a name is conceded. The name of the
missionary Schwartz was thus the means of saving from
starvation the whole of a British garrison, and many a man
owes his subsequent elevation in life, to assistance furnished
him at the outset. Cases have arisen where the signet or
*e ring of a prince has been placed in the hands of another, conveying to him, if danger should befal him, all the
influence and security which they would to the owner himself; nor is it very uncommon to give a carte blanche to a
friend to be filled up at pleasure. It remains now only, in
view of these illustrations,
(3.) To remark in explanation of the way in which we
are justified through the merits of Christ. It is, that we
are permitted to avail ourselves of his abounding merits, so
that we may be treated as if they were our own. It
is not that his nftrits are transferred to us, or that his moral
character or righteousness becomes properly ours, or that we
cease to deserve punishment, or that an apology is made for
our sins, or that Christ takes our part against justice; but
that his merits are so ample, his life and death have accomplished so much, and his work has been so meritorious, that
8




86      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITII GOD?
we may; by a suitable connection with him, be regarded and
treated as if we were truly righteous before God; so that
" God can be just and the justifier of him that believeth in
Jesus;" just and true while he "justifies the ungodly.!'
This connection between the Saviour and those who are
benefitted by his merits is not a natural connection, for no
such relation by nature subsists as would entitle any one to
be regarded and treated as righteous on his account, but it
is a relation which is constituted entirely by faith. The
influence of faith in forming it, and in making it proper
that they who are united to him should be treated as righteous, will be explained hereafter. It is sufficient now to
remark, that the relation which is sustained is one that is
formed, not one that exists by nature.
It is formed by a personal union of the soul to Christ,
and by the gracious concession on his part in accordance
with the divine arrangement, that we may avail ourselves
of his infinite and inexhaustible merits, so that we may be
treated as if they were our own. There are two additional
thoughts which may be suggested to illustrate this:
(a) The one is, that his merit is inexhaustible. There
is no diminution or Exhaustion of the merit of his work., by
the numbers that avail themselves of it.  This makes the
plan of redemption wholly different from any thing which
occurs among men. A man of the widest credit and highest
standing may be conceived to allow his name to be so often
used by those who have no claim to it, or who turn out to
be worthless, and abuse his claim, as to exhaust his credit,
and make his name good for nothing. Not so the Saviour.
No numbers that apply exhaust his credit, or diminish at
all the merit of that blood by which they are saved. That
blood is as efficacious now, and that holy name of our advocate is as much honoured in heaven now, as when the first
sinner was justified, and when the gates of glory were first
thrown open to receive a ransomed soul.




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?           87
(b) The other remark is, that the Lord Jesus becomes
the surety that the universe shall suffer no wrong by our
being admitted to heaven. So far as we are concerned, he
pledges himself to meet all the claims of the law and of
justice upon us. That is, he becomes the surety, that,
under this arrangement, as great good shall result to the
universe by our being saved, as would be by our punishment forever. By such punishment, nothing would have
been gained in regard to the honour of the law, the truth
of God, and the interests of justice, which are not secured
under the present arrangement by the substituted sorrows
of the Son of God in making the atonement. Thus he becomes the " surety of a better covenant," (Heb. vii. 22;)
and stands before the universe as the public pledge that no
harm is done to any interest of truth and justice by the admission of one who is an acknowledged sinner, into heaven.
Thus the publican was justified; thus Paul, the persecutor
and blasphemer, won Christ and was found in him, not
having his own righteousness which was of the law, but
that which was through the faith of Christ," (Phil. iii. 8, 9;)
and thus multitudes of the profane and the sensual by believing on Christ, have entered heaven and been blessed.
There stands the great Advocate, not for their sins but for
them; and there stands the security, that no injury shall be
done by treating even such sinners forever as j/ they were
righteous, and that all that law or justice could ask-all that
could be secured either by their own personal perfect obedience, or by their enduring the eternal penalty of the law,
has been secured by his holy life and meritorious death.
When, therefore, they enter heaven, it is not over prostrated
law; over a humbled government; over disregarded threatenings; by a changeful policy, or by partiality in the administration; it is because their great Surety has himself
secured the honour of the law, and that in their conscious
destitution of merit he has enough for them all. His name




88      HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
is the guarantee to justice and to God; his inexhaustible
merits the reason why they may be treated as if his righteousness were their own.
This is what is properly meant by imputation.  The true
doctrine implies no transfer of moral character; no infusion
of righteousness into the soul; no physical identity between
the Redeemer and his people; no charging of their sins to
him, so that he became in any pr.oper sense a sinner or deserved to be put to death,-nothing but the purpose on the
part of God, in virtue of what he has done, to treat those
who are themselves guilty, as if they were righteous. " By
that righteousness being imputed to us," says President
Edwards, "is meant no other than this, that the righteousness of Christ is accepted for us and admitted instead of
that perfect inherent righteousness which ought to be in
ourselves. Christ's perfect obedience shall be reckoned to
our account, so that we shall have the benefit of it, as though
we had performed it ourselves." Vol. v. 394.
These views have reference to the most important subject
of religion. They pertain to that great doctrine which
separates Christianity from every other system of religion;
and to the answer which Christianity furnishes to the question asked with so much solicitude in every age, " How shall
man be justified with God?" The answer is, " That we are
justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus." Romans iii. 24. It is this doctrine which
divides the religion of the gospel from all other systems; which
makes it what it is; which gives it whatever influence or
power it has in speaking peace to the troubled conscience,
and bidding the spirit that is captive under sin go free. It
is this which will enable man to appear before his final
Judge justified, not by any miserable attempt to deny the
fact that he is a sinner; to apologise for his errors and follies, and found a claim to favour on such apology; to substitute an external morality for that holiness of heart which




HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?           89
the law of God requires, or to present as a ground of acceptance the vain oblation of outward forms.
But it should be observed also, that though this method
of justification is entirely peculiar to Christianity, and separates it from all other religious systems, yet that it accords
with principles prevailing everywhere in society, and on
which men act every day and in every land. It is the embodiment and concentration of these principles, and shows
their operation on the highest scale possible. Thus, as
already remarked, in matters pertaining to this life, we owe
to the name and standing and credit of others, an introduction to the world, facilities for doing business, valued friends
who may succour us in trouble: and on substantially the
same principles, though on an infinitely higher scale, we
owe to the merits of another-the Son of God —an introduction to the divine favour; a passport to heaven; the
friendship of angelic beings; the peace of pardon; the calmness of the Christian's death; and the crown incorruptible
beyond the grave.  Whatever we shall have in the long
ages of eternity, of joy or peace, of honour or favour, is to
be traced to the operation of this principle on the highest
scale possible; that we may be benefitted by the sacrifices
and toils; the name and merit; the righteousness and sufferings of another.
In common affairs we do not disregard or undervalue this.
Those who enter on life regard it as a felicitous circumstance
in their condition, if they may go forth with such passports
and commendations to the esteem of the world. That
young man would regard himself justly as destitute of every
manly and generous feeling, as well as every principle of
self-respect, who should discard and spurn this advantage,
and prefer to go forth to the world without the commendation or the patronage of a single friend.  We are going to
a more important theatre of being than is this narrow
world. We shall soon pass beyond its outer bounds and
8'*




90      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
move through other regions. We are to go up and meet
our Maker; to enter on a mode of existence that shall have
no end; to be associated with now unknown orders of beings;
and there are great interests at stake, compared with which
all the interests of earth are trifles.  We go to a royal
court-the cou't of heaven-where we have no claim to a
right to appear. We go up to obtain, if we are happy there,
the favour of a Being whose law we have violated, and
whose displeasure we have incurred. We go where we can
take no wealth with us, and where if we could, it would
avail nothing; where we shall be disrobed of all in a graceful exterior, or in fascinating manners that may commend
us to others here, and where, if it should accompany us, it
would be valueless; where the name of a father, or the
powerful influence of a friend, that might commend us to
the favour of men, would be of no avail; where nothing on
which we here rely as a passport to others, can be a commendation. But there is one in human flesh that dwells
there. He once lived among men. He was most holy,
and lowly, and pure, but he died. He rose from the tomb,
and the everlasting gates were opened, and he entered his
native skies. To the very interior of the court of heaven;
to the sacred seat of Deity; to the throne itself, he has been
admitted, and is seated there. With all that heaven he is
familiar, for he is there at home. With all its streets of
gold, with all its far distant mansions, with all its many departments fitted up for the abodes of the blessed, he is familiar. His powerful aid he proffers us in our sin and ignorance and helplessness, and assures us that he is willing that
we should plead his name, and make mention of his merits
as If they were our own, as a reason why we should be welcome there. In heaven his plea has never been denied;
the claim of his merits has never been dishonoured. Shall
we refuse his offer?  Shall we spurn his name?  Shall we
turn away from that friend, and advocate, and patron, and




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            91
go there friendless and alone? Shall we seek to commend
ourselves to a holy God by our own doings, and to stand
there in our own attempts to vindicate our ways? Shall we
spurn the robes of salvation which he proffers-so white, so
pure, so full and flowing, and gird ourselves with the rags
of our own righteousness?
VII. The influence offaith in justification.
In the last section, in showing how we are saved through
the merits of Christ, it was remarked that the means by
which we become interested in his merits, or by which they
are made availiable to us, is faith. It was then proposed to
go into a fuller explanation in the subsequent parts of this
tract. That duty it remains now to perform.
The substance of the Christian doctrine on this subject
is expressed in the following passages of Scripture:-" For
I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Chyist; for it is the
power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth,
to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is
revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith; as it
is written, " The just shall live by faith."  Ron. i. 16, 17.
The doctrine of this passage is, that a man is considered
just before God, and treated as such, not in virtue of his
own works, but in virtue of his exercising faith in Christ.
"For therein," that is, in the gospel, "the righteousness
of God," or God's plan of regarding and treating men as
righteous, "is revealed from faith to faith;" that is, by
faith unto those who have faith, or who believe, as it- is
written, " The just shall live by faith," or those justified by
faith shall have everlasting life. It is needless to prove at
length that this is the settled doctrine of the New Testament.  "Therefore we conclude," says the apostle in the
third chapter of this epistle, (ver. 28,) " that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."  Again, " By
the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his




92      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
sight. But now the righteousness of God without the law
is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus
Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe; for there
is no difference." Rom. iii. 20-22. So the apostle Paul
says again, "A  man is not justified by the works of the
law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ." Gal. ii. 16. In
accordance with this, is the great doctrine which the Saviour taught his disciples to promulgate as comprising all
that he designed them to teach: "Go ye into all the world
and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not
shall be damned." Mark xvi. 15, 16. That is, there is no
other method of being saved but by believing, or by faith,
and if a man has not this, he must be lost.
Probably every one who has ever read these passages has
been disposed to ask, Why is so much stress laid on faith in
the plan of redemption?  Why is it made so central, and
so indispensable in the salvation of the soul? What inherent virtue is there in this act that has given it such a preeminence over all other virtues?  What is there in this
that should make it a substitute for all the good works that
men can perform? Perhaps some will be disposed to add,
that the system of Christianity is thus removed from all
other systems, and is different from all the laws and principles on which men act in other things. Merit, in other
cases, is not in accordance with a man's belief, but according to his virtues —his moral worth-and why should faith
have such special eminence in the eye of God? The rewards of this life are not distributed according to a man's
faith or credulity, and why should the rewards of heaven
be? WVe judge of the excellency of a man's character not
according to the readiness with which he embraces what is
proposed to him for his credence, but usually somewhat in
proportion to his caution and the slowness of his belief, and




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?             93
why does religion require a man to hasten to believe that
which is proposed to him, as if this were the chiefest of the
virtues? When, also, a man is put on trial, he is acquitted, not because he exhibits an example of trusting in his
judge or his advocate, but because he is able to vindicate
his conduct; and why shall we not look for something analogous in religion? Why are pardon and hope; life and
joy; heaven and glory; peace here and bliss hereafter; all
made to depend on faith-" the centre and the circumference;. the beginning, the middle, and the end, according
to the gospel, of every virtue? These are questions which
it is natural to ask; they are questions which the friend of
Christianity should feel it to be a part of his vocation to
answer. The relation or connection which these questions
bear to the subject before us is this: —Supposing that man
has no merit of his'own, as has been shown, and that there
are infinite merits in the Redeemer through which we may
be saved, why is it proper that we should avail ourselves of
those merits only through faith? Why should faith be the
instrument by which we may be treated as if those merits
were ours?
The answer to these questions is, that, in the circumstances of the case, faith constitutes a union with the Redeemer, of such a nature as to make it proper to treat us
substantially as he himself is treated; that is, as righteous;
to make it proper that we should share his happiness, his
favour, his protection on earth, and his glory in heaven;
that the union formed by faith between the soul and the
Redeemer is so tender, so close, and so strong as to.imply
an identity of interest, and to make it certain and proper
that the blessings descending on him should, according to
their capacity and wants, descend on those who believe. It
is meant that the particular reason why faith has been selected as the means of this is, that it constitutes a union
more close, firm, and enduring than any other virtue, and




94      HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
that it meets and overcomes more evils in the world than any
other act of the mind would do. On this account, it is singled out from all other acts of the mind in the plan of justifying men. To many these remarks may appear abstract
and obscure now. It is proposed, therefore, in a series of
observations to show why faith is so important; why it is the
very cardo rerum-the hinge of salvation.
One other preliminary remark should be made. It is
that there is a great and essential difference between faith
and credulity. We distinguish them accurately in common
life; we fear that they are sometimes confounded when men
think of religion.
The inquiry proposed embraces essentially the two following points:-Whyfaith is of so much importance in a work
of salvation; and why faith in Christ is made so prominent
and essential.  The first point of inquiry is, why faith is
of so much importance in a work of salvation. In reply to
this inquiry let it be observed,
(1.) That faith acts an important part in the affairs of
the world.  Using the word in the sense of confidence,
there is nothing else on which the welfare of society more
depends, or which is more indispensable to its prosperous
and harmonious relations.  It enters into every thing,
and we are every day and every hour acting under its influence, and depending on it as essential to all that we
hold dear. It is the cement of families, of neighbourhoods,
of governments, of nations.  The faith of treaties, of compacts, of promises, of friendships, of affection, is that which
holds the world together, and without which society would
go to pieces. To loosen it at once, would be like loosening
every rope in a ship, or unscrewing every fastening and bolt
in a machine.  It is by faith, or mutual confidence, that
the relations of domestic life are maintained; that the harmony of a family is secured; that business, in a mercantile
community, is carried on; that a banking institution effects




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?             95
the purpose for which it was chartered; or that a government can secure the ends for which it was instituted. It is
by faith only that we derive lessons of valuable instruction
from history, or act with reference to what is yet to come.
If we had no more confidence in any of the testimonies of
history than we have in the fabulous details of the dynasties of India, the mythological periods of Grecian history,
or the legends of the saints, all past history would be utterly useless, for it would convey no certain lessons; if we
had no faith in the stability of the course of events-the
rising of the sun, the moon and the stars; the return of
the seasons; the continuance of the laws of magnetism, of
gravitation, or of vegetation, we should form no plan for
the future; we should neither plant a field, nor build a ship,
nor venture out on the ocean where we might soon be without sun, or star, or compass. We confide in our teachers,
in a physician, a counsellor, a clergyman, and it would be
impossible that the cause of education, jurisprudence or religion, could be maintained if there were no such confidence.
The farmer of the Eastern States believes in the vast fertility of the West, of which he has heard, but which he
has never seen, and, with his wife and children, leaves the
graves of his fathers to seek that land on the strength of
his faith; and the merchant believes that there is such a
place as Canton or Calcutta, though he has seen neither;
and on the strength of that faith would embark all his property in the same vessel, and stake the whole question about
making a fortune in this world on his strong confidence that
such places, of which he has heard, have an existence. In
like manner we are exercising confidence in every thing.
We believe the testimony of the historians, though we
never saw Xenophon, or Thucydides, or witnessed the events
of which they wrote; we vote for the man whom we have
never seen; we confide in the bankers across the waters
whom we never expect to behold.  Were it not for this




96      HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
unceasing confidence in the varied operations of faith, we
could not get along for a single day or hour. The affairs
of the world would at once stand still. The bands of society would at once become loosened, and every thing would
fall into irretrievable confusion.
It is true, there may be much credulity in the world, and
multitudes in all professions and relations in life are iinposed on. But so, also, there is much counterfeit money,
and many may be injured or ruined by it. But the existence of a circulating medium is indispensable, and there is
by far more genuine than false coin at any time in the
world, and any quantity of spurious coin does not render
that valueless which is genuine. So any amount of credulity does not prove that it is improper that men should ever
repose confidence in one another, or that all faith is valueless.
(2.) The second observation illustrating the importance
of faith with reference to the subject before us is, that faith
is the strongest conceivable bond of union between minds
and hearts. It is, in fact, the cement of all unions, and
without which all else is valueless. In friendships, in treaties, in national compacts, in social intercourse, in the tender domestic relations, it is the very bond of union, and
there is nothing else that can be a substitute for it. The
seal which is affixed to a. letter that is sent to a friend does
not make it secure because no one has power to break it, but
because there is confidence in each postmaster through
whose hands it may pass, and in each stranger or friend
into whose hands it may happen to fall, that he will respect
the seal, and will not break it. The seal which is appended to a will does not render it secure because no
one has power to break it, but because the testator has confidence that his friends and that the courts of his country
will respect his wishes when his mouth is forever closed




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?             97
against the possibility of his declaring his desires, and his
hand powerless to assert his rights.
Look into the relations of life. What is it that forms
and preserves those numerous unions on which the very
existence of society depends? What is the basis of the
union of husband and wife, of parent and child, of brother
and sister, of friend and friend? What is there but mutual confidence? And is it asked what is the strength of
that? In answer to these questions an illustration may be
employed, taken from the most tender relation in life. This
illustration is used, because it is the very one more than
once referred to on this subject in the Bible, and because
it enters so vitally into the welfare of society. Here is a
young man just entering on life. His character is fair; his
profession is honourable; his person and standing are liable
to no objection, and no suspicion-but what he may be yet
no one earthly can tell, for no one can certainly predict
about what a man will be, till he is tried. Here is a youthful female-the joy of her mother and the pride of her father's heart. She has been delicately trained; has a home
that has every attraction; is secure there of unfailing friends
as long as her father and mother shall live, and has ample
means of support. She breaks all these ties; leaves the
home of her childhood; bids adieu to father, mother, brothers, and sisters, and commits herself into the hands of
this comparative stranger. A father's, and a mother's, and
a brother's love she exchanges for his. Her hand, her
heart, her property she gives to him. She pledges herself
to go where he goes; to suffer what he suffers; to make his
friends hers; to love him with an ardour with which she
loves no other human being; to break away from every tie
of country and home if he shall will it; and in a sense
more absolute than exists in any other case, to commit her
happiness into his hands. Every day and every hour that
they will live, she is dependent on his prosperity, his virtue,
9




98      HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
and his smiles for her happiness, and the moment his affections are withdrawn, or he ceases to be a virtuous man, her
happiness is dead.  If he is virtuous, faithful, and kind, she
regrets not the act of confidence with which she gave him
her heart and hand. But what if he trifles with her happiness?  What if he always meets her with a frown?  What
if he proves false to his vows?  What if he becomes a
wretched drunkard? Now what is the foundations and the
source of its strength? Confidence; and when that is gone
domestic peace dies.  She has made a sacrifice of her happiness, and her earthly felicity is a wreck.
Let another thought be suggested here. It is, that this
union of confidence secures an identity in their destiny.
They are one-one flesh, said the Saviour-and the same
events will now affect both. Before this union the storm
might have beat on one of them, and sunshine gladdened
the path of the other. Now the storm and the sunshine
come on both alike. The light that gladdens the eyes of
the one is also a pleasant thing to the other; the star that
rises propitiously on one, rises propitiously also on the path
of the other. The blessings of peace and joy that greet the
one, greet also the other. There is one heart, one pulsation, one breathing, one soul made up of the two. And so
if calamity comes; if, under the roof where they are to
abide, the pale destroyer shall come with stealthy foot-tread,
and change the rose on the cheek of a smiling babe to the
lily of death, it will be a scene in which both their hearts
will bleed alike, and they will weep together over the open
grave. If one is sad, both are sad; if one is poor, both are
poor. Their union, one pre-eminently of mutual faith
plighted before the altar, constitutes an identity in all the
great events of life, and secures to both substantially the
same treatment from the Great Disposer of all things.
They share the same fortune; the same honour or disgrace; the same sorrows and the same joys; they are




HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?             99
wafted on to a port of bliss or are wrecked in the same
vessel; they are greeted with the same welcome in life,
they are buried in the same grave.  It is easy to apply this
illustration to the matter in hand.
(3.) The third illustration is, that faith is of such a nature
that it is adapted to meet all the evils of the world. The
idea is, that it has been made the hinge or turning point of
salvation, because the want of it has been the source of all
the calamities which man has suffered, and because, if this
is restored, the evil of the world would be at an end.
The grand evil on earth, and the source of all-subordinate
evils, is a want of confidence in Gotd.  This was the evil at
the start, that man reposed more confidence in the teachings
of the tempter, than in the law of the Creator, and this has
been the source of all our woe. Man has no confidence in his
God.  He does not believe that the Most High is qualified for
universal empire; that he manages the affairs of the universe
well; that his law is equal and just; that his dispensations
are in accordance with equity; that his plan of salvation is
wise. He does not show his confidence in him by yielding
implicit obedience to his laws, or by submitting to his dispensations. He does not go to him and ask counsel of him
in the darknesses and perplexities of life; he does not seek
support in his arms in times of calamity. He does not commit his great interests to him, believing that he will be his
guide through life, and that he will yet make "all things
work together for good." He confides in other things. He
confides in his own strength, till his strength fails; in his
philosophy till it deludes and deceives him; in his fellownen till they all betray him; in fiiends and kindred, till
they drop into the grave; in his skill and sagacity, till he
comes to a place in life where "the right hand loses its
cunning."  He confides in stocks and stones, in graven
images, and fourfooted beasts and creeping things, but by
nature he has no confidence in God.




100     HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST -WITH GOD?
This is the grand evil of the world; this the source of
all our woes; for a want of confidence here produces the
same kind of evils, though on a larger scale, as the
same want everywhere.  We have seen that the welfare of
society depends on mutual confidence. Now, to see how
wretched any society can possibly be, we have only to suppose the existence there of the same want of confidence
which subsists between man and his Maker. If a perfectly
malignant being wished to diffuse as much misery as possible through the world, all that he could desire would be
to break up universal faith. He would go into a community, and with the touch of a magic wand would in a
moment destroy all confidence in each merchant, bank and
insurance office, and lawyer, and physician, and clergyman.
He would go into each school, and destroy all confidence in
the instructor. He would go into each family, and destroy
everywhere the mutual confidence of husband and wife,
and introduce universal distrust and jealousy. He would
unsettle the faith of every child in his father, of every
brother in his sister.  What would be the result?  He
would at once arrest the wheels of commerce; put an end
to business; make every professional man useless and
wretched; take away sleep from the pillow of every husband
and wife, and fill every family, and the whole community
with heart-burnings, jealousies, contentions, and strifes. No
man would know in whom to trust; no one could form a
plan dependent in any manner on the fidelity of others; po
one could be certain that any of his purposes of life could
be effected. The' scene at Babel would be reacted again all
over the world, and worse disorder than that which followed
from confounding the language of the people there, would
pervade all classes and conditions of mankind. The remedy
for such a state of things would be the restoration of mutual
confidence. In such a condition of ill, nothing would have
so far-reaching an effect. It would in fact pmeet all those




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    101
ills and make society harmonious and happy. The wheels
of commerce, of government, of domestic peace, of public
improvement, of education, would again roll on harmoniously,
and happiness would again bless the world. The want of
faith or confidence in God has produced all the ills on earth,
of which those just supposed are but an emblem; the restoration of confidence in God would strike at the root of all
those ills, and make this a happy world. It is this which
makes heaven happy, where every being has faith in God
and in all that dwell there; and with all our wants
and sadnesses this too would be a happy world, if there
were universal confidence in God. In our sorrows we should
then have peace, for we should believe that all is well
ordered; under our heavy burdens of life we should find
support, for we would go and roll all on his arm; in all the
dark and perplexing questions that now agitate us about the
introduction of moral evil and the prevalence of iniquity,
our minds would be calm, for we should feel that there was
a reason for it all, and in the prospect of death-that which
now makes us so sad-our hearts would find more than
peace —we should utter the language of joy and triumph,
for it would be only the coming of a messenger to bear us
to a much loved Father's arms.  The grand thing that needs
to be done on earth to make this a happy world, is to restore
universal confidence in God, and this is the whole aim of
religion, this the object of the scheme of redemption.
Hence the necessity of faith is laid at the foundation of the
whole scheme; it is the cardinal thing in the plan of salvation. This restored, what a happy world, after all, would
this be! For-it is a beautiful world. It is full of the
proofs of God's goodness and love. There are a thousand
comforts that meet us every day and every night; and a
thousand tender chords that should bind us to our Creator.
If we confided in him as qualified for universal empire; if
we felt that he was fit to manage the affairs of his own
9*




102     HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
world; if we believed that he will yet bring order out of
confusion and light out of darkness; if we trusted that his
law is good and his commandments holy, and if we would
go to him with the confiding spirit with whichla, little child
goes and tells all his troubles to his father, this would be
still a happy world. For that grand undertaking of the
almighty Father of us all, to restore unwavering confidence
in himself, manifested in the Gospel, the world should be
unfeignedly thankful, and one of the principal topics of
praise on earth should be, that he has required faith as the
very elementary principle of his religion.
(4.) A fourth remark, in explanation of the subject, is that
faith is required, or is made the condition of justification, for
this reason:-There is an obvious propriety that, where salvation is provided and offered, there should be some act on
our part signifying our acceptance of it.  If we are to be
saved through the merits of Christ, there should be some
reason on our part why we should be. There should be
some act indicating our wish or our will; some expression
of our desire in the case; something that shall serve to distinguish us from those who are not saved. It evidently
would not be proper, it would not be consulting the nature
which God has given us, to receive the race indiscriminately
into heaven without any intimation of a wish to be saved,
or to save one part and leave the other, unless there were
something that would indicate' in the one a desire to be
saved, which did not exist in the case of the other. What
would better show this than faith?  What would be a better expression of a desire to be saved? What act would
be more appropriate in accepting salvation; in the intimating of a wish that the benefits of the death of Christ might
be ours?  What would constitute a stronger bond between
the soul and him than this; what would come nearer toward constituting that identity on which it is proper that
those who are united should be treated alike? You are a




HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    103
father; you have two sons. They both become disobedient.
They leave your house at their pleasure; go where they
choose; are out at such hours as suit their convenience;
keep such company as they desire, and are wholly regardless of your laws. They heed neither your promises nor your
threats, and they have gone so far that they have now no
confidence in you. You have favours which you are willing
to bestow on them. You would be willing to receive them
to your house, and to treat them as sons, alike in your lifetime and in your will. But would you think it unreasonable that, as'a condition of their being received and treated
as sons, they should evince returning confidence in you?
And if one of them should return, and should ever onward
manifest the confidence due from a son to a father, and the
other should not, would you think it improper to make a
distinction between them in your lifetime and in your will?
And would they and the world be at a loss for a reason why
it was done?  The remark here is, that faith in Christ is
the appropriate act by which we accept of the benefits of
his work, and that this constitutes a difference between him
who accepts of his salvation and him who does not; and
that this is a reason why the one should be treated as if he
were interested in those benefits and the other not; that
is a reason why the one is justified and the other not.
Bearing in mind the remarks now made, that a restoration to confidence would meet innumerable evils in a family,
in a commercial community, between neighbours and between nations, and that the restoration of confidence in
God would meet all the evils under which this world labours
now, I proceed to show why faith in C/hrist particularly
is made so important as a condition of salvation. With
reference to this, three remarks may be made:(1.) The first is, that we are to repose faith or confidence
in Christ as authorized to negotiate the terms of reconciliation between God and man. The whole system of revealed




104     HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
religion proceeds on the fact-a fact which is apparent without any revelation —that an alienation exists between God
and man, or that man is in a state of revolt.  It was
with reference to this alienation that the Son of God came
into the world to accomplish the most difficult of all undertakings, that of reconciling opposing minds, and of
bringing them into harmony. On the one hand, there was
the infinite mind of God, whose law had been violated, and
whose government had been rejected and outraged, and
whose threatenings had been disregarded; and on the other,
there were countless millions of minds whollyalienated from
the Creator. To bring the holy Creator and the millions of
rebellious minds into harmony; to propose the terms on
which God was willing to forgive sin; to make such arrangements as that he could consistently pardon; and to
bring the minds of revolted men to a willingness to be reconciled, was the work undertaken by this great peacemaker.
But it is evident that this work could not be accomplished, unless con.fideence was reposed in him by both the
parties of the unhappy controversy. In infinitely smaller
matters, when nations are alienated, if a mediator proposes
arrangements of peace, or if ambassadors are appointed to
negotiate a peace, it is clear that the matter could not proceed a step unless there were confidence on both sides in
in the mediator or ambassadors.
Christ is a great mediator; a peace-maker between God
and man. On the part of God, there was every reason to
repose entire confidence in him in so great an undertaking,
for he was his only begotten Son; eternally in his bosom,
and loved, with an infinite love, before the foundation of
the world. John xvii. 24. By him the worlds had been
made; (John i. 3; Heb. i. 21;) and under him, with reference to the work of redemption, their affairs had been
administered up to the time when he appeared in the flesh.




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    105
God the Father reposed unlimited confidence in him when
he appointed him to be the mediator, and intrusted to him
the execution of the great purpose of reconciling the world
again to the divine government. This confidence reposed
in Christ in the work of mediation, is often referred to in
the New Testament, by the Saviour himself, and by the
sacred penmen: "'This is my beloved Son," was declared
from heaven at his baptism, "in whom I am well pleased."
Matt. iii. 17.  "Father," said the Saviour, just before his
death, "glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from
heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it
again."  John xii. 28.  "Thou hast given him power,"
said he again, " over all flesh, that he should give eternal
life to as many as thou hast given him." Jphn xvii. 2.
" All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; go
ye therefore and teach all nations." Matt. xxviii. 18, 19.
" I am the way," said he, " and the truth, and the life; no
man cometh unto the Father but by me." John xiv. 6. So
we are told, that " there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. xi. 5.
These things show the degree of confidence which the
Father reposed in him in the work of mediation —intrusting
to him the message of mercy; appointing him to convey it
to men; and endowing him as Mediator, with all the power
and authority which were requisite to accomplish so great a
work.
But confidence in him is not less required in regard to
the other party than by him who had appointed him. It is
clear that, unless we have confidence in him as the messenger and ambassador of God; unless we regard him as sent
from heaven, and as authorized to propose terms of reconciliation; unless we feel that he can make a definite arrangement, and that what he proposes will be sanctioned by God;
unless we feel that he is autlorized to propose terms of pardon, and to declare our sins forgiven, and to pronounce us




106     HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
accepted and justified, it would be impossible for us to avail
ourselves of any arrangement for salvation through him.
We should feel that we were trifling with a great subject;
and in our serious moments, when we thought of the great
interests at stake, we should be in no humour to trifle.
None of us would seriously think of embracing any terms
of reconciliation with God proposed by Mohammed, or Zoroaster, or Confucius; by Lord Herbert or Mr. Hlune; for
we do not suppose that any of these men were authorized
to propose terms of salvation. We have no confidence in
them as ambassadors of God, whatever we may think of
them in other respects. The primary ground of faith, therefore, in Christ, is, that we have confidence in him as a mediator, an ambassador, a peace-maker; as authorized to propose to us the terms on which peace may be obtained with
our offended Creator.  "If ye believe not that I am he, ye
shall die in your sins." John viii. 24.
(2.) The second remark to which we referred, showing
specifically why faith in Christ is demanded, is, that it is by
his agency and merits only that we can be received into the
favour of God.  He came not only to briag the message of
reconciliation, and to propose the terms, but to do and to
saffer whatever was necessary to be done, in order that we
might be accepted of the Father, or in order that we might
be saved consistently with the interests of justice.  The
case somewhat resembles what it would be in the instance
of an ambassador coming to negotiate a peace who should
not only come to propose the terms, but should actually have
in his possession that which alone could be regarded as a
reparation for wrong done by one of the parties to the other,
and who should come not only to persuade the party which
had done the wrong to be willing to be reconciled, but also
to avail itself of what he was ready to furnish. to repair all
the evil done, and to satisfy the other party. In such a
case, it would not be unreasonable to ask confidence in him



HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    107
self, or to make this one of the conditions by which the
favour might be available. In fact, it could not be consistently made available in any other way, or on any other
conditions, and, unless there were faith in him, the negotiation could proceed no further.
Thus we are required to exercise faith in the Lord Jesus.
aWe are destitute of merit.  We have violated the law of
God, and can do nothing to repair the wrong.  We are
debtors, to an incalculable amount, to justice; and we have
nothing with which to pay the debt. We can do absolutely
nothing to vindicate our own conduct; to undo the evils
that we have done; to make up for the dishonour which we
have put on the law of God; to atone for our thousands of
faults and follies. At this point the Son of God appears,
and he comes with the assurance that he has himself perfectly obeyed the law, and has honoured it as fully as it
can be honoured by obedience; that he has suffered a
most bitter death-a death aggravated by every form of
cruelty-as an expiation for our sins; that he will become
the guarantee or surety that the law shall suffer no dishonour if we are saved; that no injury shall result from our
pardon, and that, in fact, all the good effects have been secured by his death which courld be by our being doomed to
bear the penalty of the law ourselves; and that all that
is needful for us now is to become united to him by an indissoluble bond to put ourselves under his protection; and
to be so identified with him that it will be proper to treat
us as if we had personally obeyed the law, or borne its
penalty. That which will constitute the closest union in
the case, and which will do most to render this identity of
treatment proper, is confidence in him as our Saviour, and
reliance on his merits, or faith.
(3.) The third remark necessary to explain the subject,
or to show why faith in Christ is made the turning point of
justification and salvation is, that the act of believing on




108     HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
Christ is made in circumstances and in a manner indicating
confidence of the highest kind that ever exists in the human
bosom, constituting a union of the closest conceivable nature. It is an act so identifying the soul and the Saviour
as to make it proper that the same treatment which the
Redeemer receives should in this measure be received by his
people, or that in the divine treatment they should be practically regarded as one.  The circumstances are these:(a) The sinner feels that he is lost and ruined.  He is
made sensible that he is guilty before God, and that he has
no claim to his mercy. His heart is evil; his life has been
evil; his whole soul is evil. If justice were done him, he
feels that he would be forever banished from God and heaven. Yet he feels that he has a soul of infinite value.
It is to endure forever. It is capable, in the long eternity before it, of suffering more than the aggregate of all
the sorrows that have yet been endured on earth, and in
hell. It is capable, also, in that infinite duration, of enjoying more than the aggregate of bliss of all that has been
experienced on earth united with all that has been known in
heaven. A boundless eternity is before the trembling sinner, and infinite interests are at stake.
(b) He despairs of salvation in himself. He feels now that
he has no power to rescue his soul from death. He cannot
confide in his own arm, or in the arm of any mortal. He
has tried every method of salvation; every way of obtaining
peace of conscience; every plan that proposed security to
his soul, but in vain. He stands now a lost and ruined
being trembling on the shores of eternity. The boundless
ocean spreads out before him. Clouds and darkness rest
upon it. He has deserved no mercy; he has no claim on
God to be his guide and protector; he can urge no reason
why he should be admitted to a world of peace.
(c) In these sad and perilous circumstances, he commits
his soul with all its infinite and eternal interests, into the




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    109
hands of the Lord Jesus. By a simple act of faith he embraces him as his Saviour, his friend, his sacrifice, his advocate. Renouncing all confidence in his own merit, he resolves to rely on the merit of Christ; abandoning every
plea on the ground of what he has himself done, he resolves
to urge the merits of the Saviour as his plea, and forsaking
forever all reliance for salvation on birth or blood; on moral
virtues or intellectual attainments; on rank in life or the
commendation of friends; on the goodness of his own heart
or on forms in religion, he stakes his own everlasting interest and the question of his final salvation on the belief that
there is a Saviour, and that Jesus is the Son of God, and
that he is able and willing to save him.  He is willing to
risk the issue on this belief, and he who was a moment before trembling on the verge of hell as if there were no hope,
now calmly turns the eye to heaven, and smiles through his
tears and says, "I know whom I have believed, and am
persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."
(d) This is a wonderful act of confidence. That is great
confidence which is evinced when a drowning man seizes a
rope that is thrown to him, and suspends the question of
his safety on the belief that you can draw him to the shore.
That would be great confidence which the man who was
shipwrecked, and who had clambered up a projecting rock
above the reach of the waves, should evince if he would
fasten a rope let down from above around his body, and
swing off over the raging billows, trusting to the rope and
the strength of those above to dray him up. And that is
great confidence in a case already referred to where a delicately framed youthful female leaves her mother and father and commits herself, for weal or wo, into the hands of
a comparative stranger. But such acts are not equal to
that by which the dying soul commits itself to the Saviour.
They will hardly do for an illustration. For what are the
10




110     HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
raging waves of the ocean compared with the rolling fires
of the world of despair? What is the perilled death of
the body compared with the death of the soul? What are
all the temporal interests which youth, or beauty, or virtue can commit to another here, compared with those eternal interests which are intrusted to the Son of God? It
remains then only to add:
(e) That in virtue of such a union there should be identity of treatment.  So we saw in the illustration of the
husband and wife, where the union between them led on
common sorrows and common joys; common successes and
common reverses; common sunshine and common shade.
Much more should it be so in the more tender and close
union of the soul to the Saviour by the act of faith.  They
become one.  He is the "vine," they are the " branches;"
he the "head," they the "members;" he lives in them
and dwells in them.  He is "Chiist in us the hope of
glory."  " We are members of his body, his flesh, and his
bones."  "'I live," says the apostle, "' yet not I, but Christ
liveth in me."  "Because I live," said the Saviour, "ye
shall live also." Through all life's future scenes his people
will be treated as he was; and the union with him is so
close that it introduces them to common joys and triumphs
with him forever. They will be made happy because the
same blessings that descend on the " head" will flow to all
the'" members."
In view of these remarks, the following thoughts may be
suggested:(1.) The simplicity and ease of the way of salvation in the
Gospel are remarkable. The leading thing required of him
who would be saved is faith or confidence in the Redeemer.
Thus Paul said to the trembling jailer at Philippi, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
Acts xvi. 31. So again in the Epistle to the Romans, " If
thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    111
shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from
the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man
believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession
is made unto salvation." Ron. x. 9, 10. Here, as everywhere in the New Testament, salvation is represented as
easy. The terms are as simple as possible. There is no
requisition of our attempting to obey the whole law of God
as a condition of salvation; no demand on us to offer costly
sacrifices, or to make pilgrimages to a distant shrine, or to
practise penances and fastings, or to lacerate the body, or
to attempt to work out a righteousness by conformity to
external forms, or by union to a particular church. The
simple, the single thing demanded is faith on the Son of
God. If man has this, he is safe. No matter what his
past life has been; no matter what his complexion, rank,
or apparel; no matter where he lives or dies; no matter
whether he worships in a splendid temple or under the open
vault of heaven, and no matter whether his body rests in
consecrated ground or amid the corals of the ocean, he is a
child of God and an heir of the kingdom. Whatever may
be said of this plan of salvation, it cannot be said that it is
not sufficiently simple, and that it does not breathe a spirit
of benignity toward -he lost and ruined children of men.
The infidel cannot object that God has not adapted it to the
condition of human nature at it is-made up, for the most
part, of the ignorant, the down-trodden, and of children;
nor that it has required more of any man than the human
powers can render. Yet,
(2.) While thus simple and easy, it is on the great principles which we see everywhere prevail. There is required
in salvation that which keeps the social world together, and
causes human things to move on in harmony-that without
which all the interests of man would be a wreck. There is
required that which would arrest all human ills, and make




112    HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
this still a happy world-confidence in, our God. Man
wants but this to make him a happy being here; he will
want but this to make him happy forever. As confidence is
the great principle which cements society, so it was indispensable in religion that confidence in God should be restored.  We cannot conceive that a human being could be
saved without faith. Even if it had not been distinctly and
formally required in the plan, it is impossible to conceive
that there could have been salvation without it. The very
process of returning to God from our wanderings implies
returning confidence in him-for how or why should the
sinner return to him if he has no confidence in him? And
how could he be happy in heaven if he had no confidence
in God? What would heaven be if there were the same
distrust of the Deity, and the same jarring opinions, and
the Same alienation from him, and the same doubt of his
being, his justice, and his goodness there which exist on
earth? The plan of salvation by faith is laid in the deepest philosophy-and is based on the irreversible nature of
things.
(3.) The subject suggests a remark on the nature and aims
of infidelity. Men often think that unbelief is a harmless
thing. They sometimes regard it as a special proof of
meritorious independence to be an infidel. They pride
themselves on their philosophy, and their freedom from
vulgar prejudices and priestcraft-perhaps on their freedom
from the prejudices instilled by a pious parent, a pastor, or
a Sunday-school teacher. They consider the denunciations
of unbelief in the gospel as singularly harsh, and use no
measured terms in expressing their abhorrence of a system
which denounces the eternal pains of hell on a man because
he will not believe. The want of faith, say they, is a harmless or a meritorious thing. But are you connected with a
bank?  Would you think that a harmless effort in a daily




HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    113
paper which should attempt to unsettle the confidence of
the community in your institution? Have you, a character
for virtue, which you have secured by years of toil, and of
upright deportment? Is that a harmless report in the community which tends to destroy all confidence in that character?  Are you a father?  Is it a harmless effort of your
neighbour when he attempts to unsettle the confidence of
your own children in your virtue?  Are you a husband?
Is he a harmless man who shall aim to unsettle your faith
in the wife of your bosom, and produce between you and
her an utter want of confidence? And is there no evil
in that state of mind where there is no confidence in God
that rules on high-the God that made us, and that holds
our destiny in his hands? Is it nothing to unsettle the
faith of man in his God, and to introduce universal distrust
in his government? Is it nothing to inculcate or cherish
the thought that the governor of the world is a dark, malignant, harsh, and severe being, and to alienate the affections of creation from its God? Let the history of the
earth answer. All our evils began in that unhappy moment when our first parents lost their confidence in their
God. "; Loss of Eden," toil, sweat, despair, perplexity and
death, tell what the evil was. Calamities have rolled along
in black and angry surges, and the dark flood still swells
and heaves upon the earth.  Peace will be restored and
paradise regained only when man is restored to confidence in
his God-and this is the grand and glorious work of the
gospel.  This done in any heart, and its "peace becomes as
a river and its righteousness as the waves of the sea." This
done all over the *earth, and millennial joy will visit the
nations. This done, as successive individuals or generations
leave the world, death is disarmed of his sting, for the
departing soul leaves with full assurance of faith on the
Saviour.
10*




114     HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
VIII. The bearing and importance of the doctrine ofjustification 7)y faith.
The points which have been illustrated in the previous
sections are the following:-The importance of the inquiry
how man can be justified with God; the fact that man cannot
justify or vindicate himself by denying the truth of the
charges against him; the fact that he cannot do it by showing that he had a right to do as he has done; the fact that
he cannot merit salvation; what is to be understood by the
merits of Christ; in what sense we are justified by the
merits of Christ; and the agency of faith in our justification. It is proposed now, in the conclusion of the subject,
to refer to some historical illustrations of the value and influence of the doctrine of justification by faith, and to show
why it has the place which history has assigned it.
In illustrating the value and influence of the doctrine as
shown by history, three periods of the world may be briefly
referred to.
(1.) The first is the age of the apostles, when, perhaps,
the effect of the doctrine of justification by faith was more
vividly seen than it has ever been since. That this was the
doctrine which Paul preached; which he made prominent
in his writings; and which he everywhere defended, no
one acquainted with his history can for a moment doubt.
It would be needless here to transcribe the passages of his
writings which declare his views on this point; or which
show how earnestly he expressed his convictions of its truth
and importance. Everywhere he maintained that a man is
not justified by the deeds of the law, but by the righteousness of faith; that we are saved not by works of righteousness which we have done; that they that are under the law
are under the curse; and that they who are justified by
faith have peace with God through the Lord Jesus Christ.
In the most earnest and emphatic manner he abjured all
dependence on his own merits for salvation; disclaimed all




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST -WITH GOD?    115
reliance on the extraordinary zeal for religion which he had
manifested in early life, and on his own blameless outward
deportment, and declared it now to be the grand purpose of
his soul to "know Christ, and to be found in him, not having his own righteousness which was of the law, but the
righteousness which is of God by faith." Phil. iii. 9. In
this he coincided with all the other apostles, who taught, as
he did, that no reliance was to be placed on outward forms
of religion, on good works, on an amiable character, or on
alms, as the ground of salvation. It was then that the doctrine of simple dependence on Christ for salvation went
forth with freshness and with power. It was unencumbered by any attending doctrine of a different character to
fetter its movements; or to hinder its progress through the
world. There was no necessity proclaimed of depending on
rites or forms of religion; no reverence for sacred places
inculcated as necessary to salvation; no connection with a
particular church organized under a peculiar ministry, was
declared to be essential; no saving efficacy was attributed
to sacraments and to alms; no merits of the holy men of
other ages could be depended upon to make up the deficiency
of those who sought to be saved; no promise was held out
that the dead might be saved through the extraordinary
sacrifices and benevolence of the living. The naked doctrine of justification by faith in Christ stood out before the
world; fresh in its youthful vigour; with no trappings or
ornaments to hide and obscure it; a simple, solemn, sublime
truth that all might appreciate and that might be available
to all. This was then the sword of the spirit-slaying human pride; cutting down the self-righteousness of men;
prostrating the great and the mean, the learned and the
unlearned, the patrician and the plebeian, the master and
the slave, the man in purple and the man in rags, alikea swor4 whose keenness was not rendered useless then by
being hid in a gorgeous scabbard.




116    HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
The doctrine thus promulgated by the apostle stood opposed to the prevailing views of all the world. It, was
opposed to all the aims of the Pharisees-the essential tenet
of whose religion was expressed graphically and honestly
by one of their own number, " God, I thank thee that I
am not as other men are." It stood opposed to all the views
of the Sadducees, who held to the necessity of no kind of
religion, denying the whole doctrine of the future state. It
stood opposed to the Essenes, the remaining Jewish sect,
who sought to work out their salvation by extraordinary
fastings and privations, and by exclusion from contact with
the world. It stood opposed to the whole system of sacrifices among the heathen, seeking to propitiate the gods, and
to render themselves accepted by dependence on the forms
of religion; and it was at variance with all the views of
philosophy-the pride of the Stoic, confident in his own
righteousness; the licentiousness of the Epicurean, justifying his own voluptuousness; and the self-complacency of
the sage, who relied on his own wisdom. An apostle could
go nowhere where the doctrine would not come in conflict
with all the prevailing views in regard to the way in which
men might be saved. Yet no one now can be ignorant of
the effect of this doctrine as promulgated by the apostles.
It changed the religion of the world, for Christianity made
no other advances than as it taught men to renounce every
other ground of dependence and to rely for salvation solely
on the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. It had no martial
power by which to make its way; it had no influence derived from name and rank to enforce its claim; it had no
authority derived from a venerable antiquity on which to
rely; it had no gorgeous and imposing forms to enable it
to command the respect of those who had worshipped in
the Parthenon or the Pantheon; it had no. claims to any
new discoveries in philosophy. It had but one thing that
was new, great, improving, commanding, and that was the




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    117
announcement of Christ crucified. and the fact that men
everywhere might now be justified by the merits of his
atoning blood. Never has any truth on any subject stood
more by itself, to make its own way without adventitious
aid, than this did in the hands of the Christian apostles,
and never before had any single truth on any subject produced such changes in the world.
(2.) The second fact, to which reference will be made, is
the state of the world when the doctrine of justification by
faith was obscured and almost extinguished in the Church.
It soon began to be obscured. Very early the professed
friends of religion began to lose sight of it.  So strong in
the human mind is the love of pomp and ceremony and
form; so attached is man to splendour and show in religion
as in every thing else; so prone is the heart to rely on its
own doings; and so reluctant is the sinner everywhere to
depend for salvation on the righteousness of another, that
this doctrine gradually died away and almost ceased to be
remembered in the church. Then arose the system which
spread night all over the Christian world-the night of
ignorance, error, superstition, and crime-a night deepening
for ages till it terminated in the consummate depravity of
the Papacy under Alexander VI. Under this forgetfulness of the doctrine of justification by faith, or of salvation
by simple dependence on Christ crucified, arose the universal respect for sacred places and orders of men; zeal for
splendid temples of worship and for gorgeous ceremonies;
extraordinary veneration for the sepulchres of saints, and
for their holy remains; pilgrimages to the holy land; the
doctrine of baptismal regeneration and of absolution of sins
by the imposition of holy hands; the belief that grace was
imparted by sacraments administered by a priesthood; the
doctrine that the merits of the saints of other days were
garnered up for the benefit of future ages and placed at the
disposal of the Church; the multiplication of sacraments




118     HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
with saving efficacy attributed to them all, and the belief
of a peculiar sacredness attached to ground consecrated to
the burial of the dead.  All these were features of one
great system. They had some relation to Christianity, and
had grown in part out of the abuse of its doctrines. But
though various, they were arranged evidently under the
auspices of one master mind and with the same end in
view. That was to render nugatory the doctrine of justification by faith, and to substitute in its place the doctrine of
salvation by works. It was, indeed, salvation by works
connected with the religion of Christ, avd was a different
system from that of the Pharisee who expected to be saved
by conformity to the law of Moses; or the Grecian philosopher who hoped to reach heaven by the purity of his doctrine and his morals; or the degraded pagan who relied on the
blood of his sacrifices; or the man now who relies on his
own honesty and fidelity in the various relations of life; but
it was essentially the same system. It excluded the simple
dependence of the soul on the Lord Jesus for salvation, and
substituted in its stead a reliance on human merit.
The effect was seen in the darkness, sin, and corruption
of Europe before the Reformation. Every feature of the
state of things in the "dark ages" can be traced to an
obscuring of the great doctrine of justification by faith.
Every advance of society into that deep and deepening
gloom was connected with some loosening of its hold on
that doctrine, and the substitution of something else in its
place, until the hold was entirely gone, and Europe was
plunged in total night.
(3.) The third historical fact, therefore, to be referred to,
is the effect which the recovery and restoration of this doctrine had on the Church and the world at the period of the
Reformation. To those who have studied the history of
that period, as all Protestants should do, it is unnecessary
to say that this was the elementary doctrine-the central




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    119
view-the starting point-in the whole of that glorious
revolution. This was the great truth that dawned on the
mind of Luther, and which led to all that he attempted and
accomplished for the restoration of the Church to its primitive purity, and it occupied an equally central position in
the view of all his fellow-labourers. Three times was the
doctrine of justification by faith brought before the mind
of Luther, with the same sort of power which it had when
promulgated by the apostles, and with such energy as to
rouse all that was great in his soul into life. The first was
when he was a monk in his cell. He had found a copy of
the Bible, and he began to study it and to lecture on it.
He commenced with the Psalms, but soon passed to the
Epistle to the Romans.  One day having proceeded as far
as the seventeenth verse of the first chapter, the words
quoted from Habakkuk-" The just shall live by faith"arrested his attention. A new thought struck him. A
new way of salvation opened before his mind. A new
light shone upon his heart, and the words " the just shall
live by faith" seemed never to leave him. The second instance was when he first visited Rome. These words followed him and lingered on his ear. One of his first impressions was that he was now in the very place to which
Paul had addressed these words in his epistle. Yet in that
city how were they obscured and unknown! On every
hand were arrangements for being justified by works-by
forms and ceremonies; by pomp and pageantry; by the
merits of the saints, and by penance. What a total obscuration of the great doctrine which Paul had taught in
the letter to the Church there, and which he had himself
doubtless taught when he had dwelt in that city! The
third instance in which these words were brought to the
heart of Luther was more impressive still.  "One day
wishing to obtain an indulgence promised by the pope to
any one who should ascend on his knees what is called




120     HOW SHALL'MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?'Pilate's stair-case,' the poor Saxon monk was slowly
climbing those steps which they told him had been miraculously transported from Jerusalem to Rome. But while he
was going through this meritorious work he thought he
heard a voice, like thunder, speaking from the depths of his
heart,'The just shall live by faith.'  Hle started up in
terror on the steps up which he had been crawling; he was
horrified at himself; and, struck with shame for the degration to which superstition had debased him, he fled from
the scene of his folly. This powerful text had a mysterious influence on the life of Luther. It was a creative
word for the Reformer and for the Reformation."-D'Aubigne. It was this truth that wrought out the Reformation:
and whatever there was in that work that is valuable and
precious; whatever there was to shed a benign influence on
literature, liberty and morals; whatever there was to spread
pure religion over Switzerland, or Germany, or England, or
ultimately over our own land, and then by a reflex influence
on Asia Minor, on Palestine, on the palmy East, on dark
Africa, and on the islands of the sea, is to be traced to
those moments when this text broke with so much living
power on the soul of Luther: —  The just shall live by
faith."  It became with him an elementary truth, that the
doctrine of justification by faith was the "article of the
standing or the falling church"-the very joint or hinge
(articulus) on which the whole depended.* To that doctrine we owe, in its various developments, all that we value
in this Protestant land, and all that distinguishes us in religion from what Europe was in the days of Alexander VI.
and Leo X.; and there is not an interest of religion, liberty,
or learning, which has not been moulded by it more than
by any other single cause. Our modes of worship; our
readiness to spread the Bible;' our freedom of discussion;
* " Articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesice."




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    121
our general diffusion of intelligence; our untrammelled
press; our separation of religion from the state; our societies for the spread of the gospel; our blessed and glorious
revivals; our deliverance from superstition, and from the
tyranny of a priesthood, and from the corruptions and
abominations of the monastic system, and from the debasement of penance and pilgrimages, are all to be traced to the
power of this single truth that blazed with such an intensity
on the soul of the poor Saxon monk. Such being some of
the facts in the case, let us,
I. Inquire why this doctrine has this importance and
power. This will be seen if we can trace its connection
with what it has been undeniably everywhere united witha religion of deep spirituality; of simplicity of worship;
of deadness to the world; of freedom of opinion; of liberal
views, and of great and cheerful sacrifices for the good of
mankind. There are but two systems of religion on the
earth: the one is that of self-righteousness; the other that
of salvation by the merits of Christ; the one that of men
who attempt, in various ways, to justify themselves before
God; the other, that of those who seek to be justified
through the righteousness of the Redeemer. The bearing
and importance of the latter, in contrast with the former, is
the point now before us.
(1.) This doctrine of justification by faith has a power of
reaching the soul and of calling forth every active energy
of our nature which the other system never can have. It
leaves the impresion that the soul is of vast value; that
religion is of inestimable importance; that the grand purpose of living should be religion. The reason of this, which
may not at once be apparent, is, that it finds' the soul in such
a state, wherever it is embraced, that it arouses all that is
thrilling, and vast, and momentous in the soul itself, and in
its hopes and relations. The language which the doctrine
of justification by faith addresses to each individual is this:
11




122     HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
" You are a lost sinner. You have no righteousness of
your own. You never will have any. Your heart is by
nature depraved, and your whole past life has been evil. In
all that you have done, you have done nothing to merit the
favour of God, or even to commend yourself to his approbation. All your righteousness is as filthy rags. All your
outward forms of religion; your fastings, penance, and
vows; your amiableness of character, your honesty, your
integrity, your pride of birth and station, are all to pass for
nothing befdre God in the matter of justification.  Nor ctn
you hope of yourself to do any thing more in the future
that will commend you to God than you have done in the
past. No form of religion; no flood of tears; no framing
of the life by an outward law; no acts of self-denial; no
fastings, prayers, or almsgivings can wipe away the deep
stains of past guilt on the soul, or constitute an expiation
for what you have done. In this state you are near the
grave, and just over the world of wo. A moment might
cut you off from the land of the living, and from the possibility of being saved. In this state you are wholly dependent on the sovereign mercy of God.  You may be
saved, but not by works of righteousness of your own.
You may be saved, but it must be by renouncing all dependence on your own righteousness forever. You may be
saved, but it must be wholly by the merits of another.
Kings, sages, philosophers, priests, poets, warriors, knights,
senators, judges; the gay, the accomplished, the rich, the
poor, the vile, the bond, the free; all lie on a level
before God. You may be saved; but it will only be by
your making up the mind to a willingness to be saved in
the same way as'the vilest of the species, and to stand before the throne clothed in the same robes of salvation that
shall adorn the most debased and down-trodden of the
human race. Now it is easy to conceive, even for those
who have not experienced this, that such a religion must




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            123
have the elements of great power of some kind. It can
make its way only by sufficient power to crush the pride of
man; to bring down his lofty thoughts; to humble him in
the dust, and then by imparting life where there was none.
There is nothing negative and tame about it. It has living
energy through all this process. No man reaches the position of self-abasement and self-renunciation where this doctrine finds him, without a struggle with his own pride. To
come down there and to lie thus low before God, is the result
of mighty power on a proud man's soul, and is no neutral
or unmeaning thing. It is not the work of ease and of
effeminacy, and the business of a holiday, for a man to renounce all his own righteousness, and to be willing to acknowledge, before heaven, and earth, and hell, that he is so
great a sinner that he ought to be excluded from heaven,
and banished from the earth and be doomed to unspeakable torments forever in hell. And it is not an unmeaning thing when in this state a voice from heaven bids
him rise from the dust, and go forth a pardoned man, a
renovated being, a child of God, an heir of heaven.
Accordingly this is the doctrine which arouses the world.
It was this which produced the commotions in the apostolic
times, when it was said, "These that have turned the
world upside down.re come hither also." It was this
which produced so much excitement at Jerusalem, at Anticch, at Philippi. It was this which aroused Europe in the
Reformation. It is this whose power is seen in every revival of religion.  It is this whose energy is felt in the
efforts made to carry religion around the globe.
To illustrate what has been now said, reference may be
made to the case of two individuals who have stated the
effect of this doctrine on their own minds. The first is
that of the apostle Paul. It is found in the epistle to, the
Philippians.  "If any other man thinketh that he hath
whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: circumcised




124     HOW SHALI MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law,
a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church;
touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
But what things were gain to me, those Icounted loss for
Christ.  Yea doubtless, I count all things but loss for the
excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. Chap.
iii. 4-8. The other is a record of Luther's feelings by
himself when he was first made to understand this doctrine.
"Though as a monk," says he, "I was holy and irreproachable, my conscience was still filled with trouble and torment.
I could not endure the expression-' The righteous justice
of God.'  I did not love that just and holy Being who
punishes sinners. I felt a secret anger against him; I
hated him because, not satisfied with terrifying by his law
and by the miseries of life poor creatures already ruined by
original sin, he aggravated our sufferings by the gospel. But
when by the Spirit of God I understood these words-when
I learnt how the justification of the sinner proceeds from
God's mere mercy by the way of faith-then I felt myself
born again as a new man, and I entered by an open door
into the very paradise of God. From that hour I saw the
precious and Holy Scriptures with new eyes.  I went
through the whole Bible. I collected a multitude of passages which taught me what the work of God was. And
as I had before heartily hated the expression,'The righteousness of God,' I began from that time to value and to
love it as the sweetest and most consolatory truth. Truly
this text of St. Paul was to me as the very gate of heaven."
-D'Aubign4.
To a soul thus lost and ruined, this doctrine always has
this power. To others it has neither power nor beauty, nor
can we hope that it will make its way among men except
where the soul is deeply aroused on the subject of religion.
Then it is what it is so often said to be in the Scriptures,




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    125
"The power of God:" it is His mighty energy quickening
the soul that was dead in sin to newness of life.
(2.) The second remark illustrating its bearing and importance, will be drawn from the contrast of this doctrine
with the opposite. It has already been observed that there
are, in fact, but two kinds of religion on the earth, that of
self-righteousness and that of dependence on another for
salvation; that in which man attempts to justify himself,
and that in which he relies for justification on the merits of
the Son of God.  These systems divide the world; for,
however numerous may be the methods by which men attempt to save themselves, they all have this essential
characteristic, that they are systems of self-righteousness.
WVhat are the characteristics of these two systems? What
would be the tendency of each of them? Let them be
put in contrast, and what must be the effect of each of them?
The effect of the one-of the plan of justification by faith
-we have already in part seen. Its obvious tendency must
be to produce humility, penitence, gratitude, a simple reliance on the Saviour, a disposition to make him all in all
in religion. What are the effects of the opposite system?
They must be such as these:(a) Pride.  "God, I thank thee that I am not as other
men are," is its language all over the world.
(b) A multiplication of forms, and a reliance on them.
Religion becomes an outward thing, not a work of the
heart. So it was with the Pharisees, the Greeks, the Romans; so it is now in the pagan world, among Mohammedans, and in all the perverted forms of Christianity. It
matters little what the outward form is; but where the doctrine of justification is obscured or unknown, religion must
degenerate into heartless forms. It makes up for its want
of vital power by the multiplication of rites and ceremonies.
It adds a new ceremony for every step of departure from
11*




126     HOW SHALL MAN BE jUST WITH GOD?
the doctrine of justification by faith; it attaches an additional sacredness to them as this doctrine is obscured, and
where this is wholly lost out of view, religion becomes
merely a punctilious performance of imposing rites, a careful observance of forms. A man, when he thinks of death
and the judgment, must have some righteousness on which
to rely. If it be not that of the Saviour, and if it be the
pretence of religion at all, it must be that consisting of a
sacred reverence for forms.
(c) The denial of the doctrine of justification by faith
will be always attended with superstition. There will be
an attempt to merit heaven by reverencing dead men's
bones, by pilgrimages, by bodily torture, by seclusion from
the world, by garnishing the sepulchres of the righteous,
and by imploring the intercession of departed saints. The
world must make up its mind to have the doctrine of justification by faith held in its purity, or to have a religion of
superstition substituted in its place. One or the other has
prevailed always; one has always excluded the other; the
suppression of the one has been the occasion of the introduction of the other; and one or the other will live to the
end of time. The question is now before this country
whether we shall cling to the great doctrine of justification
by faith, or whether we shall go abroad and import all the
superstitions of heathenism, whether original or baptized
at Rome; whether we shall adhere to the grand truth which
was the element in the Reformation, or take Christianity,
so called, as it was in the days of Alexander VI. and Leo X.
(d) The system which denies this doctrine has been, from
some cause, an exclusive and a persecuting system. To
whatever this fact may be traced, of the fact itself there
can be no doubt. The history of the world has confirmed
it, and that history has taught us that if we would be free
from the evils of an exclusive and a persecuting system, we




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    127
must hold in its simplicity and its purity the great doctrine
of justification by faith.
(3.) A third thing illustrating its bearing and importance, is the fact that it-is connected with freedom of thought
and the advancement of society.  The fact here is more
apparent than the reason of it.  No one acquainted with
history will dispute the fact that the doctrine of justification
by faith has been held with the most simplicity and purity
in the times when freedom of thought has most prevailed
and in the lands most characterized for it. And no one
can doubt that the denial of the doctrine, and the denial of
the right of free inquiry, have gone together. It was the
same system, which denied by all its arrangements the doctrine of justification by faith, which imprisoned Galileo.
The Inquisition grew up in lands where this doctrine was
denied, and has flourished there only, and could live nowhere else. The proclamation of this doctrine in Europe
by Luther and his fellow-labourers unfettered the human
mind and abolished the Inquisition; and nothing can be
clearer than that no circumstances could ever arise in any
land in which the doctrine of justification by simple faith
in Christ is held in which such an institution could be established; and we may be certain that, as long as we can assert
this doctrine in its purity throughout all our borders, we
shall be free from thumb-screws, and racks, and auto-da-fJs,
and dark dungeons made to incarcerate the advocate of any
religious belief. Whatever else we may be subjected to,
this doctrine will be a palladium to us, not fabled as was
the image of Minerva, but a reality to secure for us the
protection of heaven.
The reasons of the fact which is now adverted to, would
be found in such considerations as these:-That in this
doctrine there is nothing which we wish to conceal; that it
depends for its support on nothing which may not be fully




128     HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
examined; that it recognises everywhere the equality of
men; that it asks no patronage from  the state; that it
relies for its advancement on its own simple power as truthas commending itself to the conscience and the reason of
mankind, and as finding a response in the soul of every
man who feels that he is a sinner. The'support of the
other system is to be found in just the opposite of these
things. It cloaks itself in mystery. It seeks to establish
the claims of a priesthood composed of a superior order of men,
and this must be done on arguments that will not bear the
light. It is, and must be sustained by the power of the state.
It loves a religion of blind believing rather than of reasoning.
It is identified with all that human ingenuity can devise to
substitute a righteousness in the place of that by faith in
the Saviour.  It is identified with interest-where the procuring of absolution becomes a matter of bargain and sale.
And it is conscious that the free examination of its claims
would show how baseless is the fabric on which it stands,
and the worthlessness of all the devices which have been
originated to enable man to work out a righteousness of his
own. Without pursuing these thoughts further, one other
remark may be added. It is
(4.) That the doctrine of justification by faith is connected with liberality in religion. We have seen what is
the character, in this respect, of the opposite system. It
is essential to every other system that it be illiberal and
exclusive. The reason is this. According to every such
system, grace is conveyed only through a certain channel. There are certain men who alone are appointed to
dispense it; it is to be obtained only in union with a
certain ecclesiastical connection, and in the performance
of certain specified rites and ceremonies.  But none of
these things are essential to the doctrine of justification
by faith. It is a direct concern between the soul and its




MOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?            129
Saviour. It practically removes every human being from
any participation in obtaining for the sinner the favour of
God. However the ministers of religion may have been
instrumental in arousing the attention of the soul to its
guilt and danger,-or in pointing the way to the cross, yet
the transaction is one where all foreign agency and all
human holiness of office are excluded. It is not essential
whether the minister officiates with or without a surplice;
whether in a plain " meeting-house" or a magnificent cathedral; whether he can trace his commission through the
apostolic succession or not; whether his doctrines car or
cannot be sustained by synods and councils; nay, whether
there be any minister of religion at all, for the soul may be
justified by simple faith in the Lord Jesus. The worshipper may be a Cameronian on the hills of Scotland under the
open heaven; or a man who has strayed somehow into a
conventicle; or a wandering savage who is made to listen,
to attend, to be enraptured, till his eyes pour forth tears
under the preaching of some humble missionary on whose
head the hands of a mitred prelate have never been laid,
and there shall be all the elements of the doctrine of justification.  What has occurred to him on the hills, or in the
woods, or in a school-house, or in a church, he feels may
occur anywhere else in the same way. It will not become
then essential to his view that the doctrines of religion
should be preached on a hill, or in a valley; that the minister stands in front of a tent, or that he ministers at a certain altar; it will not be essential that he wear a certain
vestment, or be able to trace his spiritual genealogy back to
far distant times,-what he wishes to know is whether a
man has experienced in his own soul what he has in his-the
power of the doctrine of justification by faith in the blood of
Jesus. If he has, that is enough. It is to him a question of comparatively no moment whether he thinks that




130     now  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
baptism by immersion is the only method; or whether he
regards John Wesley as the greatest and the best of men; or
whether he believes that all human wisdom was embodied in
the Westminster Assembly of divines; or whether he thinks
that the ministry exists only in three orders. All these
will be comparative trifles. The grand matter is, that the
lost and guilty soul is justified by the blood of the "everlasting covenant;" and that settles every thing that is truly
valuable in his view in regard to the salvation of the soul.
Such a system, it is clear, must be essentially liberal. It
cannot be a system which will be primarily concerned in
" questions and strifes of words" about the externals of
religion.  It will recognise in every man, who has ever felt
the efficacy of the blood of Christ, a Christian brother.  It
will regard all men by nature as essentially on the same
level in reference to salvation. There will be, in the matter of religion, no favoured class, no holy order; none, by
nature, nearer heaven than others, and none who shall have
a right to prescribe to others what they are to believe or to
do. One point-one grand doctrine distinguishes them, no
mat'er of what sect, or country, or complexion, they may
be-that they are redeemed by the blood of the same Saviour. They are of th- same family. They have the same
rights in the kingdom  of grace.  No one has a right, in
virtue of blood, or name, or connection with outward forms
of religion, to claim a superior nearness to heaven; nor, if
the soul is justified by the blood of Jesus, has he the
right or the disposition to withhold the name of Christian,
or to say that a soul thus justified is left to "the uncovenanted mercies of God."
The doctrine which has been considered constitutes the
peculiarity of the Protestant religion.  Protestantism began
in the restoration of the doctrine of justification by faith.
This, more than any thing else, distinguishes the- system.




HOW SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?    131
All there is of Protestantism that is of value is in this doctrine; and all that we have of liberality in religion, and
freedom from persecution, and purity of doctrine, is to be
traced to this.
The whole discussion on the doctrine of justification may
be closed by a personal appeal to those who may read this
tract. There are but two ways conceivable on which you
can be saved.  One is, on the ground of your own righteousness; the other is, on the ground of the righteousness
of.the Lord Jesus.  There is no middle way conceivable.
It is the grand question, then, and one in which every individual has the deepest interest, What is the ground of
your reliance? On which of these do you depend when
you think of being admitted to heaven?.If you rely on
the former-on your own righteousness-it must be either
because you can disprove the facts which are. charged on
you as sin, or because, if the facts are undeniable, you will
be able to vindicate your conduct before the bar of the
Almighty. Here, then, it may be solemnly asked, whether
you are willing to rest your soul's interests on such a foundation?  Are you prepared to abide the issue of such a trial?
Can you calmly look forward to such an investigation of
your life before God's bar, and feel secure when you think
of the tremendous interests of the soul that are at stake?
Are you prepared to go up to meet your Maker with the
feeling that your only hope there is self-vindication? It
may be permitted to the writer of this tract, in view of
these reasonings, and of the truths that have been suggested,
and in view also of the solemn fact that he, like those whom
he addresses, is soon to stand before the tribunal where all
will be judged, to say, "I AM NOT. I turn to the other
system which I have endeavoured to set before you. I look
away from all that I have done-the miserable rags of my
own righteousness-to the white robe of salvation wrought




132      HOW  SHALL MAN BE JUST WITH GOD?
out by my great Redeemer, and seek to wrap that robe around
my guilty soul, and I feel that if justified by faith in his
blood I shall be safe."
A guilty, weak, and helpless worm,
On thy kind arms I fall;
Be thou my strength and righteousness,
My Saviour and my all.
THE END.
STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON AND CO.
PHILADELPHIA.




No. 4.
THE
ABRAHAMIC COVENANT AND THE
NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.
BY
JOSEPH C. STILES, D.D.
Elye v-pt5bY{riall vubItti1Itn (fallUtittCC.
DEPOSITORIES:
PIIILADELPITIA: PRESBYTERIAN IhOUSE, 386 CIIESTNUT STREET.
NEIW Y'ORK: IVISON & PIIINNEY, 178 FULTON ST.








No. 4.
THE
ABRAHAMIC COVENANT AND THE
NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.
THE covenant of God with Abraham under the old dispensation, and his covenant with men in these days of the
Gospel, compose his great church arrangement for the salvation of the world.
In opposition to this statement, let it be observed, that
the Church of God, as to its origin, was intimated to man
at the moment of his fall, but found its first development
in the Abrahatnic covenant; as to its essence, the unity of
the Church in earlier and in later times is established by
identity of parties, relations, agencies, and objects; as to its
fo27rm, it was encumbered by a multitude of observances,
ceremonial and political, in ancient times, while its modern
administration is marked by simplicity and spirituality; and
as to itsforce, while the Abrahamic covenant worked as a
temporal arrangement to the close of the first dispensation,
it clearly carried at the same time a spiritual bearing, coextensive with the general features of the Christian Church
in the gospel dispensation.
We affirm, therefore,
THAT THE CHURCH UNDER THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
AND THE NEW TESTAMENT DISPENSATION ARE SUBSTAN'
TIALLY ONE AND THE SAME INSTITUTION.
We have two legitimate sources of evidence: Old Testament language of the covenant, and New Testament interpretation of it.
The Church of God in our day is based upon that permanent spiritual covenant between God and man, signed
3




4             THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
and sealed by a significant rite, whereby, through the
atonement of his Son, and the agency of his Spirit, God
offers and secures salvation to all that believe.
The New Testament Church embraces six particulars, and
only six that are material: 1. Its dignity; a permanent
covenant. 2. Its parties; God and man. 3. Its provisions; the Son and the Spirit. 4. Its great requirement
of man; faith. 5. Its great promise by God; salvation.
6. Its appointed seal; a significant rite.  If each of these
particulars is fully embraced in God's covenant with the
patriarch, then that covenant is the great gospel covenant;
the constitution of the Church.
I. The Abrahamic covenant is a permanent arrangement.
It is universally conceded that the Church is a standing
institution for all ages. If, therefore, the Abrahamic covenant is a temporary arrangement, it is not the gospel covenant. God's stipulation with the patriarch will be seen,
however, to be an everlasting covenant, if we examine:
1. The language of the covenant itself; "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after
thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant." Gen.
xvii. 7.  This covenant is not confined to Abraham, for it
extends to his seed; nor to the patriarch's children, for it
extends to his seed in their generations; nor to any limited
number of generations, for it is established with Abraham
and his seed, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant.
2. The multiplied and most solemn rehearsals of the
covenant through all periods of the Old Te'stament dispensation, as an everlasting covenant.
In Abraham's day the Almighty said to the patriarch,
" Sarah, thy wife, shall bear a son, and thou shalt call his
name Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him for
an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him."
True to his word, God did renew this covenant with Isaac




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.               5
and with Jacob in their day. Nine hundred years after its
formation, in the reign of David, this covenant was called
up and confirmed in a most impressive manner.  David
said to Israel, " Be ye always mindful of his covenant, the
word which he commanded to a thousand generations, even
of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his
oath unto Isaac, and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a
law, and unto Israel for an everlasting covenant.". Here is
a covenant of eternal remembrance; a command to a thousand generations; to Abraham a covenant; to Isaac an
oath; to Jacob a law; to Israel an everlasting covenant.
In like manner, the Scriptures present frequent notices of
this transaction as an everlasting covenant through all the
days of the prophets, especially by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and even by Malachi.  Ps. lxxxix. 3, 4, 6; Is. xxiv.
5; Iv. 3; lxi. 8; Jer. xxxii. 40; xxxvii. 26; Ezek. xvi. 60;
Mal. ii. 10.
3. This institution survives the Old Testament dispensation, and acts in full force under the reign of the Gospel,
as an everlasting covenant.
We shall be compelled to present a multitude of testimonies to this point under every successive head of' investigation, and shall therefore mention very few in this connection.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews it is spoken of expressly as
everlasting: "Through the blood of the everlasting covenant."  We know that this passage refers to the Abrahamic
covenant, because it includes Christ, and Christ a curse for
us, as we shall abundantly show. Indeed the writer himself gives us satisfactory evidence of'this in a parallel passage in the same epistle. The Abrahamic covenant is well
known through all parts of the Old Testament by three
marks: It is styled " an everlasting covenant;" carries
the general promise, " I will be your God and ye shall be
my people;" and usually annexes some special promise of
spiritual regeneration.
1s




6            THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
In Jer. xxxii. 40, God holds out the everlasting covenant
with the patriarchal promise, "I will be their God and they
shall be my people," and then he adds, "And I will put
my fear in their hearts, and they shall not depart from me."
Now, in the eighth of Hebrews, Paul alludes to the Sinai
covenant as an inferior abrogated one, and in contrast
brings up that better, more enduring covenant which was
established upon better promises. He gives us a sample of
these better promises. One is, "I will be to them a God
and they shall be to me a people." Another is, "I will put
my laws within their minds and write them in their hearts."
Here are the three marks of the covenant of Abraham: it
is an everlasting covenant, securing to Israel Jehovah as
their God, and putting his fear in their hearts.
Whatever ambiguity may sometimes arise from the limited
use of the term  "everlasting" in the Scriptures, if the
spiritual and permanent nature of the subject in hand, its
contrast with temporal covenants, its recognition in the
gospel as a permanent institution, did not dissipate all
doubt, surely the following testimony must settle the question forever. Under the New Testament dispensation, an
inspired writer argues out the necessary perpetuity of the
Abrahamic covenant, from its very nature as a solemnized
compact. Such a transaction between men, says the apostle, is stable and binding; "Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth
thereto." Gal. iii. 15. The Abrahamic covenant had
been "ordered in all things and sure," and preceded the
Sinai covenant more than four centuries, wherefore Paul
continues, "Now  this I say, brethren, that the covenant
which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which
was four hundred and thirty years after could not disannul,
that it should make the promise of none effect." In substance this is Paul's reasoning: All the integrities of the
Godhead had solemnly pledged certain blessings to Abraham




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.             7
and his seed forever. This covenant is immutable in its
nature. Therefore the introduction of a new economy five
hundred years after, in the days of Moses, could not destroy
the covenant. By parity of reasoning, the introduction of
another, two thousand years after, in the days of Christ,
could not make the promise of none effect. Thus, with the
strongest assurance, the apostle speaks of the blessings of
God's covenant with Abraham as actually descending upon
Gentiles in these days of the Gospel.
The Abrahamic covenant is therefore clearly a permanent
arrangement for all periods of this world's history: because
it is God's covenant with Abraham and his seed in their
generations for an everlasting covenant; it was renewed in
the persons of Isaac, Jacob, David, and all Israel as a covenant, an oath, a law, a word to a thousand generations, an
everlasting covenant; was rehearsed as such by the prophets to the very close of the Old Testament dispensation;
is still denominated in the New Testament an everlasting
covenant, and marked by the well-known patriarchal promises; and is finally proved by the express argument of an
inspired man to be essentially immutable.
So far as the first feature of the Church is concerned,
permanency of obligation, is not the Abrahamic covenant
identical with the Gospel? If the Gospel endures forever, the Abrahamic covenant also works through time and
eternity.
II. Its parties are God and man.
All men know that the Church is not now confined to
any one nation. Had the Abrahamic covenant, therefore,
been limited to the Jews, this simple fact would have demonstrated its radical distinction from the Gospel. That
the parties to the covenant with Abraham are the parties to
the Church, not God and the Jews, but God and man, may
be inferred:
1. From Abraham's titles.




8             THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
The patriarch's first name, "Abram, high father," was
changed to "Abraham, father of a multitude." The patriarch's descendants were numerous, and it might be objected
that this appellation was aimbiguous. He is styled again
"father of many nations."  It is difficult to confine this
title to one nation. Again, " father of that which is of the
law and that which is of faith." Should it still be said
that there might be believers as well as legalists among the
lineal descendants of Abraham, then let it be remembered,
that Abraham is the "father of all them that believe," and
"the father of the faithful."  Surely these appellations
transcend the boundaries of Judea to find the parties of the
Abrahamic covenant. If there did exist one remaining
doubt, it would be dissipated by his further designations,
" heir of the world," father of us all," Gentile as well as
Jew.
2. From the descriptions of Abraham's seed.
Scripture furnishes two marks of the seed. Negatively:
the promise of this covenant is not limited to the natural
descendants of the patriarch; "neither because they are
the seed of Abraham are they all children," —all his descendants are not included.  " They who are the children
of the flesh are not the children of God,"- a part rejected.
" For if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made
void, and the promise of none effect,"-this establishes the
spirituality and consequent universal bearing of the covenant. Thus, they who are of the flesh, of the law, the seed
of Abraham, naturally, are not the seed of the covenant.
Positively: the Gentile as well as the Jew is covered by
the Abrahamic covenant. The condition of the promise
was formed with an express reference to the universal bearing of the covenant. The promise of Abraham and his
seed was not made through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.  Had the promise been confined to the
law, it would have been shut up to the Jews; but working




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.              9
through faith, all that believe are embraced, without limitation to time or territory. Indeed we are expressly informed
by the apostle, that in this covenant with Abraham, there is
neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, "For you, Galatians,
believing, are Abraham's seed.- And of us Romans, believing, Abraham is the father." But this point is placed
in the clearest possible light by one fact-Abraham believed
before he was circumcised, expressly "that he might be
the father of all them that believe, though they be not
circumcised, that the blessing of Abraham might come
upon the Gentiles."
The parties to the Abrahamic covenant, therefore, are
clearly God and man, because Abraham, the representative
of man's interest in the covenant, is styled the "father of
many nations," "of all that believe," "of us all," and " heir
of the world;" because the condition of the covenant being
spiritual, one man is as near to the covenant as another,
and all have access to it; because Abraham believed before
he was circumcised, that the covenant might not be confined
to the Jews, but extend to all mankind.
So far as the second feature of the New Testament Church
is concerned-the parties-is not the Abrahamic covenant
identical with the Gospel?  Does the New  Testament
Church extend farther than to all who believe? Does the
Abrahamic covenant fall short of that extent?
III. Its provisions are the Son and the Spirit.
All men know that the Gospel presents the atonement of
the Son of God for justification, and the agency of the Spirit
for sanctification. If, therefore, the Abrahamic covenant
had not included the same divine provision, it would thereby
have proved itself a distinct covenant.
That the Abrahamic covenant embraces Christ we are
fully assured:
1. By the most explicit apostolic interpretation of its
language. In his Epistle to the Galatians, (iii. 16,) Paul




10            THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
says, "Now to Abraham  and his seed were the promises
made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of
one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Christ was the
natural descendant of Abraham, and was in that sense his
seed.  But we must not rest in that thought.  The great
idea is, that Christ is the only one of all Abraham's seed,
the only being in the universe, with whom God could consistently covenant as a basis, a procuring cause, of blessings
to men. Christ, therefore, on man's part is the capital, allembracing, all-efficient party. How then do Abraham himself and all the rest of us become parties to this covenant?
Here is the secret. The condition of the covenant complied
with, identifies the party with the head of the covenant.
Faith unites to Christ, so that all believers are in Christ.
God therefore covenants with them, and promises to them,
simply on account of their connection with him.
Who doubts that Christ is included in the Abrahamic
covenant? In the seventeenth of Genesis, God covenants
with Abraham and his seed. In the third of Galatians,
Paul says explicitly that the seed of Abrahamin the eye of
this covenant, is Christ.  This fact places an irrefragable
seab upon all that has been, and all that shall be advanced
in this argument.  For if Christ, in God's understanding,
is indeed the seed of Abraham, then these six things clearly
follow: The Abrahamic covenant is a standing covenant,
not confined to the old economy, but extending to all generations; a universal covenant, not limited to the Jews, but
opening itself to all the human family; a covenant, in its
bounty providing the Son and the Spirit; in its authority,
requiring faith on man's part; its reward, in promising
salvation on the part of God; and in its-designation, marked
by a heaven-appointed seal.
2. This position is confirmed by other witnesses.
Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, testifies that the
Abrahamic covenant includes the Saviour, and is at work in




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.             11
the times of the Gospel: Luke i. 68-74: "Blessed be the
Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his
people, and hath raised up a horn of salvation for us in the
house of David, as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began, to perform
the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his
holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father
Abraham." God raised up this horn-Christ, in performance of his covenant with Abraham.  Does not that covenant include Christ? Mary, too, contemplating the birth
of the Saviour, ascribes his coming into the world to the
Abrahamic covenant: "He hath holpen his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy; as he spake to our fathers,
to Abraham, and to his seed forever." Mary refers to the
work of Christ, to God's fidelity to his covenant to Abraham and his seed forever.  Does not that covenant include
Christ?
3. This fact is still farther attested by the time and
manner of the confirmation of the Abrahamic covenant.
Paul assures us, that long before the institution of the
5Mosaic economy the Abrahamnic covenant was confirmed
by God in Christ. Gal. iii. 17.  If so, then, that covenant must have included the Saviour from its earliest
inception.
4. This glorious truth is sealed by the declared end of
Christ's sufferings and work on Calvary.
It is inspired language that " Christ hath redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us."
But why?  "That the blessing of Abraham  might come
on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." If the blessing
of the Abrahamic covenant looks to Christ crucified as a
channel, —-as means to an end,-does not that covenant
include Christ?
If Christ is the seed of the covenant; if he is a horn
of salvation in performance of the covenant; if he is a




12            THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
helper of Israel in remembrance of the covenant; if he is
God's confirmation of the covenant; if he is a curse for us
to secure the blessings of the covenant; then, of a truth,
the Abrahamic covenant embraces Christ, and was always
a nullity without him.
The Abrahamic covenant provides the Spirit also.
It follows as a matter of course if the Son is embraced,
that the Spirit is not excluded.  It is the propitiation of
the Son that opens the way for the dispensation of the
Spirit. It is the Son who sends the Spirit. Nay, the
Holy Spirit himself is the Spirit of the Son.  If, therefore,
the covenant of Abraham includes the one, it must include
the other also.
But we have the express Scripture testimony on this
head. We are told that Christ bath redeemed us from the
curse of the law, being made a curse for us, " that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus
Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit
through faith." Gal. iii. 14.  Here, in one inspired sentence, the blessing vouchsafed to Abraham and his seed in
the covenant, includes in express terms both the Son and
the Spirit.  Christ works to secure the blessing of the covenant, and the Spirit is promised as a part of the blessing
thus secured.
In this third feature-the provisions involved-is not
the Abrahamic covenant identical with the Gospel? Does
the Gospel provide more than the work of the Son and
the Spirit? Does the Abrahamic covenant provide less?
IV. The great requirement of man is faith.
All men know that faith is the all-inclusive requirement
of the Gospel. And if the Abrahamic covenant had satisfied itself with any thing less, it would thus have proved
itself an entirely different institution.  But the Abraharnic
covenant, like the Gospel, works through the righteousness
of faith, for



AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.             13
1. The promise to Abraham was through faith.
We know that Abraham  believed God before he was
circumcised. We know, too, that Abraham's faith was
counted to him  for righteousness.  We know by the Old
Testament that the seal of the covenant was circumcision.
And we know by the New Testament that the great import
of circumcision was faith.  For we have the testimony of
an apostle, that Abraham received the sign of circumcision,
"a seal of the righteousness of faith."
2. The promise of Abraham's seed required faith.
That the promise to the seed should be made on the
same principle which carried it to the patriarch, needs no
vindication. This the Scriptures assert: " For it was not
written for his sake alone that his faith was imputed to him
for righteousness, but for us also, to whom the same righteousness shall be imputed if we believe." Rom. iv. 23, 24.
Therefore, as the apostle says, "the promise to Abraham
and his seed was not through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith." Rom. iv. 13.  " Know ye, therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children
of Abraham. So then they who are of faith, the same are
blessed with faithful Abraham." Gal. iii. 7, 9.
Now if Abraham was justified by the righteousness of
faith; if the promise to his seed is made only through the
righteousness of faith; if it was recorded in the beginning
that Abraham obtained his righteousness by faith, precisely
that we might believe and obtain the same righteousness;
if we who believe are the children of Abraham, and any
other principle of acceptance, as the apostle says, would
vitiate the promise; if the seal of the covenant is circumcision, and the scriptural meaning of circumcision is faith;
and, finally, if the provisions of the covenant are, first,
Christ a curse for us, the great object of faith, and, second,
the Spirit of Christ, the great agent of faith,-what can be
2




14           THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
clearer than that in the covenant of God with Abraham, the
great requirement of man is faith?
In this fourth feature-the requirement of man —is not
the Abrahamic covenant identical with the New Testament
Church? The Gospel calls pre-eminently for man's faith.
The covenant with Abraham demands emphatically the
same compliance. -
V. The great promise by God is redemption.
All men know that the grand promise of the Gospel is
salvation. If the Abrahamic covenant had promised less, it
had thrown a gulf between itself and the Gospel. But that
the Abrahamic covenant offers redemption to those who
comply with its terms is proved,
i. By the language of the covenant: "I will give unto
thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of Canaan for
an everlasting possession."  The land of Canaan is a common type of heaven, and " given as an everlasting possession," would seem to enforce the propriety of this interpretation here. The accompanying promise, "And I will be
their God," is frequently interpreted in Scripture, and
always to imply salvation.
2. Spiritual and saving promises are perpetually and
variously connected with the covenant as interpreted both
by Old and New Testament writers.  Among others the
following may be found on record: "I will make an everlasting covenant with thee, even the sure mercies of
David;" "My tabernacle shall be with thee;" "I will be
with thee and will help thee;" " In thee and in thy seed
shall the nations of the earth be blessed;" " Yea, I will be
their God and they shall be my people;" " And I will give
them one heart and one way, that they may fear before me
forever;" " I will put my fear in their hearts, that they
shall not depart from me;" " He hath clothed me in the
garments of salvation and covered me with robes of righteousness;" " This is all my salvation and all my desire."




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.            15
All this language evidently imports the salvation of the
Gospel.
3. New Testament statements settle this point.
The duty required by the covenant —faith a righteousness-clearly shows that salvation is the reward. The provisions secured-the Son and the Spirit-clearly show that
nothing less than salvation can be the offer of the covenant.
The price of the blessing —Christ a curse for us-settles
the fact that God's promise in the Abrahamic covenant is
Christian redemption.
If the language of the covenant promises Canaan for a
possession, and Jehovah for a God; if the prophetic interpretation of the covenant includes God's presence with
them, and abode in them, and blessing upon them, clothing
them with robes of righteousness and the garments of salvation; and if the New Testament teaches that the Abrahamic
covenant requires faith, promises the Son and the Spirit,
and needs the atonement to secure the blessing, —then, of a
truth, the great promise of God in the Abrahamic covenant
is salvation.
In this fifth feature of the covenant-its reward-is
not the Abrahamic institution identical with the Gospel?
The Church gives no more than redemption-the Abrahamic covenant no less.
VI. Its appointed seal is an emblentatic rite.
Literal consummation consists in affixing oneself to the
covenant by the act of signature and of sealing; spiritual
consummation, in affixing the covenant to oneself by the
solemn ceremonial act of appropriating its emblem.
Where interests of great magnitude are involved, it is
a custom, sanctioned by the wisdom of the world in all
generations, that engagements between men should be literally signed and sealed. Man's awful religious responsibilities, his inborn liability to unfaithfulness, and the deadly
consequences of sin, demand all the moral help which can




16           THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
be secured. To meet the emergency, a spiritual covenant
emblematically consummated is God's merciful contrivance.
The moral bearing of a sacrament is invaluable. Sacraments address the senses, and summon them to give impressiveness to language.  They address intellect, and
emphasize upon it all the destroying and saving facts of
man's case. They address conscience, and bring up distinctly before it the duty to be sworn. They address purpose and agency; and bring the soul to a deliberate and
solemn self-commitment to God. When a man approaches
a sacrament, all else is thrown off from the mind, and his
very existence would seem to be shut up in the one deliberate act of forming and recording his vow to his Maker.
Thus, in its first administration, the sacrament fixes on the
mind a deep sense of final religious commitment, and
through its every re-enactment or even remembrance, God
looks in upon the soul and re-enforces obligation. It may
be safely observed, therefore, of a sacrament, that by natural operation it combines strong moral influences to secure
efficient moral action, and thus tends powerfully to sustain
the fidelity of the subject.
Baptism, one of the two sacraments of our religion, is the
sign and the seal of the great Church covenant in our day;
and it is so in two senses. It operates an adoption of the
covenant as by literal signature; and again, it solemnizes
the act by an emblematic rehearsal of the covenant adopted.
In baptism, God comes to man and covenants with his creature, and man comes to God and covenants with his Maker.
By the authorized application of water and the pronunciation of the Triune name, Jehovah engages to be the
God of the subject. By the voluntary reception of the
sacramental water and name, the subject engages to be the
servant of the Lord. Thus, baptism is both the signification and the signature, the expression and the execution of the
great covenant of salvation, both on God's part and on man's.




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.              17
The plan of salvation has always required on man's part
repentance and faith, and pledged on the part of God, sanctification and forgiveness. All this baptism distinctly expresses. Baptism has a natural voice; it is purification
from  defilement.  Man's voluntary application for God's
holy water operates a confession of sin. God's application
of it to sinful man expresses his promise of sanctification.
Baptism speaks, too, by scriptural appointment, and expresses reliance upon Christ for remission of sins. The
Master says: " He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved." He, therefore, who comes to God's minister to be
baptized, professes to believe. The apostles summon men
to be'baptized for the remission of sin. He, therefore, who
seeks baptism, applies for justification by faith in Christ;
while God, in administering baptism, signifies his acceptance of the subject upon the righteousness, presented.
Thus, by natural import and scriptural teaching, the ordinance of baptism clearly expresses the whole religious transaction between God and man: on the one hand, both the
repentance and the faith required of man; on the other,
both the sanctification and the forgiveness promised by
God. But baptism is not language merely, but conduct
also.  It executes the covenant.  He who enters God's
house and receives baptism at the hand of God's minister,
thereby speaks out before heaven and earth his repentance
toward God and his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and
this with a view to a present and an eternal covenant with
God for salvation. So when God, through his appointed
representative, solemnly administers the ordinance upon the
person of the applicant, he too, thereby, speaks out on his
part, and closes the covenant with the believer by pledging
the symbolized purification and forgiveness. But baptism
goes still one step farther.  By baptism, as through a door,
the subject verily enters into the household of God; while
2*




18           THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
through baptism, as by a personal embrace, God welcomes
him to the adoption of a son.
What now is Christian baptism?  It is neither more nor
less than the great covenant of salvation between God and
man expressed and executed, signed and sealed by both
parties. Surely baptism is of God. The ordinance bringsup every faculty of man's nature and every word of God's
truth to impress upon man's soul the responsibility and the
consolation of his covenant-stand at the moment when he
first assumed it; and works to secure his final perseverance
by solemnly renewing these impressions during every period
of his subsequent life.
The final mark of the New Testament Church-what
is it? It is this.  The Church has its sign and seal in an
emblematic ordinance appointed by God for this purpose.
Now if the Abrahamic covenant had been established and
administered without any such sign and seal, although
scripturally identical with the New Testament Church, as
all the world must see, in the five important preceding particulars, there would still have existed one important difference between them.
It is not enough to say that the Abrahamic covenant,
like the New Testament Church, has its divinely-appointed
sign and seal. More than this is true. Substantially the
sign and the seal of the Abrahamic covenant is the sign and
the seal of the Gospel covenant. This is true in a general
sense. Each in its general nature is an outward sign of an
inward grace.'" Baptism is not the putting away of the
filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." 1 Peter iii. 21.  " Neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, but circumcision is that
of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." Rom.
ii. 29. Each, too, in its general office, is the covenant of
a purity required of man, (Gen. xvii. 11,) and promised by
God. Deut. xxx. 6. But the similitude between baptism




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.              19
and circumcision is not confined to their general features;
it is exact in every important particular. Four things
define Christian baptism: 1. By its nature, baptism expresses purification from defilement.  So does circumcision.
Jer. iv. 4. 2. By scriptural appointment, baptism stands
for faith a righteousness. So does circumcision. Rom. iv. 11.
3. By baptism the subject speaks out his repentance and
faith, covenanting with God, and God pledges purification
and pardon, covenanting with the subject. Precisely this
is the operation in circumcision. Gen. xvii. 11. 4. In the
very use of baptism the subject literally enters into God's
family, and is received by him.  Exactly so was it with
him who was circumcised of old. Phil. iii. 3.
Respecting this last feature of the New Testament Church
-the appointed seal, an emblematic rite-is not the Abrahamic covenant identical with the New Testament Church?
The covenant of the Church in our day carries a sign and a
seal appointed of God, and embodying the substance of the
covenant, both on God's part and on man's. The covenant
of the Church in Abraham's day employed a sign and a
seal equally appointed of God, and descriptive of the respective pledges of the parties.
It follows that the Abrahamic covenant and the Gospel
economy, or New Testament Church, are one and the same
institution.
It will be readily granted, if we separate from any given
institution a permanent character; or from it its parties,
God and man; or from its provisions, the Son and the
Spirit; or from its requirements, faith a righteousness;
or from its promise, eternal salvation; or from its consummation, a divine seal emblematic of the covenant; we
thereby prove that it is not the New Testament Church.
But if we show an institution of which these six things are
true:-first, it is a divine arrangement as durable as the
world; second, its parties are God and man; third, its pro



20            THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
visions are the Son and the Spirit; fourth, its requirement
is faith a righteousness; fifth, its promise is final salvation;
sixth, its consummation is a divine rite embodying the
covenant, —is not that institution the Gospel economy?
-the New Testament Church? If any man denies this
proposition, what can he say?  Certainly such an institution fills up the definition of the Church precisely. What
is lacking?  Here is the Founder of the Church! And
the permanency of the Church!  And the parties of the
Church! And the provisions of the Church! And the
requirement of the  Church! And the reward of the
Church! And the seal of the Church! And what of the
Church is not here?  If any man will do himself the
justice to study out what he means by " The Church," we
are persuaded he will find every constituent of it in the
patriarchal economy.
We present two brief confirmations of this doctrine:
1st. The necessary identity of the Church in the two dispensations.
The Church must be the same in all ages, because the
foundations are the same. What is the Church?  The
body through which is accomplished the plan of God for
saving lost man, through Jesus Christ.  What are the
foundations of the Church? The great governing foundations are twofold-God's nature and relations on the one
part, and man's nature and relations on the other.  These
are always the same. On the one hand, God's perfect character, and his creating, preserving, blessing, and governing
relations, are always one and the same to all men.  Man's
accountable nature, fallen state, and infinite dependence,
are certainly one and the same in all ages of the world.
Clearly, therefore, the plan of mercy growing up out of
these elements can never essentially vary.  Now if the
nature of things, the history of the Church, and the word
of God assure us that the two dispensations are not two




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.             21
religions, then the unity of the Church in both makes it
certain that our interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant
is correct.  For the Gospel properties ascribed to the Abrahamic covenant must be found somewhere in the Old Testament. Can we find themn in the Decalogue? Can we find
them in the covenant of Sinai?  Where are they if not in
God's gracious covenant with the patriarch?
2. Express Scripture declarations.
It is the word of Paul: "If ye be Christ's then are ye
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal.
iii. 29. If you are Christ's, you are as closely identified
with the Gospel, with our New Testament Church, as you
can possibly be. But if you are Christ's, if you are in the
Gospel, if you are of the Church, this very fact makes you
the seed of Abraham, connects you this day with that covenant which God bf old made with the patriarch. Settle
this fact, that you are a Christian, and you have settled
another fact, that you are under the Abrahamic covenant.
You cannot be in Christ and out of Abraham.  For an
apostle says: "If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's
seed, and heirs according to the promise." This is just
saying, if you cannot tear away the Gospel from Christ, you
cannot tear it away from the Abrahamic covenant.
Again, Paul opens his way to the previous text by this
announcement: "The Scripture foreseeing that God would
justify the heathen through faith, preached before the
Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be
blessed." Gal. iii. 8. This, in substance, is the summing
up of the Abrahamic covenant. The first thought, justification by faith, and the second, the blessing of the nations
in the seed of Abraham, make up its ordinary description.
This passage identifies itself with the Gospel in two ways.
The apostle's description of the Abrahamic covenant is an
exact description of the Gospel. What is the Gospel?
Christ for man; and justification by faith. The Abrahamic




22           THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
covenant includes them both. First, " In thy seed —
Christ-shall all the nations be blessed." Here in the
Abrahamic covenant we have Christ for man. Again:
" Foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through
faith," as well as Abrahanm the chosen. Here in the Abrahamic covenant we have justification by faith. Thus the
Abrahamic covenant is the Gospel,-that is, it is a system
of salvation by Jesus Christ, which of old justified Abraham by faith, and is now justifying the heathen on -the
same principle. But this passage involves express as well
as argumentative testimony to the identity of the New
Testament and Abrahamic covenant. The New Testament
name is given to the Old Testament covenant. The apostle
expressly affirms this covenant with Abraham to be "The
Gospel."  God of old made a covenant with Abraham.  In
so doing, the apostle says, " He preached the Gospel unto
Abraham."  If the Scripture, or the Scripture's God,
knows what the Gospel is, the Abrahamic covenant is the
Gospel: nor can mortal deny it, save at the expense of
being wise above what is written.
INFERENCE.
If the doctrine advanced be true, then CHRISTIAN PARENTS ARE BOUND TO PRESENT THEIR CHILDREN FOR
BAPTISM.
It is a remarkable fact, that there is one duty enjoined
by the Abrahamic covenant which is not only styled the
keeping of the covenant, but in one form or other is frequently repeated in the language of the covenant. This
is the a~pplication of the sign and the seal of the covenant
to the person of the seed. God says to the patriarch: " Ye
shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be
a token of the covenant betwixt me and you." He whose
alone right it was to limit or extend the covenant and its
token, of his own good pleasure, has placed on record this




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.            23
additional emphatic language: "iThis is the covenant which
ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee,
every male child among you shall be circumcised."  The
Abrahamic covenant is the New  Testament Church.
What right has any member of the Gospel Church to
violate a principle so strongly taught in the covenant with
Abraham?
I. Our brethren respond, the Abrahamic covenant belonged to the old dispensation, and is not binding in the
new.
We now respectfully inquire, Where is there the shadow
of an argument to establish this assumption?
1. Where in reasonl?  Do not the nature and the relations of the parties, God and man, necessarily define true
religion? This will not be disputed. Are not the nature
and the relations of God and man at all times the same?
This will not be denied.  How, then, can we escape the
inference that in all essential particulars God's religion in
the day of Abraham must be God's religion in the day of
Christ, and consequently binding upon this generation?
Again: Can we form any idea of the New Testament
Church apart from that permanency, those parties, those
provisions, that requirement, that promise, and that seal,
recorded above as constituting the Church of God in the
Christian dispensation?
2. In the Scriptures, where do we find the slightest
countenance of this opinion?
God's great church arrangement in the days of Abraham,
as we have shown, stands and works in our day. The New
Testament tells us that there were two covenants in the old
dispensation. The one a covenant of law, the other a covenant of grace. The former was styled the " Sinai," the
"Hagar," the " bond-woman" covenant. This law-covenant "gendered to bondage," and was cast out. In strongest antithesis the apostle brings up the covenant of the




24           THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
" free-woman,"' the " Sarah," the Abrahamic covenant.
Of this he makes a singular and decisive averment: this is
"the covenant which was confirmed before of God in
Christ," and therefore a covenant essentially immutable.
For who can reason more clearly than this: If a man's
covenant, being confirmed, must stand-God's covenant,
confirmed, cannot fail?
But God has said, " This is my covenant," that ye apply
the token thereof to your child. If the Abrahamic covenant works in our day, and if the Abrahamic covenant
-commands the parent to apply the sign and seal of the
covenant to the person of his child, why is not every
Christian bound to present his child for baptism?
We have been rejoiced, though not surprised, to hear
that some of the most excellent and learned of our brethren
who are not considered to hold our doctrine in the premises,
do yet preach from the pulpit the present obligation of the
Abrahamic covenant. Sooner or later, the whole Church
of God, it would seem, must come to this faith. But why
then do they not enjoin the baptism of children? Because
they hold with their brethren,
II. That the sign and the seal of the Abrahamic convenant is laid aside in the New Testament dispensation.
Our brethren must bear with us while we respectfully
renew the inquiry, where can evidence be found to sustain
such a conviction?
1. What dictate of reason calls for the preservation of
the covenant, but the abandonment of its sign and seal?
During a long period of the world's existence, Jehovah subjected every male on earth who followed his-counsels, to
strong physical pangs, that through the bloody rite of circumcision, mankind might derive two important advantages:
First, that they might impressively learn, on the one hand,
their helpless depravity and condemnation; on the other,
his gracious promise both of purification and of pardon.




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.            25
And again, that through the same appointed sign and seal,
mankind might be led to a solemn covenant-dedication of
themselves and of their families to God's service, and be
strengthened and comforted in the discharge of covenant
obligations by God's emphatic assurance of seasonable cooperation. Now, if the generations of the old world in the
service of God derived so much light and strength and comfort from the appointed sign and seal of the covenant, why
do not we of this generation in the same service equally
need its seasonable help? If a wise and merciful God did
thus attribute so much importance to this sign and seal of
old, as to style it " his covenant," and the neglect of it the
rejection of his covenant, (Gen. xvii. 10, 14,) why should he
order its abandonment in these days?
2. What word of Holy WTrit suggests the thought that
God is administering his covenant without a sign and seal
in our day? Are we reminded that circumcision is abolished? Very true! But recall another fact; circumcision,
in its outward nature, never was the sign and the seal of
God's great Church covenant, but the sign and the seal of
only one dispensation of it. A dispensation of a covenant
has respect simply to the outward form of its administration,
and may be changed a thousand times without touching the
integrity of the covenant, even iir its sign and seal. The
setting aside of circumcision, therefore, may be nothing
more than the exchange of one sensible form of representation for another more suitable to the genius of the new administration. The form of the sign and seal of God's great
covenant with man is changed with the dispensation, but
so also has the form of the passover been changed, and the
form of public worship has been changed, and the form of
the ministry, and the day of the Sabbath. And this is all
that can be changed, the forms of things essential to the
Church of God. For if religion is and must be the same
in all generations, then the great leading principles of reli3




26            THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
gion at one time must prevail at all times.  Was it necessary to the cause of religion that there should be a Sabbath
in ancient times? Then we must find a, Sabbath in the
present dispensation, and we do. Was it necessary that
there should be public worship in ancient times? Then we
must find public worship in the present dispensation, and
we do.  Was it necessary that there should be a ministry
to represent God among men?  Then we must find a ministry in our day, and we do. Now was it necessary that
there should be an appointed sign and seal to impress man's
mind through his senses; to rouse man's conscience by a
sacramental commitment of himself and family to God; and
to encourage man's heart by God's signed and sealed assurance of gracious co-operation? Then we must find such a
sign and seal at work in our day, and we do. Baptism is
the refreshing sign and seal of the gracious Christian dispensation of the great covenant, as circumcision was the
painful token of the Old Testament dispensation of the same
covenant.
It is said that baptism does not come in the place of circumcision. If it does not, we will show our brethren a marvel. Baptism utters every word and works every end of
circumcision perfectly.  Circumcision, as to its nature, is
heavenly language of spiritual things through a sensible
sign,-so is baptism, precisely. Circumcision in its natural
import declares, " I am defiled and must be cleansed," on
man's part.; "you are defiled and I will cleanse you," on
God's part. This is the natural language of baptism, precisely. Circumcision was set up to signify faith on man's
part, and its imputation to him for righteousness upon God's
part. So, too, baptism was instituted to express faith on
man's part, and remission of sin on God's part, precisely.
In circumcision man says, "I covenant with thee, 0 God,
repenting of my sin, and looking through faith to offered
righteousness;" and God responds, " I covenant with thee,




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.            27
my believing child, and will wash your impurity and accept
your righteousness." So does baptism speak out the very
same voices of the parties, precisely. Finally: Circumcision carried the party into the visible family of God, and
brought the arms of the father round his adopted child.
Here, too, baptism accomplishes the very work of circumcision, precisely.
Circumcision touched three things only: God, man, and
the covenant between them. Baptism touches only three
things: God, man, and the covenant between them. Every
bearing of circumcision upon God, man, and the covenant,
baptism carries out toward God, man, and the covenant,
with precisely the same spirit, thought, and intent. In a
word, by God's appointment, circumcision expresses and executes the great covenant of grace between God and man in
ancient times. So, by God's appointment, baptism expresses
and executes the great covenant of grace between God and,
man in modern times. What then can that man mean who
says that baptism does not come in the place of circumcision?
And what can Paul mean when he makes baptism follow circumcision in the same sentence, and pronounces baptism the
circumcision of our dispensation?  "In whom also you are
circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in
putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ-buried with him in baptism." Col. ii. 11,12.
The argument may be summed up in a word. The
Scriptures assure us that the Abrahamic covenant works in
our day. The Scriptures assure us that one integral element
of the covenant is this: its deliberate and solemn consummation by the parties respectfully in and through their own
personal act of signing and sealing the covenant. Now
since no voice of reason or Scripture indicates its repeal in
the Gospel dispensation, like every other part of this standing covenant, the sign and the seal of the covenant stands
also, and is of obligation in our day.




28           THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
But the covenant itself distinctly requires that its appointed sign and seal should be applied to the child of the
believer. Why then does not every believer present his
child for baptism?
The third and last objection of our brethren is this:III. Baptism is indeed the sign and the seal of the Gospel Church, l&t it is to be applied to the believer only, and
not to his children.Permit us once more-respectfully to inquire, Where in all
revelation to reason or to faith can man find authority for
this limitation? A covenant of mercy with guilty man it
belonged alone to God to make. A sign and a seal to this
covenant it belonged alone to God to affix. The application
of this sign and seal it belonged alone to God to determine.
What has God done?  By the very language of institution,
as well as by the uniform administration of the covenant,
God commands that the token of the covenant shall be extended to two parties-to the believer and to his seed.
What right has man to restrain the application of this sign
and seal to one party only?
1. What in reason?
What is the foundation of the covenant?  The natures
and the relations of God and man are alike unchanged in
the old dispensation and in the new.  If, therefore, the
foundations of the covenant called for the application of the
token to the child of the believer in the early periods of the
Church, the same foundations call just as strongly for the
application of the token to the child of the believer in the
later periods of the Church. Does it not seem an outrage
upon the basis of the covenant to hold that it suggests the
limitation of the sign and the seal to the parent only?
What in the spirit of the covenant? Without the child's
consent the parent brings him into the world, places him
under law, imparts to him his own corruption, and opens
upon his soul the assaults of the world, the flesh, and the




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.              29
devil; and -there the child is, largely by his parents' act, a
helpless, hopeless immortality! Bear in mind, God made
the heart of the parent to love the child almost as himself.
When, therefore, the parent's mind has been enlightened,
his heart circumcised, his sin forgiven, his soul adopted,
and, in testimony of all this, when his very person has been
solemnly signed and sealed by God's appointment, —what
an agony must ever wring the heart of that considerate
parent, as he looks out from the bosom of God's family
upon his unsealed and excluded child, and feels that there
is no hope of relief on earth! Here let us inquire, what is
the spirit of the covenant on God's part? Surely it is the
richest, strongest sympathy with the adopted soul! God
feels for him in all the state of his nature, and gloriously relieves him there. God feels for him in all the state of his
relations, and gloriously relieves him  there.  When our
sympathizing God sees the parental feeling of this father,
agonized deeply by the exclhsion of his child from the
family of. heaven, intensely by the conviction that his own
hand had largely wrought the'mischief, and desperately
by the assurance that creation can lend him no help, shall
He feel for this father everywhere, save where his heart is
swelled to bursting by the marked disinherison of his own
child by his own father, and there shall God leave him unpitied, unrelieved? Rather is it not just like the spirit
of our heavenly Father in all other parts of the covenant to
cry out to the smitten, desperate parent, "Come! bring
your child to me. Put him in my arms. If creation cannot help you, I will. I will place him in my family by
your side. I will even fix the sign and the seal of my covenant upon his person; and he shall stand or fall largely
according to your fidelity or unfaithfulness?"  The spirit
of the covenant on man's part, what is it? The Christian
loves his child as he loves his own soul. He has been toiling, by God's help, to throw off his own corruption; why
3- s




30           THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
should he not seek God's grace to wash the heart of his
beloved child? He had been struggling, by God's help, to
bring his own sins to the blood of Jesus; why should he
not struggle, by God's help, to bring the blood of atonement to sprinkle the soul of his child? He had sought for
his own soul the counsels, sympathies, and prayers of God's
people; why should he not desire these same blessings for
his child? He had accepted God's overtures, and through
the appointed sign and seal dedicated himself to his Maker.
In every other matter, without exception, he acts for his
child; why should he not in this contingency also act for
him who cannot act for himself, and in like manner dedicate
his child to the God of his salvation? Surely it would seem
in strong accord with man's spirit in all other parts of the
covenant, nay, but a fair expression of his faith in God,
that he should surrender to him his child also under a sealed
covenant of religious education. Does it not seem, therefore, an outrage upon the spirit of the covenant, both on
God's part and on man's, to affirm that it suggests the limitation of its sign and seal to the believer only?
What in the object of the covenant?  The great object
of the covenant is to glorify God in the salvation of men.
In renewing and sanctifying the heart of man, the Spirit
presents truth on the page of Holy Writ, by the voice
of the' preacher, and signally in the use of sacramental
signs. These religious rites were appointed of God expressly to emphasize saving truth, enforce it upon the wayward mind, and thus bring the soul to swear to God under
all the advantages of aroused thought, settled conviction,
and fixed purpose. In the day of the revelation of all
things it shall be seen, that the sacraments of the Church
wrought powerfully, and especially in keeping man faithful
to covenant. But where in all human society is the strong
moral influence of a sacrament more needed than in this
very relation of parent and child? Where would it accom



AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.           31
plish more for human salvation? Only let any one generation of parents be faithful, and the world is converted. Fix
your mind upon this capital fact in the ancient covenant.
In the presence of God, to secure parental fidelity, circumcision imposed upon the parent a vow of faithful family
education. This is indicated by the act of the parent.
Circumcision was the seal of a vow. What was that vow?
When Abraham circumcised himself, he cut off defilement
from his body, and applied to it the symbol of purity.
Thus he vowed that he would put away sin and live holy
to the Lord. When Abraham's child was circumcised,
a vow of holiness to the Lord was recorded upon his
person, and Abraham's hand had placed it there. Surely
by this act Abraham stipulates that he will do what he
can to make the child holy.  God's command teaches
the same lesson.  God said to Abraham: "Every male
child among you shall be circumcised."  By God's direction, Abraham took his children and circumcised them
with his own hand. Thus God commanded Abraham to.do that which vowed the holiness of the child. Of course,
God bound the parent to educate the child to holiness.
God's interpretation of his interview with the patriarch
settles this point. The Abrahamic covenant is recorded in
the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. In the eighteenth
chapter, God alludes to the covenant, and proceeds to say
of Abraham: " I know him that he will command his children and household after him, and they shall keep the way
of justice and judgment, that the Lord mayn bring upon
Abraham  that which he hath spoken of him."  The
instruction is palpable. The promise of the Abrahamic
covenant was in part conditioned upon the fidelity of the
patriarch in the religious education of his children. Thus,
by the act of the parent, the direction of God, and God's
interpretation of both, we do assuredly know that the circumcision of a child under the ancient form of the great




3'2          THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
Church covenant, imposed upon the parent a solemn vow to
train him up for God.
Now, if the great object of the covenant is to bring the
world to holiness, and if a religious sacrament is so well
adapted to secure fidelity to the vow recorded, would it
not greatly facilitate the design of the covenant if all the
parents of the Church were summoned into the sanctuary
there to record their sacramental vow, that they will faithfully co-operate with God to educate their children for the
kingdom of heaven?  Does it not seem, therefore, an outrage upon the object of the covenant to limit the application of its sign and seal to one party only, and thus
absolve all the Christian parents of future generations from
the solemn church-vow of religious education which was
imposed upon all the parents of the church in generations
past?
What in the administration of the covenant?  In the
world of nature God placed the child in the family with its
parent. In like manner in the spiritual world, under the
old economy, God placed the child in his own family
with its parents. What imaginable change has passed
upon the relation of parent and child in changing generations? If through all the ages of the Church's history
anterior to the advent of Jesus, heaven and earth saw the
children of the faithful abiding with their parents in the
visible family of God, is it not an outrage upon the spirit
and principle of the old dispensation to change the relation
of parent and child so violently as to limit the ordinance to
one party only?
The spirit and bearing of the new dispeiisation is still
more unfriendly to the exclusion of the children of the
Church from the seal of the covenant. Under the ancient
administration gracious things were faintly shadowed through
types and prophecies; under the new, the great Antitype himself is come, and a clear light shines forth on




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.            33
every hand. Under the old, the laws, moral and ceremonial, sounded out their condemnations of sin, and the whole
economy largely gendered to bondage; but grace and truth
came by Jesus Christ, and now promises and mercies everywhere abound. Under the old, worship was largely limited
to one spot of the earth; the covenant was preached to one
nation under heaven; the badge of salvation was affixed to
one sex of the race. But under the liberalities of our most
glorious day, every blessing is enlarged without limitation.
All manner of worship is open to every foot of earth's soil
where the spirit of man will come to God in spirit and in
truth; the gospel is preached to every creature under
heaven, Gentile as well as Jew; and the baptismal badge
of salvation is extended to the whole race-to the female
as well as to the male.
Now, when every other great and noble blessing, circumscribed and tied up under the first economy, breaks out
into boundless development in our day, is it not an outrage
upon the broad and liberal genius of the Gospel, to suppose
that this very year of jubilee, which strikes to the earth all
checks and hinderances to God's redeeming mercy, should
strike from the persons of all the children of the Church
that strengthening, comforting sign and seal of God's covenanted adoption which all the narrowness of the early
dispensation could not deny them, and should cast our
offspring out of God's family unsealed, to wander among
the cursed heathen? The sign and seal of God's covenant,
so comfortably pledging God's gracious and necessary help,
-why should it be granted to the children of our fathers
in the old dispensation, but denied to our children amid
the abounding philanthropies of the Gospel?  What shadow of a reason for this forbidding conclusion do we find
either in the foundations, or in the spirit, or in the object,
or in the administration of the covenant.? What one
thought can reason allege for this chilling limitation?




34           THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
2. What in Scripture do we find to countenance this
assumption?  First, it is affirmed that Christ the Master
does not expressly teach the doctrine of infant baptism,
and, therefore, refjutes it.  We answer, first, that Christ,
the Master, does not formally repeal the doctrine of the
Church membership of infants, and, therefore, establishes it.
Christ, it is said, does not announce the doctrine. Why
should he utter one word upon the subject? The Abrahamic covenant! Is it not the Christian Church? Is it
not the primary law of the kingdom of Christ? There is
the doctrine. There-in the very first record of the Christian Church. There-in the very constitution of the kingdom of Christ. There is the principle laid down with preeminent distinctness, that the token of the covenant shall
be affixed to the children of the covenanting party.  Why
should he call up the doctrine in language?  There it is,
in the faith of every member of the Church of God,-every
member without exception! There it is, within the knowledge of every man who is not a member! Where is the
necessity of one word of further instruction? Who denies
it? Who doubts it? Who is ignorant of it? Why should
he open his lips upon the subject?  There is the doctrine
practically embodied before every man's eyes! There are
all the children of the Church, round about in every direction, every one of them wearing the sign and the seal of the
great Church covenant, and all the world consenting both
to the authority and the benignity of the arrangement.
This recorded command to apply the sign and the seal of
God's saving covenant to the seed of the believer, if Jesus
Christ did not purpose to repeal it, why should he waste
one breath to teach it? Why, when the fundamental law
of the Church clearly enjoins it? When the faith of every
friend and foe of the Church strongly embraces it? When
the practice of every member of the Church publicly expresses it? and when not a solitary tongue on earth is lifted




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.            35
up against it? Who can fail to see the force of this appeal?
Here, for example, is a Presbyterian pulpit which does not
publicly disclaim the doctrine of infant baptism. Then its
silence teaches the doctrine.  For there is nothing now to
gainsay the standards of the Church; nothing now to
oppose the avowed faith of the Church; nothing now to set
aside the uniform practice of the Church.
Brethren! Christ held your doctrine or ours,-that
children should not, or should be baptized. If he held
your doctrine, necessity is upon him, and he must speak
out.  For the standards of the Church, and the faith of the
Church, and the practice of the Church, and universal public
sentiment are all against him; and to put down this mighty
testimony of God in the past, and set up an opposite senti~ment and practice for the future-nothing can avail short
of an express and authoritative counatermanding of all prior
teaching.  But this Christ did not do, and you acknowledge it.  Then he does not hold youkr doctrine.  If he
held ouR doctrine, there was no necessity for the utterance
of a word.  His silence leaves unsilenced and operative
upon the world, all the fundamental, well-known, and'wellreceived teachings of God in the prior dispensation.
Again: On various occasions the language and conduct
of Jesus are such, that he will certainly be understood to
teach the doctrine of infant baptism, if he does not expressly disclaim it.
WThen pious parents of old brought their infants to
Jesus, however plausible the interpretation, that their little
children were presented simply to be touched and to be
prayed for, certain other things in the history were unquestionably true, and doubtless contributed to make up
the mind which impelled them to visit the Saviour.
1. John and Jesus had solemnly testified to Judea, that the
old dispensation was passing away, and that the kingdom
of heaven was at hand. These parents believed the pro



36            THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
clamation, for, had they deemed Jesus an impostor, they
never had sought his blessing upon their children. The
changes!  The changes that are to take place! What are
these changes? How will God's people be affected by
them? What disposition will they make of our children?
These, these are the things which God has emphatically commanded the people to lay to heart and expect. Doubtless
the serious and pious of the land did think and feel deeply
concerning the great coming change.  Nor is it possible to
conceive, at such a time as this, that these parents should
have been indifferent to the dispositions and purposes of the
acknowledged Head and Founder of the new order of things
respecting themselves and their children. Though the new
forms were not yet introduced, still it was a perfectly
natural effect of the preaching and miracles of the Saviour
and his forerunner, that these individuals should bring their
children to Jesus with a view, by some simple method,
and if it was a custom, as some say, to bring children to
eminently pious persons to be touched and prayed for, then
by this step, to seek the Saviour's blessing upon their offspring, and learn the temper of the new economy toward
them.  2. The religion of these parents, it must not be
forgotten, had scarcely furnished them the very faintest
conception of spiritual blessings unsealed.  It is highly
probable that they had never seen nor heard of any
human beings whom they judged to possess one spiritual
favour from heaven, who did not carry in their person,
or in the person or persons of representatives, the mark,
the appointed outward mark of God's adoption.  The
children in their arms bore the sign and seal of covenant
mercy, and this, doubtless, encouraged them to anticipate
his gracious consideration in their behalf. As they had no
conception of holy blessings corporeally unsealed, of God's
favours dispensed to those who did not carry the mark of
God's adoption, they would naturally infer if their children




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.             37
did receive spiritual favour at the hand of Jesus, in the
proper time and way, they would also receive the appointed
mark of connection with his people. Thus the whole drift
of their sentiments and of their circumstances would powerfully expose these parents to misunderstand the teachings
of Jesus, if he favoured ttheir application, but did not distinctly apprize them, that their children, under his dispensation, would have no visible connection with God's
kingdom.  3. Jesus knows all their mind.  Now, if he
knew that the kingdom of heaven would soon strike the
seal of God's covenant from the persons of all the children
of the Church, and to the dismay of every parent in Judea
publicly amalgamate them with the children of the heathen,
is it not highly probable that he will undeceive these applicants by direct explanation upon the subject? If he has
such a message from God, is not this the very time and
place to deliver it?  Is it not certain that he will at least
carefully avoid all such language and conduct as is calculated to awaken the very slightest expectation of any
sensible connection between their children and the kingdom
of heaven?  What does he do?  Does he utter one word
designed to instruct these anxious parents, that, in the
dispensation of his favours, they must not expect their
children to receive any such mark of God's acceptance as
shall visibly distinguish them from the children of the heathen? Not a word! On the contrary, all his conduct and
language assure them that the same comfortable testimonies
of heavenly favour which had always constituted so essential
a part of their very idea of divine blessing they and their
children should certainly receive.  Mark the interview!
Some would throw discouragement upon the hopes which
were swelling in the breasts of these parents. The conduct
of the disciples would fain indicate that there would exist
no very strong sympathy, no very close connection between
the Founder of the new economy and the children of
4




38           TIIE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
God's people. But how promptly did Jesus come to their
relief!  He substantially responded, "I am the Founder
and Head of the kingdom of heaven. Little children are
not to be separated from the kingdom hereafter, any more
than they have been heretofore.  Suffer little children to
come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the
kingdom of heaven." lMatt. xix. 14. It is scarcely plausible to say, that the last words of the Saviour teach
that the kingdom of heaven consists of persons who possess child-like dispositions. What had this to do with
the spirit and object of these parents?   This construction violates two most important rules of interpretation.
It forces the language of the speaker.  The phrase, "childlike dispositions," is not found in the passage or the context.  "Little children" is the clear antecedent of the
term  "such," " of such little children," is the language.
The very first law of interpretation requires that words
be understood in their most known and usual signification.  The Greek term  roeoorwv  signifies, "these and the
like."  What Jesus said, therefore, is clearly this: "Of
these little children, and their like, is the kingdom of
heaven composed."  Again: This construction forces the
sense of the speaker.  Only give the words of the Saviour
their plain, simple meaning, and they express a clear
thought.  Little children are component parts of the kingdomrn of heaven, and should be brought to Christ, because
the members should be connected with their head.  Nor
need it be denied that it might also have been in his
mind, that there was a peculiar impropriety in excluding
little children, because they, and those like them, are
especially in character near to the kingdom of heaven.
As thus: These are members of the kingdom; of all
persons, do not exclude these little ones, and those like
them. But concede that the language of Jesus does not,
of itself, teach the doctrine of infant baptism with abso.




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.              39
lute clearness, yet his failure to repeal the teaching of
the Abrahamic covenant does. Place the history before
you.  The children of believers have always been members of the kingdom  of God; and the thought of their
possible exclusion may never have entered the mind of
a Jew. The Jewish world are summoned to prepare for a
new dispensation of this kingdom. These parents bring
their children, wearing the mark of present membership,
to seek for them the blessings of the Head of the new
administration. He proclaims, in their hearing, to all
who surround him: " Suffer little children to come unto
me, and forbid them not, for of such is theakingdom of
God."  If the language of the Saviour, apart from  its
connection, did not incontrovertibly establish the doctrine
of infant membership, the circumstances of the case more
than supply its lack of explicitness. It is a rule in the
construction of language, that words are always to be
understood in the sense in which the speaker knows that
the hearer will understand them. These parents! consider
the customs of their country and their religious education
on the one hand, and their state of anxious inquiry concerning the prospects of their children, which the spirit
of the times called for, on the other, and what possible
interpretation could they have put upon the Saviour's conduct and language, other than this: "'Whereas your children have been hitherto distinguished from  the children
of the heathen by visible adoption into God's family under
the Abrahamic covenant, so shall it be with them in the
kingdom of heaven?"
Shortly anterior to the ascension of the Saviour, he delivered to his disciples the memorable apostolic commission
in this language: " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost." Matt. xxviii. 19.  By this conmmission, who are the subjects of baptism? Clearly those




40            THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
who are taught.  Go teach the nations-baptizing them;
baptizing —the taught. What is the teaching here commanded?  The meaning cannot be mistaken.  The Greek
word l.aO rj-c'Sara~ expresses this idea precisely,-" Causing
to be discipled." The general idea is involved in the common Gospel address, " Believe and be baptized;" " Repent
and be baptized," for repentance and faith are marks of discipleship. There are other terms, however, which more
precisely express the import of the word teach in this passage.  From Judaism  and heathenism go convert the nations to Christianity.  There is still another word, if possible, more exactly synonymous with the capital term in the
commission, "Go ye, therefore, and proseltyte the nations,
baptizing them," &c., " Go bring them over to the spiritual
and practical adoption of my religion." It may be advanced,
therefore, as an incontrovertible truth taught in this passage,
that Christ required his apostles to baptize those whom they
had discipled-those whom  they had proselyted.  The
question returns upon us with increased responsibility.
What exactly in this commission did Christ mean that his
apostles should do when he commanded thetm to disciplcto proselyte the nations? A well-establislled principle of interpretation settles with perfect precision the proper reply to this
question. Language is always to be understood in view of
the sentiments and usages of the party speaking and the
party addressed. Jesus and his apostles were Jews. The
opinions and the practices of the Jews in regard to proselyting, must, therefore, fix decisively the meaning of this
passage. Who doubts this? Every man knows that things
are not formed to fit words, but words are chosen to express
things.  The word proselyte, therefore, must come to the
then prevalent practice of the Jews for its signification.
For certainly we perpetrate the most violent absurdity, if we
attempt to force the ancient practice of the Jews into conformity to any independent notion which we may choose to




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.              41
entertain of the meaning of the word.  The matter of proselyting among the Jews, what was it?  What did they do
when they proselyted the stranger to Judaism? The answer is this,-they proselyted him  by the act of circumcision. Who were the parties circumcised when proselytism
was practised by the Jews? The answer is at hand. The
parties circumcised were tlways the children with the parents,
and this was an every-day fact with which Jesus and his
apostles and all the Jews were perfectly familiar. Jennings
lays down the doctrine thus: "In proselyting, two things
are observable —1. That when a man becomes a proselyte
all his males were to be circumcised as well as himself;
whereby his children were admitted into the visible church
of God on his right as a father."* So say all the authorities. The idea of including the parents, in teaching the
nations, but excluding the children, for aught we know,
never once entered the mind of speaker or hearer.
Concede that this text does not establish the doctrine of
infant baptism with unquestionable certainty, still the Savious's omission under these circumstances to guard his
apostles against the baptism of infants, affords, in connection with the words themselves, a strong argument. The
history of the nation, the practice of the heathen, the universal opinions and habits of men in their day, imperatively
constrained the apostles, in the absence of the slightest
countermanding word from Christ, to carry out baptism in
the new dispensation precisely as they had carried out circumcision in the old.  That is, they must baptize the children as well as the parents.
Once more. Does not the silence of the Jews, concerning
Christ's doctrinal treatment of their children, constitute of
itself a standing triumph over all objections to our faith and
practice?: Jewish Ant., vol. i. 132.




42           THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
Call up Jewish faith respecting the position and the prospects of their children. They believed that God's hand
had placed them in the bosom of the Church.  The evidence
was this. They saw their children by divine authority
wearing the sign and the seal of God's covenanted adoption.
They felt of course assured of their salvation.  Once convince the Jews, therefore, that this divine mark had been
obliterated from the persons of their children by God's command, and you have forced into their minds the further
conviction, that God had thrown out their children unsealed
among the heathen, and doomed them to a common destruction with his enemies. Such a proclamation from the lips
of Jesus would have inflicted a sudden and frightful shock
upon the very deepest feeling that slumbered in the land of
Judea. It would have struck a blow upon the heart of the
nation, which must have roused and heaved the people, as
no other movement within the compass of created agency
could have done. It would have waked up an outburst
which had stormed up and down that land with continually
augmenting violence and vengeance. But who ever heard
the very first lisp of an objection by any Jew against the
Saviour's doctrinal treatment of the children of the Church?
Oh, our brethren may rest assured, that Christ never uttered
such a faith as theirs in the land of Judea. No, never!
Call up the heart of the Jew toward the Son of God; the
moment Christ stood up on earth the mediator between God
and man, he assumed a stand exactly, inexorably fatal to all
the political, ecclesiastical, and spiritual claims and prospects of the Jewish nation.  His teaching, character, and
agency never failed to reach their souls in precise and deadly
antagonism to all they nationally thought, felt, and hoped.
The Jews, therefore, deeply realized one thing, that to put
down Jesus was vital to the rescue of their polity fron imlpending destruction. Jesus, too, had such power in his
countenance, spirit, and speech; such authority in ail their




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.             43
history, prophecy, and types; such witnesses in saints, angels, and devils; such coworkers in his own miracles, their
own consciences, and the spirit of God, that, to destroy him
they felt to be their only refuge against an embodied terrific
foreboding, set up by righteous wrath to appal their spirit
before the time. Nor must we forget that the Jews were
sick unto death of the multiplied, unavailing, humiliating,
agonizing conflicts with the Son of God. His calm and
lucid teachings had triumphantly vindicated all God's assaulted words and ways, and laid before their own eyes and
the world all their own irreverence, injustice, and hypocrisy;
all their perversions, abominations, and rebellions. Exasperated to the last degree by this terrible discipline, the
governing mind of'Judea could now bear him no longer.
They thirsted for his blood. They resolved to shed it. They
sought again and again to do so. They were chafed to distraction by their failures.  They could not sufficiently destroy his popularity with the people. At length, lashed to
desperation, in solemn conclave they upbraid each other
and cry out, "What do we? We prevail nothing. The
world is gone after him. If we let, him thus alone, the
Romans will come and take away our place and nation."
Had that eminent personage, who ever carried about him
such dread testimonies of God's present authority, but once
solemnly exclaimed, "Henceforth the sign and seal of God's
covenant of adoption, in all the children of this land, by
God's authority, I cancel forever," who, who can imagine
the explosion that must have instantly followed! Parental
affection from one end of the land to the other —oh, how
sincerely agonized! how vindictively, fiercely, fired! What
would not such a feeling have done?  Jewlish ftenzy, too,
to put down the power of Jesus-for years to its wit's end,
it had toiled, and plotted, and menaced, and failed to lay
hold of one solitary charge that could avail to turn the tide
of popular vengeance against him; with what an agony of




44            THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
relief and triumph they had instantly seized this teaching
of the Son of God and proclaimed it to the people.  Are
we now to be told that the heart of the Jewish nation could
have listened to the authoritative abolition of the most precious provision of the Abrahamic covenant from the mouth
of its mortal foe, without one faint note of remonstrance?
without one feeble murmur of opposition? without one
single effort to turn it to his disadvantage? without one solitary syllable of response?  If, in all the story of their faultfinding, there is not one sentence, not one word, projected
against the abrogation of their children's bill of rights in
the Abrahamic covenant, rest assured of it, that bill of
rights has never been repealed! Rest assured of it, Jesus
never taught your doctrine-never held your faith! No,
never!
Scco~nd7:, It is affirmed that the face of the Scriptures
discountenances the doctrines of infant baptism.
The subject of baptism, it is alleged, is repeatedly brought
up in the Gospel, the party to be baptized is fiequently
spoken of, but it is written nowhere either that infants
were baptized, or that they should be.
The objection, analyzed, will be found to advance nothing
new.  We respond, however, that the face of the Scriptures
is just what it should be to teach our doctrine.
If an examination be made, it will be seen that the impressions upon this subject arise from an oversight of this
one great truth-the unity of the Church in both dispensations.  Rather depreciating the Old Testament, and considering the Gospel very much as a new religion, our brethren have refused to receive the doctrine of the baptism of
infants, for this reason mainly, because it is not laid down
in the Gospel with that distinctness, which, in their judgment, should mark the bearing of a new ordinance.  But to
suppose that there can be two religions is the grandest error
mind-can commit.  All that makes up religion is always




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.              45
the same. Indeed the practice of Jesus and the apostles,
to refer to the Old Testament as the grand depository of all
instruction and authority upon questions of New Testament
doctrines, clearly establishes the unchangeableness of the
Church through all dispensations.  Now the nature of the
Church, once understood, decides the interpretation of the
Scripture, in regard to it.
If the Gospel is indeed a new religion, we have a right
to require that infant baptism shall stand out clearly revealed on its pages. But if the Church is one in both Testaments, then we are not permitted to discard a doctrine,
simply because a certain portion of the word of God does
not seem to set it forth with unquestionable clearness. The
fact is, that the tenor of God's word, wisely examined,
both in the Old Testament and in the New, will be
found to teach our doctrine precisely as we should have
expected.
If the church is one, then
1. Foundations lie inl the Old Testament; republication,
explication in the New.
Every element of the constitution of the Church of God
we have found grouped together in the Abrahamic covenant.
The Gospel, therefore, is not a laying down of new foundations.  The old, the eternal, the immutable foundations had
been put down long before.  So far as its novelties are concerned, the Gospel is but the new weather-boarding of the old
fabric, the new dress of the old body.  In view of this truth,
how perfectly natural is the face of the Scriptures! The
new edition of the old covenant does indeed republish and
explain with more or less clearness and fulness, every essential element of the Church; but it takes care to keep us
apprised that these are matters already made known in the
prior revelation.
Now, if foundations lie in the old economy, how unreasonable it is to interpret New Testament statements con



46             THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
cerning the frame-work of the Church, as though nothing
had been settled upon the subject before?
2. Much of the teaching of the New Testament touching
the essentials of religion, we should expect just such as
would be addressed to a party supposed to have been previously pretty fairly instructed.
If the Church, of necessity, must be one and the same in
both dispensations, since the Old Testament has already
laid down first principles, the language of subsequent exposition will very naturally be sometimes sententious-by
allusion-incomplete. In a word, it will be such teaching
as presupposes that there are things pertinent to the proper understanding of the words of the teacher already in
the mind of the party addressed; such teaching as will expect the pupil to interpret things spoken in the light of
things previously taught.  The face of the New Testament,
it will not be denied, abounds in just such presentations of
truth.  How unreasonable it is, therefore, to interpret an
apparent lack of fulness of teaching in the Gospel, as deciding a question respecting the structure of the Church,
without consulting what had been previously revealed upon
the same point in its original organization!
3. On all points radical to the structure of the Church,
we should be satisfied to find the Gospel a fair reflection of
the old economy.
On some points, New Testament expositions will be fuller
and clearer; on others, they will rely more largely upon the
foundations previously established. On the whole, the New
Testament Church, with greater or less distinctness, will
carry out in every particular the essential stipulations of
the Abrahamic covenant.  So that he who has seen the
face of God's religion in the Old Testament, will recognise
its image in the New.  Certainly the face of God's word
bears out this last inference from the unity of the Church.
What difference do we find between the features of the




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.            47
Old Testament and the New, respecting the precise point
under discussion?  What was the Church of God of old, in
composition?  Of old, the kingdom, in part, was obviously
composed of little children.  "-Of such" little children,
says the Saviour, " is the kingdom of heaven" in our day.
Matt. xix. 14. In covenant description of the parties?
Of old, the covenant promise was addressed expressly "to
you and to your children." In our day, Peter says, expressly, "The promise is to you and your children." Acts
ii. 39. In general description of the seed?  Of old, an uncircumcised child was styled unclean-a circumcised child,
hoty. In the New Testament, also, the child of the unbeliever is called unclean —the child of the believer, holy.
I Cor. vii. 14. In the visible process of introduction?  Of
old, church-members were often introduced by families.
" Thou and thy seed, and he that is born in the house, and
he that is bought with thy money." Gen. xvii. 10-12. So
in the New Testament. Though the recorded cases of baptism are few in number, and greatly abbreviated in history,
yet a part of them were by household. Acts xvi. 15.
"' And when she (Lydia) was baptized, and her household."
Acts xvi. 33.  "And was baptized, (the jailor,) he and all
his, straightway." I Cor. i. 16.  "And I baptized, also,
the household of Stephanas."  Finally, one thing preeminently marked the child of the believer under the old
dispensation: he received in his person the sign and the
seal of the covenant which his father made with God.
Baptize the child of the Church in our day, and we complete
the parallel between the teachings of the Old Testament
and the New on this subject.  Where, then, is the argument founded on the face of the Scriptures? In the light
of the oneness of the Church in both dispensations, does not
the word of God teach the church-membership of infants
in the most natural manner conceivable?
Thirdly, it is said, that faith is the scriptural pre



48            THE ABRAHIAMIIC COVENANT
reqtuisite of bacptism,, and therefore the ordinanlce should not
be administered to infants.
It impairs the force of this assumption to reflect that
there is no such essential peculiarity in faith as constitutes a special fitness for the ordinance. Baptism is
the badge of Christianity; and since the nations must
turn from some form of false religion to reach it, it is
natural that faith should present itself as the representative of that Christianity which the ordinance demands. Let it be recollected, too, that the Scriptures
express qualification for the ordinance in the use of other
terms:  "Then  said Peter,'Repent and  be baptized
every one of you."' Acts ii. 38.  Again: "Can any
man forbid water, that these should not be baptized
which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we."
Acts x. 47.  Nor should we forget that the Abrahamic
covenant is substantially the Christian Church. Nothing
can be more unreasonable, therefore, than to attempt to
settle the membership of the Church without the slightest
reference to its constitution.
But we remark more directly, that it overthrows this
objection to examine the prominent scriptural authority
upon which it is based.  It is said, that the very sentence from the lips of the Saviour, which originated the
ordinance of baptism, confines its administration to those
who believe: " Go ye into all the world, and preach
the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is
baptized, shall be saved; he that believeth not, shall be
damned."  By this interpretation of the text, of every
creature, those only who believe are to be baptized.
The pertinency of this Scripture is a little ambiguous.
There are two classes of the human family-the adult
and the infant.  The preaching of the Gospel is applicable to the one-not to the other.  The common sense
of the passage would rather seem to be this: "' Of every




AND THE NEW  TESTAMENT CHURCH.               49
creature to whom I send you to preach the Gospel, he
only that believes shall be baptized."   The irrelevancy
of the text, however, is not the principal difficulty. The
structure of the passage is fatal to the interpretation advanced.  Here are two parts of one sentence, addressed
to the same person.  If the first part of the sentence
is addressed to the infant, so is the second. If it is held,
therefore, that the infant's lack of faith, by the first section, unfits him for baptism, it must be held, also, that
the infant's lack of faith, by the second section, fits him
for damnation.
But, surely, this is not divine teaching. Behold the
child! He has great natural interests, but cannot look to
them. God, in nature, appoints'the parent the trustee
of the child. He has great social interests, but cannot
protect them.  Here, too, universal human consent permits
the parent to do for the child what he cannot do for himself. He has still more important spiritual interests, and
we know that God often requires the parent to represent
the child here also.
But bend your thoughts upon this remarkable historical fact.  In  the  formation of the  Church,  God
himself did set apart the parent to act for his child.
C(ircumcision was the act whereby faith was expressed
in the first Church covenant.  Therefore God commanded
Abraham  to circumcise himself.  He did so, and thus
expressed his faith.   Circumcision must, of course, express the faith of the child under the same covenant.
But the child cannot circumcise himself. What is to
be done?  God settles this question.  He commands the
parent to act for his child and circumcise him. Accordingly, as by the circumcision of himself, Abraham expressed faith for himself, so by the circumcision of his
child, Abraham expressed faith for his child. The Abrahamic covenant is the New Testament Church! If God,
5




50            THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
in the former, required the parent to act for the child
and express his faith, God, in the latter, requires the
parent to do the same.
Should there still hang about the mind an impression
that the faith of the subject should be personal, there
is a teaching in the Scriptures which should satisfy it.
Baptism expresses faith, it is true, but circumcision also
expresses faith, for God built this ordinance purposely, that
it might be a distinguished sign of faith. Rom. iv. 11.
If then, scripturally, faith is necessary to baptism, scripturally, faith was just as necessary to circumcision.  Yet
circumcision, "a seal of the righteousness of faith," was
scripturally administered to the infant. Where lies the
very slightest scriptural difficulty in the last case which
was not scripturally removed in the first?  If the incapacity of the infant to believe did not, in ancient times,
prevent his being circumcised on the strength of his father's
faith, why should the incapacity of the infant to believe,
in modern times, forbid his being baptized on the same
basis; especially in view of the fundamental fact, that, in
founding his Church, God commanded the parent to act
for the child?
If our readers will attend to two points, they will see
how the Almighty addresses the conscience of parents on
the basis of the Abrahamic covenant:
I. The Abrahanmic covenant, in its substance, is a valid
covenant in our day.
We shall not go over the arguments already adduced to
establish this truth. The apostle's climax is all we shall
repeat: " Though it were a man's covenant, it should not
be disannulled, yet this is the covenant that was confirmed
before of God in Christ."




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.              51
II. The application of the sign and the seal to the children, of believers in the Abrahamric covenant is not matter
offorml, but of substance.
"This is my covenant.  Every male child among you
shall be circumcised." What is important in a covenant
beyond parties, obligations, influence?
1. Parties.  You covenant with a hundred men.  If
we so interpret your deed as to throw out fifty of the
parties, is this an unimportant modification of your contract?  Have we left the substance of your deed untouched? On the contrary, is any thing more important
in a covenant than its parties? Put some other person
in the place of Him who so kindly covenants with man in
the patriarchal interview, and have you not substantially
altered the covenant?  The parties to the Abrahamic
covenant, on man's side, you know, are believers and
their seed. Abolish the application of the sign and seal
to the seed of the believer, and you throw out of the
covenant more than half of its original parties.  Whatever may be our opinion of the matter, we apprehend
that both the world above and the world below adjudge
this a very serious change in the substance of the
covenant.
2. Obligqations. You affect the obligations of the parties just as seriously.  Obligation relates to two thingsthe act to be performed, and the moral force which impels
to the performance.  The Scriptures command all parents
to bring up their children in the fear of the Lord; and all
children to honour and serve their Maker.  The application
of the sign and seal of the covenant to the seed of the
contractor does not affect the obligation of the parties,
so far as respects the services to be rendered.  But it
greatly augments their obligation, in view both of the
kind and of the degree of the moral force which binds
to the duty. Surely God's general word, enjoining upon




52            THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
parents the pious education of their children, creates the
most solemn obligation. But when God calls the parent
before his very face; spreads before him his solemn duty
to his children; makes him solemnly swear that he will
be faithful; compels him to affix both his signature and
his seal to the vow; and, finally, dismisses him, wellassured that he leaves all this upon record in God's
house until the day of reckoning,-who will dare to say
that such a transaction contributes no additional obligation?  Again: When God, as it were by his own hand,
writes on the very body of the child a solemn oath,that this person is sacred to God, and khat he will serve
him forever, —ere long, when time makes known to his
adult years, that it was God himself who had caused
that oath of consecration to be religiously inscribed upon
his person, —who will dare to say that the party is, nevertheless, authorized to consider this whole procedure as
a senseless formality, and that respect for God does not
require him to take the slightest notice of that personal
claim to his heart and service so emphatically asserted by
the God who made him?
3. Influence.  If there is one additional thing important to a covenant, it is this: It should possess digntity enough to influence the parties to do their duty.
The application of the token to the children of the
Church, is well calculated to wield a vast power in securing fidelity to the covenant. That solemn act of all
the good men and women of the world, whereby they
enter God's house, and there sign and seal, in God's
presence, their solemn vow that they will be faithful
to their children,-who can believe that this religious
vow will exert no influence over their parental fidelity?
That merciful act of God, whereby he meets them with
his own signed and sealed pledge of gracious countenance and co-operation in their most arduous, anxious




AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH.              53
task,-who can believe that this sacred pledge will never
encourage them in moments of despondency, nor rouse
them to renewed prayer and toil when faith had almost
failed?  Who can believe that the well-educated children
of the Church will neither feel that their solemn dedication to God, by his direction, lays them under obligation to serve him; nor take encouragement, in the
hour of honest struggle, from  God's formal pledge of
saving assistance?  In a word, the application of the
token of the covenant to the seed of the pious, levies
contributions upon every power of every parent and child
of God's Church, and calls out the combined strength
of all, through every moment of life, to build up God's
kingdom  in the world.  Assuredly there will be a vast
shortcoming of universal, adequate response to this appeal,
but it is just as certain that this very appeal will secure
a vast increase of holy power to the cause of Christ in
the world.
And, now, we expect our brethren, in Christian integrity, to stand by us and say, If there is any one
thing in the Abrahamic covenant which is matter of
substance, and should stand and be enforced in our
day, it is the obligation  to do now  what God  commanaded to be done of old, even. the infixing of the
blessed token of divine adoption Wgont the child, as  cell
as upon the parent.
Under the administration of early times, such a spectacle was scarcely ever seen in the Church of God,
as a parent whose child did not carry the sign of God's
covenant of adoption. Whenever such an unhappy object
was found, that child was instantly cut off from God's
family.  But the Abrahamic covenant is the Christian
Church.  The Abrahamic covenant is in full force.  We
leave it a question for the consciences of our brethren,




54           THE ABRAtAHAMIC COVENANT.
How is it that your children are wandering abroad upon
the earth without the mark of God's covenant of mercy?
How is it that you, as Christian men, have never recorded
your vow in the temple of the Lord, to do a parent's part
by them?
THE END.
5TEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON & C00.
PHILADELPHIA.