========================================================================
  CHURCH MEMBERS HANDBOOK OF THEOLOGY
  by Norvell Robertson
========================================================================

Norvell's practical theological guide for church members providing foundational
Christian doctrine in an accessible format, equipping laypeople with essential
theological knowledge for understanding and living the faith.

  Chapters: 16

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Introduction
    2. 01 On Man's Moral Nature
    3. 02 On the Origin of Human Depravity
    4. 03 Of the Human Will
    5. 04 Regeneration
    6. 05 The Doctrine of Faith
    7. 06 Repentance
    8. 07a Justification
    9. 07b Justification
   10. 08 The Final Perseverance of the Saints
   11. 09 The Inevitable & Eternal Security of the Church
   12. 10 Predestination and Election
   13. 11a Atonement
   14. 11b Atonement
   15. 11c Atonement
   16. 11d Atonement

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

INTRODUCTION. The venerable author has requested us to write an introduction to
the work which follows. It gives us pleasure to comply with the wish of one who
stands out on the edge of the eternal world. We can not forbear to say that, as
we read the work in manuscript, we were profoundly impressed with the conviction
that the utterances were those of a heart already ripe for heaven. In the volume
to which the reader is now introduced, it will be found that the author has dug
down to the solid rocks on which his own faith rested. From a sketch in our
possession, which will appear in some future edition of this work, we learn that
for about forty-five years the author has believed, loved, and preached the
great doctrines discussed in this book. A timid, shrinking man, the author has
found his purest joy in the sweet quietude of a country home and pastorate. He
has had no ambition to cross the line of that charmed circle in which he has
moved for about a half century. However, at the urgent solicitation of many
friends, he now consents, in the close of life, to furnish to others a
discussion of those facts which have been the foundation of his own happiness.

Many persons have thought that such a book as the present one is needed. The
passing generation has been made well acquainted with rites and ceremonies. The
baptismal controversy has been revived. The Lord’s Supper also has been the
subject of a discussion which has swept over the whole land. Nor has church
polity failed to command a share of public attention. And all this is well. The
storm purifies the atmosphere and clears the skies. The danger is not that men
will give too much attention to these things--this is impossible--but the danger
is that they will feel too little interest in things of even greater importance.
Many persons have correct views of the ordinances of God’s house, while at the
same time their knowledge of the plan of salvation is not only very limited, but
quite defective. A great number of books have been written with the design of
securing uniformity of practice among the churches, but, so far as I know, very
little has been done to secure "one faith." It is insisted that our
church-members must be informed on the subject of baptism, and that they must
guard with sleepless vigilance the great memorial ordinance. The custodians of
the truth, it is claimed that they should preserve the apostolic form of
church-government. And to all this we give our hearty approval. But there is
something higher; such, at least, is the conviction of the author, and he deems
it of great importance that, in this age, men should give more attention to the
study of the plan of salvation. This plan ought to be understood; we can better
afford to be ignorant of any thing else. Our happiness here depends on it, and,
what is a matter of graver importance, our future destiny will be determined by
our acquaintance with this system of truth. The author has not discussed a great
variety of subjects, but he has treated of just such as involve all the highest
interests of every immortal being. The work opens with a chapter on man’s moral
nature. The depravity of the heart is but partially understood by many, and
flatly denied by others. The human will is another subject about which there is
much confusion of thought. Regeneration of heart, without which no one can see
God in peace, is a fact in regard to which there has been the wildest
discussion. There is perhaps no truth about which men differ more widely. Nor
are we well agreed about faith, repentance, and justification. Though these are
a part of every pious man’s experience, there is need that we shall be more
perfectly taught. The perseverance of the saints is not well understood, even by
those who accept the blessed doctrine. The eternal security of the Church is a
matter of doubt with some; and among those who accept the promise of her final
triumph, there are so many fears and doubts that the hope is robbed of half the
joy it would impart. But man’s perverse will rebels most sternly against the
great, grand facts of predestination and election. God’s sovereign will, and His
sovereign disposition of things according to that will, are facts which rise
high above our feeble comprehension; and because they are so sublime and awful,
we push them aside, as affording no joy to the heart. More frequently we utterly
deny the facts because we can not understand them. We venture to hope that these
"hard doctrines," as discussed in this book, will be a source of consolation to
the Christian’s heart. And then this volume very properly closes with a
discussion of the atonement. The world is full of books on this subject. When we
consider the fact that men have the Bible to guide them, we should think there
would be perfect agreement here. But such is not the case. We have here the
greatest diversity of views; the theories about salvation are without number.
The author has kindly stated the views of others, and has given the reasons why
he differs from them. In this way he has modestly brought out his own theory.
Such is an outline of the book the reader is now requested to examine. This
book, it must be confessed, contains nothing new. The design has not been to
uncover golden veins of new thought, but to bring down to the masses, in simple
language, the forms of thought with which the student and minister are quite
familiar. This has been a work of great difficulty, but it is believed that no
term or word has been employed which a man of ordinary intelligence can not
understand; and while this is true, we trust there is nothing in the work which
can be offensive to the good taste of the scholar and theologian. The design has
been to place a theological hand-book in possession of every church member. The
author has not gone over the whole field usually embraced in a system of
theology. It was not thought necessary to do this. Those subjects only have been
treated about which there was most difficulty; and they have been discussed in
such a way, it is hoped, as will strengthen the hearts of the pious, and
contribute largely to secure correctness and uniformity of faith among God’s
children. This result secured, both author and publisher will be satisfied. A
word more in regard to the history of the author. Norvell Robertson was born in
Warren County, Ga., Nov. 14, 1796. His father, also named Norvell, was a
Virginian by birth. On reaching manhood, he moved South and settled in Georgia.
In the year 1804 he was called by his church to the work of the ministry. For
fifty-one years he was an earnest and faithful Baptist preacher. He was called
home to his reward in his ninety-first year. His ministerial life was spent in
the States of Georgia and Mississippi. The son moved at an early day to Lawrence
County, Mississippi; was converted in 1830, and a year later he was baptized by
his father into the fellowship of Leaf River Baptist Church. Bethany Church, in
the neighborhood of which he was teaching, and to which he moved his membership,
a few months after this set him at liberty to preach. The same church, in
January, 1833, set him apart, by ordination, to the full work of the gospel
ministry. Twelve months later he was called to the pastoral care of this church,
and has continued in the same position for about forty-one years. Nothing could
ever tempt him to leave this country church. In 1835 he married Miss N. J.
Cannon, who has been a faithful and worthy companion. Three little infants have
gone up from the family circle to the paradise of God. Of the seven remaining
children, the father has baptized all but one.

Father Robertson, as he is familiarly called by those who know him, has never
enjoyed good health. The weight of years is pressing heavily upon him; and this
work is very likely the last contribution we shall ever have from his pen. That
it may be greatly blessed of God, and that the author may live to see the fruit
of his labor, is the prayer of his Brother in Christ Jesus,

W. D. MAYFIELD.

Memphis, Tenn., November 1, 1874.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 01 ON MAN'S MORAL NATURE
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER I. ON MAN’S MORAL NATURE.

There is scarcely any important doctrine taught in the Bible that has not been
made the subject of controversy. While great numbers acknowledge the Divine
authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, and earnestly contend for their supreme
authority in all matters relating to God and His will--profess implicit
subjection to their teaching, and contend for them as the only and perfect
standard of truth and error, in all matters of faith and practice--still there
are wide differences of opinion and endless controversies among them, and have
been in all the ages of the Christian dispensation. To say that this is owing to
any obscurity or ambiguity in Divine Revelation is to charge God foolishly, The
sacred Scriptures were designed to give us the knowledge of God and His Will;
and if they are not competent to convey to us the true knowledge of the
character and will of God, they fail to answer the purpose for which they were
intended. And there is no alternative--we are left without a guide. That we may
obtain some knowledge of God, and our relations to Him, as the rightful subjects
of His moral government, without revelation, is true enough. But of that
knowledge which is necessary to our acceptance with Him, and which will secure
our salvation, we can learn nothing--absolutely nothing--but what we learn from
the written word. And from the inspired record we may, if we will, learn all
that is necessary for our faith, our duty, and our eternal destiny. From works
of creation, and the ordinary course of Divine Providence, in connection with
man’s intellectual and moral constitution, we may learn enough of God and our
relations to Him to make us accountable subjects of His government; but we can
not by these means gain the least degree of knowledge of the way of eternal
life. The Holy Scriptures are the only source from which we can derive the least
degree of light upon the subject of our salvation. Without the Bible we can
never attain to a saving knowledge of the true God and eternal life; neither can
we, without it, ever acquire a right knowledge of ourselves, and our true
character in the sight of God; nor can we rightly understand the relation in
which we stand to Him. Ignorance and error will characterize all our
speculations upon these subjects, any further than they are based upon the clear
light of God’s revealed truth. But the instructions of the word of God upon
these subjects are clear and explicit, and if we fall into any essential error,
it is not for want of adequate instructions, but because we are indisposed to
receive implicitly the plain teachings of the Bible. Many there are who would
disdain to seek spiritual light in a Romish confessional; but they will explore
the fields of natural science in search of spiritual truth. The latter would
certainly be the more pleasant employment to a truly rational mind; but what is
the difference in the final event? We may be led by the hand of blind
superstition till we fall into the ditch, or we may be beguiled into it by the
false light of philosophy. I do not say this with a view to depreciate natural
science; no man can hold it in higher esteem than I do; but the way of salvation
is to be found in the infallible word of God, and nowhere else. To verify the
truth of those remarks, nothing more would be necessary than to mention a few
celebrated names found recorded in modern history--men upon whose minds the sun
of science has shed its brightest rays; but what do those men say of the true
light--the light that shines in a dark place? The word of God is truth. What He
says of Himself is truth, though it may not entirely coincide with our views of
what He ought to be; but He alone knows Himself. What He says of us, is truth,
for He knows us far better than we know ourselves; yet the character He gives us
may not be quite agreeable to the opinion we entertain of ourselves. And what
God says of His purposes and His will is true; but we can know nothing at all of
His purposes, except what He has revealed in His word.

We should deal honestly with ourselves, and not be afraid to know the very worst
of our condition as condemned sinners before God; and we should also deal
honestly with ourselves, and be willing to know and confess the very worst of
our character as sinful in our nature. It would be good for us to know the whole
extent of our alienation from God, and our want of a perfect conformity of heart
to the law and will of God. But men are unwilling to believe that they sustain
that character in the sight of God which is given to them in the Holy
Scriptures. Almost every man thinks he possesses some good qualities. Some will
estimate their moral worth very high, while others will entertain a more humble
opinion of their personal goodness; but all have claims, in their own esteem, to
a degree, less or more, to something which is commendable in the sight of God.
Now, if they would confine their pretensions to what is generally termed moral
goodness--such qualities as are good in themselves, and justly commendable in
the estimation of the social community--there ought to be no controversy on the
subject. Their claims in this respect would be just, on every principle of sound
reason, and fully supported by the sacred scriptures. But we suppose there are
very few, if any, who are so blind to their own imperfections as to imagine that
they are morally perfect, and wholly free from any principles, or dispositions,
or inclinations to things that are evil. And when men regard themselves as being
possessed of a degree of moral virtue, and know that they are sustained in their
opinion by the public sentiment, they readily conclude that there is in them, by
nature, a degree of moral goodness in the sight of God. They, therefore,
persuade themselves that the good moral traits in their character, and the good
moral actions they perform, are somewhat meritorious in the sight of God, and
must, to some extent, secure His favor--when at the same time, in all
probability, they would be just as good as they are, and act just as well as
they do, if they believed that God never sees their actions. A man may perform
an act of kindness, because prompted by the feelings of common humanity. Or he
may do it in order to gain or preserve the respect and confidence of the
community in which be lives. Or he may respect himself as a rational man, too
much to debase himself in his own esteem by beastliness. And all this is well in
its place, but it may be done while God is not in all his thoughts; and an
Atheist would do no less. On the subject of human depravity there have been
conflicting opinions among writers and preachers in almost every age since the
days of the apostles; and this will probably continue to be the case for ages to
come, or till the brightness of the millennial day shall dispel the darkness of
error in a much greater degree than in the present age. I am not vain enough to
hope that I shall be able to settle this controversy; but if I can suggest any
thought to the mind of the reader that will be profitable, I shall not think my
time and labor wasted.

One great reason why men, even good men, differ so much in their views of the
doctrine, is because they affix different ideas to the words employed to express
it. One gives the term depravity a much greater extent of application than
another. That human nature is depraved in some measure, I believe all admit.
None will contend that man is, by nature, absolutely perfect--that he is perfect
in holiness; and none ought to contend that man is utterly incapable in every
respect of doing a good moral action. All may admit that there is in us, by
nature, a tendency to things that are sinful, and freely subscribe to the
doctrine that human nature is, to some extent, morally corrupt. In forming a
judgment upon this subject, there is one thing that should never be overlooked,
if we desire to know the truth: we are all naturally inclined to think we are
better than we are. This has the effect to warp the judgment, and lead to an
erroneous conclusion. Every man should keep a jealous guard over this
self-partiality. This is the occasion of innumerable errors, and is a dangerous
foe to our spiritual interest. It is one of the strongest weapons in Satan’s
armor; or like an open gate in a fortress, at which the enemy can enter at any
time, and therefore should be guarded with unceasing vigilance.

Holiness and sinfulness are directly contrary to each other: and our conceptions
of the former are so very imperfect, that we have very imperfect and erroneous
views of the latter. Hence we form false notions of the degree of our alienation
from God--that is the degree of our moral depravity. In order to ascertain as
nearly as we well can, to what extent we may properly apply the principle of
depravity--that is, the sinfulness of our nature to the human soul--it is
necessary that we observe the proper distinction between those attributes of the
mind which are purely intellectual or mental, and those which we term moral. As
this distinction is important in the present inquiry, I must dwell a little on
this point. I will specify: Mental perception is that faculty or power of the
mind by which we are able to distinguish the difference between things--by which
we know that a part is less than the whole--by which we know that two is more
than one. This we call an intellectual or mental attribute or faculty. By
exercising the power of the understanding we acquire knowledge on any subject;
by the powers of the memory we retain that knowledge; by the judgment we compare
the relative weight of evidence on any question, and are able to decide in
matters of truth and error, right and wrong. These we term intellectual or
mental attributes: they are also sometimes called physical powers, to
distinguish them from the moral attributes; though the word physical is more
generally applied to the organization and activities of the body, in distinction
from those of the mind. But perhaps I ought here to notify or remind some of my
readers that as God has no bodily attributes (because He has no bodily
organizations), we are under a kind of necessity to distinguish His attributes
by the terms physical and moral. Thus His power and wisdom are called physical
attributes, and His love and goodness are moral attributes. But in respect to
those attributes of the mind which we term moral, it is necessary to specify
only a few--justice, kindness, truth, chastity, etc. If a man is deficient in
any of these he is not considered a good man. A man is not blamable simply for
thinking, but he is blameworthy for evil-thinking; he is not blamable merely for
speaking, but for evil-speaking be is culpable. Mere desire is not, in itself,
sinful, but unlawful desire is sinful.

There are duties which we owe to God which we do not owe to man; but all the
duties we owe to one another, even all duties, are included in our duty to God.
We may fail in the discharge of our peculiar duties to God, and yet not sin
against our fellow-men; but if we fail to fulfill any duty we owe to others, or
to ourselves, we sin against God. Hence moral depravity is always to be
considered in relation to God. The word holiness includes all that is good, and
the word sinfulness includes all that is not good. No action, or word, or
thought of man is destitute of moral character in the sight of God; every
thought is either holy or sinful in His sight. And any thought, or word, or
action of man that does not possess the character of holiness in the sight of
God, is sinful. There must be in it the element of positive holiness, or it is
not good in His sight, but is necessarily sinful.

It is highly important, as I have said, that we keep this distinction between
the mental and moral nature of man in view. Because I hold that the mental or
intellectual powers of man are not depraved. They are not subjects of moral
character. In themselves they are neither morally good nor morally bad. They
have no inherent tendencies or proclivities to good or evil, but are, as it
were, the instruments of our moral nature, and always obey its dictates. On the
supposition that man is an order of beings inferior to angels, yet Adam was, in
his created character, as holy as Gabriel; and Satan may be even now, in his
intellectual powers, as great as Gabriel, yet no one will say that he is not
totally depraved in his moral nature. The unjust steward exhibited great
intellectual power in devising the means of support, after he was displaced from
his office, and his Lord commended him because he acted wisely; but no one would
commend him for acting dishonestly. It was his duty to exercise his mental
powers the best he could, but the sinfulness of his conduct is to be referred to
his depraved moral principles. The assassin plunges the dagger into the heart of
his enemy:--there is no moral depravity in the dagger, for it is not, and can
not be, the subject of moral character; there is no depravity in the arm that
forced the dagger, for the very same reason; and for the same reason, there is
no moral depravity in the mental discernment and correct judgment that directed
the instrument to the vital organ, for all these might have been employed in a
similar act, in a lawful way; but the moral corruption attaches to the malicious
disposition of the heart, which influenced the will to commit the deed. The
sheriff who executes a criminal, employs the intellectual powers of his mind as
diligently as the assassin; but this he does because it is his duty. He does it,
not to gratify an evil disposition, but to fulfill a lawful obligation. He does
right, and the righteousness of the act is founded in the motives which induce
him to perform it.

I must be indulged to dwell a little longer on this point, because, for want of
observing this distinction, the doctrine of human depravity is often misapplied
and perverted to the cause of error. If the teacher does not, yet the hearer
applies the doctrine to those actings of the mind which it is the moral duty of
every man to exercise; and, on the other hand, they will exempt from sinfulness
those dispositions and inclinations which are the very seat of moral depravity,
and source of all sinful thoughts, words, and actions. Being desirous to exhibit
the subject as plainly as I possibly can, I will have recourse to another
exemplification : "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not
look on iniquity." Now let us notice the term ’canst not:’ We learn here that
God can not endure the sight of iniquity. This is not said merely by way of
emphasis; the prophet speaks Divine truth. But what is the reason that God can
not look upon sin ? He looks upon and sees all things, and sees every thing just
as it is. But on account of the infinite holiness of His nature He can not
endure the sight of sin with the least degree of toleration. It is not from any
imperfection in his power, but owing to the perfection of His holiness. It is
contrary to His nature, and therefore He can not behold evil otherwise than with
abhorrence find indignation. But again: It is said of some, "Having eyes full of
adultery that can not cease from sin." Here we have a similar mode of
expression--they can not cease from sin. Such persons are not blind. They have
ability to employ their eyes in reading the word of God, that they may learn and
do His will. They might use their eyes for holy purposes, as well as for
lascivious purposes, but by reason of the unholiness or depravity of their
nature they can not cease from sin. God always acts, and must act, in perfect
conformity with His holy nature, and therefore can not sin; and man always acts
in conformity with his unholy nature, and therefore can not cease from sin.
Strictly speaking, neither the faculties of the mind nor the members of the body
are depraved; but both are governed and controlled by his carnal and worldly
heart. Both may yield themselves as instruments of righteousness unto holiness,
or they may yield themselves as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin ; and by
reason of the depravity of man’s moral nature, they do the latter--"fulfilling
the desires of the flesh and of the mind." In the foregoing remarks I would not
be understood to advance the doctrine that the mental powers of man have
sustained no injury by our apostasy from God, and that the intellectual
faculties are in every respect as perfect as they were in creation, and while
man continued in a state of primeval holiness. I think far otherwise. I believe
that man possesses now all the original mental faculties with which he was
endowed in his creation; but, by reason of sin, and the alienation of his moral
nature from God, these faculties are greatly impaired. Indeed, I entertain the
opinion that the powers of the human mind are, in consequence of sin, impaired
to a far greater extent than is generally supposed, and than many would be
willing to admit. If sin had never found entrance among the human family, I have
scarcely a doubt that every man would now possess a degree of knowledge in
things, both natural and Divine, incomparably greater than any man has ever
attained in this world to the present day--only he would have known nothing of
God’s method of saving sinners, because that would not have been revealed. A man
may possess every member of the body, not one lacking, but a leg may be broken,
an arm paralyzed, the eyes diseased or injured, so that he is incapable of those
exercises which properly pertain to a perfect human body; so the powers of his
mind have suffered such a decree of detriment that he is now little more than
the ruins of what be was when be first surveyed the works of his God. In
consequence of moral depravity, the understanding is darkened, mental perception
is weakened, the judgment is perverted, etc. But they are not morally depraved,
because they are not, properly speaking, the subjects of moral character. A
staff may be broken so as to be of little use, but the timber may still be
sound; so is our intellectual nature--it is physically impaired, but not morally
depraved. An egg may be whole, not a fracture in it, but it may be rotten; so is
our moral nature. The distinction between a natural ability and a moral ability
is not merely technical or artificial, as some affect to believe; it is a real
distinction, as much so as the distinction between a man’s desire to take his
child in his arms, and the muscular strength by which he performs the deed. And
he that can not see the distinction, should not set himself up as a
teacher--even a teacher of babes. The terms "power," "ability," "inability," and
other words of similar force, being often used indefinitely, and with
considerable latitude of application, may contribute somewhat to that confusion
and indistinctness of thought which appear to embarrass the minds of persons on
this subject. They do not consider that that may be possible in one respect
which is impossible in another respect. If I should say a man has ability to
think and judge--meaning the mind of the man--it would be true; but if I should
affirm this of a man, meaning the mere body of the man, it would be false; for
it is impossible for mere matter to think and judge. The confirmed atheist has
as much natural ability to repeat the Lord’s Prayer as any of His apostles had,
but he has absolutely noability to pray that prayer "with the spirit and the
understanding." The natural man may have as much natural ability to sing as the
holiest saint on earth; and he would sing the ballad of "Death and Dr. Hornbook"
with as much spiritual devotion as he would the fifty-first Psalm. The
distinction between the intellectual powers of man and his moral powers, is as
real as the distinction between his bodily powers and the powers of his mind.
That the will is the ruling faculty of the mind in man, needs no proof; and that
the will is not subject to reason, is evident, from both experience and
observation, to every one who has given a tolerable degree of attention to the
subject. Man often sets knowingly in opposition to every dictate of sound
reason. He knows what is right, but the will is influenced by the passions, the
appetites, avarice, pride, revenge, etc., and determines his actions contrary to
his judgment, and in opposition even to the dictates of his conscience.

I have taken the ground that the purely mental powers of man are not susceptible
of moral depravity, and therefore are not depraved, though they are impaired;
and that depravity is confined to the moral faculties. I know not how far the
intelligent reader will concur in this view. I might have said a great deal more
on this particular point, but I should not have said so much, but for the
bearing the subject must have upon other important doctrines which must
necessarily come under consideration in the progress of this work. I desist on
this point, but on the general subject of human depravity something more is
required.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 02 ON THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN DEPRAVITY
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER II. ON THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN DEPRAVITY.

We will now briefly inquire how it is that we are the subjects of a depraved
nature. There are many who seem to think that man is now, in respect to the
purity of his nature, just as he was when he was first created. But it would be
preposterous, and even blasphemous, to say that a holy God created man with an
unholy nature, and then pronounced him good. We must seek for the origin of our
moral corruption in some other direction; for there is no unholiness in the
Divine nature--therefore He could not impart sinfulness to His creatures. One
has a black skin, and another has a white skin: how does this come to pass? The
answer is obvious; we derive our natural complexion from our parents. There is a
universal law of nature that "like produces like." Every vegetable that grows
out of the earth, and every animal that inhabits it, derives its own peculiar
nature from the parent--not by imitation, not by instruction, nor by example,
but by natural descent. If, therefore, we account for our own peculiar nature in
the same way, we reason in conformity with a universal law of nature; and there
can be no solid reason assigned why man should be an exception to this law, and
the only exception. Hence it is not philosophical to ascribe our depravity to
any other than a natural cause. And if we could trace the moral nature of our
parentage upward to the first man, we should not be able to find the origin of
our depravity anywhere this side of that source. And further, if we direct our
inquiries to any other department of creation, we shall search in vain for this
moral malady. By what means it was that our first parents became infected with
moral depravity, is another question, and may possibly engage our attention
hereafter. Certainly, it was not by creation.

We must take ourselves just as we now are; and our own sins we must charge to
our own selves, for the righteous Judge will certainly charge them to us. We
possess mental abilities by which we are able to distinguish between right and
wrong--between good and evil; and if we choose the evil and refuse the good, it
is plain that we are justly liable to the necessary consequences of our own
voluntary and sinful choice. The path of duty is made plain, and we are
forewarned of the consequences of disobedience; and it matters not how we became
possessed of a disobedient spirit, if we voluntarily choose the way that leads
to death, it is just that we abide the consequences. And what is this depravity,
less or more, than a prevailing disposition or inclination to that which is evil
? The power to discern between right and wrong is not extinguished in the mind
of any human being where insanity has not supervened. The most ignorant and
besotted savages understand the difference sufficiently to render them amenable
to justice. And the most debased tribes of our species have their laws, or
established customs, for the punishment of evil-doers. Our perception of this
distinction is a part of our natural knowledge, and has its foundation in the
fact that we are intelligent beings. We do not need the light of revelation to
enable us to know enough of the principles of right and wrong, to render us
accountable, for we know enough for that by the light of nature. Some persons
have clearer perceptions of this principle than others; and we who have the
benefit of the light of Divine revelation are under additional responsibilities,
corresponding with our superior advantages. And justice must award a punishment
in proportion to the increased degree of our guilt. Our knowledge of the Divine
will is sufficient to render us responsible agents; and our unwillingness to do
that will, makes our condemnation just. We disobey because we are unwilling to
obey. This is the very reason why we do those things that are forbidden. Of
Total Depravity.

It will be recollected that I have said that few, if any, will pretend that man
is absolutely perfect in holiness. It will be admitted that man is, to some
extent, naturally inclined to things that are unholy in the sight of God. This
point being conceded, we proceed to inquire whether man is "totally depraved,"
as we commonly express the idea. The question of man’s total depravity has been
a subject of dispute among the learned and the unlearned almost from time
immemorial. We are hardly in a condition to render an impartial verdict, because
man is a party interested in the decision. It is a rule in equity that a man is
not to be the judge in his own cause.

I chose to reserve this important question, till I had submitted some thoughts
on the general subject of human nature, that the reader might be the better
prepared to understand my views on the subject of total depravity. Is man
totally depraved? Is he so utterly alienated in heart from God and holiness that
he is incapable of rendering to God any acceptable worship and service? The
evidence is such as forces me to take the affirmative. I believe that all of
man’s nature that is susceptible of spiritual corruption is depraved. If the
word of God does not support this doctrine, then I will consent that the
controversy shall hinge on the principles of human reasoning, and logical
inferences from general truths. But if the plain statements of the Holy
Scriptures, fairly interpreted, will decide the question, I will not hold myself
bound to follow an opponent through all his abstruse speculations, and answer
all the disingenuous quibbles he may choose to interpose. I shall address my
arguments to those who acknowledge implicitly the supreme authority of Divine
inspiration.

1. I lay it down as a fundamental principle that the depravity of which we are
speaking relates wholly to things spiritual, and must be considered exclusively
in respect to our relations to God. Consequently,

Whatever may pertain to our nature that may be regarded as good in itself, and
whatever good dispositions we may possess or entertain toward our fellow
creatures, excepting as above stated, is not competent evidence against total
depravity.

2. Again: I lay it down as a fundamental truth, that if there is not in our
nature a principle of holiness--positive holiness, even "holiness to the
Lord"--then our depravity is total. For, That holiness which is required is an
active and operative principle, that must produce holy fruits; it is not a mere
negative virtue; the mere absence of sinfulness. Even if it were possible--which
it is not--that there could be such a neutral character as a human being without
sinfulness, and without holiness, he would sustain no moral relation to God
whatever. If there is not the element of activity in our holiness, there can be
no acceptable obedience, for obedience consists in doing the will of God.

We will now proceed to examine the direct evidence contained in the word of God.

"You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and in sins; wherein in time
past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of
the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of
disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the
lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and
were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." (Ephesians 2:1-3) What is
the doctrine of this passage of Scripture? "You who were dead in trespasses and
in sins." Can evidence be more decisive than this? It is hardly possible to find
language that will teach total depravity in a more determinate and unqualified
manner than this does. No stronger term can be found in any language than the
word dead. And the adjuncts, in trespasses and sins, fully show the nature of
the death intended by the Holy Spirit. To modify the meaning of the word, is to
attempt, to improve the diction of the Divine Witness. If the inspired writer
did not mean all that his language imports, he surely could have adopted a
different mode of expression, without using terms which would necessarily be
false. The language is not hortative nor poetical, but a grave statement of a
most solemn and important truth. If man is not spiritually dead, he is
spiritually alive. This is self-evident. There can be no intermediate ground for
a debater to contend upon. Dead to all that is holy and spiritual. "In
trespasses and in sins." This phrase fixes and defines the term dead. Not
deprived of the use of our mental powers, or the exercise of our moral
affections, but wholly under the power of our carnal nature; or, in other words,
totally depraved. Living, not in the holiness of the Spirit, but the lusts of
the flesh. "And the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the
flesh, and these two are contrary the one to the other." Before we are born of
the Spirit, we "fulfill the desires of the flesh and of the mind." And these
desires, not merely coming short of conformity to the Spirit of holiness, but
being contrary to it. Who will say, that he who fulfills that which is contrary
to holiness, possesses the spirit of holiness ? While in a state of nature, and
dead in trespasses and sins, we walk "according to the course of this world." Is
the course of this world holy in any respect or in any degree? If it is, the
world is in the right road to heaven. But it is "according to the prince of the
power of the air "--that is, Satan. Does the Spirit of God dwell in the man that
walks according to--that is, in conformity with--the will Satan? Also, it is the
same spirit that "now works in the children of disobedience," elsewhere said to
be the children of the devil. They are "of their father the devil, and the
desires of their father they will do." The saints at Ephesus had been "by nature
the children of wrath." Because they were by nature the children of
disobedience, they are, therefore, said to be by nature the children of wrath.

Besides all this, if we are disposed to be consistent in our interpretation of
the text, we are bound to consider the term dead in sin with reference to the
antithesis, "quickened," or made alive. If, spiritually, we are dead, we are not
alive; and if we are alive, we are not dead; and, therefore, do not need to be
madealive. If we are not spiritually dead, there is no consistency in the
apostle’s instruction, and no propriety in his language. This passage of
Scripture alone ought to be decisive on the question, and satisfactory to every
obedient mind. That the doctrine it teaches is at war with the natural pride of
man’s heart, is true enough; but I believe the same may be said of every
fundamental doctrine revealed in the Bible. Such is the innate hostility of the
unrenewed heart against God and His truth.

We will proceed to consider some other scriptures, with but little comment. The
same form of expression as that we have just considered is used in the fifth
verse of the same chapter, and again in Colossians 2:13. In Ephesians 4:18, we
read, "Being alienated from the life of God," etc. Here the same doctrine is
taught in different words, but in plain language. The fact that the apostle
adopts a different phraseology to convey the same idea makes the point all the
more definite, and precludes evasion. The apostle John, in his first epistle (1
John 5:19), speaking of the unbelieving world, says: "The whole world lieth in
wickedness;" or, "in the wicked one," as in the margin. Can it be properly said
of those that "lie in wickedness," that they have the life of God in them ? The
apostle is speaking of the whole world, as distinguished from those who are "of
God." There is no room here for evasion. Again (1 John 3:14): "We know that we
have passed from death unto life," etc. And Jesus says: "But is passed from
death unto life" (John 5:24) You may consult the context; I omit it because
there is but one point to which I design to direct your attention. We find here
a passing from death unto life. These words must be understood in a positive
sense, for they do not admit of being used in a comparative sense. Except, then,
we are dissatisfied with the truth they teach, we are bound to understand them
as meaning positive death and positive life. If, therefore, we possess by nature
a particle of spiritual life, there is no propriety in saying we pass from death
unto life. If any should say these terms are used in different applications, and
that it is necessary to ascertain to what subject they are applied, I freely
admit it. These terms are sometimes employed figuratively, and applied to
different subjects. But in every place in the above quotations, they are
manifestly used in a spiritual sense. The terms are strictly correlative, and
placed in opposition to each other; and must be understood according to the
antithesis, or they convey no definite idea, and give us no instruction. That
state of life into which we pass by the transition, is a life that previously,
while in the state of death, had no existence in us. The kind of life to which
John refers in his epistle, is made so plain by the connection, that no unbiased
mind can be at a loss for his meaning. Before the transition we are spiritually
dead, and after it we are spiritually alive. While spiritually dead we are as
incapable of doing any thing spiritually good, as the dead body of a man is of
performing any useful action.

I will now cite you to other scriptures which clearly teach the same doctrine,
and, without much comment, leave them to your own reflection: "But without faith
it is impossible to please Him" (God). (Hebrews 11:6) Now faith is a fruit of
the Spirit, and we can not have the faith until the Spirit is given to us.
Again, "They that are in the flesh can not please God." (Romans 8:8) "They that
are in the flesh--" that is, they that are in a state of nature; for this is the
sense in which Paul generally uses the phrase, and the context shows that this
is the apostle’s meaning. Whatever ability we may ascribe to the natural man,
these scriptures certify that he is not able to please God. And a good reason
for it is, that whatever pleases the natural man does not please God. And here
we see the extent of the natural ability of man to do that which is spiritually
good--he can not please God. In the third chapter of Romans it is said, "There
is no fear of God before their eyes." Examine this chapter from the ninth to the
eighteenth verse, and see if you can subvert the doctrine of total depravity.
Again, our Savior says, "I know you that ye have not the love of God in you."
(John 5:42) How much more can a man be depraved, than to be totally destitute of
the love of God? "The carnal mind is enmity against God." (Romans 8:7) "For I
know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing." (Romans 7:18)
To these testimonies others might be added; but if they are not satisfactory
without additional evidence, it appears to me the fault must be in the judge and
not in the witnesses. Let the candid reader review the foregoing quotations, and
sum up the characteristics there ascribed to human nature, and I do not see how
he can avoid the conclusion that man’s moral nature is totally depraved. The
word of God is a "sure word," and "true from the beginning." If we will be
guided by its light, it will always lead us to true knowledge; but if our
aversion to the doctrines it reveals is such that we choose to walk in the
darkness of our own speculations, we shall eventually see the end of our
wanderings. In addition to the direct proofs exhibited in the foregoing
quotations, the doctrine under discussion is susceptible of strong, and, as I
think, unanswerable proof, by induction from the general doctrines of the
gospel, as received by all who can rationally claim a title to be called
evangelical. Doctrines which most Christians profess, and which are contended
for by Christians generally--those in this country, at least--even by those who
do not subscribe to the tenet of total depravity, are inconsistent with the
opposite opinion.

We are taught that before we can have any Scripture ground to believe that we
are converted, or in a saved state, we must be the subjects of a great change--a
real change of heart; and that this is something more than a mere outward
reformation; that this inward change is the special work of the Holy Spirit.
This is a fundamental principle, and is generally accepted as such. If I were
engaged in writing a strictly polemic discourse I should have no need to take
advantage of this acknowledgment, but I would content myself with coming at once
to the Divine record. Thus our Savior said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born
again." We are said to be "born of the Spirit." The Holy Spirit is the author,
or agent, of this new birth. Hence we are said to be "begotten of God." These
scriptures with many others teach that a real change must be effected in our
moral nature, in order to our becoming the proper subjects of the kingdom of
Christ. For such expressions surely can not imply any thing less. And hence it
is insisted on so earnestly by all our evangelical preachers and writers, and
occupies a prominent place in so many of our confessions of faith. The necessity
of conversion, as it is generally called, is urged with a zeal and pertinacity
almost worthy of its importance. And this work of conversion is always
attributed to the Holy Spirit. We are constantly taught that we must be born of
the Spirit, else we can not be the children of God; and that this change is
beyond the power of man, and is wrought by the power of God. In perfect
agreement with this view, ministers and all Christians offer up their fervent
prayers to God, that He would convert sinners from the error of their way. The
Holy Scriptures abundantly ascribe this work to God. And the Lord himself speaks
of it as his own work, and promises to perform it: "I will put my Spirit within
you." "I will put my laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts." "I
will give you a new heart." Thus we read--"The love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us." It is the Holy Ghost which
convinces us of sin, of righteousness, etc.

Now if man is not totally depraved, there is a part in him that does not need
this change, and is not a subject of renewing grace. And his salvation is partly
of nature and partly of grace. It is partly of God, and partly of himself. It is
held by some that by the death of Christ, the Spirit is spread in every man’s
heart, by which he is able to reinstate himself in the favor of God. But this is
destitute of Scripture proof--it is a mere assumption ; and, in fact, it is
virtually taking for granted the main point in debate. They that take this
ground must substantiate their position by adequate proofs from the Bible,
which, I am sure, is a task they will never be able to perform. But till the
proofs are fairly given we can not admit any arguments drawn from that source.
Whether the death of Christ, of itself, could do it, is exceedingly doubtful;
and that it did not do it, is, I think, very clear, for the whole tenor of Bible
instruction is in opposition to such an idea. The ground usually taken is, that
man is by nature possessed of a portion of spiritual life, or strength, or
grace, or whatever it may be rightly called, which, if he will improve, or
properly use and cultivate, he may become a Christian and a true child of God.
Now if I were to concede the whole ground taken here, I might still contend that
man is totally unable to bring himself into a state of grace, or even to do any
thing which would be pleasing and acceptable to God, because the whole burden of
this argument is made to rest upon the condition "if he will"--and the Scripture
declares that he will not. So this lever is altogether too weak to overturn the
doctrine of total depravity. On the doctrine of the will I hope to discourse
before we have done with the subject of depravity. For the present, however, I
wish to inquire what that germ or seed of grace is, that we have by nature--that
every man brings into the world with him--or which, at some period of life
previous to accountability, is given to every man. Great stress is laid upon it
by some. It is made one of the strongest pillars upon which is built the scheme
of our salvation, as taught in some systems of theology. If the doctrine is
true, it behooves every man to understand it, for it devolves upon us an immense
responsibility over and above all that the law imposes. If it is not true, the
contrary must be true, and the doctrine of total depravity can not be assailed
from that quarter. But even if their doctrine is true--if it can not be made
available to our salvation--we should beware that we do not make a false and
dangerous use of it, by resting more weight upon it than it is able to bear. It
is, therefore, of great importance that we should know what it is, what it is
worth, and what itcan do for us. An erroneous estimate of its nature, use, and
value, may be an occasion of fatal and ruinous mistakes. We inquire, then, Is
this principle true spiritual life? If it is, we stand in no need of what we
call conversion, but only of growth in grace. If it is that eternal life which
the gospel reveals, what need is there to come to Christ that we may have life?
And why exhort sinners to repent and be converted, seeing we are converted
already, or do not need conversion? Is this principle the love of God, or does
it implant the love of God in the heart? If this is what is meant, all is right
with us. We have by nature the love of God in the soul. And all men love God if
their doctrine is true. But both Scripture and facts testify the contrary.
Again, Does this grace or power work in us repentance toward God? If it does,
all men are under pardon; for pardon is secured to all that repent. And I would
ask further, Is this ability, or spiritual principle, or whatever we may
properly term it, the Spirit of Christ? Those in whom the Spirit of Christ
dwells, are the children of God, and, consequently, the heirs of God. If it is
not the Spirit of Christ, they are none of His, but are declared to be
reprobates. Does it give as a hearty good-will to serve God in newness of life?
Does it make us new creatures? If it does none of these things for us, it is no
easy matter to see what its office is, or what is its nature, or wherein we are
the better of it. The advocates of this doctrine, I believe, hold that,
notwithstanding this ability possessed by all men, we must have wrought in us by
the Holy Spirit a work of grace, without which we can not be saved. But the Holy
Spirit is fully able to work in us any change and every grace we need, or
possibly can need, as in any respect essential to our salvation, even though we
are utterly destitute of any thing that is good. And if we can not be saved
without a work of the Divine Spirit when we have this natural ability, and may
be saved by the power of the Holy Ghost when we are totally depraved, how do we
derive any advantage from it? I have given a good deal of reflection to this
subject, and, so far as I can see, the legitimate tendency of this scheme is,
that it increases our responsibilities without giving us any additional ability
to meet them. And besides this, it is calculated to foster in the heart of the
unconverted sinner a spirit of self-deception, by inducing the belief that his
condition before God is better than what it really is; and all the while, as we
have shown, the doctrine can not be reconciled with the obvious meaning of a
great number of scriptures.

It is quite a possible thing for a man to mistake the workings of the natural
conscience for the operations of the Holy Spirit. And this misapprehension, I
suspect, has contributed a great deal to uphold the erroneous opinion that there
is in man naturally a radical principle of spiritual goodness. It will not be
denied that we may be misled by ignorance; and very few, I suppose, would doubt
that we are liable to be deceived by the mere excitements of our moral
sensations but many wilt think it almost impossible that we may be misguided by
conscience. But this is an error; for "the mind and conscience are defiled."
Perhaps conscience is the best faculty of the soul in our present condition, as
regards matters of right and wrong; but if it is not enlightened, and subdued
into conformity with the word of God, it is not only an unsafe, but a dangerous
guide in spiritual things. It is often false as an instructor; it is inefficient
as a monitor, and unfaithful as a reprover. Look at the heathen nations in their
absurd and superstitious rites and observances of their idolatrous worship, in
which they are as conscientiously sincere as the most devoted Christian is in
his obedience to the laws of Jesus Christ, and surely if a man is not as blind
as they are he will see that conscience is not to be trusted to lead us to
heaven. The parent burns the infant child as a sacrifice to procure the favor of
his god. If this is right, certainly the Bible is not good authority; if it is
not right, then the dictates of conscience are no certain criteria by which to
judge of things spiritual. But without referring to the heathen, even in the
land of Bibles there are superstitions as irrational, and absurd, and as sinful
as those of the heathen. The ceremonies and observances enjoined by
ecclesiastical despotism are respected by the conscience of the deluded votary,
as much as the prescriptions of the Bible are by the enlightened believer. Paul
acted as much in obedience to the authority of his conscience when persecuting
the saints, as when he was preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified to the
Corinthians. If conscience does not lead according to the light of the Divine
word, it is blind; and the consequences may be as fatal to follow a blind
conscience, as to follow a blind Pharisee, or any other blind guide. He that
knows his duty, and will not do it, is without excuse; and to plead ignorance,
when we possess the means of knowing the truth, is to plead one sin in excuse
for another. The God with whom we have to do will take no excuse.

Before I leave this subject I wish to present it to your reflection, very
briefly, in two general points of view, leaving it with you to make the special
applications. The first is this: If we institute a comparison (I might say a
contrast) between the holy and spiritual nature of the Divine Law on the one
hand, and the exercises and inworkings of the natural heart of man on the other
hand, it will clearly appear that in every respect in which a comparison can be
made, the unsanctified heart is averse to the spiritual purity of the obligation
which the law imposes. When all the thoughts and imaginations of the
unregenerate heart are set in the strong light of the perfect spiritual holiness
of God’s law it will be found that in that heart "there is no good
thing"--nothing that the law will approve. I can not now go into the details of
this argument, but if the position is defensible, as I have no doubt it is, it
precludes the necessity of any other evidence, either to prove or disprove the
total corruption of man’s moral nature. The other general principle to which I
referred above is the treatment which the gospel receives when proposed to the
natural mind of man. Notwithstanding man’s ruined state--notwithstanding his
desperate necessity, exposed to inevitable perdition--yet, when the gospel in
its infinite worth and its unbounded freeness is presented to the sinner’s
acceptance, it is willfully and persistently rejected by the natural heart. This
is depravity with manifold aggravation.

These two categories comprehend all existing relations between God and man; and
in respect to both, the facts demonstrate that there is in the unrenewed heart
an inveterate opposition to both. In the investigation and discussion of this
doctrine, we have no need, in strictness, to go out of the domain of law; but
the open refusal of salvation by free grace, everywhere illustrated by facts,
exhibits the truth in a most obvious and prominent light.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 03 OF THE HUMAN WILL
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER III. OF THE HUMAN WILL.

We shall attempt now to treat a little on the subject of the will of man.

There has been a world-full of discussion lavished upon this subject; and many
wise and good things have been said on it; and also some very foolish and absurd
notions have been put forth, as dogmatically as if they bad been legitimate
deductions from self-evident principles. I do not pretend to be able to throw
any additional light upon the subject beyond what has been done by writers on
moral science, or to exhibit it to the greater advantage of the reader; but I do
hope to avoid nonsense and gross absurdity. The will is said to be "the power of
choosing." I shall not undertake to give a better definition; but I will lay
down one or two propositions which I would have the reader to keep constantly in
view. And first, Every responsible action of man is performed in obedience to
his will. I will omit the obvious corollary. Secondly, I will state that in
every case where the will of man is not in perfect unison and agreement with the
revealed will of God, it is sinful--man’s will is rebellious. And this is as
true in its application to what we believe, as it is to what we do.

We will proceed in our inquiries according to the definition of will as given by
writers on moral science, and which we have stated above, to wit, that the will
is the power of choosing. It is that faculty of the mind by which we determine
or decide what we will do in any given case. One man wills, or chooses, to be a
farmer; another chooses, or wills, to be a merchant. Sometimes a man is
undecided in his mind as to what course he will pursue; for instance, he can not
determine whether he will go abroad the next day, or stay at home. There may be
a reason why he would choose to remain at home; and there may also be a reason
why he would choose to attend to some business abroad. His will is, as it were,
on a balance; but some consideration presents itself to the mind which induces
him to determine one way or the other; and thus it is his will to do that which
he does. This is plain to every mind.

It is very common for a man to say that in a particular instance he acted
"against his will." It is lawful to use such language, because his meaning is
always understood; but, in strict propriety of language, it is not true. He
acted against his inclination;--he desired to act otherwise, but he knows that
some more important or urgent consideration induced him to choose, or will, to
perform the action. We find this mode of expression used by inspired writers.
All that is necessary here, is simply to note that there is a distinction
between the inclination or desire, and the will. The desire and the will are
often in agreement, but sometimes they are in opposition to each other.

It is proper to remark also that we are always responsible for whatever
consequences may result from the choice we make, especially if we know, or have
the means of knowing, that such consequences will or may ensue. If a man
voluntarily exposes himself to the contagion of small-pox, he is himself
responsible for the disease or death that may follow. And if a man chooses to
follow a sinful course of life, whatever he may suffer in consequence is just.
The question, Is the human will free? has long been a subject of dispute. I do
not claim to understand metaphysical science well enough to put the question to
rest, but will submit my own views as clearly as I well can. But permit me, by
the way, to make one incidental remark: I feel perfectly sure in my own mind
that if God had no will, or had never revealed any part of His will to man,
there never would have been one-half the controversy on the subject that has
been. I admit that it is this consideration which gives the subject its greatest
importance; but if there was no disposition in man to subordinate the will of
God to his own will, many of those speculations about force, and contingency,
and necessity, and irresponsibility, that have been advanced as sound
philosophy, would never have been thought of. It is only when the question is
viewed in reference to our more immediate relations to God that men differ so
widely. When men speak of free-will, in what sense are we to understand the term
free? If it is meant that the will of man is never forced in its decisions by
physical power, there certainly ought to be no debate. I believe that to be
morally impossible. And yet much of what has been urged in favor of the freedom
of the will has been directed against this very principle. If the will is not
free in this respect, it is not will; and to spend labor in proving this freedom
of the will, is no better than laboring to prove that a circle is round. If a
figure is not round it is not a circle, for roundness is an essential property
of a circle. And I believe that freedom is equally an essential property of the
will; so that if it is not free, it is not will. I think it may be rationally
doubted whether the will is, in fact, an object of physical power. On the other
hand, let us suppose that the moral nature of man was so constituted that no
reasons, or motives, or influences, could have any effect on his mind to direct
his will in deciding what he would do; so that his will (so to speak) was
incapable of being moved or determined in any direction. If so, then be would
have no will; no such faculty as the will would exist in the human mind. But we
know that man is not thus constituted. We know that we constantly choose one
thing in preference to another, while at the same time we are perfectly at
liberty to choose either.

It is evident, therefore, that the will is under some kind of government--that
it is under control or is guided by some consideration; and it is equally
evident, that it is not under a government of physical force--it is not under a
government of compulsion. But the law that governs the will, is a law of moral
influence; and when we choose to do a bad action, it is because we choose to
yield to a bad moral influence. One thing is certain, the determinations of the
will are always to be referred to moral law. By moral law they will be judged.

I shall here lay down a postulate: The will is always governed by one and the
same law. This may be thought by some to be a new idea; but if the position is
not true, I solicit refutation. And if this is a sound principle, and we can
ascertain with certainty, in any case, what that law or principle is that
influences the will to a decision, we then know by what law the will is governed
in all cases. Now there can be no difficulty in ascertaining this in many
instances. We know there are motives which influence our minds to choose that
which we do choose. We may say the motive governs the will; but we may be
influenced by a motive which is good in itself, to do an act that is very wrong.

We will illustrate by a figure the principle we assume: A man walks out a
distance from his habitation, and, casting his eyes upward, discovers a storm
rising, which will certainly overtake him before he can reach home; but there is
a vacant house not very distant, and he hastens to it. Is he, or any one else,
at a loss to know what induced him to go thither? The storm increases in
violence and becomes quite fearful, and he chooses or wills to remain under his
shelter. No one can fail to see the motive which governs his will. But the
tempest becomes furious, and the house begins to shake and crack--he immediately
leaps out into the open field, and the house is dashed to the ground. Although a
moment before it was his will to remain in his place of retreat, his will is
changed in a trice. No man of common sense can fail to see that in all these
movements his will was governed by motives, and by nothing else. On no other
view of the subject can it be strictly proper and true to say that the will is
free. And every man when be decides or chooses to adopt some particular course
of proceeding, or chooses to perform any particular action, is conscious of a
reason or motive that determines his choice--a motive which was quite apparent
to his mind at the time. And it is folly and irrational to go beyond the motive,
in search of a power or faculty of the mind which governs or controls the will
independently of motives. So much has been said on the supposed connection
between the Divine decrees and the freedom of the human will, that I reckon I
should hardly be excused if I were to be entirely silent on the subject. But if
it were not for a particular reason, I would treat the question with the neglect
that I think it deserves. And the reader would probably not feel quite satisfied
to be respectfully referred to what wiser men have said on the subject.

It has been contended that if God has decreed any event which involves the
actions of men, those actions are necessitated by the decree; and the inference
is, that in such cases, men can not justly be held responsible for their acts.
There have been men who have boldly affirmed that such decrees make God the
author of sin. There are others who believe that all events in the universe were
decreed--fore-ordained by the Creator before the foundation of the world--and
hence they infer that all the actions of men are performed under an absolute and
inexorable necessity. Thus, to refer to a very common example, it is held that
God decreed the fall of Adam, and, therefore, he sinned by necessity; he was
obliged to sin, and could not help it. I say he sinned, speaking on the
supposition that his disobedience was sin. On the main question of the perfect
freedom of man’s will, considered in regard to God’s infallible decree, there is
a profound and unapproachable secret. And unless I were able to bring this
secret to the open light of our understanding, it would probably be impossible
to satisfy curiosity. And where knowledge is impossible, it is not wise to waste
inquiry; and speculation is presumptuous. In many things God’s judgments are
unsearchable, and His ways past finding out. This should rebuke our arrogant
speculations, and teach us to confine our inquiries within the bounds of
attainable knowledge.

Any attempt to show, by reasoning, that man is not responsible for his voluntary
actions, is not only vain, but impious. That point is settled by the express
testimony of God’s word; and an attempt to establish the contrary, is virtually
an attempt to prove that God’s word is false.

We will now submit a few thoughts on the subject, keeping within the limits of
legitimate inquiry. And we ask, Does a Divine decree necessitate the actions of
men? If we look at this question in the light of cause and effect, we are
baffled at the first step. When we see an effect, and would seek for the cause
which produced it, we always expect to find a certain appropriate connection
between the cause and effect, which will show the relation. But in this case we
look in vain. No such relation can be discovered, because there is no such
visible connection as would lead to the discovery. I think it may be rationally
doubted whether such decree, considered merely in itself, can be a cause. There
must be a power to execute the decree before any effect can be produced. Every
effect is the result of power--and of power in exercise. Hence we are not to
look to the decree, but to the power which carries the decree into
accomplishment. If we go to a Divine decree to find the cause of our voluntary
actions, we go immeasurably above all visible operative causes; but even then we
do not go high enough to compass the argument. For does God will an event
because He has decreed it ? or does He decree the event because it is His will
that it shall transpire? The answer is too prominent to demand reflection.
Whether a Divine decree necessitates the voluntary actions of men or not, there
is no man who can see any such connection between them as will make those
actions a necessity. And it is not rational to affirm such a connection when we
can not discover it. But it is alleged that if God decrees an event, the event
is made certain; for we can not counteract his decrees. We admit that if God
decrees that any particular event shall infallibly come to pass, that event is
certain--absolutely certain. But the decree does not make it certain ; it would
be just as certain if there was no decree. Moreover, the certainty of the event
has no influence over man’s will; at least no one can see any necessary
connection between the certainty of the event and the determinations of man’s
will. When any man can demonstrate that a Divine decree forced him to choose to
commit a sinful act, he shall be at liberty to use it in argument. The object of
those who reason from the decrees, seems to be to invalidate the doctrine of
free-agency; but they can never succeed on their scheme. To give their views
even the appearance of plausibility, they have to identify power and decree, but
they are far from being the same. There is no power, either physical or moral,
in a decree; and, therefore, a decree can have no effect on the human will. That
the will is under some kind of government, is too manifest to admit of doubt;
but the government to which it is subject must be moral influence, for it is not
accessible to physical force. Let us suppose two travelers--one a theological
philosopher, the other a plain man, but little acquainted with scientific
speculations: Their road leads through a country where water is scarce, and they
become very thirsty; at length they come to a spring of excellent water. The
learned metaphysician dips his vessel, and says: "It was unconditionally decreed
before the foundation of the world that I should drink this good water, and,
therefore, under the force of that inevitable decree, I choose to drink it
"--and then drinks. Our common man likewise dips his vessel, and says: "I am
suffering with thirst, my appetite craves this good water, and influenced by the
benefit and gratification I expect to derive from it, I choose to drink." Then,
turning to his philosophical companion, says: "And I believe it was for the same
reason, and influenced by the same motives, that you chose to drink; and that
supposed decree to which you referred had nothing to do with your choice; for,
as to any thing you knew, it might have been decreed that you should not drink."
Which of these two is the better philosopher? They were both free--they both had
full liberty to drink, and they both had physical power to abstain, and the will
of both was governed by the same law. I shall soon have occasion to consider
this subject briefly in another point of view. But before I do this, it is
necessary to notice a ground that is taken by some over-zealous advocates of
free-agency. So far as it respects the doctrine that the human will is
free--free from any force or constraining power that necessitates the actions of
men--I have no controversy with them. I hold the doctrine as firmly as they do,
as my preceding remarks upon the subject sufficiently verify. But I see no
necessity for attempting to establish a free-agency that goes beyond the will;
neither do I believe the thing is possible. A simple statement of their doctrine
is about this: That man’s will is free, and that he possesses in himself a power
over his will to govern or direct its determinations.

I believe they do not attempt to define this power, or to explain its nature,
but it is certain that they mean something more than that influence which
motives of any kind are naturally calculated to exert on the will; for if this
were all they mean, they would have no use for it in the argument. It may not be
very easy to deal with such a subtle notion by mere abstract reasoning; but I
think there is no necessity for any thing more than a mere practical application
of the doctrine to any given case. If the idea were confined to the illiterate
and ignorant class of mankind, I would not deign to notice it; but when it is
gravely set forth by men of reputation for learning and theological wisdom, it
seems to require some attention. The idea is a mere assumption, unsupported by
reason, or facts, or any principle recognized by the acknowledged maxims of
science. The assumption is this: That man is possessed of a free-will, and also
that he possesses within himself an independent power over his will, so that his
will is subject to the dictation of this supposed power. If you adopt this
theory, it behooves you to show at least that it is consistent with itself. You
must show how it is that the will is free, and yet subject to the arbitrary
dictate of an independent power--a power that lies deeper in the human mind than
the will itself does. If we possess such a power, and it is not called forth
into exercise, to direct the decisions of the will, it is not power at all, in
any proper sense of the word. But the actual exercise of this power is admitted,
and contended for; for, on any other condition it would not be assumed. Let us
follow in the direction of this argument and see the consequences--taking Lot,
the nephew of Abraham, as an example.

Lot chose, or willed, to go to Sodom; it was his will to go there. He was at
liberty to go or to do otherwise; and he was as able to remain where he was as
to go; but it was his free-will to go. We will call this his first will, because
it was in compliance with this will that he went. Now it is assumed that be had
a power over this will, or this act of his will, by the exercise of which he
would have been able to will (or choose) differently. This power we will call
(for distinction’s sake) the first power. And (according to this theory) Lot
could have exercised it over his will, and determined not to go. But as be did
not, it must have been because he would not. This would require a second will
back of the power--a will to exercise the power; for if he had no will to
exercise the power, it would be the same as if he had not the power. And
further, this would necessitate a second power to govern this second will; and a
third will to exercise the second power; and so on forever, for there could be
no end to these alternations. And thus Lot would be like a horse working a
tread-mill--always stepping on his inclined plane, and yet never move from his
first position. But the mind instinctively recoils from the pursuit of this
fleeting abstraction. And the man who adopts this theory would employ himself as
rationally and as successfully in running to outgo his shadow. Regardless of the
sneer that the above undignified and tabular form of presenting the argument may
provoke, I desired if I could to make it plain to the minds of plain readers.
And intending no injustice to the reputation of those who have advanced this
groundless doctrine of the human will, I shall not withhold the opinion that it
is resorted to as a mere hiding-place to escape the consequences of arguments
too palpable and forcible to be resisted. And whether Lot did right or wrong,
and whether he willed right or wrong, we know what it was that governed his
will: "And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it
was well watered every-where, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even
as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar.
Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan." (Genesis 13:10-11) This is very
plain philosophy, and shows by what means the human will is governed in all
cases.

I have one more idea to offer in relation to this power over the will, and then
I will proceed to the last point of view in which I design to consider the
subject of the human will. I will not detain the reader long in this place. If I
were as conversant with the writings of moral philosophers as I could wish to
be, I think it probable that I could appeal to the authority of great names in
what I shall now advance; but the extent of my reading is so limited, that I can
not avail myself of such support as I might derive from such a privilege.

I invite your attention to the relative order of will and power, as exercised in
voluntary actions. Does a man will, that is, choose, or resolve, to perform any
act under the influence of that power by which he performs it? In every instance
the will, or determination of the mind, to do any act precedes the exertion of
the power by which it is done. To place a power over the will, or, which is the
same thing, to make the will subject to power, is to invert the established
order of nature. Power is necessarily exercised in obedience to will, or it is
exercised at random. I will not dwell on this argument; but the principle upon
which the argument is founded is utterly subversive of the theory that man
possesses in himself a power over his will. But there is a point of view in
which the subject of free-agency assumes an importance that challenges the close
and candid consideration of every man. And now, in the last place, I design to
take a little notice of the subject in that most important respect. It is in a
practical view that free-agency involves considerations of the most serious and
responsible nature. That every man acts freely in obedience to the dictates of
his own will, without any constraint or coercive force exerted upon his will, is
so evident that there ought never to have been any question on the subject. It
is known by consciousness. Every man knows that he is a free-agent, and acts
freely according to his own will, or choice, and this is decisive, and properly
precludes all controversy. But although man is not a mere machine, which of
necessity moves, just as it is moved by force, yet it leaves the question open,
whether he is not the willing slave of his unholy affections and carnal worldly
propensities. I speak of the natural man. We are not driven by physical force in
the ways of sin, but we are allured by temptations and enticements which we have
not the moral strength to resist. The things of this world are so congenial to
the fleshly appetites, the pride and selfishness of men’s hearts, that they
yield a willing submission to these influences. The love of this world is
dominant in the human heart and the love of God, not being there to counteract
it, sin reigns, and holds in easy control of the will; so that man, though free,
is led captive by Satan at his will. This is a most deplorable bondage; for,
being free-agents, we are subject to all the momentous responsibilities of
free-agency, and justly liable to the fearful consequences of our voluntary
sins, and yet we have not the moral heroism to fight successfully against the
lusts of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. And the end of
these things is death. What we need is the Spirit of grace to deliver the will
from its slavish subjection to the unholy inclinations of our carnal hearts.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 04 REGENERATION
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER IV.

REGENERATION.

Conversion, regeneration, being born again, and other terms, are used
indifferently to express the same thing. In the Scriptures, I believe the word
conversion, or convert, is generally applied to that change of practical life
which follows regeneration; but preachers and writers use it constantly as
synonymous with regeneration; and I shall not interfere with the practice. That
a radical change wrought in the heart and mind of the natural man is essential
to salvation, is a doctrine generally received and taught by the professed
followers of Christ; and if there are any who teach or believe otherwise, it is
safe, to infer that they have never themselves been the subjects of such change;
and if they do not renounce their error before, they wilt be convinced, when "he
that is filthy will be filthy still." It is so plainly taught in the word of
God, that to deny it implies a total want of reverence for Divine authority. Of
this change we now design to discourse. In reading the Old Testament (as we
usually call it) we discover that God made two great promises to us as sinners;
which two promises comprehend all that pertains to the whole plan and work of
our salvation from the beginning to the end. The first promise is, that He would
give us His Son to be our Redeemer. This Gift respects us as condemned sinners,
under the curse of His law. This Gift was an absolute necessity, for without it
our salvation was impossible. I will not detain you here by exhibiting the
proofs. I take it for granted that you admit it. This promise has been
fulfilled. This great Gift has been bestowed. And now it is not only useless,
but it is highly sinful in us to attempt to do any thing in order to remove the
curse and condemnation from us, for Christ "has redeemed us from the curse of
the law." And it would be casting the utmost contempt upon the perfect atonement
made by Him, to do any thing by way of making satisfaction for our sins. The Son
of God has done this work, and there was none but Him in heaven or earth that
could do it. The other great Gift which the Lord promised was the Holy Spirit as
a Sanctifier, to give us spiritual life, to enlighten our minds, and, in a word,
to make us new creatures. The necessity of this Gift, in order to our salvation,
was as absolute and imperative as the other. There was no salvation without it,
and there was none else but the Holy Spirit that could do it. The work of
redemption or atonement is now a finished work, and was performed by Jesus
Christ for us. But the work of regeneration is not a finished work, nor is it
even begun in the natural man. This work is a work wrought within us by the
Divine Spirit, and this work is now the subject of our present consideration.

I will state, in the first place, that there is no holiness in any created being
but that which was given to it by the Holy Spirit. And I state further, that
man--the natural man--is totally destitute of holiness. I employ the term
holiness, not in a typical or relative sense, but in its strict and proper
meaning. In its proper use, the word can not be applied to any but an
intelligent nature. We must not think of holiness as a merely negative idea,
implying simply sinlessness. In such meaning as this, it might be applied to a
tree or to a block of marble. But it can have no just application but to
intelligent creatures. No other can be a subject of holiness. Whatever created
thing is not in its own nature capable of being sinful, can not be a subject of
holiness. Holiness is a living, active, and operative principle; and wherever it
exists, there is spiritual life. Man, in a state of nature, is said to be dead
in sin; because he is utterly destitute of holiness, and, therefore, destitute
of spiritual life. And as there can be no spiritual life without holiness, it
follows of necessity that there can be no spiritual happiness. Hence it is said,
"Without holiness no man shall see the Lord." There must be a similarity of
character--a oneness of moral nature between us and a holy God, or we can have
no communion with Him. There would be no reciprocal affection, but a natural
inherent aversion. And this aversion must be mutual, for God can not do
otherwise than hate the sinfulness of our nature; and we, without the spirit of
holiness, can not do otherwise than hate the holiness of the Divine nature.
Hence we see the natural man’s great and imperative necessity. It is an
effectual change of his moral nature. But nothing can change its own nature;
therefore man can not meet this necessity. And as all holiness is derived from
the Holy Spirit, there is none that can do this but He only. That change,
therefore, which must be produced in the soul, is the work of God; and hence it
is expressed in terms that necessarily require the power of a Divine agent. It
is called a creation--"created anew." Creation is a work peculiar to God, and is
frequently referred to in the Scriptures as one of the strongest proofs of His
infinite power. We are said to be "begotten of God," and "born of the Spirit."
Previous to this change we are the "children of wrath"--"the children of
disobedience." Indeed, we are said to be "the children of the devil."
Subsequently we are called "the children of God"--"obedient children." A greater
contrast than this is hardly conceivable. While in a state of nature we are
"dead in trespasses and sins;" but in this change we are "quickened"--"made
alive." It is the Spirit that "giveth life." To give life, is an act which
belongs exclusively to Divine power. God gives us of His Spirit, and this spirit
of holiness which God gives us is said to be the Spirit of Christ. By it, we are
made one with Christ in spirit; and this is that bond of union by which we are
united to Him. And hence Christ is said to dwell in us by His Spirit. "Hereby
know we that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of His
Spirit." Until we have the spirit of life, we are blind and can not see
spiritual things, because they are spiritually discerned; but being made alive,
we see the things of God. All that we have, and all that we are in ourselves, we
derive from Adam; but the spirit of life we derive from God through Jesus
Christ. And until the Spirit of life is given to us, we are wholly destitute of
the spirit of holiness, and can not do any thing that is spiritually good. The
Holy Spirit does not give us any new faculty of the soul, but so sanctifies
those which we possess in our present constitution, as to give them a new
character, and also a new direction to their exercises. The manner or mode in
which the Divine Spirit operates on the mind in effecting this change, is beyond
our comprehension; as much so as the manner in which He produced light out of
the original darkness. We can not see the wind, but we may see its effects, and
the results of its powerful operation.

There are great diversities in the exercises of the mind in different persons,
when first quickened by the Spirit; and those differences will often continue in
some degree throughout the whole course of their religious life. But there are
certain characteristics of the operations of the Spirit, which are uniform and
pertain to all. The differences are circumstantial, and to account for them in a
treatise on the subject would be impracticable, if not impossible. In particular
instances much depends (as I think) on nervous temperament--much on the degree
of general knowledge previously acquired, in respect to the law of God and in
the way of salvation as revealed in the gospel; perhaps a good deal depends on
the religious character of our ordinary companionship, and much on the
instructive nature of the preaching we are most accustomed to hear, and perhaps
not a little on the comparative wickedness of our previous habits of life. And
we shall not undertake to trace in detail the exercises of the mind of a
newly-awakened sinner, in a systematic order, but merely notice some things on
the subject. Our remarks will be partly doctrinal and partly experimental. The
mind of man is naturally affected by the character of the objects which it
contemplates, and by the particular relation which they sustain to him. All
experience proves this, with respect to things both natural and divine. When,
therefore, spiritual life is implanted in the soul, he can begin to discern
spiritual things, though he is but an infant in spiritual capacity. Now, man is
the creature of law. He was created at first subject to law, and be remains, and
ever will remain, subject to law. And in Bible lands he is taught from infancy
to understand something of God as his rightful sovereign; and of the nature of
that law which He has ordained for man’s observance. And we are all conscious of
the fact of our being transgressors; and we have some idea of that penalty which
the law will inflict upon us in the world to come. Of all this we have some
rational knowledge while yet in a state of nature. Some have a greater degree
and some a less of this knowledge, before the Divine Spirit has given us
spiritual life. And this knowledge ought to induce us to love God and to repent
of our sins, but it never does it; for the law can not give life. Thus every man
has a rational understanding that through the law is the ministration of death.
Consequently, when the eyes of the understanding are opened we naturally turn
our thoughts to the law, and to our sins, and to the dangerous state we are in,
as exposed to the dreadful penalty due to our sins. Where there is spiritual
life, there is also spiritual sensation. And when we discover our true
condition, though only in a partial degree, we can not but feel concerned for
the event. For the matter is of such immense importance, that to be entirely
indifferent about the consequences is a moral impossibility. At the same time
our relations to the things of this world are so intimate, so numerous, and so
various; and the duties arising out of these relations are so manifold, and
often so urgent, that the mind be more or less diverted from the consideration
of spiritual and eternal things, and employed upon the things of time and sense.
But in every thing that God does He always has a fixed and specific design,
which He intends eventually to accomplish. And when He gives the Spirit of life
to a dead sinner, He will maintain that life; for be will not be frustrated or
defeated in the execution of his purposes. He will be glorified in His work, and
will not begin to build when he is not both able and willing to finish. If a
sinner thus brought to his senses should resolve to fight against it, and
endeavor to put away thoughts of his condition, because such thoughts are
troublesome to him, and disturb his peace, he would not be able to succeed. Our
physical constitution is such that we can not take burning coals in our hands
without feeling the effects of the fire. And spiritual life is such that a man
possessing it can not remain very long at rest when he is conscious that the
wrath of God hangs over him. And knowing that he is a subject of law, and that
the language of the law is "Do and live;" and, as he has always expected to live
by this doing, he sets himself about the work, and perhaps will "do many things"
which are enjoined upon him but sooner or later he will find that to "do all
things which are written in the book of the law" is a task beyond the
achievement of his moral powers. Meantime he too much overlooks the important
fact that it is now too late to "do and live." He is condemned already, and
nothing that he can do, nor all that he can do, will ever remove that
condemnation. The dreadful sentence of death has already gone out against him
for sins already committed; and whatever he may do, or can do, it is impossible
for him to undo what he has done. Being enlightened by the Spirit, be will
discover something of the sinfulness of his own heart, and of the holiness and
justice of the law ; and that he is too weak to render that perfect obedience to
the law which it requires, and is therefore daily increasing the measure of his
guilt. We must find deliverance somewhere else, or certain destruction must
ensue. Satisfaction for past sins can not be made by present duties, and beyond
what duty requires it is impossible for us to go. The unconverted sinner obeys
the law--so far as he obeys at all--from a slavish dread of its penalty; for he
has no love of holiness for its own sake. And the newly awakened sinner seeks to
obey and serve the Lord, hoping thereby to make himself a Christian. Both labor
in vain. But the soul enlightened by the Holy Spirit will obtain clearer views
of the law, in proportion to the increasing degrees of light that he acquires.
And the more he contemplates the law, the more be will see the holiness of its
nature and the extent and sacredness of its obligation; and, at the same time,
by the same light, he will discover more clearly the imperfections of his
obedience. And thus he learns, indeed, that the "commandment is exceeding
broad;" and in due time, he will find that it is in vain to hope that he can
ever attain to a righteousness that will satisfy a law which will approve of
nothing short of perfect holiness. All the while Christ is set forth before him
as a "propitiation through faith in His blood;" and why does he not look to him
and obtain remission of sins? I shall not say that it is easy to answer this
question. The soul is still oppressed with a burden of guilt; and he is still
very much in the dark, and does not understand the way of a sinner’s acceptance
with God. He does not see how God can love so unholy a creature as he is. His
mind is so much engrossed with thoughts of his present sinfulness, and
reflection upon his past sins--and a condemning law, ever present, denouncing
judgment against him--that he can not direct his thoughts much to the only
remedy for his disease. And if his mind is turned in that direction, a sense of
his unworthiness, and a want of what he thinks is a necessary preparation or
qualification for obtaining mercy, keeps him in a state of despondence. What the
sinner needs now is faith in Christ.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 05 THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER V. THE DOCTRINE OF FAITH.

Proceeding in the train of reflection which we have been pursuing, we design now
to discuss the subject of faith. It is only necessary to read the New Testament
with a little attention to discover the great importance of faith; hence every
Christian and every man should endeavor to obtain a clear and correct
understanding of the subject.

Much has been said of the order in respect to time in which the graces of the
Spirit are given to us; some contending that repentance must precede faith, and
others insisting that faith precedes repentance. Perhaps I may not have devoted
as much attention to this question as I ought. But according to my theory (if
you will bear with the expression) the question is of no very great importance.
The light in which I view the subject is this: All those exercises of the mind
which have been denominated graces of the Spirit, are the fruits of the Spirit.
And when the spirit of life is given to us, it includes potentially every grace
of the Spirit. And the order in which these graces (as we call them) are brought
into exercise, may depend, in some measure, upon circumstances. Slavish fears of
the wrath to come are natural, and not spiritual; and may operate as powerfully
upon the unregenerate soul as upon one who is really under the operation of the
Spirit of grace. But these, whether in the believer or in the unbeliever, are
sinful ; and it is a great pity they should ever be mistaken for conversion.
When the mind is enlightened by the Spirit, we instinctively look at our sins,
and the mind naturally adverts to the consequences which must follow; and as the
mind will be affected by the object which it contemplates, the apprehension of
impending judgment will arouse our slavish fears. But the spirit which is given
us includes a principle of divine love--love to holiness; and so far as this
principle operates to produce sorrow for our sins, it is spiritual. It is safe
to say, that where there is no love to holiness, there is no spiritual
repentance. And it is not easy to see how a man can repent of sin, without such
a faith in the word of God as will produce that kind of sorrow for sin which
corresponds with the kind of faith which he exercises. If I am correct in my
opinion--and I feel a good degree of assurance that I am--there is in the
natural man nothing that is spiritually good. And when the Holy Spirit is given
to us, He works in us all those principles and affections which constitute true
Christian character. This He does by the word of truth as a means: "Sanctify
them through thy truth; thy word is truth." And whatever particular truth is
contemplated by the mind, will affect the heart according to the specific nature
of that truth, and will produce or excite repentance, faith, hope, etc., just as
the peculiar nature of that truth is adapted to inspire. And without extending
our inquiries any farther on the priority of these graces, we will now speak
more particularly of faith. As we use the word in ordinary discourse, faith is
one of the most simple and common acts of the human mind. Faith is belief. If a
man tells me that the sun is farther from the earth than the moon, and I believe
his word, this believing is faith. This is the meaning of the word in respect to
every thing we believe on any subject whatever. And to attach to any word which
often occurs in the Bible a meaning different from that which it bears in other
writings, or in its ordinary use, is an unjustifiable perversion of the sacred
record. To adopt a rule of interpretation based upon such a principle would make
the Bible of no use as a book of divine instruction. In the use of the word
faith there is some latitude of application, as is the case of many other words;
but we shall pass this for the present without particular notice.

Faith, properly so called, always rests upon evidence; hence to believe without
evidence, is not rational; and in respect to our relations to God, it is
extremely dangerous. The strength of our faith is, or at least should be, in
proportion to the strength of the evidence upon which it rests. But even the
impartial and judicious inquirer may sometimes fail rightly to appreciate the
strength of the evidence, and, consequently, his faith will be weak, or perhaps
erroneous. The sources of evidence are various, but there is one source of
evidence which is infallible. When we have the evidence of God’s word, the
subject admits of no controversy. The testimony of the Holy Scriptures may be
corroborated by other evidence, but it stands in no need of it, and no rebutting
evidence should ever be admitted. God’s word is all-sufficient to establish any
truth. The faith which is founded upon the word of God is sometimes called
divine faith, because God is the testifier. Faith in the gospel, which is saving
faith, is often denominated evangelical faith; and as no man has this faith but
by the Spirit of God, it is often properly called spiritual faith. Our faith
should embrace all that God has revealed. But there are some things revealed in
Scripture which are not essential to salvation ; and, though it is our duty to
believe them, yet our salvation does not depend upon our faith in these things.
But if a man willingly tolerates himself in disbelieving any truth contained in
God’s word, it warrants a strong presumption that his mind has never been
reduced to that humble and obedient frame, without which be will never exercise
a saving faith in the gospel. The moral law--that is, the law of ten
commands--is a proper object of faith. But we are not to believe the law for the
same purpose that we believe the gospel. But if we do not believe that the law
is of Divine authority; if we do not believe that it is holy, just, and good; if
we do not believe that it imposes an obligation to obedience, and do not believe
its penalty will be executed, I am unable to see how its precepts can be brought
to bear upon the hearts and consciences of men. But we must not believe in the
law as a medium of mercy, but as an instrument of death. There is no mercy in
the law to the guilty; it is all curse and condemnation. If any should ask, If a
sinner would now keep the law perfectly, might he not obtain life? I answer, No:
he can not obtain life by any such means. If a man never had sinned, and would
then keep the law perfectly, he should "live;" but to those that have sinned,
the law speaks nothing but "judgment and fiery indignation." A sinner can no
more "escape the damnation of hell" by any obedience he can render to the law,
than he can quench the fires of hell in that way. If we entertain any faith in
the law that leads us to hope that it will relax in the smallest degree its
severity, or make allowance for our imperfections and the weakness of our
nature, or for temptations and enticements, it is a false faith, because it is
based on a false foundation, and the hope that rests upon it is a vain hope. We
must believe the law will give us death, and nothing else.

I wish to avoid all unnecessary distinctions, but I think it will not be amiss
to make one or two remarks here that may be useful on some occasions. We should
carefully distinguish between faith and presumption. Faith is founded upon
evidence, but belief without evidence is presumption. A very sound philosopher
has said that "to believe without evidence is the part of a fool." And perhaps
there are few who are not in some things liable to this imputation. There is
always danger of this in respect to things which we wish to be true.

Another distinction which should not be overlooked, is the difference between
faith and delusion. To believe on false evidence is delusion. The nature of
these two errors differs but little, and the effect is the same. There is,
probably, more danger here than there is in the other case, because many false
teachers have gone out into the world. The last error is more prevalent in the
enlightened nations of the earth than the first. In view of the past history and
present condition of the human race, my heart grieves--and grieves
intensely--while I reflect upon the unnumbered thousands of my fellow-mortals
who, by these errors, have been led, and are now deceived, to their eternal
ruin. There are, no doubt, now, many millions in the habitations of eternal
despair who, while in this world, pleased themselves with the belief that they
were the special favorites of heaven, and scarce felt a doubt that death would
usher them into the abodes of heavenly glory. And there are millions now, under
the same spirit of delusion, traveling the same path, vainly flattering
themselves that they are in the highway to eternal life, but the end of their
way is death.

It is a part of the experience of almost every child of God, that he has
occasional fears that he is in a deceived state and cherishing false hopes. Such
fears are not very pleasant, but they are very useful. They prompt us to a more
careful and critical examination of the subject, and thus lead to more enlarged
knowledge of the way of salvation.

Jesus Christ is the object of saving faith: "He that believeth on me hath
everlasting life." But we are not at liberty to makeHim what we would have Him,
and then believe on him according to what we have made Him. We must believe on
Him just as he is set forth in the gospel; and the evidence upon which we must
found our faith is the word of God. To believe on Him thus is not presumption,
for we have the sure word of God as the foundation of our faith. Neither is such
faith delusion, for the evidence upon which we believe is truth--infallible
truth--for it is the testimony of Him that can not lie, and will not deceive.
The testimony of God in the gospel may relate to a particular matter of fact; or
it may be a declaration of some great doctrinal truth; or it may be a promise to
bestow upon us some great blessing or benefit. But whatever may be the subject
of His testimony, it ought to be sufficient for us that God has said it; and His
word ought to be received with implicit confidence. If God has said it, no
evidence to the contrary should be admitted; and the testimony of a thousand
holy angels to the same point could add nothing to the certainty of its truth.
That Jesus Christ died, is a simple fact, not denied by any who admit that the
Bible is a true historical record, whether they believe it to be of Divine
authority or not. The Jews and Mohammedans believe it; and even many avowed
infidels believe it on the same ground that they believe any other historical
fact. But such faith is not believing that Christ died for sinners. We must
believe in the death of Christ as a doctrine--a great doctrinal truth. This
doctrine we can not understand too well, for it is the foundation of saving
faith. He that believes this doctrine is "passed from death unto life, and shall
not come into condemnation." I shall endeavor to exhibit this subject as plainly
as I can. The sum of this doctrine, in a simple but comprehensive form, is
expressed by the apostle in a few words, and is comprised in this sentence:
"Christ died for our sins." He that believes this, has saving faith. It is true,
this sentence comprehends a great deal. Let us, then, examine it, and see what
particular doctrines are taught, either expressly or by necessary implication.
This doctrine embraces the atonement, which we regard as the most fundamental
doctrine revealed in the gospel, and underlies the whole scheme, or plan of
man’s salvation. So essential is the atonement, that it is not going too far to
say that God could not save sinners without it; but as we design to treat on
atonement more at large in another place, we propose now to consider it only in
connection with the subject of faith. That Christ died for our sins, necessarily
presupposes that we have sinned. If we had not sinned, no atonement would have
been necessary. But as we have sinned, and thereby brought ourselves under the
condemnation of the law, it was indispensable, in order to our salvation, that
the condemnation should be removed; else the sentence must be executed, and the
penalty inflicted upon us. God could not extend saving mercy to us at the
expense of His justice; and justice required that sin should be punished. The
claims of justice must therefore be satisfied. I make no distinction here
between law and justice, for in this point of view they are the same. The
penalty of that law which we have violated is death. He that sins, if it be but
once, is doomed to death; for God will by no means clear the guilty--that is, no
sin shall go unpunished. We have sinned and subjected ourselves to death. This
truth, so positively taught in Scripture, is plainly involved in the text above
cited; and no man can believe the text without believing that he is justly under
sentence of death. Now the text says, "Christ died for our sins." And what is
now proposed to our faith is: Did the death of Christ make a sufficient and
perfect satisfaction for our sins? If it did, sin can no longer obstruct the
saving mercy of God. The way is open, both for us to go to God for pardon, and
for Him to come to us with pardon. And let no man charge me with ultraism when I
say that He is as willing to bestow pardon as we are to receive it. The death of
Christ is the only ground upon which we can be saved from our sins, and it has
pleased God so to ordain that when we believe in this atonement, we shall have a
personal interest in all its blessings. If the death of the Son of God did not
make a complete and perfect satisfaction to Divine justice for our sins, there
is no salvation for us; and if it did, we should depend upon that alone. Let us
take nothing else with that into our faith, as the ground of our trust. "Christ
died for our sins;" and it is in consideration of this alone that God forgives
sins. If we look to any obedience to the law rendered by us; or to any religious
duties performed by us; or to any good dispositions in ourselves; or to any
willingness or good desires which we have; or to any qualification or frames of
mind wrought in us by the Holy Spirit, such as repentance, faith, love, etc., as
being necessary to make satisfaction for our sins, or as the ground of our
acceptance with God, we are placing our faith in a wrong object, and
undervaluing the infinite worth and sufficiency of that perfect satisfaction
which Christ rendered to Divine justice on behalf of sinners. The death of
Christ itself, independently of every thing else, satisfied the Divine law; in
consideration of that satisfaction the Father declared from heaven that He is
well pleased. And when we believe in it, we shall be well pleased. This is life.
eternal. It is by Christ’s death that we have eternal life and God has promised
all that believe it that He will remember their sins no more. Let Jesus Christ
crucified be the corner-stone upon which we build our faith, and then it is not
possible for our faith to be too strong, nor for our trust in it to be too
single. Let us not complicate it with any thing else, nor encumber it with
conditions. Though there are many other truths revealed in the gospel, which it
is right and proper that we should believe, yet, when we believe this great and
fundamental truth, we have a personal interest in all its benefits. If we truly
believe in it, then we desire it--we glory in it--we trust in it--and Christ
crucified becomes to us all in all. The Son of God assumed our nature that He
might redeem us from the curse of the law. "He bore our sins in His own body on
the tree." And we may say:

"The cursed tree hath blessing in’t, My sweetest balm it bears." (Dr. Watts.)
That Christ died for our sins, is that great doctrinaltruth that we must
believe. It is "the gospel," which, if a sinner believes, he shall be saved, for
Jesus Christ has said it.

Now let us direct our attention a little to faith in the promise.

Whether I am singular in the opinion or not, I believe it is possible for a man
to have a firm and saving belief in the great doctrine which we have been
considering; and yet for want of more light and a clearer understanding of the
gospel, he may be so much in the dark as not to be satisfied that be has a
personal interest in Christ. But I say Christ is his Savior, whether he is able
to realize his interest in Him or not. What, then, is necessary in order to set
him free? There is but one thing necessary, and that is, for him to believe the
promise. Salvation is promised to every one that believes the doctrine--to every
one that believes that Christ died to save sinners; and God will certainly
verify the truth of this promise. We are saved through the belief of the truth;
and the essential truth to be believed is, that "Jesus Christ came into the
world to save sinners." And it hardly can have escaped the notice of any
attentive reader of the New Testament, that the Scriptures seem to dwell upon
this idea with peculiar emphasis. Our Savior himself taught this great essential
truth so frequently, and with so much energy and constancy, as to show the great
importance which He attached to it, and which He would have us to attach to it,
declaring that whoever believes this truth shall be saved. For whenever faith in
Christ is enjoined or spoken of in connection with salvation, we must understand
it as having reference to His atonement, for without this He is no Savior. And
who has read the writings of the apostles and evangelists, and their preaching,
as recorded in the New Testament, without observing with what earnestness and
fervor they exhibit this doctrine?

I desire to simplify the subject as much as I possibly can, that you may
understand it. I will state both the doctrine to be believed and the promise of
salvation to the believer: The doctrine--"Christ died for our sins." (1
Corinthians 15:1-58) The promise--"He that believes shall be saved." (Mark
16:1-20) Paul says the first statement is the gospel; and Jesus Christ says he
that believes the gospel shall be saved. How plain, how definite, is the
instruction of the Divine word! What glorious simplicity is here! The simplicity
of the gospel is one of its chief glories. We find the same, in substance,
taught in many other places, and in a variety of forms. Thus: "The blood of
Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." "Whom (Jesus Christ) God hath
set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood." And again, "Christ
is the end of the law for righteousness to ever one that believeth." Do you
believe that the righteousness of Christ is the only thing to justify you before
God? If you do, that righteousness is yours. If I have failed to make this
matter plain, it is not for the want of effort, but for want of skill. It has
not been my design, in stating it thus, to annul or depreciate any other
doctrine or any duty found in the Bible; but I want the reader to understand
that to believe that the death of the Son of God is the only ground upon which a
sinner is accepted in the sight of God, is saving faith. So long as the believer
rests upon this ground he is strong, and I think he will feel strong--not strong
in his own strength, but in the strength of the foundation upon which he stands.
Trusting in this, he may well say, "Who shall lay any thing to my charge?" "It
is Christ that died." Freely admitting that repentance towards God, love to God,
and all else that the Scriptures teach and require, are important and necessary,
yet the faith by which we are accepted, justified, and saved, is faith in the
atonement of Jesus Christ as dying for sinners. As the only way by which we can
be accepted of God is through the death of the Lord Jesus, so the only faith
necessary to obtain that acceptance is to believe in it. We have any desirable
number of promises in the Scriptures, that if we believe this doctrine we shall
be saved. By this faith we, have fellowship with Christ, and become the children
of God. By it we are justified; by it we have peace with God. If we have this
faith we "have passed from death unto life, and shall not come into
condemnation." A firm and undoubting belief of this doctrine is the full
assurance of faith; and a full and undoubting belief of the promise annexed to
this faith, gives the full assurance of hope. Why, then, do not believers
rejoice in Christ always? This rejoicing is certainly the privilege of every
believer; and if they do not daily rejoice in Christ, it is because they do not
rightly improve the privilege to which they are entitled. Satan may tempt the
believer to doubt the sufficiency of the atonement, and in this way perplex his
mind with darkness and disquiet; but I think it is much oftener the case that
from some cause or other he is led to doubt the promise. The truth and certainty
of God’s promises ought never to be doubted, because "He is faithful that
promised." All the "promises of God are in Christ yea and amen," to the glory of
God by us. But Satan has many advantages. The mind may labor under dejection,
arising from some peculiar derangement of health; or we may be constitutionally
disposed to view things, especially future events, in a dubious and unpropitious
aspect. Outward afflictions and adverse providences--dark prospects with regard
to ourselves or our relative interests--many such things may induce a gloomy or
desponding state of mind. Satan may take advantage of these things, to cast in
doubts and misgivings with respect to our interest in Christ, and thus hinder us
of that joy in believing which it is at all times the privilege of every
believer to cherish and maintain. But oftener, by far, is the peace and joy of
the believer marred by his own disobedience and unfaithfulness. Christians are
too much of their time off their guard, and hence are often betrayed into sin.
Consequently, a sense of guilt oppresses the conscience--hope is wavering, and
his faith in the promise falters; and he that could once "hope against hope" can
now hardly hope at all. If he had walked in the light, he would have rejoiced in
the light; but he walked in darkness and found darkness as a recompense. He may
think that he ought to "believe down" his fears--and so perhaps be ought--but he
finds his faith not equal to the work. A Christian may leave off a known duty by
degrees; and, by the same slow degrees, he will lose his spiritual-mindedness.
And though the neglect may be as a thorn in the foot all the time, yet he will
become so accustomed to its slight ranklings that he will find comparatively
very little inconvenience from it, till the resumption of the neglected duty
will appear to be a task beyond his strength; and less matter, if he does not
begin to persuade himself that the duty is not really obligatory on him. And he
will not be at a loss for excuses. At length conscience, having been so long
stifled, will scarcely whisper its reproofs, and he makes up his mind to bear
the burden. But, in the meantime, where is his spiritual joy? What has become of
his lively hopes ? He has lost that sweet and holy delight which meditation upon
the love of Jesus once inspired. Possibly he may not be greatly oppressed with
painful doubts and fears; but he is sensible there is something wanting; and he
is often ready to say, "Oh! that it were with me as in months past." The face of
the Lord always shines on the path of duty; but "he that regards lying vanities,
sins against his own soul." He should remember the Lord’s judgment against the
"lukewarm," for he is but too near that fearful condition. I might enlarge here
to a great extent, but I must set limits to myself somewhere. And I would say to
my brethren that it is much better to avoid these hampering doubts and fears,
than to incur the necessity of finding a way out of them. And in order to avoid
them, consider a few things which I will submit to your reflection. And,

1. First be constant, punctual and, as much as possible, fervent in prayer.
Pray, and pray earnestly, for the salvation of sinners. Pray for the purity and
prosperity of the Church. Pray for your brethren. Do not forget to pray for the
Lord’s ministers, and especially for the one who labors for you. When you come
to the mercy-seat, you are as near to your Heavenly Father as you can get, and
as far from your spiritual enemies as you can get. It is a safe retreat for a
Christian. Doubts and fears can not live near to Christ, for His presence
dispels darkness. By the exercise of prayer you maintain the spirit of prayer;
and to lose the spirit of prayer, only in a partial degree, is a sad loss
indeed. Prayer "gives exercise to faith and love." It is possible that you, like
some others, have seen a time when you would have been glad to know that it was
your privilege to pray; and it is more than likely you have seen the time when
you not only could pray, but could not help praying, The poet has well said,
that-- "Satan trembles when lie sees The weakest saint upon his knees."

Well, brethren, make Satan afraid, for if you do not, you may well be afraid of
him.

2. Whatever will promote growth in grace, will also be a good shield to you from
perplexing doubts. Therefore one of the safeguards against these sinful doubts
(for they are sinful) is to be well established in the truth. With a view to
this, you should make yourself thoroughly and intimately acquainted with the
word of God, as much so as you possibly can. This will give you enlarged views
of the plan of salvation; and you will better understand the great and precious
promises that God has given us; and you will be able more readily and more
effectually to apply them to your own case. For when you are able to realize
your interest in the promises, those misgivings and uneasy forebodings
respecting your final acceptance will, in a great measure, abate, and your
re-invigorated faith will get the victory over Satan’s temptations. It is not to
be wondered at, if Christians hobble and grope in the dark, with little
enjoyment of religion--believing but little, and feeling but little, and doing
but little--if the word of God is neglected. It is a deep well, but not so deep
but that we may draw up the water if we are thirsty. A good degree of knowledge
in the Scriptures will make you strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. It
is "a lamp to our feet, and a light in our path." It is an armory which will
furnish you with every necessary spiritual weapon to maintain your warfare
against the powers of darkness--the snares of the world, and the lusts of the
flesh. The Holy Scriptures are "able to make you wise unto salvation;" and they
are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and instruction in
righteousness," that you may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good
works. You can scarcely be placed in any condition in life, or be in any state
of mind, but you may find something in the Bible appropriate to your peculiar
need; and if you will store your mind with the rich treasures of the Divine
word, you will have the needed supply at hand. When I reflect upon the treatment
the word of God receives from mankind, I am made to be astonished at His
long-suffering mercy. "I have written to him the great things of my law, and
they were accounted a strange thing." Just as we treat the word of God, so would
we treat Him; and if not, how will we make the contrary appear? We love God no
more than we love His word.

3. Even though it may be labor in vain, duty compels me to suggest another means
of promoting spiritual strength and a more assured hope in the hearts of my
brethren. It is religious conversation. Perhaps with many this is the least
acceptable topic in the whole series. But whether this remedy be tasteful or
nauseous, faithfulness demands its exhibition. Our doubting and distrust is
displeasing to God, because it is an impeachment of His faithfulness; and He
would have us to "trust and not be afraid." No means, therefore, should be
neglected that promises growth in grace and spirituality. None of us are
ignorant of that element of our moral nature which we call sympathy; and we
ought to consider its power over the heart, and enlist it in the service of God.
This sympathy is that handle (so to speak) of the soul of which religious
conversation takes hold, and which is so easily wielded to mutual edification.
And as idle and worldly discourse has a natural tendency to produce levity and
worldly-mindedness, so religious conversation has a natural tendency to foster a
spiritual state of mind. Why, then, do we so much indulge in the former, and
neglect the latter? It is enough to make one "weep in secret places," to reflect
how little the subject of religion is made the theme of social conversation
among those who profess to believe that it is the greatest and best of all
subjects. Does not practice condemn profession? What excuse can we offer for
thus neglecting one of the best means of promoting the interests of vital
religion that a Christian can command, and a means that every Christian is able
to use in a greater or less degree ? The topics of religious conversation are so
numerous, so rich, and so various, that we need never be at a loss for
subject-matter that will make religious intercourse both pleasant and
profitable; and many of the topics are so entirely within the comprehension of
those who are the least informed in religious matters, that opportunities of
being mutually helpful are constantly occurring, and they ought not to pass
without improvement; for in many instances the Christian thereby acquires
additional knowledge in the word of God; and even when this is not the case,
Christians are edified in love and comfort--their spiritual strength is renewed,
and growth in grace is promoted. Social religious discourse whets the appetite
for spiritual instruction. The remembrance of their having taken sweet counsel
together, is a subject of pleasing reflection; and after they separate, they can
have a good repast on "the fragments that are left." Moreover, it tends to
promote brotherly love and confidence. It also brings Christians to the unity of
the spirit, and strengthens the bonds of peace. By this means many a drooping
spirit has been revived, many a feeble knee has been strengthened, and many a
blessing has descended upon the head of those who have thus been the instruments
of edifying the children of God; for He never forgets these cups of cold water
given to his thirsty children. And further, it honors Christ, and has been the
means of converting sinners. Within the memory of the writer, religious
conversation held a prominent place among Christians where two or three were
providentially gathered together: "Then they that feared the Lord spake often
one to another."

There is now more refinement among Christians, but I fear there is less
devotion. The time has been when our Christian fathers were deprived of this
blessed privilege, except as they were wont to meet in the secret retreats of
the forest, or in unfrequented nooks and corners; and if political despotism
should ever again debar us of these means of spiritual improvement, we should
more correctly appreciate the privileges and advantages we now so ungratefully
slight. And who can say that such a time will never come? If the progress of
error for twenty years in the future should be proportionally as rapid as it has
been during the past twenty years, there is abundant reason for the most
alarming apprehension. A reformation is greatly needed; and if it is
practicable, where shall it begin? It ought to begin everywhere, and among every
grade of society. The work is now, probably, ten times more difficult than it
would have been twenty years ago, and the necessity for it, perhaps, is ten
times more urgent than it was then.

I am now impatient to pursue this line of thought; but knowing that I have
already exceeded the limits of the request of my brethren, I must leave out what
further I had prepared on this topic. But I will add that religious themes ought
to have the preference of all others; and almost any other subject is preferred
to religion. "Where there is no wood, the fire goeth out;" and where the means
of grace are neglected, spiritual affections decay.

Before I proceed farther I must trouble the reader with an apology. I was
requested by my brethren to write a doctrinal treatise. That I have, in the
preceding remarks, indulged myself in practical admonitions, I freely admit, and
I constantly find myself leading off in that direction. The intimate and
inseparable connection between doctrinal truth and practical piety is such that
I found myself unable to treat that part of the subject in any other way. But I
have more yet to say on the general subject of faith. When we consider the
importance of the office of faith in the economy of our salvation, and the
relations which it sustains to the other graces of the Spirit, and also to the
greatest covenant blessings, we can not fail to see the propriety of arriving at
as full and correct an understanding of the subject as we possibly can. The
question, Am I a believer? has agitated the mind of many a child of God. And
indeed it is a question of transcendent importance. The most momentous interests
of man, in this world, and that which is to come, are involved in it. This
question is an appropriate subject of inquiry during our whole pilgrimage from
Egypt to Canaan--if you will bear with this mode of expression. For as, in the
order of nature, day and night alternately succeed each other, and are set "the
one over against the other," so it is, in most cases, with the true believer. He
may have his joyful hours and his cheerful days, but, with comparatively few
exceptions, we must remember the days of darkness, for they may be many. We will
now inquire a little into the cause of these vicissitudes. And we need not seek
for the cause anywhere else but in ourselves; for it is the privilege of God’s
children to "rejoice in the Lord always." We are prone to put stumbling-blocks
in our own way, and therefore it is no wonder if we find impediments while
endeavoring to climb the mount of vision, where we may overlook the Jordan and
view the promised inheritance. As preparatory to the consideration of this
question, let us notice some things that baffle your efforts to come to a
satisfactory decision in regard to your true condition. Perhaps one will say, If
I could be sure that I am converted! This question may be virtually the same as
the other; but it is far more difficult to arrive at a satisfactory decision;
and, besides this, there is much greater danger of falling into a fatal mistake
as to the fact. It is grievous to think how many there are who believe
themselves to be converted, when, in fact, their hearts are as far from Christ
as the heart of an infidel. What is the process by which such a one solves the
mighty problem? He looks into his own heart to find what he wants; he takes the
feelings of his own heart as evidence, and decides by this evidence that he is a
Christian, and the result is that "a deceived heart has turned him aside." The
whole process of examination begins and ends in himself; while he forgets, or
has never known, that "the heart is deceitful above all things." Not a glance
has ever been cast upon Christ. With many, the natural passions or affections of
the mind are operated upon, as it were, mechanically or sympathetically, and the
feelings of the heart are wrought up to a high state of excitement, and all this
is supposed to be the operations of the Divine Spirit; and this being taken for
granted, a false peace brings relief. Thus the subject of these exercises feels
a strong assurance of his being in a converted state. And it may be that being
pleased with a notion that he is an object of God’s love, and cheered with the
hope of gaining heaven at last, and encouraged by the confidence that others
have in him, he may live out a life in a tolerably straight line, and, after
all, die an utter stranger to Christ and the power of His cross. But in many
instances these conversions, as they are supposed to be, prove their spurious
character in a very short time. Such a one having obtained deliverance from the
agonies of a goading conscience, glories in his peace: and he may really have
peace; but to have peace with a deceived conscience, is a very different thing
from having "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." It is an unhappy
condition to have no peace, but it is incomparably worse to cherish a false
peace. Christ is our peace, who has broken down the wall of partition which
separated us from the favor of God. To seek peace, therefore, from the workings
and exercises of our own minds, is a very unsafe expedient. And if we draw peace
from a false source, what else may we expect but that it will be a false peace?
If your trust for acceptance is in Christ alone, look directly to Him--to Him
alone, to His all-fullness--if you would desire assured peace. For why should
you wish to draw your peace through the tube (so to speak) of your feelings and
the evidences of your conversion? Why not rather go at once to the fountain that
was opened for sin and uncleanness, and drink peace and consolation, as nearly
as possible, from where it issues from the throne of God and the Lamb?

I have been using the word conversion in that sense in which it is usually
employed in preaching and conversation. It has been so long and so generally
used to signify that change which is wrought in us by the Holy Spirit, and which
is also called regeneration, that I thought it best to retain it, especially as
I do not see any good that would be gained by disturbing the ordinary meaning of
the term in a treatise like this. But more directly to meet the inquiry of one
who is really concerned about his state, and desirous to obtain a more
established hope, I would say that your faith must be placed on a right
object--and that object must be Christ. He is the only proper object of saving
faith. Again: Your faith must rest upon right evidence--and that evidence must
be the word of God. By these criteria you may proceed to try your faith. If your
faith (such faith as you have) leads you to renounce all confidence in yourself,
and to trust in Christ alone for salvation, you have one of the first and best
evidences that your faith is genuine, evangelical faith. "Christ Jesus came into
the world to save sinners;" and if you are not feelingly convinced that you are
a sinner--a lost sinner, and justly condemned by the law of God--I should think
you are not very anxious to have the question decided as to whether you are a
believer or not. Jesus says He came to seek and to save the lost; and if you are
a lost sinner--so lost, that you can not be saved except Christ saves you--and
it is to Him you look, and in Him alone that you trust--I repeat it, you have
one of the first and best evidences that you are a true believer.

Just in this place I will say one thing, which you may always keep in mind when
you would examine your faith. It is this: It is impossible, according to the
laws of the human mind. for us to trust in any thing in which we have no faith.
Upon this ground I say that if you trust in Christ, you believe in Him. For if
you did not believe in Him as the Savior of sinners, you, as a sinner, could not
trust in Him as your Savior. "Blessed are all they that trust in Him." "They
that trust in him shall never be ashamed." If, therefore our faith is in Him, it
is directed to the only proper object. It is that very faith by which sinners
are saved. We will, therefore, revert to the other criterion.

True faith is founded upon the word of God. If you trust in Christ for salvation
because God has promised salvation to all that believe in Christ, your faith
rests upon the right evidence. You need want no other evidence, for "the word of
our God shall stand forever." Possessing these two prime characteristics of
saving faith, you are fully warranted in deciding that your faith is the faith
of God’s children. There are some who look to their own obedience, upright
conduct and religious life, or to the warmth and fervor of their religious
affections, and perhaps to many other such things, as a kind of refuge from
their fears, and build a hope of their gracious state and their acceptance with
God upon these; but although true faith will produce such fruits, yet these are
too variable, too fluctuating, and often too deceptive for the soul to rest
upon. If your faith is such as it ought to be, and in proper exercise, your mind
will fly to Christ as your only place of security. And this is the genuine
actings of a true faith. "In Thee do I put my trust;" and your heart will say,
"Christ crucified" is my resting place. "It is Christ that died." If your faith
will lay hold on this truth, and you can use it rightly, you may triumph over
all opposition.

Before I proceed to the last paragraph intended for this chapter, perhaps I
ought to remind the reader that in the Scriptures, and also in ordinary
discourse, the word faith is used in the same sense as the word trust; and
likewise the word trust is used to signify the same as the word faith. Either
word will often convey the idea intended by the writer. There is, however, a
shade of difference between these two exercises of the mind, though they are
generally exercised in connection. Faith respects the truth believed; trust has
respect to the promise made to the believer. Faith looks to God’s veracity;
trust regards God’s faithfulness. The language of faith is, God is a God of
truth; the language of trust is, God is a faithful God. Faith embraces things
both past and future; trust mostly contemplates the future. I could easily
exemplify the distinction by referring to certain scriptures, but by this time
you probably think I have been unnecessarily minute. I will only add that when
you commune with your own heart with a view to ascertain whether or not you are
a I real believer, you will probably find it easier to discover your trust than
your faith; but if your trust is in Christ, your faith is there, too, whether
you discover it or not.

If I set reasonable limits to my whole task, I must also set limits to the
particular parts of it. I will, therefore, present you with only one more test
by which to judge whether your faith is truly evangelical; you may decide by the
value which you set upon Christ. To the unbeliever Christ is "as a root out of a
dry ground." He has no form nor comeliness; he sees no beauty in Him that he
should desire Him. Having no real sense of his need of such a Savior, he does
not know how to estimate His worth. The unbeliever has some notion that he can
not be saved without Him; but he looks upon Him as having died to put sinners in
a condition to save themselves, rather than as being their only, their whole
Savior. He will readily admit that he can not be saved without Christ, and that
there must be an important use for Him in the work of salvation; but, at the
same time, he really does not know what use to make of Him for himself. The
unbeliever supposes that Christ died to make a way whereby a sinner may be saved
if he will try; but has very little more than a vague and indefinite notion of
what Christ accomplished by His death; and if Jesus would keep him out of hell,
he would have very little further use for Him. To say the truth, he has such
imperfect or erroneous views of the necessity that Christ should die for
sinners, that he must of necessity have very imperfect conceptions of the
benefits secured by His death. He has imperfect views of the holiness and
justice of that law which he has violated times without number; he has
inadequate views of that ruined condition into which he has brought himself by
his transgressions; he has very imperfect ideas of the sinfulness of his nature,
and consequently be does not realize the greatness of his need of such a
Mediator as the "Man Christ Jesus;" and not being impressed with the fact of his
being a lost sinner, he is incapable of duly estimating the excellency of Christ
Jesus the Lord. Very different is it with the true believer. He regards Christ
as his All in All. To him, Christ is the Chief among all the thousands, and
altogether desirable. He knows that he is lost in himself, and that without
Christ he is lost forever. He sees that Jesus is just such a Savior as he
needs--even a Savior of sinners. To him Christ is precious--infinitely precious;
so that if Christ is his, he has the very thing that he needs, as well as the
thing that he desires. The language of his heart is, "Lord, if Thou wilt, thou
canst make me clean;" and in proportion as he is able to understand and
appreciate the evidence that Christ is willing to save him, will be the measure
of his hope and comfort. Take from him "Jesus Christ and Him crucified," and be
has nothing left. With him, Christ is the "sure foundation," and he is resolved
to build upon no other. Even before he was brought to feel that he was not
worthy that Jesus should come under his roof, he had found that sin is "an evil
thing and bitter;" but now, more than ever, he hates sin, and grieves in his
heart that so much still remains of his former depravity. Yet he would discard
the idea of being saved by his own holiness, for he sees that salvation is in
Christ alone:

"None but Jesus--none but Jesus, Can do helpless sinners good."

If the believer could know with positive certainty that he would be finally
saved, it would still be the desire of his soul to live free from sin.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 06 REPENTANCE
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER VI.

REPENTANCE. The discussion of the doctrine of faith leads us in course to the
subject of repentance. There has been some difference of opinion among
Christians as to which precedes--faith or repentance. I do not esteem the
question one of much importance, and therefore shall not detain the reader with
an investigation. My own views of the subject preclude the necessity of
determining the priority of these graces. They, with all other gracious
exercises of the mind, are immediate fruits of the Spirit; and when God gives us
His Spirit, every grace of the Spirit is virtually included in that one gift.
But I think we may safely conclude, that where there is no love to God there is
no spiritual repentance towards God. I chose to discuss the subject of faith
first, not because of the order of time in which these graces are first
exercised, but for reasons which I deemed of greater importance.

It is, however, a matter of great importance to distinguish, if we can, between
true evangelical repentance and other exercises of the mind which have nothing
truly spiritual in them. On this rock thousands have split, and thousands more
are in danger. The question, therefore, has strong claims on our earnest
consideration. With a view to lend the reader some little assistance in judging
between that which is true and that which is spurious, we will say that the mind
may be in a state of great perturbation, and the natural affections wrought up
to a high pitch of excitement, produced by a powerful exhortation, or some
providential visitation--many tears may flow, and strong resolves may be
formed--and all this without the work of the Holy Spirit. In many instances this
turbulence and pungent distress do not last much longer than the occasion which
produced them; and when they do survive the occasion, they subside by degrees
and leave the heart no better than it was before. It was a natural, not a
spiritual, operation. Some persons, in time of sickness, and under apprehension
of approaching death, become greatly alarmed, and, reflecting on a past life of
sin, and careless indifference about their future destiny, endure the most
bitter regret, and set many firm resolutions, that, if their lives should be
spared, they will never more return to their former sinful course of life, but
become religious and try to serve the Lord. Under these impressions they will
pray, and request the prayers of others. But when restored to health they give
clear evidence that the love of sin is not subdued. In these strong sensations
there is more love of life than love of holiness. It is remorse, not repentance.
I can assign no reason why the Holy Spirit may not visit a person with His
life-giving power in a time of sickness as well as in health; but, when He does,
it will eventually bring forth fruit unto God, and not be like seed sown upon
stony ground.

I have also known persons to fall into a state of mental dejection, and remain
so for months. They seem to be deeply engaged in serious thought, and to have no
relish for worldly pleasures; rather inclined to solitude, and more disposed to
shun than to seek cheerful company. In their general deportment they are
agreeable, sedate, and blameless. Such cases are always thought to be quite
hopeful--and, indeed, ought to be judged favorably; but too often it all passes
away, and leaves but little evidence that the Holy Spirit was the author of
these rather unusual sensations. I can not account for these exercises of the
mind, but I think the solution of the problem belongs to philosophy, and not to
theology. The real fruits of true repentance are not manifest.

Once more: We occasionally meet with persons who, when quite young, while their
hearts were tender, were the subjects of very serious religious impressions; and
these feelings would continue for a length of time--perhaps for years; and
possibly, at times, they would be almost ready to hope they were truly
reconciled to God. Some such have made a public profession; but whether they
have or not, when they have gone thus far, their friends entertain very
favorable hopes of them--and they have not been altogether without hope
themselves. It is not easy to form a satisfactory judgment of such persons. Time
will commonly reveal the truth. Some such persons, as they increase in years,
are drawn off by the spirit of the world, and their true character becomes more
doubtful, giving too much ground for unfavorable inferences. But it is not so
with all; and it is seldom that such persons make a sudden and violent
transition from a hopeful path into the broad road of open wickedness. They do
not forsake the house of God and the means of grace, but manifest more
indifference, and are occasionally betrayed into sin. Their religious
sensibilities are not paralyzed, but somewhat stupefied; their religious
impressions will frequently be revived, but remain undetermined. Whether such
persons are the subjects of true spiritual repentance, I will not take upon
myself to decide; but if these pages should ever fall under the eye of such a
character, I would earnestly entreat his regard. Your situation is one of
extreme peril; you are poised, as it were, on a pinnacle; you have been
vibrating on this balance long enough, and a mere circumstance may turn the
scale against you, and leave you in an abyss of darkness, out of which you may
never emerge. Whether you are young or old, your danger is near, for there is
but a step between you and death. If you judge the world to come to be of any
importance, you should not remain an hour longer in your present state of
uncertainty and indecision; and whether you are converted or unconverted, let me
urge you by all the solemnity with which eternity can invest your danger, that
you give yourself no rest till you find security in the blood that cleanses from
all sin.

We repeat, that where there is no love to God there can be no true repentance
towards God. The natural man being dead in trespasses and sins, having in his
heart no love to God, and destitute of the spirit of life, is morally incapable
of repentance; and, in fact, he is equally incapable of every spiritual
affection. But when the Lord gives him His spirit, he has spiritual life, and
possesses the full capacity and all the susceptibilities of the new man; and the
question as to which precedes, whether faith or repentance, is to be referred
rather to the time when they are first brought into sensible exercise. For all
purposes of edification, the question of priority may well be dispensed with.
Some men (even learned divines) say that every man has faith, and every man has
repentance. If no more were intended by such assertions, than that every man
believes something, and every man regrets some of his actions, no one would
dispute it; but it would be very silly talk, for who needs such information? But
if it is meant (and such I suppose to be their meaning) that every man has
repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ, it is a flat contradiction of
the word of God. In any other sense than this, the language would be mere
quibbling. If a man has adopted a religious creed that necessarily involves such
unscriptural doctrines, he may very reasonably suspect its soundness.

True spiritual repentance is a holy exercise of the heart; but the mere fear of
future punishment is slavish, and may be as strong in devils as in men; and, as
I have said before, these fears are sinful, and have nothing of a holy character
in them. It would, therefore, be a good work, if I were able to perform it, to
exhibit the distinction between the two in so clear a manner that it could be
well understood; but to succeed in such exact discrimination, would require
abilities above what I claim to possess. But if I can throw any light on the
general subject, it is incumbent upon me to do so. And if I could know that
these pages would never be seen by any person whose duty it may be to make a
public use of any hint he might receive from the perusal, I would relieve myself
of a portion of the present effort. In accordance with what I have been saying,
holiness is an essential attribute of true repentance. Any thing called
repentance which does not possess this characteristic, is not repentance in the
evangelical sense of the term. We say, then, that the holiness of repentance
must have, and does have, respect to the holiness of God. Repentance is the work
of the Holy Spirit, and it is by the light of the Spirit that the soul is
brought to see the holiness of the Divine character; and contrasting this with
the sinfulness of his heart and life, it produces in his soul a sincere sorrow
that he has sinned against a holy God, and a desire after holiness in himself.
This desire of holiness proves that there is in his heart a love of holiness;
for if he did not love holiness, it is not possible that he could desire it. By
this we see that the love of God is the life of repentance. Wherever there is a
love of holiness, there is a corresponding abhorrence of sin, and a consequent
desire to avoid it; for it is the same affection exercised in relation to the
two different objects. The principle is the same. And he that earnestly desires
holiness, need not doubt that he loves God, for these affections can not be
separated. Moreover, they will abide with us through life. Sorrow for our sins
may cease with us when we are perfectly delivered from the power of sin, but the
love of holiness will continue forever.

Hating sin and desiring holiness, we have said, are virtually the same thing,
and are the essential element of spiritual repentance. Without a portion of this
element there is no acceptable repentance. Hence it is evident that holiness is
that attribute of the Divine nature to which repentance has particular respect.
And our obligation to be holy arises from the relation in which we stand to this
attribute: "Be ye holy, for I the Lord your God am holy." This attribute
requires perfect holiness of every intelligent creature. God has this attribute
in infinite perfection; and in Him it is immutable, and never can change--it
never can be increased or diminished. And as the obligation upon us to be holy,
has its foundation in the holiness of God, this obligation can never be changed
or relaxed. The holiness of God is commensurate with the whole of His infinite
nature; and, in like manner, our obligation to be holy is commensurate with the
whole of our nature. To fulfill this obligation by attaining to this degree of
holiness, should be our highest ambition and our constant endeavor; and although
we may never, in this life, reach this high attainment, yet we should press
toward this mark, that we may gain the prize of our high calling. And never for
a moment should we be satisfied with what we have gained, nor cease our efforts
till we are crowned with the object of our earnest aspirations.

We will now consider the subject of repentance more especially in its relation
to the Divine law. Of course we have already anticipated this aspect of the
subject to a considerable extent. The moral law is an expression of the
obligation we are under to be holy; and the commandment before quoted, "Be ye
holy, for I the Lord thy God am holy," comprehends the whole obligation of the
moral law. It has been said that this law is a transcript of the moral
perfections of the Lawgiver; and it is with great propriety so called, for in it
we see the moral nature of that God to whom we are accountable. The holiness and
justice of God are the two attributes which are most prominently set forth to us
in the Divine law, and hence holiness and justice, are the two attributes of the
law, which more immediately bear upon us. "The law is holy, and just, and good;"
and it is its holiness and justice which constitute its goodness. The holiness
of the law devolves upon us the obligation to be holy; hence it has special
respect to obedience, and the penitent sinner feels the obligation. The justice
of the law prescribes and inflicts the appropriate penalty; hence it has special
respect to disobedience. The obligation to obey the precept, or holy
commandment, refers to God acting in His office as the Supreme Lawgiver. The
administration of the penalty refers to God as acting in His office as the
Supreme Judge.

Without pursuing this line of discrimination any further, we are now prepared to
inquire what bearing these two fundamental principles have on the subject of
repentance. And each reader may judge of the spiritual character of his own
repentance, by comparing it with these two prime characteristics of the Divine
law. The proper use of true repentance is to bring the alienated heart back to
the holiness of the law; and this will be its effect in so far as it affects any
thing in relation to God--at least so far as it affects any thing acceptable to
Him. When the Divine Spirit first quickens the dead soul, it is then spiritually
alive, and here begins the exercises of repentance. But between this quickening
and the time when the subject of it obtains peace and hope, a period of time
elapses, longer or shorter, during which the new-born soul is in a state of
spiritual infancy--even the first stage of infancy. During this period of
darkness, weakness, and comparative spiritual ignorance, the sinner’s thoughts
are exercised chiefly by considerations drawn from the law; and in the first
stages his mind is directed mostly to the justice of the law and its most awful
penalty--Death, which, if once inflicted, is death forever. The mind being
enlightened, he is enabled more correctly to appreciate his dangerous condition.
This prompts him to action; but in his efforts to escape the punishment due to
his sins, he resorts to ineffectual, and indeed impossible expedients, for he
seeks to obtain the favor of God by various observances and performances, which
it is not necessary to detail in this place. But we will turn to the other
branch of the subject. The sinner now, for the first time, is able to discover,
in some degree, the beauty and excellency of holiness, for this may be seen in
the perfect holiness of the law; and though his attention may be occupied more
with reflections on the justice and righteous curse of the law, yet holiness
becomes an object of desire, and he sees that it is desirable for its own sake.
He strives for it, for his heart is drawn in that direction. He is now in the
right path--the way that leads to holiness. This is repentance--true repentance.
But during this season of trial and anxiety, the mind is in a state of confusion
and darkness. There is a mixture of those feelings of terror and slavish fear
which his view of the justice of the law produces on the one hand; and on the
other hand, of those desires of holiness and reconciliation with God, produced
by his views of the holiness of the law. And even if the dread of wrath and
eternal perdition should engross more of his thoughts than the desire of
holiness, yet this desire is there, a living principle in the heart; and though
the former is not spiritual, but the fruit of unbelief, the latter is truly
spiritual, being the fruit of God’s implanted grace. Contemplating the purity of
the Divine character, and in the light of this holiness viewing the sinfulness
and vileness of his own heart and actions, he is filled with grief, and the
contrast calls forth many a sigh. He can not see how such a holy Being can look
upon him with complacency. His whole desire reaches after the holiness of the
law; but all his efforts at conformity fall so immeasurably short, that though
he will not forego the desire nor cease his efforts, yet he is forced to
relinquish all hope of success. These are the exercises of genuine repentance,
for holiness is the object in view. But at the same time the justice of the law
presses the load of guilt upon his conscience, and seems to demand satisfaction
for his sins, and he sees no sure way to avoid the approaching storm. Every
expedient to which be resorts is no better than if Lot had left Sodom and run to
Gomorrah, for the justice of the law drives him from every false refuge. These
distresses are not spiritual, for the object is to satisfy the justice of the
law, which he can never do. He resorts to wrong methods to escape the penalty of
the law, while there is a right method set before him which he neglects to
pursue. Thus these mixed exercises of legal fears and spiritual desires attend
the penitent sinner, till he is led to Christ, the Savior of sinners. Here he
finds a secure retreat from the curse of the law; and trusting in Him, his
conscience is relieved of the burden of guilt--peace finds way into his heart,
and hope springs up in his bosom. And now his repentance is purified from those
guilty fears and servile labors which polluted it before. But his desire of
holiness and abhorrence of sin are more intense than ever, and these are the
true characteristics of spiritual repentance. This kind of repentance he desires
should exercise his heart while life shall last; and the desire will be
realized. The tempest which agitated his soul having passed away, the Sun of
Righteousness seems to shed the beams of peace on his heart from a serene sky.
But the clouds are apt to return, after the rain; and these alterations of light
and darkness, hope and fear, will continue to encumber the progress of
repentance, as well as to mar his peace, for a length of time; and in many
instances, I think, till the portals of the temple above are so far opened to
his faith, as to show him the palm of final victory. For the true believer who
is set free from the condemnation of the law, is not free from sinful doubts and
slavish fears. If you ask the reason of this, the answer is to be found by
adverting to these same essential properties of the Divine law; for though free
from condemnation, he still retains in himself all the original corruptions of
the flesh and evil propensities of his depraved nature. He is also still
assaulted with the same temptations; and as he is still under the same
unchangeable obligation to obey the holy requirement of the law, he finds
himself inadequate to the great performance, and by falling short he contracts
guilt upon the conscience. With this guilt he brings himself before the justice
of the law, which can do nothing but declare the penalty, and inflict it. The
guilt, therefore, remains on his conscience, and excites sinful doubts and
slavish fears. But he goes to the wrong place. He should never take his guilt to
the justice of the law, for that will fasten the guilt more sorely upon the
conscience. Let him go with his guilty conscience to the Cross. That, and that
only, has power to remove guilt. And he must ultimately come there, if he would
obtain a holy peace. Then he can "look upon Him whom be has pierced, and mourn."
This is gospel repentance.

There are some false notions entertained by some persons--probably a great
many--with regard to repentance, which I would be glad to remove. This work may
not be easily done, because these notions are old and deep-rooted ideas in the
natural mind, and they are not so frequently disturbed by the preacher as they
ought to be. I can not, therefore, feel quite satisfied to dismiss the present
subject without an attempt to eradicate these erroneous conceptions from the
mind of the reader, if they have entertainment there. We are told that pardon is
promised to the repenting sinner--that if we repent we shall be forgiven. This
is true. It is scriptural truth. But if we thence infer that repentance is a
condition to be performed by us, by which we obtain a title to the blessing of
pardon, the inference is not true, it is not scriptural. It is an error, and a
mischievous error. This, my dear reader, puts you upon the task of working out
your pardon. Your pardon is not free, which is directly contrary to the truth of
the gospel. Or (on the same principle) you may suppose that repentance is a kind
of chastisement to which you are required to submit as a prerequisite to your
receiving remission of sins. This is not repentance, it is penance. The
superstitious devotee of the Romish delusion will scourge himself till the blood
runs, or walk barefoot on the frozen and pointed rocks, and do ever so much more
by way of punishing himself for his sin. This he calls penance. You say this is
absurd and foolish, and withal it is sinful. You speak rightly. But he acts on
the self-same principle that influences you, in supposing that repentance is a
course of suffering that you must undergo, as a prerequisite to your receiving
pardoning mercy. That repentance is not a task to be performed by us, or a
burden laid upon us as a condition upon which we obtain forgiveness, is evident
upon another consideration, which, if you have experienced true repentance, will
be able to apprehend. If you could certainly know that God had forgiven your
sins, you would still desire to repent of them, and you would still repent of
them. Your heart would still be exercised with sincere sorrow and pious grief
that you had sinned against the Lord. You would look upon Him whom you had
pierced, and grieve for your sins. And this is as pure spiritual repentance as
is ever experienced by those who love the Lord Jesus.

Repentance effects nothing in the matter of our justification, for it does not
belong to juridical proceedings. To suppose that by repenting of our sins we may
deliver ourselves from the punishment legally due to our sins, is a great error.
The law does not require repentance, and will not accept it; therefore the fear
of the penalty of the law can not be repentance. True repentance is not towards
hell, but towardsGod, and is an exercise of our love to Him. Neither the fears
of hell, nor yet the fires of hell, can ever implant the love of God in the
heart.

Repentance belongs to work of sanctification. As I said before, the use of
repentance is to bring the alienated heart of the sinner back to the holiness of
the law. It is an essential part of that purifying process carried on in the
heart by the Holy Spirit, which we call progressive sanctification. Repentance
keeps the conscience of the Christian tender, and makes him watchful to avoid
sin: and, particularly in its first exercises, it prepares the heart of the
anxious sinner to receive with gratitude and joy the tokens of God’s forgiving
grace; for it provokes no real gratitude, and inspires no real joy in the heart
of the careless, impenitent sinner, to be told that Christ died for sinners, and
that God is ready to forgive sins for His sake; but to the soul that hates sin
and grieves in his heart for his sins, it is sweeter than music. To him it is
gospel--good tidings. Repentance also keeps in exercise the spirit of prayer.
How can we in sincerity go to our Heavenly Father and confess our sins, if we
are not sorry that we have sinned against Him? What an empty, heartless
confession we should make! Such formal, lifeless confessions are often made, no
doubt, when we draw near to Him with our lips, but our hearts are far from Him.
And too often the words express much more than the heart feels. But there is a
desire in every Christian’s heart to come to God with more in his heart than
words can express. As examples of penitential prayer, read the fifty-first Psalm
and that elaborate prayer of the prophet Daniel. (See Daniel 9:1-27) These were
made on special and extraordinary occasions. But as an example of the exercises
of true repentance, suited to every Christian, and at all times, compare your
experiences with those of the apostle Paul, recorded in the seventh chapter of
his epistle to the church at Rome. Here is a scriptural example which the Holy
Spirit has given us, by which we may judge of our spiritual character and
condition. It is true, some learned doctors have tried to rob Christians of the
edification they may derive from this instructive portion of experimental
instruction; but I think it is easy to show that their interpretation can never
be made to accord with the word of God. Further, repentance produces a good
effect in subduing our pride--both spiritual and natural pride; and thus it
keeps in exercise that lovely grace of humility, one of the brightest ornaments
of Christian character. All the graces of the Spirit are so intimately connected
with each other, that one can not well be in active exercise without promoting
the activity of all the others. Our love to God manifests itself in repentance,
as well as in joy; hence repentance and spiritual joy are not inconsistent with
each other, for both may subsist together at the same time.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 07A JUSTIFICATION
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER VII.

JUSTIFICATION.

HAVING engaged your attention to the primary graces of the Spirit, I would now
have you take a view of what may be called covenant blessings. And the first of
these to which I would direct your attention is justification. No subject of
more importance to us can employ our thoughts. We shall all be brought, in a
coming day, before the tribunal of the Judge of all the earth. There we shall
hear the doom of eternal condemnation, or the sentence of our filial
justification. Then we shall receive the award of eternal life, or be consigned
to a state of eternal death. He that is unholy and unjust will be unholy and
unjust forever, and he that is righteous and holy will remain so forever. How
immensely important, then, that we see to it, even now, that we are prepared to
stand before the Judge, not only without dismay, but with exceeding joy. And
there is a wayhowever guilty we may be, there is a waywhereby we may be made to
appear faultless before the throne of judgment. And it is my heart’s desire, and
shall be my earnest endeavor, to set this way before you in the clearest light
that I possibly can, so that you may be able to say with the old patriarch,
"Behold now I have ordered my cause; I know that I shall be justified." In
speaking on this doctrine it is not possible to exceed the solemnity of the
subject, or to clothe it in language beyond what its importance demands; but in
my judgment simplicity of expression is preferable to artificial embellishment.
Those over-strained efforts at eloquence and poetic sentimentalism which so much
characterize the literature of the present age, on so solemn a subject as this
would be rather injurious than beneficial to the student. And the subject stands
in no need of them.

Justification is a different thing from election, and from adoption, and from
sanctification. It is also different from regeneration and repentance; and has
no necessary connection with any of the graces of the Spirit, except that one by
which we appropriate the blessing of justification to ourselves personally.
Hence the propriety of considering this doctrine separately and independently of
all the other doctrines of the gospel, and all the graces of the Spirit, except,
as before said, the one grace of faith, by which we lay hold, as it were, of
that which is the matter or ground upon which our justification is based. But in
this view it is necessary that I make a remark on the subject of pardon. Some
understand pardon and justification to be the same thing. I think there is, in
some respects, a distinction, and I could easily show wherein they may be
distinguished. But I do not wish to embarrass the reader; and as I doubt whether
in making these distinctions, I should render any particular service to a
majority of those for whose edification I am laboring, I will just say, that he
that is justified is also pardoned. These blessings are never disjoined.
Justification proceeds from God the Judge; pardon comes from God the Sovereign.
And he that believes in Jesus Christ, has both pardon and justification, and
receives, both in the waythat is, by faith.

Justification is a well known and definite term in the administration of
judicial law; and-is applied to a person who is arraigned before the court for
having committed a crime, and on trial it is found that he is not guilty,
whereupon the judge acquits himthat is, he justifies him. Thus the term stands
opposed to condemnation: "Thou shalt justify the righteous and condemn the
wicked." This simple idea, so plain in itself, and so easily apprehended, is
sufficient to give us a clear conception of what justification means. The
accused person is either condemned or justified. In common discourse we more
frequently use the word acquitted; but whether we say acquitted, or justified,
or discharged, we mean the same thing. Without employing figures for
illustration, we will just say that whatever will satisfy the demand of the law,
will justify the accused party. But that demand must be satisfied. And this
fundamental idea should be kept constantly in view in all our discussions and
investigations of the subject of justification.

Whatever the nature of the law may bewhether it be Divine or human, whether
moral or positive whether it requires little or muchthat which will fully
satisfy its demands will justify him who is under the particular law by which he
is to be judged, and nothing else will do it; so that there is but one plea that
will justify under any law, and that one plea will justify under every variety
of law, and will apply to every variety of accusation.

Now, happily, we have a word in our language that will express that plea. That
word is RIGHTEOUSNESS. This word, when used in reference to judicial law,
comprehends all that that law can require, and will meet the law successfully in
every point. The word righteous, in common discourse, is often used in a general
and indefinite sense, in which it has a comparative meaning, and is used in this
comparative sense in many places in the Scriptures. But when used in a judicial
sense, it is a word of absolute and determinate meaning, and admits of no
modification; and it is in its strict judicial signification that we use it in
its application to justification.

Viewing, the subject in this light, we see just what a man must have that he may
be justified by any law before which he may be arraigned; he must have a
righteousness, such a righteousness as that particular law requires; and that
which will constitute such a righteousness is a perfect obedience to all the
requirements of the law. Nothing short of a perfect obedience will answer the
purpose. For if in any thing he failsif his obedience is not absolutely
perfectit can not support the plea of righteousness, which is the only plea that
will justify him before the law. Thus, when we shall stand before God in
judgment, if we have not a positive righteousness consisting of a perfect
obedience to His holy law, our condemnation is certainis inevitable.

I am not skillful in constructing figures for illustration, but as I am very
desirous that you should understand this important subject as clearly as
possible, I will submit to your consideration a few examples, presenting the
subject in different points of view. But I request you to keep in mind the
particular point now immediately under discussionthat is, a righteousness that
will satisfy law, and consequently will justify him who has the righteousness;
or, in other words the question may be stated thus: What kind of obedience will
constitute a justifying righteousness? for we can have no salvation without it.
The first example I will offer is the obedience of Moses on a special occasion.
The Lord showed him the pattern of a tabernacle which He would have built, and
said to him, "See that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to
thee in the mount." This commandment was God’s law to Moses (in that particular
case). And Moses made all things according to the pattern. This was his
obedience a perfect obedienceand therefore a perfect righteousness under that
lawa justifying righteousness. If Moses had disobeyed any number of other
commands, and had incurred the penalties of disobedience annexed to them, yet he
was righteous and justified so far as that one law extended.

I will take a second example from the case of King Saul, when God, by his
prophet Samuel, commanded him to go and utterly destroy the Amelekites, with
their flocks and herds, and every thing they possessed. This command was the law
under which Saul was to act, and which he was under obligation to obey. Nothing
was left to his discretion. Saul went with his army and made the whole country a
scene of desolation. But he spared Agag the king, and reserved the best of the
flocks and herds (as he said) for sacrifices to the Lord, and returned
victorious to Gilgal. When called to account by the prophet, he said, " I have
performed the commandment of the Lord. " Here we have Saul’s pleahe pleads
obedience. But his obedience was not perfect; it fell short of the whole
requirement, and therefore was not righteousness. So far as his compliance with
the law extended, it might be well enough, but he did not execute the whole
commandment, and it was not a perfect obedience. We may properly speak of an
imperfect obedience, but in strictness of’ language it is not proper to speak of
an imperfect righteousness, in a judicial sense, for it is a self-contradiction,
and therefore an impossibility. Saul’s obedience coming short of perfection, did
not amount to a righteousness, and consequently would not justify him. It would
seem, indeed, that if any excuse could be admitted, Saul’s was as good as any
excuse could be, for his object was to serve the Lord, which was in itself a
religious duty. But no excuse is admissible; there must be a punctual
fulfillment of the whole law, or the plea of righteousness can not be supported.
Saul failed to perform a perfect obedience, and the Judge of Israel pronounced
sentence against himhe lost the kingdom. And how many thousands there are in
these days that hope to obtain the kingdom of heaven, while they know that they
have not performed a perfect obedience to the Divine law, and therefore have not
an acceptable righteousness! Their sincere desires their honest endeavors, and
their good intentions may all be well enough, so far as they go, but they come
far short of a perfect righteousness; and for want of this, in the judgment-day
they will be doomed to eternal banishment. Being solicitous that you should form
as clear and correct a view of this important subject as possible, I must call
your attention to it in another point of view, which I will attempt to exemplify
by the law of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. King Jeroboam commanded his subjects,
the ten tribes of Israel, to worship the calves which he had set up in Bethel
and Dan, and they obeyed his order; "they willingly walked after the
commandment." They (the people generally) rendered a perfect obedience to this
law of Jeroboam and their perfect obedience was a righteousness sufficient to
justify them before that law. But they were under God’s law also. and their
obedience to their king was a most flagrant act of disobedience to the Divine
law their obligation to the Divine law was paramount, and they should have
disregarded the law of the king; and like the three Hebrew children answered the
king of Babylon, they should have said to Jeroboam, "Be it known unto thee, O
king! we will not." Before the tribunal of Jeroboam they had a righteousness
which would justify them, but this very righteousness would condemn them at the
bar of God. So will it be with every one of the many thousands who are very
punctual to observe the prescriptions of their church; or the teachings of the
ministers when they are not in accordance with the word of God. You have the
word of God, which shows you His will, and the way by which you may obtain
justification in His sight, and if you choose to follow the teaching of the
Church, or any other prescriptive authority, it is at your peril, and "be sure
your sin will find you out." But this example may be applied also in another
point of view, still illustrating the same fundamental principle. There is
reason to fear that many flatter themselves with the idea that if they are
honest and just in all their dealings with others if they injure no one in
person, or property, or reputation; if they abide by the truth, and are
peaceable and generous; if they do their duty to their family and relatives; if
they fulfill all political and social obligations; and especially if, in
addition to all this, they abstain from the grosser viceswith all this in their
behalf; they will surely escape condemnation. But let such a one consider that
if he should come up to the full measure of doing in all things to others as he
would they should do to him, and of loving his neighbor as himself, he would
still be under obligation to love God with all his heart; and except he has a
righteousness that will satisfy both of these demands, he can not stand approved
before God in judgment. In order to exemplify an important principle in respect
to justification, I will engage your attention for a few moments to the first
introduction of sin into our moral world. It is not my intention to enter into
the subject of our relations to Adam, but merely to use the facts as they are
recorded, for the purpose of illustration. When Adam was created and became a
living soul, the Creator pronounced him good, which He would not have done if
Adam had not been perfectly holy according to his created nature. This could not
have been said of him in truth if he had been in any respect or in any degree
unholy. That Adam was a subject of the moral law, I have no doubt; but he was in
no danger of violating that law, for the spirit of the moral law was in his
hearthe delighted in itit was his glory and his joy. It was the law of his
nature, as well as a law to his will. He loved it so well that he could have no
disposition to transgress, and therefore was morally incapable of violating it;
and he would have continued to be out of danger of disobeying this law, if he
had obeyed another lawa positive lawwhich imposed an obligation upon him. I have
adverted to Adam’s relation to the moral law, not for the purpose of making any
use of it in this place, but that you may keep it entirely out of mind in our
present illustration. That special law to which I now direct your notice was
that which prohibited the use of the fruit of a certain tree. The law was this:
"Thou shalt not eat of it." Nothing can be more simple, plain, and definite than
this law. Every child understands it. So long as Adam forbore to eat, he
rendered a perfect obedience to this law, and of course had a perfect
righteousness in his relation to it that would justify him, and save him from
the penalty. It was the only law that could bring its authority to bear upon his
will; and so far as it respected his physical ability, it was easier for Adam to
obey than to disobey. Thus he stood justified in his own perfect righteousness.
But Adam transgressedhe disobeyedand by that one act of disobedience he lost his
righteousness, and lost it forever. For you know that that which is past can not
be recalled. The deed once done, can not be undone. Hence it was an
impossibility for him to recover his lost righteousness. It is not necessary in
this place to notice any connection that the loss of this righteousness has with
the moral law, but I will only say that, having lost this righteousness, he lost
with it the favor of God. If, then, he should ever recover the Divine favor, it
must be through some other medium; he must have righteousness in some other way,
for it is impossible for him to recover his former innocence. And the particular
point that we should notice is, that a righteousness under any law, when once
lost, is lost forever. This principle applies to all law. The preceding examples
illustrate the following fundamental principles:

1. A perfect obedience constitutes a perfect righteousness under any law, and
will therefore justify.

2. A partial or imperfect obedience, however nearly it may approach perfection,
can not amount to righteousness and therefore will not justify.

3. A perfect obedience to one law is not righteousness under any other law that
may hold authority over us; or a righteousness before one law, will not justify
under another law.

4. A righteousness under any law, when once lost, can never be regained by
obedience to that law.

Although I have detained you so long on these examples, I must beg your
indulgence and claim your attention to one more, because it brings into view an
important principle which obtains in the matter and manner of our justification.

Ahasuerus, king of Persia, ordained a law that whosoever, man or woman, should
come into his presence in the inner court unbidden, should be put to death.
Esther, the queen, on a very urgent occasion, resolved to enter the chamber
without being called. Accordingly she made the perilous adventure, and the
moment she passed the door she was under condemnation. She had disobeyed the
king’s law, and might, according to law, have been sent to immediate execution.
She had no righteousness that could satisfy the king’s law; she was guilty and
not righteous. She might, indeed, have pled the urgency and great importance of
her object, but that could not justify under that law, for the law had made no
provision for such cases. If, when she had entered, she had immediately returned
before she had advanced three paces, it would have been of no avail; the
righteousness which she had before the deed was done, and would have justified
her under that particular law of the king, was gone and lost forever. But the
king had also ordained a constitution by which the execution of that law might
be dispensed with. If he held out his golden scepter to one who had
transgressed, the penalty was instantly removed. This scepter was extended to
Esther, and she approached and touched the gracious symbol. That moment her life
was safe; she was beyond danger. She had a righteousness now, under a different
constitution, that delivered her from the law that stood against her. She had
not that righteousness which consisted in obedience to the king’s prohibition;
but we find here the superinduction of a righteousness by the king’s grace,
which answered all the demands of the king’s law, and by it Queen Esther was
justified before the king’s throne. Now let us suppose that Haman, the queen’s
bitter enemy, had brought an accusation against her, alleging that she had
transgressed the king’s commandment, and had incurred the penalty of death; what
defense could she have made? The charge would have been true, and she could not
deny it. But she might say, I did disobey the king’s law, and forfeit my life;
but I touched the golden scepterthis is my plea. I do not look to my obedience
for justification, but I look to the king’s most gracious scepter; and I bid
defiance to Haman, and to all the realms of the king. Thus we see, that though a
man may not have a righteousness that will justify him before a particular law,
and that it may be impossible for him to obtain such a justifying righteousness,
yet there may be, by the intervention of a different constitution, a way whereby
he may obtain a righteousness that will remove the penalty he has incurred, and
avail for his justification.

Keeping in view the principles of law exemplified in the foregoing remarks, we
will endeavor to bring them to bear on our relation to God as subjects of His
law. And it is hardly necessary to remind you that the law by which we must he
judged, and by which we will either be condemned or justified, is that which we
usually denominate the moral law. The substance of this law we find set forth in
the ten commandments. Great pains have been taken by many to teach children at
an early age to repeat these precepts by memory, while at the same time little
or no care has been taken to make them understand their extensive import, or the
sacredness of the obligation thus imposed upon them, or the fearful consequence
which disobedience will entail upon the transgressor. Hence there are multitudes
who give themselves very little concern about these things, and scarcely feel
their accountability. They seldom reflect that this holy law holds its authority
over every action, every word, and every thought of their whole life. This is
truly a solemn reflection; but the solemnity of the subject should not repress
our inquiries, but impel us to so much the greater earnestness and diligence, in
proportion to the magnitude of the interests involved in it. Let us beware that
we do not shun the light, and, from dread of the consequences, hide the truth
from our eyes. It is much better that we should know the worst that can and must
come, lest a vain and unwarranted hope of security should induce us to neglect
the only remedy that will answer our desperate necessity. The ten commands
before referred to may be reduced to two: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all
thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." This epitome of the Divine law is
warranted by our Savior himself, and it shows the spiritual nature and the great
extent of the obligation; all which we must bring into the account, if we would
know our true character and condition, as we stand related to its requirements
and its sanctions. But, as I have said in a preceding part of this work, the
whole requirement of the law is comprehended in one short sentence: "Be ye holy,
for I the Lord thy God am holy." What, now, does your conscience say to this
comprehensive obligation? Are you ready for the judgment? You must be prepared
to meet this demand. Nothing less than positive, perfect holiness will be
accepted. Measure your obedience by this rule, and say whether you have a
righteousness every way equal to this perfect and comprehensive requisition; if
you have not, there is no alternative. There is nothing before you but a fearful
looking for of judgment and fiery indignation. The law is absolute, and will
notnay, can not show mercy. The law can and will curse, but it can not bless; it
must give death to the transgressor, but it can not give life. The law being
just, it is its proper office to dispense justice to all; but it can not be a
medium of mercy to the sinnerit will "by no means acquit the guilty."

Let us cast a broad look upon this law for a few moments. It is well worth the
while, and you may never repent the time thus employed. This law is perfect in
holiness, and is the fundamental principle from which all holiness in created
beings is derived. As I have said before, it is the manifestation or expression
of the glory of the Divine nature. By this law the Creator shows to us the
holiness of His character, that we may know how to conform our character to His.
Just so far as we have the likeness of God in the holiness of His character, we
also resemble Him in all His moral perfections. The law is also a declaration of
His holy will in relation to us; and, indeed, to all His creatures that are
capable of understanding His will. Hence the obligation to be holy rests upon
every intelligent being in creation. Satan, with all his apostate crew, though
they are so depraved that they never will be holy, and will never desire to be
so, are, notwithstanding, bound in duty under this law to be perfectly holy. And
this obligation arises from the fact that they are intelligent creatures, and
possess a moral nature. And the angels in heaven, which were created holy, and
have preserved their holy character till now, and probably will maintain their
holiness forever, are, for the same reason, under obligation to be perfectly
conformed to the requirements of this holy law. And they are no more bound nor
any less bound by it than the devils are. No change of condition or of moral
character can in the least degree affect this obligation. Adam, who was created
an intelligent being, and endowed with a moral nature, and who was perfectly
holy in his created nature, was under obligation, by this law, to maintain
intact his holy character in the sight of God. When he sinned he lost his
holiness, and a change took place, both in his moral nature and in his relation
to God; but there was no change in his obligation to be holy and to perfectly
fulfill the holy requirement of this law. Furthermore, we ourselves are unholy
in our nature, as all men must know, yet God says to us, "Be ye holy;" and if we
fail, we shall learn in due time whether He speaks in vain. And if by the
almighty grace of the Divine Spirit a holy nature should be given to us, and we
should eventually be perfectly sanctified, both in soul and body, and so stand
in absolute unblemished holiness in His presence, we shall not then be released
from the authority of this law, nor will the obligation be in the smallest
degree relaxed or abated. Any change diminishing the obligation of this law
would require a corresponding change in the character of the law itself; any
change in the character of the law would necessarily involve a corresponding
change in the character of the lawgiver. A doctrine has been advanced, that the
moral law, being too severe, and requiring more of man than he is able to
perform, has been repealed, and a milder law has been substituted in its place,
prescribing duties which are not beyond the moral abilities of man to comply
with. It is not alleged that the penalty of this new law is less severe, but
some affirm that it is even more severe than the penalty of the moral law. Now,
whatever may be the duties prescribed by- any law, the obligation to obedience
must be imperative, otherwise it is no law. The extent of the obligation must he
equal to the extent of the duties required; therefore, there can not be any
mitigation of the obligation whether the law requires little or much. It is not
claimed that the obligation to obedience is less sacred and imperative, but it
is held that the duties imposed by this new law are not so severe, so rigid, so
extreme as our duty to the moral law; so that the duties enjoined are brought
within the compass of man’s moral ability, in his present state of moral
imperfection.

Now the moral law requires perfect holiness; and if this new and milder law does
not require perfect holiness, it follows inevitably that it, in its own nature,
is not perfectly holy. And if we assume that God has given a law that is not
perfectly holy, how is it possible to vindicate the perfect holiness of the
Divine character? His law must be an expression of His will in respect to us as
His subjects. And must we believe that because we are unholy, a holy God has
given us a law to accommodate our unholiness, and thus tolerate, or rather
sanction, our alienation from His holy character? If this does not necessarily
imply unholiness in the will of God, I would like that some one would show the
reason. And it is indisputable that if the will of God is not holy, He is not
holy Himself. A sincere and habitual desire after holiness, is the
distinguishing characteristic of the renewed heart. The sincere and enlightened
Christian desires to be perfectly holy, and cherishes the pleasing hope that a
time will come when this desire shall be consummated; but if this desire shall
be realized, he will be more holy than any law of God requires him to be, and
the desire goes beyond the will of God.

It would seem unnecessary to say any thing more to expose the inconsistency and
absurdity of this scheme of law; but as such an arrangement would be quite
congenial to that spirit of self-righteousness which is in every natural heart,
and which, indeed, it is so difficult to eradicate even from the renewed heart,
I will offer a few additional thoughts on the subject. If the moral law is
perfectly just and good, why should it be abrogated? If it is not perfectly just
and good, why was it ever ordained? It is not out of place to inquire also, When
was this new law given? We can not find it on record. And what is the specific
requirement of this new law? If because of the present moral imperfection of
human nature it does not require perfect holiness, but will be satisfied with
something less, it would appear to follow that it requires just so much holiness
as our innate love of sin will permit us to render or enable us to acquire, and
it tolerates the love of sin. Furthermore, how are we to be justified under this
law? If we are to be justified by our obedience to this new law, then, without
controversy, we are, to all intents and purposes, justified by the works of the
law. But in the meantime faith is made void, so far as justification is
concerned. I might enlarge to a much greater extent on this subject, and expose
its falsity by other arguments, but I deem it unnecessary, for in every point of
light in which we can view the scheme it is full of inconsistency and absurdity.
It has no foundation in Scripture, and it reflects most injuriously on the
holiness and justice of the Divine character. When the Scripture says we are not
under the law, but under grace, we are not to understand that the law has no
authority over us, and that we are under no obligation to obey its precepts.
There are two senses in which we are not under the law, and both of them are of
very great importance: 1. The believer is not under the penalty of the lawhe is
not exposed to its cursehe is no longer under its condemnation: "There is,
therefore, now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus." 2. He is not
under the law as a covenant of life. His acceptance with God does not depend on
his obedience to the law. It is his rule of duty, but not a condition of life.
His justification does not depend on his obedience to the law. These two
principles should never be lost sight of, if we would understand the doctrine of
justification. We shall have frequent occasion to advert to these principles as
we proceed. But at present I must remind you that the obligation to a perfect
obedience is perpetual; it can never cease, nor can its authority be suspended
for a moment. The Author of the law is ever the same unchangeable God; and if
the law were to change, it would no longer be a true representation of the
Divine character, and therefore could not answer the purpose for which it was
ordained. This law requires that every thing we do should be done from a
principle of love to God. This is manifest from the fact that the spirit of the
law is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and mind, and
soul, and strength." The good Lord has placed us here in this world, in
circumstances in which we possess and enjoy many rational satisfactions and
lawful gratifications; but these are all to be enjoyed from a principle of love
to Godwith gratitude to Him as the Giverin subordination to his will, and with a
view to His glory. The various relations in which we stand to the human family,
and other things of His making, devolve upon us many relative duties, all of
which we are to perform from a principle of love to God, and with a view to His
glory. Many of these duties are congenial to our moral naturesuch as loving our
parents, our children, our near kindred and friendssympathizing with the
afflicted, and relieving the distressed; and it gives us a sincere pleasure to
exercise these affections, and to perform these kind offices, and thus doing,
what we well can to promote their welfare and happiness all which is rightbut it
does not fulfill the law unless there is in it the element of love to God, and a
desire to do His will, that His Name may be glorified. In all that we do for
ourselves, in all our transactions with others, in all our social intercourse
with friends and acquaintances, with strangers and enemies, we are to have an
eye fixed steadfastly on the will of God; and a desire to do those things which
are pleasing in His sight must have a supreme influence. Moreover, we are not to
utter a word with our tongues that He will not approve; for we have to give
account of every word that we speak, and all our words will be judged by this
law; and if they have not in them the spirit of holiness, the law will condemn
them. And not only this, but the law takes knowledge of the thoughts and intents
of the heart, and extends its authority over all the exercises of the mind.
Every desire and emotion of the heart, and every thought of the imagination must
be perfectly holy, and exercised in the love of God. And yet further, all this
holy and spiritual obedience must be performed willingly, cheerfully, and we
must delight in it. It must be our chief pleasure to do the will of God. To obey
reluctantly and unwillingly would be highly offensive in His sight. We must not
be pleased with anything that does not please Him, but we must hold in aversion
every thing in which He does not delight. And all must be done continually and
unceasingly, without a moment’s intermission or relaxation, from the beginning
of your life to the end of your days.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 07B JUSTIFICATION
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER VII.

JUSTIFICATION.

I have thus briefly, though very imperfectly, set before you the extensive
obligation and stringent claims of that law by which you will be judged, and
which you must perfectly obey, or death is the penalty, and everlasting
punishment must ensue. Do the terms appear to be severe? Is it a hard service? I
know you feel like the condition is too rigorous, and that compliance is utterly
impracticable; that it would make your life intolerable and almost insupportable
to be thus bound down to such strict observances, and perpetually confined to a
perfect conformity with a rule that is beyond all the moral powers of man to
satisfy. And perhaps it is so; but it is God’s law, and you are bound to a
perfect obedience, or you can never have a righteousness of your own that will
screen you from the vengeance of God. Many will openly object to a law that
requires so much self-denial, and say that it binds men in the chains of a moral
despotism. But I entreat you not to impeach the justice, or even the goodness of
the Lawgiver. Perhaps you are not aware of all that your objection implies.
There is something involved in your objection that it is probable you have never
once thought of, and that you would be almost ashamed to avow, but which you can
not avoid without renouncing your objection This objection is just equivalent to
saying that you love sin so much better than you love holiness, that you deem it
a hardship to be debarred the privilege of being unholy. You can make nothing
else of it. Will you avow the principle? To avow it, is to say that you do not
believe that God is as holy as He declares Himself to be; or, if He is, He ought
not to be. You must not dissemble or prevaricate. If you regard the law as a
hard master, you must say explicitly that you would rather serve Satan than
serve God. But there is yet much more involved in it which it is probable you
have never properly considered. If you were as holy as the law requires, you
would be the holiest and happiest being upon this earth. And is it a hard law
that insures you happiness through all time and forever? All the means of
happiness which this world contains combined, could not make you the hundredth
part as happy as a perfect conformity to this law. Thus, when the Lord gives you
the means of being inconceivably happy, you loathe it, and call it a severe and
intolerable condition. Neither is this all; if you would faithfully and
punctually fulfill this law, you would be the most honorable character in all
this worldthe glory of kings and conquerors of statesmen and philosophers, would
be as nothing compared with the high distinction to which you would be exalted.
And your heart is ready to complain of the extreme demands of a law which is a
manifestation of the goodness of God to His creatures! But whether you are
satisfied with it or dissatisfiedwhether its demands are moderate or excessive,
it is the law by which you must be judged; and if you have not rendered a
perfect obedience to its whole requirementif you are not as holy as this law is,
you are totally destitute of a righteousness that will save you from its burning
curses. You can not be justified; you must endure the ministration of its
eternal condemnation; for without a righteousness that is as holy as this law,
God will never say, "Let the prisoner go free." I think I may safely challenge
you to call to remembrance any one action of your whole life, or any one thought
of your mind, in which love to God was the reigning principle, and a sincere
desire to please and honor Him was the ruling motive in your view; and if not,
your whole life has been one continual course of sinfulness. How, then, can you
be justified when you have no righteousness not even a partial righteousness to
save you from condemnation? And without one that is perfect and immaculate in
the sight of God, your condemnation is certainis inevitable. But in respect of
our justification, it is altogether sufficient for my present purpose if you
have been guilty of one sin-only one: that one will as effectually cut you off
from all possibility of being justified by obedience to the law as ten thousand.
One sin insures your inevitable condemnation. If you have committed one sin,
even the least you are a guilty sinner before God, and, therefore, utterly
destitute of any righteousness that can avail you in the judgment, and by which
you can escape the damnation of hell.

It is well in this place to bear what God himself has testified on this subject.
He has decided the case beyond debate: "There is none righteous, no, not one.
That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God. So
that death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Judgment came upon all
men to condemnation. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
If these plain and unequivocal declarations from God’s own mouth are not
sufficient to show you the attitude in which you stand before His law, it would
be useless to appeal to reason. It is too plain to be overlooked, that no man
has a righteousness that will justify him in the sight of that law by which we
must all be judged.

As, therefore, our case is thus desperate, and it is impossible for us to attain
to righteousness by any thing that we can do, it becomes a matter of the first
importance to inquire whether there is any other way by which we can obtain such
a righteousness as will fully answer our extreme necessity; and the Scriptures
give us an answer of peace. Such a righteousness has been provided. Let us
consider what the case requires. Two things are indispensably requisite to
constitute a justifying righteousness for sinners: the first is a perfect
fulfillment of all that the precept requires; the second is a satisfaction for
the sins committedfor nothing will satisfy the law except the penalty for
transgression is inflicted. Without this, all else that could be done would
avail nothing; for the Lord Jesus has said the heavens and the earth should pass
away before one jot or tittle of the law should fail, but all must be fulfilled.
It follows, then, that the penalty must be inflicted on the transgressor, or on
an adequate substitute. This all sufficient and acceptable substitute we have in
the person of the Son of God. If He has rendered a perfect obedience to the
precepts of the law, and has suffered the whole penalty for our transgressions,
what more is needed to constitute a perfect righteousness? If the holy life of
Jesus Christ and His obedience unto death will not satisfy the law, the sinner
has no remedy. It is a pleasing employment to review those passages in the word
of God which bear so distinctly on the subject of a sinner’s justification:
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.
He was made under the law that He might redeem them that were under the law." It
was not necessary that He should he made (or born) of a woman, in order to His
being under obligation to obey the precept; for if he had been made of the
original dust of the earth, He would have been under that obligation as far as
it was possible for Him to be under obligation at all; but it was necessary that
He should be made of a woman, that He might be one with us, and, as such, a
proper substitute for us; and it was also necessary that He should be made under
the penalty of the law, that the law might not be turned out of its own proper
and legitimate course in finding a competent and legitimate substitute and
surety, and in that character redeem us from the curse. "In Him was no sin," but
He was holy, harmless, and undefiled. Was not this all that was required as a
perfect obedience to the precept? And as death was the penalty, and He died for
our sins, was not this all that the penalty of the law required? A perfect
obedience to the commandment was all that the holiness of the law required; and
the death of Christ was all that the justice of the law claimed. Hence, then,
here is a perfect obedience to the law in its whole demand upon the sinner; and
as righteousness consists in giving the law all that it demands, what better
righteousness can a sinner need? If the commandment says, "Do all this," and
Christ has done all; and if the penalty says to the transgressor, "Thou shalt
die," and Christ has died, the just for the unjust, I would ask What more would
you have? The law asks no more, and you should want no more. In Christ dwelt all
the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and He offered Himself without spot unto God
as a sacrifice for our sins, and if He is not an adequate substitute for sinners
it is vain to hope for one. If I entertained a doubt of it I would instantly
drop my pen. For all the perfections and excellencies that pertain to created
and uncreated existencies are found in Him in all their infinite fullness; and
if His holy life and obedience unto death do not constitute a righteousness that
will satisfy the law and justify sinners, it is not possible to satisfy the law,
and we are yet in our sins, and must remain forever in a state of condemnation.
But let us remember that He against whom we have sinned has said, "The Lord is
well pleased for His righteousness’ sake." And again, "This is my beloved Son,
in Him I am well pleased." If the offended God is well pleased, surely we ought
to be satisfied. Thank God I am well pleased, too! When I have such a substitute
I can not fear insufficiency. "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: for all have sinned and come
short of the glory of God; 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." In considering this wonderful exhibition of gospel
truth it will be necessary to anticipate, in some measure, certain points which
are yet before us, and belong to a different branch of doctrine; but they are
truths, the importance of which can not be overestimated And I ask your
particular attention to the first clause in the foregoing quotation. You will
recollect that I have shown you the impossibility of acquiring a righteousness
by obedience to a law when that law has been once violated; and now being cut
off from all possibility of justification by the sentence of the law, we are now
inquiring for a righteousness in some other way. The text now under
consideration brings this to light in the clearest manner that you can desire or
conceive

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested." The law
condemns us, and it can show us no favor; but we need not ask any favor of it.
Here is a righteousness manifested which places us independent of the law. There
is no need that you should perform one act of obedience to the law in order to
obtain a justifying righteousness. And I must remind you, if you make one act of
your obedience to the law necessary to your acceptance with God, you assume to
fulfill all that the law requires; even though it should be a religious duty of
any kind, if you perform it with a view to your acceptance with God, you thereby
devolve upon yourself the obligation to fulfill till that the law requireseven
to be perfectly holy; for it is a work of law, and brings you under the curse:
"For as many as are of the works of the law- are under the curse." If
righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead in vain." By doing one work that
you may obtain righteousness in the sight of God, you virtually subscribe to the
covenant of works; and by works you must gain eternal life, or you can never
have life. But as God has openly showed you a righteousness which is altogether
without your works, you should seek to obtain that righteousness, and renounce
all other. Let me state to you a fundamental truth - a truth which I would have
you keep in perpetual remembrance: If you want a justifying righteousness, you
must renounce all your own righteousness, and depend wholly upon the
righteousness of Christ; or you must utterly renounce and reject the
righteousness of Christ, and depend alone upon your own. "The righteousness of
God." The text speaks of "the righteousness of God"--then it is not of man. Our
obedience has nothing to do in the matter. It is the righteousness of God,
because He provided it and He bestows it; and as He provided it for sinners, we
know that He will accept it and be satisfied with it; for He would not provide a
righteousness for us that would not be pleasing in His own eyes. And it was
provided expressly for sinners, who have no righteousness of their own, and it
would be of no use to any but sinners; and if you have disobeyed the law of your
God, and are therefore a sinner, it is as free for you, and as much within your
reach, as it is for any other sinner. Whether you are, in your own view, a great
sinner comparatively, or whether, comparatively, a small one, can make no
difference, because the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin. And this
righteousness is "unto all and upon all them that believe;" "being justified
freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Here we
have brought to our view, in the plainest form, the ground upon which our
justification is based. This shows what that righteousness of God is in which we
are graciously accepted, and on account of which we are justifiedit is the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus. He having redeemed us from the curse of the
law. the condemnation is removed; and the condemnation being removed, the sinner
stands justified through that redemption which removed the curse.

There is scarcely more common error among men than the notion that, because one
man is practically a much greater and more wicked sinner than another, he is
therefore farther removed from that righteousness which justifies sinners; that
because he is comparatively a much greater sinner, his case is proportionally
more desperate. But this idea is far from being true. It might and would be true
if justification depended, in whole or in part, upon our obedience or our
personal goodness; but as we are justified freely by His grace, there can be no
difference. It may be admitted that if both remain under the law, the punishment
of the one will be greater than that of the other, because they are dealt with
on principles of law, which rewards every man according to his work. But
justification is wholly of grace, irrespective of the demerits of the sinner.
The same perfect righteousness which justifies one, justifies also the other. It
is given to both on the same principlethat is, freely by grace; and is received
by both in the same wayby faith. "Whom God bath set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in His blood. This righteousness which is of God through faith in
Jesus Christ, will cover any number of sins, and nothing else will cover one
sin. Say not, "If I had not sinned so much, or, if I had not lived in sin so
long, I might have hope;" for there is no difference between a sinner of a
hundred years old and a sinner of ten years old. As with the greatest, so with
the least.

I had intended to notice other texts of the same import with those I have
quoted, and to make such remarks on them as the subject would suggest; but why
should I add any more? I could easily refer to a great many, but as I have yet
to show how this perfect righteousness may be obtained, so as for the sinner to
have the benefit of it, I shall necessarily bring some of them into view as I
proceed.

If you have attentively considered what has been said on this subject, you must
be convinced that Christ, by dying for sinners, has made "reconciliation for
iniquity, and brought in everlasting righteousness;" and now the deeply
interesting question presents itself: In what way can I, as a sinner, obtain
this righteousness for my own personal justification?

Before I proceed to answer this question, I have an apology which I wish to
offer to the reader. In perusing what I have written on this subject, you could
not fail to notice the frequent recurrence of the word righteousness. My reason
for this constant repetition is this: Righteousness alone is that which will
justify any one who is a subject of law. Many, as seems to me, speak on the
subject of justification in such a way that the inquirer fails to get a precise
and definite idea of that which is the essential thing in justification; and for
want of knowing what that is which will satisfy the law, and the only thing that
will do it, the mind is kept in confusion and darkness. Having constantly in my
view that class of readers for whose benefit I am laboring, I have been resolved
from the first to confine myself to such language as they will most readily
understand. I could often employ a greater variety of style, but elegance of
diction is no part of my object. I am earnestly solicitous to write nothing but
what will please God; consequently I am indifferent about literary criticism I
shall, therefore, persist in the course which I have adopted.

Christ, by dying for sinners, has brought in an everlasting righteousness,
sufficient of itself to justify any sinner; and now the question is, How is the
sinner to become invested with this righteousness? This is no hard question to
answer. In this I have plain work before me. It is one of the easiest lessons
for the teacher to teach, and perhaps one of the hardest for the learner to
learn, of any that belong to the gospel ministry. We have plain and positive
declarations in the word of God, and these infallible testimonies we shall use
in solving the question. We obtain this righteousness simply by believing it.
This is all; nothing more is required. In proof of the correctness of this
answer, let us refer to the inspired documents:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him
that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but
is passed from death unto life." (John 5:21) "Shall not come into condemnation."
Is not this justification? What more is required for justification? "Hath
everlasting life." If a man has everlasting life, surely he is justified-he is
delivered from death. "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to
every one that believeth." (Romans 10:4) I am not able to command language that
will express the doctrine more definitely and explicitly than this text. The law
requires righteousness, and Christ by dying in the sinner’s place becomes the
end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. What else is
required here to obtain righteousness but to believe in it? You believe that the
righteousness of Christ is sufficient for your justification, and is the only
thing that will justify you before God: this gives you a personal interest in
it. If this is false doctrine, we must charge the falsehood to the Holy Spirit.
I am not the author of the text, and I have no more right to alter any part of
it than I have to blot it out of the Bible. If you choose, you may assume the
responsibility of impeaching the veracity of the witness, but I will not. But
perhaps you will say there are many who will acknowledge the truth of it who are
not in a justified state, and that to teach the doctrine of justification in
this way confirms them in a ruinous mistake. To this objection I reply that
there is no danger. We have ample security against this delusion in other
doctrines, and there is too much in the word of God that will effectually guard
us against any such consequences. The danger of error lies in a different place.
Though many may acknowledge the doctrine that Christ is end of the law for
righteousness, they do not in reality believe it, because they do not understand
it. If one was well sounded on the subject, it would be found that he thinks
there is something besides the death of Christ, or something additionalsomething
that he must do, or some qualification that he must possess in himselfto give
efficacy to the righteousness of Christ; or, that there is something else
besides mere faith - some prerequisite or spiritual preparation necessary
besides simply believing, or, in connection with itto give him a personal
interest in this justifying righteousness. Whatever may be said or thought one
thing is certain: he that believes in Jesus Christ as the Savior of sinners, is
justified, and shall be saved. If you interrogate the true believer, especially
if he is a little advanced in Christian knowledge and experience, he will answer
at once that he has nothing to depend upon for his acceptance but Jesus Christ
and Him crucified, and that he has no plea to entitle him to an interest in
Christ, but that he believes in Him. But even if it were otherwise, it is not my
privilege, and hope it may never be my employment, to put forced constructions
upon the word of God, through fear that the belief of the truth might produce
evil fruits. The Divine Spirit inspired the apostle’s thoughts and directed his
words; and the people to whom he addressed the epistle, the circumstances under
which he wrote, the object he had in view in writing, and the special doctrines
he designed to inculcateall imperatively required that he should express himself
with the most cautious precision. Immediately before he delivered this
unambiguous proposition, he had shown that the idolatrous Gentiles had attained
to righteousness by faith; but the Jews, who would have something of their own
works, had failed to attain to righteousness, because they sought it not by
faith. They could not understand the way of being justified by a righteousness
which God had provided, independently of any obedience of their own, and of
obtaining an interest in such a righteousness simply by believing in it: hence
they were zealous to acquire a righteousness by rendering to the law the best
obedience they could; and whatever of insufficiency there might be in that
obedience, they expected to supply by doing things over and above what they
supposed the law required or by the mere mercy of God exercised in defiance of
law. But the righteousness which is of God is "through the redemption of Jesus
Christ;" and He promises to justify every sinner that believes in it. He asks
nothing of the sinner but to receive it by faith. Please notice the scriptures
which immediately follow the text we are considering: "For with the heart man
believeth unto righteousness." "Whosoever believeth in Him shall not be
ashamed." Why should the apostle take so much pains to support the doctrine of
the text by other expressions of similar import, if he did not mean just what he
said, and no more? Unless we have the hardihood to take liberties with God’s
word, which we would be ashamed to take with men’s language, we can make nothing
else of it but that a sinner is justified by believing in the righteousness of
Jesus Christ. But the scriptures I have quoted are not all, by many, which
affirm the same doctrine: "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is
the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." To every one that
believeth here the apostle stops and adds no more. Will you make additions to it
? But what is this gospel which we are to believe? Let-the apostle answer:
"Christ died for our sins and rose again the third day." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
Will you cavil at these statements? Oh, no! you are too modest to object to
God’s word. It is well; and with all my heart I wish you would be too modest to
object to God’s method of justifying sinners. "That I may win Christ, and be
found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that
which is through the faith of Jesus Christ; the righteousness which is of God by
faith." If you are honest and sincere in your inquiries into this subject, this
passage ought to be decisive. If you resist its force, you will have hard work
to make any sense of the apostle’s statement. Paul had as good a righteousness
without faith as any man who ever lived as far as we have any knowledge of his
history. Whoever lived a more upright and unimpeachable life, according to law,
than Paul? He himself testifies under the influence of the Spirit, that he was
blameless; and, after his conversion, when he lived by the faith of the Son of
God, his zeal, his labors, his self denial and sufferings for Christ’s sake are
without a parallel; and yet be counted all as worthless, that he might win in
Christ. "Not having my own righteousness" this excludes all good works, all
merit, all personal holiness, as the ground of his justification. "But that
which is through the faith of Jesus Christ:" this excludes everything in the way
of receiving it, but believing and, to present the idea as specifically as
possible, so as to avoid all possibility of misconstruction the apostle adds,
"The righteousness which is of God by faith in Jesus Christ." This is as
definite and perspicuous as language can make it. The apostle says to the
Galatians, "If there had been a law given which could have given life, then
verily righteousness should have been by the law." This shows that righteousness
is not to be obtained by obedience to any law; that righteousness which is unto
life is not of us, but of God, and we receive it as a gift by faith, without any
condition performed by us.

Perhaps I ought in this place to direct your attention to certain different
forms of expression which are used in the Scriptures to signify the same thing.
We know that a part is less than the whole, and that the whole must include
every part; but it is a common thing in the use of language to put a part for
the whole, and this form of speaking is quite frequent in the Scriptures. The
reason for this mode of speech is often too obvious to admit of misconception as
to the meaning of the writer. Thus it is said that we are saved by faith, and
also that we are justified by faith. The word saved, in its general acceptation,
comprehends more than the word justified, but it always includes justification,
because there is no salvation without it; and though the word justification, in
its restricted meaning, does not include the whole of salvation, yet as every
one that is justified is also saved, the terms are used indiscriminately to mean
the same thing. Whenever salvation is ascribed to faith, it proves justification
by faith, for there is no salvation without it. I might cite to you many
passages where it is declared that salvation is by faith, but I will notice but
one at the present. The jailer at Philippi inquires, "What must I do to be
saved?" Paul answers, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved." The jailer inquires in earnest, and the apostle answers by inspiration,
and according to truth. If there was something else instead of faith, no matter
what it was, that was essential, the answer of Paul was false, and he was a
deceiver; and if Paul answered rightly, all those are deceivers who teach
differently. And further, if there was any thing in addition to faith that was
necessary, then the apostle was unfaithful, and left the jailer ignorant of the
way of salvation; he did not truly answer the jailer’s question. Hence it
follows that by faith, and by faith alone, we obtain an interest in the
salvation of Christ. Besides, our Savior himself repeatedly affirmed the same
doctrine in terms as positive and unequivocal as the categorical answer of Paul
in this case.

Now let us examine this great question of our personal justification in regard
to works. To teach that all works of every kind, and all merit in us, are
entirely excluded in the matter and manner of our justification is thought by
some equivalent to giving us a license to live in sin. But if any man thinks he
believes in Christ, and yet desires to indulge in sin, he knows nothing about
believing in Christ; he is ignorant of Christ, and of himself, and of sin, and
of every thing in this matter that he has need to know; he knows nothing of the
truth in Jesus. Without any fear of an opposer, I hesitate not to say that it is
impossible for a man that has a living faith in Christ to love sin; for if he
believes in Christ, he has the Spirit of Christ, and can not desire to live in
sin. On the subject now before us, as well as in everything else that is
revealed in the gospel, we can know nothing except what is found in the inspired
writings. Whatever a man may learn of the fundamental principles of the Divine
law by reasoning from the Divine attributes as manifested in the works of
creation and providence, we can know nothing at all respecting God’s method of
justifying sinners, only as He has revealed it by special communication.
Whatever, therefore, is testified in the word of God must be taken as true; and
on the subject now under consideration the documents are full and explicit, so
that we must treat with decided disregard the plainest testimony, or we can not
evade the truth. But the natural man is so invincibly attached to the principle
of living on terms of law with his offended Creator, that when he finds himself
utterly precluded from the possibility of a reconciliation with God by any law
which He has given, sooner than submit to a change of relationship he will make
laws of his own, and endeavor to obtain a justifying righteousness by a
compliance with his own prescriptions. Therefore, without resorting to a course
of reasoning from the principles of moral right, which, in respect to the way of
salvation, is always inadmissible, let us take the sure word of God, and form
our judgment simply upon the evidence of the record: "For if Abraham were
justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God." This teaches
that Abraham was not justified by works, in as plain language as it can be
expressed; for if be had been justified by works he would have had whereof to
glory before God. The apostle’s expression is stronger than any didactic
statement could be. If a man can be justified by any work whatever, he is justly
entitled to that privilege on the clearest principles of moral justice, and may,
without arrogance, rejoice in his acquisition; but, then, faith in Christ would
be wholly excluded for if it is of works it is not of faith. We read of many
good works that Abraham performed after be believed, and was therefore
justified, but of none before he had faith, for "without faith it is impossible
to please God." But why might not Abraham glory before God? Plainly because it
is testified that Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for
righteousnessthat is, he believed God, and was justified. If he had a justifying
righteousness by faith, there was no need of works to justify him. To say that
Abraham might have gloried before men but not before God, is going out of the
scope of the apostle’s argument, is quite foreign to the subject. I feel quite
confident that the idea of glory before men never came into Paul’s mind; nor can
I recollect a single instance, when the apostle is speaking on the subject of
justification, where he makes the remotest allusion to being justified before
men. He never condescends to notice such trifles when showing the way of a
sinner’s justification through the atonement of Christ. "Knowing that a man is
not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we
have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the law, for by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified." Are not works of the law entirely excluded from the way of
justification by this text, and is not justification limited to faith alone? The
humble, teachable mind will be more willing to receive this truth, than to put a
false construction upon the words. A man may labor to obtain an interest in the
righteousness of Christ by his good works but he must forever labor in vain; for
he must encounter the opposition of the Scriptures in everything be does for
that purpose. But it may be objected: "Was not the apostle speaking of the
ceremonial law?" I think he was speaking of all law. But suppose he was speaking
exclusively of the ceremonial law, by the observance of which it is allowed that
none pretend to be justified; then it follows that the apostle was not intending
to exclude works under the moral law, which are a much higher order of works
than mere ritual observances. I admit that works performed according to the
spiritual claims of the moral law are of a higher order of moral excellence than
mere ritual performances; and that if we have to secure an interest in the
righteousness of Christ by obedience to law, these are the works necessary to be
done, and the only works that can profit us, because that is the law by which we
are to be judged. Take it upon this ground, and it follows that we must do "all
things which are written in the book of the law." And this would render the
righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ superfluous, and also faith in
Christ is totally excluded having no object. Now which plan of justification is
the best and safest for a frail sinner to be justified by faith alone, or by
faith and works both? And further, by- which method is the grace of God more
gloriously displayedto be justified by grace through faith, or to be justified
by our own works? I might also ask, if justification is by works, either in
whole or in part, does it not lay a foundation for boasting? For if Abraham had
been justified by works, it is certain he would have had whereof to glory. And
why not you and I? "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse."
It is not said as many as break the law are under the curse. The doctrine the
apostle teaches here is that if we will pursue the works of the law with a view
to our justification, we are under the curse, because we have not rendered a
perfect obedience to the law, which we must do, or we have no hope of being
justified by works. Read the latter part of the ninth chapter of the Epistle the
Romans, and if you are willing to be guided by Scripture, you can not fail to
see that our works have nothing to do in our justification. Let us look at a few
more scriptures: "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace,
but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is reckoned to him for righteousness." (Romans 4:4-5)
"Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace." (Romans 4:16) "Being
justified freely by His grace." (Romans 3:24) There is no need that a sinner
should be holy, or religious, or humble, as a condition of his being justified
by believing; for let his character be what it may, he is justified as an
ungodly sinner. If he is holy, it gives him no title to justification by the
grace of Christ; and if he is ungodly, it is no bar to that privilege. You
should not do good nor be good with a view of being thereby justified; but
believe on Him that justifies the ungodly and then do good, and be good that you
may glorify Him by whose grace you are justified freely without your works.

There are some who earnestly contend that we are justified by- the righteousness
of Christ, who, notwithstanding, object to the term imputed. I am no stickler
for terms, and if any will supply me with a more appropriate word, I will
consent to use it on all occasions, rather than give needless offense. Perhaps
such persons attach an idea to the word impute a little different from the sense
in which I would use it. If so, there ought to be no disagreement between us,
for we may both believe the same thing. If they say that it is nowhere expressly
said in Scripture that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed
to us, I would remind them that it is a very weak argument, and amounts to very
little, or nothing at all. The doctrine may be clearly taught in the Bible
without such verbal exactness. We read of righteousness as a gift, and this is a
very acceptable term with me, and accords well with other doctrines. It accords
with the whole of our salvation from first to last. It is also said that we are
made the righteousness of God, and that Christ is made unto us righteousness.
But I will state the doctrine thus: We are all sinners under condemnation of the
law, and Christ, by His death, has satisfied the law, and thus brought in a
perfect righteousness, in which, or on account of which, we are justified when
we believe in Him. If you take this from me, you take all; I have nothing left.
If you will receive this doctrine, we will not wrangle about words. But being
unskillful in the use of words, I will freely confess that I know of no word
more appropriate by which to express the manner in which the benefit of Christ’s
righteousness is applied to us than this old-fashioned word impute. "Even as
David also describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth
righteousness without works." Taking this text with the connection, and it is
too evident to be denied that the righteousness by which we are justified is
imputed to us. If it is a righteousness of our own, it is self-righteousness;
there is no way to evade this; and I know of no other righteousness by which we
can be justified but the righteousness of Christ. This comes as near saying that
we are justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, as I have any-
need of to establish the doctrine. The Scriptures most clearly teach that we are
justified by faith without any good works done by us, or any good that is in us.
This doctrine has been opposed by an objection which it is proper to notice. If
the objection is founded in truth it ought to be known. It should not be
slighted or shunned, but we ought to meet it fairly. I have, in a previous
section, adverted to it, and now I design to consider it more fully. It is
alleged by some that if we are justified alone by faith in Jesus Christ, without
any thing good in us, or done by us, it opens a door to licentiousness, and that
a man believing in Christ may live in sin, and yet be justified and saved. As
this objection is not brought against the doctrine of justification itself, but
only against the way in which we are justified. it is necessary to inquire into
the nature of that faith by which we are justified, that we may see whether the
doctrine of a free justification is justly liable to the force of the objection.
I would remark however, that I am not bound to disprove the objection, but the
burden of proving lies, in the first instance, on the objector, and unless he
exhibits the proofs he is not entitled to an answer. But I have never seen any
attempt to support the objection by evidence. I will even go further, and say
that if the objector could establish the truth of his objection, it would not
overthrow the doctrine against which it is broughtit would only amount to a
difficulty, nothing more. Of one thing I feel perfectly confidentthe objection
can not be sustained by the Holy Scriptures. And as to arguments deduced by
reasoning from general principles, they are of no value when opposed to the
plain teaching of the inspired word. If the genuine effects of evangelical
faith, as taught in the Bible, will show us that it has no such tendency as that
which the objection implies, the objector is left without any ground to stand
upon. And I have no fear of failing to show that faith has a tendency directly
contrary to that which the objection ascribes to it. "Purifying their hearts by
faith." "Sanctified by faith that is in me." Thus we see that holiness is the
direct fruit of faith: how, then, is it possible that it should have a tendency
to induce the believer to live in sin? If there is a disposition to live in sin,
it must be for the want of faith, for it can not bear both sinful and holy
fruit. It is by faith that we overcome the world. "Who is he that overcometh the
world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God ?" By faith we are
able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. We live by faith, we walk by
faith, by faith we stand. He that believes shall be saved, shall never perish,
shall not come into condemnation, shall never be ashamed. Christ dwells in them,
and they are the children of God. All these things are ascribed to faith in the
word of God; and should we be baffled for a moment by an objection that has not
been proved true, and can not be proved?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 08 THE FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER VIII. THE FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS.

MAN, in his natural state, is destitute of the spirit of holiness. He has not in
his heart the love of God He is dead in trespasses and sins; and except he is
quickened by the Divine Spirit and made spiritually alive, he is- morally
incapable of rendering to God any spiritual and acceptable service. He must be
born again, and made a new creature. This change in his internal character is
effected by the Holy Spirit, and there is no other power that can perform the
work. When this change is wrought in him, he has spiritual life, and is capable
of spiritual exercises. These doctrines, I believe, are acknowledged by all who
can make any fair pretensions to the name of evangelical When we are born of the
Spirit we possess spiritual life, and commence our spiritual pilgrimage to the
heavenly Canaan. But here a question arises which we shall attempt to discuss,
and, like every other question which is immediately connected with our
salvation, we ought to decide it by the word of God. The question may be stated
thus: Will every true child of God certainly continue in a state of grace until
finally saved? The question might be varied in form, but this statement seems to
be sufficient for the purpose, as the precise doctrine must necessarily come
into view as we proceed with the investigation. I have stated it as fairly as I
know how. The affirmative of this question is usually called "The doctrine of
the final perseverance of the saints;" and the negative is termed "The doctrine
of final apostasy." Both doctrines have many advocates, and specious arguments
are brought forward in support of these different views. I believe it is
conceded on both sides that a true Christian may be betrayed into sin, and
sometimes into very grievous sins, while yet he has not actually lost his
spiritual life; and I believe it is also admitted that a true Christian may
become cold and worldly minded, and spiritual affections may suffer a decay, and
need the reviving influences of the Spirit of grace, but his spiritual life is
still whole within him; or, in other words, a Christian may backslide to a
certain degree without entirely losing his spiritual life. It is also held on
both sides that a man may be the subject of very strong religious impressions
and believe that he is truly converted, and others may think so too, but in fact
he was never truly born again. All this may be true without proving or
disproving either side of the question at issue.

I shall attempt to establish the affirmative of this question, and to show from
the Holy Scriptures that the children of God will persevere through grace to
final salvation. If the Scriptures do not support my views, I will not contend;
and if any will maintain the contrary, they must confine their arguments to the
word of God; for if the true doctrine is not found there, the question is not
worth debate.

Before I present the evidence of this doctrine, I will remark that there is a
kindred doctrine taught in the Bible which, strictly speaking, does not belong
to this subject. It is the doctrine of the certain and everlasting security of
the Church. This is not identical with the doctrine of the final perseverance of
the saints. The two should not be treated of as the same, though it is often
done. Two planks in a floor may have the same use, and touch each other from end
to end, but they are not the same piece of timber. We will, therefore, examine
the doctrine of final perseverance, and attend to the other in its own place.
The final perseverance of a Christian has a more intimate connection with
sanctification. The believer perseveres or continues in a course of obedience by
the same grace which sanctifies his heart; and if sanctifying grace should cease
to be given, his continuance in well-doing would also fail. If it should be
asked, " If a Christian were left entirely to himself to stand in his own
strength, would he utterly fall and be lost? " I suppose it might be answered in
the affirmative; for I suppose that the whole universal creation would fall into
total annihilation if the preserving power of God were entirely withdrawn from
it. Nothing is independent of Him. God is the only independent being in
existence, and every thing is as dependent on Him for its continuance in being,
as it was for its coming into existence at first. So that if we were to concede
that if a Christian were to be entirely deserted by his God, he would fall
finally, and be lost, the concession would not affect the doctrine of the final
perseverance of every true believer in Christ. Our Savior said of all those whom
His Father had given Him, that they should never perish; and it is also said,
"Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life." And we have
no more right to add in the one case, "provided they prove faithful," than we
have in the other case to take out the words, "be thou faithful." In the most
positive terms I deny the right of any man to make any such additions or
mutilations in the Divine record; or to introduce any conditions, where such are
not found in the text. If such conditions are taught in the Scriptures, and
really attach to any particular doctrine, we should rely on those passages where
such conditions are specified, and not take the liberty of annexing them to
other passages where none such are found, in order to evade the force of texts
that seem to militate against a doctrine elsewhere taught. So far as I
understand the views of those who maintain the doctrine of final apostasy, they
would contend as firmly as I would that all who do continue to be faithful will
certainly obtain ultimate salvation; but on the other hand, they believe that a
true believer may prove unfaithful, and be finally lost. I have no wish to
misrepresent the opinions of those who differ from me, and if I have not stated
their doctrine fairly, it is because I have misunderstood it. There is not a
truth taught in the Bible that I desire to shun, and I am forcibly impressed
with the belief that many of those who oppose the doctrine of final
perseverance, do not clearly understand the true ground upon which the doctrine
is founded.

Spiritual life is given to the believer by the Holy Spirit, and when this life
is received, we may with propriety ask whether it is in the power of God to
maintain this life, and enable the child of God to continue in a state of grace
and hold on his way to the end of his race. I suppose no one would deny this.
Surely the most strenuous advocate of final apostasy would not contend that,
however liable to fall the Christian may be, God is not able to make him stand.
But although this would not be controverted, it may be of use to devote a little
attention to this part of the subject. We ought to understand the nature of the
power and the way in which it is exercised, in order to accomplish the end
proposed. It is not that physical power which He put forth in producing the
material creation, but a spiritual power, exercised in a way of influence,
operating upon moral character, or moral natures. The physical power of God may
be sufficient, for aught we know, to save men in their sins; but the justice of
God and the holiness of His nature are such that He can not exercise it in any
such way. We, being sinners and rebels against His authority, are justly exposed
to His righteous displeasure, and are under the curse of His law. Our relation
to Him as condemned criminals, forbids all spiritual intercourse, and thus we
are cut off from all spiritual life and strength, until a way of reconciliation
is opened up, as a medium through which may be communicated to us spiritual
blessings. The barrier which our sins had interposed between Him and us, is
removed by the sacrifice of His Son, in whom dwelt all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily. The atonement thus made for our sins, opened an ample and
all-sufficient medium through which the gifts and graces of the Divine Spirit
could be shed abroad in our hearts, to give us life and strength in a way
consistent with the moral perfections of the Divine Nature, and the honor of His
law. Christ having died and risen again, is exalted at the right hand of the
Majesty on high, and officiates in behalf of His people as intercessor; and
through His intercession the Holy Ghost is given to us in measures equal to all
our necessities for life and godliness. There is an infinite and undimishable
fullness in the Holy Spirit, so that all necessary supplies may be granted to
the believer in due time and measure, according to the will of God. Thus the
power of God, exercised in giving and maintaining spiritual life, is not merely
that physical power exerted in creating the world, but a spiritual power, acting
upon spiritual objects, for accomplishing a particular end, according to the
design of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will, and all
having an immediate reference to the ultimate salvation of the people of God,
and the glory of His grace.

Having submitted this view of the fullness of spiritual power for the
preservation of the children of God, I repeat that the sufficiency of this power
of God for the preservation of His saints will not be denied. And then the point
in controversy is reduced to this: "Is it the will of God to give His children
the necessary supplies of grace to insure their final salvation?" Upon this
question hangs the whole controversy. This is the precise issue between the
contending parties. If this point can be determined by the word of God, it would
be useless and even frivolous to debate the subject any longer, or in any other
point of view. To this point, therefore, I shall direct my inquiries in the
further discussion of the subject.

I quote from Romans 8:32 : "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up
for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" The
apostle is addressing himself particularly to believers, as the whole chapter
fully shows. He sets forth the firm ground of hope which the children of God
have in the plan of salvation through Christ. And the method of reasoning which
he employs is one of the strongest modes of logical argument known to the art of
reasoning. The argument implies that the contrary is an absurdity. If the love
of God to His children is so boundless and invincible that He would make the
infinite sacrifice of giving His well-beloved Son to die for them, will He then
suffer them to finally perish for the want of a little spiritual strength, which
it is His delight to give? Men may use this mode of reasoning, and because of
some unseen fallacy in the process of deduction, lead to a false conclusion, but
not so the Spirit of God. In this reasoning of the Holy Spirit there is an
implied defiance of the whole world to controvert or evade the conclusion, and
yet there are some that will not submit. "Freely give us all things." If the
phrase "all things" is to be understood in a general sense, and not strictly
universal, yet why should the only exception be the very thing which the
Christian most needs, and without which he can not be saved? But any exception
is inconsistent with the argument; for the argument is, that if God should do so
great a thing for our salvation, how should He refuse to do that which is so
much less? The principle upon which He reasons excludes all possible exceptions.

It will not be denied that there is an all-sufficiency of gracious power in the
Holy Spirit to sustain the children of God under every possible necessity. This
power is exercised towards us through the intercession of our great High Priest
Christ Jesus. And are we to suppose that He is unwilling to intercede for us? Or
shall we say that His intercession is ineffectual? There must be an
unwillingness on the part of the Father to answer the intercession of His Son or
an unwillingness on the part of the Son to make intercession for us, or an
insufficiency in the power of the Holy Spirit to impart the needful grace,
otherwise the true believer will be kept by the power of God through faith unto
salvation. The doctrine of final apostasy greatly dishonors the efficacy and
glory of Christ’s intercession; and it is not easy to see how it can be said in
truth that He is able to-save them to the uttermost (or forever, as in the
margin) that come to God by Him. The text here referred to (Hebrews 7:25) has
immediate reference to the intercession of our great High Priest. An
indefensible cause will sometimes induce its adherents to resort to evasions
wholly unworthy of a candid inquirer after truth; hence some may say that God
will give the needful grace to His children if they ask Him. But this is little
or nothing less than begging the question; it is, in effect, saying, If they
persevere they will persevere "they will be saved if they hold out faithful." I
am aware that this is a stronghold to which the advocates of final apostasy
constantly repair when pressed by the promises of the gospel, but it will afford
then no shelter; for if they could find a clear warrant in Scripture for
annexing this condition (which they have not done) the argument would still be
futilethe argument would never touch the true principle upon which the
perseverance of the saints rests. Suppose we give them their own position, and
say, "The Lord will give us sustaining grace if we pray for it." To see the
emptiness of their argument, it is only necessary to reflect that the spirit of
prayer is an important part of persevering grace. And this is what the Lord has
promised: "I will give them the spirit of grace and of supplication." The spirit
of prayer is as much a fruit of the Spirit as love or humility. But in respect
to the intercession of Christ, there is no propriety, in detaching a particular
grace or qualification from all or any of the rest of the spiritual exercises of
the heart. It does manifest injustice to the work of the Divine Spirit. That
which the intercession procures for the believer is the Spirit of Christ, which
embraces or produces all His gifts and graces. When He gives us His Holy Spirit,
the gift includes, necessarily, all the fruits of the Spirit; for though the
Spirit is given us in measure, yet it is not given to us in piecemeal. It can
not be proved to be even possible that the Spirit can be given to us with out
including the spirit of prayer. Besides, God’s rule in giving us His Spirit is
according to our need, and not according to our petitions; and He knows our
needs often when we do not. In giving persevering grace and strength, He is not
governed by our supplications, but by the intercession of Christ our advocate at
His right hand. And full well does our great Intercessor know all our
necessities; for we have not a High Priest who can not be touched with the
feeling of our infirmities.

If there is any professed believer who does not habitually pray for grace to
sanctify his heart and preserve him from sin, I should suspect that he is not a
true child of God; and the children of God who do pray for it, are indebted to
the Holy Spirit for their desires, which are the essence of prayer. So far as
any Christian has any real desire for spiritual blessings, that desire is
originated by the Holy Spirit. Every child of God should keep in remembrance
that it is not of ourselves that we are upheld in spiritual life, but we are
kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation; that is, by His spiritual
power, exercised in giving us continual supplies of grace and spiritual
strength, whereby we are spiritually enabled to persist in a course of well
doing according as His Divine power hath given us all things that pertain to
life and godliness. His spiritual power, as exercised in relation to His
children, is inseparable from His will; and if we should say that according to
His will He hath given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, we
should but express the same idea. None doubt the sufficiency of His physical
power to do any thing; and if He gives His children all things that pertain to
life and godliness, the expression can not comprehend any thing less than a full
sufficiency of spiritual influences to maintain in us spiritual life and
holiness, which will certainly insure our final salvation. That which the
natural man has need of is spiritual life; so that they who are dead in sins are
quickened - made alive by the Holy Spirit. This being done, we have spiritual
life; and if this life is maintained in us, our salvation is sure; for death and
life can not subsist in the same subject, and in the same respect. If,
therefore, it is the will of God to uphold us in spiritual life, the final
perseverance of the saints must necessarily be a certainty. I will therefore
quote a few texts in relation to this point: "And this is the will of Him that
sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have
everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40) "No man
can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise
him up at the last day." (John 6:44) "I am the living bread which came down from
heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever." (John 6:51) "
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will
raise him up at the, last day. )’ (John 6:54) "As the living Father hath sent
me, and I live by the Father so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me."
(John 6:57) "He that eateth of this bread shall live forever." (John 6:58) To
evade the force and obvious meaning of these scriptures, we must ignore every
acknowledged rule of interpretation, and do violence to the well-known laws of
language. That receiving Christ by faith, is what is meant by eating and
drinking, in the above quotations, is plain from the general tenor of the
connection in which they stand. That all (everyone, distributive) that believe
in Christ shall have everlasting life, is here declared to be the will of the
Father, and Jesus says He will raise him up at the last day. This life can be
supported only by- the power of God; and if He is not willing to maintain this
spiritual life until the last day, how can we depend upon His word? Such phrases
as "everlasting life," "eternal life," and "life forever," must receive a
meaning not only different from their ordinary acceptation, but directly
contrary to it, if any thing short of salvation is admitted. Any rule of
interpretation which would even admit final apostasy in the above- scriptures,
if adhered to, would demolish the whole body of Divine revelation. "As the
living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me shall
live by me." The epithet living, as applied to the Father, denotes that He lives
by the necessity of His own nature, and that it is impossible that He should not
live; on any other supposition the epithet would be needless. The doctrine
taught is, that as surely as the Father lives, so surely the Son will live; and
as surely as He lives, so surely will they live who believe in Him. If I were
engaged in a public debate, and my opponent should produce scriptures that would
contradict my thesis as expressly as the above texts and some others contradict
the doctrine of final apostasy, I should quail, and not know how to answer.
Again, Jesus says, "Because I live, ye shall live also." The only way to resist
this testimony- is to contradict it. It is an unqualified affirmation, and we
must meet it with an unqualified contradiction, or give it an unqualified
reception. The affirmation is either true or false. Evasion has no place here.

Those who oppose the doctrine of final perseverance take false ground. Their
argument proceeds upon the supposition that when a man is converted, he must
persevere in his own strength, independently of the continual supports of Divine
grace. But on this principle I would not attempt to defend the doctrine. It is
not the true ground upon which the doctrine is founded. We are every moment
dependent upon the sustaining grace of God. "Not that we are sufficient of
ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God." He
has given us assurance in His word that He will give us grace in time of need,
"nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." "I can do all things
through Christ which strengtheneth me." It is God that works in us, both to will
and to do of His good pleasure; and, having begun this work in us, He will
perform it unto the day of Jesus Christ. The prayers of the saints are in
perfect accord with this principle: "Hold Thou me up and I shall be safe, and I
will have respect unto thy statutes continually." "Uphold me according to thy
word; and let me not be ashamed of my hope." Thus it is in the Lord that we have
righteousness and strength. " Uphold me with thy free Spirit." "Hold up my
goings in thy paths, that my footsteps slip not." The true Christian prays
habitually for grace to uphold him in the paths of righteousness and the Lord
says, "My grace is sufficient for thee." The mother may forget her sucking
child, but the Lord will not forget His children, and he that touches them,
touches the apple of His eye.

Let us view this subject in respect to the love of God: "God so loved the world
that He gave His only-begotten Son." "But God who is rich in mercy for His great
love wherewith He loved us even when we were dead in sins." "Behold what manner
of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of
God." "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us." "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by
the death of His Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by His
life." As God loved His people with so great a love when they were enemieswhen
dead in sinswill He love them less, now that they are regenerated and adopted,
and are His children, and have the love of God in their hearts? After they have
become His children by faith in Jesus Christ, does He love them less than He did
when they were enemies and rebels against His authority? Did He love them more
while they were the children and willing servants of the devil, than He does
when they are His own children? Are we to suppose that His love is so fickle and
inconstant that, having loved His own unto death, that He will not love them to
the end? Is it rational to suppose that He will stand by and see His children
actually perish and die for want of sustenance? The apostle’s argument is in
direct opposition to the notion that God will let go His children out of the
hand of His love. I can see no possible way to reconcile the doctrine of final
apostasy with the argument of the apostle. The children of God are under the new
and everlasting covenant, and have a personal interest and a vested right in all
its provisions. In that covenant God stipulates that He will be their God, and
they shall be His people; for "I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and
their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." I feel a reluctance in
referring to some passages in Scripture, because I have reason to believe that
some of those who reject the doctrine of final perseverance are prejudiced
against them. "My sheep hear 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
man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than
all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand." (John 10:27-29).
In reading such solemn declarations of the Son of God, the truly pious and
reverential mind will be loath to seek evasions. They ought to be accepted as
decisive, and impose silence on gainsayers. But if any one will cherish
hostility to the oracles of God, it will not make the word of God of none
effect: "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height,
nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of
God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39)

Now, why all this accumulation? How can we read it without coming to the
conclusion that the apostle intended to comprehend every conceivable possibility
that a child of God might fail of final salvation? Can any one show a reason why
the apostle should, in this enumeration, embrace the heavens above and the earth
beneath; life and death; the heights and the depths; all things present and to
come; and close with an expression that includes everything else, if any
exception were allowable? It is my holiest opinion that there is not an opposer
of the doctrine, however competent he might be; if he should attempt to express
the certain and infallible salvation of the Lord’s people, in the strongest
language that he is capable of using, who could equal the terms employed by the
apostle in the preceding quotation. For what purpose is the light of inspiration
given to us if we will shut our eyes? I am almost tempted to think that the man
whose incredulity can resist such evidence, is proof against Divine testimony. I
would remark, however, there is some difference of opinion among men, as to
whether the phrase, "the love of God," is to be understood of God’s love to us
or of our love to Him. But so far as the doctrine now under consideration is
concerned in the question, it is a matter of no consequence which construction
is put on the phrase. If it is impossible to separate us from God’s love to us
in Christ, our final salvation is certain; and if it is impossible to separate
us from our love to Him, our salvation is equally certain; so that the doctrine
is in no way affected by any seeming ambiguity in the phraseology. That the
former construction is the true one, I have no doubt, for I think the context
clearly shows it. But on either interpretation the passage is fatal to final
apostasy. God is unchangeable; and as to our mutability we have security in the
promises. "I will put my fear into their hearts, that they shall not depart from
me." This text shows that the Lord’s children shall not depart from Him, and
also shows the reason why they will not; that is, the Lord will put his fear
into their hearts. This one text expresses the fundamental principle upon which
the whole controversy rests, and should be decisive with every honest inquirer.
God’s children will not utterly depart from Him, because He will give them grace
to cleave to Him. It is disagreeable to turn aside to notice quibbles; but
sometimes men who are conscious of their inability to find scripture or reason
to meet an argument, will resort to this contemptible mode of evasion. It has
been said on the passage quoted from Romans, that sin may separate us from the
love of God, and that sin is not a creature. I am confident that if a man of
ordinary intelligence ever employs this insignificant evasion, he is ashamed of
it when he does it; for he must be sensible at the time that self respect
forbids it. The objection really is not worthy of respectful notice; yet, for
the reader’s sake, I will notice it respectfully. It is said, "Neither death nor
life." Now what could death do in this matter without sin? It would be
powerless. And what would sin do if it did not produce death? It would effect
nothing as to depriving us of spiritual life. "Nor principalities, nor powers."
There is not the least danger that the principalities and powers in heaven would
separate us from the love of God, for they are engaged on our side; being sent
forth to minister to them who are to be heirs of salvation. It is their office
and their holy delight to give us every assistance. And can the principalities
of hell and darkness do anything against us in any other way than through sin?
If God be for us, who can be against us? "Nor things present, nor things to
come." Is not sin among present things? No Christian will answer in the
negative. "Nor principalities, nor powers, Is not sin a power? If it has power
to separate the Lord’s children from His love to them in Christ, it must surely
be a power; it must have a power to do more than all the mighty things that
belong to immensity and duration of time, for the apostle selects the mightiest
things that belong to both, and affirms that they can not do it. Those who
desire to stand in their own strength, and can thankfully enjoy the danger to
which it subjects them, must have more confidence in themselves, and less in the
grace of God than I desire to have. I can easily conceive how a strong man armed
may keep his palace in peace; and I can also conceive how a stronger than he may
overcome him, take from him his armor, and oust him; but I can not well
understand how the conquered and weaker man, when deprived of his armor, can
return and overcome the stronger, and reject him, and repossess his lost
habitation, especially if the victorious conqueror is the Almighty Spirit of
God.

It can not be out of place here to make a few remarks on the term "eternal
life," and others of similar meaning. The term may be employed in reference
exclusively to the state of the saints after death; or it may relate to that
spiritual life which is imparted to believers in this world, and which is to
endure forever. That it is used in this latter sense in some places, is too
evident to be doubted, and it is in respect to such passages that I now ask the
attention of the reader: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life."
(John 3:16) Here it is hath, not shall have. " Verily, verily, I say unto you,
He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting
life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."
(John 5:24) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath
everlasting life." (John 6:47) As my object in quoting these scriptures is to
show that such terms are applied to that spiritual life which the believer
receives in this world, it is needless to add others, and especially as I do not
suppose it will be denied. The point to which I would direct your attention is
this: that this spiritual life is declared to be eternal, or everlasting. And if
it were even possible, according to the plan of salvation, that this life might
cease, it could not, with propriety of language, be called "eternal life." If it
is not the determinate will of God that this life shall endure forever, such
language would convey a false idea. To say that a man who has eternal life may
die, is a contradiction in itself. It is intuitively evident that a life that
may die is not eternal life. The life that believers have is dependent upon the
life of Christ: "As I live ye shall live also." Never till Christ dies will this
life cease; and He having once died unto sin, dieth no more: death hath no more
dominion over Him. And when Christ, who is our life shall appear, we may assure
ourselves that we also shall appear with Him in glory. I believe some have said
that when they arrive in heaven, they expect to strive and labor as hard to keep
a place there, as they now do to obtain an entrance there. In this they are
consistent with themselves; the same principle by which our spiritual life will
be preserved there, is that which maintains it here. If the preservation of our
spiritual life here depends upon ourselves, it will depend upon ourselves there.
But as the continuance of our spiritual life depends upon our union with Christ,
so it will there. It is the grace of God which gives us salvation here; and by
the same grace we expect to be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation,
world without end.

Before closing this article I will notice one or two objections which have been
opposed to the doctrine we have been defending.

1. It is said that if the doctrine of final perseverance is true, that
exhortations to faithfulness and admonitions of danger must be useless. On this
objection I will remark:

(1. ) That the truth of this objection has never been proved, and I suppose it
can not be proved. And, in strictness, all that is necessary is to deny the
truth of the proposition; at least the objector is certainly bound to prove the
objection true if he will make any effectual use of it.

(2. ) The perseverance of the saints is to be ascribed to the grace of God; and
it is His will to use means for accomplishing His purposes of grace. Those
exhortations and admonitions may be a part of that system of means which He has
appointed for bringing His children home to Himself. Are not those exhortations
well adapted to excite Christians to diligence in pressing towards the mark for
the prize?

(3. ) We are never exhorted to any thing that is not duty, and duty is the same
whether the doctrine be true or false.

(4. ) We are not always competent to decide whether exhortations and warnings
are useless under given circumstances. If the infant Jesus had been destroyed,
what would have become of God’s purpose to save sinners through Him? And can any
Bible reader doubt that it was the determinate purpose of God that the Redeemer
should not be destroyed in His infancy? Why, then, did He direct Joseph to carry
the child into Egypt, and assign as a reason that Herod would seek to destroy
Him? The objection would lie with as much force and propriety against this
proceeding, as in the case against which it is alleged. We should learn that
God’s ways are not our ways.

(5. ) Though the final salvation of all believers may be known to God as a
certainty, yet it is as much our duty to labor for it as if it depended alone
upon our diligence. Why should the apostle say to the saints at Rome, "So then
it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth
mercy," and then say to the Corinthians, "So run that ye may obtain?" It seems
to be a settled rule with some, that if they can not see the consistency of two
doctrines revealed in the Bible, it is their privilege to reject the one which
is most adverse to their wishes. They are not willing to suppose that the
Almighty has revealed any thing that is above their comprehension

2. The second objection is an appeal to facts, and the object is to prove final
apostasy. If they can prove final apostasy, of course the contrary doctrine may
be given up. But why resort to facts if they can find other evidence? The appeal
is almost equivalent to a confession that they have no better means of
supporting their theory. An alleged fact is worth nothing, except the truth of
the fact is clearly substantiated. The lamentable defection of King Solomon is
relied upon as a case in point, and I do not know where they will find a better.
Now, in order to make any legitimate argument of this example, it is required
that two points should be provednot merely made probable, but proved beyond
question: (1. ) That Solomon was once a true spiritual child of God, and (2. )
that he was finally lost. The first of these may be shown from the Scriptures to
be a very strong probability, but it is impossible to prove the second; and
except that is proved to a certainty, the whole position is lost. It would be as
easy to prove that Solomon was finally saved, as to prove that he was finally
lost. In the first place, no man can prove, positively, that Solomon ever had
spiritual life; in the second place, if he had, no one can prove that he lost
it; in the third place, no one can prove that he did not repent of his sins
before he died; and, lastly, no one can prove that he was not saved. It is
rather strange that any man of sound judgment should ever advance so weak and
empty an argument. Those who oppose the doctrine of final perseverance seem to
think it sufficient to produce plausible objections. But this is not sufficient
those objections are worth but little when the most is made of them that can be.
Before they plead their equivocal objection they are bound, first, to invalidate
the evidence of those scriptures which so plainly teach the doctrine.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 09 THE INEVITABLE & ETERNAL SECURITY OF THE CHURCH
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER IX. ON THE INEVITABLE AND ETERNAL SECURITY OF THE CHURCH. THE doctrine
of the certain and everlasting security of all the children of God has often
been blended with that of the final perseverance of the saints: but these
doctrines are certainly distinct from each other; they are not identical; and it
is well that we should keep the distinction in view while we are inquiring into
the great plan of salvation through Christ. Both doctrines lead to the same
final result, and both establish the same great truth, but each has its own
peculiar place in the great scheme of our eternal redemption. In our
perseverance we ourselves are agentswe persevere; but the certain and infallible
security of God’s people belongs to the unalterable purpose of God. We have no
agency in it. It is wholly independent of us, and is an essential part of the
foundation upon which our salvation is based. Eternal salvation is an end to be
accomplished, and our perseverance is a part of the means by which this end is
to be attained.

It is not always safe to rely on arguments drawn from general principles,
because there may be a latent fallacy in the process of deduction which may lead
to an erroneous conclusion; and this will be the case sometimes when the
principle from which we reason is known to be sound, and also when we are unable
to detect any flaw in the process of reasoning. If, therefore, on the subject
before us, I should reason from general truths, I shall endeavor to compare the
conclusion with what is clearly taught in the Holy Scriptures; and I ask no
greater weight to be given to my arguments than a candid and unprejudiced
consideration will justify.

I lay it down as an axiom that God never does any thing but what He designs to
do. This is too evident to admit of debate. And I think it should not be denied
that He actually does everything that He purposes. The design or intention must
necessarily precede the accomplishment of it; and with Him, who sees the end
from the beginning, the performance must inevitably follow the design. I suppose
I shall meet no opposition here, for I presume there are few, if any, who have
any proper respect for the Divine character, or for the truth of His word, that
would controvert these positions. If, therefore, He has purposed the salvation
of those whom He saves, He must change His purpose, or their salvation is
infallibly certain. As to the particular period of time in God’s eternal
existence, when He first purposed their salvation, that is not the present
question. The particular point now before us is the certainty that He will
effectually execute the purpose; and this can depend upon nothing but His
sovereign will. To argue against this certainty is the very next thing to
controverting self-evident truth; therefore, taking no notice of any objection
that might be deduced by reasoning from principles of abstract truthbecause one
scientific truth can not overthrow another, and is not to be admitted in
opposition to the testimony of the Biblewe will refer to other objections. Those
who can not accept our doctrine rely upon arguments drawn from other doctrines,
which are revealed in Scripture. However plausible this mode of reasoning may
appear at first sight, it will be found utterly impotent in its application to
this subject; for it is useless to resort for objections to any thing
intermediate between the first original purpose and its final consummation, and
every other doctrine must of necessity have its place in the arrangement between
these two. Everything pertaining to the plan of salvation must have its place
between the beginning and the end; and He who sees the end from the beginning
must have foreseen all that should, or possibly could, intervene between the
purpose and its ultimate execution. It is expressly affirmed that God’s purposes
shall stand, and it is nowhere expressly contradicted; but that which is alleged
as objection is their inferences from what is taught in the Bible. But there is
nothing in the arrangements of God’s plan of saving His people but what He has
placed there. And when He purposed salvation as an end, did He introduce other
matters into the plan of execution which would, or possibly might, defeat the
object in view? There is no way to avoid the certain salvation of the glorified
church but to deny that God purposed her salvation, and then we are compelled to
admit that God saves sinners without having any specific design to do it. I do
not advance this argument as being peculiar to the plan of salvation, for it is
equally true in respect to everything that God does and designs to do.

God saves His people by covenant, and not a covenant by which provision is made
for them to save themselves, but a covenant by which He has bound Himself by
promise and by oath to save them Himself. The certain salvation of His people,
therefore, is secured by covenant. This covenant is confirmed in Christ. He, as
the surety of His people, has already performed the whole condition on their
part, and is accepted and confirmed by His resurrection from the dead, and made
eternally sure and unchangeable by His glorification. The condition of the
covenant being thus fulfilled, the only possible contingency must be whether He
will faithfully perform His covenant engagementswhether He will perform a
promise which He has ratified by an oath. The security of the Church stands upon
this very foundation, and the certainty of the eternal salvation of His covenant
people rests upon the inviolable truth of God’s oath. The stipulations of the
covenant, as it respects His people, are most explicitly laid down by the
apostle, as they had been previously by the prophet. This is the covenant: ’I
will put my laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts; and I will be
to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every
man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all
shall know me, from the least to the greatest: for I will be merciful to their
unrighteousness and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."

Moreover the Church of Christ is His inheritance. If the salvation of the Church
is not secure and certain, then Christ has no assurance of His inheritance
though he has purchased it with His own blood. The Church is not only spoken of
as the inheritance of Christ, but the riches of the glory of His inheritance,
and as His fullness: "The Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him that
filleth all in all." Thus we see that His mystical body is not complete without
the Church. I must object to any theory which defeats the Son of God of His
inheritancewhich deprives Him of that inheritance which He has purchased with
His own blood. His people are joint heirs with Him, and if the inheritance is
sure to Him, it is equally sure to them; and not merely because the inheritance
is reserved in heaven for them, but because as Christ is a Son, so they also are
the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. They both have the same
inheritance, and both inherit on the same principle, and the inheritance is
equally sure to both. The inevitable certainty of the final salvation of the
Church appears to be inseparable from that union which subsists between Him and
His people. This doctrine of the union of Christ and His believing people is so
abundantly taught in the Holy Scriptures, that to deny it would be to ignore the
authority of the Bible. It is expressed not only by multiplied reiteration, but
in such a variety of forms and illustrations that we must admit the doctrine or
reject the written word; for the manner in which it is exhibited precludes all
evasion. Leaving out of notice, for the present, the original purpose which God
purposed in Himself; let us, as it were trace this union in a kind of historical
line, confining ourselves to explicit Scripture statements. We are said to
suffer with Him; to be crucified with Him; to be dead with Him; to be raised
together with Him; to be quickened together with Him; and to sit together in
heavenly places. The scriptures here alluded to are easily found; and except
this bond of union should be broken, it must insure the infallible security and
certain salvation of the Church. But we see that it has passed intact through
the ordeal of sufferingsdeath and the resurrectioninto the life and exaltation,
to the heavenly place; so that, having survived these conflicts, there can be no
danger of dissolution. But we are also said to be one with Christ. This is
identity; but we are not to consider Christ and His Church as identical in every
respect. Yet, unless we will impute to the language of inspiration a vagueness
which would render it almost useless as a source of Divine instruction, we are
forced to concede that, in the economy of redemption, there is a point of view
in which Christ and the Church are one. I will refer to some scriptures: "As
Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us." "I in
them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 10 PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER X.

PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION.

IT has happened that in religion, as well as in philosophy, a great diversity of
opinions has prevailed in the world of mankind. In philosophy we might not
expect it to be otherwise, because it is the science of nature, and we have no
other source of knowledge to which we may apply for the truth of nature. So much
of self-evident truth as nature will furnish is a sure guide; and so far as we
adhere to that, we are in no danger of error. But the comparative amount of self
evident truth, which nature furnishes in proportion to the vast amount of
information which the great realm of nature contains, compels us to explore
extensive regions in the pursuit of knowledge, oftentimes by the aid of mere
speculative induction, and much labor of thought has to be expended before we
can bring our results to the test of demonstration. Hence, for want of an
infallible directory, available at all times and on every subject of inquiry, we
have a reasonable apology for a variety of opinions in that department of
knowledge. But we can make no such excuse for error in matters of religion. We
have an infallible directory to guide us into all truth. There is not a doctrine
which is essential to the service of God, or to the salvation of the soul, but
what is laid down with sufficient clearness in the Holy Scriptures to guard us
from every important error. I do not allude exclusively to those doctrines the
belief of which is essential to salvation but to every doctrine which is an
essential part of the great plan which God has ordained for accomplishing the
salvation of sinners, and every duty which is essential to Christian obedience.
If any man, therefore errs through ignorance, he is himself responsible for all
the evil that may result from that error. We have a definite and perfect
standard by which we may test every article of our faith, and thus avoid error
before we embrace it; or, having embraced it, we may correct it. If God had left
us, in matters of religion, as He has done (in a great degree) in matters of
mere science, merely to the exercise of our reasoning powers error might have a
plausible excuse; but He has not so left us; hence, therefore, he that, in
matters of religion, believes or practices differently from God’s word, has no
plea for his error, because he rejects the counsel of God against Himself. And
in the great day of decision, when the secrets of every heart shall be brought
to light, if any man shall be found who held erroneous doctrines, the only
answer he can make will be, that he did not believe God; and if he has erred in
any important duty, he can only say that he disobeyed God. No vindication will
be allowed. He may not plead ignorancehe may not plead good intentions; every
plea of every kind will be overruled. We have the all-sufficient rule of God’s
word, and among all the thousands of false opinions that have been taught and
believed in this world there is not one that will admit of apology before the
tribunal of the Righteous Judge. If a man who has access to the Bible is
ignorant, he is ignorant of choice; if he is in error, he chose error in
preference to truth. To say that there is any defect or insufficiency in the
code of Divine truth, or that the mind of God is not delivered with sufficient
clearness to enable the sincere inquirer to learn His truth, is a manifest
impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of God. And he that charges the Bible
with obscurity calumniates its Author; and no man can slander God’s word and be
guiltless. Whatever may be alleged with regard to some particular passages in
the Bible, all that is material to the primary doctrines of the gospel, or to
Christian duty, is presented to us plainly enough for the instruction of every
obedient mind; and if it is not understood, we must not ascribe obscurity to the
language of Divine Revelation, but we must seek for it in the darkness of our
degenerate hearts. It is true, as we have said, that a great variety of opinions
has prevailed in the world, and even amongst Christians, on almost every
fundamental doctrine of the Bible, and endless controversies have grown out of
this diversity of sentiments, yet there are some doctrines which have been
acknowledged by almost all who profess to take the Bible for their guide. This
is some alleviation of the evils attending erroneous principles. It is well,
indeed, when there are opposing, views in religious concerns, that so many can
agree on some of the essential truths of the gospel of salvation. All agree that
there is one God, and only one. They agree, also, in more than this one thing.
There is a general agreement with regard to the attributes which constitute the
perfection of the Divine nature. It is admitted that God is
eternalself-existent, and that all else besides Him is created, and was created
by Him, and that all things are dependent upon Him. It is admitted that He
possesses every possible perfection that can pertain to a self-existent and
infinitely perfect God; and, consequently, that in Him there is no imperfection.

Since, then, God is the only eternal, self-existent Being, and all else had a
beginning and was created, it follows that there was a period in the depths of a
past eternity when Jehovah dwelt alone, and there was no other being in
existence; but He then possessed every attribute of His nature in all the
fullness of perfection the same as He does now, and as He ever will; and though
His hands had effected nothing out of Himself, yet His infinite mind had ample
employment, and was in never-ceasing exercise. Whatever His power has since then
brought to pass, is only the fulfillment of designs which He then entertained
while He then dwelt in His own eternity, and while the original immensity
contained no other being than Himself. Whatever purpose then existed in the
Divine mind, must of necessity have originated in Himself, for there was nothing
in existence but Himself; and, therefore, nothing that could give rise to a
thought or purpose in His mind. And whatever He might do or bring to pass
pursuant to such a purpose, must necessarily be done in view of some specific
end or particular object contemplated by that purpose; and this ultimate end
must have a determinate final reference to Himself, seeing there was nothing in
existence at that period out of Himself to which it could refer. And this
ultimate end, which it was His will to accomplish, must be an end worthy of
Himself, and not beneath the dignity of His infinitely glorious character. The
ultimate end, therefore, which God has in view, in all that He ever has done or
ever will do, is His own glory; that is, in other words, the manifestation of
His own infinite perfections. In this He proposes to Himself an object worthy of
Himself. This is the highest end that it is possible for Him to have in view, in
any thing that He does or permits to be done. Not only is it the highest end of
which we can form any conception, but, from the nature of the case, we are fully
warranted in saying that He could not have any higher aim in view; for as He is
infinitely supreme in Himself, and as He is His own end in all that He purposes
and performs, it follows that this is the highest end that He can possibly have
in view in all His works. Having, therefore, a most glorious end in view, which
it was His purpose to effect by the use of means, it was indispensably,-
necessary that He should have a perfect knowledge of all the means which He
would employ in fulfilling the great design. Whether a wisdom and knowledge
short of that which is infinite would be adequate to the purpose, I do not at
present propose to inquire; but shall content myself with exhibiting some of the
proofs which the inspired record brings to bear on the subject: "Known unto God
are all his works from the beginning of the world." "All things are naked and
opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." " God is greater than our
heart, and knoweth all things." "His understanding is infinite." "He that is
perfect in knowledge is with thee." As all things were created by Him, it is
impossible that He should not know all things, and know them to be just what
they are. As He made all things for Himself, He certainly knew what use He would
make of every thing that He made. It can hardly be thought hazardous to say that
whatever God may do must necessarily be, in some way, a manifestation of what He
is. He certainly does nothing accidentally (as we term it), nor does He do any
thing without knowing beforehand what He will do. Hence all that He does is done
in the prosecution and fulfillment of a specific purpose.

We propose, in this chapter, to consider the doctrines of predestination and
election. Although election is included within the category of predestination,
the two doctrines are distinct from each other; and this distinction should be
observed in treating of them, especially as in one point of view there is an
essential distinction. Predestination has respect to the whole system of
natureto the whole creationas well as to the scheme of salvation. Election, as
the term is generally used by theological writers, respects God’s plan of saving
sinners. Election always respects persons. Predestination respects things as
well as persons, and often respects things and events irrespective of persons.
To predestinate is to determine beforehand; to elect is to choose. These two
acts of the Divine will may be co-extensive, but they are not identical.

We shall submit to your consideration a few remarks on the subject of
predestination. We have already said that to predestinate is to determine
beforehand According to this general idea of the term, as indicated by its
etymology, if God designs or determines to do any particular thing at any period
of time before He actually performs it, this is predestination; and in this
sense of the term I suppose that all will admit that every thing God does is
predestinated by Him, for who can think that God does any thing without
intending to do it? But that characteristic of Divine predestination which has
given rise to so much controversy in the theological world relates to the time
when the act of predestination took place in the Divine mind. Many object
against eternal predestination, but even this objection is not urged very
strongly against many of God’s predeterminations. I think I have seen it laid
down somewhere, as a fundamental principle, that God predestinated, or
fore-ordained from all eternity, "all things whatsoever cometh to pass." I have
an objection to this form of expression; but notwithstanding this objection, I
believe that all the wisdom of this world can never overturn the doctrine even
as it is stated above. The truth of the doctrine can never be disproved either
by the Scriptures or by logical reasoning. But I will state the doctrine of
eternal predestination in a form to which I will subscribe without hesitation. I
believe there was a determinate purpose in the mind of God, before the beginning
of His creation, to do all that He ever has done, or ever will do, in His
creation. There are some, I believe, who maintain the doctrine of the Divine
omniscience in the strictest and most comprehensive sense, who yet deny the
doctrine of predestination. They argue that omniscience does not necessarily
involve predestination. Others who, I suppose, can not well separate the two,
and, being unwilling to receive the doctrine of predestination, deny the
doctrine of omniscience. I may notice these things before I close my remarks on
this subject; but I will say here, that I do not rely alone on this kind of
evidence, and if the doctrine of predestination is sustained by the Holy
Scriptures, it will be sufficient for my purpose, and ought to be sufficient for
every sincere seeker of Divine knowledge; for he should receive it on the
authority of God’s word, independently of other arguments. In Ephesians
(Ephesians 1:11) it is said, " Being predestinated according to the purpose of
Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will." Here we learn
that God works all things after the counsel of His own will. This shows that
whatever He does is done in pursuance of a previous design. The will of God
never changes, and His "counsels are of old." He predestinates according to a
purpose, and according to the same purpose He works all things. "The Lord hath
made all things for Himself." If He made all things for Himself, He must have
known for what purpose He made them, and must have determined so to use them
that they should answer that specific end. Again, it is said that " all things
were made by Him and for Him, and by Him all things consist." How all this
should be, and yet He have no previously fixed design, is beyond my conception,
especially taking into view that all that He ever does is with a determinate
design to manifest the glory of His own perfections. " Known unto God are all
His works from the beginning of the world." If all His works were not determined
by Him from the beginning of the world, it is not possible to understand how He
could know them.

I deem it unnecessary to say much on the subject of universal predestination,
because that predestination which is so much opposed has particular reference to
moral and accountable creatures, and of this I shall have occasion to speak more
at large when treating on another part of the subject; but I have expressed an
intention to say something more on the subject of God’s omniscience, and its
connection with predestination. At that time I thought to reserve my remarks on
these points till the close of this chapter; but I suppose they would come in
place with more propriety at present. That God knows all things perfectly,
absolutely, and in the most comprehensive and universal meaning of the terms, is
a doctrine that very few, I believe, have ever called in question; but this
infinite knowledge of God has been disputed by some. We might expect that if any
would limit the Divine wisdom and knowledge, it would be those of the more
ignorant and weak-minded class of men; but we find such among the learned. Men
of learning (and, as I believe, truly pious), and in high repute as theological
writers, have denied the strict omniscience of the infinitely wise God. I think
I have already sufficiently proved the doctrine by the explicit testimony of
God’s word; and it is an unpleasant task to controvert opinions that are
revolting to the moral sense of a reverential mind. Those who contend for
limitations of the Divine knowledge admit (I believe) that His capacity for
knowledge is strictly infinite, and that God is capable of knowing all things;
but they suppose there is no necessity that He should actually extend His
knowledge to every event and circumstance to which He may extend it. If this
idea is true in natural theology, it must be true also in Divine revelation, for
these two witnesses can not contradict each other; and the Scriptures teach
positively that God does actually know all things; that His knowledge is
infinite; that all things were known to Him from the beginning of the world. If
He does not, in fact, know all thingsthat is, if His knowledge is not absolutely
infinitewith what propriety can we ascribe omniscience to Him as an attribute of
the Divine nature? To ascribe omniscience to Him, is giving Him rather more
glory than is due unto His name; besides, if there is imperfection in His
knowledge, it would seem to follow that there must be corresponding imperfection
in all His attributes, otherwise there would be a want of harmonious perfection
in the Divine nature totally inconsistent with the glory of the Divine
character; and if we allow corresponding imperfections His other attributes, we
effectually destroy the whole idea of a perfect Being. The advocates of this
most unwarrantable assumption adopt it confessedly for the purpose of making
room for the perfect freedom of the human will. That we find mystery, when we
view the freedom of the human will, in reference to absolute omniscience, needs
no proof; it is a matter of consciousness: but in avoiding this mystery by
denying the latter, we are forced into mystery equally as great, and, indeed, it
involves us in still more mystery, for those who embrace this strange theory
suppose that God purposely hides some events from Himself. This is mystery in
the abstract. He hides an event from Himself in order to leave man to his own
choice, and thus He knows not what man will do till the event transpires. But
how can He hide an event from His view of which He knows nothing? If He does not
know of it, how can He know how to conceal it from His view? "The eyes of the
Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and good." But He removes some of
the evil out of His sight till it is committed. It is hard to say whether there
is more mystery or more absurdity in this. I wish to treat great men with
respect, or I should apply to this doctrine the term which I think properly
belongs to it. Moreover, if it is necessary, in order to man’s freedom of will
and accountability, that God should exclude from His immediate knowledge any one
act of man, in any one instance, it is equally necessary that He should do the
same in every case with regard to every act, for we are, equally accountable for
every action of life, and for one as much as for another; and thus we shall make
the omniscient God ignorant of all the actions of His accountable creatures till
He discovers it by the event. But there is one thing that it is certain He
knowsHe knows how far His knowledge extends, and He declares that He knows all
things, and no man can doubt it and be innocent. But that the absolute
foreknowledge of God is inconsistent with the freedom of man’s will, is what can
not be proved by the Scriptures. Their doctrine is founded upon what they
suppose possibly may be in the Godhead; ours is founded upon what God declares
is in Himself. Their doctrine is the offspring of human speculation; ours is the
substance of God’s own testimony. I have not the least doubt that the absolute
foreknowledge of God extends to all things; neither have I the shadow of a doubt
that the human will is free. And to me it appears to be more consistent with
sound reason to believe what is clearly provable as both these doctrines are,
though I might not be able to show their agreementthan to reject a doctrine that
is expressly affirmed in the word of God, in order to adopt a hypothesis that is
so exceedingly derogatory to the honor of God, as that of imputing to Him an
imperfection which must vitiate all His attributes; for how can He exercise His
justice, or His power, or His goodness, according to the perfection of their own
nature, if His knowledge is limited? Are not all these attributes exercised
under the direction of His knowledge? Who can tell what will become of the world
and all its inhabitants in time and eternity, if the God who governs it is
ignorant of what is going on among His accountable subjects. But if God does
foreknow with certainty some events which yet are contingent upon the will of
man, and for which men accountable it is clear that He may also foreknow all
events in which the will and accountability of men are involved; and that He
does foreknow such events is matter of the clearest revelation. The Lord
foreknew, and foretold to Moses, that Pharaoh would not let the Israelites go
out of Egypt; and that he sinned in refusing, is beyond dispute, for he
acknowledged his sin, saying, ’The Lord is righteous, and I and my people have
sinned." Again: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and
slain." (Acts 2:23) It would be easy to refer to a great number of examples
equally pertinent, but these are fully sufficient to establish the point. The
God that made man and endowed him with a moral nature, must of necessity know
what that nature is; and He knows also to what influences it will be exposed;
consequently He knows what every man will do in every instance, if left to the
free exercise of his own will, whether the action itself be good or bad. But
this foreknowledge has nothing to do with the moral character of the action. It
is certain that God never foretells what He does not foreknow; but neither His
foreknowledge nor the prediction of the event gives moral character to the
action. If God knows with certainty that any particular event will transpire,
every one, I suppose, will admit that the event will certainly come to pass; but
it is not His foreknowledge that makes it certain, for it would be just as
certain if He did not foreknow it. And this is true with regard to the
accountable actions of men, whether of good actions or of bad actions. God never
compels men by His power to the performance of any action, good or bad, whether
willingly or unwillingly, but He often interposes with His power to prevent men
from performing bad actions, even when they would willingly do them. You may see
this exemplified in the builders of Babel, and the Scriptures will furnish you
with any number of examples. But I submit to my reader’s consideration, that if
there is any thing that God does not know, then, in that thing, He is ignorant.
Is the reader prepared to say that God is ignorant? Does not your moral sense
revolt at the thought? And yet, if the hypothesis is true, it is unavoidable. Do
angels worship a God who is ignorant of the affairs of His government? So,
indeed, some learned men would have us believe. It would be rather uncharitable
to suspect that such divines are more willing to make others believe it than
they are to believe it themselves. If any man expects to stand before God in
judgment, I would advise him not to make himself responsible for having charged
God with ignorance, lest he should see anger in the face of the Judge. I will
adopt no tenet that requires to be supported by imputing ignorance to the God of
heaven. The abettors of this doctrine admit that God could know all things, but
that He chooses to conceal some things from His knowledge; that is, He chooses
not to know some events till they transpire. But this evasive refinement upon
the perfections of the Divine nature rather aggravates than alleviates the
reproachful imputation; for it makes God ignorant as a matter of choice, and
thus He is made to choose ignorance rather than knowledge. It certainly betrays
a most deplorable want of reverence for the Divine Majesty to ascribe to Him the
least imperfection of knowledge, whether willful or involuntary, besides the
fact that it is a direct contradiction of His own testimony. Let us banish the
thought with abhorrence, and not give it a moment’s entertainment. I hope that
no such degrading conceptions of the Divine perfections will find a momentary
lodgment in the minds of my readers. Our God knows all things, past, present,
and to come; all things actual and possible; all contingencies, dependencies,
and possibilities, both fundamental and incidental. Such is the perfection of
His infinite knowledge that He can not willingly or by necessity hide any thing
from His all comprehensive view. From everlasting to everlasting His knowledge
embraces all things within His own infinite immensity, without exception
limitation, or modification. But it is alleged that foreknowledge does not
necessarily involve predestination. And perhaps it might not be easy to prove
that simple foreknowledge does involve predestination; but to make any argument
of this against the doctrine of Divine predestination, it will be necessary for
the objector to show that the foreknowledge of God is ever exercised
independently of His other attributes, which, I think, can not be made to
appear. It is very doubtful whether any one perfection of the Divine nature can
be exercised alone without necessarily, involving the exercise of other
attributes in connection with it. It has been thought that the attribute of
self-existence necessarily comprehends all the infinite perfections of Divinity,
and it would not be easy to defend the contrary. However this may be, it is
quite safe to say that there is no possibility of separating those perfections
of Divinity which constitute the one infinite perfection of the Godhead; and,
considering omniscience in connection with other attributes of the Divine
nature, I think it does necessarily involve predestination. God knows in all
cases what will be best; His infinite goodness must incline Him to do what is
best; His holy will must determine Him to choose what is best. This is
predestination. Unless we will say that He does not always do what is best, I
can not see how predestination can be evaded. To predestinate is to determine
beforehand; and if God always knows beforehand what will be best, and determines
beforehand to do what is best, He must necessarily predestinate all things that
He ever does. And if He is immutable if "He is in one mind" - then His
predestination must be as eternal as Himself. On the point now under
consideration, absolute foreknowledge is a conceded principle, and the question
is, Does this foreknowledge involve predestination? Absolute prescience
necessarily includes the knowledge of what is best in all things; and if, with
this knowledge He chooses to do what is best, wherein does this act of choice
differ from an act of predestination? To choose is to determine, and to
determine a future event is predestination. His omniscience precludes the
possibility of His making a wrong choice, and His immutability precludes the
possibility of His changing that choice. I am aware that some have held forth
the doctrine that God does change His mind; but if this is so, we can not learn
His character from His word, for He expressly affirms the contrary. I could
extend these arguments much further, but I deem it unnecessary. The doctrine of
the freedom of the human will is true, but the inference that it is inconsistent
with Divine omniscience and immutability is false.

Election.

Having treated of predestination in a general point of view, we will proceed to
consider the subject of election. There has been more controversy on this
doctrine than almost any other in the whole body of theology. Many have
misunderstood the doctrine; some have either ignorantly or intentionally
misrepresented it; others have perverted it by misapplying it. The word elect
signifies to choose; and when we find the word in the Bible, this is the sense
in which we should understand it. And if we find it apparently teaching a
doctrine which we can not understand, or which we can not reconcile with other
doctrines, or which is repulsive to our feelings, we are not at liberty to put a
different meaning on the word, for this would be no better than making
Scripture. The advocates and opposers of the doctrine of election argue, for the
most part, on different principles, and unless there is some standard of
ultimate appeal which both parties would acknowledge, and by which both parties
would consent that their arguments should be tested, there can be little hope of
a termination of the controversy. But waving this for the present, we will
notice some doctrines which are erroneously supposed to be necessarily involved
in the doctrine of election, but which, in fact, have no immediate connection
with it.

1. And first, we will discourse a little on reprobation. Of those who reject the
doctrine of election, there are some who make a great parade about reprobation,
as though it must necessarily follow if election be true. But this is palpable
sophistry. And while dealing their vindictive anathemas against the doctrine of
reprobation, they suppose they are demolishing the foundations of election.
Except what they do by way of creating and confirming prejudices against the
truth, their labor is lost. Perhaps very few of those who declaim so bitterly
against reprobation have any definite idea of what they mean by the term they
use. If, by reprobation, it is understood that the Almighty, by an eternal
decree, doomed men to everlasting punishment, irrespective of their character
and works, we may very justly denounce the doctrine. But why make so much ado
about it? I know not a man upon earth who avows his belief in it; and if there
are any that do, I should not feel obliged to debate the question with them. But
supposing I have stated the doctrine correctly (and I know that some do
understand it in that light), I deny that any such idea is involved in the
doctrine of election; and to argue against the doctrine of election on that
ground, is misrepresentation. But further: If it were true that such a decree
has been ordained, and the truth of it could be proved, it would not in the
least affect the doctrine of election, because it would have no necessary
connection with it. Such an act of reprobation would be, and necessarily must
be, wholly distinct from an act of election. To confound the two, evinces a
great want of discrimination. Neither of these acts would necessarily include
the other. If one is true, it does not follow that the other is true. Each of
these acts would be independent of the other. The decree of reprobation would
affect those only who are the objects of such decree, and none else, and the
decree of election would affect none else but the objects of election.
Reprobation would respect none but those who are lost, and election respects
those only who are saved. The two acts contemplate different and opposite
results, and respect different objectsthat is, different personsand no force of
construction can make them identical. In the great day of consummation, when the
Judge of all will say to those on His right hand, "Come, ye blessed of my
Father," this sentence will have no relation to the others; but a distinct
sentence of "Depart, ye cursed," must go forth from the tribunal against them,
and the latter sentence will have no respect to the heirs of the kingdom. And
so, likewise, if there were an irrevocable decree of predestination, before the
foundations of the earth were laid, fixing the eternal state of the wicked, such
decree would not elect the righteous, nor in any way affect them for good or for
evil; but there must be a distinct and independent act choosing them to eternal
life. It would be just as necessary, in the one case, that there should be two
distinct acts of predestination, as, in the other, that there should be two
distinct sentences of final decision. Those who make such an outcry against the
doctrine of reprobation, with a view to overthrow the doctrine of election, may
possibly succeed to some extent in misleading the credulous and inattentive
reader; but they succeed in an evil work, for it is highly sinful to employ
false reasoning on sacred subjects. The truth of God stands in no need of such
satanical assistance; for whether a doctrine be true or false, it is wicked to
employ false reasoning in the discussion; and if they gain any advantage by it,
the acquisition is the reward of dishonesty. The opposers of the doctrine of
election are apt to make reprobation a first and last resort; but the believer
in election, if he rightly appreciates his means of defense, may always have an
effectual reply ready for the attack. He has nothing to do but to tell his
opponent that reprobation has no connection with election-that he has left the
question in debate, and is not legitimately entitled to an answer till he proves
the truth and applicability of his objection; and this his adversary will never
be able to do.

2. Equally unfounded, and very similar to the preceding objection, is the notion
that some have entertained, that if election is true, the Almighty created one
part of the human family to be saved and the other to be lost. But the doctrine
of election involves no such consequence. That some will be saved and others
lost is true, and clearly taught in the Scriptures, but the Bible does not teach
that they were created for that purpose. If any choose to say that the fact that
some will be saved and others lost, involves the doctrine of election, they may
prove their inference if they can, but that would not prove that election causes
the salvation of some and the loss of others as the end for which they were
created. Election of itself saves none, and it is neither the cause nor the
occasion of the loss of any. I repeat, that election has respect to those only
who are saved; and there is no difficulty in showing the reason why sinners are
lost.

3. There has been some controversy on the question whether Christ died for the
elect only. Let this question be decided which way it may, it does not affect
the doctrine of election. If Christ died for the whole human family, the
doctrine of election would stand just where it does. The elect were not chosen
as persons for whom Christ should die, but as persons who were the objects of
God’s saving love. It is true they must be saved through the atonement of
Christ, can not be saved without it any more than the non-elect; and there is an
all-sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of the whole world. But
Christ did not die for the elect as elect; He died for sinners as sinners. There
was an inexorable necessity that Christ should die for sinners because they are
sinners; but there was no necessity that He should die for the elect because
they are elect. The elect can not be saved without the atonement; but it is not
because they are elect, but because they are sinners. Election does not bring us
to Christ, neither does non-election keep us from Christ. Election does not
invest us with any privilege to come to Christ, neither does non-election
deprive any man of his privilege to come to Christ. All have the privilege of
coming to Himand all have the same privilege. Election does not give any one any
power or ability to come to Christ, nor does it deprive any one of such power or
ability. The reason that any man does not come to Him, is because he will not
come. Neither does election give any man a will to come to Christ, neither does
election or non election make or keep any man in a state of unwillingness. God
chooses His people, but this does not make them choose Him, or keep others from
choosing Him. Election effects no change in the heart of a sinner, nor does it
prevent any sinner from changing his own heart or his course of life; neither
does it prevent the Lord from working in sinners that change of heart which is
necessary to their salvation. Without repentance no sinner has any ground to
hope for pardon; and election prevents no man from repenting, neither does it
give any man any power or disposition to repent.

Election does not implant the love of God in the soul of the elect, nor does it
prevent the non-elect from loving God, nor deprive them of any ability to love
Him, or debar them of the privilege. It is the privilege of Satan, who is
irrevocably doomed to eternal damnation, to love God, to repent of his sins, and
to forsake his wicked ways, and also it is his duty to do all this. Without
faith we can not be saved, but the elect have no more power to believe than the
non-elect; and the non-elect have as much ability and privilege to believe in
Christ and be saved as the elect have, and they are welcome to come to Him for
salvation; and all that do come will be saved. They have the same means of
grace, the same opportunities, the same invitations and encouragements, and the
same assurance of acceptance. Election does not remove the curse of the law from
the one any more than it does from the other; neither are the non-elect held
under condemnation because they are not of the elect; for the elect are "the
children of wrath even as others." It is as much the privilege of the non-elect
to pray and seek the Lord with assurance of salvation, as it is of the elect.
The Lord’s election of His people has done no injury to any others. It debars
them from no facilities or advantages for salvation. It does not doom the
non-elect to hell, nor keep them out of heaven.

4. It is objected to the doctrine of election that the elect will be saved let
them do what they willthat they may live in sin, and still be saved. Now, if
election were the whole of salvation, there might be some seeming plausibility
in this objection; but the Scripture doctrine of election does not necessitate
any such result. Election does not supersede the necessity of faith and
repentance, love to God and holiness of life, or any of the means or spiritual
qualifications necessary to salvation. God’s people are chosen to salvation
through Christ; but not chosen to salvation independently of the necessary
conditions and means of salvation, but as including all that is necessary to the
final consummation of the great end to which they were elected. As a counterpart
to this objection, it is urged that if election be true, one who is not of the
elect may pray, and strive, and seek with his whole heart, and do the best he
can, and yet he can not be saved. But this is false reasoning; no such inference
is deducible from the doctrine of election. There is nothing in the doctrine of
election that precludes the possibility of salvation to any sinner. If there is
nothing else in the way of your salvation, election will not prevent it. There
is nothing in election that conflicts with any other doctrine taught in the
Bible. ’Do what he will the elect will be saved," and, "Do what he will the
non-elect will be lost." This is substantially the argument of those who do not
understand the doctrine: and, in fact, they do not understand their own
argument; for, in point of fact, every man does what he will, whether elect or
non-elect-whether he is saved or lostand election has no influence on his will.
So it is said also that if a man is not elected, be has no possible chance of
being saved. But why not? If he repents of his sins and forsakes them, and
believes in Christ, will he not be saved? He has the same chance to repent and
believe that all others have; and the gospel assures us that all who do these
things shall be saved. And can any be saved without it? In respect to all the
means of obtaining salvation, and all that is required of sinners in order to
their being saved, the non-elect stand upon the very same ground as the elect.

Suppose that, before the foundation of the world, God, having prospectively in
His view all the human family as if then present before Him, and, without regard
to any good or evil that might attach to their character, He had then decreed,
unconditionally, a certain number of elect persons to inevitable and eternal
damnation, (and this is, perhaps, the worst form of reprobation that
misrepresentation can devise,) I would ask if this inflexible decree would be of
any advantage to those who were not of this devoted number? I think no man will
pretend that they would be in any respect benefitted by it; for it would be
impossible to point out in what respect their eternal interests could he
favorably affected by such decree. And now, reversing the case, suppose that,
instead of this horrible decree, God had ordained, by an immutable decree, that
a certain number of selected persons should, irrespective of all considerations,
be made eternally happy and glorious in heaven; I would inquire in what way
could this decree injuriously affect the eternal interests of those who were not
included in this selected number? No man can show it. It would not change their
condition; it would not change their moral relations to God; it would not change
their moral character; it would not affect them either for good or evil in any
respect whatever. Such decrees would affect those who were the objects of them,
and none else. Hence none but those who would be affected by them would have any
ground of complaint. Even, therefore, upon this hypothesis, there would be no
ground to charge the sovereign election of God with injurious discrimination.
But the doctrine of election as taught in the Bible, and as held by those who
are now called Calvinists, is far less liable to objection than the hypotheses
above presented. What, then, are we to think of those enemies of sovereign grace
who impiously charge the Almighty with being unjust, and apply to Him the odious
appellation of tyrant, because He is infinitely gracious to His own chosen
people, without doing any injury, or even unkindness, to those who obstinately
persist in a course of rebellion against Him, and perish in their sins, while a
free salvation is presented to their acceptance?

Let us make an example of an individual case; and for this purpose I will select
the reader: Suppose God, before the foundation of the world, in foresight of
your guilt and ruin, set His love upon you and resolved that He would redeem you
from condemnation, and sanctify you by His Spirit, and save you eternally, to
the praise of the glory of His grace, would you object to it? Are you unwilling
that He should then make you an object of His saving mercy? Can you say
conscientiously that you are not willing that God should, even before the world
was made, entertain a gracious purpose of saving your wretched and guilty soul,
and keep that purpose in his heart till He should consummate it in your eternal
salvation? If you know the worth of God’s love, I can not believe you would
object to such a design of mercy. Well, this is election. This is the very
election taught in the Scriptures; and the principle is the same, whether it
respects you as an individual sinner, or whether applied to the innumerable
multitude that will inherit salvation. Now, on the other hand, does all this
grace bestowed upon you do me any injustice? Does it injure me at all? Do I fall
because you stand? If you stand, it is by the grace of God; if I fall, it is by
my own sin. God, in His infinite mercy, has provided an all-sufficient
atonement, and proclaims salvation through this atonement to a guilty world,
assuring sinners that whosoever will accept this salvation shall receive the
blessing. But I refuse this salvationI choose to live in sin; I will not accept
the provisions of His grace, but freely choose to pursue my own voluntary course
of unrighteousness till I die in my guilt; and God did not choose, either before
I was born or after, to resist or change my will, but to leave me to my own
choice. This is non-election. And, moreover, this is all the reprobation that
any man can impute to Divine predestination, without a violation of truth.

5. The doctrine of election is supposed by some to interfere with the freedom of
the human will; but this is a mere unfounded assumption. It has never been
proved, and never can be. But suppose it could be proved, yet if the doctrine of
election is proved also, they would still be bound to prove that it is
impossible for both doctrines to be true, before they could derive any advantage
from the objection. If God, before the foundation of the world, chose Paul as an
heir of eternal glory, it is impossible to show, or even to conceive, how that
act could in any way affect the freedom of will in any other man, or even in
Paul himself. It is remarkable with what extreme jealousy some men seem disposed
to guard the doctrine of free-will, even where there is no danger of invasion.
The freedom of the human will is never in danger, and can not be. The will has
in itself all the freedom of which it is capable in its own nature; and, in most
instances, if the subject was critically examined, the foundation of this
sensitive jealousy would be found to consist in this: that the objectors are not
willing that God should have any will that is not in accordance with their will.
If you think the doctrine of election limits or abridges the free exercise of
the human will, and that this may consistently be offered as an objection to the
doctrine, I would reason with you a little on the subject. How much freedom of
will do you claim as your right? I will give all that you can claim. As to
freedom of will in the ordinary concerns of life, and when our spiritual
relations to God are not specially involved, there will be no dispute between
us. In reference to our important relations to God, I will say that He has given
you a holy, just, and good law, and it is your right and your privilege, as a
rational and accountable being, to love this law or to dislike it; being
responsible for your choice, God has given you this liberty as a rightan
indefeasible right. This liberty you exercise, and have always exercised,
unrestricted and unconstrained. You have always chosen of yourself and for
yourself, whether you would love and obey this law, or whether you would not.
Now, we have all freely disobeyed this law, and, as responsible subjects of it,
we have incurred its condemnation. In addition to this, the great Sovereign has
provided an ample atonement for our sins, and in the gospel He has set forth
Christ as an able and willing Savior of sinners, and as the only way of
salvation and has further assured us, that if we choose this way of salvation we
shall obtain it. Now, the way of life and the way of death is set before you,
and the Author has given you the liberty, as a right, to choose which you will.
Here you have presented to your free choice salvation, with all its manifold
blessings, on the one hand; condemnation, with all its fearful consequences, on
the other; and it is your right, your privilege, to choose for yourself; and
there is nothing that does or can debar you of this privilege, or force or
compel your decision. You may, and you do, choose for yourself, and the
consequences of your choice you may and you must receive. If you freely choose
the Lord, He is your Lord and your Savior, and it is your right and privilege to
choose Him. It is also your right and your privilege to refuse. Moreover, you
have an unrestricted right to choose your own time for making your choice. You
are at liberty to choose the Lord to-day, or to procrastinate as long as you
will. There is no compulsion or prohibition. A friend or an enemy may persuade
you to determine now what you will do, or to postpone your time of choosing
indefinitely; but there neither is, nor can be, any force put upon the freedom
of your will, Now, what more freedom of will do you claim. This is all the
freedom that can belong to the will of a rational being, but if you can conceive
of any freedom of will beyond this, I will concede it to you. Now, with all this
plenitude of liberty which you claim and possess and I believe it is your sacred
rightI must appeal to your candor to say whether you are willing to concede to
your Maker equal rights and privileges? If you are, I call upon you to renounce
your objection to God’s election to His eternal election. Or do you assert a
claim to control the high prerogatives of a Sovereign God? If it is your right
and privilege, in the free exercise of your will, to choose God or not to choose
Him, has He not an equal right and privilege to choose you or not to choose you?
If, in the free exercise of your liberty, you have a right to choose your own
time to make your choice, has He not an equal right to determine the time of
making His choice? If He chose you to salvation before the foundation of the
world yet He leaves you at liberty to choose Him whenever you will; and this
liberty you do, in fact, exercise at your own option. But perhaps you will say,
that if God does not choose you there is no possibility of your being saved. I
reply, that if you do not choose Him, there is no possibility of your being
saved. Turn which way you may, if you object to election on the ground of
freedom of will, you claim a prerogative which you are not willing to accord to
your Maker. Supposing it to be possible the free exercise of God’s will should
conflict with the free exercise of your will, so that the one must yield to the
other, whose rights are paramount? Which has the prior claim? But these never do
so clash as that the choice of onethat is, the election of one partywill deprive
the other party of a free election.

If you are curious to know whether you are one of the elect, you should first
decide the question whether you have chosen Christ as your Savior. If you, as a
lost, guilty, helpless, and justly condemned sinner, put your whole trust and
all your hope in a crucified Redeemer, rejecting all other confidences, you have
all the assurance that God’s promises can give you that you shall be saved; and
if you have thus chosen Christ, you have all the evidence that you can need that
God has chosen you to salvation, for He chooses to save all that come to Him by
Christ as the only way. And those whom He has not chosen will not come, and
therefore die in their sins; and the very fact that you have chosen Christ is
the best evidence that you can have that you are one of the elect number: "All
whom the Father giveth me shall come to me: and him that cometh to me I will in
nowise cast out." It is not essential to your salvation that you should know or
believe that you are one of the elect; but it is essential that you receive
Christ by faith. Why, then, perplex yourself with a question that God has not
directly revealed, and neglect those things which He has made known and which
are material to your eternal happiness?

We will now attend to the direct proofs of the doctrine of election as that
doctrine is taught in the Bible. And reverting to what has been said on a
preceding page, we repeat, that to elect is to choose; hence the elect are the
chosen. To exemplify this, we will notice a few examples, and a few will be
sufficient: God chose Abraham as the head, or father, and in him one branch of
his posterity, out of all the world, to be a peculiar people to Himself, for the
purpose of making them a great nation upon which He would bestow great
blessings, and confer upon them special privileges above all the nations. Hence
they are called His chosen or elect people.

God also chose Cyrus. long before he was born, to be His instrument in
overthrowing the city of Babylon, and calls him His elect. God chose Aaron to be
His high priest, and David to be king over Israel, and Paul to be the apostle to
the Gentiles. And it is needless to multiply examples; it is only necessary to
remark that in all these cases God might have chosen others, if it had been His
will to do so; and the word is used in its usual acceptation But the election of
which we are now to speak particularly, is the election of those who are chosen
to salvation through Christ; and we shall understand the scriptures adduced
according to the obvious meaning of the words and phrases employed by the
inspired writers. To understand them otherwise, would imply that the Holy Spirit
used language that was calculated to deceive the reader. The election of the
Lord’s people to grace and glory, as we have it taught in the Bible, bears the
following characteristics: It is(1) sovereign, (2) eternal, (3) unconditional,
(4) personal. This I undertake to establish by testimony that no obedient mind
will presume to impeach. In 2 Timothy 1:9, we read: "Who hath saved us, and
called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His
own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world
began." This saving and calling is according to His own purpose and grace. Is
not this a sovereign act? If this is not sovereignty, I know not what meaning
you will attach to the word. It is also according to His grace given us in
Christ Jesus, not according to our worksno conditions of repentance, faith, good
works, or good moral character, as a ground upon which this grace is given us.
If there had been it would not be grace, but the reward of merit. It is
expressly said that it is not according to our works. No conditions to be
performed by us are so much as hinted; but according to the tenor of the passage
they are necessarily excluded. This purpose and the grace given us is before the
world began. Surely we may allow this to be eternal! Before ever there was a sin
committed on earth, or any man to commit sin. This is going far enough back for
any purpose the believer in election has in view. Good scholars translate,
"before eternal ages." I may notice this form of expression before I close this
chapter; but to proceed: "Hath saved us and called us." The grace is "given us."
The language is personal throughout. It can not be meant of nations, for it
would not be true in that application; for no nation, as such, is saved: for the
same reason it can not refer to religious privileges and the means of grace,
neither to designation to office nor special service. It is personal salvation.

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us
with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as He hath
chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
without blame before him in love: having predestinated us to the adoption of
children by Jesus Christ unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His
will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted
in the Beloved." (Ephesians 1:3-6) Whatever of mystery and sublimity there may
be in this passage, and in the general connection in which it stands, there is
no force of construction that can be put upon the terms, if we allow words to
have any fixed signification at all, by which election can be excluded from it.
Each of those characteristics of the doctrine as-stated above are distinctly
expressed. "Before the foundation of the world." We understand this phrase
according to the obvious meaning of the words. His choosing us in Christ, His
predestinating us to the adoption of children, are acts of high and imminent
sovereignty’ and it is expressly said to be according to the good pleasure of
His will. Not only do we find the terms used to be personal, but the matter of
the text will admit of no other application. The election here taught provides
for our being made holy and without blameit is election to both grace and glory.
In Ephesians 1:11 we read: " In whom (Christ) we have obtained an inheritance,
being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after
the counsel of His own will." Again the sovereign will of God is expressly
referred to, and it is more particularly against this point that opposition is
chiefly directed.

"For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom
He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also
justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30)
Prodigious labor and ingenuity have been employed to invalidate the testimony of
this scripture, but it has all been in vain; and such labor must forever be in
vain. It stands to this day, and ever will remain an unshaken proof of the
doctrine of eternal election. Nothing can be plainer shall than that the
foreknown, and the predestinated, and the called and the justified, and the
glorified, are the self-same persons; and those persons are predestinated to be
conformed to the image of the Son of God. No force of construction that can be
employed can make this apply to any nation that ever was upon the earth The
language used by the inspired writer is strictly personal, and remarkably
definite. These persons, as foreknown, are predestinated to a designation
distinctly specified; that is, to be conformed to the image of Christ. This,
without doubt, is the highest state of glorification to which any created being
can he exalted. We have here, in one short sentence, the predestination and the
ultimate end; then follow the steps of the Divine procedure, by which the
precious design is carried out into final accomplishment. They are called,
justified, and glorified. The whole passage, when understood according to the
plain and obvious meaning of the language used by the apostle, is so plain, so
explicit, that nothing but the perverse ingenuity of unsanctified human learning
will attempt to devise any way to avoid the doctrine which is so plainly taught.
The passage, when interpreted according to the plain import of the words, is in
perfect agreement with the general scope of the apostle’s argument in the
connection; it also accords with the whole of the doctrinal part of the epistle.
Those who have attempted to evade the true doctrine of this text have been
compelled to adopt a scheme of interpretation which requires them to put strange
and unwarrantable meanings upon words and phrases which they will not bear,
entirely different from their well known and acknowledged signification, in
ordinary composition, and which they themselves would not pretend to attach to
similar language when used on any other subject. It may be doubted whether they
themselves ever employ the same forms of expression in that sense in which they
pretend to interpret the inspired record. The object is manifestly to screen
their preconceived opinions from the destructive force of Divine truth. Their
method of explication is full of discord, confusion, and inconsistency, and
never can be made to harmonize with the context and general scope of the
apostle’s discussion, or with the tenor of the epistle throughout.

If the doctrine of election, as taught in this passage, was injurious to the
interests of any rational being; if it was disparaging to the honor of God; if
it was inconsistent with the perfection of any of the Divine attributes; if it
was at variance with any other doctrine of the gospel; or if this was the only
place in the Bible where the doctrine is taught, there might then be some
seeming apology for those who put such forced and unnatural constructions upon
the plain revelations of Divine inspiration; but there is nothing of all this
involved in it. The radical principle from which his opposition to God’s
electing grace emanates might be detected in every human heart, if honest
inquisition was to be made; but how much better it would be if we would all bow
with reverence to the ordinances of a Supreme God! When the Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven, with His mighty angels, in flaming fire, and He shall sit
upon the throne of His glory, and before Him shall be gathered all nations, He
will say to His own separate people, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." This kingdom is
prepared for themthe very persons to whom He speaks, and in distinction from
those on His other hand. Prepared for them from the foundation of the world!
Will any sane man say this kingdom was prepared for those on the left hand?

I might add to the foregoing quotations a number of others, which go to
establish the doctrine under consideration; but the mind that would resist the
evidence of these would not yield to any amount of proof. The doctrine would not
be rejected for the want of evidence, but for want of a disposition to submit to
it. To what has been advanced on this subject I will now subjoin a few remarks,
which I submit to the reader’s reflection.

1. It is not possible that God can be under obligation to any of His creatures.
Such obligation would be utterly inconsistent with His independence, and would
also divest Him of His sovereignty. Obligation necessarily involves
accountability; but what creature dare demand of Him, " What doest Thou? "Yet,
if He is under obligation to any creature (man or angel), that creature has a
right to call Him to account. If it be alleged that if God makes a promise, He
is under obligation to fulfill that promise, we admit it; but the obligation is
to Himself, and not to him to whom the promise is made. What are we to
understand by any promise that God makes to man? When God made a promise to
Abraham, He merely revealed to him what He intended to do. He never promises to
do any thing but what He previously intends to do; and He is no more under
obligation to do it after the promise than He was before. God is under
obligation to Himself to maintain inviolate all His perfections, and therefore
He is under obligation to perform all His purposes. If He reveals any particular
purpose to any man, this gracious disclosure of His design to that man can not
bring Him under obligation to the man. I speak thus because I am aware that
there is a latent impression on the mind of almost every one, that God ought to
do something for him, and that even if he does deserve punishment, others also
deserve it; and that it would be unfair (softening the term) for God to do that
for another which He does not do for him. But if He has a right to do what He
will with His own, and to bestow unmerited favor on whomsoever He pleases, the
exercise of this right does no injustice to others. If none deserve His
mercy--if all deserve His wrathand if He is good to all as certainly He is,
surely no one is entitled to complain because He is infinitely gracious to a
part. God’s election is an act of sovereign grace, and not compliance with an
obligation. If any man object to discriminating grace, let him read the parable
in the beginning of the twentieth chapter of Matthew and see if he is not
rebuked by the application our Savior makes of it.

2. If we consider the condition into which we have brought ourselves by our
sinsunder a just condemnationand also take into view the fact that we are all
enemies to God by- nature, and have in ourselves no real disposition to love and
serve God, or seek His sanctifying Spirit, we must see that there arises from
these considerations a necessityif God saves anythat He must choose the objects
of His saving mercy. If, all alike, we will not come to Him, is it not manifest
that He must of Himself choose those whom He will bring to Himself?

3. The objections made to the doctrine of sovereign election will apply with
equal justice and propriety to the dispensations of Divine Providence. There is
a notable analogy between the dispensations of God’s providence and the
dispensations of His grace considered in reference to His sovereign will. One
man is born into the world with the elements of bodily disease in his natural
constitution; a sufferer from his cradle to his graveperhaps never passes a day
without suffering from an inborn defect of physical constitution while his
neighbor, or perhaps his brother, comes into the world with a more perfect
physical organization; enjoys good health, with all the activity and strength of
a sound athletic frame. The one is not to blame for his misfortune, and the
other does not owe his advantages to himself. It is the work of a sovereign God,
who works all things after the counsel of His own will. No man can overlook
these discriminating providences, or show the reason why it is so.

4. The doctrine of election is in perfect accordance with the dispensations of
grace in the conversion of sinners. How often does it happen that the minister
preaches for years to the same congregation! They all hear the same gospelall
have the same means of gracethe same advantagesand here and there one is
converted; and of those who are converted, it frequently occurs that some who
appear soft and easily affected are left still in their unbelief, while others
of the most stubborn heart, and who did not fear God nor regard man, have been
subdued by sovereign grace. If the conversion of sinners is the prerogative of
the Divine Spirit, we are compelled to resolve these discriminating
dispensations into the "good pleasure of His will."

5. Some think that even if the doctrine of election is true, and clearly- taught
in the Bible, it ought not to be preached. Now I think that no one doctrine
ought to be preached to the exclusion or neglect of other fundamental doctrines;
but if the doctrine of election is revealed in the Scriptures, we ought to
believe it, for it is profitable for instruction and growth in grace. But it can
not be of use for our sanctification unless it is believed. Every truth revealed
in the word of God ought to be believed, and therefore it is right to teach the
whole truth. The false representations that some make of the doctrine, and the
erroneous inferences that some profess to deduce from it, ought not to be
preached. There is probably- not a fundamental doctrine contained in the Bible
that some do not wrest to their injury; and the objection would lie with equal
force against the whole body- of gospel doctrine.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 11A ATONEMENT
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER XI.

ATONEMENT. No system of theology that should leave the doctrine of atonement
without special notice, would be considered as complete; and, indeed, such a
system would be radically defective. A great deal has been said and written
professedly upon this important subject; but I hope I may be excused for saying
that, according to my judgment, much of what has been written has been to little
or no purpose. Not pretending to be able to instruct the theological world, it
is my constant desire to be useful to the "poor of this world, rich in faith,
and heirs of the kingdom." I believe the essential doctrines of the gospel--such
as we have been discussing in the preceding pages--have been pretty correctly
understood by the true church in all ages, from the days of the apostles to the
present time, and we have no reason to expect any new discoveries in the plan of
salvation. There is room for the wisest to increase in the knowledge of our Lord
Jesus Christ; but, in the fundamental principles of the gospel, nothing new will
be brought to light that is essential to the great system of gospel truth. All
that is indispensably necessary is to have access to the word of God, and a
heart prepared to receive the instruction. I shall not aspire to the honor of
new discovery; but if I can offer a thought that will throw any additional light
on any part of the subject into the mind of my reader, verily I shall have my
desired reward.

If the word atonement was a scriptural term, and of frequent occurrence in the
New Testament, like justification and redemption, we might ascertain its
scriptural meaning by consulting the connection in which it is used by inspired
writers: but it is not so; the word is used, I believe, but once in that book,
and in that place all good scholars concur in saying the original word should
not have been translated atonement, but reconciliation. The word is often used
in the Old Testament, respecting the sacrifices offered under that dispensation,
and in this light I suppose it may be said to be a scriptural term. From the use
there made of the word in a typical sense, we may learn something of what should
be its proper meaning in an evangelical sense. But, at least, the word is
properly a theological term, and, considered in this point of view, it has, or
ought to have, a definite and universally accepted meaning. If the word is
generally used by writers in a particular acceptation--and I believe it is--any
writer who discusses the doctrine of atonement in a different sense, without at
once apprising his readers, most probably has an insidious design in view; but
if he really differs from others as to what we are to understand by the
atonement of Christ, we have no right to require any thing more of him than a
plain and unambiguous statement of the sense in which he intends to use the
term, or of what he understands the atonement to be, and an honest avowal of the
difference between his views and the opinions of others. The range of my reading
is comparatively very limited, so that I have consulted very few works written
expressly on atonement. What little knowledge I have acquired of the various
theories which have been put forth by our learned writers, has been derived
incidentally from a few authors who have had occasion to refer to them. Not
occupying that position in the literary world which would entitle me to claim
equality with our theological authors, I have felt timid in referring to them by
name; but the high respect which I entertain for those great names must not
deter me from exhibiting what I believe to be the truth of God as we have it in
His word, although my views might not perfectly accord with theirs in every
particular idea. I am not aware, however, that my views of atonement differ
materially from those which have been generally maintained by our standard
orthodox divines. With regard to the meaning of the word atonement, some are
disposed to lay a good deal of stress on the etymology of the term--to wit,
at-one-ment; but it requires but little knowledge of the history of our language
to see that etymology is a very uncertain method of ascertaining the proper
meaning of words. The English scholar stands in no need of examples to
illustrate this. Besides, it is not so much the literal meaning of the word with
which we are concerned; it is that particular evangelical doctrine of theology
which has been generally designated by the term atonement. This doctrine I
propose to discuss, and I design to employ as definite and precise language as I
am able. A late writer on atonement gives us the following definition: "It is
the expiation of sin through the obedience and death of the Lord Jesus." I shall
not object to this definition. The author intended no disguise or evasion. As he
is still living, and is also "a brother beloved," and one who, I doubt not,
loves the truth, I presume he will not be offended if I offer a critical
suggestion. If, by the word obedience, we are to understand both the perfect
holy obedience of His life and also His "obedience unto death"--that is, His
obedience in dying--the definition is, perhaps, as unexceptionable as can well
be given; but although the perfect holiness of the Redeemer’s life was essential
to the validity of His sacrifice--it was essential to the merit and
acceptableness of the "offering" which He made for our sins, and in this sense
was essential to the atonement--yet I am not quite sure that it is an essential
part of the atonement itself. The holiness of Christ was necessary to honor the
law in the holiness of its nature and authority, but it was the justice of the
law in relation to sin that required atonement. I believe it is held by our
standard writers generally, that the obligation to be perfectly conformed to the
holiness of the law is intransferable, and so I understand it; if so,
substitution is inadmissible. The holiness of the law requires absolute holiness
of every subject of the law, and nothing else can satisfy the demand. The
obligation can not be discharged by a representative. If these thoughts are
correct, I can not so well see how the holiness of our Savior’s life, though
immaculate, can constitute an essential part of an atonement for sin. It is easy
to see the perfect character was essential to His being a competent and
acceptable sin-offering, and also that it was essential to His official
relations to us as sinners. And further: As the law held a rightful authority
over us as human subjects, it was necessary that our accepted Surety should, in
human nature, honor the holiness of the law by demonstrating that the obligation
to perfect holiness was not a requirement beyond the constitutional ability of
human subjects. It was necessary that the holy character of the law should be
fully vindicated or satisfied by inflicting the penalty for transgression upon
one in human nature.

I would not be too positive on this point, and I will thankfully accept the
kindness of any one who will give me more light. I have not made these remarks
as intending to instruct my superiors, nor as a verbal criticism; but believing
there is here a real distinction in these two aspects of the Divine law, I
thought it might be well not to lose sight of it in a discourse on the atonement
of Christ.

Another modern writer on atonement says: "The essential idea in the doctrine of
atonement is that of substitution, or vicariousness." This postulate is
objectionable; for, although in the atonement of Christ substitution is an
essential condition, yet it does not belong to the essence of the atonement
itself. Substitution was an indispensable prerequisite; but in the order of
nature, as well as in the order of operation (if I may so express it), the
substitution preceded the atonement. Christ must first become our
substitute--our accepted substitute--before He could make atonement for us.
Using the word atonement in its general meaning--not restricting it to the
atonement of Christ--it is allowable to say there may be atonement where there
is no substitution, and there may be substitution where there is no atonement.
There is so wide a distinction between the ordinary signification of the two
words that neither can convey the essential idea of the other. The same writer
says: "The atonement is something substituted in the place of the penalty of the
law, which will answer the same ends as the punishment of the offender himself
would." Passing, for the present, the very objectionable doctrines couched in
this quotation, it is sufficient to say that if the atonement did not answer the
end of satisfying the Divine law for our sins, it would be false to speak of it
as atonement. But why adopt such a distant and pointless mode of statement?

Again: "It is through Christ that reconciliation is effected between God and
man;" and,

"That in accomplishing this He suffered and died as a substitute in the place of
sinners." Here our author ventures to come to the essential doctrine of the
atonement--rather an unusual thing for him to do. He speaks abundantly of
substitution, of law, of sufferings, and of punishment; but seems to be
fearfully cautious of speaking much about the death of Christ--the very thing
that constitutes a real atonement. That in which I glory above all things, he
seems to be studious to keep out of view. I suppose he kept this grand
transaction constantly in his own eye while treating on atonement; but he
appears to be reluctant to set it before the eyes of his readers. As I
understand atonement to mean equitable satisfaction for injury, or adequate
reparation, I understand the atonement, which is the subject of the present
discussion, to be that satisfaction for sins which was made to the Divine law by
the death of the Son of God. I suppose this statement will give the reader a
sufficient idea of what I mean by atonement, but I do not pretend that all the
elements and essential characteristics of the atonement are included in this one
sentence. To set the idea in a clear light, let us look at a few passages of
Scripture which have direct reference to atonement: "Christ died for our sins."
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust." "Christ
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." "He hath
redeemed us to God by His blood." "But God commandeth His love toward us, in
that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." "For if when we were
enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son." In these quotations
we see what the atonement is. We might add many others to the same effect.
Whatever men may think the atonement ought to be, these Scriptures show us
plainly what it is. That God saves sinners through the death of His Son, is the
grandest and most glorious manifestation of the all-fullness of the Divine
perfection of any that He has ever made to us. Nor is it in the power of the
human mind to conceive of any possible way in which all the perfections of the
infinite Godhead could be revealed to created minds to a greater or to an equal
extent; and how wonderful, how overwhelming the thought that such sinful
wretches as we are should be graciously embraced in it! This transaction is the
foundation of the whole plan of man’s salvation; and when we reflect what
stupendous weight of glory is dependent upon it, we can not ascribe too much
importance to it. It is the good pleasure of God to lay the burden of more of
the glory of His Name upon this one thing, than upon all else put together that
He has ever done, of which we have any knowledge or can conceive. The sinner
that builds on this foundation has nothing to fear; but a hope that rests upon
any other ground must eventuate in disappointment and confusion. If there is any
defect or insufficiency in the atonement, the whole scheme of man’s salvation is
a failure. Hence an essential error or mistake in this doctrine must vitiate all
other doctrines of the gospel, for all others rest upon it. In what I write, I
"consider what I say," and request the reader to do the same. As atonement has
particular respect to Divine justice, in canvassing the doctrine we should make
the exact extent of its claims, and the plenary liquidation of those claims, a
ruling principle throughout, for no partial reparation is atonement. The
satisfaction made must be full, complete, and perfect in every respect, in which
the interests and honor of Divine justice are concerned. The justice of God in
its relation to us is set forth in what we usually term the moral law, and this
law has two fundamental elements: First, obligation to obedience; secondly,
penalty for disobedience. The obligation is just--founded in pure justice. The
penalty is also just, and emanates from eternal moral justice. We have all
transgressed, and have thus subjected ourselves to the administration of the
penalty; and the same immutable law that prescribed the penalty must inflict it.
The only way in which we, personal sinners, can satisfy the demands of penal
justice, is to suffer the penalty in our own persons. If there was any way in
which we could satisfy the claims of justice without suffering the penalty we
might escape; but there is none. It follows therefore that we can not make
atonement for our sins. We never can make a finished satisfaction, so as to
found a righteous claim to a discharge from the penalty. I might enlarge upon
this whole topic and show it out more fully, and, perhaps, I ought to do it; but
I will pass on to what I have now more immediately before me. In making
atonement there are certain conditions which must be complied with; as, 1. The
satisfaction must be made to the injured party.

2. It must be made by, or in behalf of, the offending party.

If it is not, it can not avail to his benefit.

3. If made by a substitute, such substitute must be every way competent to the
work.

Otherwise the undertaking must fail.

4. The atonement must be perfect and complete. Or it can not answer the ends for
which an atonement was necessary. In relation to the above conditions, we will
examine the atonement of Christ.

These propositions are so plain and so evident, that it would seem superfluous
to spend time or labor in proving or illustrating them; and yet I believe that
every one of them has been expressly or virtually denied. But I can not take
special notice of every artful evasion and critical perversion of gospel truth.
I do not wish to become intensely controversial; but if a man will maintain the
truth of Holy Scripture, it is not possible to avoid polemics.

1. Atonement must be made to the injured party. Is it not intuitively evident
that when a reparation is made for injury, that it must be made to the party
injured? None other had a right to require it, and none other had a right to
accept it. If the sin for which atonement is made is sin against God, is it not
manifest that the satisfaction, or atonement, must be made to Him? Candor can
not be blind to this. The honor of the Divine government must be maintained
untarnished. This is a point insisted on largely by most writers on atonement,
and it can not be defended too earnestly, nor be too thoroughly examined. But
the honor of the Divine government can not be conserved without equity of the
government is maintained. The honor of God’s government rests fundamentally upon
this principle. The honor of the Divine government requires imperatively that
the righteousness of law--which is the medium or instrument of
administration--should stand impeachable. We may say that the honor of the
Divine government belongs rather to the order of policy, and in this respect
might be optional; but the equity of God’s government is a necessity--a natural
and Divine necessity--and can not be optional. For Him to create rational and
intelligent creatures was an act of His sovereign will; He was perfectly at
liberty to create us or not create us, according to the good pleasure of His own
will; but to govern us and deal with us as His subjects, in a way of strict
righteousness, is not an act merely of discretionary will, though of course His
will is in it, but by the necessity of His essential nature. He must govern us
according to the principles of immutable and eternal justice; for it is evident
beyond controversy, that if He is just in Himself, He must be just in His
government.

Inflexibility is essential to justice. To suppose that it could fall short of,
or extend beyond its legitimate bounds, destroys the very idea of justice; and
that justice which relates to us and to our sins, is God’s justice, and is as
unchangeable as He is Himself, for it is an attribute of His essential nature.
Hence an atonement made for our sins must be made to Him; He must be the object
of atonement.

Every man who acknowledges the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, feels
that He does not stand in that friendly relation to God that he would desire to
do; he is sensible that all is not right between him and his Maker; he is
conscious that he has sinned against his rightful Sovereign, and that his God
has good reason and just cause to be displeased with him. Now, if anything is
done by way of making atonement, or satisfaction, for his sins, so as to adjust
the difference and remove the difficulty, whatever it may be--say the death of
Christ--if he does not believe that God Himself is satisfied with it, that He
approves and accepts this atonement as full satisfaction on His part, it will
bring no relief; he will still be exercised with those uneasy apprehensions that
God still holds his sins in remembrance. But if, on the other hand, he feels a
perfect assurance that this atonement makes full satisfaction to God--that He is
not only content, but well pleased with it--then the sinner finds a
resting-place; he feels that he has secured ground to stand upon. But these
things could not be so if the atonement was not made to God. This is the ground
upon which every true believer in Christ rests upon. He is conscious that God
has a just demand against him, and that Christ has died for the express purpose
of satisfying that demand. If that voice, that glorious announcement, twice
delivered from heaven, has no reference to atonement, it is among the least of
all the revelations that God has ever made to us; but if it may be supposed to
have any reference to the atonement, it is demonstrative proof that the
atonement was made to Him.

It is right, however, that we should notice the present topic more immediately
in the light of the moral law; and this law naturally presents itself to us in
two points of view: the holiness of the law, and the justice of the law. Our
obligation to a perfect obedience is founded in the holiness of the law; but the
penalty for transgressions is the expression of the justice of the law; and we
must not forget that the authority of the Lawgiver is in both. It is the
authority of the Sovereign God that requires the obedience, and the same Divine
authority declares and enforces the penalty. The subject of the atonement, in
that point of view in which we are now considering it, does not require us to
say much with regard to the holiness of the law, because it makes but the one
demand upon us--that is, absolute perfect holiness; and this it makes on every
individual personal subject of the law. It does not ask, and can not accept, of
any commutation, satisfaction, or mitigation. The requirement--the only
requirement--is personal holiness; and the obligation to render this is
perpetual and unchangeable, and can not be relaxed. And, as no atonement can
satisfy this demand, it can admit no substitution that will release us from
obligation to be holy. But the case is different with respect to the claims of
justice. The justice of the law requires satisfaction for the injury--that is,
atonement. Crime deserves punishment; and if crime is committed and passes
unpunished, this is injustice. The justice of the law demands that
transgression--that is, sin--shall be punished. If sin is committed against the
Divine law, and the just penalty of the law is not inflicted, it is clear that
there is injustice somewhere. If the requirement of obedience to the law is a
just requirement, and if the penalty annexed by the law for transgression is a
just penalty, then the administration of the law is not just except the penalty
is inflicted. It is God himself that is the Lawgiver; He, and He only, enjoins
the obedience; He only declares the penalty for disobedience; He only is the
administrator of the law, and the equity of the administration is the
manifestation of the justice of the Lawgiver. It therefore follows as a plain
consequence, that if any atonement is made for our disobedience, it must be made
to Him, that it may satisfy the demands of His justice and vindicate the equity
of his administration. Our sins are sins against God, and the satisfaction must
be made to Him. Hence it is said that Christ, in making atonement, "offered
Himself without spot to God." Indeed, the point is made so plain by the general
teachings of the Scriptures and the very nature of the case, that, without any
great impropriety, I might have dispensed with any remarks on this topic, and
proceeded with the general subject just as though the doctrine had never been
denied or doubted; but, on account of its connection with other topics belonging
to the subject, I thought I might not be quite justifiable in passing loosely
over it without more special notice; and, in the further discussion of the
subject, a frequent recurrence to this point will be unavoidable.

2. The atonement must be made by, or in behalf of, the offending party.

If atonement is made by the offender himself, then there is no need that another
person should interpose in his behalf; and if the sinner could make the
requisite satisfaction for his sins, it would supersede the necessity of any
intervention on the part of Christ. But as those whom I desire to edify are
looking for edification in that atonement which is made by the death of the Lord
Jesus, I will not detain the reader by treating on atonement as made by the
offending party. All that I should think necessary to be said would only be
preparatory to atonement by substitution.

If the law is transgressed, the penalty, as a matter of course, must ensue, and
the condemnation must fall on the transgressor. If one man injures another, he
is under obligation to make reparation. This is a plain principle in equity. And
upon this principle, if a man does violence to the law of God, he is under
obligation to make satisfaction for the violation committed. This obligation he
is bound to fulfill according to the tenor and spirit of the law. As the reward
of a perfect obedience to the Divine law is life, so the penalty for
disobedience is death. That death which is the penalty of the law is something
more than the mere death of the body, as the Scriptures clearly prove. But how
much is included in the penal death, or necessarily results from it, is not
easily comprehended, and I shall not in this place attempt to specify its nature
or define its extent. It is sufficient for our present inquiry to say that every
sinner is under obligation, which he can not avoid, to suffer its infliction, as
that is due from him to the authority of a violated law. Suppose, then, that
this death is inflicted upon a personal transgressor: he has no power to restore
himself again to life, and consequently he must remain forever in a state of
death; for he is a sinner still, and his sin still remains upon himself. The law
has no power to deliver him from death; and he has no power to deliver himself,
and so must continue forever the subject of a violated law. Moreover, he still
possesses all the powers of his moral and intellectual constitution, with all
their functions, activities, and capabilities, and is therefore still under
obligation to render a prefect obedience that the law requires. But his moral
nature is depraved. He is alienated from his God, and averse to the holiness of
the law, so that he continues to be the enemy of God, and remains an actual
sinner. In this condition it is morally impossible that he can ever render that
perfect obedience to the holy requirement of the law which is due to it. And the
penalty of the law still lying upon him, it is impossible that he can ever
remove that penalty. He may endure the penalty by abiding still in a state of
death. But what the sinner needs, is that the penalty should be removed from
him, that he may not suffer it. Bound under the iron fetters of inflexible
justice, he can not do any thing, less or more, towards making satisfaction to
the injured authority of the law. But nothing short of a full and complete
satisfaction--a finished satisfaction for his sin--can ever constitute an
atonement.

Hence we must look to a substitute for atonement--to one who will make the
required satisfaction for us, in our room, in our behalf--to one who will assume
our liabilities, and take our place under the law, and endure the penalty in our
stead. This is what is called vicarious suffering. The substitute must suffer
that death which we would have to suffer, if the substitute were not to suffer
it for us. The doctrine of substitution has been carried by some beyond its
legitimate bounds. At least, so far as it is an essential element in the
atonement of Christ, they have assigned to it a place where it can have no real
application. Perhaps we may notice this hereafter. Others have denied the whole
doctrine of atonement; but these require no notice, further than what the
general discussion will supply. There are others, again, who profess to hold the
doctrine of substitution, but explain it in such a way as virtually excludes it
from the work of atonement. The fact that the atonement made by the death of
Christ was made for and in behalf of sinners, is so explicitly testified in the
Scriptures as to foreclose all reasoning to the contrary. We will select a few
texts in proof: "Christ died for us." For--that is, in the place of. "Christ
hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust." This is too plain to need
comment. "I lay down my life for the sheep." "Who His own self bare our sins in
His own body on the tree." We might add to these a great many others, but I
shall take it for granted that these are sufficient. Of the Justice of Vicarious
Sufferings. The question, How can it be just for the innocent to suffer for the
guilty? is an inquiry which will naturally arise in the mind of many who are
seeking to attain to clear views of the doctrine of atonement; and this is the
place, in the order of discussion, for its consideration. As I do not pretend to
be able to give my reader a satisfactory solution of this problem, I would
prefer to pass it, for the present, without comment, and treat it in a separate
article at the close; but as I can not make a reasonable excuse for such a
detachment, I will proceed now to give my reader the result of some of my
reflections on this profound ethical question. I must invoke the reader’s
patience, as I may dwell on this topic a little longer than he would expect. I
shall endeavor to be as brief and concise as the nature of the inquiry will
permit; but if I were preparing a separate work on atonement, I should probably
treat this question considerably more at length than I design to do here. And I
suppose it may be possible that some of my thoughts may not have occurred to the
mind of every reader; and it would give me pleasure to cast one ray of light on
this subject into the mind of the reader, as I rejoice in every accession that
any Christian can make to his knowledge of Christ. I do not claim the ability to
solve the question, or to explain the mystery, but I will simply present some of
my own thoughts on the subject, leaving their confirmation, or their refutation,
to such as are farther advanced in the knowledge of this branch of gospel
doctrine than I am. But before I enter directly upon the main question, I wish
to impress a few things on the mind of the reader, because they are impressed on
my own mind.

1. If there is mystery which we can not understand in a doctrine, or if we can
not see its consistency with another doctrine known to be true, we are not,
therefore, at liberty to reject it, because all the difficulty may be referred
to our own limited powers of comprehension.

2. In reasoning upon any one perfection of the Divine nature, we are not to make
ourselves absolutely certain that our deductions are necessarily correct. In
order to do this, it would be necessary to understand all that is contained in
that perfection, which, with us, is impossible. And more than this: All the
perfections of the Godhead are mutually and intimately related to each other,
and hence it might possibly be necessary that we should understand all these
relations before we would be justifiable in pronouncing our conclusion
indubitably correct, except where we have sufficient evidence from other sources
to sustain them.

3. If we find a doctrine plainly taught in the Scriptures which appears to us to
be inconsistent with any one of the Divine attributes, we must yield to the
Scriptures, and not be guided by our deductions from abstract truth, which may
be, and frequently are, fallacious. The testimony of God’s word must, in all
cases, be accepted as paramount and decisive

4. The union of the Divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ is
such an inconceivable mystery to us that we are not competent to affirm or deny
respecting the moral nature and the moral relations of a constitution which so
far exceed all our powers of comprehension, and especially one to which in its
most vital point there is no analogy.

5. The essential characteristics of eternal justice, so far as justice governs
the relations of men, both to God and to each other, are sufficiently made known
to us as the subjects of administrative justice; but there may be a great deal
included in Divine justice which it is not possible or needful for us, in our
present condition, to understand; and in the great transaction now under
consideration, the Son of God is not constitutionally a subject of
administrative justice. He assumed this state of subjection, and He is the only
being in existence who could be injuriously affected by the substitution,
whether just or unjust.

6. We, as the subjects of law and administrative justice, are accountable beings
to superior authority; but the Son of God is supreme, and accountable to no
other authority, for there is none above Him to whom He can be responsible. All
the obligation that He can possibly be under, is that obligation which He is
under to His own Godhead; and therefore He has a sovereign right to do and
submit to all that is according to His own sovereign will. And we may rationally
suppose that the principles of justice, in their application to subordinate and
accountable creatures, may not be applicable, in every respect to a supreme and
independent being.

7. It may be said, that if that is just in the Divine administration which is
inconsistent with and even contrary to all our ideas of human justice, how can
we arrive at any true knowledge of the Divine character? To this we may reply,
that other attributes of the Divine nature are equally inconsistent with our
notions of those attributes, and consequently are equally liable to the same
objection. For example. Our world is full of misery, distress, and almost every
variety and decree of suffering. How can this be consistent with the
infinitemercy of God, when it is, and ever has been within the power of God to
prevent it? We are therefore, authorized to say, that we may know the true
character of God, but we can not know His whole character. True, there is
mystery: but if there was no mystery, we could not know the true character of
God; for mystery to finite creatures is necessarily inseparable from an infinite
nature. We know from the word of God that He is just, and that Christ suffered,
without any sin of His own, the just for the unjust. This should be received in
implicit faith. And it is not wisdom, but presumption, to inquire into the
mysteries of the Godhead further than He has seen good to reveal them. And
perhaps it may not be impertinent to remark, that if this mystery in the justice
of God had been clearly revealed to our understanding, for aught that we know it
might have disclosed another mystery beyond that equally as much above our
comprehension, and perhaps still more repugnant to our pride. "Be still, and
know that I am God." Can it be just that the innocent should suffer that the
guilty may escape? This is in substance the form in which the question meets us;
and the answer is supposed to be intuitive--that it is not just; hence it is
presented as a formidable objection to the atonement made by the vicarious death
of Christ. But this form of stating the question is not fair; it embraces two
distinct questions. I must therefore protest against this complication. In
discussing a subject--such a one as the subject now in hand--the prime point of
inquiry ought to be disencumbered of every thing that does not essentially
belong to it. That the question in the above form contains two distinct
questions, is evident: 1. Can it be just that the innocent should suffer? 2. Can
it be just that the guilty should go unpunished ? If we would attempt a logical
investigation of our subject, these questions should be treated separately, and
should by no means be blended into one. If it should be admitted that it may be
just that the innocent should suffer under the administration of law, the whole
question is disposed of at once. For what purpose the sufferings are inflicted,
or on whose account they are endured, or what particular benefit may thereby
accrue to others, have nothing to do with the justice or the injustice of the
principle; and though it may be a moment’s digression, I must remark that I
never hear any complaint of injustice because the guilty is allowed to escape
the just punishment due to his sin. And yet the integrity and the honor of
Divine justice is as much involved in the one transaction as in the other. There
is as much difficulty and as much mystery in the one question as in the other,
and we are as much bound to answer the one as the other. The objector, by
imputing injustice to substitutional suffering, necessarily incurs the burden of
defending the remission of penalty from the imputation of injustice; and in this
he never can succeed while he adheres to his objection. By answering the latter
question, the objector will furnish the materials of an answer to the former;
and if they were required to withhold their objection till they had complied
with their own obligation, it is probable we should never hear of such schemes
of atonement as some that have been ushered into the world. They may appeal to
the mercy of God; but let it be remembered that there is no mercy in the
treasures of Divine grace that can be exercised at the expense of Divine
justice. Such an appeal would have no relevancy, and would leave the question of
justice untouched.

I will now repeat, that in considering the question of the injustice of
substitutional suffering, the fact that the guilty are exempted does not affect
the merits of the question. If our object is to arrive at the truth as nearly as
we can, we must bring the subject of inquiry as nearly as possible to a single
point; and the question will be, Can it be just that the innocent should suffer
under the administration of law? The question reduced to this simple form might
seem to divest the object of inquiry of any complications that would embarrass
our investigation, but in reality it does not. That specific object which we now
have in view subjects the question to still further limitations, unless we will
consent to hamper ourselves forever with entanglements that have no necessary
connection with the precise object of inquiry. The question, so far as we have
any concern with it, is properly a theological question, and the solution does
not strictly belong to the principles of mere ethical science. It is therefore
our privilege to leave the realm of metaphysics, and discuss the doctrine
exclusively in the light of theology. We should have nothing to do with it in
any other point of view than as it relates to the vicarious death of the Son of
God. This death is an isolated event in the Divine administration. The whole
history of the Divine government, so far as men can have any knowledge of it,
furnishes no similar event. The case is absolutely unique; and if we will
contemplate with any reasonable attention the elements of this transaction we
shall not fail to see that it is not possible that there should be any analogy.
We therefore do injustice to the subject if we consent to canvass it in any
other way than as it respects that one event. We must take this one isolated
fact as it is, and confine our discussion of the question to the bearing it has
on that one specific case. There is no need to deal in abstractions.

If the question is propounded, whether a law in a human government requiring the
infliction of a prescribed penalty for crime on an innocent subject instead of
the one that was guilty, I should have no objection to an answer in the
negative; for even if the suffering substitute endured the penalty voluntarily,
I should think a just law would not admit of such substitution, nor allow the
penalty to be inflicted. But there would be no analogy between such a case and
the vicarious sufferings of Christ; for, in the first place, the substitute,
though voluntary, has no right to dispose of himself in that way. He would do an
act which would be wrong in its own nature. He would virtually take the
administration of the law in his own hands, which he has no right to do. God has
invested no man with a right to sacrifice his own life in order to save the life
of a criminal; the act would be suicide. Again: If the substitute dies, he can
do no more for himself, or for his government, or for any one else. He can not
rise from the dead. All that he accomplishes by his death is the release of a
guilty criminal from merited condemnation. And again: Men are equals, and all
stand in the same relation to the law; neither the substitute nor the criminal
stand in any other or higher relation to the law than that of subjects. But in
the matter of the substitutional death of Christ, the conditions are very
different. The want of parallelism is so great that we can not reason logically
from one to the other. And yet some persons seem to take no notice of this want
of analogy and use the figure as if the cases were in all respects similar. I
can not think they do justice to the subject. All the advantage we can derive
from analogy is merely partial and incidental. If we seek for light on the
substitutional atonement of Christ, we must examine it on its own merits, and
confine ourselves to such principles and conditions as the case itself will
supply, adhering to the guidance of Divine revelation. The plausibility of the
objection, in a mere ethical point of view, should not intimidate us in the
least; because we are not dealing with an abstract principle, but canvassing a
specific case brought out in a given fact--a fact involving great and important
considerations, which may verify that the abstract principle has no just
application to the case.

We should keep in view, also, that individual personal rights are limited by the
rights of others, and this is the only limitation. It is the privilege of every
man to exercise his rights--those rights with which the Creator has endowed
him--to whatever extent he pleases, provided he does not invade the rights of
others. If a man performs an act by which the rights of no other being are
infringed--if there is injustice in the deed, the injustice must be confined to
himself; that is, be only is affected or injured by it. But the Creator has
given no man the right to injure himself. Man is God’s property, and if a man
murders himself, or is designedly accessory to his own death, or willfully does
himself a personal injury, he infringes the paramount rights of the Creator.

It must also be admitted that it is a moral impossibility that God should do any
thing that is not in strict accordance with His nature; for as is His nature, so
of necessity is His will; and He can not put forth His power only as He wills to
do it.

We say that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was innocent, suffered the penalty
of the law as a substitute in the place of sinners. The objector ascribes
injustice to this transaction. Now, I must maintain that he is bound to show
wherein this injustice consists. It is not pretended that any injustice is done
to God as Lawgiver and Judge; neither is there injustice done to those for whom
He suffered as a substitute, for they are immensely benefited by it. It is
evident that if injustice is done to any person, it must be done to the
suffering party; and if there is any force in the objection, or if it has any
just application to the case, it must apply to Christ, and to Him only. Then the
question before us is simply this: Was Christ, in dying as a substitute for
sinners, thevictim of injustice ?

I propose now to submit to the candid reader the result of some of my
reflections on this subject, not pretending to give a complete and satisfactory
answer to the question, and thus remove it out of the field of controversy. In
presenting my thoughts on this subject to your consideration, I must be
permitted to direct your attention to the original purpose and to the ultimate
end of that economy of which this great transaction was an important and an
essential part. I can not do justice to the view which I take of the subject
without this; and I think also they shed their light on the whole field of
inquiry. If we leave out these considerations, I can not see how we can ever
attain to a clear view of the general subject, and especially of the particular
topic of the present discussion. For the sake of brevity, I must consent to
forego my wishes in two respects: On some of the particular topics I would
gladly extend my remarks further than I design to do; and also I would like to
refer to certain scriptures, which I think would sustain the views offered to
your reflection.

God is what He is by the necessity of His own nature; and being infinitely
perfect in His essential nature, whatever He designs or purposes must be
perfect, for nothing that is imperfect can originate in or emanate from His
infinite perfection. And, as all His purposes originate in Himself, so they all
terminate in Him. As He is the first cause, so He is the last end of all that He
purposes and of all that He does. If, then, we inquire what is the ultimate end
of all that He purposes and performs, the answer is, the manifestation of His
own glory; or, (to express the idea in different forms,) it is to make known
what He is--to reveal His own nature. This manifestation of Himself, considered
in its relation to us, is made that we may know Him, that we may know what He
is, that we may know His true character.

God, in His word, has revealed Himself to us as One God, subsisting in three
Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three are the same,
co-essential, co-eternal, co-equal Godhead. In this triune God there is one
will, one purpose, one way, and one end in all things, to the glory of the One
God. This trinity of persons in the Godhead is an incomprehensible mystery to
us, but God has revealed to us the fact that it is so; and He has further
revealed to us that, in accomplishing this great end--to wit, the manifestation
of His glorious character--He would do all things by and through the Son of God,
who is Christ the Lord. "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not
any thing made that was made." "For by Him were all things created that are in
the heavens and in the earth, visible and invisible; whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by Him and for
Him, and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist." The ground
that we should take here is, that God has a sovereign and Divine right to make
known to His intelligent creatures the excellency and infinite fullness of His
nature; also, that He has the same Divine and supreme right to make this
manifestation of Himself by and through His co-equal Son, who is one with the
Father ; and further, that the Son of God, as one with the Father, possesses in
Himself, by virtue of His own supreme Divinity, the same right to make this
manifestation according to the sovereign will of the eternal Godhead. Moreover,
God had a Divine and eternal right to make this manifestation of Himself in
whatever way it might be consistent with His sovereign will. We say further,
that there is but one nature, but one will, and but the one purpose in the
Godhead. And if the Son of God, as the great Actor in accomplishing the Divine
purpose, either on the ground of necessity or propriety, chose to unite His
Divine nature with the nature and form of any of His creatures, He had a
sovereign and Divine right to do so; for He has a right to enter into whatever
relations to His creatures He pleases; and He creates all things, and upholds
all things, and works all things according to the counsel of His own will. All
things, therefore, must be subordinated to Him and under His sovereign control,
or He would not be in a condition to fulfill the great office of a perfect
Revealer of the Divine perfection. And all that is comprehended and intervenes
between the original purpose and the final consummation of the great design,
must be subjected to Him, in order to enable Him to make that manifestation of
the Divine character which is the ultimate end in view. Hence all that He has
made in creation, and all that He does in His providence, or in the operations
of nature, are only a system of means by which He is to make known to
intelligent creatures the infinite perfection of the Godhead; and He has a
sovereign right to employ them for that end, according to His own good pleasure.
And as He, the Supreme, had in Himself an inherent and sovereign right to
dispose of and use all those means which He had created and ordained for that
designated purpose, according to His will, in the prosecution of the appointed
end, so He had a right to dispose of Himself in any way that might be necessary
in subserviency to this determinate end. And being Himself the Supreme, He could
be under obligation to no being but Himself; and this obligation to Himself--or
to the Godhead, which is the same--in relation to this ultimateend, bound Him
(so to speak) to manifest the all-fullness of the incomprehensible and invisible
God to His intelligent creatures; and in order that the all-fullness of the
Divine nature might be seen in Him, it was necessary that all the fullness of
the Godhead should dwell in Him personally. I suppose the representations here
made will not be contested; and if, in the exercise of those rights and
perfections, the rights of no other being are infringed, and He does no
injustice to Himself, it seems to me that the impeachment of injustice must fall
to the ground. We will therefore proceed to inquire further. The Son of God, in
whom resided all the fullness of the Godhead, manifested the glory of His power
when He created or brought into existence the original matter of this earth and
of the whole universal material creation. In this work there was a most
conspicuous and demonstrative exhibition of Divine power. When He proceeded
further to organize and diversify this material substance into its present
forms, varieties, adaptations, and uses, and thus prepare it to be the
habitation of His intelligent creatures of the human race, we see a wonderful
manifestation, not only of His power, but also of His wisdom and His goodness.
Again, when He declared His holy law, which be had ordained for the observance
and for the good of His intelligent creatures, He then manifested the holy
nature of the Divine Lawgiver; and by annexing a righteous penalty for
transgression, and promising life on condition of a perfect obedience, He made
known to us that He is a God of perfect justice.

We are authorized by the Holy Scriptures to believe that a part of His
intelligent creatures of the angelic order did actually violate His law, and
thus subject themselves to its dreadful penalty, and in consequence are doomed
to irrecoverable ruin, and must suffer under the administration of punitive
justice without redemption, in order that the Divine justice may be manifested
to the glory of God. Thus we see that the Son of God is making greater and
greater manifestations of the glory of the Divine character. In the case of the
apostate angels we see an exhibition of that inflexible justice that knows no
mercy, and can not relax, or mitigate, or dispense with the least tittle of its
demands; for if it could it would not be perfect justice. The honor of Divine
justice must be maintained if its vindication should involve the whole creation
in ruins. And when we consider the superior excellency of this high order of
intelligent creatures, and that no merciful provision is made for their
deliverance from the unrelenting hand of offended justice, nor any alleviation
of their desperate and wretched condition, we may assure ourselves that if
creatures of an inferior order should follow their example of disobedience, that
Divine justice will require a satisfactory vindication equally ample, and every
way commensurate with its injured honor.

We will now suppose (which is a solemn fact) that the human race should cast off
their original character of holiness--should refuse obedience to God--transgress
His holy law, and, of course, incur the penalty, which is death. We have just
now had an example of the imperative requirements of Divine justice in the case
of the rebellious angels; and justice is the same, whether it respects angels or
men. Thus guilty man falls into the hands of violated justice, which can not be
defied and trampled upon with impunity; for if it might, the Son of God, whose
office it is to administer the Divine government, would fail to manifest the
glory of His justice. And, unless the honor of justice is vindicated, man must
forever abide under the wrath of God, that the rights of justice may be
maintained. But let us now lay down another supposition--one which is equally
true with the former. Suppose, then, that it is a part of the great purpose of
God, in making known the glory of His Name, that He will make a new and
additional display of all the perfections of His Divine nature beyond any thing
that has ever preceded it; and in doing this, that He will show that His wisdom
is sufficient to make a way whereby the rights of justice shall remain
inviolate, while He will extend redeeming mercy to the transgressors of His law.
This work belongs to the Son of God, not only by appointment, but of necessity;
for it is by Him that all the purposes of God are executed. And I must be
allowed to believe that there was no other being in existence, created or
uncreated, that was competent to the work; none other who possessed those
inherent constitutional qualifications which were essential to the great
achievement. He, being a Divine person, is independent of all other beings. He
has a sovereign right to do His own will. He is accountable to none. He is under
no obligation to any other being than Himself. He possesses a Divine right to
dispose of and use all things that He has created according to His own good
pleasure--subject only to that obligation which He owes to Himself to maintain
inviolate all His perfections. He, therefore, had an independent and Divine
right to assume human nature, and thus unite the Divine and human natures in His
one person. This right I suppose no one will question; and in the exercise of
this right He did make Himself one with man, born of a woman, and made under the
law, that He might redeem them that were under the law. Let us spend a moment in
considering the import of this text. He was not made one with man in such a
sense as to be a partaker of the sinfulness of man’s fallen nature; but in such
a way as that, by uniting both natures in His one person, He was God and was
man. But His Divinity was not made humanity, nor His humanity made Divinity; but
both natures, in all their fullness, and in all their respective perfections,
were united in His one person. The object in view was that He might redeem them
that were under the law. To do this it was necessary that He should Himself be
made under the law; and that He might be made under the law it was necessary
that He should be made (born) of a woman; and thus deriving His human nature
immediately from a descendant of Adam, He partook of the original constituted
nature of man. And it should not be entirely overlooked that this uniting of the
two natures is, in various places, ascribed to Christ himself, as being His own
work. All this He had a supreme right to do; and in doing it He did not in the
least impair any of His own rights, or trespass on the rights of any other
being. It is, therefore, not possible that there could be any injustice in these
transactions. But, to save the time, I forbear to show how both God and man are
abundantly glorified in it. The language employed in this text by the Holy
Spirit--He was "made under the law"--clearly implies that previously He was not
under the law in the same sense that He was made under it. The object to be
accomplished was a declarative manifestation that the glory of God’s grace could
be revealed in the redemption of the guilty, while the honor of His justice
should sustain no disparagement. As we have said before, the Son of God was
under obligation to Himself--to the Godhead--to manifest, or make known, the
glorious perfections of the Divine nature. And, as part of this work was to
demonstrate that God is "a just God and a Savior"--a Savior of sinners--He was
under the same obligation to do and to suffer all that was required to fulfill
this condition. The Captain of our salvation must be made perfect through
sufferings, and the Scripture gives reasons for this; consequently He must be
made in the likeness of sinful flesh. This condescension appears to have been an
indispensable condition; and the point of inquiry is, Did the Divine nature
suffer any injustice in this part of His work? I shall not make it a question
now whether the Divinity of the Son of God endured any pain in making atonement;
but for the present I will take it for granted that it did not; and leaving that
question to be decided as it may, I will only remark here that if any can bring
proof that the Divinity of Christ suffered, I think I can bring equally as good
proof that there was no injustice in His suffering. And this is all that the
present inquiry demands. The only respect in which injustice can be chargeable
on the ground of His condescension, is that it seems to require that the
infinitely glorious Majesty of heaven and earth should be obliged to stoop from
His high pre-eminence to the low degree of uniting Himself with human nature
that He might suffer death. If there is any injustice in this arrangement, it
respects His Divine dignity only. But we are very incompetent judges of what the
Divine dignity requires; and that which is glory in God’s esteem men would
account shame; and, in fact, the humiliation of Christ was an illustrious
manifestation of Divine grace: "That He might show in the ages to come the
exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." In His
humiliation He made a more glorious demonstration of the excellency of His
gracious character than could have been possible if He had never "made Himself
of no reputation, and taken upon Him the form of a servant, and become obedient
unto death, even the death of the cross." And all this He did Himself. He
voluntarily took the burden on Himself. He willingly bore it Himself, and He
receives the reward in that He has glorified Himself. And now, who can point out
the injustice that is done to the Son of God?

We must now inquire whether there was any injustice done to the humanity of the
Son of God by His enduring the sufferings necessary to make atonement for sin.
Perhaps the whole question hinges upon this point; but it must be remembered
that I have not promised to solve this mystery. All I profess to do is to submit
some of my own thoughts on the subject to your reflection. If I could show that
the claims of Divine justice against the sinner were fully canceled by the
atonement, and that no injustice was suffered by Him who made it, this would
vindicate the transaction from the imputation of injustice. The first of these
positions, I suppose, will be admitted; for if the claims of justice in this
respect are not satisfied, there is no atonement--whatever else was done, there
is no atonement.

I submit that the penalty of the law is death; and that the death of Jesus
Christ, as a surety and substitute for sinners, is a full and sufficient
satisfaction to the penal demands of the law. But could the humannature of the
Lord Jesus receive the inflicted penalty without being the victim of injustice?
I shall freely confess, that if the suffering was inflicted against the will of
the suffering party, I can not see the justice of such a transfer of the
penalty. And perhaps it would not be safe to affirm that the mere consent of the
substitute, irrespective of other considerations, would make it just. On the
other hand, it might be going too far to affirm, that with the free consent of
the substitute, there would be any injustice done to him. And I doubt whether
any man can show that the willingness and voluntary assumption of the suffering
party, wholly free from any external force or influence, does not effectually
repel the imputation of injustice. But in my present attempt I have no need to
avail myself of any advantage that I might derive from this argument. As there
is a great difference between the guilty and the innocent, in respect to
character and condition, so we think there must be a difference in the
application of the principles of administrative justice in the two cases--a
difference arising from, and corresponding with, the difference of character and
condition. The execution of the penalty of the law on the guilty transgressor is
punishment for crime; but on the innocent substitute, though it is suffering, it
is not strictly punishment. So it is correct to say, that the innocent suffered
for the guilty; but, in strictness, it is hardly correct to say that the
innocent was punished for the guilty; and although the penalty of the law is the
same in its application in both cases, yet the principle of administrative
justice may, perhaps, be different according to the different relations in which
the two cases stand to the demands of strict justice.

If the sinner suffers the penalty of the law in his own person, when the death
penalty is inflicted, there is no hope beyond death. He must lie under the
terrors and despair of death forever. There is no possibility of regaining life;
and there can be no deliverance, because there is no way of deliverance. And,
further, he has no reward; he receives no compensation for his sufferings. But
this is far--very far from being the case with regard to the infliction of the
penalty of the law on the human nature of Jesus Christ. He had the fullest
assurance, that if He should pass through the ordeal of death without sin, that
He would rise again--rise to an eternal life, over which death could have no
power. He laid down His life that He might take it again. So the Psalmist,
speaking in the person of Christ: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor
suffer Thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life." "I
have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." "He shall swallow
up death in victory." If He chose, (not merely submitted, or consented, but
freely chose,) by suffering death, to exchange a natural and mortal life for a
life that is spiritual and immortal, and beyond the power of death, it is not
easy to see any inconsistency with the principles of justice in the transaction,
inasmuch as He was an immense gainer by it. The sufferings of death, however
great, were soon terminated; but the glory and joys of His new life endure
forever and ever. Perhaps (and I think it probable) He could realize in his own
case what the apostle says of Christians: "These light afflictions, which are
but for a moment, work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory."
I presume that no man can show that his new life is not much more than a full
compensation for undergoing death. But this is not all that I have to say on
this principle.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 11B ATONEMENT
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER XI.

ATONEMENT. As it was the office and great prerogative of the Son of God, as
such, to manifest the supreme excellency and infinite perfection of the Divine
nature, so the fulfillment and consummation of this purpose was the great object
that He had in view in every thing that He did; and with a view to the
accomplishment of this great end, He created all things as a means to be
employed by Him in the execution of this grand design. And He so constituted
them that they should be adapted to this purpose; and especially man was created
for this end, and constitutionally endowed with a capacity and fitness for the
purpose, according to the peculiar place which he was to fill in the great plan
of manifestation. For this purpose man was created in the image of God; he was
endowed with all the moral perfections of his Creator, so far as it was possible
for human nature to be. And now we will look at him in this character of moral
perfection; and as we suppose the human nature of Jesus Christ was in all
respects the very same as that of Adam in his original creation, and therefore
might, with the utmost propriety, be called the "second Adam," we will consider
the moral perfections of Christ as a man. He was holy in all His moral nature;
we are the subjects of moral depravity and corruption. There is not an attribute
of our moral nature that is not debased, contaminated, and averse from God. As
we have attempted to show in a preceding part of this work, our moral nature is
totally corrupted by sin; but this was not so in respect to the human nature of
the Son of God. God’s will was His will. The will of the Divine nature of the
Son of God and the will of the human nature were the same. Whatever was pleasing
to the Divine nature was pleasing to the human nature; whatever was the delight
of the Son of God to do, or submit to, was also the delight of the Man Christ
Jesus to do; also, whatever was the unvarying purpose of His Divine will was
also the unvarying purpose and intent of His human will. And as it was the
determinate purpose of the Son to manifest the glory of the Divine character in
every way and by every means possible, so it was the constant aim and purpose
and the paramount desire of His human nature to do the same thing. In respect to
both His natures He could say, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God." The will
and purposes and the actings of the human nature were in perfect unison with the
will and purposes and the doings of the Divine nature; and as the ultimate end
of all was that God should be glorified, if the Divine Son, in doing this, in
the exercise of His sovereign right as such, without any injustice to Himself or
to any other being, chose to become poor, and to humble Himself by assuming
human nature, that in that nature He might suffer death, so we may conceive that
the human nature, in the exercise of His right, and actuated by the same will
and desire with the Divine nature, might voluntarily, and without any injustice
to Himself or to any other being, choose to submit to suffering and death, that
He might thereby glorify God, and thus answer the great end for which human
nature was originally created; for man, as such, has rights peculiar to his
nature and relations, which it is his privilege to exercise according to his own
good pleasure; and with those rights none have a right to interfere but his
Creator, who invested him with those rights; and if they are exercised in
obedience to the will of God, there can be no interference. No man has a right
to deprive another of his life, provided he has not forfeited his life according
to the law of God. And we admit that God has not given to man a right to divest
himself of life; but God has a sovereign right to take from every man that life
which He gave him. I do not say that He has a right to make His innocent and
obedient creatures miserable, for He can not do injustice to any of His
creatures; but as He gave life to every living thing, He has a right (if it were
His will) to take it away from the living. Yet it is the prerogative of God to
invest any of His innocent creatures--any innocent man--with a right to
surrender his life in any way, in obedience to the known will of God. He may
confer this additional right upon whom He pleases; and this right He did confer
upon Jesus Christ, who was the Son of man and the Son of God. "Therefore doth my
Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man
taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power (authority) to lay
it down, and I have power (authority) to take it again. This commandment have I
received of my Father." Independently of inductive reasoning, this passage
appears to establish the position that the Father did confer upon Jesus this
special and peculiar right to dispose of His life for a special purpose, and
gave Him assurance that He should not remain under the power of death. Now, as
He possessed in Himself, and by divine authority, a right to receive that
infliction of the penalty which was due to sinners, and no one else could be
injuriously afflicted by it, I am not able to see how a charge of injustice can
be imputed to the transaction. But when we proceed to take into view the objects
and results of the atonement thus made, in relation to Himself, all appearance
of injustice, in a practical point of view, seems to disappear. For with Him, (I
speak of Him as a man,) His great object, purpose, and desire, in His life and
death, was the glory of God--that God might be glorified in extending mercy to
sinners, while His justice should remain unimpeachable. This paramount desire he
realized, and will forever rejoice, with a joy inconceivable by us, that, in
suffering the penalty of the law for sinners, He was the means of advancing the
declarative glory of God far beyond any other exhibition of His glorious
character that had ever before been made. If He, with all the willingness and
zeal of which His nature was capable, chose to endure temporary suffering and
death, (however great the suffering might be for the time,) that He might be
instrumental in achieving the most glorious object that even God Himself has in
view, who will attach the character of injustice to that economy under which He
suffered? And, as a part of His reward, He became capacitated for a measure of
enjoyment incomparably greater than He otherwise would have been capable of; and
He is now, and ever will be, filled with a joy which no mortal man could
sustain. Our mortal constitution would be overborne by the burden. The
consciousness that He has the full approbation of His God--that God is well
pleased with the sacrifice He made and the service He rendered--will inspire His
soul with a holy ecstasy exceeding in measure any thing experienced by the
highest order of angelic creatures. Thus He, "for the joy set before Him,
endured the cross." What a measureless compensation!

Again: When He shall have finished His work on earth, and the whole general
assembly and church of the First-born, in a glorified state, shall be gathered
into the heavenly sanctuary above, He may look around and survey the innumerable
millions of glorified saints, all rapt in the fullness of heavenly ecstasy, and
brought thither through the suffering He endured, and as the fruits of His
death. "The grain can not bring forth fruit except it die:" and Jesus died and
rose again, and now beholds the immeasurable fruits of His humiliation. Who
shall attempt to estimate the boundless joy which the contemplation of the scene
around Him will inspire? A great "multitude which no man can number," of the
sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, all brought into this high relation and
exalted to this glorious eminence through His obedience unto death. These are a
part of "the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints." They are a
part of His reward, for they are the purchase of His blood.

There is yet one more consideration to which I must direct the reader’s
attentions--a consideration infinitely worthy of our highest thoughts, and which
ought to inspire every soul with ineffable joy. It is that boundless glory which
is conferred upon our suffering Substitute, as a part of the reward due to His
humiliation and death. On this topic we can not enlarge. The subject is, in
itself, so high above all the powers of human conception, that our best thoughts
shrink into insignificance. He is clothed with "all power in heaven and earth."
All his enemies are subdued under His feet. He is made the "Head over all
things," and "crowned with glory and honor"--"angels, and authorities, and
powers, being made subject to Him." How clear, how explicit, is the following
testimony: "And being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore God also hath highly
exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name, that at the name of
Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and
things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord to the glory of God the Father." This needs no comment. None but an
inspired pen can express the infinite height of glory to which He who died on
the cross is exalted; and thus exalted because He "became obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross." All the angels of God are required to worship Him;
and their obedience is both their glory and their joy. In conventional
transactions between men, when both parties fully understand all the interests
involved on both sides, if the stipulated consideration is equal in value to the
condition required, there is no fraud--there is no injustice. And taking into
view all that the Scriptures fully warrant us in setting down as the reward of
our Redeemer’s sufferings, and who will take upon him to say that the
consideration is not equal to the condition? "He shall see of the travail of His
soul and shall be satisfied." If there is any injustice in the whole
transaction, we have a right to inquire to what point in the transaction does
the injustice attach? It must of necessity relate to the suffering party; it can
apply to no other. No other being in existence can receive damage or be
injuriously affected by it. He had a sovereign right to do what He did, in its
relation to Himself as the suffering party; and in doing what He did, He
infringed the right of no other being whatever. He that will object to the
vicarioussufferings of Christ on the ground of injustice, should look well to
see where he will find materials to support his objections. The mere abstract
question, Is it just that the innocent should suffer for the guilty? is one
which we are not obliged to answer. The guilt of the person for whom the
innocent suffers, has no concern with the justice or injustice of the suffering.
Let us propose another question: Is it just that the innocent should suffer for
the innocent? As to the injustice, it would be the same in one case as in the
other. But neither can be made to comprehend the vicarious sufferings of Christ.
The question in that case would more properly be: Can it be just that an
innocent person should suffer under law, provided he receives a plenary
compensation for his sufferings? I believe that no man can prove the negative;
and if the affirmative be admitted, the question will then necessarily occur, Is
it true that our Redeemer is amply rewarded for the sacrifice He made for our
redemption? Now, as both the sufferings and the reward are great beyond all our
powers of comprehension, we may not be able to give a positive and unqualified
answer to this question by any comparison that we can make between the two, yet
we think the testimony of God’s word is fully sufficient to authorize an
affirmative answer; and unless the objector can prove the negative, he is not
entitled to advance the objection.

It is too often represented as if Divine justice, in pursuing the sinner, is
made to turn out of its propercourse in order to find a substitute, and seizes
upon our Surety. This is not so. This is misrepresentation--unintentional, no
doubt. Justice pursues its own legitimate course. Infinite mercy can not turn it
aside. The immaculate holiness of the Son of God can not turn it aside. Justice
(so to speak) was bent upon an equitable vindication of its injured rights and
honor--its legitimate course was direct toward the sinner. Christ our Surety
took our sins upon Himself, and voluntarily interposed His own person in the way
of avenging justice, and rendered in full the required satisfaction; then
justice, being satisfied, pursues the sinner no further. There was no such thing
as justice being turned out of its due course to fall on our Substitute. But
Christ, our Substitute, voluntarily threwHimself under the ministration of
wrath. If He suffered injustice, would it be too much to say that He was Himself
the author of His own injury? It would appear to accord very well with what is
written: "He gave Himself for us." "I lay down my life for the sheep." He
offered up Himself.

It is a principle of natural law that we may voluntarily and innocently submit
to labor, or endure suffering, with an assurance of securing an adequate reward;
and though it may not be worthy of being called an argument, I might appeal to a
natural sentiment in the mind of man, whether if he could live always here in
this world, and be exempted from the pains and troubles incident to humanity,
but by voluntarily suffering death, with a certainty of being immediately raised
to an eternal life, in a state incomparably and inconceivably better than would
be possible in this life--whether he would not judge the latter preferable?
Neither would he suppose that he would inflict upon himself any injustice or
violate any principle of moral right. In thus presenting my thoughts on this
question, I have not assumed the task of solving the question or explaining the
mystery. I hope I have more correct views of my incompetency than to claim the
ability to solve a mystery which, I believe, has repelled the approach of all
our learned divines. At least, if the subject has been investigated, I am not
aware of it; but I have read so few books on atonement that I am not prepared to
say what has been written. My own mind having been somewhat perplexed with the
question--and supposing it might be the case with others--I resolved to give it
the best investigation my time and opportunities would permit. The nature and
design of this treatise compelled me to be brief. If I had been preparing a
separate treatise on the atonement, I should have written much more in detail
than I have done, and should also have referred to a number of scriptures which
appear to me to bear directly on the subject. With one more remark I leave these
thoughts to the consideration of the reader. If I did not believe that my Savior
would Himself receive an ample reward for what He did and suffered for His
people, my spirit could not rest. Must we live in the fear that when we shall be
with Him, it will be our employment to condole with Him on account of His
uncompensated sufferings ? Of the Value and Sufficiency of Atonement.

We must admit that there is a real distinction between the value of the
atonement and its sufficiency. Perhaps these two topics might be treated to
greater advantage by considering them separately; but they are so essentially
and so intimately connected, that a frequent reference from one to the other may
be almost unavoidable. We shall, therefore, discuss them in connection, while we
may not lose sight of the real distinction. It is the value of the atonement
which makes it acceptable in the sight of God; it is the sufficiency of the
atonement which makes it available in behalf of sinners. The intrinsic value of
the atonement is derived from the Divine dignity of Him whose death made
atonement, and its sufficiency arises from its real value. The Scriptures
represent the infinite worth and inherent efficacy of the atonement as being
derived from the fact that it was made by the death of a Divine person--namely,
the Son of God: "He gave Himself for us." "Christ loved the church and gave
Himself for it." "Who (Christ) gave Himself for our sins." The fact that Christ
gave Himself for us as an atonement for our sins, is sufficient of itself to
determine the value of the sacrifice. Hence, also, we see the frequent allusions
to the relation which Christ sustained to the Father in reference to His atoning
death: "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." "Awake, O
sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my Fellow." "If the Son
shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." "God sending Hisown Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh," etc. "God sent forth His Son to redeem," etc. I have
no doubt that the real worth and inherent excellency of the Son of God is
greater than the whole creation--may I not say, infinitely greater? As the
atonement is made to God--as the price of our redemption is paid to Him in
vindication of His injured law--I suppose the reader will be willing to leave it
with Him to judge of its value, and will take it for granted that, as God has
accepted it, there can be in it no deficiency of intrinsic merit. And although
the sufficiency of the atonement may not be a more essential and vital principle
than its value, there is more danger of an erroneous estimate being put upon it;
for, aside from such as may be more fundamental, a soul oppressed with a load of
guilt and conscious of his just desert of Divine wrath--groping in darkness,
and, as yet, seeing no way of escape--his mind full of gloomy forebodings and
confusion, (and such cases do occur,) Satan may tempt him to doubt whether even
the death of Christ is sufficient to answer his desperate necessity. But, again,
there is an error of far more frequent occurrence, for it is almost
universal--that men want to lend a little help to the death of Christ. They want
to do something themselves by way of making satisfaction for past sins; or they
will expect to bear some suffering themselves, either in mind or in body, to
gain the favor of God. I believe it is no very uncommon thing for persons to
expect to suffer in this world in order to avoid suffering in the world to come.
These false views arise from putting too low an estimate on the atonement of
Christ; and, indeed, the religious errors arising from an inadequate
appreciation of the sufficiency of the atonement are too numerous to admit of
specification in this place. To determine the sufficiency of the atonement we
must examine it in relation to the object which was to be accomplished by it, in
a legal point of view. That object was to satisfy the claims of the Divine
law--that is, to make complete satisfaction to Divine justice for our sins.
Whatever was necessary to vindicate the integrity and honor of the Divine law,
which we had transgressed, was indispensable to the sufficiency of the
atonement. Nothing less would be sufficient, nothing more would be necessary,
and nothing else would answer the purpose. In theological strictness, such a
thing as an insufficient atonement is an impossibility; because, if it does not
effectually and perfectly accomplish the object, it is not atonement. Whatever
might be done, if it does not effectually and completely vindicate the justice,
truth, authority, and honor of the moral law, it is a misnomer to call it
atonement. The law imperatively required the infliction of the penalty--the
whole penalty. That penalty is death; and death is a final fact, beyond which
the law does not go. Death is also indivisible; it can not be so divided as to
admit of a partial infliction.

Now, if the offering up of a dove as a sacrifice for sin would perfectly satisfy
the demands of the law, such a sacrifice would be a sufficient atonement, and
nothing more would be needed. On the other hand, if the sacrifice of the Son of
God, and with Him the whole universal creation, visible and invisible, would not
make this requisite satisfaction, it would not be sufficient--it would not be
atonement in any proper sense of the word. The sufficiency of the atonement does
not depend upon the amount of the Redeemer’s sufferings. It was formerly held by
some that Christ suffered in exact proportion to the amount of sin or guilt
which was expiated by His atonement. This is plausible, at first sight, but it
is certainly an error. This theory would determine the sufficiency of the
atonement by the amount of suffering that all those who are saved would have
borne, provided no atonement bad been made.

If the atonement consists essentially in suffering--in the pain and agony
endured by our Surety--it would be impossible to obtain any definite idea of
what it really is--it would be one of the most vague and indefinite conceptions
imaginable.

There is, in some respects, a true and proper analogy between commercial law and
moral law, and it is allowable and right to employ this analogy in illustrating
the doctrine of the atonement. The rule of commercial law is, so much of one
commodity for so much of another; and strict commercial justice requires that
the two shall be of equal value. We will suppose that A has injured B to the
amount of one hundred dollars, and immediately repairs the damage to the full
amount of the injury. This would be atonement in a commercial or pecuniary point
of view. This would be exact justice, and the wrong would be rectified; and this
would be practicable, because the injury and the reparation, being both of the
same nature and kind, the precise equivalent is ascertainable, and B would
receive all that justice would require. But let us take another example: Suppose
that A is a man universally respected, every way worthy of the high esteem of
the whole community, justly deserves and actually enjoys the confidence and love
of all his acquaintance; and B, by slander and falsehood, destroys his fair
reputation, and brings him into universal contempt, and thus A becomes the
object of public detestation and disgrace, and must live under a load of infamy,
with all its attendant evils, too numerous to admit of detail: how is reparation
to be made for this injury? If B, or any other for him, would give A the wealth
of a kingdom, it would not repair the injury while A is still the object of
scorn and contempt. No punishment that could be inflicted upon B, even if it
should exceed the demerit of his crime, would redress the wrong. In fact, put
both together, and all would do nothing at all towards making atonement. What,
then, would answer the specific demand ? It is easy to see the imperative
requirement. A must be restored to the esteem, love, and confidence which be
enjoyed before he was defamed. Let the vindication be in every respect and in
full measure equal to the injury. This would meet the claims of justice; this
would be atonement; this would be all that A would have a right to require. And
though B might still deserve all the punishment due to his crime, yet A would
have all his rights; and if he obtains all his rights, it matters not whether
they are restored by B, or by another in his behalf. This illustration may
assist us in understanding the true nature of the atonement, as well as in
ascertaining its sufficiency.

We thus bring the inquiry to a point: That which is necessary and indispensable
to atonement, and to the sufficiency of atonement, is, that the claims of the
law, which stood against us, should be fully met at every point, and completely
canceled. The justice of the law, the authority of the law, and the honor of the
law must receive an ample vindication, and this can be done in no other way than
by the infliction of the penalty. All this is accomplished by the death of
Christ. A plenary and perfect satisfaction has been rendered to the claims of
the law by Him. Thus the law has received all its rights, and claims no more.
The satisfaction has been made to the law by Him for us. In ourselves, we
deserve the merited punishment, just as much as if nothing had been done. The
obligation to obedience was fulfilled by our Surety, and the penalty for
disobedience has been suffered by Him, and what more does the law require? It
does not and can not require more. It has "recovered all."

I might enlarge my discussion of this topic to a much greater extent; I might
adduce a number of arguments too strong to be successfully resisted; I might
quote a number of scriptures bearing directly on the point; but as the
sufficiency of the atonement of Christ is so generally admitted, I do not think
it necessary to detain the reader’s attention on this point. I had prepared the
materials, some of which I would willingly present to your notice, but will
decline it, because there are a few things having connection with the subject,
to which I wish to direct your attention for a few minutes; and there will then
remain one more aspect of the atonement which will demand consideration.

We have already said the value and sufficiency of the atonement does not depend
upon, or consist in, the amount of the mere sufferings of Him whose death made
it; but it can not be denied that both writers and speakers express themselves
in language that would seem to imply that doctrine--to leave the impression on
the mind that it was the greatness of the sufferings endured by our Savior that
removed the curse of the law from us. If the intensity of the Redeemer’s
sufferings was that which constituted the value and efficacy of the atonement,
then the penalty of the law is suffering--the endurance of pain; and in this
view it would be difficult to defend the God of love from the imputation of
delighting in the misery of His creatures. He delights in being just, and in
doing justice in the administration of His government; and His justice requires
that He should inflict the deserved punishment on the wicked; but this is a very
different thing from taking pleasure in the miseries even of His sinful
subjects, for such pleasure would inevitably imply malignity, which is no part
of the Divine character.

Let us say the penalty of the law is death, and Christ suffered the penalty for
us. What can be plainer and more simple than this? It is as definite and
specific as any commercial transaction can be. But it is not my wish or design
to depreciate the sufferings of the cross, or to reduce them within the limits
of moderation, or even within the bounds of comprehension; but to guard against
ascribing to the mere suffering that which is due to the power and efficacy of
His triumphant death; for there is comparatively so much said about His
overwhelming sufferings, and comparatively so little of His death, that there is
danger of insinuating a false idea at the very point where simple truth is
all-important. These sufferings are often made the theme of eloquence, and
surely it is the grandest and most sublime subject, beyond comparison, upon
which the powers of oratory can be employed. But transcendently great as were
our Redeemer’s sufferings--great beyond conception--yet there is one thing that
is greater--that is, His death. The death of the Son of God is the greatest
event that has ever transpired in God’s universe, of which we have any
knowledge. Without this, all the sufferings which the Lord Jesus underwent, or
could have endured, never would have made His humiliation complete, or brought
His saving hand within reach of lost sinners. This act of submission by the Lord
ofall, stands in pre-eminent glory above all else within the compass of time and
space. If the Son of God had suffered all the pain and agony that it was
possible for His Divine and human natures to sustain, without total extinction,
from the hour that He was laid in the manger till this present hour, if there
had been no death, there would have been no atonement. Any thing called (or
miscalled) atonement that does not include the death of Christ, precludes the
possibility of His resurrection and glorification, and, by consequence, the
resurrection and glorification of all His saints.

All the while that I have been discoursing on this subject, I have proceeded on
the ground that Christ suffered the penalty of the law. I am aware, however,
that this has been denied. I am in possession of the arguments by which the
opposite theory is supported; and I think I could show the inconsistency and
fallacy of their reasoning. But I do not design to say much upon this topic,
because I think a very little will be sufficient to make it evident that the
theory can not be sustained. A late writer on atonement says: "It is not meant
by the atonement that Christ endured the literal penalty of the law." If He did
not endure the literal penalty, He did not endure the penalty at all, for there
is no other penalty; but we will let that pass. That we have incurred the
penalty of the law by our transgressions, and are liable to its infliction,
needs no proof to any one that acknowledges the truth of the Scriptures; and
Christ has said that not one jot or tittle of the law shall fail. Now, if Christ
did not suffer the penalty of the law for his people, and they do not suffer it
themselves, what becomes of the penalty? for it is manifest that it is never
inflicted; and thus that part of the law which gives it its condemning power
fails, or else we are still exposed to its infliction. But the apostle says
there is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus. The same author
says that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, but something
else--something less. In what sense, then, were His sufferings vicarious? If He
did not suffer that which we should have suffered, I am not able to see how His
sufferings could be properly vicarious. That the atonement has special respect
to the law, is so abundantly taught in the Scripture as to preclude the
necessity of particular reference. But if Christ, in making atonement, did not
suffer the penalty of the law, we can see no connection between the atonement
and the law; for it is precisely in that very point--the penalty--that the
connection subsists; and if the penalty of the law may be set aside without
being inflicted--merely dispensed with--the obligation may be dispensed with
also, for it has lost its power to enforce its authority. Such a transaction is
not atonement; it is simply a compromise--a compromise at the sacrifice of the
justice of the obligation and the truth of the threatening.

But, aside from these considerations, what is the bearing that this scheme must
necessarily have upon other doctrines? In what light does it place the
faithfulness of God? He makes a most solemn threat, founded on a verity more
stable and permanent than the heavens and the earth, and then disregards it--or,
to say the best, He evades it! What now am I to think of His promises? He
threatens death through the law, and fails to execute the threatening. He also
promises eternal life through Jesus Christ, and may He not as easily recant His
promise? I should suppose the truth of the one would be as sacred in His eyes as
the truth of the other. What a precarious foundation for the believing sinner to
rest upon! He can never attain to the "full assurance of faith." I might extend
this argument further, but I will only say: "We are become dead to the law by
the body of Christ." "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us." He was "made under the law, to redeem them that were under
the law." The Extent of the Atonement.

I believe that theological writers generally speak of the extent of the
atonement in its relation to the number of those for whom the atonement was
made. In bringing this subject under discussion, it will not be impertinent to
make a few preparatory observations:

1. I understand by "the atonement," that satisfaction for sin which Christ, by
His death, rendered to the Divine law on behalf of sinners. It is in this sense
that I shall use the term, believing it to be the only proper theological
meaning,

2. Any theory of atonement that does not actually and effectually secure all
that for which an atonement was necessary, is essentially defective and
erroneous. It must perfectly accomplish the design and all the legitimate
results which it contemplates, both in its relations to God and also to men.

3. On this subject we can know nothing except what God has revealed in His word.
All reasonings, except legitimate inferences from the inspired word, are
worthless; all speculations and arguments drawn from the analogies of nature on
the extent of the atonement are inadmissible.

4. The atonement is, initself--in its nature, in its intrinsic merit--sufficient
for the redemption of the whole family of mankind. Considered irrespective of
any design in its application, it is sufficient for all the human family. If, as
we have stated in our second observation, the atonement does completely fill and
satisfy all its relations to God, it must be sufficient for all; for, in its
relations to God, if it is not sufficient for all, it is not sufficient for one.
To the principles laid down in these observations, we shall probably have
occasion to recur as we proceed.

Viewing the atonement in the light above presented, we will attempt a brief
discussion of the extent of the vicarious death of Christ, in its subjective and
personal relations.

It is not my intention to review every theory of atonement which has been
proposed to the ignorance and credulity of the religious world; for of some of
them I suppose I know nothing, and of some that have fallen incidentally under
my notice I am unacquainted with the arguments by which they profess to
establish or defend their systems. But I know that they do not build upon
Scripture evidence, because their schemes are so utterly remote from any thing
taught in the word of God that I should have to go too far out of my line to
take any notice of them; and my readers will be none the worse off by remaining
ignorant of them.

There are four different theories of atonement which we shall attempt to
examine, and the greater part of what we shall say on the extent of the
atonement will be included in the discussion of these different schemes.

1. It has been held that the death of Christ was, somuch suffering for so much
sin; and hence that the atonement was not only intended for the elect only, but
that it was not sufficient for any more. This has been called the commercial
view of atonement.

2. Another theory is, that atonement was not made for persons at all--that it
was simply made for sin, irrespective of the persons who were to be made
partakers of the benefit. This has been styled indefinite atonement.

3. Others maintain that the atonement is strictly personal, and that it was made
for all persons--for every person, and for every one alike--and in the same
respects. Not only that it is sufficient in itself for the whole race of
mankind, but that it was designed for all, and for one as much as for
another--for those that are lost as much as for those that are saved. This view
is properly denominated a universal atonement.

[Note.--I have here stated this view of the atonement as correctly as I know
how, according to my understanding of their views.]

4. Again, there are some who hold that the atonement is strictly personal; and
was made specially, as atonement, for those only who will be ultimately saved,
but that in its nature and inherent merit it is sufficient for the redemption of
the whole world. This is called particular or special atonement. Of these
several schemes of atonement we shall discourse in the above order, and we shall
endeavor, as far as we are able, to do impartial justice to each--that is, so
far as I shall extend the discussion. It would be as lawful for me as for any
other man to present all the arguments and scriptures at my command, on one side
of the question, and leave entirely out of view such as might be alleged on the
other side. But I am not sure that the Judge would approve such an ex parte
examination. l. The theory first laid down, which has been called the commercial
view of atonement, was the subject of much controversy some years ago, but as I
do not think it has many advocates in the present age, I shall not dwell upon it
at great length. It is the most restricted scheme of any that has ever been
adopted. There is something in it which appears plausible at the first sight;
but it is liable to some objections, which its adherents have not been able to
remove. It is objected by those who oppose it, that it is inconsistent with the
universal call of the gospel. Sinners are universally invited to the blessings
of the gospel, on the ground that Christ has died for sinners. If therefore, the
atonement is sufficient for the elect only, and the merit and efficacy of the
death of Christ are not sufficient for any more, the non-elect are invited to
that which, in point of fact, has no existence. I do not see how this objection
can be obviated; for if sinners are saved only through the atonement of Christ,
and can not be saved in any other way, it is not even within the power of God to
save any except those who will be saved. Indeed, I think we may safely extend
this principle still further, even to the whole length of saying that it was not
within the power of God to make any provision for the redemption of the
non-elect; for I am fully persuaded that all has been done that could be
done--that is, by way of atonement. God has given His well-beloved Son to become
incarnate, and to die for the redemption of sinners, and what more could He
give? If He had also given the whole creation in addition, it could not have
added any thing to the worth and power of the death of Christ as atonement. Such
a bloodless sacrifice could have accomplished nothing as a satisfaction for sin,
for it had no adaptation to such an end. If I am correct in these views, it
follows necessarily that it never was within the power of God to provide for the
salvation of any more of the human family than what will be saved; but of any
such inability on God’s part, we have no hint in the Bible--the contrary seems
to be every where assumed, and in many places plainly taught. In saving sinners,
God acts in the freeness of His will, and not under any limitations of His
power.

2. That scheme of atonement which has been termed indefinite, supposes that the
atonement was not made for persons; but simply that it was made for sin, or on
account of sin, without reference to sinners personally. This impersonal view of
the death of the Son of God has something in it so distant, so cold and
abstract, that it would require some force of evidence to make that it
acceptable; nevertheless, if it could be substantiated by the word of God, it
ought to be received. I object to it, in the first place, because it appears to
me to exclude the love of God from atonement. It is very clearly taught in
Scripture that it was because God loved us that He sent His Son to be a
propitiation for our sins; and if His love was personal, the propitiation must
be personal also. It is also taught, with equal clearness, that Christ died for
us because He loved us. The exercises of Divine love must, of necessity, be
personal; and if atonement is not personal, love is excluded.

I object to it, in the second place, because, so far as I can see, the death of
Christ can not be vicarious. Any view of atonement that excludes, or does not
admit, the substitutional principle as essential to a proper atonement, can
never obtain my assent; but if Christ did not die for persons, His death can not
be vicarious. If He died merely for sin, having no respect to personal sinners,
He was either not a substitute, or He was the substitute of a mere abstraction.

I object to it, thirdly, because, so far as atonement is concerned, it excludes
the mediatorship of Christ. It is an indispensable condition of mediatorial
action that there should be two parties; but if Christ, in making atonement, had
no respect to persons, there was but the one party. "A mediator is not a
mediator of one, but God is one." There is one Mediator between God andmen, the
man Christ Jesus. That the atonement belongs to the mediatorship, admits of no
debate.

There is yet a fourth objection which I must oppose to an indefinite
atonement--an objection which, if tenable, would supersede the necessity of
making any other; and that it is tenable, I have no doubt: I find it impossible
to reconcile this indefinite scheme of atonement with a great number of
scriptures. Both the meaning and the very words of Scripture contradict it. If a
text speaks of the atonement, on the one hand, and, on the other, if the
language is plainly personal, that is all that is necessary to prove the point.
"While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." "For if when we were enemies,
we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son." "For even Christ, our
Passover, is sacrificed for us." "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the
law." In these passages the references to the atonement are too plain to be
doubted; and that the atonement thus referred to relates to persons, is evident,
for the personal pronouns we and us will admit of no other application. The
attentive reader of the New Testament will find a number of others without my
quoting them here.

3. Those who maintain the doctrine of universal atonement do not deny that it is
personal. They hold that Christ, by His death, made atonement for the whole
human family--for all and for every one, and for all alike--for one as much as
for another. To do justice to this scheme of atonement it is proper to say that
it differs from the one last considered, in that it fully recognizes subjective
personality. Its advocates contend that atonement was made for persons--for
personal sinners. It differs also from that which is called the commercial plan
of atonement. They maintain that the atonement was sufficient for the world, and
also that it was designed for all. It may be proper to remark further, that the
difference between this scheme of universal atonement, and the theory next to be
considered, has been signified on a preceding page, and will come more fully
into view as we proceed with our discussion of the general subject.

Those who advocate the doctrine of universal atonement rely (if I understand
them) mainly on three sources of evidence to support their theory: 1. On
arguments drawn from the analogies of nature; 2. On arguments derived from
fundamental truths revealed in the Scriptures; 3. On particular texts of
Scripture.

1. The arguments drawn, professedly, from the analogies of nature are so
foreign, so inappropriate and inapplicable, as to be unworthy of the reader’s
notice. I shall therefore not tax his patience by stating them.

2. To reason from general and fundamental truths, clearly revealed in the
inspired writings, is perfectly lawful; and on some subjects we have no need of
more forcible and decisive arguments than legitimate deductions of this kind;
but in general they require very close and critical examination, lest we should
accept larger inferences than the premises will justify.

I have read comparatively but few authors on the doctrine of atonement; and of
the few whose works I have examined, some appear to me to neglect the
distinction between the sufficiency of the atonement and the design. That there
is a real distinction, is obvious, and must be acknowledged by every one who
will give the subject a little reflection; and while the writers alluded to
recognize this distinction, and occasionally advert to it, yet in their
arguments they seem to lose sight of it, and to interblend the two topics so
much that it is scarcely possible to know to which of the two they direct their
arguments.

I lay it down as a fundamental principle, that the atonement made by the death
of Christ does effectually and perfectly answer all the ends and designs for
which it was made. It meets and fills the whole necessity which required the
intervention of an atonement. This, I suppose, will not be contested. Hence, in
all its relations to God as Sovereign Lawgiver and Judge, it must be absolutely
perfect and complete, both essentially and comprehensively; for any defect or
deficiency would vitiate the whole transaction, and render all its contemplated
results abortive. From these considerations it must follow that the atonement,
in its nature--in its intrinsic worth and merit--is sufficient for the
redemption of the whole family of sinful men, provided it were the will of God
to apply it to all. And not only is it a sufficient ground to admit of the
salvation of all, but it must insure the certain and inevitable salvation of all
to whom an application of its benefits is made; but the fact that it is in
itself sufficient for all, is no proof that it was intended that all should have
a personal interest in its provisions.

It would be inconsistent in the extreme, even to the point of absurdity, to
suppose that the all-wise God would, at so great a sacrifice, provide an
atonement for lost sinners which would not be sufficient to satisfy His own
will, and competent to answer all His own purposes. And if it is conceded that,
so far as an atonement was necessary, that which was made by the death of the
Son of God is, in itself--in its merit and efficacy--sufficient for the
necessity of all the human family, so that nothing more, by way of atonement,
would be necessary, if the salvation of all were intended, it will follow that,
whatever limitation there may be in its application to sinners, such restriction
must depend upon the sovereign purpose of God; so that arguments to prove the
sufficiency of the atonement, which would be relevant and appropriate, would
prove nothing at all respecting any limitation of the design for which it was
made.

1. It is thought by some that an inference may be drawn from the nature of the
atonement, that it was intended to have application to all men. They allege that
the atonement is just what we might suppose it would be on the supposition that
it was intended for all men. Now, it is a sound maxim in logical reasoning, that
"an argument that proves too much, proves nothing;" and this argument would have
the same force and the same propriety if urged in favor of universal salvation.
If it had been the purpose of God to save the whole human family, the nature of
the atonement would be just what it is. The argument, therefore, proves too
much. On the other hand, the nature and intrinsic worth of the atonement is just
what it wouldbe if it had been made for but one sinner. Whatever weight the
argument might have, if employed to prove the sufficiency of the atonement, it
can have no propriety of application to the design of its personal application.

Those writers who plead for a universal atonement speak of the nature of the
atonement as being such that, it is applicable to all men, and as having some
reference to all men; thus adopting modes of expression of the most vague and
indeterminate meaning. While professing to show how far the atonement was
designed to be extended in its saving relations, they only show how far (by the
will of God) it might be extended; thus losing sight of the distinction between
the sufficiency of the atonement and its design. To tell the reader that the
atonement must have some reference to all men, will afford him very little
instruction, unless I tell him that it was the purpose of God that it should
have the same reference to all men alike; for this seems to be the idea they
wish to convey to the reader’s mind.

Some of the advocates of universal atonement admit that "if Christ endured the
literal penalty of the law, the doctrine of a limited atonement must be true."
Now, there is no other penalty of the law but the literal penalty; but we will
waive that. But as certainly as it is the determined purpose of God to maintain
the honor of His law and the truth of its threatening, so certainly the penalty
of the law must fall somewhere; and if it did not fall on Jesus Christ as the
sinner’s substitute, it will fall on the sinner. Let every sinner--even those
writers themselves--be prepared for this; for it is inevitable. Let me here
propose a few questions to the reader: Is not the penalty of the law death? And
did not Christ suffer death for sinners? If these should be answered in the
affirmative, what perverse sophistry it is to say that Christ did not suffer the
penalty of the law.

2. These writers, by a similar mode of reasoning, draw the same inference from
the Divine dignity of Him who made atonement; and this argument is liable to the
same objections. It proves too much. The dignity of the Son of God is such that
we may as rationally infer that He was as able to save eternally the whole human
family as that He was able to make atonement for them; and the Universalist is
as much entitled to the benefit of this argument as the believer in a universal
atonement. They suppose that the idea of a universal atonement better "fitsin"
with the rank and dignity of Him who made it than a limited atonement. And would
not a universal salvation also better "fit in" with the dignity of the Son of
God (in foolish man’s conception) than a limited salvation? Let me treat the
reader to a specimen of their systematical reasoning. They say: "If the
atonement had been made by a mere man," it would necessarily have been limited;
or, "If it had been made by an angel," it must also have been limited. Thus they
tell us very seriously what would have been the result if a naturalimpossibility
had come to pass. It would be equally as rational, and equally as creditable, to
speak of an atonement being made by a mouse, as by an angel or a mere man. And,
after all, what is the difference? We admit that an atonement made by a Divine
person must possess in itself a value and glory corresponding with the dignity
of Him who made it; but if it is a real, a veritable vicarious atonement, it
must be as capable of application to the whole world, if made by an angel or a
mere man, as if made by the Lord of glory. The rank and dignity of the Redeemer
are supposed to be such as they would be on the supposition that the atonement
was intended to be general. This is true; and it is also true that they are just
what they would and must be if the atonement was intended to save but one
sinner. If Christ were not the Son of God, He could not make any atonement at
all. Such flimsy and spurious arguments may have, in some measure, the effect
intended by the authors, but their insignificance is very easily exposed. The
very terms employed in discussing the subject are sometimes highly
objectionable, and even offensive to the heart of a pious and intelligent
Christian. They speak of Christ as having been selected for the work in
consequence, or on the ground of His rank and dignity, with a view to guard us
against the supposition of any limitation of the atonement. The term selected
implies that there were others as well as He who might have been chosen; and
though they were inferior in rank and dignity, yet they were competent, for
otherwise there was no propriety in speaking of His being selected. How
disparaging to the honor of the Son of God to be told that there were others who
could have redeemed lost sinners if He had declined the service.

3. It is supposed that data may be found in the mediatorial administration of
the Divine government to warrant an inference in favor of universal atonement.
Arguments legitimately derived from the mediatorship of our great High Priest
are certainly worthy of the highest consideration; and any argument professing
to have its foundation there should not be disregarded. It is a very easy task
to prove that Jesus Christ is invested with the administration of the universal
government of God; and this argument proceeds on the hypothesis that the
atonement is the basis of His mediatorial government. This hypothesis will admit
of debate; and I ask permission, without giving offense to say a few words: If
we accept this assumption, it must be on certain conditions and with some
modification. It involves a theme that opens a wide field to our contemplation.
To explore this field even very partially, would impose upon us more labor and
intense reflection than would comport with the design of this work--more,
indeed, than I would be willing to impose upon the reader or upon myself. I must
therefore, content myself with making a few brief suggestions:

All things in the natural and moral creation are mediatorially related to God
through Christ; for so the Scriptures plainly teach. But when I speak of the
mediatorial government of Christ I have special reference to His being a
Mediator between God and sinners for the purpose of reconciliation; and as, in
this point of view, He is the Mediator of the "New Covenant," His mediatorial
administration is comprehended within, and bounded by, the conditions and
provisions of the New Covenant. It would, therefore, seem to me more proper to
say that the basis of His mediatorial government is the New Covenant; for the
atonement is certainly a fundamental condition of the covenant of grace, and it
is also a part of His mediatorial administration. In ascertaining and defining
the extent of the atonement, I do not see that we are authorized to go beyond
the extent of His strictly mediatorial administration; nor do I see how we can
consistently carry either of these beyond the extent of that covenant of which
He is the Mediator. I confess it appears to me that if we pass the boundaries of
the strictly mediatorial administration of Christ--asthe Mediator of the
NewCovenant--we fall at once under that universal moral government of God, of
which Christ is the administrator, but not a mediator--using the term mediator
in its evangelical sense.

I had made up my mind not to take any notice of this particular point; but,
considering its important bearing on the question of the extent of the
atonement, I doubted whether I would be justifiable in the omission; especially
as I thought an intimation in that direction might be acceptable to some who may
read this work. But aside from the considerations presented above, let us
ascertain what inferences the aforesaid hypothesis will justify, and whether the
arguments founded upon the proposition are legitimately derived.

I find myself at a loss how to proceed in attempting to canvass the arguments
employed to support the validity of their deductions. The reason is, their
language is so general and indefinite that I am unable to ascertain the precise
idea that they seem willing to convey to the mind of the reader.

They assume, as a first principle, or at least as a primary proposition, that as
all power and authority are given into the hands of the Mediator, and as this
dominion is given to Him on the ground that He has made atonement, this
atonement must have some reference to the whole human race. But right here the
question will present itself, What reference has the atonement to the whole
human family? Does it have the same reference to those that are saved that it
has to those that are lost? This is precisely the question that requires
solution; and while they propose to discuss this question, they seem to me to
direct their arguments against those who advocate the commercial scheme of
atonement, and the prime question receives very little attention. They hold that
the atonement has a bearing or influence on the whole creation, and especially
on the angels, who are desirous to learn the glorious mysteries of the cross.
This we do not deny; but does the atonement have the same reference to these
angels that it does to those sinners who are washed from their sins in the blood
of the Lamb? The dividing of the waters of the Red Sea had a very important
reference to the Canaanites and to the Egyptians, and even to us, and to all in
every age and every place where the Bible is found; but were the waters of the
Red Sea divided to make a way for us to pass through? Was it done for the
benefit of Pharaoh and his army? Was it intended to be an advantage to the
Canaanites? Did that miraculous interposition have the same reference to the
Egyptians that it had to the Israelites? To speak, therefore, of the atonement
as having some relations to the whole race of man, without indicating whether
such relations are saving relations--without signifying whether it has the same
relation to those who are saved that it has to those that are not saved--without
making any allusion to the specific design of God in providing the atonement--I
say to treat the subject in this way conveys very little instruction to the mind
of an ingenious inquirer. The whole work of making atonement is the same,
whether it was the divine purpose that many shall be actually saved by it or
only a few. And the reward of the Redeemer for this service--that is, His
exaltation--is the same, whether in its personal relations it extends to all or
only to a part; and as His elevation to the throne of government is the reward
of His humiliation and obedience unto death, I do not see how it justifies the
inference of a universal atonement any more than it would justify an inference
in favor of a universal salvation. In His exaltation, He becomes "Head over all
things to the Church "--to the Church, for the Church’s sake. The grand object
to be accomplished by the atonement was the redemption of His Church. But why
should we extend the efficacy of the atonement, considered as atonement, beyond
the necessity that required it, and apply it to objects which were never
affected by sin, and never could be? It was sin that made an atonement
necessary; and when that necessity was fully met and supplied, atonement, as
such, can have no further action or proper application. The fruits of
atonement--its various results or consequences--may be extended far and wide,
both as it respects Him who made it and those for whom it was made; but these do
not belong to the essence or inherent nature of the atonement. In connection
with the mediatorial government of Christ, and by the same process of reasoning,
an inference is drawn in favor of universal atonement, from the fact that Christ
is to judge the world at the last day. But this argument is liable to the same
objections as the other, and may be answered in the same way. In the final
judgment, the King will say to those on His right hand, "Come, ye blessed,"
etc.; and to those on His left hand, "Depart, ye cursed," etc. Now, the question
is, Does the atonement have the same relation to one of those parties that it
has to the other? Both parties stand in the same relation to Him as a Judge. Do
they stand in the same relation to Him as a Redeemer? Or, taking the question in
another form and more directly to the point under discussion, Was the atonement
designed (intended) for one of those parties as much as for the other? If the
atonement does not have an equal relation to both, and was designed to effect as
much for one as for the other, the argument proves too much; and the same may be
said of the argument in favor of universal atonement as deduced from the fact
that all--both the just and the unjust--will be raised from the dead through
Christ; for some will come forth "to resurrection of life," and others "to the
resurrection of damnation." Shall we attribute the damnation of the wicked to
the atonement? I repeat, that those writers, if I understand their arguments, do
not observe the distinction between the sufficiency and the design of the
atonement. If their object is to prove the sufficiency of the atonement, their
arguments may be entitled to consideration; but I do not think they adopt the
best method of attaining the end in view. The true way of establishing this
doctrine is to examine it in its relations to God. If it meets and satisfies
these relations; if it completely vindicates the integrity and honor of Divine
justice; if it fully and effectually satisfies all the demands of the law
against sinners, this is all the sufficiency that the necessity requires. If its
sufficiency is such that God is "well pleased" with it, it must of necessity be
sufficient for all the purposes of an atonement in its relations to us; for it
must, of course, remove all legal obstacles out of the way of any sinner’s
acceptance with God; that is, there can be no legal ground why God may not apply
its benefits to any sinner, so far as it is His good pleasure to extend it. And
that the atonement is sufficient for these purposes, we need no other proof than
the fact that Christ rose from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the
Majesty on high. I do not say that no other proof can be adduced, but it is
sufficient to supersede the necessity of additional proof. But let the
sufficiency of the atonement be established on as strong grounds as it may, it
will prove nothing to the purpose as to the design for which it was made, in a
personal and numerical point of view: There being no limitation in respect to
its sufficiency, whatever limitation there may be must respect the design for
which it was made in regard to its application. Hence those writers admit that
"by the sovereignpurpose of God," in the appropriation of its benefits, it might
be limited to a part only of the human family; and that the reason why all are
not saved through the atonement is to be sought for inthe Divine purpose. This
is coming exactly to the point. It is the pivot upon which the whole question
turns; and the discussion might very properly be confined to this topic; but
they have but little to say on this essential point. When the advocates of
universal atonement resort to the analogies of nature for arguments to support
their theory, we refuse to follow them. We know they can never find the
atonement of Christ out of the Bible. But we freely accord to them the privilege
of reasoning from Scripture doctrines; and we have endeavored to consider their
arguments derived from that source as impartially as we could. But they do not
rely upon these sources alone for proof, but claim to be sustained by the direct
statements of Holy Scripture. We shall now therefore take into view those texts
which it is thought support their scheme. In doing this, we shall state their
own arguments founded on those scriptures; and also submit to the reader’s
attention what has been said, or may be said, in opposition to their views. I do
not see how I can be impartial without presenting, as fairly as I am able, both
sides of the question. But there is one thing that the reader should keep
constantly in his mind; it is this: When any particular text of Scripture is
offered in proof of a particular doctrine, we must first ascertain the true
meaning of the text itself; for if the passage in its true meaning does not
support the doctrine, it is no proof.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: 11C ATONEMENT
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER XI.

ATONEMENT. In the third chapter of John (John 3:16-17) we read: "For God so
loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into
the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved."
This passage is relied upon with a great deal of confidence. But, on the other
hand, it may be said that there is no direct reference to the atonement in the
text. I do not say there is nothing in the text that has a favorable bearing on
their doctrine; but I think that when the text is fully and fairly examined it
will be seen that it is far from being conclusive. They lay a great deal of
stress on the term "world," and this they must do, or they can not make the text
available to their purpose. But if they adhere to this rule, it will prove more
than they would be willing to admit; it would answer the purpose of those who
would use it to prove the doctrine of universal salvation as well as it does to
prove universal atonement. In fact, I am not sure but the Universalist can frame
a more plausible argument upon it than the other. As a proof-text, the degree of
evidence it affords must depend largely upon the true interpretation of the text
itself. Let us then look at their own exposition. They say our Savior was
intending to teach Nicodemus that His religion was not to be confined to the
Jews, but was designed for the benefit of all nations. This interpretation is
plausible, and, indeed, we may say it is rational, for we know the strong
prejudices of the Jews in regard to the Gentiles, and it is often referred to in
the New Testament. We must admit that it is not stated in the passage, that our
Savior had this object in view; but I can find no evidence to the contrary. If,
then, we adopt this interpretation, it will fully justify the form of expression
used by our Savior without the least allusion to the atonement; and it is
certain that there is no reference to the atonement in the passage, except by a
distant implication.

If we will correctly understand those scriptures in which we find this general
phrase, "the world," we are compelled to have recourse to the connection and to
the object of the writer, so far as that can be ascertained; for if we adhere
tenaciously to the meaning assigned to it by the writers referred to, we shall
find it difficult, if not impossible, to defend the inspired writers from the
charge of self-contradiction. And we shall find it equally difficult to avoid
universal salvation; and as there are other passages adduced by those authors in
support of their views, it may not be amiss to make a few observations on this
subject, with a view to guard ourselves against the danger of false
interpretations. Whoever will take the trouble--and the trouble would not be
great--to collate and compare those places in which John uses the phrase "the
world," will be convinced, if he has any candor, that this apostle uses it with
a great deal of latitude. It is alleged that the language in the text is as
general as can be used. But they themselves would not pretend that the phrase is
always to be understood in a strictly universal sense. It is a good rule to
compare scripture with scripture; and it is especially necessary to compare the
language, in different places, of the same inspired writer when he uses the same
terms. In the First Epistle of John (1 John 5:19) it is said: "And we know that
we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." But the context proves
that the phrase "the whole world," must not be applied in a strictly universal
sense; and I will not contend obstinately for the application of a rule of
interpretation to a passage which seems to give support to my views, when I will
not submit to its application to one that is contrary to my sentiments.

Now, in connection with the text referred to in John’s gospel, let us consider
some other passages which contain the same phrase, and which are relied on by
the advocates of universal atonement with a great deal of assurance. 1 John 2:2
: "And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for
the sins of the whole world." On this passage we find the following remark: "No
language could express the universality of the design of the atonement more
clearly or strongly." But let us not be terrified by this confident and defiant
manner of speaking; for, to say the least, it is no credit to those who employ
it; and I have no doubt the writer himself could have expressed the universality
of the design of the atonement in terms stronger and clearer than the words of
the quotation.

1. In the first place, it is said, on the other side, that the apostle is
addressing his instruction to believers who are already reconciled to God
through the atonement; and this will not be denied. They, therefore, think the
apostle means all believers in every age and in every part of the world, and
this explanation of the text is supported by the context.

2. It is further argued that Christ is "a propitiation through faith in His
blood." And we presume that no one will pretend that He is really a propitiation
to unbelievers; or a propitiation to any in any other way, and consequently this
clear and strong proof is no proof at all to their purpose.

3. In addition to the above, it may be considered that the passage under
consideration has a direct reference to the intercession of Christ. There is no
direct reference to the atonement proper, though, of course, there could be no
intercession without the atonement. "My little, children"--a form of expression
which the apostle does not apply to the whole world of mankind. The passage in
the First Epistle to Timothy, where it is said, "He gave Himself a ransom for
all," etc., can not, with any propriety, be applied in a universal sense. The
context requires a different construction. The believers in the doctrine of a
universal atonement rely with a great deal of assurance on a passage in the
second chapter of Hebrews--"That He, by the grace of God, should taste death for
every man." This text is, in my judgment, the most difficult to reconcile with
the doctrine of personal limitation in the atonement, of any that we find in the
Bible. But it is said, on the other side, that the word "man" is not in the
original, and that it should be translated everyone; and it is so translated by
the Bible Union. I could not give the reader a clear view of my idea of the
meaning of the text without entering somewhat at large into the doctrinal part
of the epistle, and that would lead me too much out of my way; but the verse in
which the words occur, and the following verse, are very intimately connected,
and I suppose that the inspired writer had the same persons in view in the ninth
verse when he says "every one," that he had in the tenth when he speaks of "many
sons."

There is a passage in the fifth chapter of Second Corinthians which is thought
to give strong support to the doctrine of universal atonement. It reads thus:
"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died
for all, then were all dead: and that He died for all, that they which live
should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them,
and rose again."

Whether this scripture affords any proof of the universality of the atonement,
depends entirely on the true interpretation of the text; for no one will pretend
that the word all must in all cases comprehend the whole human family; and if
that is not its meaning here, it will yield no support to the doctrine of
universal atonement. Some of those who contend for this doctrine understand the
apostle to teach the universal depravity of human nature. They allege that the
apostle takes it for granted, as a doctrine admitted by all, that Christ died
for the whole human family; and thence argues, that this being so, the whole
human family were dead in sin. But to take this for granted is a very violent
assumption. I apprehend that it is not true, in fact, that it was a doctrine
admitted by all, that Christ died for the whole human family, and there is no
proof given or offered to sustain the assumption. And I would also remark that
the depravity of human nature is not the subject of the apostle’s discourse, and
is not alluded to in the chapter; neither is the subject of the total depravity
of human nature discussed in the whole epistle.

I would also further observe, that even if it were admitted that Christ died for
every one of the human race, it would not prove the total depravity of human
nature. It would prove that all are under the curse of the law, but not that all
are totally corrupt. Total depravity might be proved by the work of the Spirit,
but not by the atonement of Christ; and it is not the practice of this apostle
to prove his points by fallible arguments. Whether the doctrine is true or not,
I can not accept this interpretation of the text.

There are others who give a different interpretation of the text in question.
They suppose that it was not the design of the apostle to teach that Christ died
for all that were dead, but that all were dead for whom Christ died. This
construction agrees much better with the succeeding verse, and indeed it is more
in accordance with the scope of the passage; and they allege that a more literal
rendering of the original would be, "then were they all dead." So that the
extent of the word all in the first member of the sentence is to be determined
by its meaning in the latter.

I believe this exposition is sanctioned by our best theological writers; yet if
I may be allowed the privilege of submitting my own views of the passage, I
should incline to an interpretation somewhat different. I think the apostle
refers to that federal relation which Christ sustains to His people. Paul
frequently refers to it in his epistles. If Christ, the Surety and Head of His
people, died for them, then they all, as members of His body, are considered as
dying in Him. The same doctrine is taught in this text that we find in other
scriptures: "Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live
with Him." (Romans 6:8. See also Romans 6:6, ib.) "For if we be dead with Him,
we shall also live with Him." (2 Timothy 2:11) "I am crucified with Christ:
nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life that I now
live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God." (Galatians 2:20) Hence
the apostle’s reference to the resurrection, in the text under consideration, is
quite pertinent; and the argument is this: That as Christ died and rose again
into a new life, and we (mystically or federally) died in Him and rose, in Him,
we ought henceforth to live, not unto ourselves, but to Him who died for us and
rose again. The same idea is brought to light again in the last verse of the
same chapter. We will give the rendering of the Bible Union translators, which,
though in harmony with the common version, is probably more strictly literal:
"Because we thus judged, that if one died for all, then they all died; and He
died for all, that they who live should no longer live to themselves, but to Him
who for them died and rose again." If this translation is correct, it bears
favorably on the interpretation presented above. Of one thing I feel
assured--throughout the whole chapter the apostle is speaking to believers and
of believers. The reader may examine for himself.

There may be some other scriptures brought in support of the theory of universal
atonement, but the arguments on both sides, I presume, are very similar to those
already considered. There is, however, one more passage which impartiality
requires us to examine; and I shall notice it the more willingly, as giving the
reader a specimen of the way in which learned men, who are conscious of
possessing some reputation for biblical scholarship, would force their opinions
upon unsuspicious readers by positive and unqualified assertions. The text
referred to is 2 Peter 2:1 : "But there were false prophets also among the
people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring
in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction." Of this text it is said--and I quote
literally--"It is expressly said that some for whom He (Christ) died, will
perish." And again: "There could not be a more unequivocal declaration that some
for whom Christ died will perish." Thus we see in what bold and unqualified
assertions some learned writers will indulge themselves, in order to force their
own peculiar opinions upon their readers. In this way they foreclose inquiry,
and expect implicit submission to their dictates. Now the assumption of the
writer is, that "some for whom Christ died will perish." Let us attend to his
arguments and explanation of the text. He says, "When the word bought occurs
elsewhere in the New Testament, with reference to redemption, the allusion is to
Him" (Christ); and be proceeds to give us a number of examples, all of which are
plainly to the point, though in some of them it was unnecessary to speak of an
allusion, seeing Christ is expressly named. But who ever doubted that when the
words bought, purchased, and redeemed are used inreference to redemption, that
Christ is the person referred to? It was incumbent on him to show that
redemption--the redemption of Christ--is referred to in the text by the word
bought. This he does not attempt, though he well knew that it is a controverted
point. The numerous passages adduced by him prove that which no one doubts, but
this is proving nothing to the point; and that which his object requires to be
proved, he would have us to take for granted. Why does he not prove, or attempt
to prove, that which requires proof? What the author wished to impress on the
mind of the reader was, that Christ is the person referred to in the text by the
word Lord: this he fails to do, and he is religiously careful never to give the
reader a hint that the word translated Lord is nowhere else applied to Christ in
the New Testament. Hence it is doubtful whether He is the person designated as
"the Lord." Moreover, it is by no means certain that the word "bought" is used
in its literal sense of purchased; for the word is used frequently in the Bible
where there is no reference to the payment of a price. And again, there is no
proof in the text, or in the whole chapter, that the death of Christ is
intended, and of course there can be no certainty that the apostle had any
reference to the atonement; and besides this, the term "destruction" is often
used without any allusion to everlasting punishment. And yet our learned author
affirms that the text proves "expressly" and "unequivocally" that Christ died
for them, and that they perished. In this way he would override the private
judgment of the reader, and carry his point by downright dogmatism. Testimony
that is exceptionable in so many points of view can never be considered by the
judicious and candid inquirer as decisive; and if it would be illiberal to
impeach the author’s candor, we shall then be reduced to the necessity of
doubting his critical judgment. He could not plead ignorance to these objections
to his view of the text, notwithstanding he makes no allusion to them.

It has been objected against the commercial scheme of atonement that it excludes
grace in respect to the pardon of sin. Now, it is not incumbent on me to defend
a doctrine which I reject from the attacks of its opposers; but it is incumbent
on me to defend the truth, so far as I am able, from unfounded objections; and
the objection, as they state it, is as applicable to the true doctrine of
atonement as it is to that against which they urge it. I do not think I
misapprehend the ground upon which they found this objection, because their own
illustration makes it unmistakably plain. If Onesimus owes Philemon a debt, and
Paul pays it, Onesimus has a right to claim a discharge, and Philemon is bound,
by simple justice, to release him. If a creditor (it is said) receives the whole
amount of his demand, no matter whether from the debtor or from a third person,
it can not be said with propriety that he forgave the debtor. There is no room
for grace in the transaction. The objection, so far as I can see, is founded on
a supposition that the atonement of Christ is not a perfect and complete
satisfaction for sin, and, therefore, did not fully satisfy the claims of Divine
justice. Indeed, the figure by which they illustrate it fixes the objection to
that very principle. If Christ died for every human soul; or, if He died for a
select few, provided His death was a full and complete atonement, or
satisfaction, for the sins of those for whom He died, such atonement would as
effectually exclude grace from their pardon in the one case as in the other. I
regret to see this objection employed by those who contend for the
all-sufficiency and infinite value of the atonement of Christ.

I will present the reader with the result of some of my reflections on the
subject, and in doing so I shall lay down two fundamental propositions, viz:

1. That the pardon of a sinner is an act of grace--pure and special grace and
mercy.

2. That Christ, by His death, rendered a complete and perfect satisfaction to
the claims of Divine justice. To these propositions I shall adhere; and if it
can not be shown that they are consistent with each other--if it can not be made
to appear to my satisfaction that both way be true at the same time--I will
cheerfully ascribe it to my own blindness, but my postulates I will not
renounce. The objectors contrive, by their mode of illustration, to give the
objection a plausibility which disguises the truth; but there is that in the
very face of the objection which ought to awaken suspicion and provoke a
critical examination of the figure by which they attempt to illustrate their
argument. If we assume that the Divine government is not administered on
principles of strict and exact justice, we would have room enough for the
exercise of mercy in the pardon of sin; but mercy thus extended would be at the
sacrifice of justice. Or, if we take the ground that Christ did not suffer the
penalty of the law, we might find scope for the dispensation of mercy in
remitting the penalty of the law; but then we might be met with the question,
"Do we then make void the law" through the atonement? and the only admissible
answer would be, We do; and Christ thus becomes, not a fulfiller of the law, but
a nullifier of the law.

Let us examine this figure by a comparison, and see whether it is, indeed,
analogous to the subject which it professes to illustrate.

1. In the first place it is contended by those very persons who admit this
objection, that there is not, in every respect, a proper analogy between
commercial law and criminal law. That crime is quite a different thing from
pecuniary debt. In this they are certainly right; and yet their argument seems
to be founded upon the supposition that there is a true analogy between
commercial justice and criminal justice. I think we should hesitate before we
apply this figure.

2. In the second place, I say that no creditor, debtor, and intervening friend
ever stood, or can stand, in the same relations to each other that the parties
concerned in atonement and pardon stand to each other. The relations existing
between those parties are perfectly unique, and admit of no parallel. In this
respect there is a very great want of analogy; and I may add that this want of
similarity is one that has an important bearing on the issue in question; but it
is sufficient at present that we recognize the fact of this want of parallelism.

3. When a creditor receives the payment in full, he has no other claims upon the
debtor. There are no other demands to satisfy, and the parties stand upon terms
of perfect equality with each other, and the debtor is under no other
obligation. The case is very different in respect to atonement and pardon.

4. When a friend pays the debt of another, the expedient originates with
himself. His specific object is not to secure the rights of the creditor, but to
confer a favor on the debtor in releasing him from pecuniary obligation. It is
not an expedient resorted to by the creditor himself out of kindness to the
debtor. The creditor has no concern in providing the means for the debtor’s
release; neither does he make any sacrifice in any respect that be may extend
favor to the debtor. Analogy is wanting here in its most vital point. The payer
might entertain an implacable hatred toward the creditor, and the creditor might
bear equal ill-will to the payor. The creditor might also cherish a bitter
enmity to the debtor, yet the transaction would, in itself, be legal and just.
Not so in the pardon of sin. There is scarcely the shadow of applicable analogy.

5. I shall now take higher ground. I assume that Christ has made full and
complete satisfaction to Divine justice for sin, and that the remission of the
penalty of the law may be claimed as a right--it may be demanded as a legal and
equitable right on principles of justice. But here I must enter my protest
against the method of stating an acknowledged truth with an inference as if it
were a simple proposition. Their argument is this: Christ has satisfied the
claims of Divine justice; therefore the sinner has a right to claim his
discharge. The proposition is true, but the inference is not legitimate. If the
sinner himself had satisfied the claims of the law he would, as far as I can
see, have a right to demand remission. If a creditor receives the full amount of
his due, though at the hand of a third person, his claim is liquidated, and,
according to the mere forms of judicial law, the debtor may plead it in bar of
judgment; but every one must see that he has no claims of his own upon which to
found a plea. The creditor is not brought under obligation to the debtor to
release him. If the debtor is released, it is to him an act of pure grace. But
there is another capital deficiency in their mode of illustration, which shows
that it ought never to be employed in that application. The supposition is, that
a friend--an isolated, disinterested, and independent friend--pays the debt. But
this is not the character and relation in which Christ made atonement for us. He
became onewith us. He was our Surety--our Substitute. He assumed an obligation
to make satisfaction to Divine justice for our sins, and paid the debt--calling
it debt--in discharge of His own obligation for our sake. He has therefore a
firmly founded right to demand the release of those for whom He paid the debt,
and whose Surety and Substitute He was in the whole transaction. If He, as
Surety, is discharged, those for whom He acted in that relation are virtually
discharged also. He, as Surety, and in the sinner’s place, pays the debt, and,
officiating still as Surety and in the sinner’s place, claims, as a matter of
right, the sinner’s discharge.

Let us view this subject of atonement and remission in its twofold relations,
both as it respects the sinner and as it respects Christ as Surety. The
atonement is a plea for both. It provides and supplies the sinner coming to a
throne of grace in prayer for pardon, with a good, and acceptable, and
prevailing plea, authorized by the promise. Oppressed with guilt, and coming to
a throne of grace as a helpless sinner, an unworthy and wrath-deserving
beggar--the only attitude in which a sinner ever ought to come, or can come
acceptably--he may successfully plead the atoning blood of Christ for the
remission of his sins: and this is a privilege which is graciously given to the
believing sinner; and be exercises it as a precious privilege, and not as a
rightful claim. On the other band, Christ, as Surety, comes before the Judge
officiating in judicial law and authority, and as the representative and
Advocate of the sinner; and in this relation the atonement supplies him with a
legal, judicial, equitable, and available plea, upon which He can legally claim
and demand, in judicial administration, the discharge of the sinner from penal
liability. Thus we see that though they both bring the same plea substantially,
there is yet an immense and essential difference in the principles upon which
they respectively present this confessedly good plea. Christ pleads on the
principle of judicial right--the sinner on the principle of special grace. I
might enlarge on this topic to a much greater extent, and would be glad to do
so, but I forbear.

There is one more aspect of this subject, in which it is specially necessary
that we examine it--it would be unpardonable to overlook it. The argument of
those who contend that there is no grace, on the ground that the debt has been
paid by a friend, extends no further than to mere legal exemption. They can not
pretend to carry it further, for the principle upon which they found the
argument contemplates nothing more. The creditor says to the debtor: "Your
friend has discharged your debt, and it would be unjust in me to require it of
you--I, therefore, release you." And so, in like manner, the Divine Judge says
to the sinner: "Christ has suffered the penalty of the law for you, and
therefore it would be unjust in me to inflict it upon you--I discharge you."
Would such forgiveness as this fill the desire of a true lover of God? It may
be, and probably is, as much as the unrenewed heart would expect or desire; but
the true child of God can not be satisfied with this; he knows that his God has
just cause to be angry with him, and he feels that he can not have peace with
Him, except God is reconciled to him. David did not execute the penalty of the
law upon Absalom, but he said, "Let him not see my face." The pardon for which I
pray includes something more than mere legal absolution. It is not enough that
my Father should say to me, "Thou shalt not die;" let Him also say, "Since thou
wast precious in my sight thou hast been honorable, and I have loved thee." I
want to be precious in His sight--to be honorable before Him--and to be the
object of His love, even of His forgiving love. Let my reconciled Father say,
"Is he my dear son ? Is he a pleasant child ? for since I spake against him, I
do earnestly remember him still." The truly contrite spirit desires such pardon
as is exemplified in the father of the prodigal. Forgiveness in this point of
view can never be charged with the absence of grace--it is an act of
grace--special grace. There is nothing but grace in it. The satisfaction made to
the law by the atonement does not reach it. It is the forthgoing of eternal
love. The truly penitent soul wants that kind of pardon which is stipulated in
the everlasting covenant: "I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and
their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." The atonement was interposed
to make way for grace to abound--for grace to reign--in the pardon of sin. That
kind of remission which the objector’s argument implies, might consist well
enough with the remembrance of sin, for it might be extended without one spark
of love to the sinner--simply an exemption from the legal penalty--a great
blessing, truly, in itself, but coming far short of that forgiveness of sin by
which the grace of God is so much glorified. The Specific Design of Atonement.
In the further prosecution of our inquiries into this subject, I shall lay down
some fundamental truths which I consider as being indispensable preliminaries to
a proper and correct understanding of the true theory of atonement. And I shall,
in the first place, premise--

1. That the atonement is a true, complete, and perfect satisfaction to Divine
justice for sin. If it is not, it is not atonement in any proper sense of the
term.

2. That the atonement is, in itself--in its nature and worth--sufficient for the
sins of the whole family of Adam.

Nothing more, therefore, would be necessary, by way of satisfaction for sin, if
it were intended that the whole race of sinners should be saved by it.

3. In the third place, that it did actually and effectually accomplish all that
for which it was designed.

4. That the atonement was strictly vicarious. Christ died in the room of
sinners. He died that the sinner might not die. He suffered the penalty of the
law in the place of the sinner, that the sinner might be saved from the penalty
of the law.

5. That the atonement is truly personal in its primary relation. It was made for
persons; not merely for sin in the abstract, but for the sins of personal
sinners.

If it was not, it is wrong to call it vicarious.

6. That the great object--the primary and special design--of the atonement is to
redeem sinners from the curse of the law.

Any theory of atonement that does not secure this object, is neither worth
confirmation nor refutation.

Now, keeping these preliminaries in view, we are prepared to inquire into the
true extent of the atonement. And I shall not select general and indefinite
modes of expression that may mean more, or may mean less, but the most pointed
and definite terms that my limited knowledge of the English language will
supply. In the second of the foregoing postulates it is assumed that the
atonement of Christ is, in its objective fullness--in its intrinsic merit and
value--sufficient for the redemption of the whole world. This attribute of the
atonement, I believe is not denied by many at the present day, and I shall not,
at this time, solicit the reader’s attention to this topic; but I must
ingenuously own that I do not see the relevancy of some arguments alleged in
support of it.

If any shall say that by the death of Christ there were other objects
accomplished besides the redemption of sinners, I shall not controvert their
position. The death of the Son of God was accomplished to make atonement for
sin, as the Scriptures abundantly teach, though other objects, as consequential
or incidental results, might, and certainly did, follow. But I shall still
contend that so far as we, sinful men, have any interest in the atonement, the
primary and special object of the atonement was the redemption of sinners.
Outside of this object we are under no necessity of discussing the subject,
though it is the privilege of all to investigate the subject to any extent that
the Scriptures will authorize. By the third postulate assumed above, it is
affirmed that the atonement did effectually accomplish all that for which it was
designed; by the fourth, that it was strictly vicarious or substitutional; and
by the fifth, that it was strictly personal. Now, if the atonement was any thing
that can with propriety be called atonement, I do not see how these premises can
be denied; and if they are conceded as true, I am at a loss to see how it can be
universal, without also admitting universal salvation. So that the precise point
to which we must direct our inquiries, is the design of the atonement in its
relation to sinners personally. And if we admit that God had, in providing
atonement, a determinate design or purpose to save sinners--personal sinners--
through the atonement, the question for our present consideration will be
reduced to this: Was it the Divine purpose to save all the sinners of the human
family by the atonement, or to save those only who will be actually saved ? That
God had a fixed and determinate purpose to save sinners, I suppose would be
admitted by all, whatever might be their views of the atonement; and, indeed, it
can not be made a question if the authority of Scripture is to be respected. And
as He saves sinners in no other way than by the atonement of Jesus Christ, He
provided the atonement that He might accomplish His purpose of saving sinners.
And whatever purpose He might have respecting those who will not be saved, it
surely will not be pretended that He did not design to save those who will
eventually be saved; for the supposition involves so many absurdities that the
rational mind rejects it intuitively.

Without atonement there is no salvation. That is the foundation upon which our
salvation stands. Now if, in laying this foundation, it was the Divine purpose
to save the whole world of mankind, then all the world will certainly be saved,
or the Divine purpose fails. In so far as the Divine purpose fails, God sustains
a defeat, and Satan obtains the victory; and it seems to me this is bound to be
the inevitable result if the atonement is universal in its personal design. If
the atonement was designed for the redemption of all, and there are any who do
not obtain all for which it was made, it is manifest that the atonement does not
accomplish all that for which it was designed. I can see no possibility of the
contrary; for that there is a failure is too obvious to admit of debate. This
subject is important, and to arrive at the truth is, in the highest degree,
desirable. It is right, therefore, that we should examine it in every light in
which it can be proposed to our consideration. With this in view we say:

If the love and grace of God has ever been manifested to this lost and guilty
world, it is brought out into most conspicuous exhibition in the death of the
Son of God--in the fact that He died for sinners; in other words, that He made
atonement by His death for our sins. The grace of God shines in every part and
every act of this most marvelous transaction. It is a fountain of grace--a
treasure of grace--to personal sinners. Now, if this atonement was made for all
persons, then every person must have a personal interest in all its gracious
provisions, equal to, and corresponding with, the personal relation in which he
stands to this universal atonement; and thus all are comprehended within the
boundaries of atoning grace, for all are included within the design for which
the atonement was made. But, notwithstanding, it is admitted that all will not
be saved; and that, because it was not the design of God to make it savingly
efficacious to those who are lost. According to this scheme, those who are
finally lost have a secured interest in the grace of atonement--secured by the
purpose of God--because Christ died to make atonement forthem; but it was the
Divine purpose not to make this atoning grace savingly efficacious to them, but
He did design to make it savingly efficacious to those who are saved. By this
arrangement--this limited design in the application--the grace of the
application is not only withheld from those who are lost, but they are actually,
and by design, excluded from the grace of the atonement which was already
secured to them by their interest in it. The sovereign discriminating grace of
God, in making atonement specially for a part, and not for all, has been
stigmatized as partiality. But in this scheme of universal atonement there is
something that looks worse than partiality--it is sovereignty with a vengeance.
And I can see no way to escape this offensive consequence if we contend for one
unlimited personal design in making atonement, and another distinct and limited
personal design in applying its benefits; but I see no necessity for more than
one design. The object and design of providing atonement is to save sinners, and
the object and design of applying its benefits is to save sinners. The object in
both is the same; and why should there be more than the one design? Neither do I
think they can show any good result that is gained by the supposition of two
distinct purposes--the one comprehending all, and the other only a part;
whereas, by the objective limitation in the second design, the universality of
the first is rendered objectively nugatory in the exact proportion to the number
of those who fail of salvation. The atonement, in its nature and as a meansof
grace to sinners, is sufficient for all, and is free to all, and was designed to
be so; but I see no advantage arising from the theory of circumscribing the
design of the application within narrower limits than the design of the
atonement.

It is not in place for the advocates of universal atonement to say that the
reason why any sinner is lost is because of his unwillingness to accept, or seek
for, the blessings procured by the death of Christ; for although this is
strictly true in fact, yet it is not to the point, and as an argument it will
weigh as much against one scheme as the other; for those who are saved are
naturally, of themselves, as unwilling as they that are lost. And no sinner is
ever really and truly disposed to seek and accept the blessings of the atonement
before the grace of the atonement is applied--it is the application of this
grace that makes him willing. The great design of the atonement, in its relation
to us as sinners, is to procure the gift of the Holy Spirit--to open up a
pathway of mutual reconciliation and spiritual communion between God and His
alienated children--to destroy the enmity of the sinner’s heart and to subdue
his perverse will and bring it into subjection to the gospel. This is the prime,
comprehensive blessing procured by the atonement. The gift of the Spirit is
itself the application of the benefits of atonement; and till this gift is
received there is no true and real willingness of desire to seek or receive the
application of the atonement in the hearts even of those who are saved. If this
is not correct, it is in vain to talk of salvation by grace. Such talk would be
like clouds without water. And if it is true, the question remains essentially
the same. Did God design to give the Holy Spirit to every sinner alike, through
this medium of atonement, or to those only who will be saved by it? If the
atonement was made designedly for--specifically for--every one personally, and
the Spirit, in consequence, is given to every one personally, the question must
arise, "Why is not every one saved?" I confess myself unable to answer it
without admitting a disastrous failure--a failure both in the work and in the
design of the atonement; for it is manifest that the atonement does not
accomplish all that for which it was made and designed. It may be asked: If
Christ did not die to make atonement for the sins of the whole family of
man--for every sinner--why should all men universally be called upon to accept
of its gracious provisions? But, on the other hand, it may be inquired: Why
should a true, effectual, and complete atonement be made for some when it was
not the will of God to make it efficacious to their salvation, as the saving
benefit was contingent upon the Divine will? That there is matter couched in
such questions that contains solid and sound argument, I have no doubt; but it
may not be very easy, in every case, to determine with positive certainty that
our conclusions are legitimate. Leaving the latter of these questions to the
reader’s reflection, we will proceed to offer some thoughts on the former. To
arrive at a satisfactory solution of this problem, it is necessary to determine,
in the first place, what in the atonement will constitute a sufficient ground to
justify universal invitations to sinners to believe the gospel and accept of
salvation through Christ. As the atonement was made for sinners, if it is
sufficient for all sinners, I am not able to see what more is necessary to
warrant any preacher to extend the invitations of the gospel to all sinners; nor
what more is necessary to warrant any sinner to come to Christ, having the
assurance of the promise that he shall obtain the blessings of the atonement.

I am willing, and I sincerely desire, that our view of the atonement should be
subjected to the severest scrutiny; for I desire that all should know the truth,
whatever the truth may be. And if our doctrine can not stand before the truth,
by all means let it fall; for this reason I would like to keep before the mind
of the reader as clear and precise a conception of the point under discussion as
possible. I will attempt an illustration; and being unskillful in the art of
constructing figures, I will borrow one from the prophet, which, though used by
the prophet for a different purpose, will, as a figure, answer mine very well:
"I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert. The beasts
of the field shall honor me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in
the wilderness and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.
This people have I formed for myself; they shall show forth my praise." (Isaiah
43:19-21) Here the Lord is represented as making rivers in the desert, through
which His people had to pass in their return to their own land. The beasts of
the forest, and the wild fowls, even the most hateful of them, might freely
drink of these waters; and they are said to honor God for these rich and free
supplies. There was water enough there for all, and it was free to all, and even
the enemies of the Lord, and of His Israel, were not prohibited the use of these
waters; but the purpose, the specific design in providing these waters, is
expressly declared to be to "give drink to my people, my chosen." So the
provisions of the atonement are sufficient for all, and are free to all, but the
special object in making the atonement was the redemption of the Church--even
all that will ever be finally saved..

Expounding the doctrine of the atonement and calling sinners to repentance, are
different things; and, in the latter work, the minister has no business with the
Divine purpose as it relates to persons. His office is to show the sufficiency
of the death of Christ for the redemption of sinners, even the chief of sinners;
that salvation is free to all that believe; that Christ has promised to save all
that believe in Him. Some have labored hard to show that the sufficiency of the
atonement for the whole world of sinners is not enough to authorize a sinner to
believe in Christ for salvation, but that the sinner must be assured that Christ
died for him personally. But their arguments are not satisfactory, and can not
be made to agree with the teachings of our Savior and His apostles; and the
minister who invites a sinner to come to Christ on the ground that Christ died
for him in particular, goes out of his proper line of work. Neither do I believe
there is any thing in the Scriptures, either as doctrine, or in the examples of
Christ and His apostles, to justify any such specific mode of exhibiting the
gospel of salvation; and the preacher who adopts it subjects himself to a degree
of difficult and unnecessary labor, which he may not be able to perform; for if
the sinner doubts, as he often, if not always, will do, the preacher is bound to
prove to the sinner’s satisfaction that Christ did die for him in particular;
and in this he will seldom or never succeed. The only way in which he could hope
to succeed would be by attempting to prove that Christ died for every sinner;
and if he could convince the sinner of the truth of this doctrine, it would not
satisfy his doubts, for he would still say, that although Christ died for all,
yet thousands would be forever lost, and how could he know that himself would
not be one of them! he would still be left in the dark. But if we preach Christ
as the Savior of sinners: that He died for sinners; that His blood cleanses from
all sin--which is easily proved--and show them from the word of God, that
whoever believes in Christ as the Savior of sinners, shall have eternal
life--and the Scripture proofs are abundant--the work of preaching the gospel
is, in this respect, easy. We have no need to resort to theological niceties.
The whole business of inviting sinners to Christ is plain, and our work is ready
prepared to our hand.

If the atonement was not sufficient for any more than those who will be saved by
it, it would indeed appear to be inconsistent to call upon all sinners to
believe and be saved. But that doctrine of atonement which we present is liable
to no such objection; for if the atonement is sufficient for all sinners, and
every sinner is assured that he who trusts in this all-sufficient atonement
shall be saved, what more can be necessary to authorize the universal
invitations of the gospel? To bring the design of the personal application of
the atonement into the gospel call, is to put it in a place where it does not
belong, and where, I believe, the Scripture never puts it.

It is alleged that it is the duty of all men to believe in the atonement, and to trust in it for salvation; and if Christ did not die for all men, but for a part only, it follows that it is the duty of those for whom atonement was not made, to trust in that which is not true. Now, with all my profound respect for those who argue in this way, I must insist that their argument is radically defective. It confounds things that are different; it makes belief and trust identical, which they are not; it leaves the promise totally out of view in respect to the act of trusting, whereas reliance on the atonement, without a promise, would not be trust, but presumption. To say that it is not the duty of a sinner to believe the gospel, unless atonement was made for him, is not sound theology. No atonement was made by the death of Christ for the fallen angels, yet it is the duty of Satan to believe the doctrine of atonement; and I have no doubt that he does believe it. It is the duty of every intelligent creature under the Divine government to believe every word that God speaks. When the Almighty declared to Satan that the Seed of the woman should bruise his head, it was the duty of Satan to believe it; and I do not doubt that he did believe it, so far as he understood the import of the language. But it will be said that Satan could not trust in the mercy of the atonement, because the atonement was not made for him. It is true it was not made for him, and it was not his duty to trust in it. Neither would it be the duty of any guilty man to trust in it for life, if there had been no promise of life given to those who do believe in it. Our trust has immediate respect to the promise. If there has been an atonement made by the death of Jesus, which is in itself sufficient to satisfy for all the sins of all the human family, and God has promised eternal life to every sinner who believes in this atonement for life, it is the duty of every sinner to believe in it; and it is also the privilege and the duty of every one who does so believe to trust in the faithfulness of God to fulfill His promise. I reject the doctrine of trusting in the atonement without a promise. The promise is made to those who believe in Christ, and a sinner has no right to inquire whether the atonement was made specially for him, before be believes the promise. And for a sinner to believe that Christ died specially for him, is not what he is required to believe in order to his salvation. But it is said that the gospel call comes from God, and not merely from the minister. And this is true. Their object seems to be to defend the Divine character from the supposed inconsistency of inviting all sinners to the gospel feast, when it was designed specially for only a part. But if the provisions of the atonement were amply sufficient for all--if there is "bread enough and to spare "---the Divine character stands in no need of apology. As it is God who calls, so it is God who gives. He is the only rightful owner of the provisions, and He only has right to dispose of them; and He bestows them upon whomsoever He will, according to His good pleasure. He has made known to all the world that it is His pleasure to give the bread of life to every hungry soul that is willing to partake. The only question that can be pertinent, if God invites, is, whether he has an exclusive right to invite all, and to give eternal life to every sinner who will accept of it? "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in nowise cast out." Shall we be told that the sinner must be assured that he is one of those whom the Father has given to the Son before He is warranted to come ? That if he is not one whom the Father gave, he can have no assurance that Christ will not cast him out? And shall he stand aloof and refuse to come till he gets positive evidence from God himself that be is verily one who was thus given, when Christ is telling him in the strongest terms that He will not cast him out? The doctrine that a man must believe that Christ died for him specially, before he has a right to take comfort and cherish hope, I regard as a pernicious doctrine. It casts a stumbling-block in the way of the coming sinner, and can not be reconciled with the Scriptures.

If the reader has not been detained upon this topic till his patience is quite
exhausted, I will offer an illustration of my views in respect to the
sufficiency and the design of the atonement. We will suppose that ten men of our
country have committed some depredations upon a neighboring nation, to the value
of ten thousand dollars, for which they are arrested and confined in prison. The
ruler of that nation is willing to release all of them whenever the whole injury
is repaired, but will not release any one of them till the whole amount of the
damage is made good. Now, among these unhappy culprits I have two sons, whom I
am resolved to redeem. To effect this object, I pay the ten thousand dollars in
full, for the definite purpose of delivering these two sons; whereupon the ruler
acknowledges himself satisfied, and issues his mandate to open the prison door
and announce full liberty to all the prisoners. Deliverance is as free to all as
it is to my two sons, for whom personally the redemption price was specially
paid. Would there, then, be any inconsistency or impropriety in my telling all
these prisoners that I had paid the ransom price in full of their liberty, and
procured the opening of the door for all? And if I persuade and entreat them all
to avail themselves of the purchased deliverance, shall it be said that I am
"mocking them," "trifling with them," "tantalizing" them with vain hopes and
insincere professions of good-will? Would not such an impeachment be positive
slander? Any limitations or restrictions in my design in making the payment
would make no limitation in the fullness or value of the payment, nor in the
liberty procured by it, nor in the freeness of the proposed deliverance; neither
would it pertain to any of them to inquire into the extent of my design before
they would accept of the purchased benefit. The atonement of Christ is
sufficient for every sinner, and is free to every one; and the benefit is
promised to every one that believes. The Divine design in regard to the personal
application constitutes no condition authorizing the sinner to believe, nor
interfering with his privilege to believe, whether such sinner is included in
that design or not.

Atonement and Intercession.

We shall now, in the last place, examine the doctrine of atonement in its
relation to the intercession of Christ as our Great High Priest.

According to the line of discussion which I had marked out for myself, I might
confine myself merely to the design of the atonement in respect to the persons
for whom it was made. In this point of view the question would still be, whether
the atonement was designed to be universal, and the design included all men, or
whether it was designed for the redemption of those only who will eventually be
saved by it? But there are other aspects of intercession that are highly
edifying besides the particular bearing it has upon the mere extent of the
atonement. The general plan of this work, take it as a whole, would seem to
require that I should indite a separate chapter on the subject of Christ’s
intercession. I had made up my mind, however, that I would treat of intercession
in connection with atonement; but if I should confine my discussion to the
single topic above stated, I could not do justice to the subject of
intercession, neither would I do justice to the reasonable expectations of the
Christian reader. The intercession of our Advocate with the Father is a subject
so replete with spiritual instruction; so rich in sources of comfort and
consolation to the believer; so well suited to impart spiritual strength to the
children of God, and to establish them in the faith of the gospel; and it sheds
so much light on the great plan of salvation, that to omit it in a work of this
kind, or to view it in only one of its aspects, would hardly be excusable; and
besides this, it would be difficult, if not impracticable, to gain clear
conceptions of the subject in that one point of view without taking a more
enlarged view of the general doctrine. On the other hand, it is not possible to
arrive at any thing like an adequate understanding of the doctrine of
intercession without considering it in connection with the atonement; for the
relation between the two is so intimate, that there could be no real
intercession without atonement; for intercession founded upon any thing else
would resolve into mere influence, which is utterly inadmissible. An
intercession of this nature would be in the highest degree derogatory to the
Divine character, and would, in fact, devolve on our Redeemed a service which it
would be impossible for Him to perform. But this part of the service of our High
Priest is a far more noble work--a work worthy of His Divine dignity and of His
high preeminence. It is a service consistent with His present glorified state,
and worthy of His employment as the Son of God; a work for which He, and He
alone, is every way competent, contemplating objects of infinite importance, and
both requiring and insuring certain and infallible success.

It seems necessary, therefore, that we should take a more general view of the
subject, and ascertain, as nearly as we may, or at least as nearly as our
present object requires, what are the prime and essential characteristics of our
Lord’s intercession in behalf of His people. To obtain this consideration it is
necessary to inquire what the intercession of Christ is--in what does it
essentially consist? And I think we have abundant data to direct our inquiries.
The chief difficulty will be found in making a proper and skillful use of the
materials already provided and presented to our use in the subject itself. And
we have the inspired word as the test by which we may judge of the soundness and
appropriate adaptation of these materials.

We shall endeavor to be as brief and concise in this discussion as the
importance and utility of the doctrine will admit. We have already said that the
intercession of Christ is not the exercise of any influence on the mind or
disposition of the Father, inducing Him to do that for us which it is not His
will and desire to do. This would be impossible. God is self-moved in every
thing He does. He is in one mind, and none can turn Him. He is God, and changes
not, and He will do all His pleasure. It is not possible that any thing external
to Himself can exert an influence on His mind. The doctrine that the
intercession of Christ is necessary, or is designed to have an influence on the
Father, inducing Him to entertain gracious dispositions towards us, or to bestow
favors upon us, otherwise than what is already His merciful purpose to do,
involves so many absurdities, and is so degrading to the Divine character, and
is so inconsistent with the sacred Scriptures, that I think it needless to enter
upon a systematic refutation. And there is no necessity for an intercession of
that nature. If it were not the good pleasure of our Heavenly Father to do all
for our salvation which it is necessary He should do, no intercession, no
entreaties, no beseeching or persuasion which could be employed by our High
Priest could prevail with Him to change His course of proceedings with us. "And
I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: for the Father himself
loveth you." (John 16:26-27) There is no need that Christ should intercede with
the Father to love His children, for He loves them and delights to bless them
independently of intercession.

Effectual intercession, such as can be acceptable with God, must be based upon a
principle of fundamental justice. It must be founded on a plea, and such a plea
as will triumph over every opposing resistance that can be set against its
validity and success. If such a prevailing plea can not be found in the blood of
atonement, it will be in vain to seek for one elsewhere. Christ as crucified--as
offered up and sacrificed for our sins on earth--is the atonement; and Christ,
as having put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, is essentially the
intercession in heaven. The blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the
atonement which cleanses us from all sin; and the same blood carried within the
veil (so to speak) and sprinkled before the mercy-seat, is the plea which
constitutes the intercession.

Having now taken the ground (and it is the only true and tenable ground that can
be taken) that the intercession of Christ, to be successful, must be founded on
a plea--or, rather, that it is the presentation of a valid and righteous
plea--and that this plea is the atonement made for our sins--let us examine this
plea in some of its relations and characteristics.

1. The plea, considered in its relation to God, must be perfect and competent to
answer all the ends, and accomplish all the objects contemplated by the
intercession. It must be well pleasing to the holiness of the Divine nature, and
capable of satisfying all the demands of Divine justice, so as to demonstrate
that God is just in justifying them godly. It must be such as will sustain all
that the intercession itself is intended to effect. As the intercession is made
to God it must be acceptable to Him, and such as He will approve in judicial
administration. It must be a righteous plea, and possess in itself the element
and all the virtue of a perfect righteousness; not only a plea that may prevail,
but one of such efficacy that it cannotfail. And the plea which our Intercessor
presents on our behalf is "the precious blood of Christ." We need not enlarge
here on the merit and worth of this plea. It speaks for itself.

2. The Intercessor’s plea, in its relation to those for whom it is offered, must
be competent to effect all that their necessities require. It must be infallibly
efficacious to procure all the privileges and blessings that their condition and
interests make necessary, and such as will effectually preclude the possibility
of any exceptions. To the same extent that intercession is necessary and
appropriate, so far must the efficacy and success of the plea extend and
prevail; for if we allow any lameness, defect, or deficiency in the matter of
the plea, the intercession founded upon the plea will accomplish nothing for us.
But as the perfect atonement made by Christ is the plea of intercession, and as
this atonement is already accepted in heaven, there can be no danger, nor indeed
any possibility of failure, except the intercession were to be extended beyond
the limits of the atonement. Those attributes of the Divine nature which make an
atonement necessary, also require the ministration of an intercession; for both
are related to God in the same respects, and both are related to us in the same
respects. The great end for which atonement was made, in relation to us, was our
salvation; and the great end for which intercession is made, in the same
relation, is our complete salvation. The two are co-extensive, the one being
neither more nor less extensive than the other. And this view corresponds most
exactly with the typical representations of the priesthood of Aaron, which was a
very significant and instructive ceremony of typical service. The blood of the
sacrificial lamb, offered for sin, which made atonement at the altar of
burnt-offerings, outside of the sanctuary, was applied to that altar; and the
same blood was taken into the sanctuary and applied to the altar of incense,
inside of the sanctuary, and was also sprinkled before the mercy-seat, which was
in the most holy place, and the high priest officiated in the whole transaction;
and all was done throughout for the same person, or for the same community, in
whose behalf the offering was made. And, further, the end or object for which
the service was performed never failed of its complete accomplishment.

3. As we are now inquiring into the nature of intercession, we should notice
some of those relations in which our Intercessor stands to Him to whom the
intercession is made. And this brings into view most directly and prominently
the priestly office of Christ, for His intercession is comprehended within, and
pertains exclusively to, his priesthood; and the office includes two branches of
official service, but it is but the one work--but the one whole service. Christ
must first offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin--as a whole burnt-offering for
us--and then He must present Himself, with His perfect work, in the presence of
God forus, as our Intercessor. Neither of these alone, independently of the
other, would effect our complete salvation.

Although Christ took upon Himself this office of High Priest, with all its
incumbent duties and burdens, willingly, and of His own choice, yet He did it by
the appointment of the Father. (Heb. iii. 2.) He was ordained of God. (Hebrews
5:1) God glorified Him to be made a priest, and conferred on Him this high honor
because He was the Son of God. (Hebrews 5:5) He was made a priest by the oath of
God. (Hebrews 7:20) And was consecrated by the oath of God to an everlasting
priesthood: "Thou art a priest forever." (Hebrews 7:28) Thus we see He was
divinely appointed, and solemnly consecrated by God to a special official
service. The Father assigned to Him His official work--a service to be rendered
to God. He was ordained and consecrated to do the will of God: "Lo! I come to do
Thy will." A great deal by way of legitimate inference may be deduced from these
considerations, but there is one inference that is unavoidable: It is not
possible that God should appoint His Son to an office, and invest Him with all
its official functions, and assign to Him a work and service in that office, had
He not known that His High Priest was both able and faithful to perform and
finish the whole duty pertaining to the official institution. Neither would He
institute an official ministration that would not be adequate to the purpose for
which it was ordained; for it is not God’s method of proceeding, nor is it
consistent with His infinite wisdom to choose and establish a fallible and
precarious system of operation. And this inference is decisively confirmed by
the Scriptures in reference to both branches of the priestly service of Christ.
In regard to His atonement it is said, "By one offering He hath perfected
forever them that were sanctified;" that is, those for whom the offering was
made. And again: "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin."
And in reference to His intercession it is written, "He is able to save them to
the uttermost that come unto God by Him." And also Jesus said to His Father,
"And I knew that Thou hearest me always." I believe that no instance can be
referred to where a priest of Aaron’s order officiated, whether for an
individual or for the whole congregation of Israel, that the service was not
completely successful, and infallibly procured the good or averted the evil for
which the sacrifice was offered. The offering up of the sacrificial victim at
the altar of burnt-offerings, and the application of the blood to that altar,
was the type of atonement; and the priest taking the blood into the sanctuary
and applying it to the altar of incense, and sprinkling it before the
mercy-seat, is the type of intercession. And shall we suppose that the official
priestly action of Christ is less efficacious and successful in behalf of those
for whom He officiates than the merely typical transactions of a temporary and
rudimental economy that could make nothing perfect, and was designed to vanish
away?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: 11D ATONEMENT
========================================================================

CHURCH-MEMBERS’

HAND - BOOK OF THEOLOGY.

CHAPTER XI.

ATONEMENT.

It comes in place now to take some notice of what the intercession of Christ
effects or procures for those in whose behalf He intercedes; and here we have
large scope for very interesting discussion--much larger than we shall attempt
to occupy. This topic should be a delightful theme of meditation to every true
believer in Christ.

Keeping in mind, then, that the intercession of our High Priest is the
presentation of a prevalent and all-sufficient plea, on our behalf, that will
justify the Father in removing from us the condemnation incurred by our sins,
and in bestowing upon us such blessings as our necessities may require; and
keeping in mind, also, that this plea is the satisfaction made to the Divine law
for our sins, by the death of Christ, and we have the subject of discussion laid
plainly before us in such order as makes the prosecution of our inquiry an easy
task, for the merit of atonement is the efficacy of intercession.

We shall not undertake to make a full representation of every particular case,
but we will exhibit the subject somewhat in detail; and the reader, being in
possession of our rule, a few exemplifications will enable him to apply the rule
in any requisite case; for every covenant blessing, and every spiritual grace,
comes to us through the intercession, as founded upon the merits of that one
competent and comprehensive plea.

Let us look at those blessings and blessed relations secured to the believer in
the provisions of the covenant of grace, as they are related to this plea.

1. And first, we are guilty rebels against God; we are justly liable to His
wrath; we are the objects of His righteous displeasure; we fear His anger,
because we are conscious we deserve it, hence we need forgiveness; we desire
reconciliation with Him. What plea now can we make? What better plea than that
which our Intercessor makes for us? for "without shedding of blood there is no
remission." But the Intercessor says, "This is my blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many, for the remission of sins." And again: "For if, when we
were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son."

2. We have transgressed the Divine law, and have incurred the penalty, and we
must stand before God in the judgment. What plea can our Intercessor make for us
that shall avail to avert the execution ? "Being now justified by His blood, we
shall be saved from wrath through Him." "Being justified freely by His grace
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." "By His knowledge shall my
righteous servant justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities."

3. Our redemption in full is ascribed to the death of Christ. To this we owe our
deliverance from sin, and from death, and from the grave. In a word, if the
question is asked, "Who is he that condemneth?" the plea and the answer is, "It
is Christ that died." Can you supply your Intercessor with a better plea than
this? Or can you add anything to this plea that shall give it efficacy and
merit?--any thing that shall give it a value and sufficiency which it does not
possess in itself, independently of any supplementary considerations ?

4. But we will consider this plea in relation to those spiritual graces which
constitute true Christian character. And here opens to us a larger field for
contemplation than we can undertake to survey at present; but a few words to the
wise may be sufficient to guide the earnest and inquiring mind to the treasures
contained in it.

5. There is a general and comprehensive view of the subject which embraces all
that we have need to say on this topic; and this we will present to your
consideration as a kind of groundwork for what may follow.

It is through the intercession of Christ that the Holy Spirit is given. I would
hardly suppose this fact has escaped the notice of attentive Bible readers; but
because we find it stated in such intimate connection with the atonement, it may
be well to refer to a few scriptures: "For the Holy Ghost was not yet given,
because that Jesus was not yet glorified." (John 8:39) "And I will pray the
Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you
forever; even the Spirit of truth," etc. (John 14:16-17) "For if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto
you." (John 16:7) I might refer to other places, but as no one, I presume, will
deny the doctrine, I need not detain the reader on this point.

Now the gift of the Spirit is fallen man’s great necessity. Without it, he must
perish in his sins. The Spirit must give him life, enlighten his mind, subdue
the enmity of his heart, and, in short, make him a new Creature. The gift of the
Spirit virtually includes every thing that is necessary to prepare us for the
service of God in this world, and to enjoy His blessed presence in heaven. Thus
we see that it is through the intercession of our High Priest that spiritual
life, with all its sanctifying operations, is given to us, and maintained in us
with all its holy exercises. But as it may be that many of the younger class of
Christians might be edified by seeing the application of the fundamental plea,
or its relation to our more particular needs, we must give a few examples.

We need the intercession of Christ to gain acceptance for our prayers. It is
through the atonement that we have access to God by a new and living way, which
Christ has consecrated for us through the veil--that is to say, "His flesh;" and
our interceding Priest has given to Him much incense, which He offers up with
our prayers, whereby our supplications gain acceptance, and we obtain an answer
of peace. We offer our prayers in His Name, and His Name makes them
well-pleasing to God.

We have grace, mercy, and peace, through our Lord Jesus Christ, because He has
"made peace by the blood of His cross."

While we dwell in the flesh, and sojourn in this world, beset with temptations
on every hand, and too often unwatchful, we are apt to be betrayed into sin. We
then need, and feel our need, of the Divine complacency: "And if any man sin, we
have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the
propitiation for our sins." In this text we see that the propitiation is the
plea of intercession. And as He ever lives to make intercession for us, and His
intercession never fails of success, He is able to save to the uttermost them
that come to God by Him.

It remains, now, that we examine this subject of our Redeemer’s intercession, in
its relation to the design of the atonement, in its personal application; for it
is through the intercession of Christ that the benefits of the atonement are
applied to us, and in no other way. If it was the design of God that the
blessings of the death of Jesus should be assured to every one of Adam’s lost
family, then of necessity the atonement must have been intended for all, and all
must have been included personally in the design for which the atonement was
made. Not only must it have been sufficient in itself for the redemption of all,
but all must have been included, specifically and personally, in the special
design of redeeming grace. This theory would agree very well with the doctrine
of universal salvation; but we reject that doctrine, because the Bible condemns
it. But if effectual intercession is made by the Mediator for those only who
will be saved--and I believe this is conceded--and yet the atonement was made
for all personally, then it follows inevitably that, in a personal point of
view, the intercession is limited, while the atonement is unlimited and
universal. And it is almost impossible to repress the inquiry, Why should not
the intercession be co-extensive with the atonement, and as universal in its
design? The merit of atonement is the all-sufficient and efficacious plea of
intercession, and the only plea that the Intercessor presents in behalf of those
for whom He intercedes; and as this plea is sufficient for all--if it was
designedly provided for all--why should some of those for whom it was provided
be denied the benefit of it? To account for this, the believers in a universal
atonement have recourse to Divine sovereignty, and that is the only alternative.
But to the thinking mind it will seem at least to be an incongruous and
unsuitable place to introduce sovereignty; for the application of the fruits of
the atonement is made in sovereignty to all to whom they are applied, whether to
a part or to all the family of man; and to interpose an act of discriminating
sovereignty at this stage of the proceedings, can have no other effect than to
exclude from the benefits of the atonement a part of those for whose benefit the
atonement was purposely made. But let us take a more enlarged view of this
sovereignty, as it acts and operates in the plan of salvation; for Divine
sovereignty obtains throughout the whole scheme of man’s salvation from
beginning to end, as it does also in all the works of God. But, in the great
arrangement for the salvation of sinners, this sovereignty is the sovereignty of
love. It was the sovereign love of God to sinful men that gave His Son to be a
propitiation for our sins; and this love--this sovereign love--characterizes the
whole plan and proceeding from its origin to its final consummation. The
Supreme, independent God was under no obligation to sinners to give His Son for
our redemption. This gift was the forth-going of His sovereign love; and if we
exclude discriminating sovereignty from the exercise of this love in providing
atonement, and say that all men alike are the objects of this love, and that it
was the gracious design of the Father that all men should have an equal interest
in this great atonement, this redeeming love; and say also--which a Universal
atonement necessarily presupposes--that the Son of God, in the exercise of this
same sovereign love, died to make atonement for all and every one equally and
alike, excluding all discriminating sovereignty from the design in its relation
to persons, and we have a universal atonement in all its fullness, the
production of an undiscriminating sovereign love of the Father and the Son. And
this atonement is the foundation and basis of a process of intercession to be
made by the Son in behalf of the persons for whom this universal atonement was
accomplished. But right here--just at the transition from atonement to
intercession--we must introduce a discriminating exercise of sovereign love,
which leaves out of its range vast numbers who were the personal objects of that
love which provided and achieved a universal atonement. There is such manifest
incongruity in this arrangement of a sovereign procedure that, as I said before,
makes it apparently a very inappropriate place to introduce a sovereign
constitution; and if we postpone the introduction of a discriminating
sovereignty to any subsequent stage of the operation of sovereign love, the same
unwelcome result must necessarily ensue. Sovereignty in the plan of salvation
must be admitted; there is no possible way to exclude it, and I would hope that
no Christian would wish to exclude it; and if we recognize it in the beginning
as first in order--the only place where I think it can be consistently admitted,
and, indeed, the only place where there is any room for it--we can then see the
consistency of sovereignty in every subsequent step of the progressive
operation, and we see it as sovereignty shining in all the beauty of Divine
love. Sovereignty admitted at the beginning may be defended, and, indeed, it
will defend itself; but if interposed at any subsequent stage of the process, I
can not see how we will defend it; and if we seek for a reason or a propriety
for its subsequent intercession, I apprehend we shall not find it in the
perfections of the Divine character, nor in the testimony of His revealed word.
It would not be a sovereign choice of love, but a sovereign rejection of some of
the objects of sovereign love. I am ready to doubt whether the advocates of a
universal atonement themselves would admit the inbringing of a discriminating
sovereignty that would exclude from the intercession any of those for whom the
atonement was personally intended. Will any say that the atonement was not
sufficiently meritorious and efficacious to satisfy for all for whom it was
made? I suppose not. Or will any say that the intercession of the Son of God is
too weak and imperfect to prevail for all those for whom intercession is offered
up? Neither will this be admitted. Or must we assume that Jesus our High Priest
refuses to intercede for any of those for whom He suffered and died? Why should
He? And if not, what then? Must we allow that the Father will not hear His
intercession? If nothing of all this is contended for, I see no alternative; we
must reject the doctrine of an atonement made for all personally and for every
one alike. I must leave it to those who contend for a universal and personal
atonement, and deny a universal and personal salvation, to assign to its proper
place the exercise of a sovereignty that makes the difference in the final
destiny. That the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all--that it is free to
all--and that its benefits are assured to every one that will, I have no doubt;
and this is quite sufficient to devolve responsibility on every one that hears
the gospel; and every one being left to his own choice, he must abide the
consequences of his own voluntary decision.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/robertson-norvell-church-members-handbook-of-theology/
========================================================================