)0 . ^ ^
' \^/
^
if J
■?
LIBRA.RY
OF THE
Theological Seminary,
PRINCETON, N.J.
^
rBX 7117 .W6 1851 v. 3
Woods, Leonard, 1774-185A.
"^ The works of Leonard Woods,
J D . D
THE
WORKS
ov
LEONARD WOODS. D. D.,
LATELY PROFESSOR OF CHRISTLiN THEOLOGY IN THE
THEOLOGICAL SEIVITNARY, ANDOVER.
IN FIVE VOLUMES.
VOL. in.
BOSTON:
JOHN P. JEWETT & COMPANY,
17 & 19 COKNHILL.
1851.
Entered according to Act of Congress in the year 1850, by
LEONAKD WOODS, D.D.,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.
andover:
JOHN D. FLAGG,
STBEEOTTPEE AND PEINTEB.
CONTENTS.
LECTURE LXXXVn.
Page.
Regeneration. Direct agency of the Spirit, . 1 — 10
LECTURE LXXXVm.
Regeneration. Direct agency of the Spirit consistent
with moral agency, 11 25
Physical influence and change, ....... 14
Why should ministers preach ?....... 18
Duty of sinners to become holy, . . • . . . 21
LECTURE LXXXIX.
Directions to inquiring sinners, .... 26^3
LECTURE XC.
Evidences op Regeneration, 44 — 55
LECTURE XCL
Nature of Christian virtue, 56 — 67
LECTURE XCn.
Repentance, 68~78
lY CONTENTS.
LECTURE XCin.
Faith, in the general sense, 79 — 92
Faith in Christ, 85
LECTURE XCIV.
Faith — can it be described ? 93 — 104
Practical influence, ........ 98
LECTURE XCV.
Prayer — its nature, design, and efficacy, . . 105 — 113
LECTURE XCVI.
Efficacy OF PRAYER subject TO limitations, . . 114 — 120
LECTURE XCVn.
Prayer OF FAITH, 121 — 129
LECTURE XCVm.
Prayer of faith continued, 180 — 141
LECTURE XCLX.
Definite views of the influence of prayer, . . 142 — 155
Practical remarks as to the duty, 149
LECTURE C.
Justification explained, 156—170
LECTURE CL
Justification — its nature and ground, . . 1 . "*— 191
CONTENTS.
LECTURE Cn.
JusTiFYiKG Faith. Its nature,
Are justification and sanctification identical?
Final justification of the believer, .
Propriety of praying for forgiveness,
Imputation of Christ's righteousness,
192—207
196
198
200
201
LECTURE cm
Paul and James reconciled, .
The orthodox doctrine promotive of obedience,
208—219
213
LECTURE CrV.
The febseverancb of saints, . . • •
220—230
LECTURE CV.
Objections to the doctrine of perseverance,
231—249
LECTURE CYI.
Resurrection,
250—266
LECTURE CVn.
Endless Punishment defended against the objections
of Foster, 267—291
LECTURE CVm
Review of Foster continued, .
292—307
LECTURE CIX.
Christian ordinances. Baptism,
308—316
Vi CONTENTS,
LECTURE ex.
Infant baptism, . 817 — 326
Precautions and directions, . • • • • • • 317
Kind of evidence, ....••••• 320
Want of express command, 322
LECTURE CXI.
Infant baptism, 827 — 337
A previous rite applied to infant children, . . . . 327
The same rite for parents and children, ..... 333
LECTURE CXn.
Infant baptism, 388 — 350
Christianity founded on the Old Testament, .... 338
New Testament implies infant baptism, ..... 342
Baptism of proselytes, .....*.. 346
LECTURE CXm.
Infant baptism, ....... 351 — 368
Commission of the apostles to proselyte all nations, . . . 351
Instructions of Christ favorable to infant baptism, . . . 355
LECTURE CXIV.
Infant baptism, 869 — 883
Household baptism, . . . . . . • • 370
1 Cor. 7: 14, considered, . 372
LECTURE CXV.
Infant baptism. Collateral evidence, . . . 384 — 893
LECTURE CXVL
Infant baptism. Proof from history, . . . 394 — 414
CONTENTS.
vu
LECTURE CXVn.
Baptism and circumcision,
Import of infant baptism,
Utility,
Relation of baptized children to the church,
Duty of parents and the church,
415—443
429
432
437
440
LECTURE CXVm.
Form of Christian baptism,
444—465
LECTURE CXES.
The Lord's Supper,
466—474
LECTURE CXX.
The Lord's Day, or Christian Sabbath,
475—487
LECTUJtE CXXI.
Church government. Prelact,
The claim of bishops, from Matt. 18: 18, .
Christ's promise to be with his apostles considered,
488—501
494
496
LECTURE CXXn.
Church government. Prelacy,
Nothing favorable to prelacy in the Acts of the Apostles,
Nothing in the epistles, ......
502—520
502
505
LECTURE CXXm.
Church government. Prelacy,
Testimony of the ancient fathers, . . ,
Testimony of Chrysostom and Jerome,
Reason for establishing prelacy, . .
Introduction of prelacy, . . . .
521—585
523
524
529
538
vm
CONTENTS,
LECTURE CXXIV.
Church government. Prelacy,
Apostolic succession,
Remarks of Whately,
Usher, ......
Gospel ministry a divine appointment,
Illustration from civil government, .
Prelacy of hurtful tendency, .
536—552
536
589
540
541
542
549
LECTURE CXXV.
Liturgy,
553—571
Imposes unscriptural restrictions on the clergy, . . . 553
Baptismal service, . . . . . . . . . 559
Liturgy retains superstitious additions from the Romish church, 567
LECTURE CXXVI.
Popular form of church government, .
Congregationalism and Presbyterianism compared,
Principles of Congregationalism, . *■
Things necessary for Congregationalists, .
572—583
572
574
577
LECTURE CXXVn.
Personal religion necessary to ministers,
Duties of ministers, .....
Trials and difficulties of ministers, .
684—590
585
588
LECTURE CXXVUX
Personal religion continued,
Necessary to a minister's usefulness.
Necessary to his enjoyment, .
591—596
591
594
LECTURE LXXXVII.
DOES THE HOLY SPIRIT IN REGENERATION ACT DIRECTLY ON
THE sinner's mind ?
Our next inquiry will be, whether the Spirit of God in regencr-
ration acts directly on the mind itself, or on something which is
extraneous to the mind, and which is employed as a means of pro-
ducing the effect.
In a general view, what can be more congruous to the nature
of the subject, than the doctrine, that the eternal, all-powerfuJ
Spirit has a direct access to the minds which he created and sus-
tains, and that he influences and governs them as he pleases ?
It is clear that we have access to the minds of men only through
the medium of signs and bodily organs. Such is the design of
our Creator. The sphere of action and the degree and manner
of influence assigned to us, correspond with our nature and rela-
tions. . But the influence which God exercises over the minds of
men is, in all respects, infinitely superior to ours. To suppose
that his power is subject to such conditions and limitations as those
which regulate the power belonging to us, would be to lose sight
of his perfections, and to make him like ourselves. The God of
the universe must be free from all the hinderances and restrictions
which appertain to the exercise of the power imparted to us, and
must be perfectly able to turn and guide, to regulate and purify
every mind, and all minds, according to his pleasure. This is
involved in the very idea of his Godhead and his complete do-
minion over created beings. It is involved in many passages of
Scripture, in which he is expressly declared to have exercised
VOL. in. 1
2 DIRECT INFLUENCE OP THE SPIRIT.
such supreme power. If any one thinks that God cannot exert
this unlimited control over the minds of men, I ask, what hinders?
Is not infinite power sufficient to control finite power ? Has not
the Creator and Upholder of all things power over those who live
and move and have their being in him ? If he has not this
power, how can he maintain his dominion, and do all his pleasure ?
But I shall not stop with this general view. There are par-
ticular considerations which bear upon the subject, and which I
shall now lay before you.
The first consideration which occurs to me is this ; that as the
effect produced in regeneration is in the mind itself, so must the
influeyice he loMch produces it. The disorder to be remedied lies
in the heart ; and where but to the heart is the remedy to be ap-
plied ? As to the truths of religion, there is nothing which needs
to be altered in any of them. All that we are required to be-
lieve is true ; all that we are required to love is excellent and
amiable ; and all that we are required to do is reasonable and
just. There is no fault in any of these objects. There is nothing
faulty anywhere, except in the mind itself. The whole evil to be
remedied lies there. And the change to be effected must be
effected there. Man's disposition — the state of his affections —
is opposed to spiritual things. His heart is depraved. The divine
Spirit must act upon the heart itself; must so alter man's moral
state that, when holy objects are presented to view, holy affections
will spontaneously arise ; must take away moral obliquity, and
give uprightness. The sum of my remarks under this head is,
that as man's moral nature or heart is the subject of the evil to be
removed and the renewal to be experienced, it must be the subject
of that divine influence which removes the evil and produces the
renewal.
Secondly : no one can conceive it to he otherwise. You
may employ such a phraseology as will invest the subject with an
ambiguous generality, and will thus hold your minds in an inde-
finite, obscure contemplation of it, and make it difficult to know
■what to beheve and what to disbelieve. But if you bring the sub-
ject near, and take a distinct view of it, you will find it incon-
DIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT. 6
ceivable that the Spirit of God in renewing the sinner, should act
upon anything but the mind itself. Upon what else can he act ?
Do you say he acts upon the truths of religion, so as to render
them effectual ; that he imparts power to motives, so that they
excite and persuade the smner to repent and believe ? Let us
examine this notion. The divine Spirit, you say, acts upon the
truths of religion. But what are the truths of religion, but pro-
positions, written, spoken, or contemplated, respecting God and
man, and other moral objects ? These propositions, which are
contained m the Scriptures, are immutable. Nothing can be
added to them, or taken from them. They are just what they
should be. The Spirit has fully revealed these truths, and in this
respect his work is perfectly accomplished.
But you say that the Spirit of God imparts elearyiess and power
to divine truth, so that it may be rightly apprehended, and may
produce its proper effect : as in natural things, an object may be
taken from a misty, obscure atmosphere, and placed in a clear
light. I agree that there is an obscurity, which prevents the
truth from being rightly apprehended by the sinner. But where
does the obscurity lie ? In the truth itself, or in the mind of the
sinner ? And in order to remove this obscurity, is it necessary
that any alteration should be made m the truth ? When we say
that the Spirit of God imparts clearness tc divine truth, we speak
of an operation and an effect produced in the mind itself, the truth
remaining perfectly the same. To give clearness to revealed
truth, is to give clearness to the minds of those who contemplate
it ; or, as the Apostle expresses it, " to open the eyes of their
understanduig." Every object is in the dark even at noon-day,
to one who is blind. There is light enough, and surrounding ob-
jects are, in themselves, sufficiently illuminated. But if you
would make them clear to the man who is blind, you must open
his eyes. The illumination needed respects his organ of sight.
No change is required in external objects. The Christian is often
heard to say, "In my unconverted state, the character of God
and Christ, and the great truths of the gospel, were all dark to
me. But when the Spirit of God visited my heart, all became
4 DIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT.
light." To give clearness to the truth, is to enhghten the mind
to behold it.
And what is it to give power and efficacy to the truth ? Is
divine truth in reality weak and inefficient ? If so, how does it
come to have such power over those who are sanctified ? Does
sanctification make an alteration in the truth itself, or in the mind
which contemplates it ? Take the truth, that God so loved the
world as to give his Son to die for us. How great is its power
over believers! It moves all their faculties. It controls their
hearts and their lives. But to the proud and unbelieving, the
same truth is powerless. Whence the diflerence ? The text,
John 3: 16, is before the eyes of the believer and the unbeliever.
They both read it, and read it alike. But the effect is different,
and that effect is in the mind. The precise difference is this :
the believer discerns the excellence of the truth, and loves it, but
the unbeliever does not. The believer contemplates the com-
passion and grace of God in the gift of his Son, with pious wonder
and gratitude, and with a hearty resolution to live no longer to
himself, but to him who died for him. The unbeliever hears the
proclamation of mercy, but hears not ; he sees the light of the
gospel, but sees not. He is ahve to the world, but dead to
spiritual things. The power of divine truth over the behever is
precisely this, he feels powerfully towards it — or has a strong
affection for it — loves it intejisely. And the Spirit of God gives
power to the truth by causing the mind to discern it clearly, to
believe it firmly, and to exercise powerful affections in view of it.
He makes the truth efficacious by bringing the heart effectually
to love and obey it. To suppose that the Spirit in the work of
sanctification acts upon anything extraneous to the mind, would
be utterly inconsistent with the nature of the subject.
Do you say, that the influence of the Spirit affects not the
mind itself, but its actions — beginning and ending with them ?
But here again we must take care not to be imposed upon by
mere sounds. Actions imply an agent. They cannot exist by
themselves, away from the agent. To influence the actions of the
mind, is to influence the mhid in acting. To cause right actions
is to cause the mind to act right.
DIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT. 0
Finally, the current language of Scripture implies, that the di-
vine Spirit operates upon the mind or heart itself. " The heart
of the king is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water ; he
turneth it whithersoever he will." " The Lord opened the heart
of Lydia, that she attended to the things which were spoken
of Paul." " A new heart will I give you, and a new Spirit will I
put within you." God enlightens the heart, renews and purifies
the heart, sheds abroad his love in the heart. And where it is
said that God influences the actions of believers, it is still said that
the influence is upon and in the agents. He works in them, and
right wilHng and acting is the effect. And when Christians pray
intelligently for the influence of the Spirit, they have, I think,
no other conception, than that the Spirit is to act upon the mind or
heart itself, and to produce the desired effect there. . They are
sensible that the divine influence is needed there, and there only ;
and that if their hearts may be made pure, all things will be pure
to them.
But there is another class of texts which must be considered,
namely, those which speak of God as renewing and sanctifying his
people bt/ the truth. " Sanctify them through the truth : thy
word is truth." Believers are " born again, not of corruptible
seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and
abideth forever." And the Apostle says to the Corinthians, " I
have begotten you through the gospel." And the Psalmist says,
the word of God enlightens and converts men.
In these and other like texts, the inspired waiters, it is said,
plainly teach that, in the work of conversion and sanctification,
the divine Spirit acts on the mind, not directly, but indirectly/, that
is, through the medium of the truth.
In reference to these texts, and their bearing on the present
subject, I would suggest the following things :
In the first place, it will be found, that those writers and preach-
ers, who hold most decidedly to the direct and efficacious influence
of the Spirit upon the mind, entertain as high an opinion, as any
others, of the importance and necessity of divine truth in the work
of sanctifying sinners, and are as active in teachmg and defending
1*
6 DIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT.
it. In all this thej find no practical difficulty ; nor are thej aware
of any inconsistency. Edwards argued, I think very conclusively,
that the influence of motives, is perfectly consistent A\ith the effi-
cacious influence of the Spirit in renewing the heart ; — in other
words, that the doctrine of God's direct and eflectual agency on
the heart in sanctification, and the doctrine that he makes use of
means in sanctification, are entirely consistent with each other.
There is no more inconsistency here, than in any case where God
in his providence employs means in the accomplishment of his
designs.
Any one who carefully considers the subject must be satisfied, that
the use which God makes of means in the different departments of
his administration, does not detract in the least from the reality or
the greatness of the power which he exercises. Surely he does not
resort to the use of means because of any deficiency in the meas-
ure of power which he possesses, or because he is weary of exer-
cising it. God's appointing means arises from the perfection of
his wisdom, not from his desire to avoid the necessity of exerting
his omnipotence. This remark applies particularly to the sancti-
fying influence of the Spirit. The use which God makes of divine
truth, whether in the commencement or in the progress of sancti-
fication, does not supersede the agency of the Holy Spirit, nor in-
terfere with its direct bearing upon the heart. That agency may
evidently be as real, and as great, and may come to man's moral
nature as directly, as though no means were employed. God may
choose to sanctify his people by means of the truth, not because
this method of sanctification requires a less pqwerful and direct
agency of his Spirit, but because it is more suitable to the nature
of rational beings, and more agreeable to his wisdom, — and be-
cause it is more adapted to make his agency manifest to his crea-
tures. If the use of the truth as a means of sanctification super-
sedes the necessity of a direct and efficacious operation of the
Spirit upon the heart, it must be because the truth has, in itself,
an efficacy to reach the heart and accomplish its renovation, in-
dependently of divine agency. But nothing is made more certain
by experience and the word of God, than the utter inefficacy of
DIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT. 7
truth to originate holiness in the minds of the unrenewed, or to
continue it in the minds of Christians, without the operation of the
Holy Spirit.
Do jou ask, why divine truth is used at all as a means of regen-
erating and sanctifying the heart, if it has m itself no power to
accomplish the work ? I reply, that there are evidently very im-
portant reasons for the use which is made of the truth, though in
itself, independently of the influence of the Spirit, it is utterly
powerless. Some of these reasons have been already suggested.
Man is a rational and moral being, and it seems plainly to follow
from his very nature, that the exercise of holiness from its com-
mencement, must take place in view of some portion of divme
truth. How can it be conceived that the Holy Spirit, be his agency
ever so direct and powerful, can originate holy exercises, when no
holy object is presented to the mind ? How can love, or faith, or de-
sire be excited, while a person sees nothing to love, nothing to believe,
and nothing to desire ? The presence and influence of suitable ob-
jects is unplied in the very nature of holy aflectiou. So that if holy
affection is ever actually to exist, it must exist in view of proper
objects ; in other words, it must take place, while some portion of
divine truth is contemplated. To suppose that any one loves,
without having before his mind an object of love, would be palpa-
bly absurd. But you will see in a moment, that divine truth,
however clearly presented to the mind of a man while unregener-
a'e, must fail of exciting any right affection. Divme truth is holy.
The objects it presents, for example, the character of God, his
law, and his gospel, are all holy. The heart of the unrenewed is
unholy. And Avho does not know what takes place, when those
holy objects are pressed upon the attention of an ungodly man,
and when he is re<juired to love with all his heart a God, Avhose
character is totally opposed to his disposition ; to receive a Saviour
who has no beauty in his view ; and to render a willing obedience
to a law which stands against those interests to which he is su-
premely attached ? And how is this settled aversion of his heart
to holy objects to be displaced, and cordial love to be ehcited, but
by the renewing of the Holy Spirit ? Three things are here quite
8 DIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT.
obvious. First, God's eiFectual agency. He gives a new heart.
He regenerates. Second, the use of means. Divine truth is
placed before the mind. Holy objects are looked at. In other
words, motives to holy affections are exhibited. Third, the rec-
tified agency of the regenerated person. He loves. He believes.
He obeys. He puts forth right affections and forms right purposes
in view of divine truth. Divine truth has this influence upon him.
And it has this influence upon him, he loves, believes, and obeys
in view of divine truth, because the Spirit of God has renewed
his heart. A renewed and holy heart loves what is holy, believes
what is true, and does what God commands. Divine truth must
then be held to be a means of sanctification as developed in holy
exercises, because this instrumentahty of the truth is involved in the
very nature of holy exercises. God's people cannot be actually
sanctified, that is, holy affection cannot be produced and strength-
ened in them, in any other way than through the truth. The
new heart, which is given in regeneration, cannot be developed
and become a matter of observation or of consciousness, except
through the truth.
But there is another reason why the truth is made the means
of sanctification, though it has in itself no power to sanctify.
The reason is, that this mode of sanctifying makes it manifest,
that the work is God's — that the power which sanctifies is the
power of his Spirit. Thus it is represented, that God chose the
apostles, the first preachers of the gospel, who were but earthen
vessels, as instruments of turning men from darkness to light.
And we are expressly informed why he did this, namely ; " that
the excellency of the power might be of God, and not of man."
The more weak and inefficient, in themselves, the instruments or
means which were employed, the more evident it was, that the ef-
fect was to be asci-ibed to God. Accordingly the Apostle teaches
the utter inefficacy, the nothingness, of him who planteth and of
him who watereth — that is, of those who in different ways labor
to propagate divine truth and to save souls, and declares that all
the success comes from God. And let it be remembered that this
is one of the truths employed as a means of sanctification. Thus
DIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT. y
divine truth and those who make it known, are manifestly fit
means — means well adapted to accomplish the great object in-
tended, that is, to glorify God by fixing all eyes and all hearts
upon him as the supreme source of spiritual blessings. If any
means should be used to promote the salvation of men, which
would be, or appear to be, in themselves, adequate to produce the
effect, and whicli would thus, more or less, set aside the necessity
of divine agency ; that would certainly be a very unfit means.
For nothing can be more important, than that God should be
brought into view, and his glory illustrated in the salvation of sin-
ners. Any mode of proceeding, therefore, which would tend to
obscure his glory, would be altogether unsuitable. Keeping this
principle in view, we shall perceive the striking fitness of divine
truth as a means of converting sinners, while their conversion is
still considered as resulting from the work of God's Spirit on their
hearts. It is not only true that the two things are compatible,
but that the one clearly involves the other. If God should carry
on the work of renewing and sanctifying men without the light
and influence of divine truth, (supposing this to be possible) would
not his agency be concealed ? Would not his work be done in
the dark, and the glory of his grace be obscured in the view of
his redeemed kingdom ?
We are then brought to this result, that when the inspired wri-
ters speak of the word of God, or divine truth, as having an
effectual influence to turn men from sin and make them holy, they
speak of it, not as it is in itself, independently of divine agency,
but as accompanied and made effectual hy the operation of the
Holy Spirit. Unless we understand the sacred writers in this
way, we make them inconsistent with themselves. For they some-
times represent the work as accomplished by the agency of God,
without any mention of divine truth ; and sometimes they repre-
sent that God does it by or through the truth, and sometimes that
the word of God or the gospel does it. Just principles of inter-
pretation require us to unite these representations. God himself
converts and sanctifies men. He does the work. But he does it
in his own way, that is, in connection with the truth, or by means
10 DIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE SPIRIT.
of his word — making just such a use of divine truth as will show
us most clearly how sinful and helpless we are in ourselves, and
how entirely dependent we are on the grace of God for the re-
newal of our hearts, and for the whole of sanctification.
The principle above laid down, may be illustrated by those su-
pernatural works, which are commonly called miracles. The
analogy, though not exact, is sufficient to show that God does em-
ploy means, in themselves ineffectual, for the purpose of making
his own almighty agency manifest. There was no power in the
rod of Moses, in itself considered, or in the act of Moses in
stretching out the rod, to accomplish the marvellous things which
took place in Egypt. Why did God make use of an instrument
or means, so destitute of all inherent efficacy, except for the pur-
pose of making his own agency conspicuous ? Again. In the
vision of the dry bones, there was no power in the four winds
which the prophet invoked, or in the prophet who invoked them,
to cause the dry bones to live. And it is evident that God ap-
pointed such feeble means to be used, so that it might be seen and
acknowledged by all, that he himself accomplished the work.
And why, except to make his own divine power visible, did Christ
apply common clay to the eyes of the blind man, in restoring his
sight ? And to go to the Old Testament history again, why did
God require Gideon's army to be reduced to a very small number,
except for the purpose of preventing them from boasting of their
own power, and making it manifest, that the victory was to be as-
cribed to God himself ?
These and other examples of supernatural works are sufficient
to satisfy us, that God may, for very important purposes, use di-
vine truth as a means of converting and sanctifying men, though
it has no inherent efficacy to accomplish the work.
LECTURE LXXXVIII.
DIRECT AGENCY OF THE SPIRIT CONSISTENT WITH MORAL AGENCY.
QUESTION ABOUT A PHYSICAL INFLUENCE AND PHYSICAL
CHANGE. WHY SHOULD MINISTERS PREACH ? DUTY OF SIN-
NERS TO BECOME HOLY. EXERCISES OF THE AWAKENED.
Is a direct agency of G-od upon the mind itself^ eflFectually re-
moving its sinfulness and making it spiritual and holy, consistent
with free moral agcncij?
In replying to this inquiry, I shall take it for granted, that a
dependent being may be a free moral agent. If any one denies
this, he ought to show why he denies it. He ought to show what
there is in moral agency, which is incompatible with a state of
dependence, or what there is in a state of dependence which is
incompatible with moral agency. Till this is done, (and it cannot
be done -without denying the existence of accountable beings,) I
shall deem it proper to consider it as a settled principle, that a
dependent being may be a free moral agent. And then I ask,
who can set limits to his dependence ? If complete dependence
takes away moral agency, any degree of dependence must dimin-
ish it ; and men cannot be entirely free and moral, unless they are
entirely independent. But such independence cannot be ascribed
to created beings by any man in his right mind.
The fact is, that there is not a single attribute or circumstance
of moral agency which implies any such thing as freedom from
dependence on God. Reason is an essential attribute of a moral
agent. But a man is none the less rational, because God makes
12 QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE
him rational, or because he exercises his reason under the divine
control, or under the influence of causes appointed bj divine wis-
dom. Again. Voluntariness is an attribute of a free moral
agent. And surely a man is none the less voluntary, because God
makes him voluntary ; and none the less free from compulsion,
because God orders it so that he shall be free. Nor has man any
less sense of his obligation to do what is right and avoid what is
"vyrong, because God has implanted such a sense within him. You
cannot mention any attribute or circumstance of a moral agent,
which is at all inconsistent with his being constantly and wholly
dependent on God. Indeed, it is God, and God only, that, by
his constant agency, makes us free, moral and accountable. It is
in him ive have our being, as moral agents.
But although there is not the least reason to suppose that free
moral agency is incompatible with a state of dependence on God,
and although it is strange that such a supposition should be made,
after moral agents have existed and acted thousands of years in a
state of dependence, without having experienced any inconveni-
ence or embarrassment from it ; yet the supposition is made ; and
the minds of many are involved in perplexity on the subject, both
by the ambiguity of terms and the sophistry of arguments. I
shall therefore offer a few remarks for the purpose of clearing the
subject of obscurity, and placing it in a satisfactory light. My
remarks will relate particularly to the subject before us — the re-
generating influence of the Spirit.
1. It is most unreasonable to think, that he who created the
soul, and who constantly preserves it in being, cannot exert what-
ever influence he pleases upon it, in perfect consistency with its
moral nature. God has designed us to be moral, accountable be-
ings ; and we are sure he will never do any thing to interfere
with his design. Accordingly, when we read in Scripture the
strongest representations of God's influence upon man, such as
his creating him anew, working in him to will and to do, etc., we
are to consider it as certain, that all this influence is exercised in
perfect harmony with our spiritual nature, and does not, in the
least, supersede our free and accountable agency. Let the divine
WORK OF THE SPIRIT. 13
influence rise ever so high, and produce effects ever so astonish-
ing, we may always rest assured that it operates in such a manner
as not to violate the nature which God has given us. This the
sacred writers took for granted, and accordingly never made any
attempt either to prove or to explain it.
2. That the regenerating influence of the Spirit does not in the
least disturb the exercise of man's moral agency, appears from
the nature of the effects fyroduced. Our moral agency has been
disturbed by sin. The divine Spirit removes that disturbance.
Does this interfere with moral agency ? The Spirit of God comes
to one who is a slave, and makes him free. Does this interfere
with his freedom ? Does it interrupt a man's liberty, to break
the chains which bind him, to open the prison doors and help him
to escape ? Does it interfere with a man's power of choice, to
influence him to choose what is right ? The Spirit takes a dis-
eased moral agent, and makes him healthy — one who is weak,
and makes him strong — one who is dead in sin, and makes him
alive. Now does not one who is ahve and healthy and strong, put
forth as much agency, and as good an agency, as one who is dis-
eased and weak and dead ?
It appears then perfectly manifest from the nature of the effects
produced in regeneration, that the efiicacious influence of the
Spirit acting directly upon the heart and changing it from stone
to flesh, from impurity to purity, from enmity to love, neither su-
persedes nor interrupts man's free moral agency.
It has been already intimated, that the power we possess over
our fellow men is very restricted. We cannot send into their
hearts a regenerating, purifying influence. Without the presence
and operation of the divine Spirit, neither men nor angels could
turn one sinner from darkness to hght. Nor could we, without
that Spirit, enlighten and sanctify our own hearts. This we have
learned from experience, as well as from the word of God. And
who does not acknowledge this in his prayers ? What Christian
does not desire the Holy Spirit to dwell in him, and to exert a
sanctifymg influence upon him ? Who that has been taught of
God, will not say, let the Spirit come directly to my heart, and
VOL. in. 2
14 QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE
work there mightily to subdue the power of sin, and to adorn me
with the beauties of hoHness ? And yet it would appear from the
speculations of some men, professing to be Christians, that they
would choose not to be subject to any high degree of the Spirit's
influence, lest it should somehow injure their free agency. Away
with all speculations which contradict the most just and holy de-
sires of the regenerate soul !
I shall here advert again to the inquiry, so often raised at the
present day, whether God puts forth a physical influence in re-
generation, and whether the change produced is a physical change.
This inquiry, as I before remarked, cannot be intelligently an-
swered, without determining the exact sense in which the word
physical is used.
The word sometimes relates to natural or material things, in
distinction from moral or spiritual. Thus the science of physics
is the science of natural philosophy, the science of the material
world, in distinction from the moral world. Accordingly, a physi-
cal power is a power which belongs to natural or material things,
as the general power of attraction, the electric power, etc. A
physical substance is matter ; and a physical change is a change
which takes place in a material substance. This is the original
meaning of the word ; and something of this meaning is apt to
mingle itself with other uses of the word where the sense is in-
tended to be difierent. Now if the word is taken in this sense,
the question is easily answered. The influence of the Spirit in
regeneration can no more be called a physical influence, than it
can be called an electrical or a chemical influence. And the
change which takes place, is not produced in a material substance,
and has nothing of a physical or material nature.
The word is sometimes applied in a secondary sense, to the
mind, and has a meaning aUied to the one abovementioned, denoting
whatever does not belong to moral objects. Thus we say, man has
faculties of mind and inclinations, for example, vmderstanding,
memory, love of knowledge, and love of offspring, which are not strict-
ly of a moral nature ; and these are called natural faculties and
affections, and sometimes, though less frequently and less properly,
WORK OF THE SPIRIT. 15
physical^ in contradistinction to conscience, which is called the
moral faculty, and to the sense of right and wrong, called the
moral sense, and love to God and man, which is strictly an affection
of a moral nature. In reference to tliis use of the word, we say,
the change in regeneration is not physical, as it does not primarily
take place in the understanding, or memory, or in what are called
the natural affections.
In opposition to the Pelagian heresy, the word physical came
to be used to denote an influence beyond the influence of moral
considerations, or of moral suasion, or as we commonly say, be-
yond the influence of truth, or the influence of rational motives,
presented to the mind of a sinner. Pelagians held, that moral
considerations are, of themselves, sufficient to influence the sinner
to obey the gospel. The orthodox have always held, that the Spirit
of God must cause a change in man's disposition or moral nature,
before divine truth can be rightly received, and produce right affec-
tions. This change they sometimes called a physical change, and
the influence which produces it, a j^hysical influence, to distinguish
it from the moral suasion of Pelagians. Now if the word physical
is used to signify that change in man's moral nature, temper, dis-
position, or heart, which is pre-requisite to any right influence of
motives ; then the change must be called physical, and the influ-
ence which produces it must be called a physical influence, in
contradistinction to the mere influence of motives presented to the
view of an unregenerate man. This is the sense in which Owen
and other older divines used the word. They evidently meant to
signify that, in regeneration, a divine influence is exerted beyond
the influence of truth, or moral suasion, and that a change is ef-
fected in the state of the mind preparatory to right exercises. As
this was evidently their meaning, we ought by no means to repre-
sent them as holding to a physical influence of the Spirit and a
physical regeneration, in the sense which the word now conveys.
But the influence of the Spirit in regeneration may properly
enough be called a moral influence, though not in the sense of
ancient or modern Pelagians. It is the influence of a Being pos-
sessed of moral perfections, exerted upon a depraved moral agent,
16 QUESTIONS KELATING TO THE
and producing a change in his moral disposition, and consequently
in his moral actions. As however, the mere influence of moral
considerations has commonly been called moral influence, or moral
suasion, we cannot use the phrase in a higher sense without being
liable to be misunderstood. We shall therefore be more likely to
avoid mistake, and to express exactly what we intend, if we speak
of the regenerating influence of the Spirit, as a special or siqyernat-
ural influence, and of the efiect produced, as a moral or spiritual
change, a change in the temper or spirit of the mind, or, more
simply, a change of heart.
It is the fashion of some late writers to give to the word moral
a very narrow sense, representing it as denoting nothing but re-
sponsible actions, actions or exercises for which a man is con-
sciously praise-worthy, or blame-worthy, and for which he is to
give account to the Supreme Judge. But the same writers do not
hesitate to go beyond that narrow sense, and to ascribe to man
moral /acM fees, a moral existence, snid moral relations, for which
surely he is not responsible. The fact is, that convenience re-
quires the word to be used with considerable latitude ; and any
one who attempts to restrict it exactly to one single meaning, will
involve himself in needless difliculties.
Owen, Edwards, Dwight, and Calvinists in general, say, that
the Holy Spirit produces a change of heart antecedent to right
exercises — that he gives to the soul a new disposition or taste, a
principle of love and obedience. There are some who would
stigmatize this opinion, by charging its advocates with holding to
a physical regeneration, thus substituting a contemptuous epithet
very improperly appHed, in place of a valid argument. But I
have before suggested, that those who thus decry what they call a
physical change, do themselves really hold to it. For they say
that there is in the mind of fallen man, previously to all conscious
exercise, a tendency or disposition to sin, which is not sinful, and
which is not of a moral nature, but merely physical. But they hold
that the regenerating influence of the Spirit does remove this
prevailing tendency to sm, and impart the opposite, that is, a ten-
dency to hohness, though this tendency, or disposition, previous
WORK OF THE SPIRIT. 17
to voluntary action, is not, they say, of a moral nature, and of
course, is merely physical. Thus it is obviously and emphatically
true, that in regard to this point, they are the men who hold to a
physical regeneration. Against this imputation I feel myself and
those with whom I agree, to be sufficiently guarded, as we consider
both the propensity to sin in the depraved heart, and the propen-
sity to holiness in the renewed, to be strictly a moral propensity,
and to be the essential element of a character morally good or
bad.
One thing more in regard to the particular subject under con-
sideration. If any assert, as some do, that God can influence a
free moral agent in no other way than by rational considerations
addressed to the mind, I ask, how he knows this ? How does he
come to be assured, that God, who made the soul, cannot work in
it such a disposition or state, that it shall love holy objects as soon
as they are perceived ? — that God cannot pre-dispose the heart
to receive the truth — that he cannot give a right disposition in
regard to the truth, before the truth is received ? How does any
one know, that God cannot so form the soul at first, or so renew
it soon after it begins to exist, that it shall certainly put forth right
affections as soon as it apprehends any objects of affection ? And
if an adult person, who has been an active opposer of religion,
closes his eyes in sleep at night with a heart full of enmity to God,
and if the moment he awakes he is conscious of a new affection
if his first thought is of God and his first emotion is love to God and
dehght in his perfections ; would he not have reason to thank God
for the change which had been wrought in his heart during his
sleep, or at the moment of awaking, resulting in new affections,
and in a new life ? If God should be pleased to send forth a
renovating influence into the heart of any one even in this man-
ner, who would have any reason to question the reality of the
change, because it was thus effected ?
An important question may here be considered in relation to the
duty of gospel ministers. It is a question which is apt to arise in
the minds of those who have not a sufficiently strong confidence in
God, and whose want of success exposes them to discouragement :
2*
18 QUESTIONS KELATING TO THE
— If our faitJif idly jjreseyiting the great truths of Christianity to
the 7ninds of sinners, and laboring to persuade them to repent, can-
not ensure success ; then why should ive be engaged in this work f
If those ivho plant and those tvho ivater are nothing, and the in-
crease is all of God ; then xohy should we plant and water ? Why
not stand still, and refer the whole work of saving sinners to
aod?
I answer, first ; the single fact of God's requiring us to teach
the truths of revelation to our fellow-men, and to endeavor to per-
suade them to repent, is sufficient to satisfy us, that this is our
proper work, and to excite us diligently to perform it. The
Prophet Ezekiel was commanded to speak God's word to the peo-
ple, whether they would hear or not, and he readily comphed.
Nor did he desist from the work appointed to him, because the
people were hard-hearted and rebellious. And he promptly
obeyed the divine direction, to call upon the dry bones to live,
though he was aware that his word must, in itself, be totally ineffi-
cacious. And how readily did Moses, in obedience to God, call
again and again upon the King of Egypt to let the Israelites go
out, although he was expressly told beforehand, that Pharaoh
would refuse to comply. The command of God is itself, in all
cases, a sufficient reason for our obedience, however useless it may
appear to our limited faculties. If then we could not conceive how
our teaching the truths of the gospel would be of any use ; it
would still be wrong for us to neglect the work, or to go about it
with a reluctant, divided mind.
But, secondly, although our labor in preaching the gospel, taken
by itself, separately from the blessing of God, would be of no avail ;
yet, when attended with the promised influence of the Holy Spirit,
it has a wonderful energy. The truth is thus clothed with power.
And those who preach it, though consciously weak, and insufficient
for the work assigned to them, derive strength and sufficienc}^ from
above. If the divine Spirit is with them, they can do all things.
They are strong in the Lord — strong to turn the wicked from the
error of their ways, and to edify the church. They become a
life-giving savor. Through them, as God's ministers, sinners are
WORKOFTIIESPIRIT. 19
born again, and the kingdom of Christ is enlarged. And what-
ever may be present appearances, if those who preach the gospel
are faithful to their trust, and seek the blessing of God, they will
not labor in vain. Sooner or later they will have success — I say
not how much. But any success in such a cause is a great and
inestimable good, and will be followed by glorious consequences
to them and to others. Here is matter of encouragement. If
you go forth to the Avork in the spirit of love, and perse veringly
preach the gospel in its simplicity, trusting in God for success, you
will promote the glory of his grace and win souls to Christ.
What then is the specific influence of divine truth, when accom-
panied by the power of the Holy Ghost ? Is this influence a mat-
ter of consciousness ? And can it be described ? I think it can.
First. Divine truth in the hands of the Holy Spirit, convmces
men of sin. To be convinced of sin, is to feel the influence of a
particular portion of divine truth. The divine law, or the truth
contained in the law, had this influence upon the Apostle Paul.
He says, " I had not known sin, but by the law. For I had not
known lust, (sinful desire,) except the law had said, thou
shalt not covet " — "I was alive without the law once." This ex-
presses his want of conviction, and his confidence in his own good-
ness. " But when the commandment came, sin revived, and I
died. — And the commandment which was ordained to life, I
found to be unto death." The proper consideration of the law
finally produced the conviction described in the following words.
" I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.
For to will is present with me ; but how to perform that which is
good I find not." Such was the influence of the law upon Paul ;
and such, in substance, is its influence upon all intelligent Chris-
tians. The truth uttered by Peter on the day of Pentecost, was
the means employed by the Spirit to convince men of sin, and to
lead them to inquire what they should do to be saved. Divine
truth uuder the teaching of the Holy Spirit, discloses to
sinners at the present day, the wickedness of their hearts, and
their exposure to endless punishment, and shows them that they
are utterly lost, unless God is pleased to have mercy upon them.
20 QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE
It is manifest that divine truth is adapted to produce this ef-
fect ; — that it has in its own nature a real fitness to convince
men of sin, if not resisted and counteracted by the perverseness of
their hearts ; just as the shining of the sun is fitted to give men
light, unless they close their eyes against it. In regard to divine
truth, all the want of fitness lies in the hearts of sinners. All the
unfitness or want of adaptedness which exists, is found in them.
As soon as their consciences are awakened and their hearts opened
by the Spirit of God, the truths of the gospel, just as they are,
have a perfect adaptedness to convince them of sin. Good seed
is adapted to vegetate and grow and bear fruit in good ground,
but not in a bed of sand.
Another portion of divine truth is efficacious to hegei faith in
Clirist. I now speak with reference to those whose hearts the
grace of God has prepared. The gospel declares the love of God
in sending his Son to save them that are lost. It presents Christ
Jesus before them in all his excellence and glory, and in his
ability to save to the uttermost. And the effect of divine truth,
thus brought before the minds of convinced and humbled sinners,
is saving faith. They receive Christ in all his fulness. They
trust in him. They choose to be in subjection to him. Thus
faith, which is the gift of God, takes place in them as the proper
effect of gospel truth. Truth is the means, and the necessary
means, of bringing them to believe. " For how can they believe
on him of whom they have not heard ?" How can they trust in
a Saviour who has not been made known to them ?
Divine truth has an influence in ehciting and increasing all
holy affections. God is infinitely holy, wise and good. This is a
primary truth. The believer contemplates this truth. He be-
holds the glory of God ; and beholding, he loves and adores.
Such is the influence which this portion of truth has upon the
renovated heart. Again. There are truths which, when clearly
presented to the mind, and rightly considered, beget godly sorrow,
humility, and self-abhorrence. There are other truths which
impart strength and firmness to the believer, and so prepare him
for arduous duties and severe sufferings. Other portions of truth
WORK OF THE SPIRIT. 21
excite his compassion for the afflicted, and his love to the souls
of men. And other truths make his heart tender and kind to-
wards those who have injured him, and induce him sincerelj to
foroive them, and to labor and pray for their good. There are
truths too, which produce tranquillity and peace in times of afflic-
tion and danger, and fill the heart with unutterable joy. Indeed
the believer has no right exercises of mind, which are not pro-
duced, instrumentally, by the contemplation of some part of divine
truth. If we would excite and strengthen any Christian grace in
ourselves, we must familiarize our minds to a fit portion of truth.
And if we" would excite and strengthen any Christian grace in
others, we must present a fit portion of truth to their attentive
minds, and lead them to dwell upon it in devout meditation. We
are rational and moral beings, and are made to be influenced and
governed by rational and moral considerations, that is, by divine
truth. And if we were rightly disposed, how great would be the
power of truth over our hearts and fives ! Under its efficacious
influence, how should we grow in grace and be adorned with the
beauties of holiness ! And how deplorable is that bhndness of
mind and hardness of heart, which prevents this blessed influence
of divine truth, and makes that, which should be a savor of
life unto hfe, a savor of death unto death !
Is it, properly speaking, the duty of sinners to turn from sin,
and to become obedient and holy ?
It may seem strange that any doubt should be entertained on
this subject. But inasmuch as the question often arises in the
minds of men, it may be of use to give it a brief reply.
That sinners are bound in duty to become obedient and holy,
is evident from the simple fact, that Giod requires it of them. He
commands them to repent and be converted ; to cleanse their
hands and purify their hearts ; to love God supremely, and to be
holy as he is holy. Now the commands of such a being as God
are perfectly just and reasonable, and it is the indispensable
duty of all men to obey them. Rational and accountable crea-
tures are most evidently bound to conform to the requirements
22 QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE
of their righteous and benevolent Creator. To deny that men
are under obligation to love God supremely and to obey all his
commands, is to deny that he is worthy of our love, and to
charge him with giving commands which are unjust and op-
pressive.
That it is the duty of sinners to repent and become holy, is the
decision of conscience. If conscience is awake and faithful, it
will make this decision clearly and strongly. If I am conscious
of being a sinner, I am conscious of being what I ought not to
be. And this is the same as being conscious that I ought to be
otherwise. If any one is insensible of his blame-worthiness in
being a sinner, and of his obligation to be obedient and holy, his
*' conscience is seared with a hot iron." The ministers of Christ
well know, that when the Holy Spirit visits the souls of sinners
and causes the hght of divine truth to shine within them, they
no longer evade their obHgation to obey God. Their being sinful
is, in their enUghtened judgment, the very reason why they
should repent ; and their being exceedingly depraved, is so
much the more urgent reason for their becoming penitent and
holy.
I have made these remarks, not because there is any uncer-
tainty attending the subject, but because this is a point on which
the minds of the impenitent and unawakened are full of fatal
error. By the practice of sin, men stupefy their moral feelings.
Through the deceitfulness of their hearts, they think, that as
they are unholy, they cannot be justly required to be holy —
that as they are enemies to God, their enmity is not their fault,
and that they are under no obligation to love God. Thus they
make sin an excuse for itself. A deceived heart has turned them
aside. They see not, because they shut their eyes. They hear
not, because they stop their ears. By their hardness and impeni-
tence, they exclude themselves from the blessings of salvation, and
treasure up wrath against the day of wrath.
In what light are we to regard those exercises of awakened
sinners, which usually/ take place previously to regeneration?
WORKS OP THE SPIRIT. 23
The exercises referred to are, convictions of conscience as to the
evil and danger of sin ; fears of divine Avrath ; strong desires
after happiness, together with all the serious meditations, prayers,
and other efforts which are common in such cases.
Mj first remark in reply to this inquiry, is, that these exer-
cises are not to be considered as having, in any degree, the nature
of hoUness. Holiness is peculiar to the regenerate. " He that
loveth is born of God." Whatever may be the feelings and
actions of the unrenewed ; however clear their convictions of sin ;
however strongly excited their natural affections ; how much
soever they may do in the way of external reformation, and how
earnest soever they may be in their attention to the means of
grace ; they are still destitute of holiness.
But may not awakened sinners make some approximation to
holiness ? By their earnest endeavors may they not attain to a
condition less guilty and wretched, and nearer to that of be-
lievers ?
Reply. Sinners in the state referred to may differ widely from
each other, as to the ineasure of their sinfulness. Their unholy
affections and actions may be criminal in very different degrees.
And if the question is, whether sinners, while making the efforts
referred to, are chargeable with less criminality than those who
are in a state of carnal security ; I am unable to give any answer
which will hold true in all cases. There is, in this respect, as
great a variety among awakened sinners, as among the unawak-
ened. But it is, I apprehend, a general fact, that the exercises ^
of awakened sinners, while impenitent, do not grow less sinful,
but the contrary. And they are commonly convinced of this, in
proportion as they become acquainted with their own hearts. To
this conviction they indeed come reluctantly. They hope as long
as they can, that they shall succeed in their endeavors to sub-
due sin and to obtain holiness. But so far as God gives them
light, they see that their unregenerate efforts to improve their
condition are in vain ; that they grow nothing better, but rather
worse ; and that their selfish and stubborn hearts are not to be
changed by such means as these. And it is sometimes the case.
24 QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE
that sinners are conscious of the most perverse and criminal feel-
ings a short time previous to their renewal. But whether this is
the case or not, thcj are at length taught, by their own expe-
rience, that the new birth is " not of the will of man, but of
God."
That sinners, while impenitent, do not improve their condition,
is manifest from the nature of the case. If it is their dutj to
repent, and obey the gospel, it follows, that by continuing
impenitent and disobedient, they continually add to the amount of
their criminality. And as to their present state, they evince a
strength of sinful feeling according to the degree of light which
they abuse, and the urgency of motives to repentance which they
resist. The more conviction of conscience they have, the more
guilty they are in disregarding it. Should a man be taken to the
precincts of heaven, and there be permitted to behold the glory
of Christ and the blessedness of the saints ; and should he then be
taken to the borders of hell, and behold the hatefulness and
misery of sin as there displayed ; and if after all this he should
persist in his wicked ways and neglect the great salvation, his
guilt would be exceedingly aggravated. It was on this principle
that Jesus represented those who heard his instructions and wit-
nessed his works, and yet continued in unbelief, to be more guilty
than Tyre and Sidon. This principle applies equally to the case
before us. That serious consideration, that excited conscience,
that clear view of the importance of religion, which awakened
sinners often have, are advantages which cannot be abused, with-
out extraordinary guilt. Indulging enmity to God, when the
excellence of his character is better understood ; loving sin, when
its malignity and danger are more clearly seen; and under-
valuing the salvation of the soul, when the worth of it is more
deeply felt — who can adequately conceive the criminality of all
this?
But it must not be forgotten, that there is a great diversity in
the degree of moral evil, which even in such cases exists in differ-
ent individuals — a diversity which no one can comprehend,
except that Being who searches the heart.
WORK OF THE SPIRIT. 25
But although the exercises of awakened sinners have nothing
of the nature of holiness, and make no approximation to it, and
are of no moral worth in themselves ; yet God is pleased, in the
dispensation of his grace, to overrule them for good ; particularly
to make them the means of giving sinners just views of them-
selves, and to prepare them to see and feel that salvation is of
God. Sinners under conviction generally have, for a time, but a
slight conception of the depth and malignity of their moral disor-
der ; and hence they imagine that they can obtain a cure by their
own endeavors. But their endeavors, being prompted by a regard
to their own selfish interest, prove unavailing. Thus God teaches
them a new lesson. He impresses it upon their hearts, that their
spiritual disease has a power and obstinacy which no human means
can subdue ; that they are the slaves of sin, and will continue in
that wretched bondage, unless they are delivered by an act of
sovereign mercy. He teaches them that they must be born again.
If, after they are thus instructed, they repent, and obtain salva-
tion ; they will know who gave them repentance, and to whom
they are indebted for salvation. It thus appears, that the earnest
efforts of unregenerate sinners, though wholly destitute of holi-
ness, are made the means of bringing them to that state of con-
scious guilt and self-despair, in which God so often interposes and
shows his power to save. But let it never be forgotten, that this
happy result is owing, not to any thing spiritually good in the
convictions and doings of the unrenewed, but to the gracious
agency of God. And it must be considered a most striking in-
stance of his power and his grace, thut he thus brings good out
of evil, and, by means of those exercises of sinners which proceed
from their selfish and impenitent hearts, prepares the way to make
known to them the glory of redeeming mercy.
VOL. m. 3
LECTURE LXXXIX.
WHAT DIRECTIONS SHALL MINISTERS GIVE TO THOSE WHO IN-
QUIRE WHAT THEY SHALL DO TO BE SAVED?
I SHALL now call your attention to a subject, which is of great
importance, and is specially interesting to the ministers of Christ.
What directions shall we give to sinners, particularly to those who
are awahened to serious consideration, and are disposed to inquire
what they shall do to he saved?
As to the general manner in which we are to address the unre-
generate ; we learn from the example of the prophets, of Christ
and the apostles, that we are to instruct them in the truths of
religion ; that we are to warn them of their guilt and danger ;
that we are to hold up before them both the mercies and terrors
of the Lord, and by all the means which God has appointed, to
persuade them to attend to the things which belong to their
peace.
But my remarks will relate particularly to the case of those,
who are disposed to inquire, what they shall do to be saved.
And here I remark, first, that God has not left us to frame an
answer by our own wisdom, but has furnished an answer for us in
his holy word. He has laid down a rule of duty, perfect and un-
alterable. And our business, as ambassadors of Christ, is, to
make known that rule to our fellow men. In regard to every
part of their conduct, we must give them the directions which are
contained in the word of God. The sum of the moral law is, that
we should love God with all the heart, and our neighbor as our-
DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS. 27
selves. These two comprehensive precepts are to be earnestly
inculcated upon all human beings — inculcated without any abate-
ment on account of their degeneracy. The same as to the gospel.
The message of mercy which it contains, and its directions how to
obtain the blessings proffered, we must faithfully proclaim to all
men. The peculiar commands of the gospel belong appropriately
to men as sinners ; they belong to them be^jause they are sinners.
Here our work is marked out for us with great plainness. We
are to address the gracious offers of the gospel to those who are
living in sin, and to persuade them to repent and believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ that they may be saved.
Consider now, that a compliance with the commands of the law
and the gospel, is an exercise of holiness. The best idea we can
form of holiness is the idea of that supreme love to God, and that
impartial love to our neighbor, which the law requires. And obcr
dience to the requisitions of the gospel is as truly an exercise of
holiness, as obedience to the law. To repent is to turn from
transgression and to begin to obey the divine law ; it is to begin to
be holy. To believe in Christ, is to believe in a holy Saviour,
implying love to his character, and subjection to his authority.
The commands of the law and of the gospel are all perfectly just
and reasonable. And what can be more suitable, than to exhort
and urge sinners to do what is just and reasonable ; and especially
as their compliance with these reasonable commands is indispensa-
ble to their salvation. To repent and believe is required as the
condition, on our part, of forgiveness and eternal life. If the
commands of God are just and good — if he deserves our love
and service — if sin is hateful and destructive, and salvation de-
sirable and precious — and if Christ is an all-sufficient Saviour
and worthy of our confidence ; then we should exhort and beseech
sinners to repent and believe, and to do it immediately. To say,
that this is not their duty now, is to say, that the commands of
God are not now just and reasonable, and therefore that we are
not to enjoin it upon sinners as a present duty to obey.
This introduces my
Second remark, namely, that when treating with sinners in re-
28 DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS.
gard to wliat they viust do to be sav^d, we should take care not to
substitute any other directions in the place of those which God has
given in his word. Directions are sometimes given which do not
require and are not intended to require any thing morally right
and acceptable to God, but which enjoin something else in the place
of repentance, something intended to be preparatory to it, such as
attention to external means, and those serious endeavors and
prayers Avhich fall short of the beginning of holiness. My posi-
tion is, that when sinners inquire what they shall do to be saved,
or when we direct them what to do in order to salvation, we must
take care not to substitute any directions of our own in place of
those which God has given in his word.
One reason for this is, that such directions would interfere with
the commands of God. These commands require repentance,
faith and love, which are holy exercises. These holy exercises
are the duty, the immediate duty of all sinners, duly instructed,
and ought to occupy their minds at the present time. Now if
you direct them to other exercises different from these, and en-
tirely wanting in holiness, you do certainly interfere with the com-
mands of God. It is impossible for those whom you address, to
observe your directions, which require what is not holy, and at the
same time to observe the divine commands, which require holiness.
It is clear then, that such directions as you give, interfere with
the authority of God. For no one can follow them without neg-
Ifecting for the time to obey God.
Again. These inferior directions have a tendency to hinder the
conversion of sinners. For so long as they satisfy themselves
with observing such directions, they keep themselves in an uncon-
yerted state ; for the directions enjoin nothing but unregenerate
doings. And how can any one repent, while he is occupied in
doing that which is not repentance ? How can he believe, while
he puts forth those exercises only, which are destitute of faith ?
To obtain salvation, the sinner must go beyond these defective di-
rections, must rise above these unregenerate exercises, and attain
to those which constitute a compliance with the requisitions of the
gospel. And why should we do anything to hinder or delay this ?
DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS. 29
But I must say further, that the directions under consideration
not only tend to hinder or delay conversion, but may entirely
prevent it. An unregenerate man, deeply aifected with the sol-
emn truths which you delivered to him on the Sabbath, comes to
■you in the evening, and asks you, -what he shall do to be saved.
You direct him to exercises which fall short of repentance and
faith — exercises which he may have while he remains an enemy
to God. He complies with your directions, but dies before the
return of the Lord's day. He inquired for the way of salvation ;
he followed your directions, but failed of obtaining salvation.
You may say, — if you had faithfully exhorted him to repent and
believe, he might still have neglected to comply, and so failed of
salvation. True ; he might have done so. But that would have
been his fault, not yours. If however he had opened his heart to
instruction, and complied with the Scriptural directions you gave
him, he would have been saved. This is sufficient to settle the
point before us. Shall we give directions which, if followed, will
secure salvation ? Or shall we give those which, so long as they
are followed, will fail of securing salvation ? Which of these pro-
ceedings is most agreeable to the word of God, and most salutary
in its tendency ?
In regard to the instructions which I have animadverted upon,
there is a general consideration which weighs much in my mind ;
namely ; that all the good ends which are aimed at by those who
give them, may be accomplished more certainly and fully by those
directions, which are strictly conformed to Scripture.
They who direct the sinner to exercises which fall short of holi-
ness, do it in order to keep up and increase his attention to the
subject of religion ; to rouse him to more serious efforts ; to lead
him on to better views of divine truth, and to a deeper conviction
that he is depraved and lost ; and thus to prepare him to receive
salvation as an unmerited favor, and to give the glory of it to God
alone. These are indeed exceedingly important ends ; and there
can be no doubt that in many instances they are, through the
mercy of God, promoted in some measure by means of the direc-
tions referred to. What I maintain is, that they may be promoted
3*
30 DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNEHS.
more certainly and in a higher degree by those directions, -which
exactly correspond with the inspired standard.
The directions for which I contend, are the unalterable requisi-
tions of the law and the gospel — requisitions which are perfectly
reasonable, just and good, and which exhibit the true standard of
human duty. Now if the mind of the sinner is duly fixed upon
this divine standard, he must attain to a clearer view of his obh-
gations and the guilt of disobedience, than if he were led to con-
template a lower standard, — a standard to which he might
conform without hohness. If you would produce in the sinner a
deep conviction of the desperate wickedness of his heart, of the
evil of impenitence and unbelief, and the inexcusable criminality
of remaining in a state of enmity against God, you must lead liim
to dwell, in serious contemplation, upon the holy requirements of
the word of God, and must urge upon his conscience his perfect
obligation to an immediate compliance. He will naturally measure
his obhgations, and, of course, his guilt, by the requisitions incul-
cated upon him by those who speak to him in the name of God.
If those requisitions are different from the requisitions of God's
word — if you direct him to those doings which fall short of holi-
ness, and if he receives your directions as of divine authority,
and judges himself by them, the natural consequence will be, that
he will consider himself excusable for the want of hohness. If he
does in any considerable degree, follow your directions, he will
satisfy himself that he has done his duty ; and though still impen-
itent and unsanctined, will think favorably of his state. Where-
as, if he were led to measure his obligation and his guilt by the
right standard, he would be compelled to give up his favorable
opinion of himself and adopt a very humiliating view of his own
heart and life.
It is moreover obvious, that the sinner who fixes his eye upon
the high and perfect standard of duty which the Scriptures pre-
sent before him, and who thus attains to a deep conviction of his
depravity, guilt and danger, will ordinarily be excited to more
strenuous efforts, than one whose conviction is less deep and
thorough. The method then which I recommend has, even in this
DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS. 31
respect, an advantage above the other. With a moderate and defect-
ive conviction, a sinner may be roused to some serious endeavors to
better his condition. But his endeavors will be more earnest and
intense in proportion as he has a clearer apprehension of his guilt
and Avretchedness. When a sinner turns his thoughts undivid-
edlj upon the demands of the law and the gospel, and upon the
justice of those demands, when he has a decided impression that
he is really bound in duty to repent and turn from sin, and that
immediately ; to believe in Christ and become holy without delay
— with this impression, he will be waked up to the most vigorous
efforts to obtain deliverance from the bondage of sin. How infe-
rior in point of seriousness and intensity must be the efforts of
one, whose mind is turned off from the high claims of the law
and the gospel, and who contents himself with those directions
which require nothing above the reach of unregeneracy ! Those
evangelical ministers and writers, who give the defective direc-
tions against which I object, regard the efforts which they may
induce the sinner to make, as preparatory to that more thorough
conviction of guilt and ruin, which is generally followed by the
special operation of the Holy Spirit in bringing the sinner to faith
in Christ and the commencement of a new Ufe. The importance
of such conviction must not be overlooked. And it is a well
known fact, that God generally accomplishes it previously to the
manifestation of his mercy in the renewal of the heart ; and that
he thus effectually teaches his people from the commencement of
the Christian life, that salvation is wholly of God. And what I
maintain is, that those instructions and directions which explain
and inculcate the holy requisitions of the law and the gospel are,
under God, far better suited to accomplish this preparatory work
of growing seriousness and finally of thorough conviction, than
those directions which take lower ground. The preparatory Avork
intended implies that the high and holy requirements of the law
and gospel are seen and felt to be perfectly just and right, and
that they ought to be instantly complied with. And there are no
means by which we can so reasonably hope to bring sinners to
see and feel this, as by clearly explaining to them and laboring to
32 DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS.
impress on tlieir consciences and hearts, the very demands which
a holy and merciful God makes upon them. Suppose again, that
you direct them to other duties, so called — duties which imply
no repentance, no faith, no love. And suppose they do those
duties, as you direct. What then ? Why, the very fact that
they have faithfully followed your directions, will tend to beget
within them self-complacent thoughts, and a hope of obtaining
salvation by their own unsanctified doings, and thus to keep them
from being thoroughly convinced that they have destroyed them-
selves, and that salvation is of God. And to make the best of
it, if the thing stops here, certain ruin will be the consequence.
If you would do any thing to purpose with sinners in the state
above mentioned, you must go over the whole ground again, and
give them instruction according to the inspired standard. You must
plainly inform them, that all their feehngs and endeavors, while
impenitent, will avail nothing. You must show them, that a holy
God requires repentance, faith, and love, and must enforce these
reasonable duties upon them by the most weighty sanctions.
That is, you must do in the end what should have been done be-
fore ; and you must do it under the disadvantage of having much
to undo which has resulted from your previous directions ; under
the disadvantage too of an apparent inconsistency. For when
you come to pursue the course last mentioned, will not the sinner
who has been following your previous directions, be very apt to
think that he has been imposed upon by unauthorized representa-
tions, and to ask Avhy you did not tell him before that God really
required of him immediate repentance and faith, and that these
requisitions were entirely just, and that nothing short of a cordial
compliance could be acceptable to God, or entitle him to salvation ?
May he not say, that, while he was conforming to your instruc-
tions, he verily thought he was doing Avhat was right ; that he
could not suppose that a minister of the gospel would direct him
to any thing which would not be acceptable to God, particularly
on a subject so momentous as the salvation of the soul ; but that
he now finds that he has been mistaken — that all he has done is
nothing, and that his immediate and imperative duty is to repent
DIRECTIONS TO AAVAKENED SINNERS. 33
and believe in Christ ? He asks, why he was not informed of all
this before ; or, if it was in any manner signified to him, why his
mind was diverted from it by directions of so diEFerent a character.
Here is the difficulty. Such a double course creates confusion.
It divides the attention of the sinner ; misguides his conscience ;
blunts the edge of divine truth ; excites delusive expectations,
and prevents that full conviction of the righteous claims of God,
•which prepares the way for cordial faith and obedience.
It has, I trust, been made sufficiently evident, that all the de-
sirable ends aimed at by those who give a sinner the lower class
of directions under considei'ation, may be accomplished more cer-
tainly and in a higher degree by simply explaining and earnestly
inculcating the just and holy requisitions of God's word. So that
a careful observance of the principle which I have advocated, in-
stead of occasioning any loss of what is desirable, will be attended
with gain.
The mode of addressing sinners which I have recommended is
exceedingly plairi and simple, and yet has the advantage of great
variety ; and on all these accounts it is adapted to the different
characters and circumstances of those whom we are called to
instruct.
The divine requisitions are plain; and those to whom they are
addressed, cannot fail to understand them, except through their
own fault. They are also simple. Though many in number, they
all enjoin upon us substantially the same thing, that is, holiness.
But the directions of Scripture have a remarkable variety — a
variety which is suited to all the characters and circumstances of
men, and which gives room for all possible forms of awakening,
impressive and melting address from the ministers of Christ.
It would be a great mistake to suppose, as some appear to have
done, that what I have called the simple directions of Scripture,
begin and end with the repetition of the words, submit, repent,
believe. The Lord Jesus, and the apostles and prophets address
themselves to sinners in an almost endless variety of forms ;
sometimes in the way of direct requisition, sometimes in
the way of expostulation, persuasion, and intreaty ; and un-
84 DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS.
der each of these heads there is a striking variety. This is
specially true with the Scripture directions as to duty. The most
general and comprehensive of these is the call to repent and
believe. But the Scriptures are not restricted to these forms.
They require sinners to consider their ways, to receive instruction,
to turn from their evil courses, to abandon their sins, to cease to do
evil and learn to do Avell, to cleanse their hands and purify their
hearts, to pray, to call upon God, to seek the Lord, to look unto
Jesus, etc. Let any one examine the first and the fifty-fifth
chapters of Isaiah, and other similar portions of the word of God,
and see what various commands, exhortations, warnings and in-
treaties they exhibit, and what a storehouse they contain for the
use of religious teachers.
But it is still true, that when the sacred writers give us an
account of the instructions and directions which were addressed
to sinners, they do it in a very summary way. How brief, for
example, is their description of the preaching of John Bap-
tist, and of Jesus ! " They preached, saying, repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand." Again, it is said of Jesus, that
" he preached, saying, the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of
heaven is at hand : repent ye, and believe the gospel." During
Christ's ministry, he sent out the twelve apostles ; and it is
merely said, " they ^Dreached that men should repent." Jesus
represents it as the object of his advent, " to call sinners to
repentance." And Paul describes his preaching at Ephesus
merely by saying, that he " testified both to Jews and Greeks
repentance towards God and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ."
And when sinners inquired what they should do to be saved, the
apostles directed them to believe in Christ. .But the preaching
of Christ and the apostles was not made up of these brief expres-
sions merely, but extended to all the counsel of God, to all the
doctrines and duties of religion. Thaj pi'eached repentance.
But in preaching repentance, they doubtless explained the na-
ture and necessity of repentance, and urged the various consid-
erations which were suited to influence sinners to repent. And
•when they directed men to believe the gospel, they set forth
DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS. 35
the doctrines of the gospel. They showed that man is a sinner,
and Christ the only Saviour, and that a cleaving to him in faith
and obedience is the only way to obtain forgiveness and eternal
life. The same is true in other cases. There is then a wide field
open before us ; a rich variety of truths which we are to teach.
But whatever we do in the various branches of instruction, it
must be our constant endeavor to bring men to comply with the
requisitions of the gospel. If men are ignorant, we must labor
to make them acquainted with the truth — must teach them the
character and law of God, and their own depravity and guilt.
We must teach them the necessity of being bom of the Spirit.
We must preach Christ to them, and set him forth in all his per-
fections, offices and blessings. We must announce to them, in
God's name, the commands of the gospel and exhort them to a
cordial obedience, as the only thing which can be acceptable to
God and secure their salvation. We must press immediate obedi-
ence to the calls of the gospel, as altogether reasonable, as the
work which they are sacredly bound to do without delay, and which
they cannot neglect a single moment, without augmenting their
guilt. We must show them that they have no excuse for the
least postponement ; that reason, and conscience, the authority of
God and their own eternal welfare require them to submit to
Christ and receive his gracious offers now. We must show them,
that delaying repentance, or substituting any thing else in its
place, is rebellion ; that God deserves their supreme love, and
deserves it now ; that sin deserves their unmingled abhorrence,
and deserves it now ; that Christ is an all-sufficient and glorious
Saviour, and is worthy of their cordial trust and obedience, and
is worthy of it now. And whether we exhort them to repent, to
believe, or to pray — to read or to hear, or to do anything else
which God requires, we must exhort them to do it as God requires
— to do it fi-om the heart, and with a real desire for spiritual
blessings.
Let me add, that the mode of addressing sinners which I have
thus freely recommended, has the advantage of being more direct-
ly and entirely approved by conscience, than any other. There
38 DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS.
is nothing which rational beings look upon with so ready and
decided an approbation, and feel to be so obligatory upon them,
as supreme love to one "who is supremely excellent and amiable,
confidence in one who is infinitely powerful and good, and obedience
to one who has a rightful authority over them. If you urge these
high and sacred duties, you have conscience on your side. And
jou have a stronger decision of conscience in favor of what you
teach, than if you take lower ground, and inculcate inferior duties.
Suppose, for example, you merely tell sinners, it is their duty to at-
tend public worship, and listen to the instructions of the Sanctuary.
It is very possible they may doubt this, as it is an external service,
and becomes a duty only in subserviency to a higher object. To
convince them of their obligation to attend public worship, you
may find it necessary to bring forward principles of superior clear-
ness and force, such as the reverence they should feel for the
authority of God, and the ready submission they owe to whatever
he commands or appoints ; the worth of salvation, and the connec-
tion it has with the instructions and prayers of the Sanctuary, and
other principles of like kind. In order to persuade them of their
obligation to observe the institution and perform the outward ser-
vice above mentioned, you must impress upon them these more
simple and original principles and these more obvious and certain
obligations. The former obligation, when admitted bj them, is a
secondary obligation, and has far less power over the moral facul-
ties, than a primary obligation. However they may dispose of the
former, they cannot evade the latter. Ask them, is it not your
duty to love and adore the God who made you and who possesses
all possible perfection ? Is it not your duty to be grateful for his
constant kindness ? Is it not right for you to take care of your
own immortal soul, and to commit it to him who is able to save ?
Ought you not to repent of sin, and to obey the commands of a
wise and benevolent Sovereign ? Every one who is honest, will
answer, yes. It is an obligation which cannot be evaded — an
obligation which is obvious, and sacred, and immutable. Keep
the sinner's attention undividedly to this, and his conscience will
speak to him so plainly and so loudly that he must hear ; and if
DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS. 37
he refuses to submit, it will utter a sentence of condemnation
which will fill his guilty soul with terror.
But here a question may arise in your minds : — Do not the
Scriptures furnish examples of that mode of addressing sinners
which has here been represented as unscriptural ? Are they not
called upon to seek after God, to strive, to ask, to pray, etc. ?
I answer, yes. But it is evident that these are only so many
ways of setting forth the proper exercises of the penitent and con-
trite. When God in his word requires these exercises, he most
certainly requires that they should be performed in some specific
manner — either with a penitent heart, or an impenitent — either
with love to holiness, or with love to sin. If we say that in the
texts referred to, God requires exercises which are without any
degree of holiness, and which proceed from an impenitent, unre-
newed heart ; then we have the strange fact to dispose of, that
sinners may render an acceptable service to God without any
degree of holiness; — for doubtless God will accept just such
service as he requires ; and so unconverted men, retaining their
unbeheving, impenitent heart, may perform a service which God
requires and will accept. IIow then is it true, that without faith
it is impossible to please God, and that all unbelievers are under
condemnation ?
Do you say, that God requires these things of sinners without
determining how they are to be done ? But if God has not de-
termined this, who shall determine it ? And how can it be known,
whether sinners truly obey, or not ? And it mW be natural to
ask, why God has not determined in what manner the things
required of sinners shall be performed, that is, with what feelings
of heart he would have sinners seek, and strive, and pray. Is it
a matter of indifference with him who looketh on the heart, wheth-
er sinners strive and pray with right feelings of heart, or not ?
And if it is a matter of indifference with God, whether men strive
and pray with right feelings, or not — from love to him, or from
an opposite motive ; then what becomes of the first and great
command, which requires all men to love God supremely ? Is it
disannulled ? And if it is disannulled — if sinners are released
VOL. m. 4
38 DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS.
from all obligation to obey it ; I ask why thej are released ? Is
it because they are sinnei'S, and are not disposed to obey ? And
are they, for the same reason, released from their obligation to
obey all the other divine commands ? The general current of
Scripture precepts, and the holy character of God, make it
evident, that when he requires sinners to seek, to strive, to pray,
he requires them to do it with sincerity of heart, with faith in
Christ, and with a real love to the salvation which they seek, and
that he cannot accept them on any other terms. Seeking after
Crod is a Scripture phrase, which denotes a cordial desire after
God as the chief good, and a serious use of the means which he
has appointed for obtaining his favor. The phrase is often em-
ployed to designate the great business of good men through life.
Their piety is a constant seekincf after Gfod. And when sinners
are required to seek after God, they are required to commence a
life of piety. And the promise is, that they shall find him, if
they seek him with the whole heart.
The same as to striving. Jesus said, " Strive to enter in at
the strait gate." He meant to direct to efforts which would be
successful, as appears from what he immediately adds ; " for many
I say unto you shall seek to enter in and shall not be able." He
thus showed that everything depended on the kind of efforts
which he enjoined, as other efforts would fail of success. " If a
man strive for masteries," says an Apostle, " yet is he not crown-
ed, except he strive lawfully." And he speaks of Christians as
" striving in their prayers." And in reference to the work of his
apostleship, he speaks of himself "• as striving according to the
divine power which worked in him mightily. ' Striving in Scrip-
ture use denotes great earnestness — intense effort in the work of
religion.
The passage in which Christ required men to ask, that they
might receive, and to knock that it might be opened unto them,
must be understood in the same sense. They are required to
ask for the influence of the Spirit with importunity, and from a
sincere desire to obtain that unspeakable good. To whom, but to
those who ask with a penitent, believing heart, has God promised
to give that precious blessing ?
DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS. 39
As to prayer, God does indeed require it of all men. But
what is the prayer which he requires ? It is prayer offered up
in faith. " He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and
that he is the rewarder of them who diligently seek him." It
must be offered up in the name of Christ, and with a hearty
reliance upon him as a Saviour. It must be attended with repen-
tance and confession, and with a disposition to do the will of
God. Such, according to the Scriptures, must be the prayer
which will be acceptable to God, and will secure a gracious
answer. If any one who prays is destitute of faith ; if he is not
penitent and contrite ; if he has not, in some measure, a heart to
do the will of God ; his prayer is an abomination. While, then,
we earnestly exhort sinners to pray, we must not leave them to
think, that the prayer of those who have no repentance or faith
and who regard miquity in their heart, will secure the blessings
of salvation. We must faithfully teach them, that it is a most
reasonable and indispensable duty to pray, and to pray as God
requires.
A careful examination of the word of God will convince you,
that his commands are all harmonious, and that there is no one of
them which, taken according to its true intent, does not require a
penitent, obedient heart. If we should take different ground,
and represent that any feelings, desires, endeavors, or prayers
will be acceptable to God and secure spiritual blessings, without
repentance, faith, or love ; we should do what would be inconsis-
tent with the holiness of God, and with the just and immutable
teachings of his word.
I have been thus particular in the treatment of this subject,
because I deem it of great importance, both as it relates to the
honor of God and the spiritual interests of men. In itself, it
would seem to be encumbered with no special difficulty. The
practice of inspired men, in directing sinners how to obtain salva-
tion, is perfectly plain and satisfactory. But it has been involved
in obscurity by the subtle objections of an unhumbled, self-justi-
fying heart, and I must say too, by the manner in which it has
been treated by some gospel ministers, who have appeared to
40 DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS.
think that the higli commands of God must, m some way, be so
modified, that sinners may perform an accejjtable service, for a
time at least, without either repentance or faith. Against this
mistake we ought to guard, both in the matter and manner of our
instructions, and scrupulously to follow our mfallible guide. We
must never forget, that God himself has informed us what he
requires of sinners as necessary to salvation, and what directions
we are to give them. The duty assigned to us is to declare and
explain his requirements, and, by proper motives, to enforce
them ; to persuade sinners to do just what God commands, and
what a faithful conscience and a just regard to their own eternal
interest require — always taking part with God, vindicating the
righteousness and goodness of all his requirements, and exposing
the wickedness and iuexcusableness of sinners in refusing a cordial
obedience.
But you may ask, why the manner of addressing sinners which
I have represented as unscriptural, has not been more notoriously
hurtful in its effects ; especially why some of those ministers, who
have adopted it, have preached with so much success.
I grant that some of the most faithful and successful ministers
have done, in part, what I regard as unscriptural ; I say, in part.
They have prescribed to sinners, as duties, a class of exercises
which imply neither repentance nor faith, and have made much
of these duties, as preparatory to a saving conversion. Now if
they had contented themselves with inculcating these unregene-
rate doings, and had neglected to enforce the high demands of
God in the laAV and in the gospel, the results must have been
deplorable indeed. But this has not been the case. For though
they have directed sinners to do a variety of things, which imply
no repentance or faith, they have not stopped here, but have
inculcated the highest claims of the law and the gospel as per-
fectly righteous and perfectly obligatory, and have exhorted and
entreated' sinners to comply with them, and to comply with them
immediately, that is, at the very time, when, according to the
lower set of directions, the persons addi-essed were to be em-
ployed in exercises of a very different kind. The two modes of
DIRECTIONS TO AAVAKENED SINNERS. 41
address are plainly inconsistent with each other, as it is impossible
for any person to comply truly with one of these classes of direc-
tions, Avithout for the time neglecting the other. But notwith-
standing this inconsistency, which is generally passed by without
being much thought of, the instructions of such ministers, taken
together, have been productive of very salutary effects. The ten-
dency of Avhat is unscriptural has been counteracted or neutralized
by the greater proportion of whfit is Scriptural. The high claims
of the law and the gospel which are held forth, may have a para-
mount influence over the minds of sinners, and may raise them
above the danger to which they would otherwise be exposed by
the lower directions given. It is the amount of truth which pro-
duces the result. The inconsiderable portion of error which is
intermingled, though in itself of bad tendency, does not prevent,
though it may diminish, the good effect of the great body of
truth. Were it not for this happy circumstance — which we owe
to the forbearance and mercy of God — no human instructions
would be safe, because no human instructions can be supposed to
contain pure truth, free from all mixture of error.
In the way of objection against what I have advanced, it may
be said, that sinners, in their depraved and unregenerate state,
are incapable of complying with the higher class of directions
above mentioned, and that it would seem expedient to prescribe
such exercises as are within the reach of the unregenerate mind.
In reply to this, it would be sufficient to repeat what has been
suggested in previous Lectures, that the depravity of men is not
such as to interfere with their obligation to obey the divine com-
mands ; and to refer to the example of inspired teachers, who
uniformly addressed to sinners, however depraved, the unqualified
demands of the law and the gospel, and, in the name of God,
required of them an immediate compliance. It is the duty of all
the ministers of Christ to follow in the steps of those who were
divinely commissioned to declare the counsel of God. *
I shall notice one more argument which has been used in favor of
the lower class of directions to sinners, namely, that God actually
uses unregenerate doings, as a means of preparing sinners to receive
4*
42 DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS.
the grace of the gospel ; and that it is therefore proper for us to
direct them to just such doings — thus falling in with the methods
of divine providence.
I admit the fact stated, but not the inference. The methods of
God's sovereign providence cannot be regarded as the rule of our
dutv. In some instances, within my knowledge, God has made use
of the excess of profaneness and wickedness in sinners, as a means of
awakening their consciences and biynging them to repentance. And
we know that in one way or another he will overrule all the wick-
edness of man for the accomplishment of good ends. But who,
except the impious scoifer, will infer from this, that wickedness
ought to be cither committed, or prescribed as a duty ? The
backslidings of Christians are, in the economy of grace, made the
means of humbling them, and exciting their gratitude to God for
his forbearance and mercy. But who ever, on this account,
thinks proper to direct Christians to backslide ? God, as Sove-
reign of the world, has his province and his prerogative. And
his province and prerogative is to direct and control all creatures
and events according to his own wise and holy will. Man has Mb
province — a pro^^nce assigned to him by the wisdom of his Cre-
ator. It is the province of a subject ; and his duties are marked
out for him in the precepts of the law and the gospel. As
ambassadors of Christ, we have our province — our appropriate
work. We are not to make a law for apostate man, but to pro-
claim the law which God has made — to require of the sinner
just what God requires ; to forbid what God forbids ; to encou-
rage him by promises and to alarm by threats, just as God autho-
rizes us — never going out of our province — never undertaking
to control events, or to remodel the divine commands — never
meddling with anything but our own appropriate work. How
desirable and excellent this order of things ! God acting as God,
and doing his own holy and benevolent work ; man acting in his
place as a subject, and conforming to the will of his righteous
Sovereign ; and ministers acting in their appropriate office, as ser-
vants and messengers of Christ, and proclaiming, unaltered, his
invitations, commands, and promises.
DIRECTIONS TO AWAKENED SINNERS. 43
One thing more. The mode of ministerial address which I
have endeavored to defend, has the recommendation of being in
agreement with the special work of tlie Holy Spirit. What is the
aim of the Spirit, when he comes with saving mercj to the souls
of sinners ? What does he do ? He convinces them of sin, and
urges them to forsake it. He directs their thoughts to the Sa-
viour, and impresses them with the duty of faith in him and sub-
mission to his authority. He reveals to them the glory of God,
and shows them their obligation to love him Avith all the heart.
He gives countenance to nothing but holiness. And when his
influence is effectual in sinners, they repent, they believe, they
love and obey, just as the word of God requires them to do.
And whatever they may do with an impenitent, unbelieving heart,
the Spirit teaches them that it is of no avail — that God cannot
look upon it with approbation, and that they ought, without delay,
to comply with the reasonable demands of the gospel. Now we
shall cooperate with the Holy Spirit, if we teach, and direct, and
persuade in our ministry, as he teaches, directs, and persuades in
the souls of those whom he visits in mercy. Thus all is true and
holy in the requirements of the law and the gospel ; all is bene-
volent and holy in the work of Christ and in the agency of the
Spirit ; and all is faithful and holy in the teachings of his minis-
ters ; — and there is nothing wrong but in the hearts of unbeliev-
ing, rebellious men ; and that wrong ceases so far as they obey
the united teachings of the word, the Spirit, and the ministers of
Christ.
LECTURE XC.
EVIDENCES OF THE NEW BIRTH. GENERAL RULE OF JUDGMENT.
DIFFICULTIES OF APPLYING THE RULE TO INDIVIDUALS. CAU-
TIONS TO BE OBSERVED.
Having discussed the subject of regeneration in various points
of view, I shall now consider the evidences of it, or the manner
in which it is made known. In what way then, or by what means
are we to judge, whether the Spirit of God has wrought a saving
change in ourselves or others ?
The general answer to this inquiry is found in the declaration
of Christ ; " Ye shall know them by their fruits." His illustra-
tion of this is taken from the natural world. " Do men gather
grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles ? Even so every good tree
bringeth forth good fruit ; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil
fruit. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
The character of man cannot be known by us, as it is by God,
who looks on the heart, and knows perfectly, without means, and
without any liability to mistake, all the affections and habits of the
mind. All the knowledge we can attain on the subject, must be
derived from what is visible to us. The nature of a tree is known
by its fruit. We may sometimes undertake to judge of a tree,
which has not as yet borne any fruit. But as soon as the fruit
appears, its quality determines our opinion of the quahty of the
tree.
The instructions of Christ, however, do not imply, that we can
obtain an infallible knowledge of the characters of men. They
only imply, that so far as it belongs to us in the present world to
EVIDENCES OF REGENERATION. 45
judge of our fellow creatures, we are to do it by observing their
conduct. If their actions are I'ight, we must conclude that their
character is right. Actions which are really good, are a certain
proof of a good character. But actions may appear to us to be
good, which are not so in reality. We should be aware of this.
And the remembrance of our liability to mistake should have a
proper influence upon us, whenever we form an opinion of the
characters of men.
In judging of our own character, we are to proceed on the
same general principle. There is however a plain difference be-
tween the two cases. We can have a more extensive and partic-
ular acquaintance with our own outward actions, than with those
of others. And as to the whole range of inward affections, dis-
positions and motives — we are directly conscious of them in our-
selves ; but as they exist in others, we know them only m the way
of inference from their visible conduct. So that, if we were free
from partiality, we should be under far better advantages for
judging of ourselves, than for judging of others. But so great
is our partiality to ourselves, and so blinding is the influence of
self-love, that notwithstanding the peculiar advantages which we
possess for forming a right judgment of ourselves, we are gener-
ally more liable to mistake in regard to our own character, than
in regard to the character of others.
The Holy Spirit, the supreme agent in renewing sinners, is in-
visible. His agency, in itself, separately from its effects, is also
invisible. We are acquainted with the divine Spirit and with his
agency in the renova-tion of the heart, in the same way as we are
acquainted with the divine power and agency in the resurrection
of Christ. If you had been looking steadfastly upon the body of
Jesus in the tomb at the time of its resurrection, what would you
have seen ? Would you have seen God himself, the infinite Spirit,
in his own nature ? No. Would you have seen God's power,
as an attribute of his own infinite mind ? No. Would you have
seen the divi7ie act itself, from which the resurrection followed as
an effect ? No. You could have seen nothing but the effect
produced — the lifeless body revived — the body which was dead,
46 EVIDENCES OF REGENERATION.
living and moving. And you could have bad no evidence that
such an act of divine power had taken place, or that the principle
of life had been' imparted, except from the visible effects which
followed in the state and actions of the reanimated body. The
same as to creation. If God were to create a new world, and
you were to be spectators of the work, what would you behold ?
A world which did not before exist, now existing. You would see
the effect ; the invisible cause you would infer. The manner of
the new birth is illustrated by the motion of the wind. The ef-
fects of it we behold. But the wind itself and its motion are
invisible. It is impossible for us to look upon the mind itself, and
see its faculties, its qualities, or even its existence, except by
means of its visible actions.
This is the principle on which the sacred writers proceed when-
ever they undertake to show us how to judge whether men are
renewed or not. Thus, the Apostle John represents love as an
evidence of regeneration. — " Love is of God ; and every one
that loveth, is born of God." He also represents /azY/i as an evi-
dence of a regenerate state. " Whosoever belie veth that Jesus
is the Christ, is born of God." He speaks in the same way of a
victory over the world. " Whosoever is born of God, overcometh
the world." Renouncing sin and living in obedience to God, is
mentioned as another characteristic of the regenerate. " Whoso-
ever is born of God doth not commit sin." It is just as true of
other branches of holiness, as of those mentioned by this Apostle,
that they are evidences of regeneration. Penitence and humility,
love to God's law, hungering and thirsting after righteousness,
compassion for the souls of men, deUght in prayer, the spirit of
forgiveness and self-denial — these are all fruits of the Spirit, and
they show that he who possesses them is born of the Spirit.
But if men are known by their fruits, whence arises the diffi-
culty of forming a right judgment respecting their character, and
the manifest danger of falling into mistakes ? If we find the
fruit of a tree to be figs, are we not sure the tree is a fig tree ?
If we find grapes, do we not know that they grow from a grape-
vine ? In like manner, if men bear the fruits of holiness, may
EVIDENCES OF REGENERATION. 4T
we not conclude with certainty that they are in a regenerate
state ?
Such indeed would be our conclusion, could we certainly deter-
mine the nature of the fruit. But how often do we find it im-
possible to do this ! Here we come upon the circumstances which
occasion the well-known difficulty of forming a right judgment
of the characters of men.
In the first place, it is frequently if not generally the case,
that those who are regenerate, exercise holy affections in only a
loiv degree, and render only a defective obedience to the divine
commands. Their love to God, their faith in Christ, and their
hatred of sin are so feeble, and exert so imperfect an influence on
the life, that it is hard to determine whether the heart is renewed
or not. How it comes to pass, that the holy affections of those
who are born again are so feeble and impei-fect, I shall not now
inquire. The fact is obvious. And the consequence is, that we
are in danger of judging those to be unre gene rate, in whom the
work of sanctification is really commenced. Their spiritual fife is
not sufficiently developed to prove clearly that it exists. This
view of the subject should guard us against forming too confident
a conclusion against those, whose evidence of piety is at present
defective. To decide against them might be a mistake. And it
mi^ht be a mistake to decide in their favor. The dictate of wis-
dom, in such a case, is, to suspend our judgment, till time and
circumstances enable us to form a more safe and correct opinion.
But here a particular danger occurs. Persons learn from read-
ing and observation, that those who are considered to be real
Christians, have generally but a low degree of religious affection,
and obey God only in an imperfect manner. Hence, although
destitute of holiness, they are inclined to think well of their own
state, because there is something in their feelings and conduct
which is, in their view, equal to what they see in Christians.
Thus they abuse the doctrine of the imperfection of Christians ;
and because others are thought to be regenerate, who have but a
low degree of piety, they think themselves regenerate, when they
have none.
4S EVIDENCES OE REGENERATION.
But let it not be supposed from these remarks, that a low de-
gree of holy affection and obedience necessarily belongs to Chris-
tians at the commencement or at any subsequent stage of their
piety. Many Christians — many even of those who have been
recently converted, exhibit such strength of holy affection, and
such sincerity and earnestness in their obedience, as to afford very
satisfactory evidence that they have been born of the Spirit.
This higher degree of piety is to be acknowledged as a signal ef-
fect of divine influence ; and in those instances where it exists, it
prevents the difficulty above mentioned.
But secondly ; the difficulty arising from the low degree of
pious affections, is greatly increased by the mixture of other affec-
tions of an opposite character. If right affections, though feeble,
were found alone, they might soon afford satisfactory evidence of
regeneration. But this evidence is obscured by the sinful affec-
tions which are intermingled. And it is a lamentable fact, that
in many, I will not say most Christians, sinful affections seem to
constitute the greater part. This fact is not only lamentable, but
astonishing, and ought to cause the deepest humility and shame.
Who could believe such a thing, were it not made evident by
Scripture and experience, as that sinners, who have been re-
deemed by the blood of Jesus, and renewed by the Holy Spirit,
and have tasted the blessedness of reconcihation with God, would
ever forget their God and Saviour, and cleave to the world, and
yield to the influence of selfish, earthly desires ? Yet many know
this to their sorrow. And they know how difficult it is, amid this
prevalence of earthly affections, to discover any clear signs of
sanctification. For such affections not only occupy the place ia
the mind, which ought to be occupied hj holy love, but they ex-
tinguish the light of the soul, and render it incapable of discern-
ing spiritual things, or of judging between what is holy and what
is unholy.
Thirdly, the difficulty is still further increased by the circum-
stance, that so many affections have an appearance of holiness,
when they are destitute of the reality. The tree is indeed known
bj the fruit. But suppose that, while there is in fact no fruit
EVIDENCES OF REGENERATION. 49
which is trulj good, there is much which appears to be good. Is
it not difficult for those who notice this appearance of good fruit,
to know the quality of the tree ? The general rule which has
been stated, is true and important. The tree is known by the
fruit. There is no other rule which we are capable of appljdng.
But if circumstances occur which make it impossible or difficult
for us to determine what the fruit is, it will be equally impossible
or difficult to determine what is the quality of the tree. So in
regard to character. Holy exercises furnish real evidence of
regeneration. But where is the evidence, when we are unable to
know whether there are any holy exercises, or not ?
Fourthly. There is one more circumstance, which renders it
difficult for Christians to form a satisfactory opinion of their char-
acter ; namely, that their right exercises are so often interrupted.
Could we find a continued series of good exercises, even though
deficient in strength, we should have opportunity to examine them ;
and mio-ht at length be satisfied that thev are the genuine fruits
of the Spirit. But if we have right affections, how soon are they
interrupted ! How soon do other feelings arise, and change the
posture of the mind ! Now the tree bears good fruit ; noio bad.
What confusion does this create in our attempts to determine
what the tree is !
Other circumstances might be mentioned ; but these are suffi-
cient to account for it, that so many Christians, both at the be-
ginning and through the whole progress of their spiritual life, are
subject to doubts, and enjoy so little of the comforts of hope.
The same circumstances expose us to mistakes in regard to the
characters of others.
Having considered the general rule by which we are to judge
of characters, and various difficulties attending the apphcation
of the rule in regard both to ourselves and to others ; I proceed
to remark, that the evidence of regeneration exists in a great va-
riety of degrees. This evidence will generally be clear and satis-
factory to Christians in proportion to the strength and permanence
of their pious affections. The degree of repentance, faith and
love among Christians is exceedingly various. It is hardly to be
VOL. in. 6
60 EVIDENCES OF REGENERATION.
supposed that any two of tliem have exactly the same measure of
holiness. This measure varies also in each individual Christian at
different times. The pious affections of a young convert may be
strong and elevated, aYid may thus make it manifest, that he is
indeed born of the Spirit. But his affections may afterwards be-
come low and feeble ; and he may wholly or in part lose the evi-
dence of his renewal. Then he may be roused from his spiritual
sloth, and attain to higher exercises of piety than ever before, and
may in this way attain to proportionably clearer evidence of
Christian character.
It is a question not easily answered, how far a Christian in a
time of spiritual declension may consider the feehngs he had and
the actions he performed in his better days, as a proof that he
is a child of God. The recollection of former love, obedience
and joy may have and ought to have some influence upon a
Christian in seasons of backsliding and darkness. It ought, at
least, to encourage and excite him to return to God, and to hope
in his mercy. In a qualified sense, past exercises of piety may
be regarded as indications that the Holy Spirit has begun his
saving work in the heart. And regarding them in this light may
be not only safe, but salutary, if it leads the believer to a thor-
ough repentance, to gratitude, and to watchfulness against sin.
But it is often, if not generally true, that a Christian who has
wandered from God, is incapable of enjoying the comforts of relig-
ion ; and that, while he refuses to return from his wandering, any
attempt to derive evidence of his good estate from his past expe-
rience, would be injurious to his spiritual interests. The proper
business of one in such a state is penitently to confess his sins,
to return to God, to exercise faith in Christ, and to walk in new-
ness of life. Let him do this, and he will have no occasion to
rely upon former experience. His repentance, his return to God,
his faith, and his holy obedience, will at once furnish evidence of
his happy state. As to comfort — he ought never to make it a
direct and primary object. Ordinarily he will enjoy as much as
is suitable to his condition. And his enjoyment will be more
pure and more exquisite, when he has it without seeking it.
EVIDENCES OF HE GENERATION. 51
Here is a suitable place to suggest another view of the subject,
■which I regard as of great practical importance, especially to
ministers of the gospel ; that is, the maiiifest im^jropriety qfforyn-
ing and expressing a confident conclusion that simmers are converted,
before they have had sufficient time to exhibit the fruits of the
Spint. I say, a confident conclusion. For we may certainly be-
gin to entertain a favorable opinion of any one who begins to show
signs of repentance. We should notice with pleasure any evi-
dence of a change of heart, yea, any indication of uncommon
seriousness, however recent it may be. But who can undertake
to judge of the character of others, upon a brief acquaintance
■with their conduct, without liability to mistake ? Those natural
affections which belong to unregenerate man, may assume the
similitude of religion. That heart which is deceitful above all
things, may put on appearances so fail' and promising, that you
can hardly refuse to cherish the idea that the work of grace has
been accomplished. Many of those who give pleasing evidence
of a new heart, do, after a time, forsake the ways of piety, and
show by their conduct, that all the appearances of religion in
them have been deceptive. Now if the history of the church
from the days of the apostles to the present time proves this to
be a matter of fact ; ought we not to remember it ? If any sin-
ners, by a sudden change in their conversation and conduct, make
the impression on our minds that they have been born of the
Spirit, ought not the impression to be somewhat qualified by the
thought, that their future life may occasion a disappointment of
our hopes ? Is it the dictate of wisdom — is it according to the
will of God, that -n'e should indulge and express as confident a
persuasion of the piety of those who have turned their attention
to the subject of religion only a few days or hours, as of those
who have been long walking in the ways of godliness, and have
manifested the Christian temper in seasons of severe trial ?
Should not the deceitfulness of the heart and the subtlety of the
wicked one be subjects of consideration, when we go about to
form an opinion of the religious character of those around us ?
Should they not be subjects of particular instruction in a revival
62 EVIDENCES OF RE GENEE ATION .
of religion ? When sinners begin to awake to the things which
belong to their peace, should they not be apprised of the dangers
and delusions to which they are exposed, and taught how to es-
cape them ? How did Christ treat this subject during his public
ministry ? Did he leave his disciples or any of his hearers to
suppose, that all those whose feelings were moved under the
preaching of the gospel, and who gave visible signs of repentance,
were really children of God and heirs of heaven ? Read the par-
able of the sower, in which he portrays the different characters
of those who enjoy divine insti-uctions. " Some seed," he says,
" fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth ; and
forthwith sprung tip, because they had no depth of earth. And
when the sun was up, they were scorched ; and because they had
no root, they withered away." This, he tells us, represents those
who hear the word, and at once receive it ; yet have not root in
themselves, and endure only for a while. As the sudden vegeta-
tion of the seed was owing to the very fact, that there was no
depth of soil, so the sudden kindling of religious affection and
joy, which sometimes appears under the preaching of the gospel,
results from the want of deep seriousness and of a thorough work
of the Holy Spirit. The parable also represents other classes of
hearers who, though more or less affected under the gospel dispen-
sation, are not savingly benefitted ; and refers to only one class,
in whom the word produces the proper effect.
Again, " the kingdom of heaven is likened to a man who sowed
good seed in his field ; but while men slept, his enemy came and
sowed tares among the wheat." The tares came up, and were so
mingled with the wheat, and so like it, that they could not be
safely separated from it before the time of the harvest.
In these and other ways, our Saviour took pains to teach us,
how deceitful are the hearts of men, how liable we are to mistake
in judging of their character, and how different the final result
of the gospel dispensation will be from what present appearances
would seem to indicate. And it is incumbent on the ministers of
Christ to repeat and explain the instructions and warnings which
their Lord gave, and to use them for th,e welfare of the church.
EVIDENCES OF REGENERATION. 53
We ought indeed to desire and pray, that the seed sown may
spring up. But is it a matter of no concern with us, whether it
spring up Uke the seed on stony places, for want of a deep soil,
or like the seed on good ground «? While we are diUgent in sow-
ing wheat in our Lord's field, and long to see it covered with an
abundant vegetation, shall we consider it no evil, if the enemy
should come and sow tares in the field ? And though for a time
we may not be able to distinguish the tares from the wheat ;
shall we bo unmindful of the evil of having them there ?
The plain and solemn admonitions of Christ on this subject
should not be neglected. We should listen to them for our own
benefit, and proclaim them for the benefit of others. Love to
Christ and his church, and faithfulness to the souls of men require
this. If the heart is deceitful above all things ; if appearances
may be fallacious ; if there may be strong emotions on the subject
of religion, without holiness, — if these things are facts, they
ought surely to be declared. I do not say, that such instructions
and warnings should be given in every sermon. The truth which
pertains to this particular subject, does not constitute the substance
of the Christian religion, and it ought not to be dwelt upon as
though it did. And it is my apprehension, that some preachers
and some writers give comparatively too much attention to the
mere trial of character, and too httle to those essential, moving
truths, which contribute directly to the formation of character.
But because the instructions and cautions to which I refer, do not
constitute the great system of divine truth, it does not follow that
they constitute no part of it. Nor does it follow that they are of
little consequence, or that they can be passed in silence without
danger to the interests of rehgion. They will be found to be
specially important to those who have a direct agency in building
up the church. For surely they ought to look well to the mate-
rial to be used in the building, and to distinguish gold, and silver,
and precious stones from hay, wood, and stubble. In truth, these
instructions are important to every man on earth ; because every
man is soon to appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and his
mistaking his own character now and thinking himself a believer
5*
54 EVIDENCES OF REGENERATION.
when he is not, mil be followed by a woful disappointment and
loss. High and sacred are the obligations which bind the minis-
ters of Christ to fidelity in regard to this interesting subject.
How can we think without anguish, of meeting poor, deluded sin-
ners at the last day who once thought themselves heirs of heaven,
and who will discover their fatal error too late ! And how could
we bear to hear any of them accost us in such language as this :
Why did you not tell us of the deceiffulness of sin and the wiles of
Satan ? Wity did you suffer us to number ourselves with the dis-
ciples of Christ, without pointiny out to us the various sources of
fatal self-deception to which we were exposed ?
As ministers of Christ we should faithfully declare the counsel
of God, and watch for souls as those who must give an account.
In the exercise of candor and justice, we ought to hope well of
those who show any signs of conversion. And our benevolence
should lead us to rejoice over every sinner who, in the judgment
of charity, gives evidence of repentance. But hope and joy are not
the only feelings we should cherish and manifest toward those who
appear to be setting out in the way to heaven. We cannot know
for a certainty that they have experienced the renewing of the
Holy Ghost. And for us to treat them as though we did know it,
would be contrary to the word of God, and would be an injury to
them, whether truly converted, or not. Love and faithfulness
requu-e us to tell them without reserve, what the truth is in
regard to their case. If it is a truth that the heart is deceitful
above all things, and that many who have manifested love to
Christ and sorrow for sin, have afterwards shown themselves to be
strangers to the grace of God ; this ought to be declared. If it is
a truth, that the best evidence of their regeneration must consist,
not so much in present appearances, however pleasing, as in a
uniform course of humihty, obedience, and usefulness in their sub-
sequent life ; that we cannot feel any assurance that they are real
Christians, before they have, for some time, exhibited the fruits
of the Spirit ; this is what we should endeavor to impress upon
their minds. If it is a truth that appearances of sudden conver-
sion sometimes arise from the very fact, that there is no thorough
EVIDENCES OF REGENERATION. 55
conviction of sin, and no deep impression of divine things ; this
truth should not be concealed. If it is a truth that, at the judg-
ment daj, surprising discoveries will be made as to the characters
of those who now profess to be Christians ; — that many, once
numbered with the followers of Christ, will then be found Uke the
foolish virgins who had no oil with their lamps ; this is a truth
which we ought faithfully to teach. If the judgment day wiU
show, by many a sorrowful example, that, though a man speak with
the tongue of men and of angels ; though he understand all mys-
teries and all knowledge ; though he preach the gospel in Christ-
ian or in heathen lands, and die as a martyr ; if he have not that
holy love which is the fruit of the Spirit, he is nothing, and wiU at
last hear the voice of him, whose gospel he preached, saying to
him, " I never knew you ; " this is a truth of inexpressible impor-
tance to ministers, and in the expectation of the all-revealing day,
they ought most seriously to inculcate it upon each other, and
upon themselves. It was under the influence of such a view of
the subject, that even Paul, distinguished as he was among the
apostles, felt it to be necessary to take great and constant care,
lest, after preachmg the gospel to others, he himself should be
disapproved.
LE CTURE XCI
NATUKE OF TRUE VIRTUE, OR HOLINESS. DEFINITION. MORAL
LAW THE STANDARD. GENERAL BENEVOLENCE AND REGARD
TO PRIVATE GOOD CONSISTENT.
The nature of that virtue or holiness, which results from the
renovating influence of the Spirit, has been noticed more or less
in the preceding Lectures ; but I propose now to consider it more
particularly. What then is holiness ? And how shall it he
described ?
Edwards defines it to be, love to being in general. This defi-
nition of virtue, as intended and explained bj the author, is, I
doubt not, conformed to truth. But, as a definition, is it exactly
and logically correct? To define a thing is, literally, to mark
out its limits or bounds. In a more general view, it is to describe
those qualities and circumstances of a thing which make it what it
is, and which distinguish it from everything else. Suppose, in
defining an elephant, you say, he is an animal. The proposition
is true ; but it forms no proper definition of an elephant, as it
does not distinguish him from a horse, an eagle, or a whale. Nor
is it sufficient to say, he is a quadruped and of great strength.
For this is true of other animals. A naturalist, in giving an
exact definition of the elephant, would describe those attributes
which distinguish him from all other animals. A complete defini-
tion must give the genus, that is, the general nature of the thing
defined, and the species, that is, the qualities which show what it
is in distinction from everything else. Take now the definition of
virtue or holiness above noticed. Virtue is love to being in gene-
NATURE OF HOLINESS. 57
ral. It is doubtless love ; but to wliat ? Being in general com-
prises all that exists, whether material or spiritual. But the
author shows that he did not mean to include all this. He
referred only to intelligent, moral beings. His definition, then,
was too large, including more than was intended. It should have
been expressly limited to intelligent, moral beings. Again. We
caimot love intelligent, moral beings, except so far as we know
them, or have an apprehension of them. And as our knowledge
of intelHgent beings is very limited, so must our love be. This,
too, should be expressed in an exact and complete definition ;
thus : virtue is love to intelligent beings, so far as tJiey are appre-
hended. But it plainly implies a disposition to love other intelli-
gent beings, who shall hereafter be made known to us. And this,
too, might be included in the definition, as it is in the particular
explanation which the author gives. Virtue is love to intelligent,
moral beings, so far as they are known, implying a disposition to
extend our love, as knowledge shall be increased. And this more
extensive love will be only a further development of the same
affection ; this further development resulting, as a natural conse-
quence, from the existence of holy affection in the heart. For
example ; if we have a benevolent feeling towards a few beings,
because they are rational and immortal, and capable of happiness
or misery ; we shall, for the same reason, have a benevolent feel-
ing towards other beings of like nature. But the virtuous man
does not love all intelligent beings in the same manner and
degree. He does not love wicked beings with an emotion of the
same kind as he loves good beings ; the last including comjjla-
cency as well as benevolence, whereas the former is benevolence or
good will merely. The love of virtuous, holy beings varies also
in degree, according to the degree of excellence or worth posses-
sed by those who are its objects.
All these points are brought into view in the explanation which
Edwards gives of his definition of virtue — a definition which,
taken by itself, is incomplete, and could not be expected to con-
vey the sense intended.
The distinction of holy love into benevolence and complacency^
58 NATURE OF HOLINESS.
"whicli has just been hinted at, is grounded in the nature of the
affection, as it stands related to different objects. If we love
those who are not holy, our love will take the form of benevo-
lence, and will act itself out in desires and endeavors that they
may be holy and happy. If the objects of our love are created
beings, who are now in a degree holy and happy, but who are
liable to sin and suffering, in this case our love will operate in the
way of both benevolence and complacency.
But how is it in regard to the Supreme Being, who possesses
infinite and unchangeable perfection and blessedness ? Is he the
object of benevolence ? Are we to desire his holiness and blessed-
ness ? We may desire to be partakers of holiness and blessed-
ness ourselves ; but is it proper to say, that good men desire that
God may be perfectly and unchangeably holy and happy ? Now
we must consider that desire, properly speaking, is excited by the
absence or ivant of some good ; it is an eagerness to obtain some-
thing not now possessed. If it relates to another, it is a wish
that he may obtain some good which he does not now enjoy. But
how can we, properly speaking, be said to desire to have ourselves,
or to desire that another should have, what is already possessed ?
You may ask whether the continuance of the good may not be a
proper object of desire ? Evidently it may be, if the good is in
any way liable to be lost. But suppose there is no possibility of
its being lost — suppose the perpetual continuance of it is as
absolutely certain as the present possession of it, which is the
case with the holiness and happiness of God — how can we then
desire it ? What place for desire, when all the good contem-
plated is now in certain and unchangeable possession ? If, then,
we speak of God as the object of our benevolence, it must be in a
somewhat indefinite sense, — not that we, strictly speaking, desire
his holiness or his happiness. But here is the place for the dis-
tinctive exercise of complacency. We take pleasure in the
unbounded moi'al excellence and blessedness of God. Considered
as perfectly holy and happy, he is the object of our perfect com-
placency. He is, indeed, the object of our desire; that is, we
desire to behold him, to see him as he is, and to enjoy him. This
NATURE OF HOLINESS. 59
is a good which we do not enjoy, except in a very low and imper-
fect degree. The full enjoyment of it is, therefore, to us an object
of desire.
But is it not our duty to desire and seek the glory of God,
though it is infinite and immutable ? Certainly this is our duty.
But in what sense ? We are not to desire that God may have
more intrinsic excellence and worthiness than he has. We are
not to seek to make any addition to his glorious perfection.
What, then, are Ave to desire and seek ? Why, we are to desire
and seek to promote what is capable of being promoted, namely,
what is called his declarative glory. In other words, we are to
desire that God's infinite and unchangeable perfections may be
more and more acted out, and more and more known, acknowl-
edged and adored by his creatures. And this we shall do in
consequence of our love to God ; just as we desire that others may
esteem and love a parent or friend, towards whom we entertain a
sincere afiection and esteem. In such a case, we contemplate a
good not yet accomplished or enjoyed. None of our fellow-men
know and honor God in as high a degree as they are capable of;
and some of them not at all. Here, then, is something to be
desired and sought. We wish, and labor, and pray, that, through
the merciful agency of God, our fellow-men may more fully know
his supremely excellent character, and may more duly honor him
by a sincere worship and obedience. This is a good which the
friends of God will forever desire and seek, both for themselves
and for others. It is a good to which neither they nor their
fellow-men have as yet attained, and to which they never will
attain, in such a measure as to exclude all increase ; so that the
increasuig exercise and display of God's wisdom, power, and
goodness will forever be an object of their desire — a desire re-
sulting from a supreme afiection towards God and good will to his
creatures.
Some excellent writers define holiness to be disinterested bene-
volence. The thing intended is doubtless right. And the expres-
sion sets forth the truth as clearly, perhaps, as can be done by
any other phrase as brief as this. Still some explanation is
60 NATURE OF HOLINESS.
required. The word disinterested is sometimes thought to be of
nearly the same import with uninterested. According to this,
hoUness would be a benevolence which takes no interest in its
object, — which would be a contradiction. Others have considered
the word disinterested as excluding all regard to our own welfare.
Whereas it is evident that having no regard to our own welfare
would be directly contrary not only to the dictates of our sensi-
tive nature, but to the impulse of grace, and to the requirements
of the divine law, and would be as real a fault as having no
regard to the welfare of others. But the word is in good use,
and, in its common acceptation, signifies the opposite of selfish-
ness. A man is selfish who is devoted wholly or chiefly to his
own interest, and is without any just regard to the good of
others. To be disinterested, or unselfish, is the opposite of this.
A man's benevolence or kindness to his neighbors, is disinter-
ested, if he loves their good for its own sake ; if his love fixes
upon their welfare as its real object, and I would say, too, as an
ultimate object. He is disinterested, so far as his afiection or
kindness towards them is not influenced, directly or indirectly, by
a regard to his own private interest. If I bestow a favor upon my
neighbors merely for the purpose of securing their friendship and
obtaining favors from them in return ; or if I do it for the honor
or for the pleasure of being benevolent ; if I seek the salvation
of others for the sake of being saved myself, or for the sake of
promoting my own credit or comfort ; — in all this I am selfish.
I act from interested motives. But may not a man who has true,
disinterested love, set a high value upon his own welfare ? May
he not desire and seek his own honor, profit, and pleasure, espe-
cially his own future happiness ? Yes, he may do this, and, if he
has real goodness, he certainly will do it. And God, who com-
mands us to exercise holy love, often presents before us our tem-
poral, and especially our eternal well being, as a motive to influ-
ence us to the performance of our duty. Nor is there any
inconsistency in this. For if we are truly virtuous and holy, we
shall love our neighbor as ourselves ; and of course we shall love
ourselves as we love our neighbor. His good will be as real and
NATURE OF HOLINESS. 61
as ultimate an object of our desire as our o-wn, and our own as
his. And if at any time we should forget our own good, or
should have no present respect to it in our thoughts, we should, if
truly \artuous, still love our neighbor and desire his good. So on
the other hand, if at any time we should have in our thoughts no
conscious regard to our neighbor's good, and should even forget
that we had a neighbor ; we should still love ourselves, and desire
our own happiness. But whether we are aware of it or not,
loving our neighbor and seeking his good, will, in fact, promote
our own welfare ; and it is equally true, that loving ourselves and
seeking our own welfare will promote the good of others. If we
think of the one or the other of these, it will be a motive to rischt
action. The benefit, especially the future reward, which Avill
result to us from the exercise of benevolence, is a real sood, and
ought to be so regarded. To set no value upon it would be doing
violence both to reason and to virtue. But we should do as great
violence to reason and virtue, if we should set no value upon the
welfare of others. For their welfare is a real good, as truly as
our own ; and it should be as really an object of our desire. We
have, then, these two coordinate objects of regard — these com-
bined motives — our ow^n welfare and the welfare of others. By
the constitution of heaven, these objects and motives are insepara-
bly jomed together, and should exert a joint influence upon us.
Do you ask which of these is the chief motive or object ? I
answer, the di\dne law places them on a level. " Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself." According to the spirit of this precept,
neither of these exercises or forms of love can be called inferior,
secondary, or subservient to the other. We are no more to make
the welfare of our fellow-men inferior and subservient to our own,
than we are to make our own welfare inferior and subservient to
theirs. The fault of the unholy, selfish man is, that he makes his
own private good his only real and ultimate object. When his
actions, how benevolent soever they may at first appear to be, are
examined and analyzed, it will be seen that they are performed
for Ids own sake. If he loves his neighbor, he does not love him
as himself, but for himself. His character is, to act from a
VOL. in. 6
62 NATURE OF HOLIXESS.
regard to his own interest. His governing principle, the spring
of his conduct, is selfishness. lie cares little for the welfare of
others, except as it does in some way tend to advance his own.
And whenever their interest comes in competition with his, he
cleaves to liis own, and sacrifices or neglects theirs.
After all, the best description which can be given of Christian
\'irtue or holiness is, that it is a conformity in heart and life to the
divine law. That law is made up of all the moral precepts
contained in the Scriptures. But our Saviour has given us a
summary of the law in two comprehensive precepts. The first is,
" 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.
The second is like unto it : Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy-
self." The object of the affection required in the first of these
commands, is God himself, who is infinitely excellent and glorious.
The measure of it is the full extent of the powers and faculties of our
minds. If you ask, why we are to love God in this manner, the an-
swer is, because he is possessed of unlimited perfection, and is
therefore worthy of our supreme love. Why do we love any intel-
ligent being ? Because he possesses what deserves our love, that
is, real worth or excellence of character, either intellectual or
moral, or both. And it is certainly reasonable that our love to
any one should be in proportion to his excellence. If we ought
to have a degree of love towards an intelligent being, because he
has some degree of excellence ; we ought to love God in the high-
est degree, that is, supremely, because he is supremely excellent.
This is the reason why holy beings love God with all their heart,
and soul, and mind. His supreme excellence is the objective
ground or motive of their love. If it is otherwise — if we love
God merely for the favors he bestows upon us — merely because he
promotes or because we hope he will promote our interests ; then
our love does not fix upon God himself, but upon his favors;
and in reality it is nothing more than self-love.
But may we not love God for hia favors ? Does not the Psalm-
ist say, " I love the Lord, because he hath heard my prayer ;"
and the Apostle — " We love him, because he first loved us ? "
NATURE OF HOLINESS. 63
In regard to this, it is obvious that the favors God bestows, espe-
cially the blessings of redemption, show him to be infinitely
excellent and lovely ; they manifest the perfection of his character.
God can never be the real object of our love, that is, our love can
never flow forth towards him, unless we, in some measure, see him
to be what he is, an infinitely excellent being. lie must be man-
ifested to us. And if we have a heart to love him, the more
clearly he is manifested to us, the more will our love be excited.
If an affectionate child receives a precious gift from his father, he
sees in it the kindness of his father's heart. The gift brings to
view the goodness of the giver ; and the more excellent the gift,
the more excellent it makes his character appear. He holds the
gift itself in high esteem ; but he esteems and loves the giver far
more. The gift is more dear to him, because of the giver ; and
the giver becomes still more dear to him because of the gift. It
is on this principle, that Christians love God on account of his
favors. They primarily and essentially love God himself — love
him for his own supreme excellence and goodness, which has in
some measure been made known to them. And as they love God
himself, on account of his own excellent and amiable character,
they will love him the more, when his character is more clearly
manifested to them by the precious gifts he bestows. The fault
of those who followed Christ for the loaves, was not that they set
a proper value upon the gift he bestowed, but that they valued it
merely on its own account — valued it in a selfish manner; " not
because they saw the miracle," which evinced the di\dne character
of Christ, " but because they did eat of the loaves and were
filled," and because they hoped to be filled again. They cared
for nothing, but the temporal favor. A gift has a two-fold value ;
its own intrinsic value, and its value as an expression of the good-
ness of a beloved friend. Now the gifts of God are of great
value in themselves. How precious are the favors he bestows
upon us in his common providence ! How much more precious
are the gifts of his mercy — the spiritual blessings which come to
us through the mediation of Christ ! How great the value which
we ought to set upon these various gifts of God, considered in
64 XATUKE OF HOLINESS.
themselves ! But they have a still higher value, when we con-
sider them as manifestations of the wonderful and glorious good-
ness of God. Ajid thus our admiring gratitude and love will, in
a higher and higher degree, be kindled towards our heavenly
Father and our Redeemer by means of those numberless and
precious favors which display him before us, as rich in mercy, and
exalted and glorious in all his perfections. We love liim as he is
revealed to us, and because he is revealed to us by his gifts. And
if the love which is kindled in our hearts towards God, corres-
ponds, so far as our capacity admits, with his manifested excel-
lence, — this is the love which is required by the first and great
commandment. This is holiness. And if this holy love is not
defective in degree, and is free from the mixture of opposite af-
fections, then our holiness is complete.
If we have a heart thus to love God, we shall of course con-
form to the second comprehensive command, and shall love our
neighbors as ourselves. This command requires, that we should
exercise a cordial affection towards our fellow-creatures ; that we
should set a high value upon them as rational and immortal be-
ings ; that we should desire and seek their well-being, present and
future, as sincerely as we do our own ; that we should be as un-
willing to injure them as we are to injure ourselves ; that we
should rejoice with them when they rejoice, and weep with them,
when they weep ; in short, that, by a benevolent sympathy, we
should put ourselves in their place, and should regard them as a
part of ourselves, and their interest as part of our own. The
affection required is sincere, impartial, active, and enduring.
Where it exists, it prompts to the discharge of all the relative
and social duties. " He that loveth another," says the Apostle,
" hath fulfilled the law ; " that is, the law respecting our fellow
creatures. " For this, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt
not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou
shalt not covet ; and if there be any other commandment, it is
briefly comprehended in this saying, thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor ; therefore love is
the fulfilling of the law."
NATURE OF HOLINESS. 65
I know not that any language can set forth the nature of true
virtue more clearly, than these two comprehensive precepts. And
nothing can be plainer than the falsity of the theory, which makes
self-love the ground of all holy exercises, or which asserts that a
regard to our own personal good is the spring or motive of all that we
do for the good of others. According to this theory, which is the
theory of Paley and others, we are to love God and obey his com-
mands/cr the sake of our own liappiness. AVhereas in truth we
are to love God primarily and chiefly for his own infinite perfection.
We are to regard him as being Mmself the worthy object of our
supreme affection. And as to our fellow men, — we are no more
to love them for the sake of our own happiness, than we are to
love ourselves for the sake of their happiness. In a proper sense,
we are to do both. By promoting our own real good, we are to
promote the good of others. And by promoting their good, we
are to promote our own. Their good and our own, which God has
joined in close union, should both be objects of our desire, and
they should have a mutual influence, each having an increased
value in our esteem, and an increased efiicacy as a motive, on
account of the other. I repeat it, that if we are conformed
to the divine law, there will be in our moral exercises no more
ultimate reference to our own happiness, than to the happiness of
others. If our own happiness is for a time, absent from our
thoughts, and so is not an object of our present regard, we shall
not, on that account, have less regard to the happiness of others.
And if their happiness is for a time absent from our thoughts, we
surely shall not, on that account, cease to desire our own happi-
ness. In our thoughts and feelings there is often a reference, and
it may be a just and impartial reference, to our own welfare. But
the nature of the mind, if sanctified, does not either require or
admit, that this should always be the case ; inasmuch as our own
welfare cannot be always present to our thoughts. But if you
say, that whenever a holy being thinks of his own happiness, he
will and must have a suitable regard to it ; this is admitted.
His very nature as an intelligent and sensitive being, must lead
him to desire his own happiness. And his holiness wiU lead him
6*
66 NATURE OF HOLINESS.
to desire it justly. Nor is there any danger of his setting an
excessive or disproportionate value upon his own true, spiritual and
eternal happiness ? The general fault of mankind is that they do
not desire their own real good, do not seek their own salvation, as
they ought. The thoughtless and impenitent do not desire and
seek it at all. But if while we earnestly desire and seek our owa.
real good, we have a heart sincerely to desire and seek the good
of others ; this is Christian virtue. This is obedience to the divine
precept, " thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Love thy-
self with a just and holy love ; and love thy neighbor in Uke man-
ner. Let thy love to thyself, if that love is right, be the pattern
of thy love to others.
It is however manifest, that the command to love our fellow
creatures as ourselves does by no means require, that we should
give the same degree of attention to their interests, temporal or
eternal, as to our own. By the ordering of God's providence, as
well as by the authority of his word, our own interests are com-
mitted specially to our care ; not because they are in reality more
important, or should be j-egarded by us as more important, than
the interests of others ; but because, in this way, both our own
interests, and those of others, can be best promoted. With our
limited capacities, we can give attention to only a few things at
the same time, and can never give attention to more than a very
small part of the interests of the intelligent creation. And if,
because we love our fellow creatures as ourselves, we should un-
dertake to bestow the same care and labor upon their concerns, as
upon our o^vn, we should fail in regard to both, and should really
be guilty of an officious and unlawful meddhng with what be-
longs appropriately to others. Neither the divine law nor divine
providence involves us in any such mistake or difficulty as this.
The law does indeed require a cordial, impartial, and enlarged
affection to our fellow men, and persevering endeavors to do them
good. But the same law requires us, first of all, to look well to
our own souls and to take care of our own welfare, — to repent,
to believe and obey for ourselves, — a work which no one can do
for us. And here we see the wisdom, the harmony, the goodness
NATURE OF HOLINESS. ' 67
of the divine economy. For it is clear that this special attention
to our own welfare wiU contribute most to the amount of that gen-
eral welfare which we are required to seek, and which it is the
object of the divine benevolence to secure. We thus arrive at
the pleasing conclusion, that the most expansive general benevo-
lence not only consists with private, individual good, but certainly
promotes it ; and that it not only consists with our private, indi-
vidual duties, but directly and certainly leads us to discharge them
with the utmost dihgence and fidehty.
LECTURE XCII.
THE NATURE OF REPENTANCE. IMPORTANCE OF THE DUTY.
That moral excellence or holiness, which results from the reno-
vating influence of the Spirit in the heart, and which we have
dwelt upon in previous Lectures, is one simple princijjle. It has
a real, spiritual unity. But it is developed in all the particular
virtues and graces of the Christian character. These are all
branches of holiness. How multiplied soever they may be, and
how plainly soever they may be distinguishable from each other,
they all have the same nature ; they come from the same source ;
and they are only the proper development of the same general
principle, the same right afiection in the renewed heart.
It might be well for us to go into a full consideration of each
of these branches of Christian virtue. But we shall confine our
attention particularly to two principal ones, namely, repentance
and faith.
In the common version of the Scriptures, the two Greek words,
fisravoso} and i^sra[is'Xofiai, are both translated, to repent.
But it is evident, as Dr. Campbell and others have shown,
that these words, in their current use in the New Testament,
have very different senses. The first signifies a change of mind,
a change of one's views, affections and conduct in regard to the
things of religion. It denotes a turning from sin to holiness. In
Acts 8: 22, this idea of turning from sin seems in the original to
be directly indicated. " Repent of this thy wickedness," ano^
'literally, from this thy wickedness, that is, penitently turn from
REPENTANCE. 69
it. This I apprehend to be the real import of the word, fisravoico,
57henever it is used to point out the duty required of the sinner.
And so it denotes the same as is denoted in the various passages,
which speak of sinners as turning from their Avicked ways, ceasing
to do evil and learning to do well, etc.
The other word, (iEta^iXo[iai^ generally denotes an anxious,
painful feeling, which arises in the mind in view of transgression
— a distressing sense of guilt — the acting of conscience re-
proaching the sinner for having committed wickedness, and point-
ing him to a future retribution. It is the feeling of remorse; and
it was strikingly exemplified in the case of Judas, who repented
of his treachery, that is, had a painful sense of remorse, and then,
instead of turning from his ungrateful and wicked conduct, filled
up the measure of his guilt by committing the heinous sin of self-
murder.
One who has true, saving repentance, sees the evil of sin —
sees it truly, though not perfectly. He has not a clear view of
every sin which he has committed, nor of all the evil which be-
longs to any one sin. But his eyes are opened, at least opening ;
and he beholds, or rather begins to behold, the hatefulness and
mahgnity of sin. In his view, sin is, as the Apostle expresses it,
exceedingly sinful, and deserves to be abhorred by all rational
beings. His eye is chiefly fixed, not upon the punishment of sin,
dreadful as he considers it to be, but upon its own vile and odious
nature. If at any time he does not think of the punishment
threatened, or if he hopes to be saved from it, he still sees sin to
be altogether criminal and vile, hateful and ill-deserving ; and all
its criminaUty and vileness and hatefulness and ill-desert he as-
cribes to himself. It is he that is the criminal. He is convinced
that there is nothing on earth or in hell worse than to be a sinner.
Instead of excusing himself, or in any way palliating his guilt, he
is ashamed and confounded before God, and abhors himself, say-
ing, with Job, " behold I am vile."
Without a conviction of the real, intrinsic evil of sin, no one
truly repents. A person will hardly give up and avoid that which
is desirable and lovely in his view. Or if for any reason he gives
70 REPENTANCE.
it up in his visible conduct, he will not give it up in the affections
of his heart ; and his giving it up visibly will be contrary to his
inclinations, and from an unwelcome necessity. His change is
external, and reaches not the predominant state of his mind.
The penitent sinner has some true knowledge of God. His
repentance is " repentance towards God." His relation to God
is far more important than any of the relations he sustains to other
beings. And he can never adequately conceive how inexcusa-
ble and ill-deserving he is, unless he considers himself as standing
in this highest of all relations. He who repents, sees God to be
infinitely excellent ; and the idea of his having sinned against so
good and so glorious a Being does at times so engross his atten-
tion, that he can scarcely think of anything else ; and he says,
with penitent David, " Against thee, thee only have I sinned, and
done evil in thy sight." And it is this vicAv of his sins, not ex-
clusively of other views, but more than any other, which lays him
low in self-abasement, and produces a conviction in his inmost
soul, that his condemnation would be just. Now this state of
mind directly involves what is appropriately called repentance^
that is, turning from sin. For how can a man continue to sin
against a Being who in his view possesses infinite goodness as well
as infinite power, — who is altogether lovely, and whom he has
already begun to love with all his heart ? As he entertains some
right apprehensions of the glorious character of God, he is of
course sensible of the reasonableness and goodness of the moral
law. For nothing can be more evident, than that the justice or
equity of the law which calls for the supreme love of rational
creatures, depends primarily on the character of him who is set
before them as the object of love. If then God is such a Being,
as the Scriptures represent him to be, he is worthy of all the love,
the worship and the obedience which his law demands. Hence
follows the great evil of transgression, and the justice of the pun-
ishment threatened. "We are by no means able to comprehend
the whole demerit of sin ; but if we have the Holy Spirit to en-
lighten and sanctify us, we shall trembUngly and submissively ac-
knowledge, that God is righteous both in giving the law and in
REPENTANCE. Tl
executing its penalty. No complaint of the undue severity of that
penalty will come from our lips, or arise in our hearts. We shall
have a conviction, which will not be so much a matter of reason-
ing, as of a direct, spiritual discernment, that the punishment
which God has appointed, is no more than commensurate with the
evil of sin, and no more than the principles of a perfect moral
government render necessary. And so our mouth will be stopped,
and we shall no more reply against God.
Without some conviction of this kind, there can be no real re-
pentance. If any one really thinks that the law requires too
much, or that its penalty is too severe, he sides with rebels ; and
whatever he may do in the way of ojitward reform, he does it
with a heart of enmity. Enmity against God may admit of the
sinner's doing many seemingly good actions for the sake of es-
caping misery, but it will not admit of his truly turning from sin.
Enmity is itself sin — sin in its worst form ; and all other sins
are enfolded in its bosom. He then, who retains a heart of en-
mity, retains sin unsubdued and enthroned.
The repenting sinner sees the beauty of holiness and is attract-
ed by it. He turns to hohness because he loves it. I might say,
loving hohness is itself turning to holiness. For turning to holi-
ness is a work of the heart. And how can the heart turn to an
object except by loving it ? And we know that a man never truly
loves anything unless it has loveliness and beauty in his eyes.
Some real perception of the beauty of holiness is involved in all
true conviction of the evil of sin. For the same spiritual eye
which sees the deformity and hatefulness of sin, sees the beauty
and excellence of holiness ; and the same heart which hates sin,
loves holiness. The two things are only the acting out of the
same disposition in two directions.
Again, I remark, that although the original word, [xezdvoia,
rendered repentance, does not directly indicate sorrow, still sor-
row must be considered either as involved in the nature of re-
pentance, or as a circumstance uniformly attendant upon it.
Some have entertained the strange opinion, that a good man
should not be sorry for sin, because God will overrule it for good.
72 REPENTANCE.
But this is a speculation which is totally contrary to reason, ex-
perience, and the word of God. How often do the Scriptures
call upon men to mourn and weep for their sins ! And how futile
is every attempt to get rid of the plain import of the texts which
relate to the subject. On the principle which I oppose, David
was very faulty, because he was so grieved for his own sins, and
because rivers of water ran down his eyes on account of the sins
of others. And if Ave should not mourn and weep on account of
our sins, because they will be overruled for the glory of God ; for
the same reason we should not mourn and weep on account of any
calamity or suffering which may befal us or our fellow-creatures,
and should strive to acquire an utter insensibility and callousness
of feeling. And then the question arises, why Jesus directed the
women who followed him on his way to Calvary weeping, to weep
not for him, but for themselves and their children, on account of
the evils which were soon to overwhelm them, — inasmuch as those
evils would be to the glory of a just and holy God ? And why
did Jesus weep at the grave of Lazarus ? You say, he wept from
sympathy with his weeping friends. But why did be sympathize
•with them ? Why did he not rather reprove them for the sorrow
they felt, and tell them that their mourning was all wrong, inas-
much as the event which had taken place would be overruled for
the glory of God ? And why did the Prophet speak of it as a
prominent effect of the outpouring of the Spirit upon the house
of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that they should look
on him whom they had pierced, and mourn for him as one mourn-
eth for an only son, and be in bitterness for him as one is in bitter-
ness for his first born ? This is the case now with all penitent
sinners. But why this bitterness of sorrow, when their sin against
the blessed Saviour would, by the almighty providence of God, be
made the occasion of good ? The opinion now before us, if car-
ried out in practice, would end in the most unfeeling stoicism.
Under the influence of pure Christianity, the heart becomes
soft and tender, and men have godly sorrow for their sins in pro-
portion to their piety, — their sorrow being at the same time the
means of increasing their piety. The Apostle does not say that
REPENTANCE. 73
4
godly sorrow is repentance, but that it ivorketh repentance. Sor-
row for sin promotes repentance, that is, a more complete turning
from sin, and greater watchfulness against it. If children have a
dutiful temper, they will, on reflection, be heartily sorry for their
disobedience to their father, and their sorrow will operate as a
safeguard against a repetition of the offence.
Do not those who advocate the notion which I have endeavored
to confute, overlook a very plain and important distinction ? Sin
belongs to man. He who commits it, transgresses a perfect law,
and abuses the goodness of the Lawgiver. What he does is to-
tally wrong. His motive is wrong. The natural tendency of his
conduct is wrong. Sin, whether existing in the heart, or in out-
ward act, has no mixture of good. If the sinner comes to a right
mind, he views the subject in this light. He condemns what he
has done, and himself as the doer. He is heartily grieved and
sorry, that he has abused infinite goodness — that he has dishon-
ored him who deserves everlasting honor and praise — that he has
treated his divine Friend and Benefactor with mgratitude. He
calls to mind the multitude of his transgressions with their various
aggravations, and his heart becomes broken and contrite. He
mourns for the evil he has done, and resolves to sin no more. But
while he thus condemns sin and mourns for it, he views the gov-
ernment of God with approbation and delight. It gives him joy
that the evil which he and others have done, or attempted to do,
will be overruled for the glory of God — that his inexcusable
wickedness will be made the occasion of good. These two things
are plainly and entirely distinct from each other ; and the en-
lightened penitent so regards them, and has correspondent feel-
ings. He disapproves and abhors the evil which he has done,
but approves and loves what God does. He has sorrow for the
evil, and joy for the good. He grieves bitterly that he has acted
so basely as to sin against God. But he is glad that God is over
all, and will glorify himself and do good to his holy kingdom by
means of that which is, in itself, so great an evil. To sum up
the whole in few words, the penitent looks upon sin with abhor-
rence and grief, but upon the holy agency of God with acquies-
VOL. ITT. 7
74 REPENTANCE.
cence and joy. And he never regards sin as a less evil, or as
less a reason for godlj sorrow, because God will overrule it for
good ; nor does he, on the other hand, feel less joy in the good,
because God, in his sovereign providence, accomplishes it by means
of evil.
It will be easy for a man, whose habits of thinking are derived
from the Scriptures, to keep his mind free from all puzzling specu-
lations on this subject by adverting to the distinction above sug-
gested, regarding the evil of sin on the one side, and the holy
providence of God on the other, as they are in their own nature.
If his renewed heart acts itself out naturally and freely towards
these different objects, all will be right.
I have thus endeavored to show what are the principal attri-
butes and circumstances of repentance. But it must be kept in
mind, that it is one and the same holy principle, manifesting itself
in different ways, according to the different objects which are con-
templated. And it is important to remark, that the change which
constitutes repentance, is a gradual change. It has a beginning
a progress, and a completion. The change in its own nature, ap-
pertains to all moral objects and relations. But clearly to develop
itself in regard to all, is a work of time. A penitent immediately
begins to forsake his evil ways. Whatever wrong practice he
particularly considers, he begins to put away, and whatever duty
comes clearly before his mind, he begins to perform. But the
work is not suddenly brought to perfection. From time to time
the penitent has new views of God and his law, of himself and his
fellow creatures. These objects do in fact continue to present
themselves before him under new aspects, and with additional
degrees of clearness, and his affections, his purposes, and his con-
duct are brought under a corresponding influence. He abandons
one sinful practice and subdues one sinful disposition after another,
and does it more and more decidedly. With God's holy and
spiritual law in view, he from time to time discovers evils in his
heart and life, which before lay concealed, and modes of holy and
benevolent action not before noticed ; in consequence of which,
he makes further advances in the work of repentance. For the
REPENTANCE, 75
most part, the repenting sinner begins his new life feebly, and
with many defects. And he is afterwards subject to backsliding,
and may go forward in his journey to heaven v§ry slowly. In
every period of his spiritual life, his repentance is imperfect.
While it is the case that a great part of his thoughts, desires and
purposes fail of being conformed to the divine law, and while a
great part of his actions, though in man's view unexceptionable,
are performed from selfish motives, it is clear that he has made
but little progress in the real business of repentance. And it is a
matter of astonishment, that so many persons, who have been
repenting for years, have still but just begun the work ; that after
they have been changing their mind so long, they have yet
changed so little ; and that so many jisible faults and so many
inward, spiritual disorders still cleave to them. Hence it appears,
that repentance continues to be the duty of Christians through the
whole course of their probation, inasmuch as they are, at every
period of life, more or less subject to moral evil. They have real
holiness, but not complete holiness. They have begun the work
of repentance, but have not finished it. But it is as evidently
their duty to finish the work, as to begin it — to turn from sin
wholly, as to turn at all. Such is their bounden duty. And if
after they have known the blessedness of returning to God, and
have tasted the joys of salvation, they do in any respect still neg-
lect the duty of repentance, and continue in sin ; what sacred
obligations do they violate ! Of what ingratitude and perverseness
are they guilty ! And what strange insensibility do they show to
the attractions of infinite beauty and goodness ! The sins which
remain in Christians, and which occasion a continual and often
painful conflict with themselves, and which require the daily
exercise of repentance even to the end of their life, furnish a
stronger jiroof of the deep, inbred depravity of the heart, than
any sins which occur in an unregenerate state.
The duty of repentance, being so reasonable and indispensable,
and being so frequently and solemnly inculcated by prophets and
apostles, and by Christ himself, ought to' be commenced by sin-
ners without delay, and to be continued by Christians with unceas-
76 REPENTANCE.
ing earnestness, throughout this state of trial. The command of
the ascended Saviour to his imperfect, backshding people, is —
" be zealous and repent." In what way can we exercise zeal and
resolution so justly and so laudably, as in the work of ridding
ourselves of the abominable thing which God hates — the work of
getting cured of that loathsome, fatal disease which has seized
upon our souls, and which must be cured, before we can be ad-
mitted to the presence of Christ in heaven !
I have said that . Christians, as well as unsanctified sinners,
have much to do in the work of repentance. And such is the
practical importance of this view of the subject, that I cannot
close without attempting to impress it more fully upon the minds
of those who are preparirjg for the holy office of the ministry.
As the office with which you are to be invested is one of uncom-
mon sanctity, uncommon purity and excellence of character will
be justly expected of you. And as you possess the same fallen
nature with others, you must attain to the requisite excellence by
the same process, that is, by the continual exercise of repentance.
This duty is specially incumbent on persons in your cir-
cumstances, because sin, existing in yoii^ must evidently be
attended with fearful aggravations. Of this you cannot doubt,
if you consider in what sacred studies you are daily employed,
and how many advantages your situation affords for growth in
grace. Happy will you be, if you may have a just and adequate
conviction of the necessity of thorough evangelical repentance,
and correspondent resolution and perseverance in discharging the
momentous duty. It is a duty which returns upon us every day,
because every day we have sin dwelling in us ; and so it will
doubtless be, while life lasts. This, I think, must be the clear
conviction of every Christian who faithfully examines himself, and
compares his heart and life with the perfect standard of holiness.
And he must consequently feel, that he is continually urged by
the most powerful motives to the humiliating, but indispensable
work of repentance.
Is it not, then, a great fault of Christians generally, and may it
not be the fault of many theological students and many ministers
REPENTANCE. 77
of the gospel, that they do not, with suitable diligence, pursue the
work of repentance ? They have begun it, but they do not urge
it on to its full accomplishment as they ought ; and, consequently,
they do not make due advances in the divine life, and are so far
from being complete in all the will of God. How different would
it now be with us, had Ave, from the moment when, as we trust,
the Spirit of God fii'st visited our hearts, diligently prosecuted
the work of repentance ! Let us be diligent in the work for the
time to come, making it a part of our daily business, as the fol-
lowers of Christ. If we find pride or ambition, envy or ill will,
covetousness or selfishness, or any other form of sinful affection
working within us, we see here what is to be done. We must
forthwith repent ; that is, we must put away the sin, whatever it
is, and vigilantly guard against its regaining any influence over
us. We must be resolute in this indispensable work, and, relying
on the help of God, must never give it over, whatever discourage-
ments may come in our way. How often soever we may be foiled
or driven back, we have no cause to be disheartened, for we
follow a powerful and glorious Leader, who has conquered sin for
us, and who will make us partakers of his victory, if we faithfully
adhere to him. We have, I say, no cause to be disheartened ;
for there is no corrupt disposition so confirmed by use, no law of
sin in our minds so powerful, that it cannot, through the grace of
Christ, be effectually overcome. But, in order to our success, we
must pursue the work unceasingly ; just as the Israelites were
commanded unceasingly to . fight against the Canaanites in the
land of promise, till they were utterly destroyed. Whenever we
enter on the business of self-inquiry, we find ourselves guilty of
some manifest transgressions of the law, or some neglects of duty.
Here is the place where repentance should come in. We should
immediately reform what is amiss ; should make haste and delay
not to keep God's commandments. When we appear in the house
of God, when we read his word, and call upon his name, and
when we engage in the duties of our calling — yes, everywhere
and continually, we should have a penitent heart and a contrite
spirit. Nothing should be suffered to turn us aside from this all-
7*
78 REPENTANCE.
important work. It avouIcI be far better for us to neglect our
bodilj health, or our intellectual improvement — better to forego
any worldly profit or pleasure, than to neglect the work of putting
away the evil that dwells in us and curing the diseases of our
souls. This work is of the highest moment. The Lord Jesus,
after he ascended on high, stooped down from his throne in the
heavens to say to his imperfect, erring followers — "Be zealous,
and repent." Here is an exercise of zeal which, though incom-
parably important, is little thought of. We manifest zeal in our
worldly pursuits ; but where is our zeal in our pursuit of holiness,
in correcting what is amiss, and in amending our character as
Christians ? And yet we must have zeal and earnestness, or the
work will not be done. Did we but attend rightly to this high
command of our Lord, " Be zealous and repent," looking to him
for grace to help in time of need, we should no longer be found
retrograde or stationary in our spiritual course. We should no
longer show, at the end of the month or year, the same faults and
blemishes as at the beginning — the same faults unchecked,
undiminished, and sometimes even growing upon us. Instead df
this, we should be constantly making advancement in godliness.
Forgetting the things behind, we should press on towards perfec-
tion. Noxious weeds, now growing in our garden, would be
plucked up, and useful vegetables would flourish in their place.
Plants, formerly neglected, would be cultivated ; and trees, once
barren, would bear fruit. And why is it that we are not in this
happy state ? Why have we made so little progress ? Why this
want of. growth and fruitfulness ? Why have we so little confor-
mity to Christ, and why do our prayers obtain so small a measure
of spiritual good for ourselves and for others ? It will be easy
for us to account for these evils, if we consider how little we have
done in the momentous duty of repentance.
LECTURE XCIII.
FAITH. WHY NOT MOKE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD ? FAITH IN A
GENERAL SENSE. WHAT IS FAITH IN CHRIST ? ENJOINED AS
THE DUTY OF ALL SINNERS.
Although the language of Scripture respecting faith seems to
be very intelligible, there are few subjects on which more obscure
and erroneous opinions have been entertained. This deplorable
fact results from various causes.
1. The objects of faith are remote from the jy^'ovince of the
senses. Our attention, from the beginning of life, is directed to
the present world. We look at the things which are seen.
Those, therefore, who would get right views of faith, are under
the necessity of casting off the dominion of their early habits ;
of breaking away from the enchantments of sense, and turning
the current of their thoughts and feelings into a new channel.
All experience shows this to be a work of difficult accomplish-
ment.
2. Another thing which renders it difficult to obtaui clear and
satisfactory views of faith, is, that the language which describes it
has been so often spoken and heard ivithout correspondent concep-
tions or feelings. This custom of speaking and hearing the
words of divine truth, without the conceptions which those words
ought to kindle within us, creates a new difficulty. For when-
ever those words are repeated, the mind is apt to lie in the same
listless state as before. It is no easy matter to feel a lively inte-
rest in a subject which has often passed before us without exciting
our attention.
80 FAITH.
3. jSuch is the 7iature of faith, that it cannot be rightly appre-
hended, loithout being experienced and felt. Christian faitli,
instead of consisting chiefly in a speculative discernment of
external objects, is, in a great measure, a matter of affection.
But how can an affection be known, except bj those who have
been the subjects of it ? And as to believers themselves, — faith
exists in them in so low a degree, that thej are by no means free
from the same difficulty. For how can they form adequate con-
ceptions of that which operates in their own minds so feebly and
so inconstantly ?
4. Right apprehensions of faith are prevented, by the preva-
lence of corrupt dispositions in the heart. These dispositions
render us blind to spiritual, holy objects. They not only
prevent us from exercising faith, but make us unwilling to per-
ceive what it is, because such perception would lead to self-
reproach and self-condemnation. In this, as in other cases,
" the natural man discerueth not the things of the Spirit ; for
they are foolishness to him ; neither can he know them ; because
they are spiritually discerned." And, so far as sinful affections
prevail in Christians, they hinder spiritual discernment as really as
in the unrenewed.
Such considerations as these may help us to account for the
obscure and erroneous views which are commonly entertained of
the nature of faith, and for the difficulty of making it well un-
derstood.
There is no part of the holy Scriptures which so particularly
illustrates the nature and influence of faith, as the eleventh chap-
ter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The writer begins with a
brief description of faith. " Now faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." 'Tnoaraatg literally
signifies what stands under, as a basis or support. It is here
used metaphorically, and signifies firm trust, or confidence, on
which the mind rests, and which gives to spiritual, invisible objects
a substance and reality, as though they were present. Faith is
also the " evidence of things not seen." Its objects have not
the evidence of sense. But they have an evidence of another
FAITH. 81
and higher kind. "EXsyxos, rendered evidence, seems here to
denote the effect of evidence, or demonstration. The word of
God, ^vho cannot lie, produces in the mind of the believer a per-
fect persuadon of the truth and certainty of those invisible
things "which are revealed in Scripture. Through the teaching of
the Holy Spirit, the Christian has within himself satisfactonj evi-
dence, a demonsfratmi, of the reahty and importance of things
not seen. All doubt is removed from his mind, and he knows
that whatever God has declared is true, and that whatever he has
promised will be accomplished.
The faith of which the sacred writer here speaks, respects not
only the future good which God has promised, and the future evil
he has threatened, but all other invisible things which he has
made known to us. The very first instance of faith which the
writer mentions, relates to past events. " Through faith we
understand that the worlds were made, bi/ the word of God,^' We
are convinced and satisfied that the worlds were thus made, because
God has so informed us.
The ultimate foundation of faith is the absolute perfection of
God. A Being who is infinitely intelligent, and holy, and good,
cannot deceive. Whatever he declares must be true. In the
exercise of faith we fix our thoughts upon such a Being, and have
confidence in the truth of all his communications to us. In this
general view, faith relates as obviously to the manifestations which
God makes in his works, as to the declarations of his word. We
believe those manifestations to be in perfect agreement with the
truth. If the heavens and the earth declare that God is glorious,
we have confidence that he is so. If his dispensation towards us
manifest goodness, we believe that he is good. We have a fidl
persuasion, that a Being possessed of infinite moral excellence wiU
no more deceive us by the visible operations of his hand, or by the
characters which he inscribes on his works, than by the words
which he speaks.
See here how sure is the ultimate ground of our faith. We can-
not have entire confidence in the opinion or the testimony of man ;
because man may be mistaken, or may deceive. Nor can we
82 FAITH.
have entire confidence in the deductions of human reason ; be-
cause those deductions may be fallacious. But the Avord of the
Lord is infallible truth, and so is the foundation of the most certain
behef.
In whatever way the word or declaration of God is conveyed
to us, our faith in it rests ultimately upon his moral perfection,
particularly his veracity. This would evidently be the case, if we
ourselves should hear the divine declaration. And why is it not
so Avhen the declaration comes to us through the credible testi-
mony of others ? For example : we are informed by those who
are entitled to full credit, that God uttered a voice from heaven,
saying, Tids is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. We
have confidence in the truth of this declaration, because we are
satisfied, from the testimony of faithful witnesses, that it came
from God ; and as it came from God, we are certain it is true.
But this is not the case with any declaration which rests ulti-
mately on the authority of man. Let a doctrine be taught by
Plato or Newton. The doctrine comes from a man — a man not
divinely inspired — a man, not God. How do we treat such a
doctrine ? Instead of beheving it on the mere authority of Plato
or Newton, we say, perhaps he was mistaken ; and we go about to
inquire whether the doctrine is true or not. We examine it ; and
we receive it or reject it according as we find the evidence for it
or against it preponderates. But if we are satisfied that God de-
clares any doctrine, we believe it on the ground of his authority,
although there is no other evidence of its truth.
As the word of God is the ultimate ground of religious faith ;
so it is the rule or measure of faith. If our faith differs from the
word of God, we depart from the rule, and our faith is erroneous.
If we believe less than what God reveals, our faith is defective ;
if more, it has a faulty redundance. If we would have our faith
right, we must conform exactly to the word of God, taking care,
first, to understand the rule correctly, that our faith may not bend
to one side, or the other ; secondly, to understand it fully, that
our faith may not fall short ; thirdly, to restrain the aspirings of
reason, and the surmises of curiosity, and to be entirely content
"with the rule, so that our faith may not overleap its bounds.
FAITH. 83
It is of material importance to observe, that saving faith im-
plies cordial affection, or a state of the heart correspondent with
its objects. The Scriptures generally point out the external act
or the act of the understanding wliich is required, and that only,
upon the reasonable assumption, that such act is alwa3's to be at-
tended with suitable feelings. Those who are possessed of an
intelligent, moral nature, must understand that right moral affec-
tion is to accompany every outward act required, and that, with-
out such affection, no outward act can be acceptable to him who
looketh on the heart. When therefore he requires the action, he
virtually requires a corresponding state of the heart. God re-
quires us to call upon his name. This, taken by itself, is merely
an outward act. But in reality this outward act is required as an
expression of the heart — the heart being understood not only to
agree with the words uttered by the voice, but to prompt them.
In like manner, when the Evangelist gives an account of the
great faith of the Centurion, he simply relates his words, and vis-
ible actions. But every one understands that those words and
actions were indicative of correspondent feelings. Unless under-
stood in this manner, the narrative amounts to nothing.
This principle is applicable to every thing which is a matter of
obligation ; to every thing which relates to man as a moral agent.
In every such case, the performance of the duty required includes
the action of the whole moral nature of man. God says, " hear
my word " — hear it. But the duty enjoined is not hearing with
the ear merely, the heart being disobedient : but hearing with a
right state of mind, and a right conduct. Christ requires his dis-
ciples to receive the Sacramental bread and wine in remembrance
of him. But the outward act of receiving/ and the mere exercise
of memory do not constitute the duty enjoined. The act of re-
ceiving and the exercise of memory must be attended with affec-
tions suited to the nature of what is commemorated. So every
thing of the kind must and Avill be understood by those who have
an intelligent and moral nature.
Let it then be carefully remembered, that whenever faith is
spoken of as a moral virtue, it must be understood to imply affec-
84 Faith.
tions corresponding with the nature of its oi)jects. Such affec-
tions must accompany it, and make a part of it, or it is not the
faith wliich God requires.
And if faith is attended with affections which correspond with
its various objects, it changes its particular aspect according as its
object is changed. If it relates, as it often does, to what is in-
comprehensibly great and awful, it is accompanied with reverence
and awe ; if to what is amiable, it is accompanied with love ; if
to what is hateful, with abhorrence ; if to a future or absent good,
with desire ; if to an event divinely predicted, with expectation ;
if to what is injurious, with fear or dread. Thus the believer
reveres or loves, desires or expects, abhors or dreads, according
to the particular object which he contemplates. And the perfec-
tions and works of God may be so presented before him, as
to elicit a combination of several devout affections at the same
time.
The faith which is peculiar to God's elect, presupposes or im-
plies a spiritual discernment of the reality and excellence of divine
things. The unregenerate man may have much speculative
knowledge. But there is a kind of knowledge, of which he is
destitute. The things of the Spirit he cannot know, '' because
they are spiritually discerned." This knowledge comes from
above. God hides it from the wise and prudent, but reveals it to
babes, that is, to those who are of a lowly mind. When Peter
declared his faith in Jesus as the Son of God, he manifested a
knowledge which was communicated to him by his Father in
heaven. And God revealed his Son in Paul, when he was turned
from darkness to hght. This knowledge of the glory of God in
the face of Jesus Christ results from the influence of the Holy
Spirit, and is found only in those who believe to the saving of the
soul. All true faith is founded upon this spiritual knowledge,
this inward perception of the importance and excellence of divine
objects. And it is clear, that the faith which rests upon this
spiritual discernment, must work by love ; for this discernment is
a discernment of moral beauty and loveliness ; and such a dis-
cernment is always attended with complacency.
FAITH. 85
Evangelical faith, or faith in Christ differs from other acts of
faith in regard to its object, but not in regard to its nature. Faith
in general I have represented to be a cordial belief in all the de-
clarations of God's word ; a confidence in his veracitj ; a full and
affectionate persuasion of the certainty of those things which God
has declared, and because he has declared them. Whatever may
be the di\nne testimony, and to whatever object it may relate,
faith receives it, and rests upon it. Now the testimony of God
which evangelical faith receives, relates to the Lord Jesus Christ,
the Saviour of the world. The Scriptures make him known in
his divine and human perfections, in his offices, his works and his
blessings. Faith receives this testimony. Determine what this
testimony is, and you determine the peculiar character of evan-
gelical faith. The divine testimony represents that Jesus of
Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of men.
So faith receives him. The holy Scriptures, which contain the
divine testimony, teach, that the Messiah, the Saviour, is God,
God over all, possessed of all divine perfections, and that all
things were made and are sustained by him. In the exercise of
faith we receive him in this high character, and love and adore
him, and trust in him, as truly God. The Scriptures declare,
that the Son of God humbled himself, and took upon him our na-
ture ; that he was born, and lived, and died as a man ; that he
suffered and died for us ; that he bore our sins in his own body
on the tree ; that in order to deliver us from the curse of the law
he was made a curse for us ; that he is exalted to be a Prince and
a Saviour, to give repentance and remission of sins ; that he, is
able to save to the uttermost ; that in him all fulness dwells ; that
he will guide, protect and save all who trust in him. All this,
and whatever else the Scriptures reveal respecting the character,
offices and blessiiisis of Christ, evan";ehcal faith receives. Faith
is a counterpart to the revealed doctrine respecting the Saviour.
It assents to, approves, and embraces the teachings of the divine
word. Faith may indeed exist in principle, where the whole range
of gospel truth is not actually received, being as yet not known.
There may be a heart to believe and love whatever shall be re-
VOL. III. 8
86 FAITH.
vealeci and apprehended respecting Christ and his work, although
at present the knowledge attained is exceedingly limited. This is
the case with a young child that is sanctified, and with a newly
converted heathen. They understand but a small portion of the
truths taught in the Scriptures. But that which they do under-
stand, they receive with meekness and love ; and they have a dis-
position to receive more, as soon as it shall be apprehended. All
parts of gospel truth are harmonious ; all are of the same nature.
So that intelligently and sincerely to receive and love any part of
it, is virtually to receive and love the whole. But in the cases
referred to, faith, as a principle in the renewed mind, is imper-
fectly developed. If you would get a fuller idea of its nature,
you must look at it in one who has distinctly contemplated and
cordially believed the diflferent parts of divine truth.
Some suppose that true, saving faith consists in believing that
Christ died and rose again, and is the Saviour of simiers, what-
ever may be the particular views entertained of his character and
the design of his death. But this must be regarded as a very
partial and inadequate idea of faith. When the inspired writers
speak of Christ, and his death, and the work he accomplishes as
a Saviour, they teach a variety of definite truths ; and these very
truths we are to receive. We must believe in Christ. But who
is Christ ? What is his character ? Is he a mere man ? Or is
he something more than a man ? We must know this, before we
can know what kind of lliith or trust we should have in him. For
surely the manner in which we should regard him, and the trust we
should repose in him, if he is a mere man, is very different from
what we should do, if he is truly divine. Trusting in God is
quite a different thing from trusting in man — so aiffercnt, that a
dreadful curse is pronounced upon those who put their trust in
man, while those are blessed who trust in God. Now as the
Scriptures declare Jesus Christ to be God as well as man, and
require a correspondent faith in us ; it is clear that the faith of
those who hold Christ to be merely human, does not meet the de-
mands of the Scriptures. Again; to beheve in Christ as a
teacher merely, does not meet the demands of the Scriptures, as
FAITH. 87
they teach that he sustains other offices as well as that of a
teacher. But if men would really and consistently regard him
and have a confidence in him as a teacher, they would receive his
instructions respecting other points of his character and work.
It is also evident that to beheve in Christ merely as an example
of virtuous suffering and as a martyr to the cause of truth, is not
to have the 'faith required ; because Christ was more than an ex-
ample, and more than a martyr to the truth. He died the just
for the unjust. He shed his blood to make an atonement for
sin. True gospel faith accords with this doctrine of Christ's vica-
rious sufferings, and his atoning blood, and rests upon his all-
sufficient sacrifice as the meritorious ground of forgiveness and
eternal life.
I might continue these remarks. But I have said enough to
illustrate the point I had in view, that is, to show, that our faith
is defective so far as it fails of receiving all the instructions of
revelation respecting the character and work of Christ and the
blessings he confers on believers. If we do truly embrace the
whole doctrme of the gospel respecting the Redeemer, with cor-
respondent affections ; we then have the faith which most effectu-
ally purifies the heart and secures the approbation and bles-
sing of God.
It has been the opinion of some, that it is the nature of true
gospel faith, to believe that Christ died for us particularly ; that
pardon of sin and eternal salvation are actually ours ; and that
the belief of this belongs to the first act of saving faith.
In order to disentangle this subject, and to place the truth in
as clear a Ught as possible, I offer the following remarks.
First. If real Christians — persons born of the Spirit and
united to Christ by a living faith — if such persons believe that
Christ died for them in particvilar, and in a special sense — if they
believe that they are pardoned, and that a full salvation is actually
theirs ; they beheve the truth. Persons of this character are real-
ly pardoned, and entitled to salvation. The word of God declares
them to be so. They have repented and believe, and their sins are
blotted out, and they shall be saved. If they have true repentance
88 FAITH.
and faith, thev are pardoned and will be saved, whether they think
so, or not. The word of God is infallibly true. If any one, who has
the faith which worketh by love, thinks he is not pardoned, he is
mistaken. And this is a very supposable case. For it is evident
that a man may have faith, and yet for a time may not know that
he has it. He may misapprehend the state of his own mind, and
may suppose himself an unbeliever, when in reality he is a believ-
er. And on the other hand, a man may think himself a behever,
when he is an unbeliever. This last is plainly the more common
mistake, and the more likely to occur ; because men are gene-
rally prone to think too favorably of themselves, rather than too
unfavorably.
My second remark is, that as all just and rational belief rests
upon evidence of the truth of what is believed ; we must have
evidence that our sins are forgiven, before we can properly believe
it. Now the Scriptures declare that through the blood of Christ,
sinners shall be forgiven, if they repent and believe. The Scrip-
ture evidence then, that w.e are forgiven, is no other than evi-
dence that we have repentance and faith. So far as we have
evidence of this, we have evidence of our forgiveness. If we
have satisfactory evidence of our repentance and faith, we have
evidence which ought to be satisfactory, of our forgiveness. If
we know that we have true, gospel faith, we know or may know
that our sins are for^ven. But if we are in doubt as to the exist-
ence of faith in us, we must be in doubt as to our forgiveness.
My third remark respects the first act of saving faith. In this
a sinner must cordially believe what is true ; he must believe either
the whole or a part of the truth. It is a truth that God sent
his ■ Son to die for sinners. It is a truth that Jesus of Naza-
reth is the Messiah, the Son of God ; that he is divinely glorious,
an almighty, all-sufficient Saviour ; that he invites us to come to
him, poor and miserable as we are, and to receive what he offers,
a free, full salvation ; and that whosoever cometh to him, he wUl
in no wise cast out. The way for our salvation is then prepared.
We may be pardoned and saved, if we will receive Christ as he
is offered, and trust in him as our chosen Saviour. Here is
FAITH. 89
truth — truth m various particulars. This in its dififerent parts,
and as a whole, is what we are required to believe with the heart,
and to act upon. That is, we are to believe that Christ is an
all-sufficient Saviour, and to receive him and trust in him as such.
We are to believe that we shall be pardoned, if we have faith in
CJirist; for this is a revealed truth. But is it a truth that any
sinner is pardoned, before he believes ? It is a truth that pardon
is provided and offered, and that he maj be pardoned on the pre-
scribed condition. But instead of being actually pardoned ivhile
he remains in unbelief, he is under condemnation, and the wrath
of God abideth on him. If he believes the whole truth, he
will beheve this, that is, that he is under condemnation. And if he
believes himself pardoned while he is without faith, he believes
what is false. But is he not pardoned, when he believes, and as.
soon as he beUeves in Christ ? Yes. He is in reality pardoned.
But how shall he hioiv that he is pardoned ? He must know it
by first knowing that he is a believer. His persuasion that his
sins are forgiven, must rest on the consciousness that he has faith
in Christ. If he has faith, and yet is not conscious of it, he can-
not reasonably conclude that he is pardoned, though in fact he is
so. He must have evidence that he has complied with the con-
ditions of forgiveness, before he can on any just grounds believe
that his sins are forgiven. But may not God reveal it to him by
an inward operation of the Spirit, that his sins are forgiven ?
Certainly he may, if he please. But if God reveals this to him,
he will reveal it to him as a truth. I mean, the thing revealed
will be a truth. And if it is a truth that his sins are forgiven, it
is a truth that he is a believer. If it should be revealed to him
that his sins are forgiven before he has faith, or while he is an
unbeliever, the revelation would come from a lying spirit, not
from God. For God has already revealed in his word, and set-
tled it forever, that the wrath of God abideth on every unbe-
liever, and that no sinner except those who believe in Jesus, is
pardoned. So that if in any case, the Spirit of God should
reveal to a man that he is pardoned, the revelation would pre-
suppose that he is a beUever; and thus the whole revelation
90 FAITH.
taken together, -would be a iiiomeutous truth, namely, that he be-
lieves in Christ, and is pardoned. All God's revelations must be
consistent. He may reveal to any believer, that all his sins are
forgiven, and his name written in heaven. But he cannot reveal
to an unbeliever that he is pardoned ; for this ^vould be contrary
to an immutable truth before revealed, that is, that every unbe-
liever is under condemnation. God may, if he please, reveal to
an unbeliever that, through divine grace, he will become a believer,
and will thus obtain forgiveness ; or that his sins will hereafter be
pardoned, because God will give him faith. But to reveal to him
that he is pardoned, while he is without faith, would be to contra-
dict the revelation already made. And we are not at liberty to
suppose that such a revelation may be made in the way of excep-
tion to what is ordmarily true ; for the declaration of God's word
that no one who is without faith can be pardoned, and that every
unbeliever is under divine wrath, is grounded on the unchangeable
perfections of God and on the nature of the case. No exception
can be supposed.
There is another inquiry to which I would here direct your at-
tention ; namely, whether believing in Christ is to be considered
as merely an exercise of holiness, and whether it is required for
the same purpose and in the same way with any other exercise of
holiness. If one who is convinced of sin inquires, what he shall
do to be saved, is it as just and proper to direct him to love his
neighbor, or to keep the Sabbath, or to do anything else that is
right, as it is to direct him to believe in Christ ? And was be-
lieving in Christ required so specially and prominently at the be-
ginning of the gospel dispensation, on account of the prevalence
of Judaism or Paganism, or any other local or temporary circum-
stances ?
Reply. Belie\ang in Christ is undoubtedly an exercise of ho-
liness, and is required because it is right. Sinners are as really
under obligation to do everything else that is right, as they are to
believe in Christ. In the first days of Christianity, believing in
Christ and openly acknowledging him was a test of character of
special importance, and was so regarded by the apostles. But if
FAITH. 91
we should stop here, we should overlook what is peculiar to the
gospel. Believing in Christ is represented as a special duty.
Christians are designated as believers in Christ. It is true, they
are also designated as those who obey the divine law. But be-
lieving in Christ is made a special designation. See hoAv the
Apostle John speaks of the people of God. " To as many as
received him, (Christ) to them gave he power to become the sons
of God, even to them that believe on his name.''^ He does not say,
to them Avho obeyed the moral law gave he this power. John 6:
29, the people inquired Avhat they should do that they might Avork
the works of God. Jesus did not say, this is the work of God
that ye obey the moral law ; but " this is the work of God, that
ye believe on him whom he hath senf.^^ The other is required.
But this is what God specially requires. And when Christ speaks
of the gift of the Holy Spirit in his higher operations, he speaks
of it as what they who believe on him shall receive. He does not
say, it shall be given to those who keep the moral law, but to those
who believe on him. In like manner he said to Martha, " He that
believeth on 7ne, though he were dead, yet shall he live ; and who-
soever liveth, and believeth on me, shall never die." And when
he speaks again of the peculiar work of the Holy Spirit, he says,
" He shall convince the world of sin, because they believe 7iot on
we," implying that this was the great sin. And he frequently
says, that those who do not believe on him shall perish, and shall
perish because they do not believe ; implying that final ruin will
come upon sinners under the gospel dispensation, not ultimately
because they have transgressed the divine .law, but because they
do not believe in Christ. And we are taught that salvation does
not come to men through acts of obedience to the law, but through
faith in Christ. If then we should overlook this special impor-
tance of faith in Christ, and should only speak of it as a duty
required of us in common with all other holy acts, we should over-
look an essential feature of the gospel revelation.
And as to the supposition that faith in Christ was made so
prominent in the early days of Christianity, merely on account of
local or temporary circumstances, — are not men sinners at the
92 FAITH.
present time, and exposed to the penalty of the law, as much as
they were in the time of the apostles ? Do they not need a Sa-
viour now, as much as then ? And is not the Saviour, and the
way of salvation the same ? There was then no other name un-
der heaven, whereby man could be saved, but the name of Jesus.
Then, all fulness dwelt in Christ, and those who possessed any
spiritual good, received it of him. And is not all this equally
true at the present time ? Now if sinners are at all times in the
same apostate, ruined state, and have the same need of salvation ;
and if Christ is the only Saviour ; and if all who are saved stand
in the same relation to him and are equally dependent on him for
spiritual blessings ; then surely believing or trusting in him is a
duty which is at all times equally important and necessary, and
which should at all times be made equally prominent. If a sinner
at this day has the conviction of sin which the jailor had, and
makes the inquiry which he made ; we are to give the same reply
as Paul gave. We must not turn him off with a general direction
to keep the commandments, to submit to God, or to do what is
right ; but must present before him the Lord Jesus Christ, the
only Saviour, in all his fulness, and exhort him, as a lost sinner,
to believe in that Saviour. It is indeed true, that Christ directed
the young man who inquired what he should do to inherit eternal
life, to keep the commandments, and afterwards to sell all that he
had and give to the poor. But he evidently did this for the pur-
pose of detecting the latent covetousness and selfishness of the
young man's heart, and convincing him of sin. But when any
one is convinced of sin, and asks for the way in which he can be
saved, we have nothing to do but to repeat and explain to him the
direction given by the apostles, and to labor by every Scriptural
consideration, to induce him to comply with it. You know how
this subject was treated by the Saviour himself, in his final com-
mission to his apostles, in which he made salvation to depend not
upon keeping the commandments, but upon believing. There was
nothing temporary in this, for it was to be the same in all ages ;
nothing local, for it was to be the same in all the world.
LECTURE XCIV
HOW FAR THE ACT OF FAITH CAN BE DESCRIBED ? ITS PRACTI-
CAL INFLUENCE.
While attentively considering the subject of faith, we are struck
with the fact, that no particular analysis or explanation of the act
of behoving in Christ is found in the Scriptures. Christ and the
apostles often speak of faith, as indispensable to salvation ; and it
might have been thought that they would show us by an exact
description, what that important exercise of the mind is. But
where do they do this ? Many a person has anxiously searched
the Scriptures to find such a description of the act of saving faith,
so that they might ascertain whether he has been the subject of
it, or might know how to put it forth. But no such exact descrip-
tion can be found. And on careful inquiry you will be convinced,
that faith in Christ, as an act or state of the mind, cannot be
clearly apprehended, except by those in whom it exists. It can
be adequately known only by consciousness, that is, bi/ being ex-
perienced or felt. And this being the case, must we not conclude
that an exact analysis or description of the act of believing in
Christ is either unnecessary, or that, from the very nature of the
case, it is impossible ? I will only add, that, how earnestly soever
unbelievers may endeavor to conceive what faith in Christ is, if
they become true believers, they always find faith to be very dif-
ferent from their previous idea of it.
The same principle holds in regard to other religious exercises.
The sacred writers do not undertake to give an exact description
94 EAITH.
of the act of love to God or love to our neighbor, or the act of
repentance, or forgiveness of enemies. They require these and
other right acts of the mind, and use the words suited to express
them. But the acts themselves thej nowhere particularly de-
scribe. And whatever description might be given of these exer-
cises or states of mind, no one could rightly conceive what they
are, without being the subject of them. And is not this the case
with all the affections, dispositions, and acts of the mind ? No
one of these can ever be known by us, except as it takes place
within us. What idea could we have of pity and love, joy and
sorrow, if we had never felt them in our hearts ?
But in regard to faith in Christ, there is a kind of desci-iption
or explanation which we may give of it, by pointing out its object,
together with the circumstances in which it takes place, and the
effects which flow from it ; or by suggesting some apt analogies.
The sacred writers treat the subject in each of these ways. And
as Christian teachers, we are to conform to their example. Sup-
pose then you wish to describe faith in Christ to attentive hearers,
so that they may be under advantages to exercise it, or to judge
whether they possess it. What shall you do ? I answer, first,
clearly set forth the object of faith, Christ the Son of God, Christ
crucified, Christ exalted and glorified, able and AviUing to save.
Exhibit him as infinitely wise, powerful and good, as faithful and
all-sufficient, the chief among ten thousands, and altogether love-
ly. Thus set forth the Lord Jesus Christ as the proper object of
faith, worthy of the most affectionate and entire trust and confi-
dence. Who can fail of seeing that cordial trust in such a Sa-
viour is a duty and a privilege ? Secondly. Describe the cir-
cumstances in which faith in Christ takes place. We are all sin-
ners — all gone astray — utterly undone and helpless — deserving
the threatened punishment. How powerfully do these circum-
stances urge us to apply to the proffered Saviour ! "• Come unto
me," he says, " all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will
give you rest." Finding ourselves in this condition, we comply
with his merciful invitation, and come to him for rest. No one
believes in Christ as a Saviour, unless he is convinced that he is
FAITH. 95
lost, and needs a Saviour. In order to persuade men thus to
seek rest, you must endeavor to impress them with their wretched
condition as sinners. Again. Describe the blessings which are
sought and secured by believing, that is, the deliverance of the
soul from sin and its merited punishment, and complete restoration
to the image and favor of God. All the good comprised in a holy
salvation is what the sinner who believes, desires and receives.
And as an inducement to believe, this good is to be described in
all its preciousness, and to be offered to the sinner as a free gift,
" without money and without price," And there is one thing
more which the teachings of the inspired Avriters authorize, name-
ly, to make a representation of faith by apt analogies. " They
that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." A
man is visited with a dangerous illness. He applies to various
physicians, but instead of being cured, he grows worse. He is
finally informed of a physician of extraordinary skill, who has
never failed to cure diseases like his. The physician comes. The
sick man looks up to him with joy, and says, " I am nigh unto
death, but I have confidence in you, and I now trust myself in
your hands. Kind physician, pity and help me, a poor, dying
man, and help me speedily." Now the feeling of that sick man's
heart, his desire, his hope, his confidence, is, in some respects,
like the feeling of those who are convinced of sin, and with confi-
dence in the grace of Christ, apply to him for salvation.
Another illustration may be taken from the case of a man who
has been forced from a burning ship into the ocean. He is ex-
hausted and ready to sink, when a friend hastens to him with a
boat, and says, take my hand, and I will save you. Now think
with what a feeling this drowning man welcomes the approach of
his friend, seizes his hand, and trusts himself to his care. That
feeling resembles the feeling of the sinner who sees himself lost,
and looks to Jesus for salvation. It resembles the act of believing
in Christ.
Once more. A man by extravagance and vice is involved in
debt, for which he is confined in prison. After indescribable suf-
ferings in his gloomy cell, he is visited by a generous man, and
96 FAITH.
that man one whom he has often mjured. The visitant says to
the prisoner, " I have heard of your unhappy condition, and have
come to reheve you. Here, if you will accept it, is money suffi-
cient to pay your debt, and procure your discharge." With a
broken but rejoicing heart, the prisoner accepts the favor from his
generous friend. This transaction may illustrate what takes place
■when a sinner becomes sensible of his miserable condition, and
with hearty confidence applies to Christ, accepts his kindness, and
trusts in him for eternal life.
But although we may, in these and other ways, do something
towards illustrating the act of believing in Christ ; it is still true,
that no one can rightly apprehend what it is, without being him-
self the subject of it. We tell a siuuer, that faith is the act of
one who is fully convinced of his sin and misery, and of the ina-
bility of himself and all other creatures to save him. But how
can he get a clear idea of that act, when he has never had such
a conviction of his guilty, ruined condition ? ^Ve tell him, that
faith is cordially assenting to the gospel oittn-, and receiving and
resting upon Christ for pardon and eternal life. But how can he
have a just conception of all this, when he has never seen the
preciousness of the gospel oifer, the all-sufficiency and glory of
Christ, or the reasonableness and safety of trusting in him ? A
man can no more conceive aright what faith is without believing,
than he can conceive what love is without loving, or what pleasure
is without being pleased ? And the result of all our endeavors to
show Avhat it is to believe in Christ, will be, that none but true
believers will have any clear idea of faith. Unbelievers may
have a shadowy conception of it, as we tell them it is like other
things which they do understand. They may have a specula-
tive knowledge of what Scripture teaches respecting the necessity,
the object, and the duty of faith, sufficient to convince them of
their obligation to believe, and the inexcusable guilt of unbelief.
But what it is to receive Christ as a Saviour, is not truly known
except to believers.
It results directly and certainly from the nature of faith,
FAITH. 97
whether considered generally, or with particular reference to
Christ, that it produces important effects. The Scriptures repre-
sent it as having an efficacy which moves all the springs of action,
and controls the whole man. And it is manifestly adapted to
exert such an influence. Those things which God has set before
us, as objects of faith, are infinitely important and excellent, and
are suited to excite the warmest affections and the most earnest
efforts. It is true, those objects are not perceived by our senses.
But this occasions no uncertainty ; for they are made known to
us by the best possible evidence, the word of God. All must see,
that the things which God has revealed would have a mighty
influence upon us, if they were visible and present. But if we
have faith, things not seen, and things which are to take place
thousands of years hence, cause the same kind of emotions and
exert the same influence, as if they were visible and present.
For we know that they ivill be visible and present, and that they
will soon be as important and as interesting to us, as they could
be if they were visible and present now. So that if the perfec-
tions of God and celestial employments and pleasures are suffi-
cient to move and govern the hearts of saints who are now in
heaven, they are sufficient to move and govern our hearts. If
the transactions of the judgment day, if the glorious appearing
of the Lord from heaven, the assembling of the universg, the
final sentence, the blessedness of the righteous, and the misery of
the wicked, will be sufficient to arrest our attention, and kindle
our feelings, and rouse all our powers of action, when those
momentous events shall take place, they are sufficient notv. And
so far as we have faith, they will actually exert this influence.
Men in general look at sensible objects. The things which are
seen limit the sphere of their observation. But faith shifts the
scene. As to the most momentous objects, it puts us in a new
world. The believer looks not at the things which are seen,
which are temporal ; but at the things which are not seen, which
are eternal. He fixes the eyes of his mind upon them. In the
high, spiritual sense,' he sees them. They stand before him as
VOL ni. 9
Ifel FAITH.
realities. They aflfect him more deeply than any earthly objects.
They command his supreme regard.
The influence of faith, as a general principle, is clearly set
forth in the Scriptures, particularly in the eleventh chapter of the
Epistle to the Hebrews.
" By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice
than Cain." He believed God's promise respecting the seed of
the woman. He listened to the appointment of sacrifices, and in
cordial obedience to the divine direction, he offered the " more
excellent sacrifice," that is, a lamb — representing the future
atonement made by the Lamb of God. Cain's offering was
faulty, because he was destitute of faith. He did not believe
the promise of God, and did not shicerely offer the sacrifice
required.
" By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death."
Enoch walked with God, and confided in his promises ; and, as a
reward of his faith, he was taken immediately to heaven without
dying.
" By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as
yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark." Here both the nature
and influence of faith appear. God informed Noah of the coming
deluge, and commanded him to build an ark. And although the
destruction of the world by water had never been heard of
before, Noah was sure it would take place at the time predicted.
God's word made it a certainty. And in consequence of his con-
fidently believing what God had declared, he undertook and
accomplished the laborious work prescribed. Thus it was by faith
that he prepared an ark.
" By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a
place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed ;
and he went out, not knowing whither he went." Abraham had
full confidence ui God, and looked upon the thing which he had
promised as certain. His simple, unwavering faith in God was
the principle of his conduct, and satisfactorily accounts for his
leaving his kindred, and going out he knew not whither.
The writer (verse 13) speaks of the faith of those whom he
FAITH. 99
had particularly mentioned, and says ; " These all died in faith^
not having received the promises," (that is the good contained in
them,) " but having perceived them afar off, and were persuaded
of them, and embraced them." God had promised them not
only earthly good, but endless happiness in the world to come.
They confidently expected the blessings promised, and began to
enjoy them. Such was the nature and operation of their faith.
The faith of Abraham was strikingly illustrated in his conduct
respecting Isaac. God had promised, that in Isaac his seed
should be called, and all the families of the earth blessed. Thus
everything was made to depend on the life of Isaac. If he
should die, what would become of the promises ? Yet Abraham
had such a strong and confident belief in the faithfulness of God,
that he hesitated not, when commanded, to sacrifice Isaac. Why
was he not agitated and perplexed with the objections which
might be made against the execution of such an appalling com-
mand ? Because he had faith. Simple faith in God relieved all
difficulties, and obviated all objections. But how would it be
possible for God to fulfil his promise, if Isaac should be slain ?
With such a question Abraham gave himself no concern. He
knew that God had promised and was able to perform. He knew
that the Almighty God could do whatever the case required —
that, if necessary, he could even raise Isaac from the dead,
though a resurrection from the dead was an event which had
never taken place. Thus, in this whole affair, the main spring of
action was faith, that is, confidence in God, and a certain expec-
tation that he would accomplish his word, whatever difficulties
might stand in the way.
Joseph, at the close of his life, mentioned the departure of the
Israelites, and gave commandment that his bones should be car-
ried with them to Canaan, hy faith ; that is, because he believed
the word of God respecting the posterity of Abraham, and looked
upon their departure from Egypt and their inheriting the promised
land as a reality, a matter of fact, just as we do now.
We are also informed of the faith of Moses. He believed the
promises of God, respecting the dehverance of his oppressed
100 FAITH.
brethren, and the everlasting blessings to be conferred on the
faithful in another world. He chose, therefore, to have his- lot
with the people of God, how much soever it might cost him. The
good which he expected was, in his estimation, far better than all
the treasures of Egypt, and far more than an overbalance for the
sufferings which he might be called to endure. He had faith in
God, and with full assurance anticipated the accomplishment of all
his promises.
Finally, the inspired writer, in a strain of powerful eloquence j
recounts the efficacy of faith in other instances. " What shall I
say more ? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and
Barak, and Samson, and Jephthah, and David, and Samuel, and
the prophets, who through faith^'' that is, animated and borne on
by confidence in God, " subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness,
obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the
violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness
were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, put to flight the armies
of the aliens. Women received their dead, raised to life again ;
and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they
might obtain a better resurrection. And others had trial of cruel
mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and impris-
onments. They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were
tempted, were slain with the sword ; they wandered about in
sheep-skins and goat-skins, being destitute, afilicted, tormented."
All this they did and suffered by faith. They had confidence in
God, and had no doubt of the fulfilment of his great and precious
promises. The good held up before them excited their highest
efforts, and made hardships and sufferings easy to be endured.
Such was the influence of their faith.
Other parts of Scripture agree with this interesting chapter, in
regard to the efficacy of faith. 2 Cor. 5: 7, " For we walk hy
faith, not by sight." We are influenced, not by the objects of
sight, but by those invisible, spiritual objects, which are made
known by the word of God, and which faith regards as precious
reahties. In Acts 15: 9, it is represented, that God purified the
hearts of Gentile converts hy faith ; that is, by a cordial behef in
the Saviour, and in the truths of his gospel.
FAITH. 101
It is easy to see, that evangelical faith, or believing in Christ,
must have an influence preeminently important. For the charac-
ter and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, comprise everything
■which is excellent and glorious, and which is adapted to awaken
the gratitude and love of believers. Let us only apprehend who
and what the Saviour is — that he came into the world to save
sinners — that he redeemed us by his blood — let us behold
and love this Almighty, all-sufficient Saviour, and cordially trust
in him ; and what manner of persons shall we be, in all holy con-
versation and godliness ! We shall be drawn, by motives the
most powerful and efficacious, to gratitude and obedience, to
humihty and purity — in a word, to everything lovely and excel-
lent, both in feeling and in conduct. We shall abound in all the
fruits of the Spirit.
From what has been said of the nature and influence of faith,
it plainly follows, that errors of opinion, and faults of character,
are in a great degree owing to the want or the weakness of the
principle of faith.
A man who is governed by Christian faith, endeavors conti-
nually to conform to the word of God. That is his rule. Whether
the doctrines which God teaches in his word are consonant to the
dictates of his natural reason, or not, — whether comprehensible
or incomprehensible, is not the question with him. ITe inquires
for the mind of God, as declared in the Scriptures. When he
finds this, his inquiry is ended, and his opinion fixed. He that
relies upon his own reasoning for the discovery of the truth, is
continually asking hoiv this and that doctrine of revelation can be
true, or how it can be consistent with some other truth. To such
a man I would endeavor, in different ways, to give satisfaction.
But one of my rephes would be this. Suppose you cannot see
how the doctrine can be true, or how it can be consistent with
some other truth. What then ? Is it strange that a being of so
small a mind as man — a being of yesterday, who knows compa-
ratively nothing, should be unable to see what God sees in regard
to the deep things of revelation, and the consistency of the difie-
102 FAITH
rent parts of the great system of divine truth with each other ?
Is not the declaration of God a sufficient ground of belief ? The
true believer looks for no better ground than this. He desires to
be taught of God. He sits at the feet of Jesus. But if, instead
of this, a man abandons the principle of child-like faith, and leans
to his own understanding, he comes at once into contact with error,
and is exposed to be carried about with every wind of doctrine,
and to embrace opinions which are totally contrary to the decisions
of holy writ.
It is obvious that all the faults in our practice are, in a great
measure, owing to the want or weakness of faith. Without faith,
in the general sense, man has no motives to a holy life ; because
all the motives to holiness are found in those things which are the
objects of faith, and which are brought, by faith, to have an influ-
ence over the mind. Were there no God, no moral law with
sanctions, no future retribution, there would be no motive to right
conduct. And if a man does not cordially believe in these ob-
jects, they will be to liim as though they were not. It is, then,
perfectly clear, that rehgious faith is indispensable to a holy life,
and that all which is faulty and blame-worthy in our life, results
from the want of faith. If we indulge the spirit of covetous-
ness — if we set our afiections on worldly honors or pleasures,
it is because we are destitute of that faith which overcomes
the world. If we cordially believed the truths of revelation
— if we had a lively sense of the purity and goodness of
God's law, — of our own guilty, ruined state, the abounding
grace of Christ, and the realities of the future world — if the
great things made known in the Scriptures were continually pre-
sent to our view, and our understandings and hearts were filled
with them, earthly riches, honors, and pleasures would no longer
allure us, and a worldly spirit would die away.
How can we account for insensibility and sloth among those
who profess to be followers of Christ ? Are not the wonders of
redeeming love, the interests of the soul and the things of eterniiy,
sufficient inducements to pious diligence and zeal ? Yes. But
unhelief makes them appear distant and uncertain, takes away
FAITH. 103
tteir power to produce emotion and ejQfort, and leaves us as
supine and dormant, as though these glorious objects had no
existence.
Our indifference to the salvation of sinners and the prosperity
of Christ's kingdom must be traced to the same cause. Did we
rightly apprehend and feel the certainty and importance of invis-
ible, eternal things, what deep concern should we have for im-
mortal souls, ready to perish ! What strong desires for their
redemption from sin and death ! How alive should we be to every
thing connected with the prosperity of Christ's kingdom and the
interests of eternity !
It is the want of faith, that renders us so dull and heartless in
our devotions. If in our seasons of worship we should, by faith,
look into eternity and see, in the hght of truth, the objects
brought to view in the Scriptures ; the vanities of the world
■would cease to occupy our thoughts, and all the ardor of our
souls would be kindled up in our addresses to our God and
our Judge.
If such evils result from unbelief ; then how vastly important
it is that we should be freed from it ! And how important that
we should take pains, in all suitable ways, to cultivate a steady,
strong and lively faith ! Our experience teaches, that the .best
means to mcrease our faith is, to exercise it. Every time we
look at spiritual and eternal things with a full persuasion of their
certainty and a just impression of their importance, we do some-
thing towards strengthening the principle of faith. But this salu-
tary influence will generally be in proportion to the difficulty
attending the exercise. A single instance of faith, Hke that which
was repeatedly exercised by Abraham, will be more beneficial in
its influence, than many acts of faith Avhere no difficulty is en-
countered. Take care then, when you meet obstacles and dangers,
when clouds and tempests arise, when sense and reason are con-
founded, and earthly supports fail, — take care to exercise a
strong and steady faith. Trust in God. Fearlessly obey his
•word, and quietly repose upon his precious promises. In this
104 FAITH.
way your faitli will acquire a strength which will render it
invincible.
And let me add, that deep impressions of divine things, and
fervent affections towards them, in other words, animated exer-
cises of faith, wiU exert a far more salutary influence, than those
exercises which are comparatively feeble. To acquire the char-
acter of unwavering and elevated faith, you must aspire to such
apprehensions of divine objects, as will wake up all your moral
powers, and excite to acts of vigorous, undivided faith. Such
wakefulness and activity in the enlightened believer have an
abiding influence. They produce an impression, which will remain
through life, and will show its happy results in the world to come.
How inexpressibly important then must it be, that those divine,
eternal things, which are the objects of faith, should take deep
hold on our intellectual and moral nature ; should excite to lively
emotion and vigorous action, and fill all our capacities. In pur-
suit of this end, let us diligently employ the means afforded us for
elevating our piety. By retirement, by watchful care not to be
engrossed with earthly pursuits, by devout reading of the Scrip-
tures, by heavenly contemplation, by mortifying sinful affections,
by spiritual converse with God, and by incessant desires and
prayers for the illuminating, purifying influence of the Spirit, let
us strive to get away from the delusion of sensible things, to
rise above the world, and to bring our understandings and hearts
under the power of divine truth ; deeming ourselves happy, when
favored, even for a few moments, with clear, spiritual knowledge
and strong faith ; and then proceeding from moments to hours,
and from hours to days, till we come to look with an undiverted
eye at things not seen and eternal, and, from morning to night,
to have our feelings and actions swayed by faith in God. Oh !
blessed attainment ! When shall we rise to it ? Lord, increase
our faith.
LECTURE XCV.
THE NATURE, DESIGN, AND EFFICACY OF PRAYER.
Our next subject is the general duty of prayer. But it is not
to be understood from this arrangement of subjects, that prayer,
in the life of a Christian, is separate from repentance and faith,
and follows after them in the order of time. They in fact imply
each other. There is no such thing as acceptable prayer without
repentance and faith ; and no such thing as repentance and
faith in one who lives without prayer. Still propriety requires
us to give to the duty of prayer a distinct and very particular
consideration.
Prayer, in a general view, is the utterance or offering up of
holy desires to Grod. It is a communication from the soul of man
to the Creator and Redeemer of the world. The Scriptures rep-
resent it as callmg upon God, crying to Cfod, and asking God.
But it must be remembered that the words spoken in prayer are
merely an expression of the desires of the heart. Without holy
affections and desires, the most devout words are but sounding
brass and a tinkhng cymbal. On the other hand, if without
uttering any words, we have holy desires, we have the substance
of prayer, though not its common form. The amount of true,
acceptable prayer can never be estimated by the number of
devout words which are spoken, or by the length of time em-
ployed in the duty. In the judgment of God, he prays most,
who expresses the greatest amount of spiritual affections and
desires.
106 THE DUTY OF PKATER.
After these hints as to the nature of prayer, I shall consider
its design and efficacy. And here we must guard with sacred
care against supposing, that the influence which the Scriptures
ascribe to prayer, does in any degree supersede the agency of
God m conferring the blessings which are consequent upon prayer.
The efficacy of prayer is from God. The blessings secured by
prayer are as really gifts of God, as if they were bestowed with-
out any regard to prayer. In other words, prayer has no influ-
ence of itself, independently of God. If it has efficacy, it is
because God gives it efficacy. He worketh all in all. And in
prayer there is always an express or implied recognition of this ;
and in its exercise we are more and more impressed with the
truth, that everj good and perfect gift cometh from God.
The design and efficacy of prayer are clearly set forth in the
words of Christ — " Ask, and it shall be given you." For the
purpose of illustration, he refers to the readiness with which
parents bestow favors upon their children. And he teaches that
God is more ready to give spiritual blessings to those who pray
for them, than we are to give good things to our children. This
view of the subject is perfectly simple and plain. The influence
of prayer is as intelligible and as free from difficulty, as the in-
fluence of means in any other case. Both in the natural and
moral world, means and ends are, by divine appointment, con-
nected together ; so that by the use of the proper means, we
obtain the desired end. Here you see the whole efficacy of
means, and particularly the efficacy of prayer. By prayer, we
avoid the most dreadful evils, and obtain blessings, both temporal
and eternal, of the greatest worth.
No inspired wi'iter gives a more striking representation of the
influence of prayer, than the Apostle James. He says that,
For more than three years, w^hen prevailing wickedness called
for divine judgments, the prayer of Elijah had, an efficacy
to prevent rain. After that, it had an efficacy to bring down
rain in copious effusion. But how much more precious is the
influence of prayer, when it brings to believers the blessings
of forgiveness, sanctification, and eternal life, and when it pro-
THE DUTY OP PRATER. 107
cures the effusion of the Holj Spirit upon the unconverted, and
helps forward the redemption of the world from the power of sin.
The effect of prayer in the case of Elijah, was indeed miraculous.
But the Apostle, with evident propriety, makes use of it to illus-
trate the influence of prayer in other cases. For if God has such
respect to prayer even in working miracles, he will unquestionably
show equal respect to it in the common dispensations of his grace.
How the efficacy of prayer is explained and Hmited by
the word of God will be more particularly considered in another
place.
It is easy to see the propriety or fitness of prayer in all respects,
particularly in relation to God and the ends of his government ; in
relation to those who perform the duty ; and in relation to the
blessings which it secures.
Prayer has a manifest propriety and fitness in relation to the
Supreme Being, inasmuch as it is only such a treatment of him,
as corresponds with his infinite perfections. How suitable it is
that the eternal God, who is possessed of unbounded excellence,
and is the fountain of all the good in the creation, should be the
object of the devout affections which are exercised in prayer !
How just and proper that we should approach our heavenly
Father with veneration and love, and with filial confidence make
known to him the desires of our hearts !
It is manifestly one of the great ends of the divine administra-
tion, to promote the holiness and happiness of his intelligent
creatures. Now prayer is a leading and comprehensive exercise
of holiyiess. And this particular exercise of heliness is indispen-
sable. For if men should cease to pray, and thus give up the
principal exercise of hohness, they would give up all the other
exercises, and no holiness would remain on the face of the earth.
For, in fact, what holy man fives without prayer ? Or what man
who lives without prayer, can be considered as holy ? I say then,
if there should be no prayer, there would be no holiness ; and if
no holiness, then no happiness. Thus the benevolent design
of God in regard to the human race would fail of its accom-
plishment.
108 THE DUTY OF PKAYER.
Prayer is evidently suited to the nature and condition of those
who are to perform the duty. Were not our minds perverted by
sin, the attributes and works of God would continually excite us
to acts of religious worship. Parents and children in every fam-
ily would bend the knee to God in supplication and praise. The
youth in our schools and colleges, in our shops and on our farms,
would delight in prayer. And what crowded assembhes should
we have of persons of every age and condition, coming together
with the fervent desire to enjoy devout intercourse with God !
Prayer is primarily and chiefly a matter of moral feeling.
Reason decidedly approves of piety towards God. And where
piety is wanting, reason wants its noblest exercise and its best
gratification. But reason may suggest objections to the duty
of prayer, which mere reasoning cannot obviate. It is under the
influence of right moral afiection that we rise above objections and
difficulties, and draw near to the throne of grace, and pour out
our hearts in humble prayer.
It would be a great mistake to suppose that we could have no
motive to prayer, were we free from sin and misery. In a state
of perfect holiness, we should have a deep, constant, happy con-
viction of our dependence on God. If deprived of intercourse
with our heavenly Father, we could enjoy no good. Should we
be excluded from the presence of him whom we supremely love,
what desolation should we feel ! Our very holiness (if indeed
we could have any,) would be the source of misery to us, as it
would create desires which could never be satisfied. In a state
of moral rectitude, spiritual intercourse with God would consti-
tute our chief good. Our worship would not indeed be prompted
by guilt or by suffering. We should be like the angels in
heaven, who are filled with pure love to God ; and we should unite
with them in the devout exclamation, " Holy, holy, holy is the Lord
of hosts ; the whole earth is full of his glory." While survey-
ing his immutable perfections and the various acts of his merciful
providence, we should utter the veneration and love and gratitude
of our hearts in language like that of inspiration : Bless the
Lord, 0 our souls, and all that is within us bless his holy name
THE DUTY OF PRATER. 109
— Unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God,
he glory and dominion forever and ever. In such forms as these
would hoi J love impel us to worship the God of heaven. And
who is authorized to saj, that supplications to God for his blessing
would be excluded ? The holy Saviour abounded in supplications.
And there appears no reason to doubt that mankind, had they re-
mained perfectly obedient to God, would have sought and obtained
his favors by prayer, although their worship would doubtless have
consisted chiefly in pious admiration, gratitude, and praise.
But it is specially important to consider prayer in relation to
those who are in a state of apostasy, guilt and misery. We are
all transgressors of the divine law, and exposed to suffer an ever-
lasting death, the beginnings of which have already come upon
us. But through the great propitiation, our heavenly Father de-
clares himself ready to pardon and save. Now when we look upon
ourselves as criminals, condemned to endure all that is dreadful
to the soul, shall we not confess our wickedness, and cry to that
merciful Being, who is able to deliver us from the punishment we
deserve ? Shall we not beseech the great Physician, that he
would remedy the moral disorder within us, which is so hateful in
itself, and so destructive in its consequences ? When we see our-
selves poor and wretched, shall we not apply in humble prayer to
him, who can remove all our poverty and wretchedness, and sup-
ply all our wants ? And when we recollect what forbearance,
what unmerited kindness God has shown toward us through our
past life, shall we not render him hearty thanks ? And in the
exercise of benevolence and compassion towards our fellow-crea-
tures, who are in the same guilty, ruined state with ourselves,
shall we not lift up our souls to God in their behalf, praying that
his grace may abound in their salvation ?
Prayer, which is thus manifestly suited to our nature and con-
dition, will spontaneously flow forth from our hearts, if we have
right views and feelings respecting ourselves. Conscious of
having offended God, we shall make penitent confession and seek
forgiveness. Knowing ourselves to be poor and needy, we shall
ask favor of a bountiful and divine Benefactor. Being fully con-
VOL. III. 10
110 THE DUTY OF PRAYER.
vinced that we are totally unable to secure our O'wn spiritual "wel-
fare, we shall repair to him in whom is everlasting strength, and
beseech him to guide us by his wisdom, to defend us from danger
by his omnipotence, and to raise us at length to that high and holy
place, which no one can ever reach without constant help from
above. If our hearts are right, it Avill not be necessary for us to
be told that prayer is made our duty by the authority and com-
mand of God. We shall be prompted to it by every thought and
feeling of our souls. We shall pray for the same reason that we
eat when we are hungry, or drink when we are thirsty, or stretch
forth our hand for help, when in the deepest distress. We shall
pray for the same reason that we breathe. Prayer is the sponta-
neous, vital action of the spiritual man — the very beating of the
heart.
But there is one point which deserves to be considered a little
farther. Among the most important personal blessings to be
sought in prayer, is the increase of our pious affections, and the
improvement of our Christian character. And prayer has in it-
self a direct tendency and adaptedness to secure to us this inesti-
mable blessing.
Prayer tends to increase the strength of our pious affections,
by bringing them into lively action. In sincere and fervent
prayer, our repentance, faith, love, submission, and other Chris-
tian graces are exercised with special animation and fervor. Nev-
er do Christians so tenderly mourn for sin, or so firmly resolve to
forsake it ; never do they exercise so strong a confidence in God ;
never have they so full a conviction of the preciousness of the
soul and the worth of salvation, and never are they so powerfully
drawn to pious submission and obedience, as under the influence
of such views of God, of Christ, and of eternity, as occupy their
minds in prayer. By prayer they are best secured against error,
and most firmly established in the belief of the essential truths of
religion. The doubts and difficulties with which Christians are
sometimes harassed, are all scattered, when in humble prostration
of soul they draw near to God, behold his glory, and enjoy com-
munion with him. Now as the various Christian graces are thus
THE DUTY OF PRAYER. Ill
brought into a state of the highest activity and fervor in the exer-
cise of prayer, it follows, according to a general law of our nsr-
ture, that they thus grow in strength ; in other words, that the
mind, by this lively exercise of the Christian graces, acquires a
greater aptitude to their exercise in time to come, and to their ex-
ercise in an increased degree of strength. This is one way in
•which prayer evidently contributes to the improvement of Chris-
tian character.
But it is important to guard against a mistake which has come
in as an inference from the fact just stated. Because it is the
natural influence of prayer to increase our sanctification, it has
been thought by some, that the only way in which prayer for spir-
itual blessings is answered, or in which it has efficacy, is the salu-
tary influence which it naturally exerts upon the minds of those
who pray.
But this was not the opinion which the sacred writers advanced.
The Apostle James points out the influence of prayer very partic-
ularly. If any one was sick, he directed that the elders of the
church should pray for him, and said that the prayer of faith
would save the sick, and that the Lord would raise him up. He
said also — " Confess your faults one to another and pray one for
another, that ye may be healed. The earnest, fervent prayer of
the righteous man availeth much." The Apostle then illustrates
the great efficacy of prayer by referring to the case of the proph-
et Elijah. But Elijah's prayer produced its efiect not upon his
own mind, but upon the rain of heaven. And in the other case
mentioned, the efficacy ascribed to the prayer oflered up by the
elders, was not in the way of improving their own minds, but in
healing the sick. These were indeed miraculous operations. But
they were introduced by the Apostle, for the very purpose of il-
lustrating the common efficacy of prayer, and of encouraging
Christians generally to engage in the duty.
But if you would be still more satisfied on this point, consider
the prayers of Jesus. His Father always heard him, and his
prayers had the best possible influence. But he was always per-
fectly holy. Of course, it could not have been the design of
112 . THE DUTY OF PRAYER.
prayer to produce a sanctifying effect upon his own mind. And
yet it was in his case, that prayer had the highest conceivable eflSr
cacy. And that efficacy was simply this. Jesus prayed, and
God heard him. He asked for blessings, and God gave them,
and gave them in answer to his prayer. It was doubtless true,
that the pious exercises of Jesus contributed to the growth of his
mind and of his holy affections. This was a natural effect of
prayer in him, as well as in his followers. But the direct design
and effect of his prayers was what I have stated. It was the pro-
curing of blessings for his people.
Now as prayer is an obvious duty of all rational beings ; as it
is inculcated upon them by a God of infinite love, and as it is a
chief exercise of holiness, it is a solemn truth, as before intima^
ted, that those who live without i^fct'y^'i' <^re destitute of holiness.
Go through the Avorld, and you will find no moral excellence, no
true goodness in those, who do not worship the Supreme Being.
They may have the semblance of goodness, but they have not the
reality. They may possess amiable and useful qualities as mem-
bers of domestic and civil society. But they possess nothing
"which corresponds with their high moral relations. That men may
be truly virtuous and holy, they must know and love and worship
him, who is the source and the pattern of holiness. According
to the Scriptures, piety towards God is the basis of all real good-
ness, and those who do not worship God are under the dominion
of sin. The nature of the case shows that it must be so. For
if men have holiness, they will be sure to exercise it in the most
natural and obvious way. If they really love Avhat is excellent,
they will certainly love and adore him who is supremely excellent.
If they are benevolent, they Avill pursue the only way to accom-
plish the object of benevolence. If they are friends to moral law
and government, they will cherish the principle which is the spring
of obedience and submission. And if they desire pure and holy
enjoyment, they will use the proper means of obtaining it.
These remarks apply in a measure to Christians. For if they
"who live entirely without prayer are entirely destitute of holiness,
Christians must fall short in the degree of their holiness in pro-
THE DUTY OF PRAYER. . 113
portion as tliej at any time neglect prayer. If their prayers are
ol)structed, their growth in grace is obstructed. If they do not
ask, they will not receive. And if they ask with only a low de-
gree of fervor, they can expect to receive only a low degree of
spiritual good. It is sometimes the case that hunger or cold re-
duces men to a state which seems nearer death than life. There
may be a feeble motion of the heart, so that they are not ab-
solutely dead. But they are as destitute of action and enjoy-
ment, as if death had really passed upon them. To a state much
like this are Christians sometimes reduced in consequence of the
neglect of prayer. The power of religion is gone. And they
have hardly life enough left to be sensible of the symptoms of
death which are upon them. How deplorable is their condition !
In their better days, they have known the preciousness of divine
blessings. A fulness of those blessings is freely offered to them.
With reference to forgiveness of sin, growth in grace, a useful life,
support in trouble, and peace in death, their merciful Father says,
" Ask, and ye shall receive ; seek, and ye shall find." How
great must be our folly and guilt, and what merited reproach
must fall upon us, if, by our inexcusable negligence, we deprive
ourselves of blessings so precious and so easily obtained !
10*
LECTURE XCVl.
EFFICACY OF PRAYER SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS. OBJECTION
ANSWERED,
It has thus far been mj object to show, that prayer is the ap-
pointed means of obtaining the blessings which we need ; that its
efficacy consists in this, that, according to the promise of God, it
secures his favors. The efficacy of prayer is not however to be
understood in the most absolute sense, but is to be qualified by
the word of God, and by Christian experience. My meaning is,
that the texts which assert that God will answer prayer, are not
to be taken without some restriction ; and that if we would form
an exact judgment respecting the influence of prayer, we must
avail ourselves of other representations of Scripture, and of the
instruction afibrded by the course of divine providence. This is
the mode of proceeding which we are accustomed to adopt in oth-
er cases. And it is in consequence of neglecting it, that men so
often run into hurtful extremes respecting the doctrines and duties
of religion.
In a general view. Scripture sets forth the influence of prayer
in the strongest terms. And the providence of God corresponds
with the teachings of Scripture. In all ages, prayer has exerted
a glorious efficacy. But both the word and the providence of
God, and the experience of his people, show that the efficacy of
prayer must be understood with several important qualifications.
In the first place, it is to be kept in mind, that the act of prayer,
in order to be efficacious, must be accompanied with the various
branches of holiness. It must be accompanied with faith. " He
PRAYER. 115
that Cometh to God, must believe that he is, and that he is the
rewarder of those who diUgently seek him." It must be accom-
panied with humility and turning from sin. " If my people shall
humble themselves, and pray — and turn from their wicked ways,
then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin." It must
be accompanied with a forgiving spirit. " When ye stand pray-
ing, forgive, if ye have aught against any, that your Father also
who is in heaven, may forgive you," Prayer must be attended
with importunity. So Jesus repeatedly taught. And it must be
accompanied with obedience. The Apostle John, after long expe-
rience, said, " Whatsoever we ask, we receive, because we keep
his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his
sight." Such, according to the Scriptures, is the prayer which is
efficacious to procure divine favors.
To explain this matter more particularly, I observe, in the
second place, that prayer can have no such efficacy as ivould vio-
late the principles of the Christian religion, or he contrary to the
usual methods of the divine administratioii. However unqualified
may be the language sometimes used to express the influence of
prayer, we must always understand that influence to be limited by
the principles of revelation. Suppose a man prays that God
would give him liberty to live in sin, or would make him happy
without religion. Can any one think that such prayer would pre-
vail ? Or suppose a man prays that the heathen may be turned
from their sins and be made partakers of the great salvation, with-
out any knowledge of the gospel. Would God give efficacy to
such prayer ? Again. Suppose a man who is in want of food
for himself and family, prays that God would cause the earth to
produce a harvest in the midst of winter. Or suppose a man, im-
patient of the slow movements of vegetation in the summer, prays
that God would cut short the work, and cause the wheat which is
sown in the morning, to spring up and come to maturity before
the evening. Or suppose you look with compassion upon the peo-
ple of God in their imperfect, suffering state, and pray that God
would this very day make them complete in holiness and happi-
ness, and receive them to glory. Can you think that in any of
116 PRAYER.
these cases God would tui-n aside from his own chosen method of
administration to grant such unreasonable requests ? Do his
promises imply that he will answer such prayers as these ?
Thirdly ; prayer cannot have efficacy in any way which would
he inconsistent with divine ivisdom.
The only wise God will accomplish his purposes in the most
suitable manner. But in regard both to his purposes and the
manner of accomplishing them, except where he has given us par-
ticular information, we are liable to mistake. We may regard a
particular thing as a proper object of desire and prayer, and it
may be that the desire and prayer are right in us. But it may
not seem good in the sight of God that the thing desired and
prayed for should be granted. It is plainly right for us to pray,
that a dear friend or relative may be raised up from sickness, and
be made a blessing to the world. But God may judge it best
that he should not be raised up. And if so, then however benev-
olent and pious our feelings, however fervent our prayers, and
however strong our confidence in God, the particular favor for
which we pray will not be granted.
An instance in point occurs in the hfe of Paul. Considering
what he called a thorn in the flesh to be a great evil, he prayed
with importunity that it might be removed. But God, in his
wisdom, saw it to be best not to remove it. Of course, the
particular thing for which the Apostle prayed could not be
granted. A servant of Christ, in a time of persecution, may
pray, and ought to pray, that he may be preserved from the
designs of his enemies. But it may seem good to that wisdom
which cannot err, that he should honor his Lord by suflFering as a
martyr. There never was a more fervent prayer, or one more
pleasing to God, than the prayer which Jesus offered up in the
garden. And yet it was not consistent with the wisdom of God
to grant the thing for which he prayed.
The same principle holds in regard to the time and the means
of accomplishing what we ask in prayer. Christians visited with
sickness may pray earnestly, and with confidence in God, that
the means they are now using may be made effectual to cure their
PRATER. 117
disease. But God may judge it best that they should have a
longer exercise of patience, and should afterwards be cured by
different means. Their request for the restoration of health may
be granted, though not at the time or by the means specified in
their prayer.
But such instances may be viewed in another light. Although
Christians in such a case really desire health, they desire another
object still more, that is, the glory of God. It is chiefly for the
sake of glorifying their Father in heaven by useful action, that
they desire health. And if that great object may be promoted,
they are content. In reaUty, their first, and in a sense their only
prayer is, that whether by health or by sickness, by life or by
death, God may be honored, and his holy cause advanced. Thus
in one way or another their request is granted. If the inferior
good is denied them, they are sure to obtain that which is the
supreme and idtimate object of their desire.
To these limitations of the efficacy of prayer objections may be
urged. It may be alleged that this mode of treatmg the subject
tends to produce discouragement ; that a hope and behef that
God will hear our prayers and will give us the very things we
ask, is necessary to excite earnestness and perseverance ; that
if we admit so many hmitations and abatements of the efficacy
of prayei, we must be perplexed and disheartened ; and that,
feeling it to be so uncertain, whether God will grant our
requests or not, we shall be tempted to neglect prayer alto-
gether.
To these objections I make the following reply.
1. If the efficacy of prayer is, in fact, subject to such limita-
tions as I have suggested, we ought surely to be aware of it. To
offer prayer, with mistaken views as to the manner in which God
will regard it, must have an unfavorable influence, and must, in
the end, occasion disappointment and distress. We ought, then,
to labor assiduously to obtain just views of the subject, so that
our prayers and our expectations of an answer may be conformed
to the precepts and promises of God's word and the principles of
his administration.
118 PRAYER.
2. The above mentioned limitations of the efficacy of p-ayer are
evidently desirable and necessary.
In numberless cases, we know not what would be best, either
for ourselves or for others ; and if we make requests, as we must,
according to the promptings of our own minds, we shall be liable
to ask for things which neither divine wisdom nor divine goodness
can grant. And even in regard to those things which may be
real blessings, and which God may be ready to give us in answer
to prayer, we may have erroneous conceptions as to the time and
manner of their bestowment. In a word, we are often totally
incompetent to judge what is on the whole best ; and if we would
avoid the charge of arrogance, we must willingly submit to the
infallible judgment of God. To him it of right belongs to control
events. And although he allows and encourages us, in all cir-
cumstances, to make known our requests to him ; still he reigns,
and will order the affairs of the creation according to his own wise
and holy will.
And 3. The view I have presented of the subject does, in truth,
correspond with the best feelings of Christians. In regard to
those cases in which the will of God is not made known, they
may have desires, and may express them in prayer ; but, if their
hearts are right, their prayers will be conditional. They pray for
health, or for success in some benevolent undertaking ; but with a
submissive temper. They are wilhng that God should deny their
request, if it seemeth good in his sight. They indulge no wish
that their prayer should prevail, unless it is consistent with the
principles of revelation, with God's unsearchable wisdom, and
with the established methods of his administration. The hmita-
tions mentioned are just what they would desire. On any other
principles they would hardly dare to pray. As to all those mat-
ters, concerning which they know not what in God's view
would be best ; although they freely make known their re-
quests in prayer, their hearts prompt them to say, as Jesus
did, " Nevertheless, not as /will, but as thou wilt." This sub-
jection of our will to the will of God is implied in the Christian
character.
PRAYER. 119
To "what conclusion then are we brought ? It is said, if we
admit so many limitations and abatements of the efficacy of prayer,
we shall be disheartened, and shall neglect prayer wholly. This
is the same as to say — if we cannot have our prayers literally
answered, even when thus answering them would be in opposition
to the wisdom of God and the settled method of his administrar-
tion, we Avill not pray at all ; — we will not pray, unless we can
be assured that God will grant our requests, even when he sees it
best not to grant them. To what a different result does the spirit
of truth and piety lead ! The devout Christian, being deeply
sensible of his own liabiUty to mistake, would, in many cases, be
afraid to express his desires in prayer, unless ne beheved that his
desires will be controlled by divine wisdom. But as he knows
that God rules over all, he is emboldened to draw near to his
mercy seat, and, with the spirit of a child, to pour out his heart
before him, saying — these. Lord, are the desires of my heart.
But ignorant as I am, and exposed to error — sinful as I am, and
prone to indulge unsuitable desires, I cheerfully refer my requests
to thee. Grant them, if consistent with thy will ; if not, thy will
be done. Remove or continue the suffering I endure, as seem-
eth good in thy sight. Such submission to God, and such confi-
dence in his wisdom and goodness respecting the issue of our
prayers, would be far from being a discouragement. On the con-
trary, it would be promotive, in the highest degree, of fervor and
importunity. Never did any one manifest more importunity than
Jesus did, when, under the pressure of unutterable distress, he
repeatedly prayed — " Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass
from me ; " though, at the same time, he referred it entirely to
God to grant the request or not, as should be agreeable to his
will. And who prays with more importunity than Paul did, when
he thrice besought the Lord that his grievous affliction might
depart from him ? But he prayed with a readiness to bow to the
divine will, and he afterwards showed that he was satisfied with
the grace of Christ, and even gloried in it, though the particular
favor he sought was not granted. And who can think that the
Apostle ever entertained a lower opinion of the importance or the
120 PRAYER.
efficacy of prayer, or prayed with less fervor, or less confidence
in God, or less hope of success, because he had learned by
experience, that, in regard to the manner of answering prayer,
the Lord of heaven and earth will exercise his own unerring
■wisdom ?
LECTURE XCVIl.
A MISTAKEN IDEA AS TO THE PRAYER OF FAITH.
There are not a few devout Christians, who entertain an
opinion different from the one I have advanced on the efficacy
of prayer. The opinion referred to appears to be associated with
honorable conceptions of God, and is supported by arguments which
must be allowed to be plausible, and which ought not to be passed
over without serious consideration.
I would here remark, by way of precaution, that right views on
the subject before us undoubtedly have a tendency to promote the
spirit of prayer. Any opinion, therefore, must be regarded as
more or less erroneous, if it be found to be unfavorable in its
influence upon the practice of devotion. And if it shall, in fact,
appear, that those who understand and embrace the view which I
have taken of the subject, have less confidence in God ; if they
engage in prayer with less fervor ; or if their general character is
less influenced by their devotions ; or if it can be fairly shown
that the view which I have exhibited naturally tends to such a
result ; I shall admit at once, that my manner of contemplating
the subject is open to a very grave objection. For it is very
manifest, that the idea which inspired men entertained on this
subject led them to attach the highest importance to prayer, and
to engage in the duty with great fervency.
The opinion now to be examined is briefly this, that the prayer
of faith is, without any exception, successful in obtaining the par-
ticular favors which are sought, whatever those favors may be,
VOL. in. 11
122 PRAYER.
and whetlier they relate to ourselves or others. As to the nature
of faith — according to those who hold to the opinion above
stated — the faith which should be exercised in prayer, is a
strong, confident belief that the very blessing fwayed for will he
granted — a full persuasio7i that the particular thing desired tvill
he obtained. According to this notion, if Christians praj in faith
for this or that particular favor, they will certainly receive it.
And if it is not received, it is because it was not sought in faith;
that is, with a coyifident belief that it would be granted.
This opinion is liable to serious objections. It evidently
involves an idea of faith, which is inadmissible. True faith,
so far as the present subject is concerned, rests on the veracity
of God in regard to his promises. Now it must be admitted by
all that God mil certainly fulfil his promises, taken in the right
sense. To beheve that God will fulfil his promises in a sense
which he never intended, would be a great mistake. It then
becomes a question of primary importance, how we are to under-
stand the promises which God has made, in regard to his answer-
ing our prayers. Take a particular promise ; and if you can find
out the exact meaning of that promise, you will find out exactly
what you are, in that case, to believe. For doubtless you are to
believe in the true sense of a promise, not in a false sense. Matt.
7: 7, 8, " Ask, and it shall be given to you. — For every one that
asketh, receiveth." Did Chi-ist mean that this promise should be
understood in the most unlimited sense — that is, that every
single thing without exception, which his disciples should at any
time ask, should be given to them ? This could not be the case ;
for when they asked that the kingdom, that is, as they intended,
that temporal dominion might be restored to Israel, the favor was
not granted. The fact was, they mistook the meaning of God's
promises respectmg the Jews, and the request they made under
the influence of that mistake could not be granted ; for surely
God will not turn aside from the plan of liis righteous administra-
tion, to comply with the mistaken desires of his people. The
same is true of the text under consideration. The promise to
those who "ask" and "seek," is to be understood not in an
PRAYER. 123
absolute but in a qualified sense. And if we ask any favor con-
trary to the true meaning of the promise, or to the scheme of
God's providence, the favor is not to be expected. How ear-
nestly soever any one may contend for the highest and most abso-
lute sense of the promise before us, he will find it necessary to
admit qualifications. The words of the promise are, " Ask, and
it shall be given you." Does it mean that, if we ask God to give
us a large estate, he will do it ? Does it mean that, if we ask
God to give us at once as much knowledge as Newton or Paul
possessed, or to inspire us with the poetic genius of Shakspeare,
or with the eloquence of Whiteficld, he will bestow such a favor ?
Does it mean that, if we pray God to exempt us from dying, or to
continue to us a useful life for a thousand years, he will grant our
request ? Does it mean, that if we should pray God to make us
swift as an eagle to go to difierent parts of the world with the
message of divine mercy, he would answer our prayer ? No.
The promise must be taken with hmitations. And this is true of
every promise of God, that he will hear and answer prayer. If
we would know the mind of God, we must take his word as a
whole. No single text can give us all the information we need.
What might appear at first view to be the sense of a passage,
may not be the true sense, but may require to be explained or
modified by other parts of Scripture. This principle of interpre-
tation is of constant use ; and without it, we shall be likely to
embrace the most absurd and contradictory opinions.
It is also true, that we are in many cases to make out the ex-
act meaning of the declarations of God's word bi/ attending to the
course of Ms jrrovidence. His providence is in accordance Avith
his word, and they often help to explain each other. The disci-
ples of Christ inferred from certain passages in the Scriptures,
that the Messiah would not die. This mistake of theirs was cor-
rected by the events which took place. Again. Suppose they
had understood Iiis predictions recorded in Matt. XXIV, as implying
that he would come to raise the dead and judge the world within
thirty years. As he did not so come, they must have learned
their mistake, and must have interpreted those predictions in
124 PRAYER.
agreement with the course of the divine administration. In
many instances, Christians have been constrained to modify and
sometimes entirely to change their opinion as to the meaning of
particular predictions, by observing that events take place differ-
ently from the opinion they first entertained. And so they must
continue to do, whenever there is occasion for it. And there may
be occasion for it in regard to the question so often agitated at
this day, whether the Jews are to return to Palestine. If they
do not return, those who understand the promises to mean that
they will return, will find it necessary to change their opinion.
And if they do return, those who have judged differently will
covvect their mistake. All will finally understsind the predictions
alike. Come now to the subject before us ; and suppose that we
understand the promise of God to hear prayer in the most abso-
lute sense, and that with this understanding, we pray God to raise
from the dead a beloved parent or child, now lying a lifeless corpse
before us, verily believing that what we desire will take jilace.
Will not our experience show that the meaning of the promise is
not what we supposed ? If those who take the promise of God
to hear prayer in the unlimited, absolute sense, will look at the
case of the Apostle Paul, whose earnest prayer to God was that
the Israelites might be saved, and will notice the fact that the
favor he asked was not granted ; they must either deny that Paul
prayed aright, or must acknowledge that they labored under a
mistake as to the meaning of the divine promise. If then we
would form a right conception of the efficacy of prayer, we must
carefully attend to the course of divine providence, and to the
whole compass of revelation. In this way we shall come to the
conclusion, that God's promise to answer prayer is to be under-
stood with the qualifications and restrictions which have been sug-
gested, and which are not only reasonable in themselves, and
correspondent with the teachings of Scripture and with the expe-
rience of the church in all ages, but perfectly agreeable to the
best feelings of Christians.
I said that the misconception referred to respecting the efficacy
of prayer, involves an inadmissible idea of the nature of faith,
particularly that which is exercised in prayer.
PRATER. 125
Let us examine this subject, and see what are the teachings of
the inspired writers.
" Without faith it is impossible to please God ; for he that
Cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is the reivarder
of them that diligently seek himJ^ Heb. 11: G. Here all is
plain. We must believe in God, — the true God, a Being of infi-
nite perfection. Of course we must believe in all the declara-
tions of his word, particularly in all his promises, rightly under-
stood. We must believe that he is " the rewarder of them that
diligently seek him." The inspired writer does not say, we must
believe that God will bestow upon those who come to him every
particular favor which they at any time ask, but that he will re-
ward them. He may, in many instances, reward them, by grant-
ing them other and better favors, than those which they ask.
We must beheve that he will fulfil his promises to answer prayer
according to their true intent. And if they are to be understood
with such limitations, as have been pointed out ; then we are to
believe that they will be performed under those very limitations.
But the limitations and exceptions which I have named, do not
relate to the blessings which are essential to salvation. It is in
regard to other thmgs, which may or may not be best for us, that
the notion of faith which we are considering, is evidently incor-
rect. And surely it cannot be supposed, that a faith which is not
warranted by the word or the providence of God, will procure,
without any failure, the very things we desire. It would be more
reasonable to think, that a faith, thus overstepping its proper
bounds, and waxing bold and confident in respect to things which
God has reserved in his own power, must be regarded with disap-
probation.
The blessings of forgiveness and sanctification, and all the
blessings involved in a free and full salvation, are unquestionably
secured by the promises of God, to all true worshippers. And if
we have faith, we shall beheve, without any doubt, that God will
reward those who diligently seek him, by the besto^vment of all
these spiritual blessings. It is certainly implied in the promises
of God, that the pardon of sin, the gift of the Holy Spirit, with
11*
126 PRAYER.
all his precious fruits in the present world, and eternal life in
heaven, shall be the portion of every behever. The bestowment
of all this good, in God's own time and manner, will, we know,
be consistent with the principles of revelation, and with the es-
tablished methods of the divine government. It would plainly
contravene the principles which infinite wisdom has expressly
established, if any behever should fail of receiving any part of this
complete salvation. Here all is certain. And here we find all
the encouragement to faith and prayer, which can reasonably be
desired. The promise of God that he wiU bestow these spiritual
blessings in answer to believing prayer, is to be understood in the
most extensive sense. He will do even more " than we ask or
think." No limits are admitted, except as to the time and manner
of accomplishing the promise.
We must then regulate our faith in regard to the eflScacy of
prayer by the true meaning of God's promises, — considering those
promises to be either with or without restriction, as the general
current of Scripture, the nature of the subject, and the obvious
principles of the divine government require. Confidently to be-
lieve that the very favors we ask will be granted is, in some cases,
the exercise of a just and Scriptural faith. But in other cases,
to believe this would be a wide departure from the true sense of
the promises, and from the experience of God's people in all ages.
And if we should attempt to carry into practice the notion of the
efficacy of prayer which I am * controverting, we should involve
ourselves in endless difficulties and perplexities. We should be
obliged to put an unnatural force upon our own minds in order to
bring ourselves to believe what we have no grounds to believe ;
and after all we should fail of exercising the f\ith we labored after,
unless we should close our eyes against the fight of divine truth.
What a blessed relief from all this confusion and disquietude of
mind shall we experience, if we have the faith which the Scripture
represents as essential to acceptable prayer — behoving that Q-od
is, and that he is the rewarder of them who diligently seek him.
This faith, fixing, as it does, on the eternal existence and infinite
perfection of God, and on his promises to those who seek him, be-
PRAYER. 127
gets freedom, fervency and perseverance in prayer, combined with
the spirit of humility and submission.
The nature of the faith which is to be exercised in prayer, may
be very clearly illustrated by adverting to some of the examples
of it which are recorded in the four Gospels. Take then, the
case of the Centurion, who besought Christ to heal his servant,
and who was spoken of by Christ as having great faith. But what
was his faith, and how was it manifested ? In the first place, he
sent Jewish Elders to request Christ to come and heal his servant.
By this he showed his confidence in Christ as able to effect a cure.
But this confidence was more clearly manifested afterwards. For
while Jesus was coming towards his house, he sent friends to him,
saying, " trouble not thyself; for I am not worthy that thou shouldst
enter under my roof; wherefore neither thought I myself worthy
to come unto thee ; but say in a word, and my servant shall be
healed." And to show how strong was his confidence in Christ's
power to heal by a word, he referred to his own authority over
his soldiers, who rendered him an instant obedience. In this way
the Centurion manifested his ^^ great faitli.^^ It is not said, he
behoved and certainly knew beforehand that Jesus would heal his
servant, as though he had the gift of prophecy. But, he believed
that Jesus had power to heal, and power to do it by a single word,
though he was at a distance from the sick person. When the
Centurion applied to Jesus, he, of course, behoved him to be very
merciful, and hoped to obtain the' favor he sought. But his great
faith was his great confidence in Christ'' s power to heal.
Take another instance. Two blind men cried to Jesus, saying,
" Thou son of David, have mercy on us." Jesus said to them,
"believe ye that I am able to do this?" He did not ask them,
whether they believed that he certainly would restore their sight,
but whether they believed that he was able to do this. They an-
swered, yea, Lord. This was their faith. At another time they
brought a paralytic to Jesus. And not being able to come near
him for the press, they uncovered the roof of the house, and let
down the bed whereon the paralytic lay. " When Jesus saw their
faith ; i. e. when he saw from their conduct what confidence they
128 PRATER.
Jiad in hispoiver to heal, and what hope too of obtainiug the bless-
ing desired, he said to the sick man, " thy sins are forgiven thee
— arise, take up thy bed and walk."
Again. A man brought to Jesus his son, who had a dumb
spirit. After describing the distressing case he said, " if thou
canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us." This
led Christ to say — " if thou canst believe, all things are possible
to him that belie veth ;" implying that the man was wanting in
faith, inasmuch as he had not perfect confidence in Christ's power
to grant the favor desired. " And straightway the father cried
out with tears — Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."
Upon this Jesus granted his request.
The same principle is apparent in the case of Jairus, who fell at
the feet of Jesus, and said, " my little daughter lieth at the point
of death ; come and lay thy hand upon her that she may be heal-
ed, and she shall hve." This was his faith. After some time,
while Jesus was on his way to the house of Jairus, some came and
said, " thy daughter is dead ; why troublest thou the master any
farther ?" But Jesus said to Jairus, " be not afraid, onli/ be-
lieve"— have the same confidence in me now when the child iS
dead, as thou hadst before when she was sick. The conclusion of
the story shows that he had the same confidence, and that Christ
made it manifest that his confidence was not misplaced.
These examples show, that the faith of those who applied to
Jesus, consisted essentially in this, that they had full confidence in
him as able to do all that was desired, and such confidence too in
his mercy, as led them freely to present their requests to him, and
to cherish the liojje that they should obtain the blessings which they
sought.
The views which I have exhibited might be still further illus-
trated by referring to the example, in which Christ charged his
disciples with being deficient in faith. What he inculcated upon
them was, such an entire trust in God in regard to their wants,
their trials, their duties and their dangers, as would prevent anxie-
ty and fear, and give them tranquillity and peace.
It must now, I think, be obvious to you, what is the faith which
PRAYER. 129
we should exercise in prayer. We should believe in the being,
the perfections, the government, and the -word of God. We
should have a cordial trust in him in all respects, particularly in
regard to the subject of prayer, whether Grod has actually promis-
ed to bestow the particular favors we desire, or not. If he has
really promised to bestow the very favors which we ask in prayer,
we are to believe that he will bestow them, and that he will do it
in the wisest and best manner. If God has not promised to be-
stow the very favors we ask, then we are to trust m his infinite
wisdom and goodness, believing that he is able to bestow the favors
sought, and that he mil do it if it is best. And if he does not
bestow them, we are to trust in him still — to trust in him, though
he deny us the particular favors sought, and visit us with the
severest afilictions. Tim is faith.
LECTURE XCVIII.
THE PRAYER OF FAITH FURTHER CONSIDERED.
The subject which we have had under consideration, and which
I wish still further to pursue, is the prayer of faith. And I pro-
ceed in this discussion with a deep interest, because I am persuor
ded that right views on the subject wiU promote confidence in God,
importunity in prayer, and all the pleasures and benefits of fervent
piety.
The opinion which I have considered as in some respects a de-
parture from the truth, is, that the prayer of faith is alivays effica-
cious in obtaining the particular favors which are sought ; and
that those who pray in faith, assuredly believe that they shall ob-
tain the very things they ask, whatever they may be. I have
already endeavored to show, by several considerations, that this
view of the subject is liable to serious objections.
But to show still more clearly the mistake of those who maintain
this opinion, I shall ofier some additional suggestions.
I must say then, that the distinction which their scheme implies,
between the prayer of faith and other acceptable prayer, is with-
out foundation. Every acceptable prayer is a prayer of faith.
" Without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that com-
eth to God, must believe that he is, and that he is the re warder
of them who dihgently seek him." Hence it appears that all ac-
ceptable prayer is ofiered up in faith. The distinction, then, has
no foundation.
Consider further that, according to the Scriptures, prayer is en-
PRATER. 131
titled to an answer on account of other qualities, as well as on
account of faith. " The tigJdeous cry, and the Lord heareth."
" The Lord is nigh unto them that call upon him in truths " The
Lord will fulfil the desire of them that /ear him." "God forget-
eth not the cry of the humble." " Whatsoever we ask, we re-
ceive, because we keep his commandments.'^ According to these
passages, righteousness, truth, fear, humility, and obedience afford
as real a reason to expect an answer to prayer, as faith. These
qualities of prayer do indeed imply faith, rightly understood.
But is it true, that every man who is righteous, humble and obe-
dient, has the kind of faith on which I have animadverted ? I
ask too, whether every prayer which has been offered up by the
righteous man, by the man who believes in God, and who is hum-
ble and obedient — whether every such prayer has been answered
by the bestowment of the very favors which have been sought ?
What is the fact ? Take the prayer which Jesus taught his disci-
ples to offer up, and which all Christians have offered up, times
without number, from age to age. Has every petition contained
in this prayer been fully granted, according to the desires of de-
vout worshippers ? One of these petitions is, " Thy will be done
on earth, as it is done in heaven." Has this prayer, which be-
lievers have ■ presented to God so many millions of times, been
successful in bringing men universally to perfect obedience ? If
not, the opinion under consideration is not true. Indeed it would
not be true if any Christian had ever offered up this petition, even
once, with a believing heart. For the opinion is, that every prayer
offered up in faith, will secure the very thing requested. So that
if all Christians, for eighteen hundred years, had failed to offer up
this prayer in sincerity and faith, with the exception of only one,
yet if that one Christian had offered it up, even once, in a right
manner, the opinion above mentioned could not be true ; because
the world has been and is, to so great an extent, in a state of
disobedience.
You may perhaps say, that the ivill of God named in this
prayer, is not his precejytive will, or his law, but his decretive will,
or his purpose, and that, in this sense, the prayer of Christians
132 PRAYER.
has been exactly answered. My reply is, that if the -^-ill of God
is so understood, it has indeed been done on earth, as in heaven ;
and this would have been the case if it had never been made the
subject, of prayer, and if there had never been any Christian to
pray. And according to this meaning of the word, there would
be just as much propriety in praying, thy will he done in heaven^
as it is done on earth, as in praying, " thy will be done on earth
as in heaven."
Some may possibly say, that when Christians offer up the peti-
tion referred to, they do not intend to pray, that God's will, that
is, his law, may be completely and universally obeyed at present^
but that it may be obeyed at a future day, when, according to the
teachings of the prophets, all men shall serve God. But I appeal
to facts. Do not Christians pray, and do they not mean to pray,
that all men now living, may be made holy and obedient ? Where
iS' the good man who, surveying a world of sinners, and consider-
ing the preciousness of their souls and the abounding grace of
Christ, does not sincerely desire their salvation, and does not ex-
press his desire in fervent prayer ? Such prayer for the salvation
of men — of all men, so far as they are contemplated — grows
out of the Christian's character. It is the natural operation of
his benevolence. And such has always been the practice of the
people of God. And when an Apostle says he does not enjoin
prayer for those who have committed the sin unto death, it is plain-
ly imphed that prayer is to be offered up for all others. — Besides,
if it is not right to pray for all men, now living, it cannot be right
to pray for a considerable part of them, nor for any part, except
those who are chosen to salvation. But how can we know who
those are, before they are converted ? It must then be improper
to pray for any sinners, or to make any efforts for their salvation,
unless we know that they are to be saved.
But I have said enough on this point. It is the acknowledged
duty of Christians, and it has been their universal practice, to
pray that God's will may be done on earth as it is done in heaven.
But this prayer has never yet been accomplished to a thousandth
part of the extent to which their benevolent desires have reached.
PRAYER. 133
There are other facts still, -which bear on the subject. Chris-
tians pray God to forgive and bless their enemies. Jesus prayed
for the forgiveness of those who crucified him, and Stephen for
the forgiveness of those who stoned him. Persecuted Christians
have always prayed for their persecutoi's. Now we must con-
clude, either that all those for whom Christ prayed, and those for
whom his followers have prayed, have been forgiven, or else that
true and acceptable prayer has been offered up to God for blessings
which have not been granted.
Christians, in imitation of the Apostle, pray that the followers
of Christ may be freed from all sin, and be perfect in every good
work. But have these requests been fully accomplished ?
And are the prayers which believers offer up for themselves,
fully answered at present ? They beseech God to sanctify them
throughout, in body, soul and spirit, — to make them holy as he is
holy. But have Christians in this life ever been as holy as they
have prayed that they might be ? If you say, that Christians
only pray that they may be fully sanctified ultimately, but not at
present, then I must leave the decision with Christians themselves.
Do they not at times earnestly desire and pray that they may now
be delivered from all sin, without exception, and may be complete-
ly conformed to the divine will ? Can it be that believers in a
right state of mind, address themselves to God in such a manner
as this : — Loj^d, I j^ray that I may he perfectly cleansed from
sin at a future time, but not now — tliat I may completely hear
the image of Christ 2vhen I arrive at heaven, but not while I abide
on earth? It is, I apprehend, implied in the very character of
the regenerate, that they hate all sin, and sincerely desire and
pray to be completely holy. But they always, during the present
life, fall short of that which they desire to attain. What they
would, they do not ; and what they would not, that they do.
You will observe too, that the people of God seem never to
have been surprised or discouraged by finding, that the particular
things they have sought in prayer, have not been at once fully
granted. For example ; they have prayed that the blessings of
salvation might be granted to all men, and the world be filled with
VOL. III. 12
134 PRAYER.
the glory of God. And though they have continually seen that
this great work has not been actually accomplished, they have,
from generation to generation, prayed for it still. And thus they
pray now ; and thus they will continue to pray, so long as they
have benevolence to man and faith in God, although the Avork
which is so dear to their hearts, is still delayed. The same is
true respecting the prayers of Christians for themselves. They
constantly pray that God would take away all iniquity, and make
them complete in all the will of God. But they find themselves
still imperfect. Their prayers are not, at present, fully effica-
cious. This, however, does not prevent them from continuing to
pray. Nor do they infer from this, that they have not prayed in
sincerity and faith, or that their prayers are in vain. They cher-
ish the pleasing thought that God does hear and accept their
prayers, and does, in a measure, answer them even now ; and
that, although he does not at present give them all the good they
ask, he will do it ultimately. And by diligently searching the
Scriptures, and by the help of experience, they come to see and
feel, that it is altogether suitable for them to labor and pray for
perfect sanctification as long as they live, although, for the pres-
ent, their prayers procure only a part of the good which they
seek. And under the guidance of that wisdom which is from
above, they at length view the subject in such a light, that their
not obtaining at present a complete accomphshment of their de-
vout desires, instead of operating as a discouragement, increases
the fervor and importunity of their prayers.
Such being my view of the subject, it has appeared to me a
singular fact, and one not easily accounted for, that any sober-
minded and intelligent Christians can retain the opinion wliich I
have endeavored to confute. How can they set aside their own
experience, and the experience of others, and the current repre-
sentations of Scripture ? Are they not conscious, that many of
their most fervent prayers, — prayers in which they feel the
strongest confidence in God, do not secure the particular favors
they desire ? And do they not see that this is the case with the
best Christians around them, and that it was so with those whose
PRAYER. 135
history is given in the Scriptures ? How then can they hold to
the opinion, that the promise of God secures to them all the par-
ticular favors, whether of one kind or another, which they ask in
prayer ? Do pious parents and ministers adopt the conclusion,
that all the prayers which they offer up for themselves, for their
children, or for others around them, and which do not secure the
very favors desired, are unbelieving and unacceptable prayers ?
In what gloom and despondency would such a conclusion involve
them ! The real fact seems to be, that those who hold to the
opinion on which I have so freely remarked, have formed the habit
of overlooking those parts of Scripture and experience which
stand against their favorite opinion, while those things in God's
word and providence, which appear favorable to their opinion, are
carefully treasured up, and are made the exclusive ground of
their reasoning and judgment.
One of the arguments which such persons rely upon, in support
of their opinion, is, that many prayers, which have been offered
up with the kind of faith referred to, have been successful ; for
example ; that when ministers and Christians pray for a revival
of religion, with a strong belief that it will soon take place, it
does in many remarkable instances actually come to pass.
Now I readily acknowledge that, in some instances, a revival
of religion is brought about in answer to such prayers. But it is
equally manifest that, in other instances, those who pray for a
revival of religion in the manner intended, are disappointed.
Nay, the extent of the good obtained is never equal to their
devout desires. Now why do they not see that these instances
weigh as much against their opinion, as the former do in favor of
it ? Indeed, as it is their opinion that the prayer of faith always
secures the very blessing sought ; any instances of failure clearly
disprove that opinion.
The fact should also be mentioned, that a revival of relio-ion
often takes place in answer to prayers which are not offered up
with the confident behef referred to. In instances too many to
be numbered, sinners have been converted and the church in-
creased, where ministers and Christians have labored and prayed,
136 PRAYER.
with hearty trust in the power and mercy of God, but without a
specific and confident behef that the very thing they desire will cer-
tainly be granted. And it is, I think, true, that Christians gene-
rally prevail in prayer in proportion to the strength of their desires
for the good sought, and the fervor mid importunity which they
exercise in their petitions for it, rather than in consequence of a
confident belief that the very thing prayed for will be granted.
It cannot be doubted that God looks upon the former as of higher
value, than upon the latter.
But it can, I think, be satisfactorily accounted for, that minis-
ters and Christians often pray for a revival of religion with a
somewhat confident expectation that it will take place, and an
expectation which is fully reahzed, in perfect consistency with the
views I have endeavored to defend. It may be that, in the cases
referred to, ministers and Christians have some obvious reasons to
hoDe and expect that there will shortly be a revival of religion.
We are taught by experience, in connection with various intima-
tions of Scripture, that certain things are generally precursors of
a revival, just as certain things are generally precursors of the
conversion of individual sinners. Now if Christians can fix their
eye upon any of the common signs of an approaching revival ; it
is just as reasonable that they should hope for that event, as that
they should hope for a shower of rain when there are all the
common signs of rain. Such a hope, if it results from sober
experience and observation, is a matter of judgment — a rational
conclusion. And if the indications of an extraordinary work of
the Spirit are very clear, it is proper that the hope of Christians
should rise to expectation, and should animate them to more fer-
vent prayer and more diligent labor, for the accomplishment of
the expected event. If this is what is meant by praying in faith
for a revival of religion, I have no objection. There is no mis-
take, except in the signification of a word. It is praying with
confidence in God — with love to souls — and with a strong hope
and expectation, resulting from those things which have been
found to be indications of a revival, that such a desirable event
will soon occur. Prayer, offered up in such circumstances and in
PRAYER. 137
such a manner, is no doubt likelj to be efficacious in bringing for-
ward a revival of religion. And we ought to render thanks to
God, that, in so many instances, such prayer has been followed by
a glorious work of the Holy Spirit.
But Avhat shall we say if Christians, independently of anything
in themselves or in others which indicates an approaching revival,
should, in some unaccountable way, Avork up their minds to a
confident belief that a revival will shortly take place ? Would
not this be as unreasonable as for a man, in time of a drought, to
work up his mind to a confident expectation of rain, when there
are no signs of it ? And yet Christians, thus misguided in judg-
ment, may confide in the mercy of God, and may love the souls
of men, and may offer up prayers, with cries and tears, for the
conversion of sinners ; and, in all this, they may be graciously
accepted. And, m many instances, God who hears prayer, and
who passes by the imperfections and mistakes of his people and
approves of all that is holy, may, in answer to their fervent
prayers, pour out his Spirit and revive his work. Remember,
however, that the success of their prayers does not prove their
notion of faith to be exactly right. What I mean to say is, that
notwithstanding their mistake, there may be that in their prayers
to which God will show his special regard, by building up Zion.
But although such prayers should generally have an influence in
actually bringing forward a revival of religion ; still, if in any
cases they fail of this, the opinion against which I have argued is
proved to be incorrect. It is proved to be so by a dngle in-
stance of failure. For the opinion is, that prayer offered up in
the manner specified, always secures the very favors which are
sought.
After all, the mistaken opinion which we have been considering
is not, in my view, so dangerous to the interests of piety, as the
opinion of those who consider prayer to be of little importance,
and attribute to it little or no efficacy. The mistake I have
noticed may be attended with humility, with fervor in prayer, and
with trust in God. Indeed the mistake may, perhaps, in some
cases, be actually occasioned by the strength of faith and the
12*
138 PRAYER.
warmtli of love exercised in prayer. For if Christians see that
the particular blessings they pray for are exceedingly desirable
and precious, and have, at the same time, confidence in the
unbounded mercy of God, they will be very likely, with their
imperfect knowledge of what may on the whole be best, to indulge
the idea, that God will certainly grant the very blessings they
ask. And undoubtedly God will regard what is incorrect in their
opinion as a far less evil, than the fault of those who undervalue
and neglect the means which he has appointed for obtaining
spiritual blessings. In our zeal, then, to correct the mistake of
some ardent but injudicious Christians, let us take care not to
commit or countenance a greater mistake. It is better to have
something of the heats and irregularities of enthusiasm, than the
stupor of a cold and heartless philosophy. Let us always cherish
the sentiment in our own minds, and inculcate it upon others, that
God will hear his people when they pray, and, whether he grants
the particular favors they ask, or others in their stead, that their
fervent prayers avail much.
The chief argument in support of the opinion which we have
so particularly considered, is found in Mark 11: 23, 24, and in
some other similar texts. Jesus said, " Have faith in God. For
verily I say unto you, that whosoever shall say unto this moun-
tain, be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea ; and shall
not doubt in his heart, but shall beheve that those things which
he saith shall come to pass ; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Therefore I say unto you, what things soever ye desire when ye
jjray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them."
What Jesus here said to his apostles related to the withering of
the fig-tree, and to events of a like nature. And it was evi-
dently intended to excite in them an expectation, that similar
miracles would be wrought through their agency, and to instruct
them as to the faith and the prayer which would be successful in
such cases. The truth of Christianity was made to rest upon the
miracles which they undertook to perform. The credit of their
cause, therefore, required that they should have a miraculous
influence of the Holy Spirit, enabling them to know infallibly that
PRAYER. 139
certain events would take place — wliicli they could not know by
natural means. It is clear, that their power to work miracles did
not extend to all cases. It was a power which they were to exer-
cise on particular occasions, not according to their own inclina-
tions, but according to the will of God and to the inward guidance
of the Holy Spirit. Had they then attempted to work a miracle,
without being certainly assured by a divine impulse that it was
the will of God that the miracle should be wrought ; they would
have exposed their character and the gospel they preached to
reproach. Their certainly believing that they should receive the
miraculous favors which they prayed for, must have resulted from
a divine influence in their minds, like that which made known
future events to the prophets. And yet, although the miraculous
dispensation is evidently past, "it is thought by many that the
passages above mentioned, which directly related to miraculous
events, are to be applied, in all their extent, to Christians now,
and that they are, in all cases, to exercise the same kind of faith
in prayer, as the apostles did in regard to miracles. But it is
remarkable that, while they pretend that the passages relate to
themselves just as they did to the apostles, they do not sometimes
attempt to work miracles. If they would give clear proof that
the texts in question are applicable to Christians at the present
day, let them perform such miraculous works as those referred to,
at least in some few instances. Let them say to a barren tree,
he thou withered aivay ; or to a blind man, receive thj sight; or
to a man dead, and buried in the earth, come forth ; and let us
see these things take place. We will then believe that the texts
referred to relate to Christians now, just as they did to the apos-
tles. But the fact is, that Christians of sober minds never
attempt to perform such works ; nor do they ever make them the
subject of prayer, however desirable they may seem to be in
themselves ; thus showing that, after all, they do not regard the
texts under consideration as really applicable to Christians at the
present day.
One thing more. I ask those who hold to the opinion against
which I have argued ; — how do you come to know that the par-
140 PRAYER.
ticular things you desire "will be granted ? How do you obtain
this assurance ? You say the assurance is involved in the very
nature of the prayer of faith. The assurance being then involved
in the prayer itself, must result from an immediate revelation,
making known facts which could not be known by natural means.
Hence this assured belief, or knowledge, which is said to consti-
tute the faith to be exercised in prayer, can be no more the duty
of Christians generally, than the gift of prophecy, or the power of
working miracles.
It gives me pleasure to find that Dr. James Richards maintains
the views which I have advanced, with great clearness and
strength of argument, in his Second Lecture on the Prayer of
Faith. He says : " There is reason to beheve that in the primi-
tive church two kinds of faith were employed : one extraordinary,
being peculiar to individuals who had the gift of working mira-
cles ; the other common, belonging to all Christians. — Both were
the result of divine teaching. — - Still they were in various respects
different from each other. The first, which was connected with
miraculous operations, was not necessarily a gracious exercise.
Not so the faith common to all true behevers. This, in all cases,
is a holy exercise.
" The faith of miracles seems to have been a firm persuasion
not only of the divine power, but that the contemplated miracle
would certainly he performed. It did not stop with the fact, that
God was able to accomplish it, or that he had promised to accom-
plish it on any supposed conditions, or that he was a God of truth,
and would not fail to redeem his pledge ; but it went to the fact,
that the miracle contemplated would be performed. How this
point was reached will be an after consideration ; but that the
faith in question did reach it, is evident from the manner in which
Christ describes this faith, in Mark 11: 23, 24. Words could
scarcely be framed, which would mark with more precision the
fact that faith, in this case, was to believe that the miraculous
events would certainly take place.
" Those who wrought miracles often intimated such a persua-
sion, before a miracle was performed. Thus Peter, when he
PRAYER. 141
healed the lame man, said to him, Silver and gold I have none,
hut such as I have I give thee ; in the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth, rise up and walk. And when he cured Eneas, he said
to him, Eneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole ; arise and make
thy bed; and he immediately arose. It is obvious, in both cases,
that the Apostle had the intention and expectation of working a
miracle, antecedent to its being wrought.
" Those gifted with the power of working miracles did not always
attempt to display that power ; or if they did, they failed through
unbelief. Paul — left Trophimus at Miletum sick ; which cannot
be accounted for but upon one of two suppositions, either that he
did not attempt to heal him, or attempted and failed. Whichever
is true, it is certain he had no well grounded persuasion that the
thing would be done. — "This faith," (the faith of miracles) —
" was built on evidence not only that the power of working
miracles was imparted to men to be exercised on fit occasions,
— but that it was the pleasure of God that a miracle should be
wrought at the time and in the circumstances contemplated. —
But how could it be known that such was the pleasure of God ?
— Our reply is, that the purpose of God might have been known
by the immediate suggestion of the Holy Spirit. Nor is there
any inherent improbability, that those who wrought miracles by the
power of the Holy Ghost, should receive intimations from him
when and where these mighty works were to be performed. — But
allow the intimation we have supposed from that ever present
Spirit who was given to the primitive disciples — and all difficulty
vanishes.
" But there is another kind of faith, common to Christians in
all ages — a faith which takes hold of the divine attributes and the
divine promises, without any miraculous intimation concerning the
result." *
* Both these Lectures of Dr. Richards' to which I have referred, are worthy
of a careful perusal.
LECTURE XCIX.
WHAT DEFINITE VIEWS ARE WE TO ENTERTAIN OF THE IN-
FLUENCE OF PRAYER?
During the preceding discussion, the inquiry has probably
arisen in your minds, whether there is any ivay to determine when
our prayers will secure the particular hlessiyigs we ask, and when
this is not to he certainly expected; and what definite conceptions
we are to form on this subject.
Here I shall more particularly set before you a principle, "which
has already been suggested ; namely, that the sincere and fervent
•prayers of Christians do invariably secure the special favor of
God, and all the particular blessings tvhich are involved in it, —
all the blessings which are necessary to their salvation. This prin-
ciple, well considered and applied, will, I hope, conduct jon to
some satisfactory results.
If then, in sincere prayer to God, you ask for those blessings
which the special favor of God implies, or which are necessary to
ydur eternal well-being, such as the forgiveness of sin, the sanc-
tifying and comforting influence of the Spirit, and the enjoyment
of God in heaven ; you will certainly receive the very blessings
you ask. If you heartily worship God and seek his favor, your
eternal happiness is sure. As to the time and manner in which
God will bestow spiritual blessings, your desires and expectations
may not be particularly met. But the blessings themselves will be
yours. In his own time and manner God will certainly bestow
them. You may ask for pardon, sanctification, divine guidance,
comfort in trouble, and eternal blessedness in heaven, and you
PRAYER. 143
shall, without fail, receive them in all their fulness. And if, when
you pray for these spiritual blessings, you are conscious of sinceri-
ty and trust in God, your belief in the divine promises will imply
a behef, that the very blessings sought will be granted. It was
doubtless to these spiritual blessings the Apostle John referred,
when he said ; " We know that whatsoever we ask, we shall
receive, because we keep his commandments." He had his eye
upon the great things which are essential to eternal life, and which
appeared to him so important, that he lost sight of other things,
and could hardly think them worthy to be mentioned. As though
he had said ; all our requests in regard to the great things of sal-
vation uill he gra7ited. Whatsoever ive ask that is important to
our eternal interest, we knoiv that lue shall certainly receive, he-
cause we are Grod's obedient servants, and enjoy his special favor.
In this manner we are to understand the words of Christ ; ask^
and ye shall receive ; seek, and ye shall find. He says this with an
imphed reference to those things which care of paramount impor-
tance to his disciples, and in possession of which, whatever else
they may want, they will say, all things are ours.
But there are other things, as I have already remarked, which
are not necessarily imphed in salvation, and which God may see
to be inconsistent with our highest good. There are many person-
al favors, such as health, competence and friends, which may, in
a subordinate sense, be the objects of our desire, and which we
may properly ask God to give us. And there are many thorns in
the flesh, many trials and sufferings, from which we may pray to
be delivered. As to such things as these, the efficacy of prayer
must be subject to the limitations which have been specified. God,
in the exercise of his wisdom and love, may grant the favors
desired, or may withhold them ; may deliver us from the evils we
suffer, or may continue them. In regard to things of this kind,
the spirit of our petitions should be. Lord, grant our requests, if
consistent with thy wisdom. If otherwise, we submit. Not our
will, but thine be done.
But you may ask, how God can be said to hear our prayer,
when he does not grant our petitions. In regard to this, the
144 PRAYER.
truth seems to be, that while God does not answer pi'ajer literally
and directly, lie does it indirectly. He accepts our prayer, and
from regard to it bestows blessings upon us, — not the specific
blessings for which we prayed, but others which are more impor-
tant in their stead. Thus in the case of Paul, the Lord evident-
ly accepted his prayer, but instead of taking away the thorn in
the flesh, he said, my grace is sufficient for thee. This was more
than an equivalent, such a virtual or indirect answer being better
than a literal answer.
The same is true in regard to the manner in which prayer even
for spiritual blessings is answered. We pray for the increase of
our humility, love and other branches of holiness, and hope to
receive the favor sought directly and sensibly. God bestows the
favor, but in another way, generally by means of afilictions or
crosses. He answers the prayer, not in the manner contemplated
by our fallible minds, but according to his own infinite wisdom and
goodness. And surely every Christian must be satisfied with
this.
But how is it with regard to the prayers which are offered up
for sinners ? Have we any assurance that our sincere and fer-
vent prayers will be answered by the salvation of all for whom we
pray?
I have already noticed this inquiry, but shall now reply to it
more particularly.
K it be true that our fervent prayers will certainly secure the
salvation of all for whom we pray ; then the impenitence and
destruction of every sinner who is lost, must be charged to the
account of every minister and every Christian. For it is the
duty of every follower of Christ to pray, in sincerity and faith,
for the salvation of all sinners on the face of tlie earth. If such
prayer would certainly secure the salvation of all sinners, as it
does the salvation of believers themselves ; then their not being
saved would prove that such prayer had never been offered up. On
this supposition, it was owing to the criminal neglect of Paul and the
other apostles, that the Jews and the Gentiles were not universally
saved. And then, how could Paul declare that he was pure from
PRATEK. 145
the blood of all men ? And how could he saj that he kept a con-
science void of offence towards God and towards men ? And
what reason had the apostles to think that thej were a sweet
savor unto God — that is, acceptable to him, in them that were
saved and in them that perished ? While, then, it is certain that
the prayers which the behever offers up for his OAvn forgiveness
and salvation will certainly secure the good for which he prajs;
the prayers which he offers up for others cannot be viewed in the
same hght ; and the divine promises respecting the two cases can-
not be understood in the same sense.
What conceptions, then, are we to entertain respecting the
influence of the prayer which is offered up for the conversion and
salvation of sinners? And are these conceptions such, as to
afford a proper and sufficient encouragement to pray for this
object ?
My first remark is, that all right prayer is acceptable to God,
and tvill, in one way or another^ secure his hlessiyigs. The pray-
ers which Christians offer up for the conversion of sinners, come
from the benevolence and compassion of their hearts. God
regards them with approbation ; and, as an expression of his
approbation and in answer to their prayers, he pours out his Spuit
and turns sinners — some sinners from darkness to light, perhaps
not speedily, but in due time. And if sinners, if any sinners,
are sooner or later converted through the prayers of behevers,
they will say in eternity, when all things appear in their true
light, that God did indeed mercifully answer their prayers. They
will witness the accomplishment of their pious desires, and will see
that their prayers had a precious influence, even all the influence
which the unerring wisdom of God judged it right to give them.
More than this they could not desire.
My second remark is, that all which God ever does, in convert-
ing and saving sinners, he does in answer to prayer. His purpose
is to save a great multitude of our revolted race ; but he will be
inquired of by his people to accomphsh this work of redeeming
mercy. In this view, the importance of prayer is exceedingly
manifest. How could God give it a higher value, than to make it
VOL III. 13
146 PRAYER.
the means of carrying into effect his wise and benevolent designs ?
When Henry Martyn was in Persia, he offered up many prayers
and made many other efforts for the salvation of Mohammedans,
Jews, and Pagans. But how little did he accomplish during his
life ! Unthinking observers, looking only at first appearances,
might say, that he prayed in vain. But they might just as well
say, that all his pious labors were in vain, seeing the effect they
produced was, for the time, so inconsiderable. And on the same
principle they might say, that the labors and sufferings of Christ
on earth were almost in vain, because few comparatively be-
lieved on him during his life. But Avhat will become of this opin-
ion in a coming day, when it shall appear, that what Christ did
and suffered on earth, though for a time attended with so httle
good effect, was the certain means of salvation to all the re-
deemed ; and when it shall appear, too, that the labors and
prayers of Henry Martyn were a part of the system of means
which God employed for the conversion of India and Persia. It
shows a narrow way of thinking, to suppose that the real influence
of prayer is to be measured by its effects to-day, or to-morrow, or
by its effect on the particular individuals we may have in view
when we pray. For God doubtless makes prayer the means of
good, hundreds and thousands of j'-ears after it is offered up.
And he may as really answer prayer in this way, as by connecting
blessings with it at the time when it is ofiered up.
I remark, thirdly, that the degree of infiuence which prayer
has, is doubtless in some proportion to the degree of holy affection
exercised in the duty. Prayer offered up by Christians with
deep humility, with ardent love, and with strong confidence in
God, will, we apprehend, secure a larger amount of good to them-
selves and to others, than if it were offered up with less humihty,
faith, and love. This seems to be implied in the declaration of
James, that the fervent prayer of the righteous availeth much ;
and it is plainly implied in the instructions of Christ, as to the
sure success of importunity in prayer. Why may not this princi-
ple be applied to all the particular things which are sought in
prayer ? For example ; if parents pray for the conversion of
PRAYER. 147
their children with a high degree of holj desire and with perse-
vering importunity, they have a better prospect of obtaining the
blessing they seek, than if they prayed coldly and inconstantly.
And in general, the grace of God in the conversion of sinners
and the spread of the gospel, is to be expected very much in pro-
portion as the Spirit of grace and supplication is poured out upon
behevers.
Fourthly. In the great work of inomoting the prosperity of
Cfhrist's spiritual kingdom and the conversion of the world, there
is need of tlie united prayers of Chistians. We are social
beings, and, in order to accomplish any work of great importance,
we must combine our efforts. What could a single man do
towards carrying into effect the great schemes of public utility or
convenience, which have been executed in our own country and in
other parts of the world ? And what could a single Christian do
towards translating the Bible into all languages, and printing a
number of copies sufficient to supply all the famiUes of the earth,
or towards preaching the gospel to all nations ? The same as to
the present subject. Prayer, as a means of promoting the en-
largement of Christ's kingdom and the salvation of the world,
must be in proportion to the greatness of the end in view. For
example ; it cannot be expected that the prayers of a single
Christian, even of an Apostle, will, by itself, be effectual to the
conversion of the Jews. Paul prayed for their salvation, and
praj^ed evidently with great earnestness and sincerity. But how
little was the apparent effect ! The conversion of the seed of
Abraham, and of the whole Gentile world, is now regarded by
Christians as the great object to be sought in their prayers. But
it is a work of vast extent and immense difficulty, and is to be
accomplished, not by the prayers of a single Christian, though he
may be a Brainerd, a Mai'tyn, or a Paul, but by the united pray-
ers of a great multitude. No one prays Avithout producing a real
and important effect. But the world's conversion is an object of
inconceivable moment, and calls for the combined influence of the
importunate supplications of all behevers in every part of the
earth. The Scriptures confirm this view of the subject, by the
148 PRAYER.
great stress which they lay upon united prayer. Paul thought it
of special consequence to his safety, that the devout Corinthians
should helj) toe/ether hy prayer for 1dm. And even in regard to
miraculous operations, it was necessary, in some cases, that at
least two should join in prayer. Viewing the subject in this
light, what an animating prospect have we at the present day, of
the spread of the gospel and the enlargement of Christ's kingdom.
The united prayers of Christians, in different and distant parts of
the world, every month, and every Sabbath, and every day, for
the salvation of the human race, must come up with acceptance
before God, and have a prevailing influence in bringing forward
the universal triumph of divine grace.
Finally ; tlie accomplishment of this great work of benevolence
requires not only the united, hut the long-continued, persevering
prayers of God^s people. The united prayers of all Christians,
o^ered up once, or a few times only, would fall far short of the
desired efficacy. But if they pray with united and perse\ering
importunity, they will at length prevail. Such is the wise
appointment of God. It would, in most instances, be a mistake,
should we expect the full attainment of the good we have in
view, by means of a single prayer, or prayer repeated a few
times. Our complete sanctification is not to be effected in this
way, but must be the consequence of fervent cries to heaven, con-
tinued through the whole period of our life. Pai*ents, who seek
the grace of God for then- children, must not think it strange if
that grace is, in many cases, withheld, till they have labored and
prayed for many years, and in some instances till the end of their
life. But perseverance in prayer is still more important and
necessary, in order that all nations may be brought to obey the
gospel. Let, then, the wliole body of Christians continue their
united and earnest supplications to God, from year to year and
from age to age, for a world lying in wickedness ; and their pray-
ers at every period will avail much, and, in connection with their
faithful labors, will at length prove an effectual means of convey-
ino; the blessings of salvation to all the ends of the earth. And
what Christian, when he beholds the fulfilment of God's promises
PRAYER. 149
in the conversion of the world, and knows that his prayers, though
seemingly without influence for a time, did really contribute to
that glorious event, will hesitate to say, that God has truly, in
the highest sense, heard the voice of his supplications and gra-
ciously answered his prayers, though once, in his ignorance, he
perhaps thought them disregarded and forgotten.
I shall conclude these Lectures on Prayer by a few practical
remarks on the performance of the duty.
1. Tlie ivord of God does not lay down any precise rules in
regard to the time, the frequency, the length, or the form of
prayer. The Psalmist, at difierent times, represents his devo-
tional exercises to be different. Now he speaks of praying even-
ing, morning, and at noon ; and now, seven times a day. The
stated time for prayer among the Jews was, according to our
reckoning, 9 o'clock, A. M., 12, M., and 3, P. M. But these
seasons would be exceedingly inconvenient for the mass of Chris-
tians in Europe and America. The example of Christ was
various. Sometimes he went to a solitary place, and prayed
before the morning light appeared. Sometimes he continued his
devotional exercises all night. In his distress, the night before
his crucifixion, he went away from his disciples and prayed three
times, prostrating himself on the ground. Previously, on the
same night, he ofiered up the prayer recorded in the seventeenth
chapter of John. He prayed twice at the institution of the
Sacred Supper. He offered up prayer at his meals, and some-
times when he wrought miracles, and finally, during his agonies on
the cross. If we would copy his example, we must always be in
a spiritual and devout frame, and look to God in prayer frequently
and with freedom, according to circumstances. His instructions
on this subject were various, but were evidently not intended to
contain any precise rules, to which his disciples were invariably to
adhere. The particular form of prayer which he gave them
showed clearly with what spirit they should pray, and what kind
of petitions they should offer up to their Father in heaven. But
13*
150 PRAYBK.
there is no evidence that his disciples considered him as prescrib-
ing an exact form of words which they were to use in prayer.
And if we examine the Acts of the Apostles and their Epistles to
the churches and individuals, we find many examples of prayer
offered up by them on different occasions, and many exhortations
to prayer. But what proof is there that they ever prayed in
that precise form which is called the Lord's prayer, or that
they expected Christians to do so ? They inculcated sincerity,
reverence, earnestness, and perseverance ; but they said nothing
as to the particular time, the length, or the form of prayer. All
these things they left to be determined by the experience, the
judgment, and conscience of Christians. And in all this we have
clear evidence of the wisdom and goodness of God. For, while
it is the duty of all Christians to pray, how would it be possible
for them to conform to one and the same rule ? How could
prayer of the same length and the same exact form be offered up
by the aged, by young persons, and by little children — by Chris-
tians in health and in sickness, in wealth and in poverty, in joy
and in sorrow ? How burdensome and embarrassing would be
any attempt or any feeling of obligation to do this ! How incom-
patible with the free spirit of filial piety !
2. But although God has not given us jjrecise and universal rules
as to the time, length, and form of prayer, it does not follow that
these things are of no consequence, or that we are incapable of
arriving at any just conclusions respecting them. By the proper
exercise of our own reason and conscience, by a proper regard to
the precepts of God's word, and to the example of Christ and
his people, and by means of our own experience, we may arrive
at some definite and satisfactory conclusions. In the books of
devotion which have been written by men of eminent knowledge
and piety, there are maxims and rules respecting prayer, which
you may study with great advantage. But these maxims and
rules possess no authority over us, except so far as they are
derived from Scripture. As to all uninspired directions and rules,
we are to judge, though we must do it in the fear of God, whether
and how far they are suited to our particular case. Many and
PRAYER. 151
excellent are the devotional books with Avhich a merciful provi-
dence has favored us. In the use -which we are to make of them,
our chief aim should be, to get our minds deeply impressed with
the principles of piety which they illustrate, and imbiied with the
spirit which pervades them, and then, without attempting to copy
too minutely and exactly all that may have been beneficial to
others, to endeavor to profit by their writings and their example,
and to advance ourselves to higher and higher degrees of holiness.
It is clear, from the very nature of man and from common
experience, that sortie regular meiliod of devotional exercises, is
important in the Christian life. In all ordinary circumstances,
we must observe set times for grayer ; otherwise we shall be in
danger of frequent neglect, and shall deprive ourselves of the
great benefit of hahit in our devotions. After fixing our method,
which we ought to do with much consideration and care, conform-
ing, as far as may be, to the common method of eminent Chris-
tians, we should endeavor so to arrange our affairs, that we may
not be turned aside from our settled course. By conscientiously
adhering, for a length of time, to the method of devotion which we
have adopted, we shall form a hahit of regularity ; and this habit
will be a safeguard against forgetfulness and neglect, and will
have a mighty influence to insure a persevering discharge of this
most important duty.
But while such a pious habit, which results from a regular
attention to the common method of devotion, is in many respects
of great moment ; and while we should, with the most watchful
resolution, avoid whatever would interfere with it ; we must not
forget that the habit itself is, after a while, likely to beget formal-
ity and deadness. Such is man, such are the wisest and best of
men in the present state, where everything tends to evil. It is a
well-known, but lamentable fact, that a steady, uniform course of
religious duty, without which we can never attain to any consider-
able strength of Christian character, cannot be long continued
without exposing us to a coldness and dulness which will render all
our services unprofitable. In what way shall this deplorable con-
sequence of uniformity and habit in religion be prevented ?
152 PRAYER.
Here comes in the importance of some uncommon yneans of
grace — some extraordinary seasons of devotion. The people of
God in all ages have found such seasons necessary, and have ex-
perienced the happy effects of them. They cannot be neglected
without great loss. If we exercise a sound judgment and dis-
cretion in setting apart special seasons for fasting, self-reflection
and prayer, and apply ourselves with becoming earnestness to the
. proper exercises ; the benefit to our spiritual interest will be great.
We shall be raised above the listless, dormant state which gener-
ally results from one unvarying course of action. The deeper
penitence and humility, the stronger faith, and the more fervent
love, which have, through divine grace, been exercised on our
days of fasting and prayer, will diffuse their influence through all
our ordinary duties. These extraordinary seasons will thus be
productive of a two-fold benefit. They will excite more intense
and powerful exercises of holiness at the time ; and these exerci-
ses will extend their good influence beyond the time, and wiU
infuse new animation into the common duties of religion, and give
greater life and energy to our devotional habits. In this way we
shall experience a soHd and permanent improvement in our spirit-
ual state, and shall make some approximation to the uniform and
elevated piety of our Lord and Master.
Before closing the discussion of this subject, I would ask your
attention to two additional suggestions.
The first relates to the choice of a plan in regard to the time,
the length, and the form of our prayers. Here much assistance
may be derived, as I have said, from the holy Scriptures, and
from the writings of uninspired men. But if we would experience
the greatest benefit from these helps, we must possess a truly de-
votional state of mind. Such a state is itself a most valuable
guide, and a help to the best use of every other guide.
My other suggestion is of very serious consequence, I have
already said in general, that we must guard watchfully against
all hinderances to the spirit of prayer, and to the growing profit
and pleasure of devotion. I shall now speak of that which is the
greatest of all hinderances, namely, the jpredominanee of sin in
the heart and life.
PRATER. 153
It is evident from the word of God, and from Christian experi-
ence, that a holj Hfe is indispensable to the enjoyment of com-
munion with God in prayer. " If I regard iniquity in my heart,
the Lord will not hear me." The reason is that in such a case
our prayers will be radically faulty, and so cannot be acceptable
to a holy God, and cannot receive any mark of his approbation.
A hfe of steady and cordial obedience keeps our whole spiritual
state sound and active, and so prepares us to engage with promp-
titude in every duty, and particularly in the duty of prayer ; just
as bodily health prepares us to receive and appropriate wholesome
food. Communion with God in prayer is food to behevers. But
they cannot enjoy it unless their souls have the health and vigor
•which flow from a life of watchful obedience. Those who live a
holy life will love to be near to their heavenly Father, and to hold
spiritual converse with him ; as a dutiful child loves to be in the
presence of his parents. But disobedience, or neglect of duty in
Christians, tends to make prayer irksome, and leads them, as it
did the transgressors in Paradise, to hide themselves from the
presence of God. Offenders ought indeed, without delay, to re-
pair to God, and with penitent and humble hearts to sue for mercy.
But the state which is usually consequent upon sinning is wholly
unadapted to communion with God. The power of conscience or
the kindhng of love and penitence in the heart may overcome the
reluctance of offending Christians to approach God, — may over-
come it again and again. But every time they offend, the pain
of confession and repentance is likely to be increased, and they
"will become more and more reluctant to engage in that duty, in
which there must be repentance and confession — more and more
inclined to forsake the throne of grace. Sin is truly the great
hinderance to piety. Its very touch is death to the spirit of
prayer. If you go through the families that enjoy religious in-
struction, and search for the reason why so many parents and
children neglect prayer, you will find the reason to be, that they
regard iniquity in their hearts, and are not willing to forsake it ;
and that in this state of mind they feel a strong aversion to go
into the presence of a God who is perfectly holy and just, who
164 PRATER.
disapproves of their ungodly life, and with infinite authority com-
mands them to turn from it.
Further. Sin indulged in the heart or acted out in the life, is
a hinderance to piety, by occupying those thoughts and affections
which ought to be employed in prayer. If sin wholly occupies
and engrosses the affections, as it does in the impenitent, the spirit
of devotion will be wholly excluded. And if sin occupies the
thoughts and affections in any degree, as it often does in Chris-
tians, it will, in the same degree, exclude those affections which
constitute piety. Thus the mind will be divided, and only a part
of its activity remain for God. And the consequence Avill be, that
the principle of piety will be weakened and impaired, just as a
man's power for bodily action is impaired by a palsy, which spreads
its deadening influence over half the body.
But sin carries its evil influence beyond particular affections.
The faculties and operations of the mind are so closely connected,
that whatever affects one of them, does more or less affect them
all. Thus, if sin gains influence over a part of the affections, it
not only turns away that part from the exercises of piety, but ex-
tends an influence over the other affections also, at least so far as
to render them unfit for the more spiritual parts of devotion. Nor
is this influence of sin over the affections limited to the exact time
■when it is committed or indulged. Its influence continues ; so
that the affections which next arise, and those which follow, al-
though they may in some degree be holy, will be less holy than
if the sin had been avoided. And who can tell how long the
morbid effect of sin may continue, even in Christians, and how
long it may detract from the fife of their devotions ? They fre-
quently complain that their souls cleave to the dust, and that their
affections will not rise to God. And they may sometimes be un-
able to fix upon the cause of this unhappy state, there being noth-
ing in their present circumstances which can satisfactorily account
for it. But this low, wretched state has a cause. And that cause
may possibly be found in some sin, open or secret, which they
were guilty of many months or years ago. That particular sin
may have passed away from their memory ; but its influence has
PRAYER. 155
not passed away from their heart. And it may be that this in-
destructible influence of a sin committed so long before, is the
cause which still interferes so fatally with the spirit of prayer.
Again. Sin proves a hinderance to piety by preventing the
proper use of the common means of promoting it, — thus taking
away that which was appointed to be the very nutriment and sup-
port of the spiritual life. Suppose you give indulgence to some
forbidden disposition, or allow yourself to transgress some divine
precept ; what benefit can you derive from the Sabbath, the word
of God, and other means and ordinances of religion ?
Finally. Sin, allowed in the life or in the heart, proves a hin-
derance to piety, by offending God, and preventing that influence
of the Spirit which is the spring of all acceptable prayer. Unless
the divine Spirit dwell in us and help our infirmities, our piety
■will languish and die. But will God grant that precious gift to
those who do that abominable thing which he hates ? Let us then
put away all the works of iniquity. Let us subdue pride and love
of the world, all unholy thoughts, all impure and earthly desires.
Let no sin have dominion over us. Then, the barrier between ua
and God being removed, we shall come freely and joyfully into
his presence, and he will manifest himself to us as he does not
unto the world, and we shall be the temples of God through the
Holy Ghost.
LECTURE C.
THE GOSPEL DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION EXPLAINED.
I SHALL think myself happy, if, amid the different and clashing
opinions which are held on the subject of Justification, and amid
the difficulties which arise from the ambiguous use of words, I
may be able to advance anything which shall contribute to the
benefit of those who are inquiring after the truth. My aim will
be, to set forth what is obvious and plain, and to cast what light I
can upon what is in its own nature obscure, or has been made ob-
scure by an improper treatment.
And as no one can rightly understand the gospel doctrine of
justification, without a just conception of the character and state
of those who are to be justified, I shall direct your attention, first
of all, to this point.
It must then be well considered and kept in mind, that those
who are to be justified, are transgressors of the divine law ; by
nature children of wrath ; and enemies to God by wicked works.
According to the Apostle, Hom. 4: 5, God justifies the ungodly.
All men have sinned, and they are all to be regarded as sinners.
And if they afterwards cease to sin, they must still in the eye of
the law, be regarded as sinners. Their personal ill-desert as
transgressors is not done away because they do not continue to
transgress. A man who has committed murder, is always consid-
ered as guilty of that crime. If, when brought before a court of
justice, he pleads not guilty, then evidence is produced that he
actually committed the crime charged against him. He may say,
JUSTIFICATION. 15T
he did it ten years ago. So be it. He committed murder ; and that
is the thing he is charged with. He may say, he did it only once.
Be it so. He is charged with doing it only once. His having
committed the murderous deed so long ago does not alter the case,
as he is the very man who did it. The fact that he has not re-
peated the offence does not diminish the criminality of that one
offence. The law, justice, truth, conscience, — his own conscience
and that of others, all pronounce him guilty of murder, — as
really guilty as if his hands were now stained with the blood of
the victim ; and he dies as a murderer, according to that ancient
and unrepealed law, " Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall
his blood be shed." And if he is pardoned, he is pardoned as a
murderer. That is, he is freed from the punishment wliich law
and justice denounce against him for the heinous offence he has
committed. Whatever may be the reason of his pardon in the
mind of the magistrate, his desert of punishment as a murderer
remains untouched ; unless indeed new evidence has come to li'^ht,
proving him to be innocent of the crime. But in this case he
would be acquitted as an innocent man, not pardoned as a guilty
man. And so release from punishment would be a matter of jus-
tice.
All this is true in regard to transgressors of the divine law,
which is holy, just and good. Whatever the penalty of that law
is, they deserve to endure it. Their exposure to the penalty
arises simply from their having transgressed the law. Neither
time nor circumstances can alter the law, or the fact that they
have transgressed it, or their desert of punishment. If they are
punished, they are punished as transgressors, according to the
just penalty of the violated law. If they arc pardoned, they are
pardoned as transgressors. God forgives their sins, and foro-ives
them as sinners. Whatever may be the reason or ground of their
forgiveness in the mind of God, it does not imply that they are
not transgressors, or that they do not deserve to endure the pen-
alty of the \'iolated law. It is then an unalterable truth, that
men are transgressors, and that they must be regarded as such
and that in law and justice they deserve the punishment threat-
VOL. III. 14
158 JUSTIFICATION-.
ened ; and consequently, if they are exempt from that punish-
ment, it must be by an act of mercy on the part of God. These
things must remain unaltered, whatever measures may be adopted
by the wisdom and benevolence of God to prepare the way for the
forgiveness of sinners.
Let it not be forgotten, that the gospel dispensation and the ex-
ercise of divine mercy towards the human race, instead of imply-
ing that they are innocent, does, from the beginning to the end,
proceed on the principle that they are personally ill-deserving,
and justly exposed to the penalty of the law. And when any of
them are brought to a right mind, they feel and acknowledge this
to be their case. Their consciences and hearts agree with the
sentence of the law, " The soul that sinncth it shall die." This
law is unchangeable, like the God from whom it proceeds. Other
things may change ; but the law of God, and the blame-worthi-
ness of transgressors, cannot change. Transgressors may receive
favors from God, but they will be undeserved favors. They may
be saved ; but their salvation will be of grace. They may be-
come holy ; but this also will be of grace ; and their becoming
holy will neither do away nor diminish their desert of blame for
the sin they have committed. And when it is said, that sin is not
imputed to those who believe, that their guilt is taken away, that
God will not remember their sins, and that no one can lay any
thing to their charge ; the language must be understood in har-
mony with the facts above stated ; otherwise it would convey per-
nicious error.
But to what does Scripture refer, when it speaks of the law and
the deeds of the law, and particularly when it declares that we
are not justified by law ? What is the prevailing Scripture use ?
Let any one examine the passages in which the law of God is
mentioned in the Psalms and the Prophets, and he cannot doubt
that they refer to the moral as well as the ceremonial law. Con-
sult Psalm 19: 7 — 11, and different parts of Psalm cxix, as ex-
amples. The law of the Lord, his statutes and commandments,
which are declared to be so excellent, and so efiicacious for good,
must be understood to be primarily the moral precepts of the law,
JUSTIFICATION. 159
including however the ritual part, when the circumstances of the
case require. The New Testament usage is evidently the same.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ speaks of " the law." What
law ? Why, the law which was not to be destroyed or set aside,
(Matt. 5: 17 — 20,) which can be no other than the moral law.
The same is manifest in Matt. 22: 36 — 10, where we find a sum-
mary of the moral law, that is, the command to love ; and in
Matt. 23: 23, where moral duties are referred to as the weightier
matters of the law. See also Luke 16: 17, 18. Attentive read-
ers will indeed see, that Christ speaks of the law in a variety of
senses, sometimes intending a portion of the Scriptures, sometimes
the ceremonial law, sometimes the moral law, and sometimes both
the ceremonial and the moral. The context and the particular
subject of discourse generally make it evident which of the senses
is intended. But when any are spoken of, who sought to be jus-
tified by their own works, or who relied upon their own righteous-
ness to procure the di\ane favor, the moral precepts are specially
referred to, although tlie ritual part of the law is included. Thus
in Luke 18: 11, 12, the boasting Pharisee claimed the merit of
hanng done moral as well as ceremonial duties. Again ; when
the question was proposed, which is the great commandment of
the law, the answer brought out the command requiring love.
Proceeding farther, we find that when the -sacred writers pro-
fessedly handle the subject of our being justified by law, or by
works, they refer directly to moral precepts. See Acts 13: 38,
39. Paul said to the Jews at Antioch, " Be it known unto you,
that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins ;
and hi/ him all that beheve are justified from all things, from
which they could not be justified by the law of Moses." They
are completely justified — entirely acquitted from the guilt of all
their transgressions of law, — for which full acquittal no provision
■was made in the law of Moses.
But this is made still clearer by other places. In the Epistle
to the Romans, the Apostle first proves, that all men are sinners
under condemnation, and thus prepares us to understand the doc-
trine of justification. There are only two ways of enjoying the
160 JUSTIFICATION.
favor of God and the blessedness of his kingdom. The first is,
bj complete obedience — bj doing all things written in the law.
To such there is a promise of life. " Ho that doeth these things
shall live bj them." But all men are transgressors, and are
therefore cut off from the possibility of being saved according to
the provisions of the law, and are under the curse. The other
way of salvation is revealed in the gospel. Christ died for our
sins, and thus procured forgiveness. Here is salvation by grace.
And in this free and gracious salvation we become interested by
faith. All this is tavight Rom. iii. The Apostle, after showing
that all are guilty before God, comes directly to liis conclusion,
V. 20, " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be
justified in his sight." What law ? You find an answer in the
same verse ; " for by the law is the knowledge of sin." The
Apostle shows that it is by the moral law that we have the knowl-
edge of sin, in Rom. 7: 7. " I had not known sin but by the
law ;" and then he gives an instance of this, showing what law he
meant ; " for I had not known lust, i. e., sinful desii"e, except the
law had said, thou shalt not covet." The moral law is plainly
meant in both places ; for in both the Apostle speaks of that law
by which we have the knowledge of moral evil ; and in the last
place referred to, he makes it perfectly plain that he refers to the
moral law, by specifying one of the moral precepts. It is then
by the deeds of this law, that no flesh can be justified before
God.
It is indeed true, that when the Apostle asserts, Gal. 2: 16,
that we are not justified by the works of the law, he has a special
reference to ritual observances. Those observances were the par-
ticular things in question, and it was a matter of course that he
should tell those who made so much of ritual observances, that
they could not be justified by them. The principle is universal ;
we cannot be justified by the works of the law, either moral or cere-
monial. If it is true that transgressors cannot be justified by any
works of obedience, even by obedience to the spiritual precepts of
the law ; it is certain that they cannot be justified by obedience
to the ceremonial precepts. This is what the Apostle had occa-
JUSTIFICATION. 161
sion to say, Gal. 2: 16. He merely asserted and applied a par-
ticular truth contained in a general truth. The circumstances of
the case required him to refer to the law in this lower sense, that
is, to its ceremonial precepts. But in other cases, his proposition
that we cannot be justified by law, must be taken in its largest
sense, the moral precepts being specially intended, while the ritual
precepts are also included. In Rom. iii, this is clearly the case.
The Apostle, having declared that all men are transgressors of
God's holy law, and having stated his conclusion, that we cannot
be justified by works of law, points out the new and living way of
being justified. " God hath set forth his Son to be a propitiation,
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the re-
mission of sins." It is by this new method of justification, here
called the Imv of faith., that all boasting is excluded. In v. 28,
the Apostle repeats what he had before said, v. 20. " Therefore
we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of
law. I ask again, what law ? v. 31 furnishes an answer, by as-
serting that the law spoken of, is the law which the gospel estab-
lishes. But it is the moral law which is established by the gospel,
while the ceremonial code is abolished.
In Rom.vii,the Apostle represents the law of which he speaks
to be holy, just, and good, and says that he delights in it after the
inward man. No one can suppose he would speak thus of any
law, except that which is moral and spiritual. He often tells us
how happy he was to be freed from the burden of the ceremonial
law.
In Rom. 10: 1 — 5, the Apostle again treats of this great gos-
pel doctrine in opposition to prevailing errors. The Jews went
about to establish their own righteousness by works of law. He
says, this was vain ; that Christ is the end of the law for right-
eousness to every one that belie veth. To make this clear, he
again affirms, that the only condition of justification by the law, is
described by Moses, Lev. 18: 5, " Ye shall keep my statutes and
judgments ; which if a man do, he shall live by them." To sup-
pose that moral precepts were not included would be doing palpa-
ble injustice to the writer. This passage is adverted to by Nehe-
14*
162 JUSTIFICATION.
miali in a manner which clearly indicates what sense he put
upon it. He says, " they dealt proudly, and hearkened not to
thy commandments, but sinned against thy judgments, which if a
man do, he shall live in them." It would be strange indeed if
the Prophet, when describing the great wickedness of the people,
charged them with nothing but a neglect of the prescribed out-
ward observances, which was really the smallest part of their
guilt.
If you doubt whether perfect and continual obedience is re-
quired in order to our being justified by law, the doubt may be
removed by considering on whom the curse of the law falls. In
Gal. 3: 10, the Apostle speaks of the law for the very purpose of
showing that we cannot be justified by it ; and in pursuance of
this object, he says, " as many as are of the works of the law, are
under the curse ; for it is written, cursed is every one that contin-
ueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them."
The quotation is from Deut. 27: 26. " Cursed is he that con-
firmeth not all the words of this law to do them." This is a
summary of the curses pronounced by Moses for a great variety
of offences. And it should be particularly remarked, that the
transgressions specified were all transgressions of moral precepts,
710 mention having been made of offences against the law of rites
and ceremonies. Now if those fall under the curse, who do not
perfectly obey the law, then the promise of life cannot apply to
any one who has transgressed. How obvious then is the sound-
ness of the Apostle's conclusion, that no transgressor of the law
can ever be justified by the law. Having sinned, they are under
the curse. This is the way in which the Apostle treats the sub-
ject of justification. His language is very plain, his argument
clear, and his conclusion obvious and certain. Whatever else is
obscure in his writings, there is no obscurity here. He has, with
remarkable clearness, expressed in words the great truth he had
in his mind, that no man can he justified before Crod by the deeds
of the law, that is, by anything he can do in the way of obedi-
ence to the law ; that the only ground or procuring cause of jus-
tification is the vicarious death and perfect righteousness of Christ;
JUSTIFICATION. 163
and that the only way for sinners to obtain justification for them-
selves, is to exercise faith in Christ. This is the all important
truth which the Apostle often affii-ms, and which he ahvays affirms
when he has occasion to touch upon the subject. And he never
says anything contrary to this.
Kow how uttcrl}'' inconsistent it would be with the manifest
design of the Apostle, and the whole train of his reasonings, to
say, that while we cannot be justified by the ceremonial law, there
is another law, that is, the moral law, by which we may be justi-
fied ! If ritual observances and those only are excluded, and if
we may, after all, be justified by obedience to the moral law ;
then where is the necessity of a new and living way through the
mediation of Christ ? And how can it be shown to be impossible
for those who are justified, to glory in the presence of God ?
Paul teaches, that justification by the deeds of the law would frus-
trate the grace of God. Accordingly he takes care to say. Gal.
2: 21, "I do not frustrate the grace of God ; for if righteousness
came by the law. then is Christ dead in vain." If he had taught
that we can be justified, or have a justifying righteousness, by
our own doings, he would have frustrated the grace of God. For
salvation by grace is everywhere opposed to salvation by works.
In Rom. 9: 30 — 32 the Apostle sets it forth as the fatal mistake
of the Jews, that they sought to establish a personal righteousness,
or to obtain justification by the works of the law, while believing
Gentiles, and believing Jews too, obtained it by faith. Had there
been a law, ceremonial or moral, which could give life, then right-
eousness Arould have come by that law. The Apostle further
says ; " To him that worketh" (that is, to him that obtains salva-
tion by working,) " is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of
debt. But to him that worketh not" i. e. for the purpose of justi-
fication, " but believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly, his
faith is counted to him for righteousness." In Rqm. 3: 20 — 24
he goes over the same subject. He seems to think he can never
say too much to illustrate and confirm this great gospel doctrine.
" By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his
sight. But now the righteousness of God without the law is mani-
164 JUSTIFICATION.
fest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the right-
eousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ, unto all and
upon all them that beheve ; for there is no difference ; for all have
sinned and come short of the glory of God ; being justified by his
grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
The reason why the Apostle asserted this doctrine so earnestly,
and in so many places, and took so much pains to establish it, was,
that the doctrine concerns the whole human race, all being sin-
ners ; that it is an essential doctrine in the gospel scheme, show-
ing that salvation is to be obtained not by our own works, but by
faith in Christ, our Redeemer. The Apostle had special reason to
insist upon this in his instructions to the Jews, because they were
so prone to rely for justification upon their own works. But he
insists upon the same doctrine in regard to the GentUes. As both
Jews and Gentiles are all under sin and condemnation, they can
be justified and saved only by grace through the mediation of
Christ. And there is always occasion for us to insist upon the
doctrine, because men, however guilty, are everywhere inclined
to look to their own doings for justification, and to neglect the
doctrine of free grace through the blood of Christ.
We have now, I think, reached a certainty in regard to the
main point before us, — which is the central point in the scheme
of Christianity. Here we find no place for doubt. We do not
depend merely upon indirect allusions, or upon implications or
inferences, however plain. Our doctrine is directly, and in so
many words, affirmed. And we are sure we have not mistaken
the meaning of the Apostle. For, in the first place, we have to do
with the expressions he uses, when he undertakes professedly to
teach and illustrate the doctrine, and to defend it against opposers.
Secondly. His expressions are exceedingly simple, and we clear-
ly see what their sense is, and that it cannot be any other. Third-
ly. The general argument of the Apostle and the end he has in
view imperiously require the sense we have given to his words.
Fourthly. He asserts the doctrine many times, on various occa-
sions, and in difierent connections. If then human language,
used by an inspired teacher, can bring before us any portion of
JUSTIFICATION. 165
divine truth, and invest it with the clearness of demonstration, it
has done this in the present case ; and we are sure that the
Apostle meant to teach us this momentous doctrine, namely ; that
sinners, such as all men are, cannot be justified by works of obedi-
ence to law ; that if we are justified, it must be in another and
very different way, that is, by grace, or on the ground of the right-
eousness of Christ, received by faith; and that good ivorks, or
works of obedience to the law, however important and indispensable
on other accounts in the accomplishment of our salvation, are ex^
eluded from any influence as the meritorious .ground of our justi-
fication before Cfod.
But when we inquire more particularly into the nature and
ground of our justification, no small difficulty arises in making out
exactly the meaning of the terms which are employed in Scripture,
in rehgious discourse, and in our Confessions of Faith. In this
case as in some others, we may more easily understand the
truth itself, than the various modes of speech in which it is con-
veyed to us. To prepare the way then for clearing the subject
of perplexity, I shall first take a more general view of the doctrine
itself. Dispensing as far as may be with those terms whose
meaning has been obscured by controversy, I shall inquire what
are the real blessings which Christ bestows upon his people, and
which constitute gospel salvation. This inquiry can be well
enough pursued without concerning ourselves at present with the
precise meaning of such words as justification, righteousness and
imputation, and without crossing the opinions of any candid and
devout readers of the Scriptures. I fondly cleave to the idea, that
we may exhibit the substance of this gospel truth in such a man-
ner, as will preclude controversy among those who love the Lord
Jesus in sincerity.
Now it seems to me exceedingly evident, that the great salva-
tion which Christ procured, and of which all real Christians par-
take, includes the following blessings ; namely ;
1. Forgiveness of sin ; that is, exemption from the punishment
involved in the penalty of the law. There is no need of deter-
mining now, whether complete forgiveness, that is, complete ex-
166 JUSTIFICATION.
emption from the penal consequences of sin takes place at once
on believing, or whether it only commences then, and is completed
afterwards. All agree, that believers ultimately experience a
complete deliverance from all the evils which are threatened for
the violation of the divine law ; and nothing is more certain, than
that this is one of the blessings procured by the merciful agency
of the Saviour.
2. The salvation of believers implies their sanctification. They
are in fact dehvered from the bondage of corruption, and made
obedient and holy. Without this, they could neither perform the
service nor enjoy the blessedness of God's people. Without this,
forgiveness itself, in the Scripture sense, would be impossible.
For if they remained under the dominion of sin, they would of
course suffer the miseries necessarily resulting from the violence
of their evil passions, and from the repi'oaches of their guilty con-
science. These inward disorders would entail upon them endless
trouble and distress. They would be destitute of all the comforts
of religion. The presence and friendship of God they could not
enjoy ; for a holy God cannot have communion with the unholy.
Their own disposition would exclude them from the employments
and joys of heaven. They would be a hell to themselves. It
must then be that the renewing of the Holy Spirit makes an
essential part of gospel salvation. Forgiveness itself presupposes
and involves it ; inasmuch as the blessings of forgiveness cannot
be really enjoyed, nor the evils inherent in a sinful state or conse-
quent upon it avoided, without holiness. At any rate, the salva-
tion which is the portion of behevers, does in reality imply deli-
verance from sin, and restoration to the moral image of God.
3. Salvation involves perfect happiness. I mention this dis-
tinctly, though implied under the preceding heads. The happi-
ness of believers begins in this life. Their joy is at times un-
speakable, and full of glory. But all this is only a foretaste of
the perfect and endless blessedness of heaven.
The salvation of believers comprises all the blessings, — all the
forms of good above mentioned. They are saved from suffering.
They are saved from sin. And they will enjoy complete and
• JUSTIFICATION. 167
unceasing happiness. These three, though capable of being dis-
tinctly considered, are inseparably joined together, and really
constitute the great salvation. Whenever one part is mentioned,
the other parts are implied. Neither of them could be Avhat it is,
without the other. Forgiveness could not be to us the unspeaka-
ble good signified by the word without sanctification. An unsanc-
tified sinner might, indeed, be freed from this and that particular
suflfering ; but he could not be freed from all suffering, nor from
that which is most of all dreadful. He would be subject to
malignant and tormenting passions and unsatisfied desires ; to the
reproaches of conscience, to the miseries of a diseased mind, and
to the want of the good for which the mind was made. We
cannot have complete forgiveness, — that is, complete deliverance
from the evil consequences of sin, — without regaining the good
which we have lost by sin. Would a Christian feel that he had
received the blessings of full forgiveness, while banished from the
presence of God, and thus deprived of the enjoyment of the
supreme good ? But this must necessarily be his lot, while under
the dominion of sin. Forgiveness,* then, in the large sense in
which we have now considered it, is inseparably joined with sanc-
tification and the enjoyment of God here and hereafter.
Or the matter may be stated in another way. The penalty of
the law is commonly, and I think justly, considered as implying
temporal, spiritual, and eternal death ; which I understand to be
the death of the body, together with bodily disorders and pains ;
the death of the soul, that is, the withdrawment of God's sancti-
fying influence, and the consequent and continued cessation of
holy affection, or spiritual life ; and the endless misery of the
future Avorld. These tremendous evils are all involved in the
penalty of the law. Now, what is forgiveness but a remission of
the penalty, or a removal of the evils involved in the penalty ?
And what is complete forgiveness, but the full remission of the
whole penalty ? What is it but freeing believers from temporal,
spiritual, and eternal death ? And how can they be freed from
death, thus understood, without being restored to the opposite life,
— the spiritual, happy hfe which would have been secured to
168 JUSTIFICATION.
mankind, had they completely obeyed the divine law, and which,
under the new dispensation, is secured to those who believe in
Christ and obey his gospel ?
Or, the views of the subject which I have here suggested, may
be otherwise set forth in tliis way. The condemnation of Adam
subjected him to all the evils involved in the penalty of the vio-
lated law, that is, deatli. And one of the greatest of these evils
was the withdrawal of that divine influence which is the source
of spiritual life in the soul. Of course, had he continued under
the just condemnation of the law, he would have been forever
deprived of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and forever desti-
tute of his holy fruits. But under the gospel dispensation the
case is reversed ; and the salvation, of which Christ is the Author,
implies the removal of all the evil of the threatened death, and
the bestowal of the opposite good — a primary and essential part
of this being the gift of the renovating and sanctifying Spirit, as
the unceasing spring of a new and holy life in the soul, connected
with the free remission of the merited punishment, and the endless
enjoyment of the blessedness ftf Christ's kingdom.
Let us come now to the particular subject of justification.
And here we shall see at once, that justification implies complete
forgiveness. So it is represented, Komans iv. The Apostle is
treating particularly of justification. Verse 5, "To him that
worketh not, but that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,
his faith is counted for righteousness ; " that is, he is justified.
The Apostle then proceeds thus, verses 6 — 8, " Even as David
also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God im-
puteth righteousness without works ; saying, blessed are they
whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."
Here we learn that God's not imputing sin and his imputing right-
eousness, is the same as forgiving or covering sin. And this we
understand to be the remission of the penalty for disobedience, or
the taking away of the evils involved in the penalty, as above
explained. Our doctrine, then, would stand in this form. Be-
lievers are justified not hy their own works, hut on the ground of
JUSTIFICATION. 169
wTiat Christ has done for them. The penalty of the law, including
temporal, spiritual, and eternal death, is removed, and a restora-
tion to the opposite life granted, through the mediation of Christ.
He bestows upon believers a complete salvatioyi ; exemption from
evil, natural and moral, and the enjoyment of the highest good of
which they are capable. Now it is very plain that salvation, in
this comprehensive, Scriptural sense, is not the reivard or the
consequence of our own obedience or holiness ; for our holiness, our
sanctification by the Spirit, is a part of this great salvation.
Christ came to " redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify us to
himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." If we are
delivered from the bondage of corruption, it is he that has deli-
vered us. If we are restored to the moral image of God, it is
he that has restored us. If we have faithfully served God in the
performance of good works, we must each one say, as the Apostle
said, after doing so much more than we have done, " Not I, but
the grace of Christ which was with me." All -good in our hearts
and lives must be ascribed to Christ, as a part of the salvation of
which he is the Author. In our natural state, we are the children
of disobedience. If we are brought to obey, it is because Christ
has turned us from sin and written his law upon our hearts. The
beginning and the continuance of holy obedience is from Christ, as
much as deliverance from the wrath to come, or the enjoyment of
heavenly felicity.
As to our works — suppose them to be good, yea, perfectly
good, as they will finally be, and to be continued for ever so long
a time ; still, as has already been shown, we are not thereby
entitled, on the ground of law, to the favor of God. Imperfect
obedience, and even a return from disobedience to perfect obe-
dience, does not by any means constitute the legal condition of
life. On the ground of God's righteous law as the rule of his
administration, no one who has sinned, whatever may be his sub-
sequent conduct, can have any personal claim to life, as a matter
of justice. If any one of our race is saved, it must be of grace.
He does not merit salvation by his works, but receives it as a free
gift. Christ then is, in the fullest sense, the Author of our salva-
voL. in. 16
170 JUSTIFICATION.
tion. Every part of it comes from him. " He is made of Grod
unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification and redemp-
tion." Our justification, whether it is considered as including
the whole of salvation or a part of it, is altogether of grace. If
it is considered as denoting mere forgiveness, or deliverance from
penal suffering, in the limited sense, or if understood in the large
and comprehensive sense, including not only deliverance from
penal suffering, but restoration to the image and favor of God and
the happiness of his kingdom ; the result is one and the same.
Justification, taken in either way, is not and cannot be of ivorhs.
It does not come to us on the ground of our obedience. Though
our works may be good in themselves, and approved of God, and
though they may be multiplied to any conceivable extent, they do
not constitute, in whole or in part, the meritorious cause of our
justification.
LECTURE CI
NATURE AND GROUND OF JUSTIFICATION.
The subject before us is so important, and in some respects
attended with so many difficulties, that it requires statements and
explanations still more particular and exact than those which were
given in the last Lecture. Even repetitions will be deemed par-
donable, if thej may contribute to cast a clearer light on the doc-
trine under consideration, or to give it a more deep and enduring
impression on the heart.
The word justification is forensic ; in other words, it is taken
from the proceedings of courts of justice. A man is accused of
a crime. The charge against him is examined, and he is found to
be not guilty. Of course he is regarded as an innocent, blame-
less man, and enjoys the privileges of an unoflFending, upright
member of the community. Such a man is justified in the
literal sense. And here we see the only way in which a man,
charged with a crime before a judicial court, can escape punish-
ment and enjoy the privileges of a citizen. It must be made to
appear that he is falsely accused, and the suit against him must
be issued in his favor, and he must in this way stand justified
before the coui't and before the public.
But human beings can never be justified before God in such a
way as this. They are all charged with transgressing the divine
law. The charge is true, and is proved to be true, and they are
guilty and under condemnation. Now in what sense can such
persons — persons known and acknowledged to be transgressors —
172 JUSTIFICATION.
be justified before God ? In other words, what is justification in
the gospel sense ?
Here it is not to be supposed that God mistakes the character
of men, thinking them to be innocent, while they are guilty ; that
he judges and declares those who are transgressors, not to be
transgressors. On the contrary, God often declares men to be
transgressors — sinners without excuse, and deserving of condem-
nation. His justifying them must, then, be in another and very
different sense. The question is, in what sense ? I answer, it
must be in a secondary or figurative sense. There is a real,
though imperfect analogy, between justification in the literal or
legal sense and justification in the gospel sense ; and the lan-
guage of Scripture, to which we have so often referred, is founded
on this analogy. When God is said to justify the ungodly, the
meaning must be, that he treats them and bestows favors upon
them as though they were not ungodly, or as though they had
always been obedient. He passes by their sins, he does not
remember them, he blots them out ; so that they do not prevent
the bestowment of his favors. He exercises his kindness towards
them, adopts them as his children, and admits them to the joys of
his kingdom, as though they had never sinned. Some say, he
regards them or looks upon them as innocent, or righteous. But
their meaning must be, that while he knows them to be sinners,
he does not doom them to suffer the penalty of sin, but treats
them as though they were free from sin. If we say, he ^^ro-
nounces them to be just or righteous ; our meaning is not, that
he falls into a mistake, and thinks them and declares them not
guilty when in truth they are guilty ; but that he exempts them
from punishment and confers upon them the blessings of his love,
as really as he would do if they had never sinned. Such, accord-
ing to my understanding, is gospel justification. It is a gracious
proceeding, wherein God freely pardons all our sins and accepts
and treats us as righteous persons — not that we ourselves have,
in his judgment, the personal righteousness required by the law,
but that on some other account he accepts and blesses u^, as though
we had it.
JUSTIFICATION. 173
Still justification does not imply, that God treats believers and
bestows blessings upon them exactly in the same manner, or, at
present, in the same degree, as he would have done had they been
perfectly obedient. For the measure of present good which he
confers upon them must conform to their present character, and
their present capacity for enjoyment ; and, as they are subject to
so many faults, his manner of treating them must be such as will
administer the necessary discipline. When God calls his people
to endure suffering, or, as it is often expressed, chastens them, or
inflicts punishment upon them, he does not do it as an execution
of the penalty of the laio ; for the penalty is really remitted.
They are truly pardoned. But, though pardoned, they are at
present incapable of receiving precisely and in all respects the
same treatment from God, as if they were without sin. The
exact truth is, he now treats them substantially as though they
possessed a complete personal righteousness ; and will finally give
them the enjoyment of that good which was promised as the
reward of unceasing obedience — the highest blessedness of those
who have never offended. If a prodigal son, who repents and
returns to his home, possesses less capacity for enjoyment than he
would have possessed had he never gone astray ; then, though he
is fully pardoned and restored to favor, he cannot at once enjoy
the same degree of happiness as though his faculties had not
been injured by vice. If he has the remains of that ignorance
and bodily disease which resulted from his wicked conduct, his
father will put him, for his benefit, under the care of a skilful
physician and a faithful teacher. And though some of the medi-
cines administered to him may be unpleasant to his taste, and
some of the lessons assigned to him hard to be learned, still they
all come from paternal kindness, and do by no means interfere
with his entire forgiveness, or his title to a full inheritance in his
father's estate. I present this case to illustrate the propriety of
the remark, that God does not treat penitent sinners, exactly and
in all respects, as though they were, and always had been, wholly
free from sin. But for ordinary purposes, it is sufficiently correct
to say, he accepts and treats them as though they had never
15*
174 JUSTIFICATION.
offended, or as though they were themselves righteous. In truth,
they could not be treated with more favor ; they could not receive
more abundant fruits of God's love, if they had never offended.
Indeed it is plainly implied in the parable of the prodigal son,
and in other parts of Scripture, that God will bestow upon his
redeemed and penitent people some special favors, — favors which
will distinguish them above those who have never sinned.
The account I have now given of justij&cation is suflBciently sus-
tained by that remarkable passage in Romans iv, which has been
already quoted. The Apostle speaks of God as justifying him
that worketh not, but believeth on him who justifieth the un-
godly ; and then refers to a passage in Psalm 32, in which this
same matter of justifying the believer, or counting his faith for
righteousness, is set forth in another way. " Even as David also
describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth
righteousness without works ; saying. Blessed are they whose ini-
quities are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man
to whom the Lord will not impute sin." It is evident, that for-
giving sin and not imputing sin are expressions of the same
import ; and the Apostle quotes them from David, to show the
blessed state of those who are justified. But we cannot conclude
from this, that justification includes no more than forgiveness, in
the restricted sense. The quotation is pertinent, and answers the
purpose of the Apostle, if forgiveness, or not imputing sin, is con-
sidered as not only an essential part of justification, but as insepa-
rably connected with all the other parts, or as including all the
blessings of salvation.
It has been made a question, whether justification is, as our
Catechism expresses it, an act of God's grace, or whether it is not
a mere fact, revealed to us by the word of God ? But in my
view there is no diSiculty here. Justification is, indeed, a fact
made known by revelation. God declares to us the truth, that
those who believe are forgiven and accepted. Accordingly, as
soon as sinners beheve, they are pardoned and entitled to eternal
life. But this happy state of believers, which God thus plainly
declares, is also a matter in which his agency is concerned. For
JUSTIFICATION. 175
he not only declares believers to be in a justified state, but he in
fact brings them into that state, and then at once acts graciously
towards them, in bestowing upon them the blessings of justifica-
tion, and granting them the tokens and fruits of his Fatherly love.
There is then a declaration of God in his word that believers are
justified, and a corresponding act of his grace in his dispensations
— a merciful agency towards them who believe, extending through
their whole happy existence.
Having thus endeavored to show what justification is, I shall
next inquire more particularly what is the ground of it, — what is
the special consideration or reason, on account of which God jus-
tifies behevers. I refer to the primary ground, the meritorious
condition — implying a real worthiness or just desert of the good
bestowed.
We have already seen that the Apostle Paul, who handles this
subject of set purpose, and with great particularity and clearness,
declares again and again, that we are not justified by works.
" By grace ye are saved ;" and salvation must surely include y^s-
tification : " Not of works, lest any man should boast." He says
this to Gentiles as well as Jews ; so that- works cannot mean merely
an observance of the ritual law of Moses. For who could think
it necessary to guard G-entiles against boasting on account of their
having conformed to Jewish rites ? The Apostle manifestly ex-
cludes works of every kind, whether before or after repentance,
from being the meritorious ground of justification. The grace by
which we are justified and saved, is unmerited favor. The Apos-
tle teaches this as clearly and fully as language can teach it.
What then is the true ground or meritorious condition of justifica-
tion ? Are sinners pardoned and saved on account of any per-
sonal righteousness which they possess ? This the Apostle strong-
ly denies, and this the enlightened conscience of every Christian
denies. According to the teachings of revelation, the ground,
the meritorious condition of our justification is the mediatorial
■work of Christ, including his humiliation, his obedience and death,
or " his obedience unto death." Rom. 5: 9, " We were recon-
176 JUSTIFICATION.
ciled to God by the death of his Son ;" that is, God's wrath was
turned awaj, and his favor procured by Christ's death. In the
latter part of the chapter, the Apostle treats the subject very par-
ticularly and with great clearness and earnestness. " By the
righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justifica-
tion of life." — " By the obedience of one shall many be made
righteous." Bom. 10: 4, " Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness to every one that believeth." Bemission of sins is
often declared to be through or by the death or the blood of Christ.
And remission is justification, or an essential part of it. Accord-
ing to our Catechism, " Justification is an act of God's grace,
wherein he pardoneth all our sins and accepteth us as righteous in
his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us."
Some of our best writei-s, in treating of justification, insist upon
the distinction between the active and the passive obedience of
Christ, and ascribe our forgiveness to his passive obedience, or his
sufferings, and our acceptance and eternal life to his active obedi-
ence, or his conformity with the moral law. But what if it should
be found that the obedience of Christ, spoken of in Bom. 5: 19
and in other places, signifies his obedience unto death, thus inclu-
ding his atoning sacrifice ? And what if it should be found too,
that forgiveness of sin, as spoken of in the New Testament, gen-
erally includes all the blessings of grace ? It seems to me that
we shall more exactly conform to the example of the sacred wri-
ters, and more fully secure the efiicacy of gospel truth, if we
sometimes speak of the work of our Bedeemer as one whole, and
our salvation as a whole, and at other times speak of particular
parts of his work, for example, of his incarnation, his obedience
to the moral and the ceremonial law, and to the special command
of the Father that he should lay down his life for his people, his
sufierings in general, particularly in the garden and on the cross,
his death, his blood, his sacrifice, just as the occasion renders
suitable, still considering each of these not as really separate from
the others, but as connected with them, and as actually implying
them.
The mediatorial work of Christ, I have said, is the ground or
JUSTIFICATION. 177
meritorious condition or cause of our forgiveness and acceptance
"with God. This gospel doctrine may be illustrated in different
ways, all however leading to the same result. It may be illustra-
ted thus. Our perfect obedience would, according to the law, be
the ground of our acceptance with God and our enjoyment of
blessedness in his kingdom. This ground of acceptance is want-
inir. But the obedience and death of our Redeemer come in the
place of it ; and on this ground we enjoy the same favor of God,
and the same blessedness, as we should have done on the ground
of our own obedience. This new ground of our acceptance with
God is substituted for what was originally appointed to be the
ground of it according to the tenor of the law.
But our doctrine may be set forth in another form. Our sin
had put a bar in the way of our salvation. Divine law and jus-
tice excluded us from heaven, and our own character rendered us
incapable of enjoying it. But Christ, by his work as Redeemer,
has satisfied law and justice, and thus opened the way for our
forgiveness, and for a sanctifying influence to come from above to
make us holy, and so to prepare us for a holy salvation. Jesus
was set forth as a propitiation — that God might be just, and the
justifier of behevers. It is on the ground of Christ's propitiatory
sacrifice, that God can save sinners in harmony with his justice.
This propitiatory sacrifice is the foundation, the essential, merito-
rious condition of our justification. We have no personal worthi-
ness, no legal mept. But we can rely on the all-sufficient merits
of Christ crucified, as the ground of our forgiveness and eternal
life.
I have spoken so repeatedly and so guardedly respecting this
ground or condition of our forgiveness and acceptance, because
there are other things mentioned in Scripture as conditions of our
forgiveness — conditions, it is true, of a very different nature, but
still necessary to our salvation — as really necessary as the death
of Christ, though on very different accounts and in a very differ-
ent way. The death of Christ is a necessary condition of our
salvation, because we have sinned, and' the righteousness or jus-
tice of God must be declared, and his law vindicated, in order to
178 JUSTIFICATION.
our forgiveness. If God should pardon sinners witliout the shed-
ding of Christ's blood, his character, as moral Governor, could
not appear in a true and honorable hght. But the other things
referred to — oui* repentance, faith and obedience, are conditions
of another kmd — conditions rendered necessarv on different ac-
counts. Logicians call each of these conditio sine qua non ; a
condition -without which the good contemplated cannot be enjoyed.
Thus the unholy cannot enjoy a holy salvation. And their be-
coming holy is a condition without which they cannot be saved.
A comphance with this condition is absolutely necessary. Infinite
grace cannot save us without it.
When I speak of conditions of different kinds, I say nothing
"which is new, and nothing which is of rare occurrence. In num-
berless cases, the attainment of a particular end depends on vari-
ous conditions, some of which are primary, and some secondary.
The relations of these conditions to the end sought, though equally
real and necessary, are very different in their natiu-e. One is a
condition in one sense, and in that sense it may be the only condi-
tion^ and may properly be spoken of as excluding all other condi-
tions, that is. excluding all other things from being conditions in
the sense in which this is a condition. Tliis, which is an impor-
tant point, may be illusti-ated by the following example. A man
is, for a particular offence, sentenced to pay a fine of a thousand
dollai"S, or to be imprisoned for ten years. After he has been im-
prisoned for a time, a friend of his pays the fine, and so fulfils the
chief condition, and the only pecuniary condition of his Hberation ;
I say. the only pecuniary condition, because no more money is
requii-ed. But there may be other conditions of a different kind.
The laws may require bonds to be given for the good beha'S'ior of
Ae prisoner ; and this condidon may also be complied with. These
two conditions may be fulfilled by other men. But there may be
other conditions which can be fulfilled by no one but himself. For
he may be required to make and subscribe a promise that he will
be obedient to the laws. His compliance with this condition would
also be indispensable. And there is still another condition, name-
ly, that in order to enjoy the benefit of liberation from prison, the
JUSTIFICATION. 179
door of which may now be opened to him, he must accept the
benefit, and actually go out from his confinement. This last con-
dition, arising from the nature of the case, is as indispensable as
the others, but for a different reason. The otliers were made in-
dispensable by the authority of the laws, and the decision of the
government, Tfiia is indispensable from the nature of the case.
The liberation of the prisoner could not on any supposition take
place without it. The payment of the fine would be the specialj
primary condition, and might properly be called the pecuniary
ground or the procuring came of the liberation. It would be
the only pecuniary consideration on account of which the favor
could be granted, and on account of which the other conditions
mentioned could have any place, or avail anything if complied with.
Still, they are all necessary conditions.
I pretend not that this example can answer all the purposes
aimed at. But it is sufficient to show that there may be a ground,
or an essential, prominent condition, which, in the sense in which
it is a condition, excludes all other conditions. That is, nothing
else is a condition in the same sense loith this. It is, I apprehend,
in this way that the Apostle Paul speaks respecting justification,
the drift of his discourse showing clearly the meaning of his
words. His object is to set forth the real state of man as a
transgressor, and the way opened for his salvation by the expiatory
sacrifice of Christ. Accordingly, he says, our salvation is not by
works of righteousness which we have done. The law promised
life on the ground of our unfailing obedience. But we are exclu-
ded from the benefit of this promise by our sins. The Apostle
then describes the other method of justification by the blood of
Christ, or by his righteousness, or his grace. Our works are
excluded. They can have no influence in the sense in which the
mediation of Christ has influence. Previously to our faith and
justification, we have no good works ; and if we had, they could
not be the ground of our justification, unless they were perfect
through our whole life ; which would be inconsistent with our
being sinners. Our justification is then of grace, not of works —
not for our righteousness, but for the righteousness of Christ.
180 JUSTIFICATION.
We have no good works before we are brought into a spiritual
union with Christ. And the works which we do after that union
cannot be the ground of our justification, because, though in a
measure right, and so far as right, acceptable to God, they are
not perfectly rigid, and do not now and never can, constitute the
obedience which the law of works demands. The way of life
then by works is forever closed up. And we see with what good
reason the Apostle says absolutely, our justification is not of
zvorJcs. However necessary they may be, and whatever their im-
portance in other respects, they have no place here. We are saved
hy the atoning blood and righteousness of Christ alone — by grace
alone — or, which we shall find to be the same thing, by faith
alo7ie.
It should be fixed in our minds as a point of great importance,
that nothing else has any such influence in our justification, as the
death, the atonement, or the righteousness of Christ; that his
work as Redeemer does, alone, form the perfect, meritorious con-
ditio7i, or ground of our justification before Grod, nothing else
being needed or admitted as a condition, or any part of a condi-
tion, in that respect. This, I think, is the very thing which the
Apostle had in his mind, when he so decidedly excluded works
from having any share in our justification. And it is certain that
he did this very properly, with his particular view and for his spe-
cific purpose, although in other views of the subject and for other
purposes, several other things are indispensable as conditions of
forgiveness and salvation. Those other things, I say, are really
indispensable ; and the sacred writers w^ould have omitted an im-
portant truth, if they had not declared this. But no other truth
interferes with that foundation principle of Paul, that we are jus-
tified freely by grace through the redemption of Christ, and not
at all by our works. From Paul's point of view, it was obviously
80. In his circumstances, and for the accomplishment of his
great object, truth required him to speak as he did. He was
called to estabhsh the doctrine, which lay at the foundation of the
gospel scheme, in opposition to the errors of those who went about
to establish a justifying righteousness of their own. But when
JUSTIFICATION. 181
circumstances led him to look at Christianity from a different point
of view, and to confute errors of a different kind, he was equally
prompt and earnest in asserting other truths. For he never en-
tertained the preposterous idea, that any single truth, however
important, constitutes Christianity.
In the treatment of this subject my aim is to conform exactly
to the word of God, teaching the doctrines which the inspired
writers teach, and as they teach them. When I undertake to
show what is the meritorious condition or procuring cause of our
justification, I follow Paul, and looking at the subject from his
point of view, I assert -what he asserted, that we are pardoned
and accepted not for our righteousness, but on account of the
perfect righteousness of Christ — on this account whoUt/, our
works being excluded. This is the great gospel truth w^hich Paul
was inspired to teach, and which, in various parts of his writings,
he did very plainly teach, though without displacing or marring
any other truth. But at other times he as plainly taught different
truths, knowing that, whatever ignorant or hasty readers might
imagine, there was no contradiction. In this we should copy his
example. There is no other way of doing justice to the sacred
writers. We must endeavor to place ourselves in their circum-
stances, and to get the views which they had in their minds, and
which they uttered so freely and so artlessly, and which they al-
ways seemed to expect that their readers would candidly consider
and rightly understand. Following them in their manner of
teaching, we say of a particular doctrine, as the doctrine of gra-
tuitous justification, it is the truth, and in the point of view in-
tended, the only truth, everything else being excluded. By and
by, when there is occasion for it, we teach something else with the
same freedom, something which we know to be a truth, but which
would contradict the truths before taught, if held forth from the
same stand-point and in the same connection ; although, being
held forth from a different stand-point, and in a different connec-
tion, it perfectly harmonizes with every other truth. Thus we
say that we are not forgiven and saved for our works — that
works are excluded. And then in another view, we say, that
VOL. III. 16
182 JUSTIFICATION.
works of obedience are absolutely necessary — that we cannot be
pardoned and saved without them, any more than we can without
the expiatory sacrifice of Christ. But we shall say more on this
point in the sequel.
Have we not now arrived at a satisfactory idea of what it is to
be justified freely hy the grace of God, as we are said to be,
Rom. 3: 24 ? Justification is here put in opposition to justifica-
tion by works. God does not justify us for having comphed with
the holy requirements of the law, for this we have not done. He
does not justify us on account of a personal worthiness, for this
we do not possess. But he justifies us freely, by his grace. It
is an unmerited gift. It comes from his sovereign love. The
gift of a Saviour — the provision of an expiatory sacrifice — all
that was done preparatory to salvation, resulted from the infinite
benignity and grace of God. He adopted the plan of redemp-
tion, because he " so loved the world." And he carries out the
work of redemption in our renewal, our forgiveness, and accep-
tance, from the same benevolent motives. Our justification is the
result of a previous work of grace, and it is itself a work of grace.
We do nothing to deserve it. This unspeakable good is bestowed
upon us " without money and without price." From first to last,
salvation is all of grace.
But some may ask — how is it a free gift, a blessing gratui-
tously bestowed, if Christ paid the full price of our redemption,
and purchased our life by his own painful death ?
I answer, first ; salvation is a free gift to us, inasmuch as we
have done nothing to purchase it. The price of our redemption
was the precious blood of Jesus Christ. No atonement for sin
has been made, and none could be made, by us. On our part, all
is depravity and guilt. On his part, all is love and mercy. So
that the good which we receive, in whatever way procured, is to
us an unmerited favor. It is all of grace.
I answer, secondly ; the Apostle taught, Rom. 3: 24, that we
are justified freely by God's grace, and yet that it is through the
redemption which is in Christ Jesus. He taught both these
JUSTIFICATION. 183
truths here in the same sentence ; and at other times he taught
them in different passages. And it is clear that, as they lay in
his mind, they were perfectly consistent. So that he readily
asserted one or the other of them, or both together, just as he had
occasion to do. If, then, we have any confidence in his divine
inspiration, or even in his logical discernment, we must believe
both the doctrine of justification by grace, and the doctrine of
redemption by the blood of Christ, and must plainly declare them
both, whether we can by our own reason reconcile them with each
other or not.
I answer, thirdly ; if you find it difficult to make out the con-
sistency of the two doctrines, can you show them to be incon
sisteTvt ? May it not be true that Christ died for our sins, and
still that salvation is of grace ? Pecuniary transactions are
referred to in Scripture to illustrate the atonement. We are
bought with a price. We are redeemed by the blood of Christ.
But the language is figurative. Pecuniary or commercial trans-
actions are used to represent what is moral and spiritual. Keep
this in mind, and the difficulty will vanish. For in truth, what is
there in God's giving his Son to die for us, incompatible with our
being justified freely by his grace ? The work of Christ did not
take away the ill desert of sin or of sinners, but manifested it
more clearly. It did not make us personally worthy of God's
favor, but showed our unworthiness. The curse of the law was
indeed substantially borne, and justice satisfied, by the Saviour.
But that redounds to his merit, not to ours. We receive infinite
good from the work which Christ performed* for us ; but of all
that good we are personally unworthy. This is all made clear by
the consciousness of Christians. They are saved through the
atoning sacrifice of Christ ; and yet they know and feel that their
salvation is wholly of grace.
But fourthly, I must say one thing more ; namely, that God's
grace, in our forgiveness and salvation, is made to appear most
conspicuous and glorious by means of that very atonement of
Christ which is said to be incompatible tvith it. This is plainly
taught in the Scriptures. The Apostle, Romans v, particularly
184 JUSTIFICATION.
sets forth the method of our justification through the death of
Christ, and celebrates it as a work of grace. " Where sin
abounded, grace did much more abound ; that as sin reigned unto
death, even so might gi^ace reign through righteousness" — (not
our righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ, verse 18) —
" unto eternal life." The free grace of God in our salvation
shines "with overpowering splendor in the work of redemption by
Christ. " Herein is love," said one who had been taught by
truth itself — " herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he
loved us, and gave his Son to die for us." In this mission of
Christ, divine grace came forth to the view of heaven and earth
in its highest glory. And our actual forgiveness and salvation is
but the result of the love and grace manifested in the gift of
Christ, and in his humiliation and death. Hoav strange then it is,
yea, what Adolent perversion of the truth, to represent that which
most illustriously displays the grace of God, to be inconsistent
with it ! It is known to behevers in this life, and will be known
more fully in eternity, that God's justifying and saving them
through the propitiatory death of Christ, is " to the praise of the
glory of his grace."
If I mistake not, we have satisfactorily reached the following
conclusions ; namely, the love or grace of God is the original
cause or spring of our salvation. In the exercise of that love he
sent his Son to be our Redeemer. The obedience and death of
Christ opened the door for the exercise of mercy towards us, and
procured salvation for sinners. His finished righteousness, or the
merit of his obedience unto death, is the proper ground, and the
only meritorious ground, of our justification ; and that justificar
tion, like the mission and death of Christ from which it resulted,
is entirely a work of grace.
But there is, as we have seen, another view to be taken of the
subject. The expiatory sacrifice, the all sufficient atonement of
Christ is not all that is necessary to our forgiveness. Something
is required on our part. There are conditions with which we
must comply, in order to enjoy the good procured for us. These
several conditions are set before us in the word of God. We are
JUSTIFICATION. 185
required to repent and he converted, that we may be forgiven.
Luke 13: 3 ; Acts 2: 38 ; 3: 19 ; Ezek. 18: 30 ; Isa. 55: 7.
These passages, and others which might be cited, are exceedingly
plain. Faith is also laid down as a condition of justification and
eternal life. We must believe in the Lord Jesus, that we may be
saved. We are justified by faith. The same as to p-ayer.
" Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved." A spirit oi forgiveness is declared to be a condition of
our being forgiven of God. " If ye forgive men their trespasses,
your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive
not, neither shall ye be forgiven." The same is true of obedience.
" Not every one that saith unto me. Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father."
" Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have
right to the tree of hfe." I might mention other exercises of
piety, which are set forth in Scripture as conditions of our forgive-
ness and eternal life ; as means which are indispensable on our
part, if we would be partakers of salvation.
But when we take a careful and connected view of the teach-
ings of holy writ on this subject, we become satisfied that none of
the things above mentioned are conditions of forgiveness and
eternal life, in the same sense with the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
That was a condition on God's part — a measure which was
necessary to prepare the way for our salvation — a measure
required, in order that God might be just while he justifies them
that believe. But the other conditions mentioned are necessary
on our part. Christ has opened the door of heaven ; but ive
must enter in, or we cannot enjoy heaven. He has procured and
oflFered an infinite good. But how can it avail to our benefit, un-
less we receive it ? " Without holiness no man can see the Lord."
Now these duties, which are required of us as conditions of salva-
tion, are in no degree less necessary because Christ has performed
the antecedent and meritorious condition for us. His atonement,
his righteousness, which is presupposed, instead of superseding
our agency in repenting and believing, is the very thing which
secures that agency, and renders it effectual to our salvation.
16*
186 JUSTIFICATION.
If you still inquire more particularly wliy repentance, faith,
and holiness are to be regarded as indispensable conditions of our
salvation, my answer is two-fold.
Fii'st. God himself has appointed them, and required them as
conditions of salvation. And we know that all his appointments
and requisitions are holy, just and good.
Secondly. The nature of the case shows that these conditions
are necessary. Salvation is holy, and cannot belong to the
unholy ; as the Scripture says, " Without holiness no man can
see the Lord." God is a Bemg of infinite purity ; and we must
be pure in heart in order to enjoy him. Our Saviour sustains
various offices. He is a Prophet ; but he becomes a Prophet to
us, only when our hearts are opened to receive his instructions.
He is a Priest ; and he becomes a Priest to us by our trusting in
his all-sufficient sacrifice. He is a King ; and he becomes our
King by our submitting heartily to his dominion and obeying his
laws. He is proffered to us as an unspeakable gift ; but how can
a gift be ours unless we receive it ? The conditions, then, which
are required of us by the authority of God, are, from the very
nature of the case, obviously necessary to our salvation.
But we here meet another question, and one attended with
more serious difficulties. Repentance, faith, prayer, and obe-
dience are, we have seen, all necessary, though not meritorious
conditions of our justification. But the Scriptures evidently dis-
tinguish one of these conditions above the others. They are all
equally fruits of the Spirit ; but faith is particularized as having
a concern in our justification, which belongs not to any of the
other conditions. What is the reason of this ? How is it to be
accounted for, that faith is spoken of in the word of God as hav-
ing this peculiar influence in the afiair of our justification ?
Now if we should be utterly unable to show why faith is thus
distinguished from other virtues, in regard to our justification, the
fact, that it is thus distinguished by the inspired writers, is suffi-
cient to settle our behef. It is certain that the Scriptures do, in
various places, attribute to faith this peculiar, this prominent influ-
ence. The Old Testament declares, that Abraham believed God,
JUSTIFICATION. 187
and it was counted to him for righteousness. But where does it
declare that Abraham, or any other man, repented, or prayed, or
did any other duty, and it was counted to him for righteousness ?
Paul says repeatedly that we are justified by faith. But where
does he say we are justified by any other virtuous exercise ? He
declares, indeed, that the doers of the law shall be justified.
But he does not say they shall be justified for doing the law, or
by doing it. On the contrary, he often declares that justification
is not by the deeds of the law, but that it is by faith, that it may
be of grace. Such is the doctrine of the great Apostle. Now
if we should find that, after our best endeavors, we can obtain no
clear insight into the rationale of the doctrine ; still, its being
taught by inspired writers is a sufficient foundation for our belief.
We must have implicit confidence in their instructions, expecting
further hght in time to come.
But, without pretending to an adequate understanding of the
subject now under discussion, I cannot but think that several
things relative to it are sufficiently evident.
It is evident, that the difference' between faith and the other
Christian virtues, in regard to justification, does not arise from
any real difference among them as to their moral nature. It
might, at first view, be natural enough to suppose, that faith is
thus distinguished above all other things required of us, because
of some superior excellence which is inherent in it. But this
cannot be the case. For what can be more excellent than hve,
which is the fulfilling of the law, and which Paul places above
both faith and hope ? And most certainly it cannot be, as some
have strangely supposed, that God has assigned to faith such a
peculiar influence in our justification, because it is destitute of
moral excellence. We are taught by our Saviour, that faith is
the great work which is required of us by God. " What shall we
do," said some, " that we may work the work of God ? Jesus
answered, " This is the work of God, that ye believe on him
whom he hath sent." Why is not this special work of God, this
obedience to the great requirement of the gospel, an act of holi-
ness, as much as obedience to any divine requirement ? If it is
188 JUSTIFICATION.
not an act of holiness, it would be passing strange that God should
bestow such special honor upon it. Mj argument on the subject
is, you see, very plain and very concise. If it were the holiness
of faith which gives it such influence in our justification, then
why does not the holiness of love, and other acts of obedience,
give them the same influence ? On the other hand, it is exceed-
ingly absurd to suppose that God gives such special influence to
faith because it does not partake of the nature of holiness. Our
conclusion is, that the word of God does not ascribe such a pecu-
liar influence to faith, either because it is in itself possessed of
moral excellence, or because it is not ; but for some other reason.
What is that reason ? And how does it come to pass, that, to be
justified by grace, xve must be justified by faitli ? I hope by the
following suggestions to contribute something towards a satisfac-
tory solution of this inquiry.
There are, we have seen, only two ways of justification spoken
of in Scripture ; two ways in which we can obtain the favor of
God ; one, by perfect obedience to the law ; the other, by the
free mercy of God through the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ.
From the first of these ways we are evidently excluded. We
must, then, resort to the other. And as that is made known to
us by the gospel revelation, it calls for our consideration and our
faith. What we have to do as sinners is, to understand and
receive the gospel. And as the gospel proclaims salvation by
grace, to receive it is, in reality, to receive salvation by grace.
And this is the same as to exercise evangelical faith. Cordially
to believe the gospel, is to understand and embrace what it de-
clares. And as it declares that Christ is the only Saviour, m the
exercise of faith we receive him and trust in him as such, giving
up all thought of being saved in any other way. It appears,
then, from the very nature of the gospel, that to be saved by
faith is to be saved by grace ; for faith is receiving salvation by
grace. If the gospel revealed another way of salvation, believing
the gospel would be another thing, and being saved by faith would
be another thing. Faith derives its character, it becomes what it
is, from the real nature of the gospel scheme which it receives.
JUSTIFICATION. 189
And salvation by faith becomes what it is, that is, a gratuitous,
free salvation, because this is the salvation which is offered in the
gospel, and which faith receives. A faith which looked any other
way, and reached after any other salvation, would not be gospel
faith. If you have true faith, you think and feel in correspond-
ence with gospel-truth. You trust in Christ as he is set forth in
the gospel ; and he is set forth as a complete Saviour and the only
Saviour ; and you receive pardon and life as it is offered, and it is
offered as a free gift. Accordingly, to receive justification hy faith
is to receive it as a matter o^ grace, ^free gift, inasmuch as this is
the only justification which is made known in the gospel, and the
only justification which faith can receive. It appears then from
the very nature of the gospel and from the corresponding nature of
faith, that to he justified hy faith is, as the Apostle teaches, to be
justified hy grace. Faith is not true faith, unless it thus falls in
and harmonizes with the gospel scheme.
If now you ask why we are justified hj faith, I answer, because
there is no possible way for sinners to be justified but hy grace,
and there is no other way to be justified hy grace, but to be justi-
fied hy faith. To suppose that you can be pardoned and saved
by grace, in any way but to be pardoned and saved by faith, is as
absurd as to suppose that you can have salvation without receiv-
ing \i — or that you can liave it without having it. For it is
clear, that you cannot become possessed of a good, of which you
are destitute, without receiving it. So long as you refuse a
blessing, the blessing is not yours. In this way you may be satis-
fied why God makes faith the special means of securing salva-
tion. If a man is an unbeliever, salvation cannot be his, un-
less he can possess it while he rejects it.
Look at a man justly condemned for a crime which he has com-
mitted, to suffer perpetual imprisonment. It is clear that he can-
not obtain deliverance from this punishment by proving his inno-
cence, or by any service he can perform. But suppose the chief
magistrate sends a messenger to him with the offer of a free par-
don and immediate liberation from his confinement. Now if no
condition is expressed, one is implied. For the prisoner will
190 JUSTIFICATION.
remain in his cell, unless he gives credit to the report of the
messenger and is willing to accept the offer of liberation "which
he brings. Suppose he does this. I ask, how was this prisoner
liberated ? And the answer may be given in two ways. First,
it may be said he was pardoned and liberated by an act of mercy
in the magistrate. Secondly, it may be said, he Avas hberated
merely by crediting the message sent him and accepting the prof-
fered dehverance, this being all that was necessary on his part.
And these answers are both true, and both amount to the same
thing. Each implies the other.
But let the case be varied. Suppose the prisoner confined for
a heavy debt he has contracted by wasting the property of his
employer. And suppose his employer, to whom he owes so much,
Bends a messenger with an offer to liberate him a year hence,
on condition of his doing work enough to pay a part of the
debt, and giving bonds for the final payment of the rest. The
prisoner believes the sincerity of his creditor, accepts his offer,
fulfils the conditions, and is liberated. Now this man obtains his
liberation not by an act of compassion or generosity, not as a gratui-
ty, but by such services and additional sureties, as satisfy the
claims of his creditor.
Apply this to our subject. Had the gospel message required
services or sufferings of us sufficient to discharge our obligations
to divine justice, as the condition of being restored to divine favor,
and were we able to fulful the condition ; our believing and ac-
cepting such a message would be a very different thing from
gospel faith — as different as such a message is from the gospel
message ; and our salvation coming in this way would be a very
different thing from gospel salvation. It would not be by grace^
but by our own services or sufferings.
I am so desirous of showing as clearly as possible why the
Scripture declares that we are justified hy grace^ and still that we
are justified hy faith, that I will venture to give one more illustra-
tion ; though it may appear like attempting to make that which
is already sufficiently plain, still plainer.
Take then the case of a man, who has no possible way to pro-
JUSTIFICATION. 191
vide for himself but by begging. Of such a man we say, he lives
by begging. He supports himself by ashing alms. Now what is
the difference between saying, he Hvcs bg begging, and saying, he
lives by charity ; or between saying, he is supported by asking
alms, and saying, he is supported by the alms which he receives ?
So with believers. They have no resources of their own, and
they depend wholly on the favor of their Redeemer. They are
justified and saved by his grace, and they are justified and saved
by trusting in his grace.
LECTURE CII.
NATURE OF JUSTIFYING FAITH. IMPUTATION.
I HAVE repeatedly spoken of the nature of faith. But the
subject deserves a more particular and distinct consideration.
What then is that faith in Christ, or in the gospel, which is the
means of justification ; or which secures forgiveness of sin and
acceptance with God ?
Here the natural presumption is, that an act or exercise which
God so particularly requires of us, and which he has made the
special means or condition of justification, must be a holy exer-
cise— an exercise possessing true moral excellence. Otherwise,
why should he so particularly require it ? And why should he
put such a mark of favor upon it, as to promise salvation to those
who exercise it ?
Again. Justifying faith has a particular respect to Christ in
his true character. It receives him and relies upon him as a holy
Saviour, — which plainly implies a love to holiness. Faith re-
ceives Christ as a friend and vindicator of the divine law, and so
implies a love to that law. The end of faith, the good which it
aims at, is a holy salvation — a deliverance not only from the
penal consequences of sin, but from its polluting influence within
the mind. Desire for such a salvation is a holy desire — an at-
tachment to a holy object.
Consider too the influence of faith in Christ — the effects which
it produces. It purifies the heart. It overcomes the world. It
produces good works. It leads to progressive sanctification. Now
JUSTIFICATION. 193
it cannot be, that an exercise or state of mind which is productive
of such excellent fruits, is itself destitute of excellence.
The Apostle John expressly declares, that he who believes is
horn of God ; which shows, that the exercise of faith is a certain
evidence of regeneration, true faith being found only in the re-
generate. And James teaches that a faith which is separate from
obedience is not justifying faith. True faith works by love ; and
love involves obedience. Love is itself obedience to the first and
great command, and leads to universal obedience. " He that
loveth me, keepeth my commands."
There are indeed various exercises of unconverted men which
are called faith. Those who are without holiness may believe the
mere facts of the gospel history, just as they believe the facts of
any other history. They may have a speculative knowledge of
the truths which the Scriptures reveal, and a faith corresponding
with that knowledge. Men destitute of godliness may believe,
that Jesus was born, and wrought miracles, and suffered and died
for sinners ; that he will forgive the offences of his followers, and
make them happy in heaven. These and other truths of revela-
tion are speculatively known and beheved by multitudes who are
strangers to holuaess. But they do not discern these things spirit-
ually. They do not see their true nature, their importance, their
moral beauty and excellence. And they do not believe them oth-
erwise than as they see and understand them. Of course, they
do not beheve in their true importance, excellence and glory.
In saving faith the act of the mind may be considered as comr
plex. The mind itself is complex in regard to its faculties and
operations. It is an intellectual or knowing agent, and it is a
moral agent. The power of the mind to put forth acts which are
of different kinds, or which stand in different relations, has given
rise to the division of the mind into different faculties. The most
general classification of these faculties is into the intellectual and
moral. In the exercise of its intellectual faculty, the mind looks
at tilings of a merely intellectual nature, as the principles of
mathematics ; or at things of a moral nature considered in a
merely intellectual light. Moral and spiritual things may be ob-
VOL. III. 17
194 JUSTIFICATION.
jects both of intellectual discernment and of moral affection ; and
the mind may put forth an act which shall relate to them in both
respects. The act may be one, but it may relate to the objects
in different points of view, and so may be both intellectual and
moral. Here the complexness of the act is to be resolved into
its bearing upon the same object in different respects, — in other
words, upon different aspects of the object. The mind acts intel-
lectually — it apprehends the object ; and it acts morally, that is,
it is pleased with the object — it loves what it perceives. And
the mind may be in such a state that it loves a holy object as soon
as it sees it — in such a state that it cannot see without loving ;
and most certainly it cannot love without seeing. In the language
of logicians, the perception must precede the affection, not in the
order of time, but in the order of nature. To love that of which
I have no apprehension would be to love that which to me has no
existence. It would be to love nothing. The apprehension of the
object is the ground, that is, the subjective ground of the love ;
while the objective ground is the contemplated loveliness of the ob-
ject. But because the apprehension of the object is presupposed
in the affection, we cannot infer that it is a distinct and separate
act, preceding the other in point of time. There may be no time
passing after I apprehend the object, before I love it. So far as
my consciousness goes, apprehending and loving may be one act —
one putting forth of mental power. And I may properly denote
that act by saying, that I see the object to be excellent and love-
ly, or by saying, I love it. It is clear, that no one can have a
true spiritual discernment of the moral beauty and loveliness of
Christ without a heart to love him. And love certainly implies a
perception of lovehness.
But there is a kind of knowledge or discernment, often men-
tioned in Scripture, which does not imply real love or holiness,
and has no connection with it. Judas and many others, who knew
the person, the miracles, and the instructions of Chi'ist, were not
his friends. They were blind to the moral beauty of his charac-
ter and his gospel. Spiritual things they knew not, and could not
know, while in their natural state. The same occurs at the pres-
JUSTIFICATION. 195
ent day. Many persons speculatively know and believe the facts
of the gospel history, the truth of its doctrines and the reasona-
bleness of its precepts, who have no spiritual discernment and no
saving faith. They have knowledge and faith ; but they do not
apprehend and believe the gospel spiritually. The devils believe
and know that there is a God ; but they see not his moral beauty
and glory! In hke manner unregeneratc men may have a very
correct understanding of the gospel, considered in a speculative
point of ^-iew. But they do not see its importance, its beauty and
excellence. In their view Christ has no form or comeliness ; and
when they see him, there is no beauty that they should desire
him. He is truly possessed of infinite beauty and glory. But
this is what the unholy do not discern, and of course do not love.
Their knowledge is merely speculative, and implies no love. But
it is not so with those who are sanctified. Their knowledge of
God and of Christ involves in its very nature affection to its ob-
jects.
I have made these remarks with a direct view to the subject
before us. I cannot but regard it as highly important to consider
justifying, saving faith as a spiritual, holy exercise, — an exercise
which involves love in its very nature ; so that, as "he that know-
eth God loveth God," it may with equal truth be said, he that
believeth, loveili. Justifying faith is both intellectual and moral —
a combined act of the understanding and the heart.
I well know that some writers have taken a very different posi-
tion, and have labored to prove that justifying faith is merely an
intellectual act, an exercise of the understanding distinct and sep-
arate from all moral affection, — of course destitute of holiness.
The particular reason which seems to have operated in their minds
in favor of this position, is, that it makes justification altogether a
matter of grace. In their reasoning it is assumed, that if faith
were a holy act, the believer must be justified on account of the
hohness of faith, and so after all, that justification would be a
matter of personal merit, and not of free grace, and that no dis-
tinction would remain between justification by faith, and justifica-
tion by works of obedience, inasmuch as the holiness of faith is
obedience.
196 JUSTIFICATION.
But this is certainly a groundless assumption. For faith may
be a holy act, and yet the holiness of faith may not be the ground
or procuring cause of the believer's justification. It is unques-
tionably true that repentance and love, which are required as con-
ditions of salvation, are holy acts ; but does it thence follow that
the Christian is saved on the ground of his repentance and love ?
Paul, Peter and John performed many acts of holy 'obedience.
But did they procure the blessings of forgiveness and the divme
favor by their obedience ? Did their salvation cease to be of
grace, because they had done good works ? Instead of this, did
they not feel their dependence for all spiritual blessings on the grace
of Christ moi-e and more strongly, as they advanced in sanctificar
tion ? And when the saints attain to perfect holiness and dwell
in the world above, will they not see and acknowledge more than
ever before, that their salvation from the beginning to the end is
to be ascribed, not to their own holiness, but to the free grace of
God through the blood of Christ ? Their hohness is itself an es-
sential part of their salvation. And it belongs to the very nature
of holiness in redeemed sinners, to abandon all ideas of justifica-
tion and eternal hfe on account of their own worthiness, and to
regard the work of Christ as the meritorious cause of all the good
they receive. This, I say, belongs to the very nature of hohness.
So that wherever holiness exists and is active in those who have
sinned, there all thought of self-righteousness, or justification by
works, will be renounced, and salvation be considered as wholly
gratuitous. Here then our doctrine ' of gratuitous justification
rests on a sure basis. Only let sinners be sanctified — let them
be illuminated by the divine Spirit, and repent, and exercise a holy
faith in Christ, and they will be sure to adopt the doctiine of Paul,
that justification is not by works, but by grace ; they will adopt
and hold fast this essential doctrine, Avhich is taught so clearly in
the word of God, and so fully confirmed by the ever-growing con-
victions of their own sanctified hearts.
There is a class of writers who represent justification and sane-
tification to be identical. When it is said, that " by the obedience
JUSTIFICATION. 197
of one, many were made righteous," they understand the mean-
ino- to be, that many were made mwardly righteous, or holy. But
it is evident that, Avhen the Apostle speaks of our being made
righteous by the obedience of Christ, and of our being justified
throu"-h his death, he puts our being justified or made righteous
in opposition to our being condemned, or held to suffer punishment.
Accordingly, the essential thing intended by our justification is, our
leing forgiven, or exempted from punishment. When God justi-
fies the ungodly, he frees them from suffering the penalty of the
law ; that is, he treats them as though they were personally just
or holy. When he sanctifies theiia, he makes them just or holy.
The prominent thing in one case relates to their condition as ex-
posed to punishment for sin ; in the other case, it relates to their
character as sinful. The one may be called a measure of divine
government, or an act of God as Lawgiver and Judge ; the other
as a work of God's Spirit in the heart. Although they always go
together, so that every one who is justified is sanctified, and every
one who is sanctified is justified, still they are in their nature dis-
tinct, and they are so represented in Scripture. Behevcrs are
justified through Christ's propitiatory sacrifice, so that nothing
will ever be laid to their charge ; and they are sanctified by the
Holy Spirit, that is, are conformed to the moral image of God,
and fitted for heavenly blessedness. In the language of an ex-
cellent writer, " Both these are found in the same subject. Justi-
fication and sanctification should be always discriminated ; but
they must never be dismiited. Where they are not distinguished,
a rehgious system cannot be clear ; and where they are divided,
it can never be safe. Where they are not distinguished, law and
gospel, free-will and free-grace, the merit of man and the right-
eousness of Christ, run into a mass of confusion. And where
they are divided, Pharisaic pride, or Antinomian presumption, will
be sure to follow. — Be it remembered then, that one regards some-
thing done for us, — the other, something done in us. The one is a
relative, the other a personal change. The one a change in our
state, the other in our nature. The one is perfect at once, the other
is gradual. The one is derived from the obedience of our Saviom-,
17*
198 JUSTIFICATIOlSr.
the other from his Spirit. The one gives us a title to heaven, the
other a meetuess for it."
The question has been much agitated, whether on the first act
of faith a man receives a real and final justification ; ivhether a
full forgiveness of all his sins and his filial acceptance tvith God
are sure to him as soon as he believes.
In regard to this, there are two representations of Scripture to
be particularly noticed. The first is found in those passages
which declare that every one who believes is pardoned, and shall
be saved ; that there is no condemnation to them who are in
Christ Jesus. This representation is often made, and is made in
language so plain, that its meaning cannot be easily misunderstood.
Unless every one who truly believes in Christ is really forgiven, —
unless he is delivered from a state of condemnation, and intro-
duced into a state of favor with God, and entitled to eternal life,
the promises to him who believes are evidently deceptive. The
other representation of Scripture to be noticed is, that our final
salvation depends on our perseverance in faith and obedience to
the end of life. " He that endureth to the end, shall be saved."
Eternal life is promised to those, " who, by patient continuance in
well-doing, seek for glory, honor, and immortality." And be-
lievers are told, that if they draw back, they cannot obtain final
salvation. All texts of this kind imply, that continuance in well
doing is an indispensable condition of our final acceptance. And
such a condition is thought to militate against the doctrine, that
forgiveness and eternal life are made sure to sinners, as soon as
they exercise faith in Christ.
But in reality, is there any inconsistency between these two
representations of Scripture ? May it not be true, that forgive-
ness and eternal life are secured to us as soon as we really believe
in Christ, and yet, that in order to have eternal life, we must be
faithful unto death ? If both of these may be true ; that is, — if
we may be certainly pardoned and our names written in heaven
on our first becoming believers, and if our continuing to be be-
lievers to the end of life is yet required as a condition of our being
finally saved, then clearly these things are not inconsistent with
JUSTIFICATION. 199
each other. In order to make out an inconsistency between
them, you must make out a case in -which one of them is true, and
the other not true ; — a case in which a man really believes so as
to be entitled to the promise of salvation, and yet does not finally
persevere in believing. The fact, that forgiveness and eternal
life are promised on different conditions, occasions no diflBculty,
if a compliance on our part with one of these conditions implies
that there will certainly be a compliance with all the other condi-
tions, A promise may very properly and consistently be made to
us of a free and full salvation on our first believing in Christ,
while yet we are told that we must persevere in faith and holiness
in order to be saved, on supposition that our first believing in
Christ has a sure connection with our perseverance in faith and
holiness. The question then is, whether such perseverance is
made certain to every one who believes. I think it evident from
Scripture, that this is the case. But the proof of this must be
postponed to a subsequent Lecture. What I now say is, that sup-
posing this to be true, no one can pretend that the two classes of
texts above-mentioned are inconsistent with each other.
But you ask, why believers are told that they must persevere
in faith and holiness in order to be saved, if their perseverance is
made certain by the first act of their faith. On this supposition,
you inquire, why believers are so frequently told that they must
persevere in order to be saved. I answer first ; they are told
this, because it is a truth, and a very importmit truth, — and none
the less important, because it is made certain. Secondly ; they
are told this, because they are moral agents, and must be influ-
enced to a holy life by suitable motives ; and one of the motives to
influence them to persevere is, that they cannot be saved without
perseverance ; just as it is a motive with men to repent, that they
must repent in order to be saved. The necessity of perseverance
constitutes a motive ; and as perseverance is none the less neces-
sary, so the motive from that necessity is none the less powerful,
because perseverance is made certain, — considering that it is made
certain in such a way as not to interfere at all with our free moral
agency.
200 JUSTIFICATION.
This might all be illustrated by an appeal to facts. Who that
truly believes in Christ, and has a full persuasion that all true be-
lievers will persevere, is prevented by that persuasion from feeling
the importance of persevering, or from the dihgent use of his facul-
ties in the work of persevering, or from earnest prayer that God
would give him grace to persevere ?
Here one more question must be briefly considered. If our
full and final justification, that is, our full and final forgiveness
and acceptance with G-od is made certain to us on our first believ-
ing in Christ, then where is the necessity or propriety of our pray-
ing for forgiveness in our subsequent life ? Why should we go
over the work of confessuig sin and seeking pardon, when a full
and final pardon was secured by the first act of faith ?
I reply, first, that every real Christian is led by his own recti-
fied feelings to confess his sins, to have sorrow for them, and to
pray daily for pardon, whatever hope or assurance he may have
that he is in a justified state. And such confession, sorrow and
prayer are conformed to the precepts of God's word and to the
recorded example of his prophets and apostles, and must therefore
be considered as just and right, whatever speculative difficulties
may attend the subject.
I reply, secondly, that the full and final forgiveness which are
secured to us as soon as we beheve, is secured in its proper connec-
tion and order, that is, in its connection with contmued faith and
prayer ; and though it is certainly secured, it is not secured and
cannot be enjoyed out of this connection. The continuance of faith
and prayer is as really necessary to our reaping the blessings of a
full forgiveness, as faith or prayer was necessary to our forgive-
ness at first. When we depart from God and transgress his law,
it is not possible that we should taste the joys of pardoned sin and
have peace with God — in other words, that we should sensibly
or really enjoy forgiveness, without the renewed exercise of re-
pentance, faith and prayer. Without this, we could no more
attain to the enjoyment of the blessings involved in forgiveness,
than we could attain to the blessedness of being with Christ in
heaven without holiness. As the fact, that heaven is secured to
JUSTIFICATION. 201
the believer, does not imply that he can enjoy it without the ne-
cessary qualifications ; so the fact, that a continual forgiveness is
secured to him on his first believing, docs not imply that he can
continue to enjoy that forgiveness without using the means which
the appointment of God and the nature of the case make necessary ;
in other words, without continued faith and prayer.
Consider also, that Christians have inward inducements to re-
pentance and prayer far more generous and noble, than the fear
of condemnation. They have seen and tasted that the Lord is
good ; and a sense of his goodness makes sin appear exceedingly
sinful. And when they are conscious of it in themselves, they
are led by the higher principles of their renewed hearts, to abhor
themselves, penitently to confess their sin, and to cry earnestly
to God for mercy, as David did, — " pardon my iniquity for it is
great."
In all such cases we are taught by the wisdom from above to
perform faithfully the duties enjoined upon us by the word of God
and then to let our right practice, our devout and holy life clear
away our difficulties, and straighten what is crooked in our intel-
lectual habits.
It is the doctrine of orthodox Protestants generally, that we
are justified through the imputed righteousness of Christ. This is
the doctrine of the creeds adopted by the Westminster Assembly
of Divines, by the Puritans of England and by Congregationahstg
and Presbyterians in the United States of America, by the Episco-
pal Church in both countries, and by the whole body of Reformed
churches in Europe from the time of Luther.
But this doctrine, or rather this manner of stating it, has for
some time past been objected to by ministers of the gospel in this
country, chiefly in New England. And many ministers and lay-
men, who have not come to a decision on the subject, have an
apprehension, that this form of the doctrine must be given up.
When we inquire for the reason of this dissent, we find it to be no
other than this ; that the doctrine is thought to imply that there
is a literal transfer of moral character, or personal attributes, from
one to another; — that when it is said, that Adam's sin was
202 JUSTIFICATION.
imputed to us, the meaning is, that Adam's sinful act became
literally our act ; that we ourselves did reallj commit the sin of
eating the forbidden fruit, and are in our own persons blame-
TTorthj for it ; that our sins having been imputed to Christ implies
that he was reallj a transgressor, that he himself committed all
the sins of those for whom he died, and so was, in reahtj, an
exceedingly unholy man, and an object of the divine displeasure ;
and that the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us implies
that his righteousness or holiness is literally transferred to us, so
that we ourselves are free from the defilement of sin, and are as
truly righteous, and as worthy of the divine complacency, as
Christ was. This apprehension as to the meaning of the doctrine,
is at the bottom of the objections urged against it. For when
objectors state the reason of their rejecting the doctrine of impu-
tation, they say it is absurd to suppose that there is a transfer of
moral good or evil from one person to another, or that one can be
deserving of praise or blame for the character or actions of another.
They say, they cannot receive a doctrine which is contrary to
their own consciousness, and which is evidently absurd. This is
their argument.
But I say, in rej)ly, that the men referred to are totally mis-
taken, as to the import of the doctrine against which they object.
The doctrine never had any such meaning as they give it. There
is no reason, either from Scripture or from standard Calvinistic
divines, to understand the word impute in this manner. When
God imputes to men their own sins, the meaning evidently is, that
he holds them guilty and punishes them ; and his not imputing sin
]& his withholding punishment. From Rom. 4: 3 — 8 it appears, that
vat to impute sin, and to impute righteousness, is the same thing.
Paul shows the meaning of the word, when he says to Philemon
respecting Onesimus, " If he hath wronged thee or oweth thee aught,
jput that to mine account; " according to the original Greek, impute
it or reckon it to me — consider it as my debt; "I will repay it."
In all such cases the sense of the word, according to the best
authorities, is, " to reckon to one what does not properly belong
to him." Thus, when the righteousness of Christ is said to be
JUSTIFICATION 203
imputed to us, the meaning is not, that it properly belongs to us
as our own personal righteousness, but that it is so reckoned to us,
or put to our account, that we share the benefits of it, or are
treated as though we were righteous. In other words, that the
fruits of Christ's righteousness are conferred upon us. It is in
this manner that the doctrine of imputation has been understood
and explained by its most intelligent advocates. It is true, that
some Antinomian writers have advanced opinions on the subject,
which are totally unscriptural and of the most immoral tendency.
And some others, who have been sound in the faith, particularly
among the early Reformers, have used expressions which, if taken
by themselves, without regard to their peculiar circumstances,
would convey a different meaning of the doctrine from the one I
have given. But a candid and thorough examination of the writ-
ings of the standard orthodox divines will show, that the meaning
put upon the doctrine by some late New England divines is wholly
unauthorized. The most learned and discriminatins; amono; the
orthodox divines, both Lutheran and Calvinistic, take special pains
to show, that the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us does
not imply that his righteousness is transferred to us, or infused
into us, so as to become our personal attribute, but only that we
partake of its benefits ; that his righteousness is ours imputatively.
Paul says righteousness is imputed to believers ; that is, they are
benefitted by a righteousness which is not their own.
This view of impvitation might be confirmed by quotations from
Turretine, and all the principal orthodox divines, ancient and
modem. Calvin says : " To place our righteousness in the obedi-
ence of Christ is to affirm, that hereby oyily we are accounted
righteous, because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us, as if
it were our own^ Fuller's explanation is more perspicuous.
" Imputation," he says, " is neither the actual transference of
our sins to Christ, so as to constitute him really a sinner, nor the
actual transference of his righteousness to us, so as to constitute
us really innocent and praiseworthy ; but the legal counting of
our sins to him, so as that he endured the consequences of them;
and the legal counting of his righteousness to ws, so as that we
204 JUSTIFICATION.
enjoy the blessings given in reivard of it.^' Dr. George Payne
says, still more clearly and guardedly, that " the Scripture sense
of the phrase, to count sin or righteousness to an individual,
(whether his own or that of some one else,) is to treat that indi-
vidual as a sinful or rigJdeous man.''^ He says: " This view of
imputation assumes, that the one perfect work of the Son of God
is the ground of justification, to the exclusion of every other."
And he considers it as the substance of the doctrine, that the
believer is treated as a just man, for the sake of the righteousness
of Immayiuel. He makes it evident, that the Scripture phrase to
impute sin or righteousness to any one means, to treat him as if
he were a sinful or a righteous man. And so " to impute Christ's
righteousness to us, is to treat us as though we possessed it, or
" to give us eternal life in consequence of it." Dr. Gardiner
Spring represents the subject in the same light. " Righteousness
is made over to the behever, and put, as it were, upon him ; and
he enjoys the full benefit of it, just as though it were his own."
" According to God's gracious method of reckoning in the gospel,
believers are treated as righteous, because Christ himself, their
covenant Head and Representative, is righteous. His righteous-
ness is imputed to them, or set down to their account. Though it
does not personally belong to them, it is reckoned to them ; as if
it were their own."
This, then, is the result. The righteousness of Christ is
imputed to believers, or is so reckoned to their account as to be
the moral basis of God's special favor to them ; so imputed or
made over to them, that they receive eternal life on account
of it.
Now what right has any man to say, that the doctrine of impu-
tation implies anything contrary to this ; especially to say, that it
implies such an impossibility as a real transfer of moral character
from one to another, and then to argue against it on that ground ?
What author, entitled to respect among the Calvinists, has ever
advanced a doctrine containing such an absurdity, or given such
an explanation of justification by the imputed righteousness of
Christ?
JUSTIFICATION. 205
Do you still object to the word imputation? But you cannot
fail to see that the Scriptures really teach the doctrine under
consideration, and that in some passages they employ language
very similar to that against which you object. They speak of
imputing righteousness without works, that is, imputing righteous-
ness where personal righteousness is wanting. And they even
speak of one man as doing what was done by another who lived
long before him. " Levi," a descendant of Abraham, ^^ paid titJies
in Abraham ; for he was in the loins of his father when Melchise-
dec met him ; " which doubtless means that Levi, in consequence
of his relation to Abraham, came under the influence of what
Abraham did ; that Abraham's act was imputed or reckoned to
him, so that it was as though he himself had paid tithes to Mel-
chisedec, and had thus acknowledged his inferiority to that priest
of the Most High. In conforniity with this language, the Cate-
chism says, that all the posterity of Adam " sinned in him and
fell with him in his first transgression." This expression is
marked with freedom and boldness ; but it is no more free and
bold than the language of Scripture. The meaning of it is, that
Adam acted as the head and representative of the human race,
and that they partake of the evil effects of his sin, or that their
moral depravity and ruin come in consequence of his sin ; accord-
ing to Rom. 5: 12—19.
The righteousness of Christ must be understood to consist in
his perfect obedience to the law and his death on the cross ; or,
as the Apostle expresses it, his obedience unto death. His volun-
tary death was in compliance with the Father's command, and so
was an essential part of his obedience. His righteousness, or his
merits as Redeemer, must comprise the whole of what he did and
suffered for us in his state of humiliation.
But while the imputation of Christ's righteousness to beUevers
dcfes not mean that his righteousness is literally transferred to
them ; or that it is infused into them, so as to make them person-
ally righteous ; it is far from being intended that they can be
saved without being themselves personally righteous or holy. For
surely he did not die to purchase for us liberty to Hve in sin.
VOL. ni. 18
206 JUSTIFICATION.
Instead of this, one essential object of his mission was to redeem
us from all iniquity and to make us spiritual and holy. I must
repeat it, that our doctrine is simply this, — that God saves us
from suJBfering the penalty of the law, and grants us the blessings
of salvation, on account of the righteousness of Christ. We
receive good from his righteousness, as though it were our own.
This is the great doctrine of the gospel, — " articulus stantis vel
cadentis ecclesiae."
Do you question the propriety or the expediency of this mode
of stating the doctrine of justification, because it has sometimes
been so understood as to have an Antinomian tendency ? I
reply, that the language we employ will not fairly admit of such
a construction, and that the objection proceeds v/holly on the
ground of a misapprehension. And how can this be avoided by
changing the mode of stating the doctrine ? For what language
can be vised by any man, whether inspired or not, which can be
secured against the danger of being misunderstood and misrepre-
sented, and of thus becoming the occasion of error ? And is it
expedient — nay, is it admissible — that the customary language
of theology, and the language of prayer and religious conver-
sation, and the language of God's word, too, should be given up
or changed, because it has been, or possibly may be, misrepre-
sented ? And if you should give it up, or substitute other
language in its place, could you thereby prevent the possibility of
mistake ? In regard to the propriety of any phraseology, the
question is not, whether a wrong sense can be put upon it, but
whether it is adapted, when candidly interpreted, to convey a true
and Scriptural sense. The word impute, as employed in the Cate-
chism, has been in general use for ages among the advocates of the
truth, to set forth the gospel doctrine of justification ; and I main-
tain that this use is in accordance with Scripture and with the
common laws of language.
What, then, is to be done in this case, to guard against error
and to convey a just idea of the doctrine ? The same, I reply,
as is done in other like cases. The theological terms, which are
used for the sake of convenience, must be carefully explained.
JUSTIFICATION. 207
We must show what sense is intended, and what sense is to be
avoided. It is, in my judgment, far better to retain the phraseo-
logy in common use, especially when it is in itself unexception-
able, than to introduce a new phraseology. All experience shows
that any change in the settled mode of speech, particularly on
such a subject, is attended with difficulty and danger. For the
most part, it occasions disadvantage to the cause of truth. And
I must be permitted to say, it is generally too evident, that those
who are forward to lay aside the common language by which
orthodox doctrines have been expressed, either have renounced,
or are incHned to renounce, the doctrines themselves. Examples
of this have frequently occurred, in regard to the common phrase-
ology respecting the Trinity, atonement, the new birth, and other
kindred subjects. Men have professedly objected merely to the
terms of the orthodox creed, not seeming to extend their objec-
tions to the creed itself. But time has often made it manifest,
that their objections really lay against the doctrines contained in
the creed, and that they began to depart from what has been held
to be Scripture truth, before they found fault with the common
phraseology. Hence the importance of the direction of the Apos-
tle, to " hold fast the form of sound words." *
* I cannot suffer the above remarks to stand without an exception. I have
known many ministers, who have very honestly laid aside the word impute, in
regard to the sin of Adam and the righteousness of Christ, because they have
somehow overlooked its real import, while they have earnestly maintained the
very doctrines which are held by those who freely use the word.
I ought, in impartial justice, to add one thing more ; namely, that the language
eometimes employed by Luther and other Reformers, in the heat of their contro-
versy with the Papists on the present subject, has the stamp of extravagance and
rashness, and is incapable of being justified. Many of the passages quoted by
Moehler, in his ingenious work on Symbolism, give more pLiusibility than ought
to be given to his objections against the Reformation. The Reformation itself,
and the great body of the doctrines of the Reformation, may be, and have been,
triumphantly defended. But there is occasionally an indiscretion, excess, and
I'iolence in the writings of some of the Reformers, which cannot be defended.
LECTURE cm
PAUL AKD JAMES RECONCILED. THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE PRO-
MOTIVE OF GOOD WORKS.
To reconcile the writings of Paul and James on tlie subject of
justification, has to many appeared very difficult, and to some
impossible. But a proper attention to the rules of interpretation
will, I think, contribute not a little towards a satifactory solution
of the difficulty. It is one of the most obvious and important
rules for interpreting the language of any writer, especially of
one who wrote in former times, that we should, as far as we can,
consider the circumstances of the writer, the particular occasion
of his writing, the object he had in view, the error he meant
to oppose, and the truth he aimed to defend ; in a word, that we
should, as far as possible, put ourselves in the- condition of the
writer.
What, then, was the condition of Paul ? What was the error
he wished to confute, and the doctrine he undertook to teach and
defend ? This we learn from his writings, particularly from his
Epistles to the behevers at Rome and Galatia. His duty, as an
Apostle, required him to expose the mistake of those who sought
to be justified by a conformity with the precepts of the law — who
went about to establish, by their own works, a righteousness on
which they could depend for salvation. To convince them of their
error, he presented before them the requirements and the sanc-
tions of the divine law. He showed them that the law promised
life to obedience, and threatened death for transgression ; that all
JUSTIFICATION. PAUL AND JAMES. 209
men, Jews and Gentiles, were transgressors, and of course were
cut off from the possibility of being justified by the law, and were
under the sentence of condemnation. He also taught them, that
in the dispensation of grace, Christ had made propitiation for sm,
and offered them eternal life ; that whosoever would receive the
testimony of God, and believe in his Son Jesus Christ, should be
saved ; that justification before God could be obtained only in
this new and living way, and was altogether a matter of grace.
This was the doctrine of Paul — the doctrine which existing cir-
cumstances required him to teach and defend. Had he been in
the circumstances of James, he would doubtless have taught the
same doctrine with him ; and though in circumstances so different,
he did in fact teach substantially the same thing, affirming and
provmg clearly and repeatedly, in his own way, that his doctrine
of justification by faith was as far as possible from giving or admit-
ting any license to neglect good works. The moment Paul turned
bis thoughts to that point, he was as fully awake to the necessity
of good works as James was, and asserted it as strongly and
decidedly. " Shall we sin," he said, " because we are not under
the law, but under grace ? " He taught that being under the
dispensation of grace, and being justified by faith, instead of dis-
pensing with obedience to the law, effectually secured it ; and thus
he made it perfectly manifest, that the doctrine which he so ear-
nestly taught was by no means exposed to the objection, which he
saw would be brought against it ; namely, that it encouraged the
neglect of good works, or opened a door for disobedience. And
it will be seen before we have done, that as Paul taught the doc-
trine of James, James taught the doctrine of Paul.
The Apostle James wrote to those who professed to have faith,
but had not works ; and he told them plainly that their faith, that
is, faith not productive of good works, could not save them.
"Why ? Because " being alone," that is, not attended with good
works, it was " dead." See James 2: 17. Such faith was not
the faith which justifies and saves, and it was not the faith of
which Paul speaks. In verse 18 he teaches, that there is no pos-
sible way to show our faith, that is, to show that we have true
18*
210 JUSTIFICATIOlSr. PAUL AND JAMES.
faith, but by works of benevolence. In verse 19 he pursues the
same subject, and refers to the faith of devils. For what pur-
pose ? Manifestly to illustrate the worthlessness of that faith
•which is not productive of good works, and which he repeatedly
declares to be " dead."
Thus we see clearly what was the teaching of James. The
faith which he calls dead, and which he says cannot save, and
which he treats as no better than the faith of devils, was a very
different thing from the faith of which Paul speaks, and which he
declares to be justifying faith. Paul never said that we can de
justified hy a dead faith. And ivhen James says we cannot he
justified hy a dead faith, he does not contradict Paul. For what
does James really teach ? Why, he teaches that a particular
kind of faith, that is, a dead faith, does not justify. And what
does Paul teach ? He teaches that another kind of faith does
justify. They teach two distinct truths, as their different occa-
sions required. But those truths, like all other truths, though
distinct, are entirely consistent. And the ministers of Christ, at
this day, must teach what Paul taught and also what James
taught. If they fail in either, they are wanting in fidelity.
Look again. Did Paul mean to recommend that faith which
James declares to be useless ? Or did James undervalue that
faith which Paul declares to be so important ? No. "What they
did was to assert different truths, and to confute different errors,
just as their different circumstances rendered necessary. And
the language they used, like all the language of good writers,
corresponded with their different subjects, and with their different
tastes and habits.
Some authors incline to the idea, that wliile Paul and James
speak of different kinds of justification, they speak of the same
kind of faith. But it lies on the very face of what the two
apostles have written, that their minds were turned upon two dif-
ferent kinds of faith ; the one dead and fruitless, the other alive
and efficacious. James says, a dead faith, a faith like what the
devils have, cannot justify. But Paul speaks of a faith which
does justify. And yet Paul himself sometimes does just what
JUSTIFICATION. PAUL AND JAMES. 211
James does, that is, expressly refers to a kind of faith which is of
no avail, because it is separate from love, and is of course separ
rate from those good works which are the fruits of love. See
1 Cor. 13: 2, " And though I have all faith — and have not char-
ity, I am nothing."
But these two apostles treat not only of different kinds of faith^
but of different kinds of justification also. Wardlaw says, " The
true solution of the difficulty appears to be, that the subjects of
which these inspired writers treat, are not the same. They are
reasoning against different descriptions of persons, and are speak-
ing of different justifications. The one treats of the justification
before God of a sinner considered as condemned hy the law ; the
other treats of a believer in Christ considered in that capacity ;^*
that is, considered as a believer. In accordance with this, Fuller
says, " By justification, Paul meant the acceptance of a sinner
before God. But James refers to his being approved of God as
a true Christian ;" that is, as having true faith. The justifica-
tion of which Paul treats, that is, forgiveness and acceptance with
God, is, we have seen, " by faith, that it might be of grace."
The other justification is by works ; which is the same as saying,
that those who do good works are manifested to be true believers —
are seen to be approved of God — that is, are seen to have true,
justifying faith ; — as James says, " I will shoiv thee my faith by
my works." And in exact accordance with this, he says, " Was
not Abraham justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son ♦
upon the altar ?" Soiv justified ? The passage referred to shows.
Gen. 22: 12. The angel said to Abraham, " Now I hioiv that
thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only
son from me." " Now I know," that is, it is now made manifest^
" that thou fearest God." In this way " Abraham was justified
by works when he offered up his son." " His faith wrought with
his works ;" so James has it ; or as it is, Heb. 11: 17, " He
offered up Isaac by faiths What he did was the out-going and
manifestation of faith. By this act of obedience it was known
that he feared God, or was a true believer. In like manner it is
said, Heb. 11: 4, that Abel, by the sacrifice he offered to God,
212 JUSTIFICATION. PAUL AND JAMES.
obtained ivitness tliat he was righteous. His obedience was a
proof or evidence that he was righteous. By his works he was
justified declai-atively. And it was, I apprehend, in this sense,
that Jesus said, Matt. 12: 37, " By thy words thou shalt be justi-
fied, and by thy words shalt thou be condemned." The words
which men are accustomed to speak, will be evidence in their far
vor, or against them, — will show that they are justified and ap-
proved of God, or disapproved. The same appears to be the
sense of Kom. 2; 13. " Not the hearers of the law are just before
God ; but the doers of the law are justified." Doing the works
of the law proves men to be in a justified state.
One thing is remarkable, though genei-ally overlooked ; namely,
that James quotes the very passage. Gen. 15: 6, which Paul
quotes, Rom. 4: 3, and in other places, and to which he attaches
so much importance. James says, " And that Scripture was ful-
filled which says, Abraham believed God, and it was counted to
him for righteousness." Now if the most important text, by
which Paul confirms his doctrine of justification by faith, was also
fulfilled in the doctrine of James ; what reason can there be to
think their doctrines inconsistent with each other ? They did in-
deed teach two difierent branches of divine truth. But it is per-
fectly plain that neither of them interferes with the teaching of
the other. They both say, Abraham believed God, and it was
counted to him for righteousness ; that is, he was justified by
faith. And they both maintain with equal earnestness, though in
difierent language, that those who have faith will show it by good
works. Sinners who believe, are justified before God by faith ;
and they are justified as Christians — they are made known as
those who fear God and are accepted of him, by works of obe-
dience. Both justifications are necessary. And they are not
only consistent, but they imply each other. The first leads to the
second ; and the second results from the first. James does not
say, that justification, taken in the same sense, is both by faith
and by works. But he teaches, that there is a justification by
works, as well as a justification by faith ; and that there cannot
be the latter where there is not the former, as no man is justified
JUSTIFICATION. PAUL AND JAMES. 213
by faith, as a sinner, who ia not also, in due time, justified hy
works as a believer.
Knapp suggests that the works of law, whether moral or cere-
monial, which Paul excludes from being the ground of justifica-
tion, are essentially different from the good works which are ac-
ceptable to God, and which secure a gracious reward. But he
does not make the distinction clear. And if there is such a dis-
tinction, it must still be true, that good works, works of obedience
done from the best motives, can have no place as the ground or
procuring cause of our forgiveness and acceptance with God.
On the whole, there appears no more difference between the
teachings of Paul and James, than what naturally arose from the
difference in their subjects, and in their genius, taste, and manner
of writing. And all which both of them have written is as im-
portant at the present time, as it was in their day, to make out a
consistent and complete system of doctrinal and practical truth.
A heavy charge has been constantly brought by our opponents
against our doctrine of justification by faith, as encouraging men
to live in sin — as opening the door to all manner of wickedness.
But let us pause a little, and see whether the charge is founded
in truth.
First. It is indeed true, according to our doctrine, that good
works are of no account as the meritorious ground of our forgive-
ness and acceptance with God. But this by no means implies that
good works are of no account in other ways. Because we hold
that works are not necessary in one particular respect, we cannot
be justly charged with holding that they are not necessary in
other respects. How often is it the case that a thing is mdispensa-
ble, yea, of the highest consequence, in regard to particular ob-
jects, while it has no relation to some other object, and so is of no
use in regard to it. It is then evident, that those who urge this
allegation against our doctrine, are chargeable with sophistical
reasoning. Their objection, as every one must see, has no kind
of force. And it is not only without force, but is exceedingly un-
just, seeing we are not behind any Christians in asserting and in-
214 JUSTIFICATION. PAUL AND JAMES.
sisting upon the importance and necessity of good works, —
though we do not allow them to be the proper basis of justification.
Secondly. If any, who profess to hold the doctrine of justifi-
cation by faith, do in fact regard and use it as an encouragement
to sin ; is it right that their misapplication and abuse of the doc-
trine should be urged as an objection to the doctrine itself ? There
were those in the Apostle's day, who turned the grace of God
into hcentiousness. But would it be right to make their wicked-
ness an objection to the doctrine Avhich they thus perverted — es-
pecially when the Apostle taught that the doctrine had a directly
contrary influence ? Every truth is hable to misconception and
abuse, and none more so than this doctrine of justification and
salvation by grace.
Thirdly. Look at facts. Are not those Christians, who hold
the doctrine of justification by faith, as much distinguished for
good works — are they not as uniformly obedient to the divine
commands, as those who deny the doctrine ? The most strenuous
opposers of orthodoxy have admitted this, and more than this.
And do not the facts in the case show, that those who maintain
our doctrine, instead of undervaluing good works, do really and
practically consider them as of the highest moment, and as abso-
lutely necessary to salvation ?
Fourthly. Come to the doctrine itself. I hold that the doc-
trine, rightly apprehended, contains, or carries along with it, a
combination of the highest conceivable motives to the practice of
good works. I begin with love, which is the most powerful and
efficacious of all motives to obedience. Christ says, they that
love him will keep his commandments. It must be so. Obedi-
ence is the natural and necessary expression of love ; it is love
itself, acted out in the life. But this powerful principle is insepa-
rable from faith. Faith works by love. That faith which is with-
out love, Paul says, is without value.
Here comes in also the powerful influence of gratitude. Be-
lievers, having a full conviction that they cannot be saved by their
own works, and receiving salvation as a free gift, have, and are
sensible that they have, the strongest reasons for gratitude. They
JUSTIFICATION. PAUL AND JAMES. 215
feel that they are not their own — that they belong to him vrho
has bou'i-ht them with his own precious blood, and has bestowed
upon them an mnnerited gift of infinite worth ; and their great
concern is to live to him who died for them, and to glorify him by
bearing much fruit.
It is moreover true, according to the representation of Scrip-
ture, that the very faith by which believers are justified, pu-
rifies their hearts, and overcomes the world, and that it is the
grand, efficacious principle of a holy life. Christians walk by
faith.
We here see, and we have before seen, what is the nature and
influence of faith. No other motives to obedience have so great
a power, as those which are brought to act upon the mind by faith.
To say then that justification by faith leads to the neglect of good
■works, is a contradiction. It is the same as to say, that they who
are influenced by the strongest possible motives to obey, will be
the most likely to disobey. I do not say that these motives exert
such an influence upon Christians notwithstanding their behef in
the doctrine of justification by faith, but that the motives are in-
volved in the doctrine itself^ and that all who truly embrace the
doctrine, will feel that influence, and will feel it more efiectually
in proportion as they receive the doctrine more heartily, and hold
it with a firmer grasp.
And here plain truth compels me to say, that Swedenborg,
Catholics, Socinians and others are guilty of injustice seldom
equalled, when they allege, that the doctrine of the Reformers in
regard to justification is of an immoral tendency, and leads to the
.practice of impiety and vice. If they would attend to Scripture
testimony, and to the declared belief and the known practice of
the Reformers — if they would regard arguments or facts, they
•would cease to make use of an objection which has thousands of
times been shown to be utterly groundless.
Look then for a few moments at the real doctrine of the Re-
formers, and of those who have since followed their faith, in
regard to justification and good ivorks. This you will best
learn from their Symbols or pubUshed Confessions, in which
216 JUSTIFICATION. PAUL AND JAMES.
they have set forth their belief with all possible clearness and
care.
The Augsburg Confession was drawn up, at the suggestion of
the Protestant Princes, bj Melaucthon, in the year 1530, and ex-
presses the views of the Reformers with remarkable perspicuity.
The following extracts show how thej understood and taught the
doctrine of justification, and of good works : " Notwithstanding
the gospel requires repentance — it teacheth us that remission is
given us freely, that is, that it doth not depend on the condition
of our own worthiness, nor is given for any works that went be-
fore, nor for the worthiness of such as follow after." — " Although
contrition in repentance is necessary, yet we must know that re-
mission of sins was given unto us, and that we are made just of
unjust, that is, reconciled or acceptable — freely for Christ, and
not for the worthiness of our contrition, or of any good works
which either go before or follow after." But it is added, that
*' the promise," that is, the promise of gratuitous justification,
*' detracteth nothing from good works, yea, it doth stir up men
unto faith, and unto true good works." — Again. " When we say
that we are justified by faith, we do not mean that we are just for
the wortJdness of i hat virtue, hnt — that we obtain remission of
sins and the imputation of righteousness by mercy showed us for
Christ's sake. But this mercy cannot be received but by faith."
Further. " St. Paul and St. James do not disagree. For where
James saith, the devils believe and tremble, he speaketh of a his-
torical faith. Now this faith doth not justify. — Whereas, when
we teach in our churches the most necessary doctrine and comfort
of faith, we join therewith the doctrine of good works, to wit, that
obedience to the law of God is requisite in them that are recon-
ciled. For the gospel preacheth newness of life, according to
that saying, / will put my laws in their hearts. — And thus
we must judge that good works are necessary, that they are are
service of God, and spiritual sacrifices, and that they deserve a
reward."
The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England were agreed
upon by the Archbishops, Bishops and clergy of England and Ire-
JUSTIFICATION. PAUL AND JAMES. 217
land, in the year 1562, and were adopted as the Faith of the
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, in the year
1801. The following quotations are sufficient for the present pur-
pose.
" We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of
our Lord Jesus Christ, by faith ; and not for our own works or
deservings." — " Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of
faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and
endure the severity of God's judgment, yet are they pleasing
and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily
of a true and lively faith ; insomuch that by them a lively
faith may be as evidently known, as a tree is discerned by the
fruit."
The Westminster Confession, which treats the subject of justi-
fication, faith and works more clearly and fully, was drawn up
by an assembly of divines convened at Westminster, 1643, and
approved by the General Assembly of the church of Scotland,
1645. It was acknowledged as the Confession of Faith of the
New^ England churches by the Synod of Cambridge, 1648. It is
also received by the several branches of the Presbyterian church
in the United States.
" Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth ;
not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their
sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as right-
eous : not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but
for Christ's sake alone ; not by imputing faith itself, the act
of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as
their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfac-
tion of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and
his righteousness by faith." — " Faith, thus receiving and rest-
ing on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of
justification ; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is
ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead
faith, but worketh by 'love." — " Christ, by his obedience and
death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus
justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to
VOL. m. 19
218 JUSTIFICATION. PAUL AND JAMES.
lus Father's justice in their behalf. Yet inasmuch as he was
^ven of the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction
accepted in their stead, and both freelj, not for anything in
them, their justification is only of free grace." — "By this
faith," (saving faith) " a Christian believeth to be true what-
soever is revealed in the word -^ and acteth differently upon
that which each particular passage thereof containeth, yield-
ing obedience to the commands, trembhng at the threatenings,
and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which
is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are, ac-
cepting, receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justifica-
tion, sanctification and eternal life." — "Good works are only
such as God has commanded in his holy word, and not such
as without any warrant thereof are devised by men. — These
good works, done in obedience to God's commands, are the
fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith ; and by them be-
lievers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance,
edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop
the mouths of adversaries, and glorify God, whose workman-
ship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, hav-
ing their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal
life."
The Savoy Confession was agreed upon by the Elders and
Messengers of the Congregational churches in England, at their
meeting at Savoy, 1658, and was approved by the Synod of
the Congregational churches in Massachusetts, 1680, and by
the Elders and Messengers of the churches m Connecticut, as-
sembled at Saybrook, 1708. This Confession is the same as
the Westminster Confession, excepting a few slight variations
in the expressions, which afiect not the doctrine. Indeed no
one, without a very careful comparison, would perceive any dif-
ference.
On the subject of justification and good works, the Helvetic,
the French, the Belgic, the Bohemian, the Baptist, and the Meth-
odist Confessions all agree with the Presbyterian and Episco-
palian Confessions as above quoted. And if any one wishes
JUSTIFICATION. PAUL AND JAMES. 219
to know more particularly how totally groundless and false is
any allegation against the orthodox churches of Protestant
Christendom in regard to the theory or practice of good works,
let him peruse the writings of the most distinguished Protest-
ant divines, from Melancthon and Calvin to Edwards and
Dwight.
LECTURE CIV.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE STATED AND
PROVED.
Every doctrine of Scripture, taken In the sense in which the
inspired writers intended to teach it, bears the stamp of divine
truth and divine authority, and is adapted to produce a sahitary
effect upon those who beheve it. But any doctrine of revelation
may be so misapprehended, as to have the nature and influence of
error. And this misapprehension often arises from the circum-
stance that a doctrine of Scripture is contemplated and believed
alone, its relation to other truths being overlooked. A regard to
that relation is always important, and often indispensable to a right
understanding of a doctrine. But the modification which a doc-
trine receives from its connection with other doctrines is seldom
set forth in express terms in the word of God, and is not generally
considered as it should be, by those who believe in revelation. It
becomes then an important inquiry, how this great evil is to be
avoided. The answer is obvious. Scripture teaches not only the
particular doctrine which we at any time consider, but all the
other doctrines to which it bears a relation. It devolves then
upon us as our duty, to receive with a simple, child-like faith,
each doctrine and all the doctrines taught in Scripture, — to give
them all a place in our understandings and our hearts. When
the doctrines of revelation are thus received and held by an in-
telligent and devout Christian, they will be likely, without any
labor of philosophy or logic on his part, to adjust themselves prop-
erly in his mind, and, perhaps in a way of which he is not partic-
PERSEVEKANCE OF SAINTS. 221
ularlj aware, to give to themselves and to each other the very
modification required. An enlightened and comprehensive faith
has an efficacy to prevent misapprehension. Whore such a faith
exists, the truth of each doctrine is clearly seen, because other
related doctrines are seen in their proper connection with it. In
proportion as the spirit of faith is exercised, the various doctrines
of revelation will stand before the mind, each in its own light and
also in the light reflected upon it from the others ; while all to-
gether will exert a harmonious and happy moral influence. And
this freedom from misconception and this sanctifying influence of
the various truths of Scripture in the minds of believers is owing,
as I have suggested, not to any laborious intellectual process, but
to a serious, earnest searching of the word of God, and to the
acting of a simple, child-like faith.
My present object is, to give a statement and explanation of the
doctrine of the Saints^ Perseverance ; to present the evidence of
its truth ; to obviate objections against it ; and to notice its practi-
cal uses.
The statement we give of the doctrine should not be embar-
rassed with any matters which do not essentially belong to it. For
example ; it would be improper to represent the doctrine to be
this ; that every regenerate person will certainly be preserved
from all habits and all wilful acts of sin, and will continually go
forward in the way of obedience till he reaches heaven. For both
Scripture and experience show, that real believers are often in-
terrupted in their obedience ; that they are prone to backslide ;
that they have wrong habits of feeling and action ; that they often
and sometimes wilfully commit sin, and always, in this life, fall
short of perfect conformity with the divine law. Nor is it neces-
sary in stating the doctrine, to say, that believers are never en-
tirely destitute of the exercise of holiness. Such a declaration,
to say the least, would be contrary to appearances., and to the
consciousness of Christians. And, considering the ambiguity of
language, it would be inexpedient and unsafe to say, without ex-
planation, that real Christians have no power to apostatize — that
they cannot fall away and perish. For in an obvious and impor-
19*
222 PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS.
tant sense, it is not only true that they have power to apostatize,
and can fall away and perish, but that, in themselves considered,
they are in the utmost danger of doing it. So the Synod of Dort
express it: "Because of the remains of indwelling sin and the
temptations of the world and of Satan, the converted could not
continue in this grace, if they were left to their own strength."
Again they say, " Not by their own merits or strength, but by the
gratuitous mercy of God, they obtain it, that they neither totally
fall from faith and grace, nor finally continue in their falls and
perish ; which, so far as they themselves are concerned^ not only
might easily be done, but would undoubtedly be done ; while,
in respect to God, it cannot be done, as his counsel cannot be
changed, nor his promise fail, nor their vocation according to his
purpose be rendered void, nor the sealing of the Holy Spirit be-
come vain, or be obliterated." Our doctrine then imphes, that
if believers sin, as they often do, they will repent ; that is, that
they will not sin impenitently, as others do ; that if they back-
slide, they will be restored ; that if amid the pollutions of the
world they are polluted, they will be purified ; that if they depart
from the way of holiness, they will return to it. Thus, according
to the doctrine, they will be preserved from all fatal dangers.
Though in themselves inconstant, and weak, and prone to trans-
gress, they will be kept by the power of God through faith unto
salvation. The doctrine, as now explained, is the statement of
the important fact, that all the regenerate ivill finally persevere in
faith and obedience, and attain to eternal life.
I now proceed to the proof of the doctrine.
My first inquiry is, whether the doctrine can be conclusively
proved from the nature of holiness in those who are renewed. My
reply is this. If the nature of holiness in a moral agent, would,
by itself, certainly secure its perpetual continuance, then no holy
being would ever fall into sin. But we know that both angelic
and human beings have fallen from a state of holiness to a state
of sin. These facts show what is also evident from other consid-
erations, that holiness, existing in created beings, does not, by
itself, involve the certamty of its continuance. No being but God
PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS. 223
is absolutely immutable. Dependent beings, particularly those
who are in a state of probation, are hi themselves liable to change.
Though they are holy to-day, yet, unless sustained by divine
power, they may become unholy to-morrow.
But although the nature of hohness in dependent beings, con-
sidered by itself, would not certainly prove that it will be perpetu-
ated ; yet a presumptive argument in favor of this conclusion may
be derived from the peculiar ciroamstances of the case in redeem-
ed sinners. A great and marvellous work has been accompUshed
in order to bring about their renewal. God has sent his Son to
die for them, and to prepare the way for their salvation. He has
caused them to hear the glad tidings, and by his Spirit inclined
them to accept the offered Saviour. These gracious proceedings,
these acts of a Redeeming God, opening the way for their salva-
tion, and beginning the work of salvation in their hearts, clearly
indicate his merciful purpose to give them eternal life, and so may
be regarded as evidence of no small weight, that they will be pre-
served from final apostasy, and will attain to eternal life. This
evidence, you observe, does not arise from the mere nature of
holiness, but from those circumstances of the case which indicate
God's purpose to save the regenerate.
Can then the certain perseverance of all who are regenerated
be proved from the doctrine of election ? I reply ; that this doctrine
clearly proves the final perseverance of all who are regenerated,
unless it can be shown that some are regenerated who are not
elected to salvation. But this would be a hopeless undertaking.
For it is the representation of Scripture, that when God calls men
with a holy callmg, he does it in execution of his eternal purpose
to save ; that conversion or faith is the commencement of eternal
life ; and that all who are called according to his purpose, are
justified and glorified. If the doctrine of election proves the
final salvation of any believers, it proves the salvation of all be-
lievers.
Again, I inquire, whether the perseverance of believers can be
certainly inferred from the bare consideration of the benevolence,
the power, and the imynutability of Grod. Now it seems to me
224 PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS.
that any attempt to prove the certain perseverance of believers
from the attributes of God, considered as separate from the instruc-
Uons of his word, would involve us in the difficulties to which we
are always exposed when we venture upon such a mode of reason-
ing. "We can safely conclude, that a Being, possessed of infinite
perfections, will certainly do what is right. But in regard to
many subjects, and particularly the present subject, we should
be unable by our own reason to determine what is right ; and
hence we should be utterly unable to determine in what particular
manner God will manifest his perfections, except so far as he
himself should give us information. If we were uninstructed by
his word and by the history of facts, we should be much inchned
to think, that God would preserve all holy beings in a state of
rectitude. But this would be a mistake. Reasoning in the same
way, we should think it exceedingly probable, if not certain, that
God, in the exercise of his infinite power and goodness, would
bring all mankind to enjoy the precious blessings of salvation.
But we know the fact, that the means of salvation are given only
to a part of mankind, and that a great multitude of those who en-
joy these means, will perish in their sins. It becomes us there-
fore to avoid conjectures, to distrust abstract arguments, to re-
member the weakness and fallibility of human reason, and to
regulate our faith, especially on the subject now before us, by the
teachings of the inspired writers. If they inform us that God
will preserve all behevers from final apostasy, we then have a
firm basis on which to rest our behef in the doctrine under con-
sideration.
Once more. Can the final salvation of all behevers be certain-
ly proved from those passages of Scripture which promise salva-
tion to those who endui-e to the end — in other words, which
promise eternal life on condition of persevering obedience ? I
answer ; we cannot be sure of their eternal life, unless we can
be sure that they will fulfil the condition on which it is promised.
There are absolute promises, and there are conditional promises.
An absolute promise from God, that he will preserve and save all
who are renewed by his Spirit, is itself conclusive evidence that
PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS. 225
they will be saved. But if a condition is introduced, we cannot
know that the good promised will be bestowed, unless we know
that the condition will be complied with.
I ask now, what may reasonably be demanded as the ground
of a confident belief in the doctrine before us ? The doctrine
may be stated in two ways. First. All true behevers will per-
severe in holiness, so as to obtain eternal life. The doctrine
stated in this way, points out the duty of Christians, and may
properly be called the doctrine of the saints' perseverance. And
the evidence requisite to prove the doctrine in this form, is a plain
declaration from Scripture that they will persevere. Secondly ;
the doctrine may be stated thus ; that God will preserve all true
believers from fatal apostasy, and finally save them in his king-
dom. Presented in this form, the doctrine may, with more exact
propriety, be called the doctrine of believers' conservation or pre^
servatio7i. And here the proof must consist in a declaration of
God, that he will thus preserve and save them. But in making
out the proof of the doctrine, there will be no occasion to observe
this distinction. For the texts which prove that God will preserve
the saints, prove also that they will persevere in holiness ; as the
very thing which God does is preserving them in a state of perse-
vering holiness^ or causing them to persevere. And those texts
which prove that they will persevere, do virtually prove that God
will preserve them ; for they will persevei'e in no other way than
as they are divinely preserved.
Here it is obvious, that the texts which set forth the promise of
God that he will preserve believers, are not conclusive proofs of
the doctrine, except on the principle that he has power so to
direct and control their moral faculties and moral actions, as to
secure their perseverance. For what would his promise to pre-
serve them avail, unless he is able, notwithstanding all the disor-
ders of their understandings and hearts, to carry his promise into
execution ? Believers are said to be " kept by the power of
God," sometimes called his " mighty power," " through faith unto
salvation." The implication plainly is, that he possesses power
sufficient for this work — that how great soever the number and
226 PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS.
strength of their enemies, and how fearful soever the perils of
their condition, from within as well as from without, he is able to
protect and deliver them. We need not inquire in what particular
manner he exercises his power in this work. But that he actually
possesses and exercises a sovereign, controlling power over all the
springs of action in his creatures, and over all the influences
which can bear upon them, and that he exercises this power with
perfect ease, and without superseding or interrupting in the least
degree their free moral agency and accountability, is made ex-
ceedingly clear from the word and providence of God, and from
their own consciousness. Any one who is conversant with the
sacred Scriptures must see, that the writers everywhere proceed
on the assuaiption, that God can direct and overrule the hearts,
the wills, and actions of men, and all their affairs, and that no
idea diffarent fi*om this ever entered their minds. We shall, then,
consider this principle to be presupposed in all the arguments we
derive from the declarations and promises of God, that he will
preserve and finally save behevers — such declarations having no
title to our confidence on any other ground than this, that God is
both able and disposed to carry his declarations into effect.
The important truth, that God will exercise a gracious care
over his children, and will keep them from fatal dangers, is often
set forth in the Old Testament, as the foundation of hope and
encouragement. See Ps. 37: 23, 24, " The steps of a good man
are ordered by the Lord. Though he fall, he shall not be utterly
cast down ; for the Lord upholdeth him with his hand." Isa. 54:
10, " For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed,
but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the cove-
nant of my peace be removed, saith tlie Lord that hath mercy on
thee." Jerem. 32: 40, " I will make an everlasting covenant
with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good."
It may be said that God promises this favor to his people, on the
condition, sometimes expressed and always implied, that they do
not depart from liim. This I admit. But in the closing part of
the very sentence last referred to, he 2^'romises to secure the fidfil-
ment of tJds condition. " I will put my fear in their hearts, that
they shall not depart from we."
PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS. 227
Passages pertinent to the subject are found in various parts of
the New Testament. Begin with John 3: 36, " He that believ-
eth on me hath everlasting life " — hath it noiv. It is a mode of
expression often used in Scripture, to denote the certainty of the
event foretold. John 5: 24 is still stronger : " He that heareth
my word and belie veth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life,
and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death
unto life." " He hath everlasting life ; " the present tense again.
It is as much as to say, he is already saved — the thing is done.
How could such language be used, if there were any uncertainty
as to the event predicted ?
John 6: 39, 40, and 54, " This is the Father's will, who hath
sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing,
but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of him
that sent me, that every one who seeth the Son and believeth on
him, should have everlasting life ; and I will raise him up at the
last day. * * Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood,
hath everlasting life ; and I will raise him up at the last day."
Again, John 10: 27 — 29, " My sheep hear my voice, and I know
them, and they follow me ; and I will give unto them eternal life,
and they shall never perish, neither shall any one pluck them out
of my hand. My Father is greater than all ; and no one is able
to pluck them out of my Father's hand." What greater certainty
could there be of the present security and the final salvation of
believers ? In Rom, 8: 30, 38, 39, the Apostle expresses his
joyful and elevated feelings in view of the certain perseverance
and final glory of the followers of Christ : " Whom he did predes-
tinate, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also
justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified. * *
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." It
would be very frigid to understand the Apostle as saying, that
none of these things can separate us from the love of God, or pre-
vent our obtaining salvation, if we are faithful, and take care of
228 PERSEVEKANCE OF SAINTS.
ourselves. For such is the corruption of our hearts, the deceit-
fulness of sin, and the power of temptation, that, if we were left
to ourselves, we should certainly fall away and perish. We need,
then, a higher consolation than to be told, that we shall attain to
the heavenly rest, if we are faithful to our oym souls — that
nothing shall separate us from the love of God, if we do not sepa-
rate ourselves. For if God, in the fulness of his mercy, has not
secured a sanctifying influence for his children — if Christ does
not, by his invincible agency, eSectually redeem us from the power
of sin — if he does not subdue that subtle foe, a corrupt heart
within us, and carry on his own work of grace to a successful
issue — we shall make shipwreck of the faith, and perish with the
wicked world. But the Apostle's language is not that of conjec-
ture, or probabiUty, or conditionality, but of certainty and exulta-
tion. He says, and says very strongly, that nothing in the
universe can deprive those who are effectually called, of the ever-
lasting benefits of God's love. This joyful confidence is exhibited
very clearly, but in another form, Rom. 5: 9, 10, " God com-
mended his love to us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us." Then, in the way of a divine inference, he adds :
" Much more, then, being now justified by his blood, we shall he
saved from wrath through him.^^ The Apostle does not stop even
with this, but goes on to repeat his divine logic : "For if, while we
were yet sinners, we were reconciled to God by the death of his
Son ; much inore, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his lifeJ'^
The argument is perfectly clear and conclusive. If Christ has
accomplished the more wonderful and difficult work for us, how
much more certainly may we expect him to accomplish what
remains. How could the Apostle write such a passage, and
in such a connection, unless he believed that the almighty Re-
deemer would himself preserve every one of his people from
final apostasy, and give them a crown of glory in his kingdom ?
It seems impossible for any language to express this welcome
truth more plainly or more forcibly than that which I have
quoted. In this passage, and in John 10: 27 — 29, above cited,
and in other places, the certain preservation of the saints is repre-
PERSEVERANCE OP SA'INTS. 229
sented as depending on the mercy and the omnipotence of God.
The conclusion is, that if God has power and mercy adequate to
the Avork, he will preserve believers, and give them a place at his
ri<yht hand. In 1 Cor. 10: 13, their safety is made to depend on
God's ft\ithfulness : " God is faithful, who will not suffer you to
be tempted above that ye are able ; but will, with the temptation,
also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." The
Apostle Paul unhesitatingly expresses his confidence in the truth
of our doctrine, in Philip. 1: 6. "Being confident" — he does
not say the thing would take place probably, or on some precarious
condition — but " being confident of this very thing, that he who
hath begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of
Christ. ^^ The original word here rendered perform, signifies to
finish — to carry through to an end. The Apostle was confident
that God, who had begun the work of sanctification in the Phi-
lippian Christians, would finish it — would carry it on to its com-
pletion.
Peter unites with Paul, in representing the preservation and
ultimate salvation of believers as secured by divine power. He
says, they " are' kept by the power of Grod through faith unto
salvation. ^^ The work might fail of being accomplished, if it
depended on the power of created beings. But as its accomplish-
ment depends on the divine omnipotence, it cannot fail.
The persevering holiness and final salvation of believers is ren-
dered certain by the intercession of Christ. How explicit and
earnest was his prayer for his people : " Keep through thine own
name those whom thou hast given me." " Sanctify them through
thy truth." And the Epistle to the Hebrews places the salvation
of those who believe in close connection with the power and inter-
cession of our ever-living Saviour. Heb. 7: 25, " Wherefore
he is able to save them to the uttermost, who come unto God
by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." If,
then, any true saints fall away and perish, it must be because
Christ is not able to save them, and because his intercession does
not prevail.
I might argue also, from the work of the Holy Spirit, as set
VOL. ni. 20
230 PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS.
forth in 2 Cor. 1: 21, " Now he that estabhsheth us with you,
and hath anointed -us, is God, who hath also sealed us and
given us the earnest of the Spirit." In Ephes. 1: 13, 14, the
Apostle speaks of believers as having the seal of the Spirit, which
is the earnest of their future inheritance. The sanctifying work
of the Spirit in believers is the sure pledge and forerunner of their
final salvation.
There is a great variety of texts, besides those above cited,
which furnish support to our doctrine. But it is unnecessary to
produce them. For no language of inspired or uninspired writ-
ings could declare the doctrine more unequivocally, than the lan-
guage already cited. If this does not teach it, nothing can.
LECTURE CV.
OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE. ITS USES.
We shall now examine the arguments which our opponents use
to invalidate the doctrine of the saints' perseverance.
In the first place, they speak of the texts which promise final
salvation conditionally ; such as those which declare that they
who are faithful unto death shall receive the crown of life, and
that they who endure to the end shall be saved. Now what I
have to say on this point is this ; that the passages in which salva-
tion is promised on the expressed or implied condition of perseve-
ring faith and obedience, teach a truth which is of great prac-
tical importance, and which ought to be plainly declared and
often insisted upon. But they do not teach the whole truth.
This portion of Scripture is necessary ; but other portions are
also necessary. The same inspired volume which declares that
believers shall be saved if they endure to the end, goes further,
and declares that they shall endure. Here is an additional truth,
which is suited to honor God and to animate and comfort his
people. The condition referred to has relation to us as rational,
moral beuigs, and is rendered indispensable by the character of
God and by the nature of salvation. What Scripture does is,
not to set this condition aside, but to inform us that, through the
grace of God, it will he fulfilled. And what reason has any one
to say, that a condition is interfered with by the certainty of its
fulfilment, or that the previous certainty of its fulfilment, and the
knowledge of that certainty, is inconsistent with the existence
232 PERSEVERANCE.
and the beneficial influence of the condition ? We maintaha, in
common with those who deny the doctrine under consideration,
that persevering faith and obedience is an indispensable condition
of the final salvation of the regenerate. In regard to this point,
we have no controversy with our opponents.' The question
between us is, whether, according to Scripture, God will so influ-
ence believers that they will in fact persevere, and thus fulfil
the condition on which eternal life is promised ? The arguments
which prove that they will persevere have been briefly stated.
These two tilings — the conditional promise, and the absolute
promise that the condition shall be accomplished — exist together,
and both contribute important aid to believers, and the very aid
which they need in the great work to which they are called.
Neither the one nor the other could be omitted in the word of
God, without essential injury to their spiritual interest. And
those Christians who seem to give up either the one or the
other, do still, in some way, practically avail themselves of both.
The coexistence of these two things, and the importance and
necessary influence of the conditionality of an event in connection
with its certainty, are happily illustrated by what occurred during
Paul's voyage to Rome. It was supernaturally revealed to Paul,
and by him made known for the encouragement of the men in the
ship, that notwithstanding the dangers which they were to en-
counter, their lives should all be preserved. But by and by
when dangers alarmed them, they proposed, as a means of safety,
to leave the ship. Then came in the necessary condition of their
safety : " Except these abide in the ship," said Paul, " ye cannot
be saved." They could not be saved without complying with this
condition ; and yet their safety had been made known to Paul,
and to the Centurion and the mariners, as an ultimate certainty.
And it is plain, that Paul's insisting upon the condition at the
exact time when it was called for, proved the eSectual means of
securing the preservation which the angel had revealed as a cer-
tainty. Dr. Whately, who makes a good use of this case, says, I
think incautiously, " that the Apostle regarded the assurance
given him of the safety of all in the ship as grounded on the sup-
PERSEVERANCE. 233
position, that lie should employ the proper means of safety."
But there is nothing in the narrative to warrant this. The Apos-
tle regarded the event as certain, merely because it was declared
to' him by an infallible messenger. This divine communication,
and this alone, was the ground of Paul's persuasion that they
should all be preserved. Whether he thought of any means to be
used, or not, he confidently believed the fact revealed to him.
But it was true, that proper means would be employed. The
accompUshment of the promised event required this — required
the very means which were made use of. The certainty of that
event was one thing ; the means used for its accomplishment waa
another thing. There is no need of abstract reasoning to recon-
cile them. Common sense, whether in the philosopher or the
child, sees that they consist together. And it is, moreover, evident,
that a sure expectation of obtaining the good which we desire, will
naturally lead us to use the proper means of obtaining it. And
we shall be likely to use the means with spirit, in proportion to
the assurance we feel of ultimate success. This principle, rightly
apprehended and applied, is sufficient to obviate the most plausible
objection ever made against our doctrine — the objection from its
alleged bad influence. This we shall particularly consider in its
proper place.
The case of the mariners above explained admits of an easy
application to the perseverance of the saints. The certainty of
the final salvation of behevers is a matter of fact clearly revealed
in the word of God. And it is also revealed, that in order to
reach that salvation they must persevere in obedience. This is
laid down as an indispensable condition. Now this condition,
considered merely by itself, would imply a real uncertainty in
regard to their salvation. Yea, if they were to be left to them-
selves, there would be something more than this uncertainty ; for
they would actually fall short of heaven. But here comes in
their security. God has promised to keep them, through faith
unto salvation ; and his promise cannot fail. Through the
help of his grace, then, believers will certainly persevere in
holiness, and obtain eternal life. Thus, according to the
20*
234 PERSEVERANCE.
Scriptures, the final salvation of believers is both conditional
and certain. These two things, — the conditionality and the cer-
tainty of their salvation, — united together, are adapted to pro-
duce the best possible effects. If the absolute certaintrj of their
final salvation were the only thing revealed, they might be exposed
to a sinful confidence and a fatal indolence. Or if they were dis-
posed to be active, they would not know what to do. But as the
necessary condition of salvation is also clearly revealed, they
know exactly what to do, and why they must do it. The infinite
value of salvation, and their desire to obtain it, stimulate them to
persevering diligence and fidelity. But, on the other hand, if the
condition were the only thing made known, and believers were left
without any promised aid from above to insure the fulfilment of
that condition, they would be destitute of encouragement and
support where they would most need it, and would be exposed to
a disheartening and paralyzing uncertainty as to the final issue of
their labors and prayers. For although they might now be
resolved to be diligent in well doing, what reason could they have
to feel assured that their resolution and diligence would continue ?
What confidence could they have in their own hearts, which expe-
rience had plainly shown to be so fickle, weak, and deceitful ?
Presumption and carnal security are indeed fearful evils, and
should in every form and degree be most watchfully avoided.
But they are not the only evils which beset the followers of Christ.
Nor are they the evils to which the meek and humble are gene-
rally most liable. Discouragement, despondency, and spiritual
torpor naturally result from thinking too much on the danger
of ultimate failure. The Apostle presents the idea, that God
would confirm his people to the end, and finish the work which he
had begun in them, as the means of cheering and animatmg their
hearts, and promoting their progress in hohness. With him it
was no matter of cold speculation or philosophy, but a subject of
gratitude and joyful exultation. When Christians are impressed,
as they should be, with the sinfulness and treachery of their own
hearts and their proneness to depart from God, it is not enough
for them to know that God will fulfil his promises and give them
PERSEVERANCE. 235
eternal life, if they are not ivant'mg on their part. For they are
aware that they shall be wanting, unless they are aided from
above. Both Scripture and experience have taught them, that it
is totally unsafe to trust in themselves, and that their persevering
in the way to heaven depends ultimately on the continuance of
that divine influence to which they have no just claim. So far as
they are left in doubt whether that influence will be granted, they
will have painful doubts as to their final salvation. How ear-
nestly, then, must they desire and pray, that God would grant
them continually the needed influence of his Spirit, and thus
keep them from falling, and prepare them for the rewards of
grace ; and how cheering the assurance that God will do it.
But it is still asserted by our opponents, that our doctrine must
naturally influence those who believe it to negligence and supine-
ness in the business of religion, and that, m connection with the
kindred doctrine of election, it has often, in fact, proved the occa^
sion of uncommon hardness of heart, and sometimes of the most
shameless immorality and impiety.
To rid your minds eSectually of this diflBculty, which has been
so often urged against the doctrine under consideration, I would
solicit your attention to the following points.
To whom, I ask, does the doctrine really belong ? It belongs
to Christians, and to no others. The sincere followers of Christ
are the persons who shall be preserved from fatal apostasy. The
impenitent, the hypocritical, whatever their profession or appear-
ance, will go away from Christ and perish in sin.
What, then, is the meaning of objectors ? Do they mean that
it has a bad influence upon wicked men, to believe that good men
will, through divine grace, persevere in holiness ? Without doubt
it may have this influence. Those who are governed by selfish-
ness and pride may feel badly towards a Christian, because he is
in a more happy condition than they are. They may envy him,
because he is an heir of that salvation which they reject, and
because God is engaged to finish the good work which he has
begun in their hearts. God's faithful care over his people is an
unspeakable blessing, and may excite envious emotions in the
236 PERSEVERANCE.
ungodly, and so occasion an increase of their wickedness. And
a similar eflFect may be produced upon them by any other gospel
truth, or any other instance of God's special favor. Their hearts
may be irritated by the conversion of a sinner, and by the holy
and happy life of a believer. Nothing is too sacred to be per-
verted by the enemies of God. But can their unreasonable and
■wicked feelings and conduct be alleged as an objection against
divine perfection and divine truth ? I must, however, say, that
the doctrine before us is, in its own nature, adapted to exert a
good influence, even upon the impenitent, and, like other truths,
may be used as a motive to repentance and faith. Hearken, we
may say to them — hearken to the gospel, put away your sins,
and come into the happy condition of believers ; and then God
will not only pardon you, but will keep you from falling, and ena-
ble you to continue in the way of holiness, till you reach the
heavenly rest. We do not ofler you a precarious good. Believe
in the Lord Jesus Christ, and eternal life is yours.
Do objectors mean to say, that the beHef of our doctrine is
likely to have a bad influence upon false professors of religion ?
This I also admit. If men think themselves Christians when
they are not — they will naturally appropriate to themselves
promises and a prospect of divine favor, to which they have no
title. And not being influenced by love to the Saviour, and look-
ing only at their own private interest, which they consider as
already secured, they may be more neglectful of duty, and more
confirmed in a life of impiety, because they believe and misapply
the doctrine before us. This doctrine, associated with their cor-
rupt dispositions, silences conscience, banishes salutary fear, and
places them at an almost hopeless distance from salvation. But
all this is their fault, not the fault of the doctrine. To such as
they are, the gospel, as preached by an Apostle, was the savor of
death unto death.
Again. Does the objection come from some real Christians,
who reject the doctrine because they think the belief of it would
be injurious to them ? My reply is, that they cannot know what
effect the doctrine would really produce in their minds, while they
PERSEVERANCE. 237
reject it. Let them cordially embrace the doctrine as revealed in
Scripture, and then they will be able to form a correct judgment
of its appropriate influence.
I ask again, is it the meaning of objectors, that real Christiana
may be injured by the belief of the doctrine under review ? This,
too, I grant, may sometimes be the case. Christians may back-
shde, and for a time lose the life of piety. In this state of de-
clension, they may pervert all the truths of religion. In particular
their belief of the certain perseverance of the saints, mixing with
the unhallowed passions which now predominate in their hearts,
may beget a presumptuous security, and instead of exciting them
to repent and return to their forsaken Saviour, may render them
more unmindful of their duty, and more disposed to continue in
the indulgence of their evil jDropensities. This is a woful fact.
And it clearly shows what would be the issue of the temporary
apostasies of Christians, were it not for the unchangeable love and
faithfulness of God, Avhich now, in their wretched backslidings,
they turn to the injury of their own souls.
After these admissions, we are brought to the real question
between us and our opponents ; namely, what influence the doc-
trine under discussion is suited to have upon the followers of
Christ, when they feel and act as they ought. The position which
I maintain is, that the doctrine, rightly apprehended and received,
is eminently suited to animate Christians to the various duties
of a holy life, to strengthen them in their weaknesses and dis-
couragements, and to contribute in all respects to their spiritual
prosperity.
The doctrine, that believers are kept from fatal apostasy hy the
power of Cod, implies that they are not sufiicient to keep them-
selves ; a proper belief of which works habitual humility in their
hearts, and makes them feel the necessity of coming often to the
throne of grace, that they may be guarded from seen and unseen
dangers, and may obtain the help which they constantly need.
The doctrine in its Scripture form, coming to those who are lowly
in heart, and who are sensible of their fickleness and their need
of strength from above, conduces directly to the habit of fervent
238 PERSEVERANCE.
prajer. It is here, as in other cases, that trust in the promises
of God leads Christians to pray for the blessings promised. Trust-
ing as thej do in God's promise that he -will never forsake his
children, but will preserve them to his eternal kingdom, they
earnestly seek of him the promised protection and security.
Again. The doctrine, duly received, promotes resolution and
activity in the work of religion. The confidence of Paul that he
and all who were with him in the ship would get safe to land,
stimulated him to the proper efforts to secure the predicted safety.
It has been said of Whitefield, that his expectation of success was
among the chief causes of his zeal and pOwer in preaching. Dr.
Whately, who is no Calvinist, says, the idea " that confidence of
success necessarily diminishes exertion, is notoriously the reverse
of the truth. Every General seeks to inspire his soldiers with"
the firmest confidence of victory ; which experience proves to be
the best incentive to those exertions which are necessary to en-
sure it. Many a man, from having been persuaded, that he is
destined to attain some great object, instead of being lulled into
carelessness by this belief, has been excited to the most labori-
ous and unwearied efibrts, such as perhaps otherwise he would
not have thought of making, for the attainment of his object."
And the same writer refers to the case of Paul who, trusting in
the promised grace of Christ, pours forth his exulting confidence
of reaching the blessedness of heaven; — "Henceforth there is
laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the
righteous Judge, will give me at that day." With such an as-
surance, what labors did the Apostle resolutely perform, and what
extremity of suffering did he patiently endure ! Let, then, no
disheartening doubts and fears be lodged in the minds of the
humble and self-distrusting disciples of Christ. Let them cheer-
fully rely, not upon their own power, but upon the power of
God, " which worketh in them mightily." Let them rejoice in
his promise and grace, being confident that he who hath begun a
good work in them will carry it on to its completion.
PERSEVERANCE. 239
Another objection against the doctrine before us is, that it is
inconsistent with free agency.
To this I reply ; that the continuance of their sanctification by
the Spirit of God is certainly no more inconsistent ^vith their being
free, moral agents, than the commencement of that work. Noth-
ing can be more evident than this ; that God, who is the Creator
and upholder of moral beings, must be able to begin and continue
the work of their renewal to hoUness without destroying or inter-
rupting their intellectual or moral faculties. However powerful and
efficacious his influence in their sanctification may be, no one of
them will ever suffer tire least infringement of his freedom. It is
not the Spirit of God, but the power of sin, that breaks in upon our
moral freedom and reduces us to slavery.
* It is the practice of all enlightened Christians to pray, that God
would keep them from falling and prepare them for the inherit-
ance of the saints above. But do they mean to pray for that
which God cannot do without destroying their moral agency?
What would you think of Christians who should offer up prayer
in this sort ; we beseech thee, 0 God, to enable us to persevere in
holiness to the end of life, if thou canst do it without destroying our
moral agency.
Finally. You may as well say, it is inconsistent with the free
moral agency of angels and saints in heaven for God to perpetuate
their holiness, as to say the same of saints on earth. And you
may as well cut' the matter short, and deny the truth of the Bible
and the existence of God, as to say the one or the other.
Objectors cite the passages of Scripture which contain exhorta-
tions to Christians to persevere, and solemn warnings against
apostasy, and threats of perdition to those who forsake the ways
of holiness ; and all these, they say, plainly imply that Christians
may fall away, and that they are in danger of it.
Reply. I acknowledge that Christians, in themselves consid-
ered, may fall away and perish, and that they are in great danger
of it. Our doctrine is, not that Christians are in no danger of
fatal apostasy, but that God uses suitable means in order to pre-
serve them from danger, and accompanies those means with such
240 PERSEVERANCE.
an influence as will render them effectual to secure the end de-
sired. As Christians are rational, moral beings, the means called
for are rational motives — motives adapted to influence their rea-
son, their conscience, their hopes and fears, and all their moral
afiections. Such are the exhortations and warnings referred to.
If Christians are to persevere, they must be influenced to per-
severe by these very motives. If God intends to secure their
perseverance, he will of course set before them those considera-
tions which are suited to bring about that result. The warnings
and exhortations of Scripture — all the modes of address adapted
to guard them against sin and draw them' to untiring obedience,
are as really necessary, as means in any case are necessary to
the accomplishment of a desired object. Believei-s are sanctified
through the truth ; and the considerations alluded to are a portion^
of divine truth. And you might dispense with any other portion
of the truth as safely as with this. The passages of Scripture
which are made the ground of the objection, instead of proving
that the perseverance of believers is a matter of uncertainty,
rather prove that God is determined to secure it. At least, it
would be difficult to see how he could consistently secure it in any
other way ; just as it would be difficult to see how he could bring
men to believe on him, of whom they have not heard.
It seems then to be manifest, that if God really purposes the
final perseverance of believers, and if he intends to secure it in a
manner suited to their intelligent and moral nature, there is a
necessity for just such motives, as are found in the passages of
Scripture to which I have alluded. Not that exhortations, or
warnings, or any other means will, of themselves, insure the per-
severance of behevers. But they are an indispensable means of
their perseverance. And if the divine Spirit causes them, as
rational beings, to persevere in holy living, he must do it, so far
as we can judge, by such motives as the word of God urges upon
them — motives addressed to their reason, conscience and moral
affections.
Ezek. 18: 24, is often quoted as an objection to our doctrine.
" When the righteous man tumeth away from his righteousness
PEKSEVERANCE. 241
and committeth iniquitj, and doeth according to all the abomina-
tion which a wicked man doeth ; shall he live ? All his righteous-
ness which he hath done shall not be mentioned ; in his trespass
and in his sin, in them shall he die ? " Most Calvinistic writers
dispose of" this text by saving, that the person intended by the
prophet is not a saint in reality, but only in profession or appear-
ance, and that such a one will be very likely to turn from his
seeming goodness, and to perish in his guilt. But to what would
this amount ? If he turns from his seeming goodness, he will
perish ! And so he wiU if he does not turn. The form of godli-
ness without the power, will not save him. The prophet knew
that a man who had the appearance of righteousness without the
reality, would perish, whether he turned from it, or not. Does
not the whole discourse, taken together, plainly show that the
prophet speaks of things as they are in the sight of God ? The
righteousness spoken of in v. 24, as well as that in v. 22, is evi-
dently real and sa^dng righteousness. And it seems to me that
the argument of the objector must be obviated in another way,
that is, by considering the statement of the prophet as merely
hypothetical, designed to bring into view the impartial justice and
goodness of God, and the fixed connection between righteousness
and happiness, and between unrighteousness and misery. The
statement shows, that if one of these exists, the other will exist
as a consequence. But the statement does not imply that the
thing supposed would ever really take place. So the Apostle
says ; " If we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel,
let him be accursed." Dick, in his Theology, gives the following
illustration of this hypothetical manner of speaking. " When
a philosopher says, if a comet should impinge upon the earth, the
earth would be burnt up, or driven from its orbit, he has no idea
that his supposition will be realized. What then, it may be asked,
is the use of such statements ? " that is, such as those made by
Ezekiel. Dick replies, " that while they point out the necessity
of continuance in holiness to the attainment of final salvation, they
are a means of exciting believers to watchfulness, diligence and
prayer, and thus contribute to their perseverance in grace ; — for
VOL III. 21
242 PERSEVERANCE.
God deals witli tliem as rational creatures, and works upon them
hj motives addressed to their hopes and their fears."
It is thought bj those who deny the doctrine of the saints' per-
severance, and bj a few individuals who maintain it, that the pas-
sage in Heb. 6:4 — 6 is also to be explained of real believers.
But a careful attention to the passage and to other parallel
texts must, I think, lead to a different conclusion. The manifest
design of the writer is to describe certain persons who are not
merely in a perishing condition, but in a hojjeless condition — per-
sons of whom it is not only true that they cannot be saved without
repentance, but ivho cannot be brought to rejyentance. He does
not say of unbelievers in general, nor even of all those who are,
like Saul of Tarsus, among the chief of sinners, that it is impos-
sible to renew them to repentance. He says it only of a particu-
lar class of sinners, namely, of those " who have been once en-
lightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been
made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good
word of God and the powers of the world to come, and have fall-
en away.'''' This is the exact rendering of the original, as any
one who understands the Greek language may see. The writer
does not interrupt his description of the persons intended by the
word if, as our translators have done — " if they shall fall away."
They " have fallen away." This is one of the facts stated. It
is then, I think, plain, that the writer had his eye upon what
really occurred ; that what he says was meant to be a description
of persons actually existing ; and that their falling away was men-
tioned not as a mere supposition, but as a well known fact, making
a part of the character of those whose guilty and wretched con-
dition he presented to view.
Dr. Dwight and others, with good reason, consider v. 8 as re-
lating to the same persons just before described in v. 4 — 6.
" But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected and is nigh
unto cursing, whose end is to be burned." Why did the writer
speak thus in this place, unless it was to set forth, in another form,
the character and end of the apostates whom he had in view, in
contrast with the case of true believers, designated in v. 7. " For
PERSEVERANCE. 243
the earth Avhich drinketh in the rain, and bringeth forth herbs,
etc., receiveth blessing from God." Such is the happy case of
those who are faithful foUo^vers of Christ ; and such is the woful
case of those who fall awaj, after having enjoyed the distinguished
favors described in v. 4 — 6.
The account given of the high privileges and the peculiar exer-
cises of the pei'sons to whom the sacred writer refers has, I think,
been well explained by Dr. Owen, with whom almost all the evan-
gelical commentators agree. The language employed to set forth
the character of these persons is much hke that which is else-
where employed to set forth the character of real Christians. But
it is here to be taken in a lower sense. Those who believe to the
saving of the soul, have been enlightened and have tasted the
good word of God, and have been made partakers of the Holy
Ghost, in one sense. Others may be said to be enlightened, and
to have tasted the good word of God, etc., in another sense. A
just interpretation of Scripture requires that wo should in many
instances give different significations to the same words and ex-
pressions. To believe, to escape the pollutions of the world
through the knowledge of Christ, to know the way of righteous-
ness, to receive the word with joy — these and other similar
phrases well express what is characteristic of those who are truly
regenerated. But they are sometimes used in Scripture and in
free religious discourse with an inferior signification, and are ap-
pUed to those who are destitute of holiness. This variety of sig-
nifications is demanded by the nature and circumstances of differ-
ent cases. The language taken by itself, separate from the
connection, and from other circumstances, is not sufficient to make
known the meaning which the writer would convey. I leave it to
you to carry out this general principle in reference to the passage
under consideration, recommending particularly the exegetical and
practical remarks of Owen in his Exposition.
V. 9 still further sustains the construction which I have given
to V. 4 — 6. The writer says to those wliom he addresses, " But
beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things which
accompany salvation, though we thus speak." Better things than
244 PERSEVERANCE.
■what ? Why, better than the things he had mentioned, v. 4 — 6
and 8 — even things which accompany salvation — thuigs appro-
priate to those who are saved. We are persuaded that you are
followers of Christ and heirs of eternal life, " though we thus
speak," — though we declare to you the miserable condition of
those who al^use such distinguished favors — who have been ex-
alted to heaven, but for their aggravated impiety shall be thrust
down to hell. In the closing part of the chapter, the sacred
writer keeps in view the case of those who have saving faith —
who have laid hold of the hope set before them, in evident contra-
distinction to those who possess the highest 2-)rivileges, the warm-
est affections and the most joyful hopes, without those " better
things which accompany salvation."
In connection with this chapter, take Heb. 10: 26 — 29, 38, 39.
" For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of
the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. — Of how
much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy who hath trod-
den under foot the Son of God, — and hath done despite to the
Spirit of grace." Evidently the same general object is placed
before us here as in ch. vi, that is, the woful condition of those
who commit high-handed offences under the light of the gospel
and the clear manifestations of redeeming love. At the close,
after saying, " the just shall live by faith, but if any man draw
back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him," he refers again very
distinctly to the two classes of men, and to their conditions, in
contrast with each other. " We are not of them who draw back
to perdition, but of them who believe to the saving of the soul."
There are those who draw back to perdition. But we do not go
with them. There are those who believe to the saving of the
soul ; and we belong to their number.
To make it still more evident, by a comparison of texts, that
the writer to the Heb. ch. vi, meant to give a description of real
apostates, such as then existed, and such as have often existed
since, and to illustrate still further the methods by which different
writers labor to excite salutary fear and watchfulness in believers,
I shall cite what is written on the same subject, 2 Pet. 2: 20 — 22.'
PERSEVERANCE. 245
There can be no reasonable doubt, that he here describes persons
who were actually found among those who had been regarded
as converts in his day. " For if, after thej have escaped the
pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, thej are again entangled therein and over-
come ; the latter end is worse with them, than the beginning.
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of
righteousness, than after they have known it to turn from the holy
commandment dehvered unto them. But it has happened unto
them," (he is speaking of a fact,) " it has happened unto them
according to the true proverb ; the dog is turned to his own vomit
again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
The persons here spoken of had " known the way of righteous-
ness," and had " escaped the pollutions of the world through the
knowledge of Christ." Their illumination, their attainments, and
their apparent goodness had been remarkable, though perhaps not
equal to those described in Heb. 6: 4 — 6. But after having been
thus enlightened and reformed under the influence of the Chris-
tian dispensation, they turned back to the pollutions of the world,
and so were fitly represented by the proverb of the dog and the
swine.
But a farther difficulty occurs. If it is a settled point that true
believers never draw back to perdition, then why should we speak
to them of the misdemeanors of those who have another and dif-
ferent character ? What has the apostasy and the wretchedness
of false professors to do with those who are steadfast and unmov-
able, being kept by the power of God through faith unto salva-
tion ?
Reply. As it is God's design that all the regenerate shall per-
severe in holmess, he appoints those dispensations of providence,
and gives those instructions in his word, and those influences of
his Spirit, which are suited to accomplish his gracious design. It
would be exceedingly strange, if after he has purposed their per-
severance, he should not use the proper means to secure it. In
regard to the propriety of presenting before believers the case of
apostates, I appeal to the Scriptures ; and m regard to the utility
21*
246 PERSEVERANCE.
of it, I appeal to the good sense and experience of Christians.
Of the propriety of presenting the case of apostates in this man-
ner, the example of the inspired writers is decisive proof. Several
striking instances occur in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In ch. iii
the writer addresses his " holy brethren," who were " partakers
of the heavenly calling," and he speaks solemnly to them of those
who rebelled in the wilderness, and were not permitted to enter
the promised land. And he makes that unhappy case the matter
of earnest exhortation and warning to Christians, to guard against
an evil heart of unbelief, and to take heed lest they should fall
short of the heavenly rest. He repeats the exhortation and
warning ch. 4: 11. As so many of the Israelites were excluded
from the promised land by unbehef, let us, he says, labor to enter
into the higher rest, lest any man fall after the same example of
unbelief. See warnings of the same kind also in ch. vi and x.
The Apostle Paul frequently addresses behevers in a similar
way. In 1 Cor. 10: 5 — 12, there is a remarkable instance of
this, taken from the same example of the Israehtes. " With
many of them God was not well pleased ; and they were over-
thrown in the wilderness." And the Apostle says, these things
were intended as examples to the brethren whom he addressed, to
warn them against similar transgressions and similar punishments.
They were recorded as admonitions to Christians. And the
Apostle makes this practical conclusion of the whole for the bene-
fit of himself and his brethren. " Wherefore let him that think-
eth he standeth, take heed lest he fall." We must then admit
the propriety and the wisdom of this mode of exhorting and warn-
ing Christians, inasmuch as it has the sanction of the infallible
word of God. And as to its practical utility, my appeal is to the
good sense and experience of Christians. The representation
which the Apostle gives of himself, shows how he regarded
this matter. He labored, and strove, and fought ; he kept ttnder
his body and brought it into subjection, lest, after preaching the
gospel to others, he should be disapproved. And who that knows
his own heart — who that has the humility of a Christian, and
trembles at the word of God, can think of the apostasy of any
PERSEVERANCE. 247
who once appeared among the followers of Christ, without being
awakened to a salutary alarm, and to a watchful care to guard
against all temptations to depart from the waj of hohness. If
any one who calls himself a Christian, finds himself unmoved by
the admonitions of Scripture and by the examples of apostasy
with which he is made acquainted — if he can wrap himself up in'
his own fancied strength and security, and say, what have I to do
with warnings against backsliding and apostasy — why should I be
told of danger, and exhorted to watch and fear and pray lest I
should fall short of heaven, when I have an assurance of being
kept to eternal hfe — if any one takes this ground and indulges
these feelings, he gives us much cause to think that he has no part
or lot in the religion of Christ. Believers will be affected by the
examples and warnings referred to, in proportion as they know the
treachery of their own hearts and the difficulties in the way to
eternal life, and in proportion as they are advanced in piety, and
are intent upon doing the will of God. Watchfulness, pious fear
and trembling, and a desire to profit both by the happy end of the
faithful and the unhappy end of hypocrites and unbehevers —
these are among the obvious characteristics of the children of
God.
Our opponents say that some real saints have apostatized ; and
they urge the passage in John 17: 12, as furnishing a striking ex-
ample of this. Jesus says, " Those whom thou hast given me I
have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition."
This, it is said, implies, that one of those whom the Father gave
to Christ, fell away and perished.
Reply. There is no reason to think that Judas was ever a real
believer. We are told that Jesus knew his character from the
beginning ; that he made choice of twelve as witnesses, but one of
them was " a devil." He chose Judas, not for his piety, but for
other reasons. Important ends were evidently answered by the
fact, that a subtle enemy, who had been intimately acquainted
with his public and private hfe through the whole of his ministry,
was at last constrained, by his own conscience, to give an open
testimony to his innocence. These ends were undoubtedly de-
mgned, when Judas was chosen as one of the twelve.
248 PERSEVERANCE.
The passage above cited, is interpreted by the best philologists
in this way : ," Those whom thou hast given me I have kept, and
none of them is lost ; hut the son of perdition is lost^ Other
similar declarations of Christ require the same construction. He
says, " Many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias ; but to
none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon,
to a woman that was a widow." This widow was not one of the
widows in Israel. The meaning is, that the prophet was not sent
to any of the widows in Israel, but was sent to a widow in Sidon.
Again he says, " There were many lepers in Israel in the time of
Eliseus the prophet; but none of them were cleansed, save
Naaman the Syrian." Naaman was not one of the lepers in Is-
rael. The meaning is, that none of the lepers in Israel were
cleansed, hut Naaman the Syrian was cleansed. The text above
cited respecting Judas, is clearly to be construed in the same
manner. It appears from the whole history, that he was never a
sincere friend and disciple of Christ. But Christ chose to let his
hypocrisy remain unknown, till he revealed it by his own conduct.
The text then has no relation to the perseverance of saints, inas-
much as Judas never was a saint.
Those who deny our doctrine produce other examples of believ-
ers who apostatized, as David, Solomon, Peter, Hymeneus, Alex-
ander, Philetus and Demas. Now in regard to real saints, we
allow that they may and do faU into great sins. What our doc-
trine impHes is, that however great their sins, they will repent ;
that however grievous their falls, they will be raised up again ;
and that they will be preserved from final apostasy. As to those
who have the mere form of godliness — their open and final apos-
tasy is nothing strange, but is rather to be expected ; and it is no
more evidence against the perseverance of the saints, than the
conduct of those who are denoted by the seed which fell on stony
places, and whose falUng away resulted from their wanting the
principle of holiness. Of those who profess to be followers of
Christ, but forsake the way of obedience and perish in their sins,
the Apostle John gives a very satisfactory account. 1 John 2: 19.
" They went out from us, but they were not of us ; for if they
TERSE VERANCE. 249
had been of us, they would lune continued with us." Their for-
saking the right way made it manifest, he says, that they did not
belong to the number of the faithful. If they had been of that
number, they would have continued with them. The Apostle
Paul, 1 Cor. 11: 19, speaks of it as one of the ends which in the
providence of God were answered by errors and disorders in the
church, that they who were approved might be made manifest, in
distinction from others. This is the case in all ages. Much is
done by the influence of divine truth and the divine administration,
to make a visible separation, even in this hfe, between the real
friends of Christ, and those who are friends only in profession.
The sum of the matter is this, that final perseverance in faith and
obedience invariably accompanies true discipleship.
LECTURE CVI.
IHB GREEK WORD dvdataaig, RENDERED RESURRECTION, USED IN
DIFFERENT SENSES. RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. RESUR-
EECTION A FUTURE EVENT.
In the present Lecture I shall consider the doctrine of the Resur-
rection.* Dr. Dwight thinks that the word mdaraaig is generally
used in the New Testament to denote a future state of existence^
without any particular reference to the resurrection of the body.
It is evidently used in this more general and extensive sense in
Matt. 22: 23 — 33. The Sadducees denied the resurrection, or
as it is stated in Acts 23: 8 ; they said " there is no resurrection,
neither angel nor spirit^ They rejected the idea of any state of
existence beyond the present. It was in opposition to that infidel
opinion of the Sadducees, that Jesus cited the declaration of God
to Moses ; " I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob ; " showing from this, that those patriarchs
were in a living, conscious state, as " God is not the God of the
dead, but of the hving." The truth implied was, that none but
holy, happy beings could stand in such a relation to God, and
consequently that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of course other
♦ It would be suitable to follow the subject of the saints' perseverance with
Lectures on the duty of growing in grace, on death, and on the intelligent, active
existence of the soul in the intermediate state. But I have concluded to omit
these topics in this publication, although I was accustomed to give them particu-
lar attention in the Lecture Room, — and to proceed to the doctrine of the Resur-
rection.
RBSUKRECTION. 251"
departed saints, existed as God's people in a state of intelligent
activity and blessedness. The passage cited by Christ was per-
fectly suited to his object, and, in opposition to the Sadducees,
clearly proved the spiritual and happy existence of good men
after death. In this place, the word dvdataaig had a general
sense, a sense corresponding with the object which Jesus had in
view, that is, to expose the error of the Sadducees, and to estab-
lish the doctrine of a future state of retribution.
Here it is natural to inquire, how we can account for it that
the word dvdaraaig is used in different senses in different parts
of the New Testament ; in some places denoting the resurrection
of the body, in other places taking the general sense of a con-
scious and happy existence of men after death. The solution
which I offer, is grounded on a general principle of language,
according to which a word varies in its signification as circum-
stances require, — sometimes conveying a sense more extensive,
sometimes less extensive, — sometimes presenting a subject in one
of its aspects, sometimes in another. Now it is to be understood
as a settled point in the divine plan, that man exists now, and is
to exist ultimately and forever, as a comjjlex being, consisting of
•soul and body ; that although the spiritual part may exist, and,
for a time immediately subsequent to death, does exist without
any connection with the body, the separation comes by way of
exception to the general law of our nature, and is a grievous dis-
order consequent upon sin ; that the separation is, however, only
for a short period — a period hardly worthy to be named com-
pared with the immortality which follows ; that after this short
interval, the evil occasioned by sin will be removed, death will
yield up his prey, and man will exist in that complex state, in
which he existed during his probation, and which the wisdom of
his Creator appointed for him in the world of endless retribution.
But the constituent parts of man's complex nature will harmonize ;
and as the souls of the saints will hereafter reach a perfection far
above what is attained in the present life, their bodies will in like
manner be refined and exalted, and be fitted for celestial employ-
ments and pleasures. Hence it was nothing strange that the
252 RESURRECTION.
word avdoraaig, referring to man in the world to come, should
sometimes respect his existence as a spiritual being, sustaining
a near and happy relation to God ; and should at other times
respect him in his corporeal part, which is to be raised from the
dead. When it is used in this last sense, as it generally is, it has
the same signification as iysQcig.
The idea of our future existence, as intelligent and moral
beings, has been common among mankind, even in heathen lands,
and seems to result from the exercise of their rational and moral
faculties. But the resurrection of the bodt/ appears to be a matter
of pure revelation.
There is satisfactory reason to believe that the people of God,
under the former dispensation, certainly the more enhghtened of
them, had a clear conception of a resurrection of the body. It
appears that Abraham was not a stranger to this conception ; for
we are informed, that in the severe trial he was called to meet in
the sacrifice of Isaac, on whose life so much depended, he found
refuge and support in the belief that God was able to raise his
son from the dead. He must have been more or less famihar
with the conception of such an effect of the power of God, unless
it was then for the first time suggested to his mind by a superna-
tural influence.
Instances of actual resurrection are mentioned, as remarkable
achievements of faith, among the former saints. " Women re-
ceived their dead raised to life again." Heb. 11: 35. And in
the same verse it is said that " others were tortured, not accept-
ing deliverance," and that they endured suffering for this pur-
pose, " that they might obtain a better resurrection,^^ — a resur-
rection to eternal life in heaven. And who can doubt that Isaiah
believed in the doctrine of the resurrection, when he said, " He
will swallow up death in victory ; " and again, " Thy dead men
shall five, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake
and sing, ye that dwell in the dust ; for thy dew is as the dew
of herbs, and the earth shall cast out her dead.'' Who can
doubt that Daniel believed the doctrine, when he said, " Many
of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake ; some
RESURRECTION. 253
to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting con-
tempt ? "
The New Testament reveals the doctrine with vastly greater
clearness, and so maj be said, comparatively, to have brought life
and immortality to light. But my argument will rest on a few
leading texts.
John 5: 25, " Verily, verily I say unto you, the hour is com-
ing and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
God, and they that hear shall live ; " signifying that he would,
during his present ministry, exercise his power in raising the
dead ; which in several instances he did. But in v. 28, 29, he
proceeded to a larger view of the subject, and foretold the fact
of a general resurrection. " Marvel not at this ; " that is, at
what he had just said, v. 25 ; — " for the hour is coming, in the
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall
come forth ; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life ;
and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation."
In 1 Thess. 3: 12 — 17, the Apostle comforts believers by predicting
the happy resurrection of those who sleep in Jesus ; " If we
believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them who sleep in
Jesus -will God bring with him." He afterwards says, " the dead
m Christ shall rise." In Phil. 3: 21, the Apostle says ; " We
look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our
vile body, that it may be fashioned like to his glorious body."
1 Cor. 6: 14, " God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also
raise up us by his own power." The same is taught 2 Cor. 4:
14. But the subject is treated most particularly and fully in
1 Cor. XV. An error had made its appearance in the Corinthian
church, which the Apostle undertook to refute, v. 12, " Now if
Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some
among you, that there is no resurrection of the dead ? " He then
enters on a labored argument, to prove the resurrection of the
saints from the resurrection of Christ ; all along implying, that
the relation of believers to Christ is so close and inseparable,
that if Christ was raised, they will certainly be raised in like
manner.
VOL. III. 22
254 RESURRECTION.
After this general view of the doctrine under consideration, I
shall endeavor to set forth more particularly what revelation
teaches, presenting the sul^ject exactly in the light in which it is
presented in the word of God, neither adding anything to it, nor
taking anything from it.
1. The texts ahove quoted clearly teach, that there will be a
resurrection of tlie hody. In some of the texts the body is
expressly mentioned. " With my dead hody shall they live."
"Who shall change our vile hody.'''' In all the texts this is
implied. The dead shall live. All that are in the graves shall
come forth. Those who sleep in Jesus shall awake. What Paul
taught led some to inquire, " how ai-e the dead raised, and with
what hodies do they come ? " Why should they have made this
inquiry, had he not taught that there would be a resurrection of
the hody ? And what is the answer he gives to their inquiry ?
Not that he had taught no such * thing as the resurrection of
bodies turned to dust ; but that the bodies raised would be greatly
altered from what they were in their former state ; — not that
dead bodies would not be raised, but that they would be raised in
a superior condition. What does the history of the actual resur-
rections, which took place under both dispensations, teach ? It
teaches that in every instance, the resurrection mentioned was the
restoring of a dead hody to life. I speak now of the simple fact,
not of the mode or circumstances of it. And I cannot conceive
how any Christian, who honestly inquires after that which the
inspired writers taught, can doubt that, in a true and proper
sense, the bodies of men at the resurrection will be restored to
life.
In what way did the people of God obtain an idea of resurrec-
tion ? How did they learn what it was, except from the significa-
tion of the words employed to express it, and from the instances
of actual resurrection with which they were acquainted ? And
what was in reality the idea which they entertained of it ? What
did Abraham understand by God's being able to raise Isaac from
the deadf We are told that " women received their dead, raised
to life again." What was the event referred to ? And what was
RESURRECTION. 255
their conception of it ? \Vhat was the resurrection of Lazarus ?
And how did his sisters and friends understand it ? The histo]*7
of the case is given by the EvangeHst. Lazarus was sick and
died, and lay some days in the grave. Jesus went to the grave,
and, in the presence of a multitude, said, " Lazarus, come fortlj."
The dead man heard the voice of the Son of God, and came forth.
Who or ivhat came forth ? It was Lazarus in his bodily state ; in
other words, it was the body of Lazarus. That which had been
dead was raised to life again. The facts Avere plain, and all
understood them alike. Come now to the resurrection of Jesus.
He had repeatedly predicted his own resurrection. And his pre-
diction was exactly accompHshed. After his crucifixion, his body
was laid in a tomb. On the morning of the third day, pious
women went to the tomb to anoint his body, after the manner of
the Jews ; but his body was not there. He had risen from the
dead. His disciples frequently saw him after his resurrection.
They saw the print of the nails in his hands, and of the sword in
his side. The evidence was such, that even Thomas, with all his
incredulity, was convinced of the identity of the body. The
resurrection body of Jesus was doubtless in a different state from
what it was before his death. But it was a body, and it was his
body, unless his disciples were all deceived by what they saw and
heard and felt. If he had such a resurrection as Swedenborg
supposes, he must have had two resurrections ; one soon after his
death, the other the third day after ; one leaving his body still
dead in the tomb where it was laid, the other being a resurrection
of the dead body itself. It is too evident to be doubted, that the
resurrection of Jesus, as described by the Evangelists, was very
different from what the followers of the Swedish prophet under-
stand by the resurrection of the dead. All that is said in the
Scriptures of those who were witnesses of the resurrection of
Jesus, shows plainly, that it was the resurrection of that real,
visible thing, his body. A large number saw him after his resur-
rection, and conversed with him, and some of them " handled him
with their hands." And unless his resurrection was such as
answered to the common idea of that event, how could it have
256 resurrectiojSt.
been regarded as a proof of his Messiahship ? Suppose he had
b'een raised according to the doctrine above alluded to ; that is,
suppose at his death, his spirit had been separated from his body,
accompanied with a subtle, ethereal organization invisible to mor-
tals, except when made visible by a miracle ; and suppose his
real body had remained in the tomb, and had been anointed with
the "spices and ointments" prepared, and had thus been pre-
served in a sound state, open to the inspection of friends and foes.
On this supposition, how would it have been possible to verify his
prediction concerning his resurrection ? Who among the Jews,
who even among his disciples, would ever have behoved that he
was risen from the dead ? His enemies would have boasted of the
evidence they had that his prediction was false, and that he was a
deceiver. He had said that he should rise from the dead the
third day. But he had not risen ; for there was his dead body
still, carefully preserved in the sepulchre of Joseph, where any
one might see it. In this way the evidence would have been
incontrovertible, that he had not risen from the dead ; and his
disciples would have been confounded, and would have been
obliged to confess that their Lord and Master was an impostor ; —
and thus the fabric of Christianity would have crumbled into dust.
If any one of the apostles had stood forth as a witness of Christ's
resurrection, he would have belied his own conscience, and the
voice of the whole community would have pronounced him a false
witness. Whatever eke is doubtful, this is certain, that such a
resurrection as that above mentioned, was not the resui-rection
which Jesus predicted, and which actually took place in the fulfil-
ment of his prediction ; — it was not what Jesus, or his disciples,
or the Jewish nation, understood by the word resurrection. Un-
less the resurrection of Christ had been widely different from the
one referred to — unless there had been a resurrection of that
very body of Jesus which was laid in the sepulchre — the angel
would not have said to the women who went so early to anoint the
body, " He is not here, for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the
place where the Lord lay." Unless there had been such a resur-
rection of the body of Jesus, there would have been no firm ba^sis
RESURRECTION. 257
on -which to rest the truth of his claims as the Messiah, and the
authority of the rehgion which he taught.
As the resurrection of Jesus is set forth not only as the proof,
but as the pattern^ of the resurrection of his followers ; we must
regard all that belonged to his resurrection, as belonging also to
theirs. We should naturally conclude that the resurrection of the
saints will be the resurrection of their bodies from the meaning of
the word, and from the various instances of actual resurrection
which are mentioned in the history of both dispensations, and
from which the most definite idea of resurrection was derived.
The texts which have been cited, and others which might be
cited, teach our doctrine with great clearness. What other con-
struction can be put upon the language of the sacred writers, and
upon the facts and circumstances which they relate ? Specula-
tive men may strike out a theory of resurrection from their own
reason or fancy, or from the opinions or conjectures of others.
But if we seek to know what the Scriptures teach, and what was
in the minds of the inspired writers, how can we avoid the conclu-
sion which has here been adopted ? But the evidence of our
doctrine which appears most clear and conclusive is found in the
resurrection of Jesus. There is, as we have seen, perfect dem-
onstration, that the resurrection of Jesus was the resurrection of
his body. And the Scriptures teach, that the resurrection of his
followers will be like his ; that they will be raised from the dead
as he was, and will have a body like to the body which he had
after his resurrection, — a body hke to his glorious body.
2. There is another point to be particularly noticed, namely,
that the resurrection of the dead is set forth in the Scriptures as
a future event. It is foretold of all who sleep in Jesus, and of
all who are in the graves, that they shall be raised from the dead.
This view of the resurrection, which is so different from the
teaching of Swedenborg, is revealed with perfect clearness both
in the Old Testament and the New. How can any one doubt
that the prophets and apostles and Christ himself had this con-
ception of it? If it is a truth that the resurrection of every
man takes place at or very near the time of his death ; it is evi-
22*
258 RESURRECTION.
dently a truth which never entered into the minds of the inspired
writers. For they were honest men, and in their writings ex-
pressed, as clearly as language could do, the conceptions of their
own minds. And if they had regarded the resurrection, as the
writer above mentioned did, they certainly would have told us so.
But they have told us the contrary. The main question then for
us to answer is, whether our faith is to rest on the holy Scriptures,
or on the writings of Swedenborg, For see how the subject of
resurrection is treated in the passage before cited, John 5: 28, 29.
" The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall
hear his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good,
to the resurrection of life ; and they that have done evil, to the
resurrection of damnation." If it had been the fact, when Jesus
spoke these words, that those who were constantly dying were
immediately raised from the dead, and that all who had previously
died and had been laid in the graves, had experienced the resur-
rection ; what sense did he convey to his hearers when he spoke
of the resurrection of all who had died and of those who should
die, as what was to take place at a future time ? The hour is
coming in which all who are in the graves shall rise ! — while all
who were then in the graves, had already risen, and not one of
them was to experience any other resurrection ! The disciples of
Swedenborg hold to a spiritual sense of Scripture ; but they hold
also to a literal sense, as the basis of the spiritual. They doubt-
less believe that Christ really and literally died, and was hterally
laid in a sepulchre ; and that men literally die. What then is the
literal sense of the passage above cited ? What is it for those
who are in the graves to come forth, some to the resurrection of
life, and others to the resurrection of condemnation, in the literal
sense ? And what is it for them to come forth in the spiritual
sense ?
1 Thess. 4: 16, 17. To comfort behevers respecting " those
who are asleep," meaning Christians who had died, the Apostle
informs them, that " as Jesus died and rose again, even so," that
is, after the manner of Christ's resurrection, God will raise up his
people from a state of death, and bring them with Jesus. In
RESURRECTION. 259
connection with this, the Apostle speaks of those who will be alive
at the coming of Christ, and says, that they will not be received
to glory before those who are asleep. " For the Lord shall
descend from heaven, — and the dead in Christ shall rise Jirst,''^
that is, previously to the ascension ; and then those who are raised
from the dead, together with those who are changed, " shall be
caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall
be ever with the Lord." The events here mentioned were all
future, equalli/ future. You may as well say, the change of the
living saints had already taken place, or was then constantly
taking place, as that the resurrection of the dead had been taking
place in all past time. And if you deny that these things were
spoken of as future, you may as well deny that anything was ever
spoken of as future, and that no possible forms of speech can
make known any events which are to take place in time to come,
and that all the predictions, that is, the seeming predictions of
the sacred writers, made known nothing but what had already
occurred, or was constantly occurring. And if you do this, you
may as well carry the thing through, and affirm that language is
without meaning or use.
Phil. 3: 20, 21, is a passage of the same import. " But our
conversation is in heaven ; from whence we look for the Saviour, —
who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like to
his glorious body." 2 Cor. 4: 14, " Knowing that he who raised
up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also by Jesus, and present us
with you." From these two passages it appears, that the Apostle
first recurred to the resurrection of Jesus the third day, and then
looked forward to the resurrection of the dead at the coming of
Christ, when their bodies would be fashioned like to his glorious
body, that is, the body which he had after his resurrection, and
with which his disciples saw him ascend to heaven.
The futurity of the resurrection of the dead is taught very
clearly in 1 Cor. xv. The Apostle, speaking of the resurrection,
says ; " Every man in his own order ; Christ the first fruits ;
afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming." The resurrec-
tion of Christ the third day after his death, was past. The resur-
280 EESURRECTION.
rection of his people after the pattern of his, was future. It was
to take place when he would bring his mediatorial kingdom to its
consummation and close, and would put all his enemies under his
feet, and when the living saints would be changed instead of
dying. These texts correspond with the other texts quoted, and
show with all conceivable plainness, that the resurrection of the
dead will come to pass at a future time.
I insist upon this point as of essential importance, in opposition
to the doctrine on which I have anhnadverted. If that doctrine
be true, then all those who had died before Paul wrote, had
already risen from the dead ; and the Apostle committed a great
mistake in charging Hymeneus and Philetus with error, in saying
that the resurrection was already past : for according to the doc-
trine alluded to, the resurrection of the unnumbered millions who
had died from the beginning of the world, ivas past ; and so far
Hymeneus and Philetus were right, in opposition to the teaching
of Paul. But if the opinion of Hymeneus and Philetus was
erroneous, so was the opinion of Swedenborg, who held that the
resurrection of all who had died before his time, was already past.
Hence, in regard to the time of the resurrection, the main ques-
tion seems to be, whether we shall be followers of Hymeneus and
Swedenborg, or followers of Christ and the apostles.
One of the questions which has been most sharply debated
among Christians in regard to the resurrection, is, whether the
same body will be raised. Dr. Dwight says ; " All the difficulties
■which attend this subject are derived — either from extending our
philosophical inquiries beyond the power of the understanding —
or from neglecting to settle what we intend by sameness.''^ Now
if we duly reverence the sacred writers and repose implicit confi-
dence in their instructions, we must, I think, come to the following
conclusions. First ; that the resurrection will be a resurrection
of the body ; and secondly, that the bodies' of the saints, ivhen
raised from the dead, will he very different from what they were
in the present life.
As to the first point, we have seen that the body of Jesus was
RESURRECTION. 261
raised, and that the resurrection of believers is to be conformed
to his. Paul represents objectors as asking, " how are the dead
raised up, and with what bodies do they come ? " And though
they put the question in such a cavilling spirit as called forth his
rebuke, he still gave an answer, and taught as far as was practi-
cable, how the dead are raised, and with what bodies they come.
The body will be raised, as the body of Jesus was. But the body
will be greatly altered. This is the
Second point mentioned. The resurrection body will be exceed-
ingly different from what it was in the former state. The body
of every saint will be Ids body, and will be recognized as such.
This is sufficient as to the question of identity. The body of each
one will be Ids body, and he and others will see it to be so. It
will be none the less a body, and none the less Ms body, because
it will be so altered. A man who is raised up from severe sick-
ness to health, has substantially the same body which was lately
emaciated on his sick bed ; but, in many respects, how altered !
The alteration in the resurrection body, the Apostle describes.
And the description is sufficiently plain, and gives us as clear a
conception of the resurrection body, as we can expect to attain in
the present life. And if any one should make out a description
more particular and exact, and more gratifying to the cravings of
curiosity, would it not be likely to have more of conjecture, than
of fact — more of fiction, than of truth ?
The Apostle, before entering upon his description, refers to the
difference between the grain which dies in the ground, and the
stalk and grain which spring up from it. He refers also to celes-
tial bodies, and terrestrial bodies, which are widely different from
each other in glory. This prepares the way for him to set forth
the difference between the body as it will be at the resurrection,
and as it was when it was committed to the dust. He shows what
a new character it wears. " It is sown in corruption ; it is raised
in incorruption." In the present life, the body is liable to disease,
and tends to decay and dissolution, and finally turns to corruption
and dust. But when raised from the dead, the body wUl be free
jfrom sickness, decay and death, and will be forever incorruptible
262 RESURRECTIOX.
and immortal. — " It is sown in weakness ; it is raised in power."
At the resurrection, it will be ^id of all infirmity and weakness,
and will be endued with an unfailing energy and activity, which
will prepare it for a higher sphere, and render it capable of going
through with the sublime and ceaseless employments of the
heavenly world, without weariness or need of rest, and with per-
fect alacrity and delight. In that better world, holy love, worship
and obedience will be rest and joy to the saints. They will be
strong in mind and strong in body, like those cekstial beings
" who excel in strength."
" It is sown in dishonor ; it is raised in glory." In the present
state the body is base and uncomely, compared with the beauty
and glory with which it will be invested at the resurrection, and
which will fit it for the company of the excellent and glorious in
heaven.
"It is sown a natural body ; it is raised a spiritual body."
The Apostle does not say, the resurrection body is spirit. This
would be inconsistent with its being a body. But it will be a
spiritual body. It will, as we may say, be spiritualized — will be
endued with something of a spiritual quality, and so be fitted for
the spiritual world. The natural body, that is, flesh and blood in
its present state, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It is not
adapted to such a state. It cannot hear the music of heaven. It
cannot relish the pleasures of heaven. It would faint and die at
the sight of the glory of God. " Corruption cannot inherit in-
corruption."
Such is the instruction which the Scriptures give on the present
subject. And such is the amount of what we know, or can know,
in the present imperfect world. — There will be a resurrection of
the dead. The body will be raised, but will be very different from
what it is in this life. It will not consist of flesh and blood in a
corruptible state, as it does while on earth. It will be incorrupti-
ble, powerful, glorious, and spiritual, adapted to the employments
and pleasures of the heavenly world. The same will be the con-
dition of the bodies of those saints, who will remain on earth at
the coming of Christ. They will undergo a change, and will
become incorruptible, powerful, glorious and spiritual.
RESURRECTION". 263
You must have observed, that in all the passages which have
been quoted from the Epistles, the inspired writer had his eye
upon the resurrection of believers. He speaks of the resurrection
of Christ, and of those who are his. He speaks of the resurrec-
tion of those who " sleep in Jesus,^^ and of " the dead in Christ,^''
and of a resurrection which will be glorious and happy. But in
Matt. 25: 28, 29, in Dan. 12: 2, and in the Apocalypse, the gen-
eral resurrection is very clearly foretold.
I shall close this free discussion of the subject with a few re-
marks of a practical nature.
1. It is a remarkable fact, that while the inspired writers labor
so assiduously to give us all the instruction which is adapted to be
really useful to us, thei/ do little to satisfy our curiosity. There
is no end to the questions which may arise in the minds of specu-
lative men. — What is the exact condition of the souls of men in
the disembodied state ? How do they see and know, and how do
they converse with each other ? How do they differ from what
they were in this life, and from what they will be after the resur-
rection ? What became of Lazarus and those who rose from the
dead at Jerusalem near the time of Christ's resurrection ? Did
they die twice, and will they have a second resurrection ? When
the dead are raised with refined and incorruptible bodies, and the
living saints are changed, will the grosser elements of their bodies
be separated and left behind, or be transmuted and sublimated so
as to be fitted for a higher mode of being ? And how was it in
these respects with the resurrection body of Jesus ? What is the
case with those bodies which have been devoured by animals, or
consumed by fire, or perished upon the surface of the earth ?
How can the particles which composed their bodies be collected
together from all parts of the world at the resurrection, and con-
stitute, in whole or in part, those bodies to which they once
belonged ? Such questions may be multipUed indefinitely ; and
the best thing we can do in reply, may be to repeat the significant
words which Paul used in a similar case ; "Ye do greatly err,
not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Such
264 RESURRECTION.
inquiries do not concern us. If they could be answered, the
answer would contribute nothing to our present or future well-
being. But they relate to matters beyond the reach of our in-
telligence, and cannot be answered. Happy they, who are content
"with the word of God ; who beheve and practise what is revealed ;
and who are thus secured against doubt and perplexity, and filled
with light and comfort !
2. Those who deny the common doctrine of the future
resurrection of the dead, and maintain that all who have died
in past time have already had their resurrection, and that all
men have it near the time of their death, — those who main-
tain this are chargeable with exalting the speculations of phi-
losophy or the visions of enthusiasm above the authority of the
inspired writers. There are few instances, in which men who
entertain a serious regard for revelation, deviate so widely
from its obvious truths, and so palpably neglect its instruc-
tions.
Finally. Those who imbibe the spirit of the sacred writers,
must regard the resurrection as a great blessing. Who can
suppose that God would have done so much to reveal it, and to
assure us that he will exert his omnipotence to accomplish it,
had he not viewed it as a matter of great moment to his people ?
And unless inspired men regarded it in this light, why did they
hold it up as an object of joyful expectation to believers ? The
happiness of the saints in the presence of their Saviour must
be indescribably great in the interval between death and the
resurrection. But it will doubtless be augmented by the resur-
rection. To attain to the highest good of which we are capable,
"we must, it would seem, be perfectly human heings. And how
can a«ny one be perfectly humane without a soul and body united ?
The separation of the soul and body by death is the consequence
of sin. But Christ will dehver his people from sin and from
all its consequences. This dehverance will be completed at
the resurrection, when they will exist in their two-fold nature,
that is, with soul and body happily united, the soul perfect in
holiness, and the body incorruptible, complete in all its powers
BESURRECTION. 265
and sensibilities, and fitted to cooperate with the soul in all that
will be done and enjoyed in the world of glory. Such, I ap-
prehend, is the doctrine of Scripture. And the faith of Chris-
tians will be correct and their joy will be full, if they receive the
doctrine with simplicity and meekness, going as far as Scripture
goes, and stopping where it stops, and looking at the resurrec-
tion in its own divine light as an object of desire and joyful
expectation during their mortal hfe, and as an event which
will illustriously display the infinite power and benevolence of
God.
How difierent from these views of the Apostle and primitive
Christians, are those expressed by the celebrated German phi-
losopher, Kant, who thinks it can be no kind of advantage to
us, that a body, however improved, " should be dragged after
us through all eternity." With the same anti-Christian spirit,
he might also vilify the wisdom and goodness of our Creator
in giving and preserving to us a body during our present life.
How low must have been his conceptions of the marvellous work
of God in creating our bodies, and his still more marvellous
work in raising them from the slumbers of the grave, and ma-
king them hke to the glorious body of Christ ! And what a
reckless spirit does any man manifest, who can look without
admiration, and even with contempt, upon God's workmanship
in the structure of the human body, which is so fearfully and
wonderfully made, which is such an honor to the perfections
of God, and which in its incorruptible state is destined to be an
essential part of man's happy and glorious existence in the world
to come.
We find that the Apostle regarded the resurrection not only
as an object of cheerful hope, but as a motive to the diligent
discharge of duty. Immediately after he had finished his
account of the resurrection, representing it as the final victory
which Christ would give his people over the powers of evil, he
applied it to a practical use. " Therefore, my beloved breth-
ren,"— "therefore," that is, seeing you look for such an event
VOL. ni. 23
266 RESUBRECTION.
as the coming of Christ and the completion of his glorious vic-
tory in the resurrection of his people from the dead, — "there-
fore— be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the
"work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor shall
not be in vain in the Lord."
LECTURE CVII.
THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS PUNISHMENT DEFENDED AGAINST
THE OBJECTIONS OF JOHN FOSTER.
It would be a very pleasing employment, to join with Howe and
Watts, and other uninspired writers, and especially with those
who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, in contempla-
ting the happiness of the saints in glory. When the believer takes
into view the holy employments and pleasures of the heavenly
world, as made known by God's word and Spirit, he spontaneously
exclaims, " This is all my salvation and all my desire." But I
shall pass from this subject to one which is far less pleasing, but
which, for obvious reasons, calls for a more particular considera-
tion. The future punishment of the wicked has been made a
subject of much controversy among those who profess to believe
the Scriptures. And as the whole subject has a direct bearing
upon our personal interests, and upon the interests of our friends
and fellow creatures, and as it thus comes in contact with our self-
love, and with all our benevolent and sympathetic affections, it is
exceedingly difficult for us to pursue the consideration of it with-
out some improper bias, and a consequent exposure to erroneous
judgments. They therefore must be considered as very highly
favored of God, who can proceed in the investigation of this sub-
ject from right motives, and on just and Scriptural principles.
And one thing to be constantly kept in mind is, that it does not
belong to us to contrive the plan of the universe, or to settle the
principles of the divine government, but to learn from the word
268 FUTUKE PUNISHMENT.
and providence of God wliat those principles are ; just as "we
study natural science, not to fix or improve the laws of nature, but
to find out what those laws are.
The sacred writers generally set forth the future punishment of
the wicked in figurative language. And they evidently do this,
because such language is best adapted to express their own vivid
conceptions of the evil to be endured, and to awaken just concep-
tions of it in the minds of others. It is nothing uncommon for
guilty men to attempt to relieve themselves of the painful appre-
hension of future misery by the idea, that the terrific language of
Scripture which describes it, is not to be understood literally.
Whereas no words used in their literal sense, could do justice to
the awful subject, or adequately make known the strong impres-
sions of the writers. And it is apparent that no single metaphor
could fully answer the purpose. The sacred pen-men therefore
use a great variety of metaphorical language, derived from the
most terrific objects in nature, for the purpose of teaching us that
the punishment to be inflicted on the wicked is inexpressibly dread-
ful. Such is evidently their object ; and such should be our
object, whenever we quote their language.
But it is an obvious fact, that while the inspired writers present
the subject before us as a reahty of the gravest moment, they do
not attempt, by a minute description, to give us any exact concep-
tions of the particular nature and mode of the penal inflictions
which the enemies of God will hereafter endure. With that wis-
dom which is profitable to direct, they leave the subject wrapped
up in an indefiniteness and awful mysteriousness, which is ob-
viously adapted to guard our minds against an unbefitting famil-
iarity, and to inspire us with an active and enduring dread of the
threatened evil.
Many authors of eminent qualifications have successfully defend-
ed the common doctrine of the Christian church on the present sub-
ject, and have clearly shown the inconclusiveness of the arguments
urged against it. It is not therefore necessary for me to bring for-
ward in detail the evidence which Scripture afibrds in support of the
doctrine of endless punishment. I shall here pursue the discus-
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 269
sion with reference to a specific object. A letter was written by
the celebrated John Foster in the year 1841, and afterwards
published, on the subject now under consideration. In that letter
the popular arguments against the common doctrine are exhibited
in the most impressive and touching manner. The thoughts sug-
gested in the letter, together with the influence of the author's
name, are adapted to unsettle the faith of multitudes. At the
present day, when there is in the public mind extensively so
remarkable a proneness to question long-established truths, to
undervalue the clearest evidence, and to look with favor upon
opinions directly contrary to the teachings of revelation, a letter
written by so gifted an author in so eloquent and attractive a
manner, must be expected to produce a sensible effect upon the
interests of religion. And there is another circumstance which
increases the dangerous tendency of such a letter, namely, that,
although the writer's disbeHef of so important a doctrine was long
known, it was treated not only with lenity and indulgence, but
even with apparent indifference, by his Christian and ministerial
brethren, and seemed not at all to affect his reputation or influence
as an orthodox man. For the purpose of vindicating the cause of
truth, I have therefore concluded to subject the leading points
touched upon in this letter, to a careful but brief examination, and
thus, as far as may be, to assist inquirers after the truth in rightly
estimating the value of the considerations which the letter contains,
— which are in fact the very considerations that have most weight
in the minds of men against the common doctrine.
I shall set forth what I consider as mistakes of the author, under
two general heads : firsts mistakes as to the use of reason ; second^
mistakes as to feeling.
First, as to reason. Here it is evident, that our author com-
mits a great mistake, in looking upon human reason, as a compe-
tent judge of the divine administration. He imposes upon reason
a task which it is by no means able to perform. And after com-
mitting this primary mistake, he proceeds, in an incorrect use of
his reason, to frame sophistical arguments, and to draw conclusions
•which are manifestly unwarrantable.
23*
270 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
The most plausible argument which human reason has ever
framed against the doctrine of endless punishment, is derived from
a consideration of the divine benevolence. And this is the argu-
ment -which our author makes most prominent in the letter before
us. As to the belief of the doctrine under consideration, he says,
" I acknowledge mj inability (I would say it reverently) to admit
this belief together with a belief in the divine goodness — the
belief that God is love, that his tender mercies are over all his
works."* The argument is, that the final happiness of all intelh-
gent beings must, in the view of reason, follow from the benevo-
lence of God ; that his goodness will not admit of the endless
misery of any of his creatures.
In the discussion of this subject, the following things may be
laid aside as not belonging to the question at issue, because they
are admitted by our author, and by others who reject the common
doctrine, as well as by those who maintain it. 1. That Grod is
infinitely benevolent. This, being held by both parties in the con-
troversy, makes no part of the subject in debate. 2. It is admit-
ted by both parties, that the Scriptures are divinely inspired. 3.
It is agreed, that sin exists. Accordingly it does not belong to me,
any more than to my opponents, to account for the introduction of
sin, or to prove its existence to be consistent with the goodness
of God. 4. It is agreed, that man is a moral., accountable being,
under laiv, and is blame-worthy when he transgresses. 5. It is
agreed, that the penalty zvhich God has affixed to the law, is just,
and of course may be justly executed upon the transgressor. Our
author frequently asserts, that sinners deserve to suffer a severe
punishment and that for a long time, according to the penalty of
the law. 6. It is agreed that all the sufferings which are actually
endured by sinners are consistent with the divine perfections —
that whenever endured, they are in conformity with the justice and
benevolence of the Supreme Being.
These things then, are not to be debated. So far we have
common ground. What then is the point in controversy ? It is
* See the Letter, in the Life and Correspondence of John Foster by J. K
Ryland, London, 1846, vol. II., pp. 404 — 416. See also pp. 444 — 448.
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 271
not whether God is good, nor whether man is a sinner and de-
serves punishment, nor whether God is just and good in punishing ;
but simply, whether the punishment will be without end. We hold
the affirmative, our author the negative. We ground our beUef
on the declarations of Scripture. Our author would consider the
Scriptures as satisflictorilj teaching the doctrine of endless pun-
ishment, did not his views of the divine benevolence prevent* As
to ourselves, whatever difficulties arise in our minds respecting the
consistency of endless punishment with the goodness of God, we
overcome them by our regard to the teachings of Scripture. Our
author sets aside these plain teachings, by the opinion he enter-
tains of the divine goodness. He says, " The language of
Scripture \& formidably strong ; so strong, that it must be an ar-
gument of extreme cogency that would authorize a limited inter-
pretation." And what is the argument " which presses irresistibly
upon his mind ? " He says, it does not arise from any " incidental
expressions of Scripture," or from " any passages dubiously cited
in favor of final, universal restitution." That is, it does not arise
from any texts in favor of universal salvation. " It is the moral
argument J'^ He is overwhelmed with the dreadfulness of a
punishment which is absolutely endless, and concludes that the
goodness of God will certainly prevent it. This is the main argu-
ment on which he relies, and which he thinks so cogent, that it
authorizes him to give a limited interpretation to the language of
Scripture which is so " formidably strong."
Here then we come upon one of the chief mistakes of our
author, namely, his looking upon human reason as qualified by its
own light, to judge of the divine administration. I acknowledge
that, if we were put to the task of determining by our own reason,
independently of revelation, whether the punishment of men for the
sins of the present life will be endless, we should in all probability
decide in the negative. But it would be manifest presumption for
any man to attempt to do this. No human being, how great soever
the strength of his reason, is competent to the task. To enable a
man to judge safely and truly on such a momentous subject as this,
he must have the following qualifications. He must comprehend
"272 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
the whole of the intrinsic malignity and vileness of sinning against
such a being as God, of hating his character and attempting to
sully his glory. He must comprehend the whole amount of hap-
piness which sin aims or tends to destroy, and the whole of the
mischief which it aims or tends to do among intelligent beings.
He must fully comprehend the bearing which God's treatment of
sin will have upon the interests of the universe, consisting of so
many millions of worlds, — interests which are so dear to the
heart of a benevolent Creator and a righteous Governor, and
which he will be sure to promote. It will not be sufficient for him
to be acquainted with benevolence, and to know hoAv it operates, in
the mind of man, in the mind of a father, a citizen, a legislator,
and a judge. He must know what benevolence is in the mind of
Crod, what perfect benevolence is in distinction from imperfect^
and what infinite benevolence is in distinction from finite. He
must know infallibly what punishment will be just, that is, what
will correspond exactly with the ill-desert of sinners, and at the
same time what will promote the welfare of God's moral kingdom,
which is the object of his benevolence. In other words, he must
know how justice and benevolence are united in the divine admin-
istration. He must comprehend infinite perfection, and must
know how infinite perfection will act itself out in a moral empire,
which is so boundless in extent, and is to endure forever. All
these qualifications would be necessary to enable a man to form a
right judgment as to the duration of future punishment. But no
man, not even John Foster, with his brilliant imagination and his
profound understanding, has any one of these necessary qualifica-
tions. "Who," says the Scripture, — "who hath known the
mind of the Lord, and who hath been his counsellor ? " The
things of a man, according to the Apostle, may be known by the
spirit of man which is in him. But the things of Grod can be
known only by the Spirit of God. What should we say, if in a
Court of Justice we should see an ignorant man proudly place
himself in the seat of the Judge, and undertake to pass sentence
upon complicated questions of law, brought forward for adjudica-
tion ? But how much more obvious is the arrogance and folly of
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 273
any man, who undertakes to pronounce judgment upon those who
sin against God, and to decide upon the punishment which they
shall suffer. When our author undertook this, he was out of his
place. It is God's to reign. It is man's to submit. It is God's
to pass sentence upon the transgressors of his law. It is man's to
learn from the Holy Scriptures, and by and by from the decisions
of the last day, what the sentence of God will be.
It is in this way I now meet the argument of our respected au-
thor. His argument is, that the infinite benevolence of God will, in
his view, certainly prevent the endless punishment of sinners. My
reply is, that no man is qualified to form a judgment on this sub-
ject. The wisest man on earth would go beyond his province, if
he should undertake to do this. For the wisest man is of yester-
day, xlnd. though he may know how the limited benevolence of
the human mind will be likely to operate ; what means has he of
knowing what infinite benevolence will do, or will not do ? How
does he know what is necessary to give support to law and justice
in God's intelligent universe ? Does any man possess any one of
the qualifications Avhich are necessary to prepare him to judge on
such a subject ? And if he attempts to judge, is it not to be
expected, that his judgment will differ widely from the infallible
judgment of God ? If a little child should be asked, what shall
be the punishment of a man who fraudulently writes a note ; he
would doubtless answer very differently from a wise legislator or a
just judge.
This method of solving the difficulty, which is apt to arise in
our minds respecting the endless duration of punishment, appears
not only short and easy, but just and proper. I at once say to
myself, it is a subject which lies beyond the reach of my faculties.
I am not qualified to judge ; and I therefore refer it, as I do
other subjects, to him who cannot err, and whose ways are all
just and true. If he has made known his judgment in his word,
I will endeavor to learn what it is, and will quietly acquiesce in it,
being sure of its rectitude. And if the truth on this or any
other subject is not revealed in the word of God, I will cheerfully
leave it, with all the unseen interests involved in it, to the decision
274 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
of his righteous and omniscient mind. How short and easy would
this method have been to our author ! And from what told and
untold doubts and difficulties, from what painful struggles and
agonies of mind, and from what perilous conclusions would it
have preserved him ! And what peace would it have imparted to
him, — peace passing all understanding, flowing from his dis-
trust of his own wisdom, and liis implicit and unwavering confi-
dence in God !
0
But the essential error which I have charged upon this distin-
guished author, calls for more particular consideration.
His argument against the endless punishment of the wcked, is
grounded in part on the idea, tliat such punishment would be
beyond the desert of sin. Perhaps I ought to say, it is grounded
on this idea chiefly. For I suppose he would not consider endless
. punishment as inconsistent with the goodness of God, if sin were
so great an evil as really to deserve it. Surely God, as a good
Ruler, may properly inflict a punishment on ofienders equal to
their demerit. On the other hand, we are sure the punishment
will never exceed tlie demerit of the ofience. The ill-desert of
sin is then a material point in this discussion. And here I allege,
as before, that our author commits a palpable mistake in under-
taking to judge on a subject which so far transcends the limits of
the human mind. And it is not strange that so presumptuous an
undertaking should result in an erroneous judgment. For who
ever took upon himself to perform a work for which he was essen-
tially unqualified, without being exposed to continual mistakes,
and to an unsuccessful issue ? It is clear, that one who is com-
petent to form a correct opinion of the real demerit of sin, must
have a perfect discernment of what sin is in itself, and in all its
relations and influences. He must know all its intrinsic malignity
and vileness. He must know the relation of sin to tlie soul, and
the whole of those immortal interests which it tends to destroy.
He must know its relation to God, and how great an evil it is to
feel and act out enmity to so great and good and glorious a Law-
giver and Ruler. He must know the relation of sin to a world
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 275
and a universe of intelligent creatures, and its aim and tendency
to propagate its own pollution among them, and to spread disorder
and ruin far and wide. All this and more must any one know,
and know perfectly, before he can be considered competent to
form a right judgment of the whole demerit of sin. For surely
the demerit, the ill-desert of sin, must be in proportion to its own
intrinsic evil, and its natural aim and tendency to sully the
glorious perfections of God, and to destroy the blessedness of
immortal souls. And the punishment which is required must be
correspondent with this intrinsic malignity of sin, and must be
sujfficient to counteract its deleterious bearing upon the moral
creation, and in the end to turn it from a ruinous to a beneficial
result. Who among mortals, who among angels and the spirits
of the just made perfect, has so clear and complete a conception
of this whole subject, that he can look upon himself as a compe-
tent judge, or can with any show of propriety rely upon the deduc-
tions of his own reason ?
It appears moreover, that man not only falls so far short of
the clearness and extent of knowledge which is necessary in the
case before us, but is essentially disqualified by his evil inclina-
tions. A perfectly competent judge in regard to the demerit of
sin, must be entirely free from prejudice, and must have a holy
as well as an omniscient mind. Now man, every man, is a sinner.
And if he undertakes to judge of the ill-desert of the sinner, he
undertakes to judge of his oivn ill-desert. And thus being not
only destitute of the requisite knowledge, but subject to self-
interest, and partiality, and the blinding influence of a depraved
heart, can he be expected to judge righteous judgment ? Is it
not strange that we should ever be unmindful of that sound
maxim, that no mayi is to judge in Ms own case? Whoever
takes upon him to decide on the guilt of sin, must be supposed to
be conscious that his decision has a bearing upon himself; and
even if he should seem to forget himself, it would still be true,
that his spiritual discernment has been obscured by sin, and that
his judgment is liable to be influenced by his earthly and selfish
inclinations. If he is a good man, he has indeed been convinced
276 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
of sin, and has seen its criminality, especially in himself. But he
has seen this only in part, and has never, in his best frames, been
wholly free from the effect of sin in darkening the understanding
and blunting the moral sensibilities. So that, if he comes to the
■work of judging, it must be not only with very defective knowledge,
but with dispositions and feehngs, which disqualify him for the
work.
It is moreover manifest, that our author not only puts reason to
perform a work to which it is incompetent, but that in the use he
actually makes of reason, he is chargeable with mistakes which
reason itself can easily detect. For example, he infers from the
shortness of the time occupied in committing sin, that the duration
of its penal consequence must be limited ; in other words, that
there must be some proportion between the length of time spent in
sinning, and the length of time spent in suffering. He reasons that
endless misery cannot be " a just infliction for a few short, sinful
years on earth."
The falsity of the principle here asserted may be made evident,
by referring to events which take place under the divine constitu-
tion in the present life. How often does a single violation of
moral law involve the offender in a long series of sufferings,
extending to the end of life ! For one act of wickedness, begun
and ended in a few moments, a man may be deprived of all that
is dear to him on earth, and be condemned to perpetual imprison-
ment, or, what is more dreadful still, to a painful and igno-
minious death. This mode of retribution, which God has ap-
pointed, and which has been regarded as just by the wise and
good, shows that the chief criminality of an offender may have
little to do with the time spent in committing the offence, and that
we can by no means conclude that punishment must be limited in
its duration because of the short duration of the offence. Atid
yet some one may cry out against the injustice of such a principle,
and say, what ! subject a man to the loss of all the comforts of
life, and to severe sufferings fifty or sixty years, for the act of a
few moments ! But it must be so ; and justice, both human and
divine, approves the measure, and may appoint the longest penal
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. ' 277
infliction for the shortest criminal deed. The principle holds
especially in God's moral government. To discredit the common
doctrine, our author exclaims, rather rhetorically, " Millions of
ages for each evil thought or word ! " But we are not to be
governed by exclamations. Do we doubt that angels were
banished from heaven, and doomed to suffer " the vengeance of
eternal fire," for one act, the very first act of rebellion ? And do
we doubt that there was an evil in that one brief act, which ren-
dered such a retribution just ? Do we not know that for " one
offence," one single act of disobedience, committed in a few
moments, Adam, in the morning of his existence, was excluded
forever from Paradise, and that the " one offence," which some
may think so small, brought penal evils upon him, and upon the
countless millions of his posterity, which no tongue can describe
and no finite understanding fully conceive ? Verily God's thoughts
in regard to the ill-desert of sin are not our thoughts, nor are his
ways our ways. Thus our author commits a general mistake, by
attempting to determine by his own reason what is or what is not
the ill-desert of sin, and then by an evidently wrong use of reason,
he falls into various particular mistakes.
It seems not to have occurred to him, that the exclamation
above cited, which is so fitted to make an impression unfavorable
to the common doctrine, may be turned against himself, and may
be used to discredit what he himself beheves. For he holds that
the punishment of the wicked in the future world will be of a very
long continuance. He says, as we have already noticed, that
" the language of Scripture on the subject is foinnidably strong,
and that nothing would authorize a limited interpretation, but an
argument of extreme cogency." He says, too, " There is a force
in the expressions of Scripture, at which we may well tremble ;
that on no allowable interpretation do they signify less than a
very protracted duration and formidable severity." The most he
dares to hope is, that the terms everlasting, eternal, forever, " are
used to magnify and aggravate rather than define, and do not
mean a strictly endless duration." He seems to agree with Dr.
Hartley and other respectable writers, who entertain the pleasing
VOL. III. 24
278 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
idea, that all sinful beings will finally be restored to holiness and '
happiness, but believe that their punishment will be for millions of
ages, even so long that, in popular speech, it may justly be said
to be everlasting, forever and ever. Now many persons, less
serious and less mindful of the authority of Scripture than our
author, will be very likely to exclaim, — What ! thousands of
years^ yea millions of ages spent in ynisery for the sins of a short
life, perhaps very short ! Who can believe this, and yet believe in
the goodness of Q-od? The discerning eye of Foster perceived
the formidable severity, the inexpressible dreadfulness of future
punishment, taken even in this limited sense, and he trembled in
view of it. But in this case his reverence for the word of God
raised him above the difficulty, and induced a serious belief of the
tremendous truth, although he was totally unable to make out a
rational proof that sin is so enormous an evil as to deserve such a
recompense. How happy would it have been, had he acted on
the same principle in the other case, and had cherished such a
reverence for the holy Scriptures, as to induce a cordial belief in
a doctrine which they plainly teach, though he was unable to com-
prehend the whole evil of sin, or to see how the doctrine of Scrip-
ture can be reconciled with God's moral perfections. How happy,
if he had kept in lively remembrance, that the human understand-
ing does not measure things as the divine understanding does ; if,
instead of taking ujwn himself to judge by his own rational faculties
what God can or cannot consistently do, he had exercised a filial
confidence in God's rectitude and goodness in regard to the future
punishment of transgressors. How happy, finally, would our
author have been, if in view of* the most gloomy and dreadful
disclosures of revelation respecting the future state of the wicked,
he could have possessed the posture of mind which the Psalmist
had when he said ; " The Lord reigneth ; let the earth rejoice.
Clouds and darkness are round about him; justice and judgment
are the habitation of his throrier
But I have not done with this point. Our author, we have
seen, looked upon the doctrine of endless punishment as dismal
and appalling. And I have remarked, that the doctrine of severe
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 279
penal inflictions foi* thousands and millions of years, must also
have appeared to him dismal and appalling, and not easily recon-
ciled with his notions of the demerit of sin and the moral attri-
butes of God. And how is it with the evils consequent upon sin
in the present world, which, but for the existence of sin, had been
a Paradise for mankind through all their countless generations ?
What is the miserable condition to which they are actually
doomed ? Of all this our author draws a very dark picture.
He says to one of his cori-espoudents ; '' Are you not sometimes
invaded by the darkest visions and reflections, while casting your
eye over the scene of human existence from the beginning to this
hour? To me it appears a most mysteriously awful economy,
overspread by a lurid and dreadful shade. To see a nature,
created in purity, qualified for perfect and endless felicity, rtiined
at the very origin by a disaster devolving fatally on the whole
race ; to see it at an early age estranged from the love and fear
of its Creator — abandoned to all evil till swept away by a deluge
— the renovated race spreading downward through ages in dark-
ness, wickedness, and misery — the grand remedial visitation,
Christianity, laboring in difficult progress and very Hmited extent,
and soon perverted into darkness and superstition for a thousand
years — at the present hour known by very greatly the minority
of the race, the mighty mass remaining prostrate under the infer-
nal dominion — the sum of all these melancholy facts being, that
thousands of millions have passed, and thousands are every day
passing out of the world, in no state of fitness for a pure and
happy state elsewhere. 0, it is a most confounding and appalHng
contemplation ! "
Such is the accumulation of present evils consequent upon the
fall of man. Our author admitted their existence, and mourned
over them, and was confounded by them. But did he know how
to reconcile them with the righteousness and benevolence of the
Supreme Being, who doeth all things after the counsel of his own
will ? No. He owned his ignorance ; he was confounded by the
contemplation of the appalling subject — as really so as by the
contemplation of everlasting misery. But hov.ever dismal the
280 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
scene of human degradation and sufifering from the fall to the
present hour, he uttered not a word of complaint against the
divine govei-nment ; he whispered no suspicion of the divine jus-
tice or benevolence. Now whence arose the difference in his
treatment of the two subjects ? It arose doubtless from this cir-
cumstance, that the present consequences of sin were objects of
sense, and could not be doubted ; while its future consequences,
being presented before him only in the way of divine predictions,
were open to all the questionings and objections of unbelief, and
hence were not admitted as a matter of a cordial, undoubting
faith.
But I must proceed to another passage in the letter. The
writer, adverting to a principle of human legislation, says ; " The
man -tempted to crime should, as /a>' as possible without actual
experience, be apprised of the nature and measure of the penal
consequence. If it be something totally out of the scope of his
faculties to apprehend — it is unknown, and has lost its appro-
priate fitness to deter him. There is or may be in it what would
be of mighty force to deter him, if he could have a competent
notion of it. But his necessary ignorance precludes from him
that salutary force. Is he not thus taken at a fearful disadvan-
tage ? " The author applies this to the present case. He says,
— " The threatened penalty," — that is, if it be endless, — " sur-
passes in imagination every intellect but the Omniscient. Might
we not imagine the reflection of one of the condemned delin-
quents suffering through a milUon of ages, to be expressed in some
such manner as this ; 0, if it had been possible for me to con-
ceive the most diminutive part of the horror of this doom, every
temptation to sin would have been enough to strike me dead
with terror ; I should have shrunk from it with the most violent
recoil."
This argument is aimed against the doctrine of endless punish-
ment. As it is evidently impossible that any finite mind should
fully conceive the dreadfulness of everlasting misery, and as the
subjects of a just law must, in our author's view,"have a concep-
tion of the whole evil involved in the penalty;" his conclusion
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 281
is, that a penalty, so inconceivably dreadful as everlasting misery,
could not be intended by the divine Lawgiver. The sophistry of
this reasoning is quickly seen. It is indeed evident that the whole
amount of endless suffering cannot be fully conceived by the
human mind. Nor can we fully conceive the whole amount of
suffering for millions of years, or for any long period. Indeed no
man can fully conceive beforehand what it is to endure the penalties
which sin incurs in the present world, as the privations and suffer-
ings of imprisonment, the horrors and agonies of dying on the
gallows, or even the pains and distresses of the more violent forms
of disease. Hence, on the principle adopted by our author, none
of these penal consequences of sin would be just and equitable,
and if any one, who has only so imperfect a conception of them,
should be doomed to endure them, he would be " taken at a fear-
ful disadvantage." But who would allege this, and thus be guilty
of impeaching the justice of all the above named penalties ?
The principle adopted by our author implies, that, unless we
have a perfect apprehension of the evil involved in the penalty, we
are left without suitable motives to avoid transgression, and cannot
be justly held accountable for our conduct. But it will be easy to
see the fallacy of this principle, if we attend to the following
things.
1. This principle would be as really opposed to the limited view
of our author respecting future punishment, as to the common
view. For, as we have already noticed, no man can have a clear
and full conception of future misery continued for millions, or
thousands, or hundreds of years ; and then, according to the
ideas of our author, no one can be justly held accountable for
his conduct, inasmuch as suitable motives to obedience are not pre-
sented before liis mind. In this manner the author contradicts his
own scheme, as much as ours.
2. Our having suitable motives to avoid sin and obey the law,
does not by any means require that we should have a full conception
of the whole evil involved in the penalty for disobedience ; nor does
it require that we should, " as far as possible, be apprised of
the nature and measure of the penal consequence." The author
24*
282 FUTURE PUNISHMEXT.
refers to civil government for illustration. But what civil govern-
ment does all that is possible to make the subjects sensible of the
dreadfulness of the penalty by which obedience is inculcated, or
impresses upon them the motives which should deter them from
crime tvith the greatest possible clearness and force? Enlightened
legislators and rulers will do all that is suitable and proper to
deter men from crime ; but they never do all that is possible.
Besides publishing the law and its penalty, it would certainly be
possible to employ qualified officers, who should repeatedly go to
every family, and labor assiduously to impress every person,
whether old or young, with the meaning of the law, and with the
dreadfulness of the punishment it denounces against offenders.
But neither the justice nor the benevolence of rulers requires
this. They will do all that is fit and proper, but not all that is
possible, to deter men from committing offences.
And it is very clear, that the Supreme Ruler does not act upon
the principle of doing all that is possible to impress the minds of
men with the evil consequences of sin, and to deter them from it.
He does not give them the clearest possible conception of the
punishment of sin ; he does not hold up before them the motives
to obedience with the greatest possible power, nor does he exert
his omnipotence to the utmost to render those motives effectual.
A careful attention to the word and providence of God will show
to demonstration, that he does not conduct the affairs of his moral
government on this principle. He gave a particular command to
Adam, and affixed a penalty ; and a dreadful penalty it was.
But it does not appear from the sacred records that Adam was as
fully infoi-med as possible, what would be the consequences of his
transgressing the law, either upon himself, or upon his posterity.
In the revelations which God made to mankind, under the former
dispensation, did he give them the clearest possible light respecting
the evil consequences of sin, or respecting any of the principles
of religion ? If so, what need of the clearer light of the gospel ?
And if the Christian Scriptures have made known the divine law
and its penalty, and the doctrine of redemption with the greatest
possible clearness and force, what need of so much labor on the
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 283
part of ministers and other teachers to make them more intelligible
and impressive ?
What then is our conclusion respecting the principle of the
divine conduct in this respect ? It is this ; that God, in the exer-
cise of his own unsearchable and sovereign wisdom, imparts to man-
kind, not the clearest possible, instruction, but such instruction as
he judges to be proper respecting their duty, and respecting the
present and future consequences of transgression ; the knowledge
which he gives them by means of his works, and by the law written
on their hearts, and by additional revelations, being in all cases
sufficient, unless hindered by their own fault, to guide them in the
right way, and sufficient to render them inexcusable, and the sen-
tence of condemnation against them just, when they sin. God in
his providence grants different advantages to mankind in differ-
ent periods of the world, and different advantages to different
individuals at the same period ; but he grants such advantages to
all, as to make it their duty to worship and serve him, and to ren-
der them worthy of punishment if they neglect it. And he holds
them accountable for what they have, not for what they have not.
In this way we justify the ways of God to man. To pretend that
a righteous and benevolent God must give to all mankind the
clearest possible conception of the penal consequences of sin, or
the greatest possible light on any subject, is plainly contrary to the
conduct of his providence and to the teachings of his word, and is
inconsistent ivith the methods ivhich he has adopted for the trial of
his intelligent creatures.
There is another mistake of our author in the passage quoted.
He signifies that, if men had a sufficiently clear conception of the
penal consequences of sin, they would avoid it. He represents
those who suffer through a million of ages, as having the reflec-
tion, that if they could have conceived the smallest part of the horror
of such a doom, they would have shrunk back with terror from the
commission of sin ; whereas it is far more probable that their con-
sciences will reproach them for abusing the privileges which God
in mercy granted them, and for neglecting the reasonable service
which he required of them. They will see that the cause of their
284 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
perishing was not the want of more light, but their sinning against
the light which God gave them. It is manifestly implied in our
author's remarks, though he was not aware of the implication, that
sinners themselves are not so much in fault, as the providence of
God.
It is moreover imphed, that if they had been favored with a
clearer conception of the punishment of sin, they would have
been effectually deterred from the commission of it. For a cor-
rection of this mistake I refer you to the parable of the rich man
and Lazarus. The rich man requested that more striking and
solemn instruction and warning might be sent to his brethren to
prevent them from coming to the place of torment where he was,
and he was confident that such warning would have the desired
effect upon them. But the answer was ; " If they hear not Moses
and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded, though one
should rise from the dead." Now those who live in Christian
lands have not only Moses and the prophets, but Clirist and the
apostles. They are expressly told, that the soul that sinneth shall
die ; that indignation and wrath shall be visited upon them who
obey not the gospel ; that the impenitent and unbelieving shall not
see life, but shall go away into everlasting punishment, into the fire
that shall not be quenched. Now we may justly say, if men are
not persuaded by these instructions and warnings, to turn from
the ways of sin, neither would they be persuaded by any addi-
tional means, or by any clearer knowledge of the consequences of
sin. The fact is, that no external means and no merely intellec-
tual knowledge can ever of itself be effectual to make men obedi-
ent and holy, and that the lowest degree of knowledge and
external advantages will contribute effectually to the salvation of
those, whose hearts are right with God. Truly to avoid sin is not
the work of speculative reason however improved, but of a re-
newed heart, "A selfish, ungodly heart is not to be won to obedi-
ence by any mental conception, however clear and perfect, of the
punishment which is consequent upon a life of impiety. How
obvious then is the mistake of our author, in supposing that there
is that in the penal consequence of sin which would be of force to
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 285
deter men from sin if they could only have a competent notion of
it, but that the Avant of this precludes that force, so that they are
" taken at a fearful disadvantage ! " It is not the want of a
higher degree of speculative knowledge, but the want of a right
disposition, that destroys the soul. Even the ignorant heathen, if
they observe the law written on the heart, will, the Apostle says,
be accepted.
Again. Our author shows that, although he had by no means
a complete conception of endless misery, he had a solemn and
overwhelming idea of the dreadfulness of it. And was not this
sufficient to constitute a powerful motive to avoid sin ? Did he
wish for a more, solemn and overwhelming conception of future
misery in order to render him accountable, and to deter Mm from
the commission of sin ? And may not others who will seriously
consider the subject, have a like conception ? And with this clear
and alarming conception of the threatened punishment, can they
plead that they have not a sufficient motive to obedience, or, if
sentenced to endure that punishment, that they are taken at a
fearful disadvantage ? Does the author think this would be the
case with himself ?
The writer of the Letter thinks that endless punishment is alto-
gether out of proportion to the demerit of sin committed during
this short life. He would doubtless admit that the sinner suffers
justly, so long as he sins. And certainly he could not see any
disproportion between endless sinning and endless punishment.
Now those who hold the doctrine of endless punishment do not sup-
pose, that any one will suffer longer than he continues to sin. But
it would be a strange thing in the moral world and totally contrary
to the essential laws of the mind, if any one should cease to suffer
while he continues to sin against God. In this point of view, the
question would be, whether we have reason to expect, that sinners
in the world of retribution will repent and become obedient to the
divine law. Now this cannot be looked for from the nature of the
mind. For we well know that sinning naturally increases the
strength of the sinful propensities, and that the habit of sinning is
more and more confirmed by sinful practice, and so renders a
286 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
return to duty more and more difBcult. It is certain that sinners,
left to themselves, will never turn from sin to holiness. Can we
then infer from the goodness of God, that he will interpose in the
world of retribution, and by his Spirit renew sinners to hohness, and
thus prepare them to enjoy happiness ? It is clear that their con-
tinuing so long in their unreasonable enmity and rebellion against
God does not entitle them to his favor, does not give them a claim
to so great a blessing as the renewing of the Holy Ghost. If he
bestows that blessing upon them, it will be all of grace. Has he
given us any assurance that he will do this work of grace ? Has
he made any promise to this effect ? Can we then conclude from
his infinite benevolence, that he will stop sinners in their wicked
course and adorn them with the beauties of holiness at some future
period ? But why at some future period, rather than the present ?
If it is in fact consistent with the infinite benevolence of God that
man should be left to act wickedly during the present life, why
may it not be so hereafter ? And if they may sin for a hundred
and a thousand years in the world to come, why not longer ?
And if God in the exercise of his unsearchable wisdom has good
reason to leave them in a state of sin through the present fife, and
for a long period hereafter, may he not have equal reason to leave
them in that state perpetually ? Whereas a wise and benevolent
God has suffered so great an evil as sin to enter into his moral
creation, and to continue in it so long, and has made it the unwil-
ling means of securing so much glory to his name and of accom-
plishing so extensively his benevolent and holy ends, who can
predict that he will make so great a change in the mode of his
administration as to put an end to sin ? Who can be sure that he
will not see it to be proper to suffer its existence to continue beyond
any hmited period, and still to make it the means of honoring
his perfections, and of augmenting the welfare of his great
moral empire ? If you say, his benevolence requires him to
exclude sin from his intelligent system^ do you not impeach his
benevolence for not excluding it long ago, and indeed for suffering
it ever to invade his intelhgent creation ? Or if you do not
impeach his benevolence^ do you not charge him with the want of
omnipotence ?
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 287
In regard to the continuance of sin in those who die impenitent,
we have no means of. forming a just opinion, except the holy Scrip-
tures. And here, if it were the design of a merciful God to turn
all the wicked from their wicked ways and to make them heirs of
his kingdom at some future time, it would he natural for us to
think, that he would inform us of so important and so pleasing
an event. But he has given us no such information. We look in
vain for any proof that God will bring sinners to repentance and
carry on the work of sanctification in the world of perdition, or
that there will be any dispensation of grace after the present life,
which is the accepted time, the day of salvation. In all the
accounts we have of the wicked in the future state, not a single
instance of repentance is mentioned, and not a single intimation
that any such instance will ever take place. On the contrary,
we are clearly taught, that the state of the wicked after
death and the judgment day, will be unchangeably fixed ; that the
mediatorial kingdom of Christ will be given up, his work of saving
sinners being closed, and that " everlasting, forever and ever,"
will be stamped upon their sinful and ruined condition.
Some have intimated that God has concealed his design to give
repentance and pardon to sinners hereafter, lest the knowledge of
it should encourage them to continue in sin. But how have they
found out what God intended should be a secret ? And if they
have found it out, why should not they conceal it for the same
reason that God does, lest the knowledge of it should encourage
men to hve in sin ? Or do they think the times are changed, and
that such knowledge as would once have been pernicious, will now
tend to good ?
I may moreover ask them, how they can reconcile it with the
benevolence or the truth of God, that he should not only conceal
so comforting a doctrine as that of the final happiness of all, but
should fill the minds of men with groundless terror by declaring
expressly, that the wicked will be punished forever and ever?
Our author adverts to the idea above suggested, that endless
punishment will be evidently just for those who will forever con-
tinue to sin. But he does it in a way which betrays the unfor-
288 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
tunate habit of bis mind. He sajs, " the allegancm of the eudles:3
continuance of sin is of no avail in vindication of the doctrine of
endless punishment." And why ? " Because," be sajs, " the
first consignment to the dreadful state necessitates a continuance
of the criminality''' But is there any such necessity in this case,
as interferes with the moral and accountable agency of sinners, or
prevents their blame-worthiness ? When God in the present life
gives men up to hardness of heart and to vile and abominable
practices, the ill-desert of their sins remains undiminished, and
increases with the increased number and heinousness of their
transgressions. And yet they act under the same kind of neces-
sity, as the wicked do in the future world. It is a necessity which
consists in the strength of their culpable and hateful dispositions,
when God in righteous judgment Avithholds the influence of his
Spirit and leaves them to their own chosen Avay.
But our author says, " The doom to sin as well as to suffer is
inflicted as the punishment of the sin committed in the mortal
state. Virtually, therefore, the eternal punishment is the punish-
ment of the sins of time." Be it so. We hold that sin, where-
ever found, and whether continued for a longer or shorter time, —
that sin itself is so great an evil, that it does justly, according to
God's holy law, deprive the sinner of all good, and plunge him
into a state of endless misery ; that for the sin committed in tune
he is righteously doomed to everlasting punishment. I say sin
itself, in this life hrings the sinner into that wretched state. He is
undone as soon as he sins. His soul is lost. This plainly arises
from the very nature of sin and the nature of God's holy law.
But this does not imply that the sin committed while under con-
demnation is less ill-deserving, than the first sin. It does not
imply that any of the sins committed in the endless state of sin-
ning, will go unpunished. Although the sin here committed, even
one sin, has such hatefulncss, malignity and destructiveness, that
it does justly bring the sinner, into a state of never ending perdi-
tion ; and although all his sufferings through his immortal exist-
ence are related to the sin he committed in time, and even to his
first sin, and come as a consequence of it, yet this is not their only
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 289
relation. His sufferings in the state of retribution are also related
to the sins there committed. It cannot be otherwise. For the sins
then of this life, the sinner is doomed to a miserable existence
hereafter. But that existence is rendered more miserable by
continual sinning, which is a continual treasuring up of wrath.
The sins of this world really incur endless suffering. But the
sins of the next world add to the intensity of that suffering. Just
as it is with future happiness. The faithful services of Christians
in tliis life secure to them a gracious admission to the blessedness
of heaven. But their gro\ving knowledge of God in the world
above, and their growing holiness, and all their acts of obedience,
must secure to them increasing measures of enjoyment. Every
thought of God, every exercise of gratitude and love, every
benevolent and holy action will be in itself delightful to the saints,
and will constantly add to the amount of their blessedness. The
endless continuance of their happiness is one thing ; the degree or
measure of it, which will be continually increasing, is another
thing. The same is true in regard to the wicked. For sins here
committed, they will be doomed to a state of endless punishment.
But the duration of their punishment is one tiling ; the degree of
it is another thing. Any number of nien may endure suffering
through endless ages ; while the suffering of each may in de-
gree be different from that of the others. And the endless
suffering of each one will, in its measure, correspond to the meas-
ure of his ill-desert, or the amount of his criminality. At the final
judgment, they will receive from the hand of justice " according
to the deeds done in the hody.''^ Their wicked deeds here, will
be the ground of the irreversible sentence ; and according to
the measure of their wickedness will be the evil involved in that
sentence. The doom to endless punishment will be dreadful to
all, but dreadful in degree to each one according to what God
shall see to be the degree of his guilt. Such according to Scrip-
ture, will be the entrance of the wicked on that perpetual state of
misery which will follow the last judgment. And there can be no
doubt that the same principle of retribution will be carried into
effect through everlasting ages, so that the measure of criminality
VOL. m. 25
290 FUTURE PUNISHMEXT.
will always be, and always be seen and felt to be, the measure of
penal infliction.
One thing more. We have seen that our author considers it
essential to a righteous retribution, t^at those who are punished
should have been expressly and fully apprized, while in a state of
probation, of the penalty of the law which they were required to
obey, and should have formed a just and adequate conception of
the magnitude of the suffering implied in the penalty. Now does
not the author overlook an important principle in moral govern-
ment ? I grant that it is an act of benevolence in the Supreme Ru-
ler to give us express information of the punishment which will be
incurred by transgression. But it is neither necessary nor possible
that we should fully apprehend what that punishment will be.
And as to express information given beforehand in regard to that
punishment, it must be remembered that we are intelligent, moral
beings, and by the very constitution of our minds, are conscious
of good and evil, and of the ill-desert of transgression. And if
we had been left as many are, with only our moral nature and the
law written on the heart, we should still have been justly doomed
to suflFer penal infliction according to the measure of our oSences.
And here we reach the grave conclusion, that the righteousness
of the punishment does not depend essentially upon the fact that
men have been expressly forewarned of that punishment, but upon
the i7itrinsic evil of sin. God says, " The soul that sinneth shall
die." This threat teaches what is the just punishment of sin.
It does not make the punishment just, but implies and shows that
it is just. Did not God see that the punishment is in itself just,
he would not threaten it. If he did not expressly threaten it, he
might still justly inflict it. A court of justice pronounces the sen-
tence of death upon a murderer, though that murderer has been
brought up in ignorance and has never heard that such would be
the punishment. Designedly and maUciously killing a fellow-
creature is itself so heinous a crime as to render the death-penalty
just, whether the criminal had been expressly fore-warned of that
penalty, or not. So any court of justice would regard it. So
especially does God regard the transgression of his law. If sin is
FUTUKE PUNISHMENT. 291
committed, if the moral law is transgressed, whatever the circum-
stances of the transgressor, he incurs the penalty, he destroys his
own soul. We may doubt the justice of all this. But God is
Judge, and will not be influenced by our doubts, but will do what
he knows to be just, and what is just. I repeat it therefore, and
regret that our author overlooked it, that the justice of that penal
consequence of sin which is set forth in Scripture, results essentially
from the intrinsic evil of sin, and not from the circumstance that
the sinner had a full conception of that consequence, or was ex-
pressly informed of it. That circumstance affects the measure of
the penal infliction, not its reality or its justice. Thus the word
of God teaches us that those who sin in heathen lands will perish,
as well as those who sin in Christian lands, but that the latter are
more ill-deserving in degree according to their superior advan-
tages.
LECTURE CVIII.
REVIEW OP FOSTER S LETTER CONTINUED.
I HAVE now gone as far as seems to be necessary in exposing
the mistakes which I think chargeable upon our author under the
first head proposed, — mistakes in regard to the use of reason. He
mistakes primarily in imposing upon reason a task which it is by
no means competent to perform. And then, while he apphes reason
to matters which may seem to lie within its province, he commits
various mistakes, which reason itself is able to detect.
I now proceed, in the second place, as proposed, to point out the
mistakes of our author as to feeling. And here pursuing the same
general plan as under the former head, I shall endeavor to show,
that the author puts feeling to do what is out of its province,
namely, to determine what shall or shall not be the penalty for
transgressing the divine law, or what measure and duration of
punishment may be justly inflicted on the wicked in the future
world. Any discerning reader of his letter will see that he does,
in a considerable degree, make his humane and sympathetic feel-
ings the basis of his judgment in regard to the doctrine of endless
punishment. When he thinks of the wicked enduring misery
without end, his feelings revolt from it, his benevolent heart sinks
under the idea, and says, it is too dreadful, — a God of love can-
not inflict it.
Here then I maintain that \\nm:m feeling is no fit standard by
which to determine the punishment that shall be executed upon
sinners. If human reason is not competent to fix the right
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 293
measure of penal infliction for the transgression of the divine law,
human feeling is far less competent. Benevolent and sympathetic
feeling is given us for exceedingly important purposes, and when
properly regulated and kept within its proper sphere, it has a
mighty and indispensable influence in promoting our happiness.
Without it man would not be man. He would want one of the
chief elements of humanity. But if it sets itself up as a rule of
the divine administration, it goes out of its province, — it inter-
feres with the prerogative of the Supreme Being, and produces
disorder and mischief in the moral world.
The tender and sympathetic feelings do not constitute a safe
and proper rule for the government even of domestic society.
The feelings of an aflfectionate father, if consulted, would often
prevent him from administering that chastisement which the wel-
fare of his children requires ; and he must resist, and sometimes
even sacrifice, the tender emotions of his heart, in order to fulfil
an imperative parental duty. And it is evident that human feel-
ing is still further from being a safe and proper rule of civil
government. When aggravated crimes are perpetrated, and the
most terrible penalties are incurred, by men who were once the
objects of public esteem and confidence, what would become of
the majesty of the law, and what of the sacred principle of jus-
tice, if the decisions of our Courts should be controlled by the
emotions of sympathy and compassion ? Law and justice would
be prostrated, crimes would be hcensed, disorder would prevail,
and the bonds of civil society be dissolved.
And if the government of mere feeling, instead of law and
justice and a regard to the general good, would be so incompati-
ble with the permanent order and happiness of civil society ; how
much more incompatible would it be with the order and happiness
of God's great moral empire ! The influence of law, the exercise
of strict justice, and a wise regard to the general welfare, are
important in any society or kingdom, in proportion to its extent and
the value of its public and private interests. How indescribably
important then is it, that they should prevail and bear sway in the
kingdom of God, which comprehends unnumbered worlds, and is
25*
294 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
to endure through endless ages ! Mere feeling, feeling in the
heart of man, is very Hmited in its aims, and generally regards
merely the well being of particular individuals, and is utterly
incapable of any suitable action in relation to the permanent wel-
fare of the kingdom of God, — wliich is so vast, that nothing
short of his infinite mind can take an adequate view of its extent
or its duration. God's infinite mind is perfectly wise and holy, as
well as benevolent. God is love ; but divine love is united with
wisdom and righteousness and power, and these with all other
attributes, combined together, constitute the absolute perfection
of the Supreme Lawgiver and Ruler, and qualify him to sit on his
high and holy throne. But how presumptuous and impious it is
for mere feeling in the little mind of man to arrogate to itself the
right to form a judgment on the measures necessary in the divine
administration, much more to place itself in opposition to the
penal sanctions which God has expressly affixed to his law, and to
the punishment which he has begun to inflict, and which he has
plainly told us is to be continued forever ! Ciod himself some-
times condescends to speak to us after the manner of man, and
solemnly declares to us that he has the most kind, compassionate
feeling. " As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the
death of the wicked ; — turn ye,' for why will ye die, 0 house of
Israel ? " And Jesus wept, in view of the wickedness and
approaching ruin 0/ Jerusalem, and said, " How often would I
have gathered thy children together, — 0 that thou hadst known
the things which belong to thy peace ! " But God did not govern
his conduct by this feeling of good will and compassion towards
the persons of the wicked, and by this reluctance, so to speak, to
inflict punishment upon them. Notwithstanding the strong emo-
tions of benevolence and pity which arose in his heart towards
unrepenting sinners, he withheld not his hand from executing the
threatened punishment. He showed himself just and faithful and
holy, as well as merciful. He supported the majesty of law
and justice ; and although he gave perfect assurance that he did
not act from anything like hardness 'of heart and the spirit of
revenge among men, he executed upon the wicked who refused to
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 295
turn, the full penalty of his law. Jesus, the compassionate
Saviour, acted on the same principle. For though he was a man,
and had in perfection all the kind and pitiful feelings of man's
heart, and did what no other man did to save sinners from perdi-
tion, his holy administration was not SAvayed by his kind and piti-
fiil feelings. He had also, in perfection, the superior principle of
inflexible justicb, inflexible attachment to law, love of hoHuess,
abhorrence of sin, and a supreme regard to the permanent inte-
rests of the universe, and to the glory of the divine attributes.
These principles, in connection with his mercy, were set forth in
his pubhc instructions, especially when he denounced the judg-
ments of heaven upon those who rejected him, and foretold the
everlasting punishment which he himself, the benevolent, com-
passionate Saviour, as well as the righteous Judge, will mflict
upon all who live and die in sin.
Here is a lesson which we ought all to learn, — a principle
which we ought to keep in vivid recollection, whenever we turn
our attention to the Scripture doctrine of future punishment.
For if land, sympathetic feehng even in the heart of Jesus and in
the heart of God, does not, by itself, control the measures of
his moral government, surely we can never think our feeling
competent to do it. And if •benevolence and sympathy, existing
in consummate perfection in the divine mind, or in the mind of
Jesus, do not object to the infliction of the dreadful punishment
incurred by sin ; the narrow benevolence and imperfect sympathy
existing in our mind should be very far from making any objec-
tion. And if divine benevolence and pity freely and fully co-
operate with justice, wisdom, and holiness, in executing the fear-
ful penalty of the law upon transgressors, shall we be influenced
by our feeble benevolence and pity, I might rather say by our
weakness, to object to the execution of that penalty, and to dissent
from those high principles of God's moral government ? Human
benevolence and sympathy, though they should be found in one
who possesses the most enlarged understanding in connection with
perfect holiness, would be exceedingly out of their proper place,
and would assume a business for which they are totally unfit, if
296 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
they should attempt in any way to interfere with God's holy
government, or do anything in regard to the most mysterious and
even the most severe and appalling acts of his administration, but
readily to acquiesce, yielding to that sovereign behest, " Be still,
and know that I am God." Such is the practical judgment of
the best of men in regard to the affairs of the present life.
They are fully aware that their natural sensibilities are not given
them to guide the events of providence ; and as soon as they dis-
cover what the will of God is, they at once submit. Thus did
Aaron, in view of events which were distressing to his natural
affections. Thus did the friends of Paul, who, under the influence
of the tenderest affection and sympathy, endeavored to dissuade
him from exposing himself to suffering, but soon yielded to a
superior wisdom, and said, " The will of the Lord be done."
Christians leai'n more and more perfectly this lesson of self-
distrust and pious submission in regard to all the concerns of
life. They have less and less confidence in their own judgment,
and are less and less inclined to regard their own feelings, even
those which are the most kind and sympathetic, as competent to
determine what shall be the measures of divine providence, even
in respect to the interests of the present world. And in respect
to God's future administration in his vast moral kingdom. Chris-
tians possessing right habits of thought and feeling, would shrink
back at the idea that their own affections and sympathies, however
unexceptionable in themselves, are to determine what God's dis-
pensations shall be, or to have any concern with them, except to
confide in them and conform to them, as holy, just, and good.
And if the best regulated feelings, the feelings of those who
possess the most elevated piety, whose " meditations of God are
sweet," and who have attained to habitual peace and joy in
believing, — if the feehngs even of such are not to be regarded as
a rule of the divine conduct in the future world, or as at all com-
petent to determine what punishment the wicked shall endure ;
what shall ive say of such feelings as unhappily prevailed in the
mind of our author? The account which he gives of himself
shows, that either from a disorder in his physical constitution, or
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 297
from the want of a more thorougli religious experience, or from
some other cause, he was the subject of great depression and
gloom. It was not merely the future punishment of his fellow-
creatures that was to him the subject of melancholy and distres-
sing reflections. The whole economy of God in this world as well
as the next, was overspread with darkness and horror. The
dismal state of his own mind cast a dismal shade upon the dispen-
sations of divine providence. He dwelt upon such topics as
these. " The immensely greater number of the human race
hitherto, through all ages and regions, passing a short life under
no illuminating, transforming influence of their Creator, — passing
off the world in a state unfit for a spiritual, heavenly, and happy
kingdom elsewhere ! " And then, " how profoundly mysterious
is the slow progress " of the gospel " in its uncorrupted purity
and saving efficacy ! " He cast his view over the scene of human
existence from the beginning, and said ; " To me it appears a
most mysteriously awful economy, overspread by a lurid and
dreadful shade. I pray for piety to maintain a humble submis-
sion of thought and feeling to the wise and righteous Disposer of
all existence. But to see a nature created in purity and quali-
fied for endless felicity, ruined at the very origin, by a disaster
devolving fatally on all^ the rac6, et cetera," — the sum of all
these melancholy facts being, that thousands of millions have
passed, and thousands every day are passing out of the world, in
no fitness for a pure and happy state elsewhere, — " 0, it is a
most confounding and appalling contemplation ! " It was to him
all dark and direful. In the view of the Psalmist, the heavens
declared the glory of God, and the earth was full of his riches.
The trees and mountains, birds and beasts, and all things around
him, were vocal with God's praise. He saw the wickedness of
human beings, and rivers of water ran down his eyes, because
they kept not God's law ; but he had other and higher views ; and
he could say, " God is my rock, his work is perfect, all his ways
are truth and judgment." But how different were the predomi-
nant feehngs of our author ! — When Jesus contemplated the dis-
pensations of God's sovereign mercy and righteousness towards
298 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
the different characters of men, he rejoiced in spirit, and
said, " I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that
thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and
revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed
good in thy sight." And the apostles and early Christians, in
the midst of the sins and miseries of this apostate world and their
own trials and sufferings, rejoiced in the Lord with unspeakable
joy. And when Paul contemplated the fall of Adam and the
degradation and ruin of his posterity, he kept his eye upon that
which was more than suiBcient to counterbalance all the evil. He
beheld a divine glory shining forth from the midst of the darkness
— the glory of infinite love towards the redeemed. He saw that,
where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. With a clear
view of this rebellious and miserable world, he could bless God,
and could praise his holy name, and could rejoice and glory in a
crucified Redeemer. To these elevated, happy views and feelings,
our amiable and ingenious author seems to have been almost a
stranger. His pathway through hfe was enveloped in gloom, — a
dense gloom, seldom if ever penetrated by the light of heaven.
All that was bright and cheering was hidden from his view, and
his thoughts were engrossed with what was dark and dismal. I
say then, if men whose minds were full of light and peace and
joy, never thought of regarding their feehngs as a fit rule of the
divine dispensations, or a judge of the measure of punishment
which should be visited upon the wicked ; surely one whose tem-
perament was so unhealthy, and whose mind was subject to so
morbid a sensitiveness, should never have suffered his feelings to
control his faith, or to thrust themselves in as a rule of God's
retributive justice towards his incorrigible enemies. If such feel-
ings should be predominant in the minds of Christians, how could
they obey the gospel precept, to rejoice and give thanks con-
tinually ? How could they love God with all their hearts, when
his moral excellence and glory were veiled from their view ? How
could they rejoice that God is on the throne, when they could see
nothing there but clouds and darkness, without any rays of
heavenly light? How could they take pleasure in the holuiess
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 299
and happiness of those who are saved, when they could do nothing
but pore over the severe and dismal destiny of the lost ? Through
the influence of an excessive and perverted sympathy and a kind
of morbid generosity, they would hardly consent to be saved them-
selves, unless all others could be saved with them.
The tender sensibilities of our sympathetic author were so excited
and agonized by the idea of the endless misery of the wicked, that
he wondered how those who believed in it could be happy. He
says ; " It often surprises me, that the fearful doctrine sits, if I
may so express it, so ea%y on the minds of the religious and benev-
olent believers of it. Surrounded immediately by the multitudes
of fellow-mortals and regarding them as subjects
of so direful a destination, how can they have any calm enjoy-
ment of life, how can they be cordially cheerful, how can they
escape the incessant haunting of dismal ideas, darkening the econ-
omy in which their lot is cast ? . . . How can they bear
the sight of the living world around them ? " The author forgot
that the divine economy has a bright side as well as a dark side.
And the bright side is so bright, that if we look at it intently and
devoutly, we shall hardly perceive the darkness. " God is
light ; and in him is no darkness at all." His law, his whole
government, is invested with a resplendent and glorious light, the
light of perfect wisdom and holiness and goodness. The created
universe is and will be full of blessedness. No pain, no suffering
will be there, except the just and necessary punishment of unre-
lenting criminals, who might have been partakers of the common
happiness, but would not, and who will show so vile and hateful a
disposition and character, that all good beings will see and
aclmowledge that their punishment is no more than they deserve,
and no more than what the glory of God's perfections and the
welfare of his vast kingdom require. Such is a general view of
the moral universe. Such is the grand economy of God's govern-
ment. It is not all dark and dismal, as it appeared to our author.
He was mistaken. His vision was diseased. Angels, prophets,
apostles, and all Christians whose minds are euhghtened and
healthy, view the subject very differently. In their view, good
300 FUTURE PUXISHAIENT.
infinitely transcends evil, and even evil is made promotive of
good. God's kingdom is full of light, and the little darkness
which exists increases the splendor of that light.
Now is it strange and unaccountable, that Christians of enlarged
views and rectified feelings, should be cheerful and happy ? Thej
do indeed believe what the Scriptures plainly declare as to the
future and enduring punishment of the wicked. And they look
upon those who are going in the broad way to perdition with inex-
pressible anxiety and sorrow, and labor and pray for their salva-
tion with earnestness and often with tears. But the doctrine of
endless punishment is not the only doctrine which they believe,
nor the only one on which they fix their serious contemplations.
They believe all the doctrines of the gospel, the glorious gospel of
the grace of God. They dwell upon the chief object of Christ's
advent, to save sinners. They think with admiration of that sove-
reign love, which actually bestows salvation on some, yea, on a
multitude which no man can number, while all deserve to perish.
They think of the perfect excellence, the love, the blessings, the
holy reign of Christ. They think of the blessedness of being with
Christ. They rejoice in hope of the glorious inheritance of the
saints in light. A thousand objects all around them and above
them, things present and things to come, press upon their sancti-
fied and happy contemplations. All God's attributes, all his
works and dispensations are invested with mingled majesty and
beauty, and diffuse a sacred peacefulness and gladness through
their hearts. It is not true that they exult in the dreadful suffer-
ings of their fellow-creatures, as our author seems to suppose that
our doctrine implies. Men in a sound moral state do not exult,
do not take pleasure in the sins or miseries of immortal beings.
They deplore what is evil. They look upon the sufferings of
others, especially upon the just punishment which is coming upon
the impenitent, with a benevolent anxiety and grief. They have
that compassion and sympathy towards them, and that desire for
their happiness, which will most effectually incite them to make
efforts, sincere and faithful efforts, to turn them from their sinful
and destructive courses. I say, they do not take pleasure in
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 301
■what is evil. It is not the sin or misery of their fellow-creatures
that makes them joyful ; — far from it. And if there were
nothing presented before them but sin and misery, they could
have no joy. But shall they overlook all the holiness and blessed-
ness which there is in the eternal and unchangeable God, and in
his immense and everlasting kingdom ? Shall they not rejoice in
what is good ? Shall they not take pleasure in the endless happi-
ness of the friends of God ? Shall they turn away with dissatis-
faction from the holy peace and joy which a benevolent God gives
to his obedient servants in all worlds, because there are those, —
comparatively few, — who are wedded to sin, and refuse to be
happy ? Now if those who love God and man, have sorrow of
heart for what is evil, and joy in what is good, — sorrow for
misery, and joy in happiness ; their joy must, in an immeasurable
degree, exceed their pain and sorrow, because they find in God, in
his law and government, and in his kingdom, a good which infi-
nitely exceeds all existing evil, and because they find too that by
the very infliction of merited evil upon the wicked, God manifests
his excellence and glory as moral Governor, and gives support to
that principle of law and justice, which is essential to the blessed-
ness of intelligent beings. Why should any one suppose that
good men, living under the reign of such a God, engaged in per-
forming so reasonable a service, and sharing with a holy universe
in a happiness so pure and enduring, — can be otherwise than
joyful ? Why should they not glory and triumi^h in the fulness
of gospel blessings, which so many happy souls partake with them,
and which all others might have, if they would accept them ?
In a word, the more believers, who are possessed of a well-
balanced mind, are affected with the dreadfulness of the just
doom which awaits the impenitent, the more earnestly will they
labor to deliver smners from it, and the more profound gratitude
and joy will they feel that, as they humbly hope, they are made
partakers of the great salvation.
" As to rehgious teachers," our author says, " If the tremen-
dous doctrine be true, surely it ought to be almost continually
proclaimed as with the blast of a trumpet, inculcated and reite-
VOL. III. 26
302 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
rated with ardent passion, in every possible form of terrible illus-
tration ; no remission of the alarm to thoughtless spirits. What !
conceive them in such inconceivably dreadful peril, and not multi-
ply and aggravate the terrors to frighten them out of their stupor ;
deploring still, that all the horrifying representations in the power
of thought or language to make are immeasurably below the real
urgency of the subject ; and almost wishing that some appalling
phenomenon of sight or sound might break in to make the impres-
sion which no words can make How can it comport with
the duty of preachers to satisfy themselves with brief, occasional
references to this awful topic, when the most prolonged thunder-
ing alarm is but the note of an infant or an insect in proportion to
the horrible urgency of the case."
On this passage, which contains much that is true and impres-
sive, I shall make a few brief remarks.
1. How widely does our author diflfer from those generally, who
reject the doctrine of endless punishment ! What frequent
clamors do we hear from them against those ministers who dwell
frequently, though not by any means continually, on these terrifying
representations ! What complaints are made against such writers
as Baxter, Saurin, Alleine, Watts and Pike, for doing even in
part what our author thinks they ought to do !
2. His feeUngs gave him a very distorted view of what might
reasonably be expected of those who believe the doctrine of end-
less punishment. Such was his habit of mind, that when the
dreadfulness of everlasting misery seized his attention, it had an
uncontrollable power over him. He could think of nothing else.
And it seemed to him very strange that this was not the case with
all those who admit the truth of the doctrine. Now it is true
that ministers of the gospel who make the word of God their
standard, will solemnly proclaim the terrors of the Lord as a
means of persuading men to repentance. But this is not the
only means appointed. This is not the only nor the chief doctrine
to be preached. The future punishment of the wicked was not
the only subject nor the principal subject of discourse with Christ
or the apostles, — although they took care on all proper occasions
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 303
to present it before the minds of men in all its tcrribleness. But
they were far from dwelling continually, or " almost continually,"
on this subject. It was their chief business to set forth the infi-
nite perfections of God, particularly his benignity and mercy ; the
love, the suflfcrings and death of Christ, the offices he sustains and
the blessings he confers ; his invitations and promises ; the work
of the Holy Spirit in enlightening and sanctifying sinners ; the
crown of glory laid up for them in heaven, and the various duties
incumbent on them as those who are redeemed by the precious
blood of Christ ; — these and other kindred subjects made up the
substance of their instructions. And when such interesting and
delightful themes as these occupied the thoughts and swayed the
feelings of the sacred teachers, how could they be co7itinuallij pro-
claiming the future miseries of the wicked as with the blast of a
trumpet, without any remission of the thundering alarm ? Had
they done this, their Avork would indeed have been a work of ter-
ror, an incessant and exclusive proclamation of indignation and
wrath, tribulation and anguish, as though Christ came merely to
condemn the world, and not that the world through him might have
life. And then who would ever have heard of the length and
breadth and depth and height of divine love ; or of the cross of
Christ as a savor of life to believers? Who would ever have
been cheered with the joyful truth, that where sin abounded, grace
did much more abound ? Who would ever have been told, that
Christ invites sinners, even the chief of sinners to come unto him,
and that he is able to save to the uttermost ? And who would
ever have uttered those glad words, " Being justified by faith, we
have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, — and rejoice
in hope of the glory of God ; and not only so, but we glory in
tribulation also ? " Verily we are not left in Egyptian darkness.
The sun of righteousness has risen upon us, and our eyes have
beheld his glorious light. We have heard the proclamation of an
angel, " Behold I bring you good tidings of great joy." And we
have heard a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and
Baying, " Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good
will toward men." Blessed are our eves that have seen and our
304 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
ears that have heard these thmgs — thmgs which have filled heaven
with joy, and which are sufficient to diffuse joy " through all the
earth." This world indeed lieth in darkness; but Christians are
" light in the Lord." There is misery among unrepenting rebels ;
but the humble and contrite are not miserable. There is wailina'
and gnashing of teeth among the incorrigible enemies of God.
But wailing and gnashing of teeth is not the portion of the follow-
ers of Christ. It is not the great and only work of his ministers
to proclaim the divine vengeance and the unquenchable fire.
Theirs is a more pleasing office. Their commission is to preach
the gospel to every creature, the glorious gospel of the grace of
God, and to do it after the pattern of the holy apostles, who did
by no means neglect to warn sinners of their danger, and by the
terrors of the Lord to persuade them to repentance, but whose
principal labor was to make known the unsearchable riches of
Christ for the salvation of the lost, and for the edification and joy
of the saved. Behold the ministers of Christ to whom God has
given " the spirit of love and of a sound mind." How fervent
their desires and prayers, how earnest their labors and how severe
their sufferings for the conversion of the wicked and for the com-
fort of the saints ! They love their office and are happy in dis-
charging its duties, because they love the Lord Jesus Christ who
has called them to it. When through their faithful labors sinners
are born again, they look upon them as their joy and crown, and
abound in thanks to God for the work of his sovereign grace.
The writer of this gloomy epistle was a minister of the gospel.
But the office Avas not congenial to his feelings. He was not com-
forted by the precious truths which he was called to teach, and he
did not love the duties which he was required to discharge. He
had indeed good reason to be cheerful and happy in the service
of so glorious a Lord and JMaster. But he was not happy ;
and his labors, performed under such a dismal depression of
spirits, were attended with little success. Now a man habitually
subject to such, a diseased state of mind, could possess but little
of the true spirit of the sacred office, and could form only one-
sided and incorrect views of its various duties. Hence he was far
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 305
from being qualified to point out the proper course to be pursued
by a faithful and devoted servant of Christ.
One word as to the bad consequences of suggesting doubts in
regard to the doctrine of endless pimishment. The doctrine is in
itself such, that men naturally wish it not to be true. They gen-
erally give a ready hearing to objections offered against it, while
they are slow to admit the force of the arguments urged in its
favor. With those who have not a deliberate and confirmed be-
lief of the orthodox doctrine, the doubts and difficulties of such a
man as John Foster, will have great weight. His doubts and
difficulties will beget doubts and difficulties in them, and will be
likely, if they have less reverence for Scripture than he had, to
conduct them to conclusions which he would deplore. The bare
report or suspicion that Tholuck, or other men of less reputation
than he, consider the common doctrine as doubtful, will unsettle
the minds of multitudes, and deprive them of the substantial ben-
efit of beheving a momentous truth. And few men reject this
doctrine, who do not reject others also. It is then a matter of
great moment that the public teachers of religion should fortify
their minds against the incursion of doubts, that they should take
pains to come to a full, unquestioning faith in this doctrine of rev-
elation, and should wisely and faithfully hold it forth in their
preaching, and apply it to its proper practical uses.
We must now close the consideration of this subject. The
general course of remarks which I have pursued in these two
Lectures, may be recounted in few words. Our author very can-
didly and seriously affirms that the language of Scripture which
points out the continuance of future punishment, is " formidably
strong, so strong, that it must be an argument of extreme cogency
that can authorize a limited interpretation." His argument we
have examined under two heads. First, he argues, that endless
punishment would be inconsistent with the goodness of God, and
would be beyond the ill-desert of sin. I meet this argument by
saying, that he undertakes to judge on a subject which lies not
within his province ; that human reason, in its best state, is exceed-
ingly incompetent to determine what is the demerit of sin, or what
26*
306 FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
the infallible wisdom of God will see to be its just and proper
recompense, or in what manner his infinite benevolence will act
itself out relative to this subject, in his vast moral empire. So
that whatever our author may think on the subject, whatever may
be the conclusions to which his reasoning may conduct him, I
maintain that he is essentially unqualified to judge, and that the
deductions of his reason, however valid they may appear to him,
are entitled to no confidence, because future punishment, in its
relation to the perfections of God, to law, and sin, and the well-
being of the universe, lies beyond the reach of the human faculties,
and any man, Avho takes upon him by reasoning to determine what
will be or will not be the duration of future punishment, will
be sure to err. He has no adequate understanding of the princi-
ples on which the decision of the question must rest, and no ability
to apply those principles so as to arrive at a right result. The
author's argument tluen for giving a limited interpretation to the
language of Scripture referred to, is built upon the sand. It can-
not be relied upon. Instead of being an argument of extreme
cogency, it has no cogency at all. The formidable strength of the
language of holy writ remains then unbroken. And after all that
is advanced in this ingenious and eloquent epistle, we stand up
boldly and say, that sin is so great an evil as to deserve the pen-
alty of the law, involving everlasting punishment ; and that such
punishment is not only reconcilable with the unbounded goodness
of God, but is required by it. And we say this, not because we
can make it out by mere reason, but because the language of
Scripture teaches it, and no " argument of extreme cogency," or
of any cogency, exists for giving that language a limited interpre-
tation. Such is the first general mistake in which our author was
involved. He entrusted reason with a subject which it is not able
to grasp. And we have seen into what manifest oversights and
mistakes he was betrayed by his unfortunate habit of thinking —
mistakes which reason itself, under proper direction, might have
avoided.
Under the second head, we have found that our author errs still
more in the matter oi feeling, than in the matter of reason. For
FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 307
if the noble faculty of reason, in its most improved state, is not
competent to judge on so vast and profound a subject, as the just
punishment of sin, hnmaxx feeling is far less competent ; and, if it
is made our standard in judging of the divine conduct in this con-
cern, it will lead us into many and hurtful errors. Feeling in the
most enlightened, sound, and well-balanced minds is unfit to be
our guide on such a subject. It is designed and adapted by our
Creator for very important purposes, but here it is out of place.
And if feeling in the strongest, soundest minds cannot be relied
upon as a safe guide in judging of the future punishment of the
wicked ; how unsafe and perilous is it to be guided by such feeling
as that of our illustrious but unhappy author, — feehng so soft, so
sensitive, and timid — so incapable of surveying with composure
the scene of human suffering even in this world, and still more
incapable of thinking with quiet acquiescence of the sentence
which the Saviour himself, the Lamb of God, will pronounce upon
the wicked at the last day. It was a fundamental mistake for
him to suffer feeling to gain such power over him in regard to such
a subject ; and from this mistake, and the same mistake in
regard to reason, the various false conclusions which we have
noticed, naturally and necessarily resulted.
Finally. Take care to guard against the obvious and essential
mistakes of our author ; come to the holy oracles without having
your mind prepossessed with the abovementioned errors of reason
and feeling, and humbly, and honestly, and imder the guidance of
the Holy Spirit, attend to the formidably plain and strong language
of the infallible word of God, and you will find no place for doubts
and objections, but will seriously and tremblingly believe the fearful
doctrine of endless punishment.
LECTURE CIX,
CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES. BAPTISM.
The word sacraments is commonly used to denote the ordi-
nances or rites of the Christian church. Sacrament origi-
nally signified the oath, by which the Roman soldiers bound
themselves to obey their commander. When applied to the ordi-
nances of the gospel, it is, I suppose, intended to signify, that
those who make use of them promise obedience to Christ. In the
Vulgate version of the New Testament, the word sacramentum
was employed to translate [ivatiJQiov, mystery. Thus the word
mystery acquired a new sense in the writings of the early Chris-
tians. Baptism and the Lord's Supper were called Christian
mysteries^ partly because under external symbols spiritual blessings
were veiled, and partly, perhaps, on account of the secret manner
in which they were attended. But I much prefer to call Baptism
and the Lord's Supper Christian ordinances, or the positive insti-
tutions or 7ites of the Christian religion. By using these words,
we may easily settle the strange controversy which has existed
about the number of the sacraments. For the simple question
would be, whether this thing or that is divinely appointed to be a
standing ordinance in the Christian church.
In a religious ordinance or sacrament, two things are included,
the sign, and the thing signified. The sign is outward and sensi-
ble. The thing signified is so*mething inward and spiritual, which
is represented by the sign, and in our thoughts associated with it.
Hence, by a common figure of speech, the name of the sign is
CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES. 309
sometimes given to the thing signified. So Christ is called " our
Passover," he having been represented by the Passover. In like
manner, as the bread used in the Lord's Suppe^f represents or sig-
nifies his body, and the wine his blood, the bread is called his body,
and the tvine his blood. The signification however goes further,
and refers to the death of Christ, by which atonement was made,
and spiritual blessings procured for his people. By the same
figure of speech, the Scripture says of the rock in the wilderness
from which water issued for the supply of the Israelites, — " that
rock was Christ,''^ it being a striking representation of him ; and
it was said of the two olive trees seen by the Prophet Zechariah,
— "the two olive trees are the two anointed ones,''^ — that is,
Zerubbabel and Joshua, who were fitly represented by the olive
trees. Some of the early Christian fathers called baptism regener-
ration, doubtless because baptism was an indication of regenera-
tion, or spiritual cleansing. And the same figure seems to have
been used in some passages of Scripture ; for example ; Ananias
said to Paul, " arise, and be baptized, and tvash away thy sins"
baptism being a sign of such washing. The doctrine of Baptismal
Regeneration (so called) and the doctrine of Transubstantiation,
rest, so far as I can see, on no better ground than this, that a weU
known figure of speech, which is frequently used in Scripture and
is of very easy interpretation, is most absurdly understood to con-
vey a sense exactly literal.
The benefit of positive institutions or outward rites in religion is
exceedingly obvious. It is a striking remark of Chrysostom, that
if we were incorj^oreal beings, God would have delivered his gifts
to us naked and incorporeal ; but as our soul is connected ivith a
body, he has delivered things intellectual by sensible signs.
God has generally taken thuigs already familiarly known, and
appointed them to be signs or representations of the blessings of
his goodness. Thus the rainbow, which had always been seen as
a natural phenomenon, was made a sign or pledge that the world
should not be again destroyed by a universal deluge. It was
God's covenant, that is, his promise, or declared purpose, that the
world should not be thus destroyed, and the rainbow was appointed
310 THE ORDINANCES OR RITES
to be a sign to remind us, that such is his covenant, or prom-
ise. It is God's purpose and promise to cleanse sinners from
moral defilement,^nd to renew them to holiness. In Heb. 8: 8 —
12, this divine purpose and dispensation is represented as a '' new
covenant," in distinction from the former dispensation, which con-
sisted so much in outward rites and was far less efficacious. It
was the revealed purpose of God to bestow more precious bles-
sings, or rather, to bestow spiritual blessings in larger measures.
" I will put mj 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 I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and
their iniquities will I remember no more." Now this covenant,
this gracious design and promise of God to sanctify and pardon
sinners, is represented by sensible signs, that *is, baptism and the
Lord's Supper. By these we are assisted to keep in mind the
blessings flowing from the atonement of Christ and from the opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit. Our faith in the great mercy of our
Saviour and Sanctifier is confirmed, and the blessings of salvation
axe sealed to us, if we comply with the requirements of the gos-
pel. In other words, believers are in this way assured that those
blessings shall be theirs. The seals, as apphed to individuals, are
evidently conditional, like the general promise of forgiveness and
salvation. God promises to pardon and save. The promise is
written in the Scriptures and proclaimed by the servants of
Christ ; and we read it, and hear it. The blessings promised are
precious ; but they are limited to those who believe. The import
of the seals, when applied to individuals, is limited in the same
way. Otherwise their import would be untrue. If they gave
assurance of forgiveness and eternal life to any, except believers,
they would contradict the promises of the gospel. For those
promises give assurance of salvation only to believers. The same
is true of the outward seals. Baptism and the Lord's Supper no
more secure salvation to all who receive them, than the promises
secure it to all who read or hear them. The value of the gracious
promises of the gospel lies in this, that they give us assurance of
forgiveness, on condition of our repentance and faith. Baptism
OF CHRISTIANITY. 311
and the Lord's Supper seal the promises. As aiyrn appointed by
God, thev give assurance to beUevers, that the promised blessings
of salvation will be theirs. They do not, by any virtue inherent
in them, or imparted to them, confer spiritual blessings upon indivi-
duals, any more than the rainbow did, of itself, confer the blessings
of seed-time and harvest. The rainbow was a sign, a mere sign,
that those blessings should be enjoyed by the world at large. As
the promise of those blessings was without any condition, the sign
gave assurance of them without any condition.
The Apostle says, that circumcision was to Abraham " a seal of
the righteousness of faith," that is, of gratuitous justification,
which he before had. It was a sign or token, that the blessings
of free justification did in reality belong to him, as a believer.
Wlien apphed to others, whoever they might be, whether old or
young, and whether Israelites or gentiles, it was a seal of the
promise — of what promise ? Why, of the promise of the same
free justification to them, if they had the same faith as Abraham
had. It did not, of itself, by any virtue inherent in it or imparted
to it, actually confer spiritual blessings. Nor was it a seal or con-
firmation of any promise, that God would confer them uncondi-
tionally upon all Avho should be circumcised ; for there was no
such promise. When applied to Abraham's natural seed, it did
indeed seal to them important privileges ; but it did not seal
spiritual blessings to them, except on the condition of their walk-
ing in the steps of faithful Abraham. If they complied with that
condition, he would be a God to them, as he was to him. If then
you would determine the meaning and the value of the sign, first
determine the meaning and the value of the promise, or covenant,
" I will be a God to thee and to thy seed." This promise con-
tained an infinite good. But for whom ? Not for all the
descendants of Abraham indiscriminately and absolutely, but for
those who possessed his faith. Here then you see the meaning
and value of the seal. It confirmed the blessings of the covenant
to those who were circumcised, on condition of their having faith.
Their having faith would constitute them, in the high, spiritual
sense, children of Abraham, and the seal would then assure them,
812 THE ORDINANCES OR RITES
that the blessmg of Abraham Avoukl be theirs. The j^romise
uttered a precious truth. The seal confirmed the same truth ; —
just as a seal put upon a man's last Will and Testament, confirms
what the Will contains. If the Will grants favors absolutely, the
seal confirms them absolutely ; if conditionally, the seal confirms
them conditionally.
The same is true of the external rites, or sacraments, under the
gospel dispensation. They are seals or visible confirmations of
the covenant of grace. Now this covenant or declared purpose
of God sometimes gives a general assurance of the bestowment of
spiritual blessings upon sinners, an assurance that God will carry
on the work of redemption, and will call sinners with a holy call-
ing. And in reference to this, the sacraments or visible rites of
our religion may be understood as giving assurance to the church,
that he will save sinners, and will continue to preserve and build
up his kingdom on earth, and that he will do it by the means
which he has appointed, such as the preaching of the gospel, read-
ing the Scriptures, the instructions, the examples and prayers of
pious parents and other Christians, and the dispensations of provi-
dence. But the covenant or gospel promise, taken in its personal
application, or its appUcation to individuals, secures forgiveness
and eternal hfe to those only who repent and beheve. Whatever
privileges men enjoy, whatever their external relations may be, or
their visible characters, the promise of God does not insure their
salvation unless they have true faith, the faith of God's elect.
Of course, neither the rite of baptism, nor the rite of the sacred
supper, seals or confirms the blessings of forgiveness and salvation
to any individuals, except on condition of their having true faith.
If you ask, whether it does not always secure to them regenera-
tion and faith ; the answer is, that neither the word nor the provi-
dence of God evinces that it does so. The promises of God are the
same, and the declarations that he hath mercy on whom he will
have mercy, and that those who are given to Christ shall come to
him, are the same as they would be, if there were no sacraments.
The appointed sacraments or outward rites do not change the doc-
trines or promises of God's word, but seal and confirm them —
OF CHRISTIANITY. 313
confirai them as they are. They do not give assurance of eternal
life, except in accordance with the teachings of revelation. Those
who receive baptism cannot be saved on any lower terms, than
those who do not receive it. The inspired declarations, " Except
a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven ;" —
" He that believeth on the Son hath life ; but he that beUeveth not
shall not see life," — These declarations are as true, as if there were
no sacraments, and as true to those who receive the sacraments, as
to those who do not. I repeat it, that the outward institutions or
rites of Christianity are not intended to make any alteration in the
truths or promises of the gospel, or in the terms of salvation, but
on the contrary, are intended to confirm them as they are, to show
that they are immutable.
Although the outward rite of baptism is designed to indicate
that imvard purification which is necessary to eternal life, and to
show that the blessings of the gospel truly belong to all who receive
it in the spirit of faith ; it is, in fact, still applied to many, who are
not partakers of those blessings. Through the want of godliness
in those who are baptized, there is a separation between the sign
and the thing signified. Baptism is administered, as it was to
Simon the sorcerer, and administered lawfully, so far as the ad-
ministrator is concerned, while the inward grace is wanting. On
the other hand, the inward grace, that is, spiritual purification,
unquestionably belongs to many who are not baptized. Indeed
all adult persons should give evidence of the beginning of inward
purification, previously to baptism. Thus the Westminster As-
sembly's Confession of Faith teaches, that "grace and salvation are
not so inseparably annexed to baptism, as that no person can be
regenerated or saved without it, or that all who are baptized, are
undoubtedly regenerated." The Apostle says ; " neither circum-
cision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creature,"
It is equally true, tliat neither baptism, by itself, nor the want of
it, availeth anything. The grand prerequisite to salvation is faith
in Christ. But it is clear, that all Avho have faith, will be sincerely
disposed to obey the divine commands and conform to the divine
institutions. Hence, in all ordinary circumstances, believers will
VOL. III. 27
314 THE ORDINANCES OR RITES
be baptized, so that in them the outward sign and the spiritual
blessing signified will, according to the manifest design of the rite,
be joined together. But it is a most palpable mistake to suppose
that all who are baptized are therefore the subjects of spiritual
purification. For it is evident from Scripture and from facts, that
baptism has no more efficacy to regenerate and save the soul, than
circumcision had. There is no more reason to conclude, that all
who are baptized are renewed by the Spirit, than that all who were
circumcised were thus renewed. We know that circumcision was
as really a sign of spiritual blessings, as baptism is. It was, the
Apostle says, a sign or " seal of the righteousness of faith." But
the sign or seal avails nothing, if the good signified is wanting.
It is as useless as a seal upon a blank paper. There can be no
more erroneous or fatal opinion, than that which has prevailed so
universally in the Catholic church, and so extensively in Protestant
churches, namely, that baptism, either by its own inherent virtue,
or through the divine blessing accompanying it, certainly insures
and even implies the actual regeneration of all who are baptized.
Baptism does indeed bring those who receive it into an important
relation to the church of Christ and secures to them important
privileges, which God often blesses to their salvation. But to
regard the outward rite, and to rely upon it, as insuring inward puri-
fication by the Holy Spirit, is an error of most fearful tendency, and
it has contributed to the fatal delusion of multitudes which no man
can number.
Every ordinance of God is important, and ought to be conscien-
tiously and solemnly observed. But how small comparatively was
the value which Christ and the apostles attached to external rites.
The Apostle Paul says, he was not sent to baptize, but to preach
the gospel, and he speaks of it with satisfaction, that he had baptized
only a few individuals. It was the preaching of Christ crucified,
not baptism, that he regarded as the power of God to salvation.
This was the great work which was assigned to him as the Apostle
to the Gentiles. The administration of the rite of baptism, being
of minor consequence, was committed to othera, while he, the chief
Apostle, accomphshed a higher object, making known the truths
OF CHRISTIANITY. 315
of the gospel, the unsearchable riches of Christ. Had he looked
upon baptism as that which would secure the saving influence of
the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sin, he most surely would
not have treated the subject as he did.
Baptism, which in its application to adult believers, signifies their
spiritual cleansing and their ingrafting into Christ, and seals to
them the promised blessings of grace, may also be regarded as a
means of their spiritual improvement, by showing them more clearly
the importance of those things which are signified by it. And it
may, if God pleases, be a means of salvation to persons who impro-
perly ofier themselves for baptism while uurcgenerate. It may im-
press their hearts with the necessity of that inward purification which
is signified by the rite, and either at the time of its administra-
tion, or afterwards, it may, through divine grace, be the means of
their conversion. It may often be the means of saving benefits
to infant children, who are offered for baptism by their believing
parents. At the very time of their baptism they may, if it please
God, be renewed by the Spirit ; or the renewing of the Spirit may
be granted afterwards, but granted still in a real connection with
the ordinance of baptism. So the Confession of Faith represents
the matter. " The efiicacy of baptism is not tied to that moment
of time wherein it is administered" " By the right use
of this ordmance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really
conferred by the Holy Ghost to such, (whether of age or infants,)
as tJiat grace helonyetli mxto according to tlw counsel of God's
own will, in Ms appointed time." There are those, to whom,
according to the counsel of God's own will, the grace of the Holy
Spirit belongeth ; that is ; God in his sovereign mercy has designed
it for them, has chosen them to salvation through sanctification of
the Spirit. And " such " — not all who are baptized, but " such
as that grace belongeth unto," will, " in God's appointed time,"
experience that purifying influence of the Spirit, of which baptism
is the sign. The saving efficacy of baptism depends ultimately on
the counsel of God's own will, and is, in his appointed time, appUed
to the heirs of salvation. By this view of the subject Ave are freed
from the strange and perplexing supposition of a saving efficacy
316 CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES.
inherent in the outward ordinance, or uniformly imparted to it, — a
supposition as contrary to Scripture and to well known facts, as it
would be to suppose that the ordinance of the Lord's supper
secures forgiveness and eternal life to all who partake of it, or that
the preaching of the gospel has an efficacy to convert all who hear it.
But for a full explanation and defence of the general doctrine
of baptism, and a satisfactory exposure of false views of the subject,
I must refer you to Calvin's Institutes, to D wight's and Dick's
Theology, and to other well known works, both didactic and con-
troversial, relating to baptism ; and shall proceed to that which I
shall make a more particular subject of discussion, namely, Infant
Baptism.
LECTURE CX
INFANT BAPTISM.
The doctrine of Infant Baptism has been the subject of long-
continued controversy in the Christian world, and has given rise
to more contention among the followers of Christ, than almost any
other subject. It has been the occasion of separating into differ-
ent communions, those who have been united in their belief on all
other subjects, and who have been animated by the same spirit of
love to Christ and his cause. I trust the time has arrived, when
those who differ in opinion respecting Infant Baptism, will cherish
feehngs of candor and forbearance towards one another.
As those for whom these Lectures are specially intended, will
be called to act a part not only in private but in public, in regard
to the subject now to be considered ; I shall suggest a few precau-
tions and directions, for the purpose of rendering your influence
more extensively useful to the cause of truth, and the cause of
love.
1. Take care not to magnify the subject heyond its real impor-
tance.
The subject ought not indeed to be underrated, or treated as a
trifle. It is no ti-ifle. It obviously possesses a high degree of
importance, and deserves to be maintained with firmness and zeal.
But after all, we must remember that it is an outivard rite, and
does not belong to the essence of the Christian religion. If
men are bom of the Spirit ; if they love and obey the Saviour,
and are prepared for the kingdom of heaven ; the great object for
27*
318 INFANT BAPTISM.
which Christ died, and for which we ought to labor, is obtained.
It is clear, then, that the subject of baptism cannot be regarded
as bearing any comparison, in point of importance, with the con-
version and salvation of sinners. And whatever discussion we
may think it our duty to undertake, and with whatever earnestness
we may labor to bring men to receive what we sincerely believe to
be a divine institution ; we ought still to consider their eternal sal-
vation as infinitely more important, than merely conforming to an
outward rite. And if they show by their conduct, that they are
friends to Christ and truly obedient to his gospel, we should cor-
dially thank God, and rejoice, though they may conscientiously
differ from us in regard to external observances.
2. WJiile those who reject the rite of Infant Baptism, give evi-
dence of a Christian character, they are entitled to our affection and
confidence.
In the exercise of Christian candor, we can easily be satisfied
that men who truly desire to please God, may difier from us in
regard to this rehgious rite. The proof that Infant Baptism is a
divine institution, though very clear and satisfactory to us, may
not be so to those who have been placed in a difierent condition
from us, and have formed different habits of thinking. The cir-
cumstances of their birth and education may have led them, as a
matter of course, to entertain different views on this subject ; and
those views may have been associated with the earhest and deepest
impressions of divine truth on their minds, and with their most
spiritual exercises. Had we been placed in their circumstances,
should we not probably have adopted the same views ?
Those who come to the examination of this subject may have
such ideas of the kind or degree of evidence which is necessary to
support a positive institution, that, with those mistaken ideas,
their honest desire to do the will of God, may prevent them from
agreeing with us as to the rite of Infant Baptism.
Let us duly regard such considerations as these ; and, instead of
stigmatizing those Christians who differ from us, let us cherish to-
wards them the sincerest candor and kindness. It is no difficult thing
to account for their peculiar views from their peculiar circumstances,
INFANT BAPTISM. 319
without any impeachment of their motives or any distrust of their
piety. Why tlien should we not entertain the same sentiments of
love and confidence towards them, and the same desire for their
improvement and happiness, as though they belonged to the same
denomination with ourselves ?
3. Never introduce tJds subject in the ivay of controversy, except
tvhen a pure regard to the interests of Chrises kingdom requires it.
Undoubtedly a regard to the high and sacred interests of
religion will lead you, at proper times, to exhibit and defend what
you honestly believe to be true on this subject, and to do it with
seriousness and zeal. But when this is to be done, it will be expe-
dient, generally, that you enter upon it with particular prepara-
tion, and pursue it in a regular discourse, instead of remarking
upon it in a hasty or cursory manner. The practice of introducing
such a subject, from day to day, and on all occasions, betrays im-
proper feeling in us, and is likely to promote the same in others.
Let this subject therefore be brought forward only on occasions
when there is an ob^aous and special reason for doing it ; and then
let it be presented in connection with the weighty truths of re-
ligion, and treated with great moderation and seriousness. Thus
you will show that it is a matter of conscience, not of party feehng.
4. Treat those who differ from you in regard to Infant Baptism
with uniform kindness.
Study to do them good. Exercise towards them a generous
friendship, and exhibit that friendship in substantial acts. In
this way you may hope to produce candor and kindness in them,
and to prepare them to join their efforts with yours in promoting
those common interests of Christ's kingdom, which are immeasur-
ably more important, than the peculiar interests either of their
denomination or of yours. And should you find that the object
of your wishes is not at once obtained, and that any of those,
whom you labor to concihate, and whose welfare you aim to pro-
mote, choose after all to stand aloof, and to exhibit the spirit of
sectarian zeal and animosity ; — and should they sometimes go
fiirther, and speak of those arguments, which you consider to be
strong and decisive, as flimsy and contemptible, and attempt to
320 INFANT BAPTISM.
lower your reputation and to hinder your success ; still persevere
in the exercise of forbearance and kindness towards them, and
even of magnanimity, remembering that, whatever you may suffer
for the present, such conduct will have a happy effect upon your
own mind, will promote the best interests of Christ's Church, and
secure the gracious approbation of your Father in heaven, remem-
bering too, that the opposite course, that is, the exercise of un-
kindness and severity towards those Christians who differ from you,
would injure your own spiritual interests, as well as theirs, and
would tend to perpetuate all the evils of division and strife.
Having made these suggestions in regard to the spirit of mind
with which the subject of Infant Baptism should be discussed, and
the manner in which we should conduct ourselves towards those
who differ from us, I shall call your attention to considerations
relating more directly to the subject itself.
As a preparation for a profitable discussion, it is of special con-
sequence that you should free your minds from all mistaken appre-
hensions, as to the hind and degree of evidence which is to be
considered necessary. I introduce this subject here, because it
relates to the mode of reasoning which is to be pursued, and be-
cause it is obviously best, as far as may be, to settle our minds on
this point at the outset.
Different conceptions respecting the proper mode of reasoning
are evidently the principal causes of the difference which exists
among men in regard to the question at issue. If in regard to
any position, we look for evidence of which the subject is not ca-
pable, or which is not accessible to us at the present time ; the
most diligent and persevering inquiry must leave us unconvinced.
The proposition laid down may be true ; but we may not be satisfied
of its truth. It may have sufficient evidence ; but our mode of es-
timating evidence may be such as to prevent conviction. Suppose
a man is accused before a court of justice of a particular crime ;
and suppose there is clear circumstantial evidence, and that only,
of his guilt. If the court demand direct, positive proof of the
crime, the evidence which they have will go for nothing, and the
man, though manifestly guilty, wiU be pronounced innocent. But
INFANT BAPTISM. 321
such is not the principle which governs our courts of justice, even
in those proceedings which relate to life and death. They look
for positive evidence, if it can be had. If not, thej admit satis-
factory evidence of another kind.
The importance of just views respecting evidence is obvious in
respect to moral subjects generally. Even when the evidence
sought is of the right kind ; we must still take care not to mistake
as to the degree of it which is necessary. In regard to any moral
truth, it belongs not to us to determine by what evidence it shall
be suppoi'ted. On this point, our expectations, in many instances,
may be greatly disappointed ; and we may be obliged either to
reject some of the most important principles of natural and revealed
religion, or to be satisfied with evidence very different from what
we once supposed necessary and attainable. Our object then
should be to discover the evidence, whatever may be its kind or
degree, which is within our reach, and which shall be sufficient to
satisfy a reasonable and candid man.
We are to remember also, that much depends on our prevailing
disposition. Many a doctrme is of such a nature, that if our moral
state is right, a small degree of evidence will be sufficient to pro-
duce entire conviction of its truth. There is something in the
original constitution or in the acquired habit of the mind, or in
other truths already admitted, which predisposes us to receive it.
This constitution or habit of the mind, and the admission of other
truths allied to the one under consideration, may have the effect
of evidence ; and if it could be clearly perceived and defined, it
might appear to have the nature of evidence. It may in fact be
evidence of the best kind, — most suited to the nature of the
subject, and most likely to produce a steady and permanent influ-
ence. Sometimes this state of the mind, and the evidence of
other related truths, may be the only proof we can now have of a
very important truth. And yet this truth may be as clearly ap-
prehended and as firmly believed, and may exert as useful an influ-
ence on the mind, as though it were proved in any other way what-
ever. It will be very easy for those, Avho have been accustomed to
think profoundly on moral subjects, to recall many instances of this.
322 INFANT BAPTISM.
The foregoing remarks account for a fact of frequent occur-
rence ; namely ; that a man unhesitatingly believes a particular
truth, and yet finds it very difficult to exhibit definitely the reasons
of his behef. The evidence in such a case may be so concealed
in its nature, or so gradual and insensible in its influence, that it
■will be difficult, even for a nice observer of the operations of
his own mind, clearly to describe it ; and quite impossible, for those
"who have but little cultivation. So that it cannot by any means
be considered as a conclusive argument against the soundness of a
man's faith, that he is at present vmable distinctly to assign the
reasons of it. The manner in which he was brought to beheve the
truth may have been perfectly conformed to right reason, and per-
fectly satisfactory ; and yet he may not have the skill requisite to
trace it out, and describe it. To be prepared for this, he must
have some acquaintance with the laws of the mind, and with the
manner of developing its principles and operations in proper lan-
guage. But for acquiring this, his situation may afford him no
adequate advantages. And yet that same situation does not
necessarily deprive him of the good effects of a rational and well
established faith.
If you apply the remarks which have been made to the subject
under consideration, you will soon be satisfied, that the want of an
express, positive command of SoHpture, that is, a command in so
many words, that infants should be baptized, is not to be considered
as a valid objection against Infant Baptism. As this position is
of special importance, I shall take some pains to illustrate its truth.
Admitting, as we must, that all positive religious rites are orig-
inally founded on a divine command ; we cannot safely conclude
that such a command will be repeated to all those who shall after-
wards be under obligation to observe such rites, or even that the
original command will be preserved and communicated to them in
the sacred writings. Neither of these can be considered as in-
dispensable ; because sufficient evidence of a divine institution
may be afforded in some other way. It may be afforded, particu-
larly, by oral instruction. It is unquestionable, that the knowl-
edge of some extraordinary events of providence, or of some
INFANT BAPTISM. 323
divine injunctions may be as truly and as certainly communicated
in this way, as in others ; and we should, in many cases, consider
a man who should refuse to admit the truth and authority of such
a communication to be as unreasonable, as if he should refuse to
admit the truth and authority of written or printed records.
If we should insist upon the express repetition of a divine com-
mand at diflferent times, or upon a written record of it, as indis-
pensable ; we should overlook one of the methods which God has
manifestly adopted in regard to the positive institutions of reli-
gion. For example ; what clear and certain proof have we, that
the divine command, enjoining the observance of the Sabbath, or
the offering of sacrifices, was expressly repeated to the successive
generations of men from Adam to Moses ; or tliat they derived
either of those divine institutions from historical records ? And
what direct, certain proof is there of the repetition of the
divine command, or the existence of any historical records, during
the period from Abraham to Moses, respecting the rite of circum-
cision ? And to come down to later times ; what express com-
mand has God given to us, or to any Christians since the days of
the apostles, requiring the first day of the week to be observed as
a Sabbath ? And what express declaration have we in the sacred
records, that such a command was ever given either by Christ or
his apostles ? In regard to this, we who observe the Christian
Sabbath must either say, that a positive divine command has been
given directly to us ; or that a command, originally given by
Christ, has been preserved to us in the Scriptures, — neither of
which are we able to say ; — or we must justify ourselves in
observing the Lord's day, because some other considerations show
that such is the will of God. On Avhat ground then shall we pro-
ceed in regard to this subject ? We have no express command from
God particularly to us, and no record of any former command,
authorizing us to regard the Lord's day as a divine institution.
Are we then to fall in with the prevailing practice in regard to a
religious rite, merely because we judge it becoming and useful ?
By no means. We must then rest the Christian Sabbath on the
ground of the original institution of the Sabbath, as enjoined in
324 INFANT BAPTISM.
the Decalogue. And we must at the same time admit, that the
original institution "was particularly modified at the commencement
of the Christian dispensation, although such a modification is no
where expressly required in the Scriptures. It must be evident
therefore, that if we should insist upon the necessity of an express
divine precept, either originally addressed to us, or transmitted to
us by the sacred records, in order to justify us in observing the
rite of Infant Baptism ; we should contradict our own practice in
regard to another important subject very analogous to this.
And what shall we say in regard to female communion? The
Lord's Supper is allowed to be a divine institution. But it was
enjoined originally upon the apostles. Christ did not give the
command to females ; and there is no express mention in the New
Testament of their having ever received the Lord's Supper. We
all beheve it to be the will of God that they should partake. But
how do we prove this ? Not by any express command of Christ.
Not by any definite account in the Scriptures that they did
actually partake. The argument on which we rest is derived
from the reasonableness of the thing ; from the uniform practice
of the early Christian churches, as set forth in Ecclesiastical His-
tory ; and from what appears to be implied in the Scripture
account. That is, we believe God has made known his will, that
pious women should partake of the Lord's Supper, without the
least appearance of any express command requiring it, and with-
out any mention in the Scriptures of their ever having partaken
in the first Christian churches. The single question is, by what
evidence we are satisfied that they ought to partake ? And if we
are satisfied in this case, without any express command ; why
should we not be in the other case ?
Thus we plead, that Infant Baptism rests on the same kind of
evidence with the observance of the Lord's Day as the Christian
Sabbath, with female communion, and with the offering of sacrifices
in the patriarchal age from Adam to Moses ; that is, it is sustained
by good usage, by the uniform practice of the church, founded
originally on the revealed will of Christ and attested to us by credi-
ble history. To ascertain what the apostles taught and what they
INFANT BAPTISM-. 325
did, we must look not simply to those inspired writings of theirs
which are transmitted to us, but to the constitution and practice
of the churches which thej established.
My object in this place is to remove a mistake as to the kind
and degree of evidence which should be deemed conclusive, and
to show that demanding an express precept in favor of Infant Bap-
tism, that is, demanding a new and explicit command, a command
in so many words, enjoining Infant Baptism, would be unreasona-
ble and inconsistent. I wish every man to settle it in his mind
perfectly and forever, that, in a multitude of cases, other evidence
ought to be received and is received as satisfactory.
Let it be remembered, that we did not originate the human
mind, nor the doctrines and institutions of religion, nor the evi-
dence which obliges us to believe those doctrines, and observe
those institutions. The faculties of the mind, the doctrines and
institutions of religion, and the evidence which supports them, are
all of God. The manner in which he has made known his will,
and the kind and degree of evidence which he has aiforded in
favor of the truths and duties of religion, are unquestionably con-
formed to our intellectual and moral constitution ; and they are
specially suited to excite us to diligent efforts ; to give due exer-
cise to candor and humility; to make us feel the necessity of
being guided by the divine Spirit ; and finally, to produce such a
conviction in us, as will best subserve the purposes of moral disci-
pline. It is not God's way to give us evidence of the highest
kind and degree possible. As to many moral and rehgious truths,
the evidence which supports them is far from being so clear and
certain as we might desire. It comes indirectly. It comes in the
way of inference from other truths more plain and obvious. It
sometimes consists in a kind of instinctive moral discernment, a
spontaneous operation of our faculties, which cannot be easily
described. Sometimes it is the slow result of experience and
observation. And if a precept or institution is concerned, depend-
ing ultimately for its authority on a divine revelation ; that reve-
lation is oftentimes communicated to us through the channel of
history or oral instruction. It is manifestly our duty, as intelli-
VOL. III. 28
326 INFANT BAPTISM.
gent beings, to hold ourselves ready to receive just such evidence
as God is pleased to afford. And if any of us should undertake
to prescribe to him, or to determine beforehand what evidence we
must have to satisfy our faith ; and if we should reject everything,
which is not attended with just such evidence as we might
desire ; we should give up some if not all of the most important
moral truths, and should fall into a state of skepticism, most fearful
in its influence on our present and our eternal interests.
LECTURE CXI.
INFANT BAPTISM.
In the last Lecture, I endeavored to show, that there being
no express declaration of Scripture, no command in so many
words, in favor of Infant Baptism, is not a valid arc/ument
against it.
I now proceed to say, that there is a special consideration in
relation to this particular rite, which will give additional force to
the remarks I have made, and will show still more clearly that no
one can properly demand a direct, express precept of Scripture
for baptizing children, and that other evidence should be received
as satisfactory. The consideration is, that a religious rite of long
standing, and intended for the same general purposes with
baptism, had, hy express appointment of Grod, been uniformly
applied to infant children. The existence of such a rite, and the
high importance which was universally attached to it by the people
of God, would make it easy to substitute in its place a rite of the
same general import, though diflFerent in form. This last rite,
indicating generally the same thing with the former, would require
less formality of divine injunction — less appearance of interposi-
tion on the part of God to introduce it, than would be necessary to
introduce an institution whose design and application were entirely
new. Those Christians, who had been familiar with the previous
rite of infant circumcision, that is, the previous mode of consecrat-
ing children to God, must have been predisposed in favor of Infant
Baptism, and must have been ready, at any intimation of Christ
328 INFANT BAPTISM.
or liis apostles, at once to receive it. They must have been
ready to fall in with it, as a matter of course. The pubhc conse-
cration of cliildren to God by a religious rite had for many ages
been a standing practice in the church. It came not from Moses,
but from Abraham, the father of those who believe in all nations.
Now what is the consecration of children to God by baptism, but
a previous appointment of God, that is, the appointment of infant
circumcision, so modified as to agree with the Christian dispensa-
tion ? In such a case, especially if the original institution was
held in high estimation, and attended with high endearments ;
what more could be deemed necessary, than that the will of God
should be made known, as to the neiv form of the rite ? After
such an expression of the divine will, that is, the appointment of
baptism, we should think that the dedication of children to God
under the new form of the rite, would immediately go into prac-
tice. It is quite manifest, that in the case now under considera-
tion, there was less occasion for an express command from God to
give sanction to the new rite, that is, to the new form of conse-
cration, than if no rite of similar import had existed before ; I might
rather say, no occasion at all.
In several respects you will perceive a striking analogy between
the institution of Infant Baptism and that of the Christian Sab-
bath. The institution of the seventh day as a sabbath had been
estabhshed from the creation of the world. Under the reign of
Christ, the original institution was to undergo a certain modifica-
tion. But how was this modification effected ? How was the
Christian church brought to give up the seventh day, and to
observe the first, as a Sabbath ? Was an express divine com-
mand formally announced in regard to the Lord's da}?" ? Did
God expressly bless the first day and sanctify it, as he had blessed
and sanctified the seventh day in Paradise ? Or did he come
forth in his majesty, as he had done on Sinai, and say in the
hearing of the apostles and early Christians, the first day is the
Sabbath — keep that day holy to the Lord ? And was such a com-
mand as this put on record by the inspired writers, and transmit-
ted from one generation to another, as the fourth command in the
INFANT BAPTISM. 329
Decalogue was ? Nothing like this has taken place ; nor have we
thought it necessary. How then have we been brought to give
up the seventh day as a Sabbath, and to keep the first in its
place ? We find no command of Christ or his apostles. And we
find no express declaration of Scripture, that the apostles and first
Christians uniformly kept the first day as a Sabbath. But we are
satisfied, because there are several things in the Acts and Epistles,
which plainly imply that they did so ; and because, in addition to
this, we have clear historical evidence that the Lord's day was
generally observed by the early Christian churches, and that the
seventh day Sabbath gradually fell into disuse. Thus, on the
ground of what was practised by those who lived near the apostles,
and who had the best advantages to form a correct judgment,
and because too, though without any express declaratioji of Scripture,
there is reason to think, that such was the practice of the apos-
tles ; we feel ourselves authorized and obliged to observe the first
day of the week as a Sabbath. But would Christians have been
so easily satisfied of their obligations to keep the Christian Sab-
bath, had there not been a weekly Sabbath, a sacred day, enjoined
by divine command, and uniformly observed by God's people in
preceding ages ? The more seriously I have reflected on this
subject, the more fully have I become satisfied, that the previous
existence of similar observances must have produced such an
efiect on the miuds of the first Jewish Christians, as perfectly to
prepare them to receive the Christian Sabbath and Infant Bap-
tism, without any additional enactment, or any direct, explicit
declaration whatever in their fiivor. But they could not have
been prepared for this, had these institutions been altogether
new. And it seems to me very plain, that no one can prove the
divine authority of the Christian Sabbath, without using argu-
ments very similar to those which we use in support of Infant
Baptism.
Having considered the proper mode of reasoning, and suggested
what seemed necessary to prepare the way for a fair discussion ;
I shall proceed to the considerations which bear directly upon the
subject of Infant Baptism. In treating this subject, I shall take
28*
330 INFANT BAPTISM.
the liberty to follow my own way of thinking, and shall lay before
you those considerations which have had the greatest influence on
my own mind, and which, after much anxious inquiry, have con-
ducted me to a satisfactory conclusion.
The first consideration I shall suggest is, that the rite of Infant
£aptis7n manifestly corresponds ivith the natural relation hetiveen
parents and children. It is not enough to say, that there is no
inconsistency between the two things, and that the relation of
parents and children can afford no objection against Infant Bap-
tism. For nothing is more evident than that this rite has a perfect
suitableness to the relation of parents and children. This relation
is of such a nature, and attended with such circumstances, that
Infant Baptism becomes obviously and in the highest degree
just and proper. I acknowledge that this argument does not, by
itself, prove Infant Baptism to have been appointed by God, and
to be obligatory upon Christians. But it shows that its appoint-
ment would have a perfect fitness and propriety. It shows, too,
that we ought readily to fall in with the practice, if there is any
indication of God's will in its favor, and that a lower degree of
evidence is sufficient to bring us under obligation to adopt it, than
if it had no such obvious fitness.
This view of the subject cannot be considered as objectionable
by any one, who well considers how we form our opinions in
regard to many other subjects. How, for instance, do we reason
in regard to a subject before referred to, that ib, female commun
nion ? We say, it is manifestly suitable ; that pious women have
the same reason to commemorate the death of Christ, as pious
men ; that the ordinance being enjoined in general terms is a
sufficient mdication of the divine will in regard to it, and that
pious women, having all the general reasons to partake of the
ordinance with pious men, have a fair title to partake, on the
ground of the general appointment, without waiting for a command
addressed particularly to them. But we could not think such a
conclusion correct, if there were no evident fitness in the thing
itself, and if an express divine precept, enjoining female commu-
nion, were considered to be essential.
INFANT BAPTISM. 331
The same as to the Lord's day. We perceive it to be altogether
just and prop&r, that so important an event as the resurrection of
Christ should be commemorated, and that the day on which it
took place, should be consecrated to the honor of the Saviour by
all his followers. In this way we are prepared to think favorably of
changing the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first. And being
thus impressed with the fitness of the thing, we are easily satisfied
with the circumstances, which indicate that this is the will of God.
When we find that the apostles and first Christians observed that
day, and that it became the practice of the regular Christian churches
universally to do so ; we feel at once that the practice was suitable ;
that it corresponded with the nature and ends of the Christian
rehgion, and that what the apostles and first Christians did, man-
ifested the pleasure of God ; and so without suspicion, we fall in
with the prevailing practice. But had we no such perception of
the fitness of the thing ; how could prevaihng practice have such
an effect upon us ?
In forming our judgment on such a subject as this, we should
keep in mind, that God has given us reason and moral sense, and
thus rendered us capable of discerning the relations of things, and
of determining, in most cases, what is suitable to those relations ;
and that it is often in this way only, that we are able to discover
the will of God.
The relation existing between parents and children is seldom
taken into serious consideration ; and it is still more seldom the case,
that its nature and importance are rightly apprehended. A little
attention to the circumstances of this relation, particularly to the
affections which attend it, the obligations involved in it, and the
consequences resulting from it, will satisfy any one, that it is among
the most interesting and momentous relations on earth.
Every human being from the commencement of his existence,
is the object of an affection indescribably ardent and tender. This
affection which lodges in the hearts of parents, and results neces-
sarily from the constitution they have received from their Creator,
is universal, except where that constitution is dreadfully perverted.
Whenever a child is born, an affection springs up in the hearts of
332 INFANT BAPTISM.
his parents, which will afford protection to his weakness and supply
to his wants ; which will prompt them to constant, untiring labors,
and make it even a pleasure to forego the common gratifications of
life, and to endure self-denial, watching, and fatigue, for the sake
of that helpless being who is intrusted to their care. For a time
this affection operates without rational intercourse, and without any
i-eturn of service or even of gratitude from the offspring. Parental
affection is fixed and durable. Causes which extinguish other
kinds of affection, generally leave this in all its strength, and often
prove an occasion of increasing its warmth and activity. The
affection of parents, instead of ceasing with the feebleness and the
wants of their offspring, extends its kind regards over his whole life,
and when regulated by religious principle, aims at nothing less than
to promote his happiness through an immortal existence.
Now the mere fact that the relation of parents to their offspring
is attended with an affection of so unparalleled a nature, marks this
relation as one of vast consequence, and indicates that God intended
to make it subservient to the most important ends in his government.
This relation involves high obligations. The precepts of God's
word on this subject are such as sound reason must approve. Pa-
rents are required to bring up their children in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord. The duties of parents are so various and
constant, that, if rightly performed, they must occupy a consid-
erable portion of human life ; and they are so arduous, as to require
their dihgent and pious efforts. These duties are so important,
that they cannot be neglected, without consequences exceedingly
perilous to the interests of the church and the world. The duties
of parents, and the mfluence which they ought to possess over their
children, must generally be considered as the chief means of
forming the character of the rising generation, and preparing
them for usefulness ; the chief means of saving the souls of men,
and propagating the Christian religion from one generation to
another.
These remarks are all confirmed by the word and providence of
God. From the beginning of the world, the character and con-
dition of children have generally resulted from the conduct of
INFANT BAPTISM. 333
parents. The peculiar character of a tribe or nation has commonly
been derived from the character of its father or head. This extends
to the rehgious, as well as to the social and secular character. The
history of the Christian church shows that after it has once been
estabhshed in any place, it has chiefly depended for its continuance
and increase upon the labors of parents to promote the piety of
their children.
The foregoing remarks are not offered as proof that God does
in fact require that children should be baptized ; but to show that
Infant Baptism has an obvious fitness. If the relation between
parents and children is so vastly important, it is manifestly proper
that it should have some mark set upon it, to show in what estima-
tion it is held by the Creator of the woVld. And as this relation
involves the most momentous duties, and the highest interests of the
soul, it is manifestly proper that it should be marked by a reliyious
rite. If a public religious rite may be properly used for the purpose
of impressing truth or duty on the minds of men in any case, it may
be in this. Thus the considerations above stated, though they do not
directly prove Infant Baptism to be a divine institution, are sufficient
to show that such a religious rite entirely corresponds with the nature
and design of thp relation between parents and childx-eu, and that
it is very fit and reasonable that such a relation and the duties
involved in it should be marked by some expressive sign.
The second consideration which I shall offer is, that the relation
between 2Mrents and children, and the consecration of both to God,
was actually marlted by a divinely appointed and siynijicant rite,
through the Patriarchal and Mosaic economy.
Keep in mind, that tlie same rite ivas appointed for parents and
children. Consider too, that this rite, intended for children as
well as parents, did not originate in the Mosaic ritual, but in the
family of Abraham, the father of all believers whether Jews or
gentiles, and was practised among the Israelites from generation
to generation.
It is equally true that the import of the rite was not varied at all
by the application of it to servants. For they stood in a near
relation to their masters, and were circumcised on account of that
334 INFANT BAPTISM.
relation. The rite surely could not denote anything less in reference
to children, because it was applied in a secondary way to others.
This rite evidently had ajmrnmy relation to sjjiritual hlessmgs.
It was a confirmation of that most gracious and spiritual promise
which God made to Abraham, / zvill be a Crod to thee and to thy
seed. Circumcision., the Apostle tells us, was a seal of the
righteousness of faith u'hich Abraham had while uncircumcised.
God's covenant with Abraham and his posterity did indeed include
a great variety of temporal blessings ; particularly, their title to
the land of Canaan, and all their institutions and laws relating to
their worldly state. And it is equally true that all necessary tem-
poral blessings are promised to believers under the new covenant.
" Godliness is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the
life that now is, as well as of that which is to come. " But these
temporal blessings in both cases are to be considered only as ap-
pendages of the spiritual good secured to the obedient by the divine
promises. The promises of the former economy were in truth as
high and spiritual, as any contained in the Christian Scriptures ;
and the principal one, I will be your Crod, is referred to in the New
Testament, as involving the most precious gospel blessings. Heb.
8: 10. 2 Cor. 6: 16. See also Isa. 44: 3. " I will pour my Spirit
upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring. " The Old
Testament economy contained the most spiritual and holy precepts.
It contained the decalogue, and various other commands, requiring
holiness of heart and life. The character which God exhibited
was the same under the former dispensation, as under the latter.
The character which he required of those who were under the
former economy, was the same as he required of the followers of
Christ. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. Be
ye holy, for I am holy. Deut. 6: 5. Lev. 20: 7. Matt. 22: 37.
1 Pet. 1: 15, 16.
It may indeed be alleged, that the Israelites, as a nation, were
not holy ; that they did not render to God a sincere spiritual service,
and that the economy, under which they were placed, did not
secure to them spiritual blessings. This is true. But this is not
to be charged to that system of laws and rites and promises, which
INFANT BAPTISM. 335
Grod gave for their benefit, but to themselves. Had they conformed
to the nature and design of that economy, circumcision would have
been an actual confirmation of spiritual blessings to them. Now
surely we are not to judge of the former economy from the char-
acter of those who were placed under it. As a general fact, their
character was directly contrary ^to the nature and design of the
economy; — as really so, as the character of the bulk of nominal
Christians in the most corrupt age of the church has been contrary
to the design of the Christian economy. But who would think of
urging the degraded, corrupt character exhibited at any time by
nominal Christians, as a proof that the Qhriatian dispensation was
not intended to be of a spiritual nature, or that its rites were not
intended to be signs of spiritual blessings ? No distinction can
be more obvious, than that between the real nature of a divine
economy, and the manner in which it is used by those who are
placed under it. As to the former economy, the question is not,
what was the actual character of the IsraeHtes ; but what was the
character which they ought to have possessed, — the character
which the precepts and the spirit of the dispensation required them
to possess ? Now if, from generation to generation, they had been
obedient and holy according to the laws of that economy; who
could ever have doubted that the economy was a spiritual one, and
that circumcision was a seal of spiritual blessings ? So far as they
kept God's covenant, it was in fact a seal of spiritual blessings
both to parents and children. It set forth God's design, that the
true religion, with all its attendant benefits, should, by means of
parental faithfulness and prayer, be transmitted from one genera-
tion to another. And if the Israehtes universally from Abraham
to Christ had truly conformed to that divine institution ; then
circumcision would have been in fact what it was designed to be, a
confirmation of God's promise, / %vill he a God to thee and thy
seed. And let me repeat it, that the nature and design of a rite,
instituted by God, cannot be altered by the disobedience and per-
verseness of men.
I well know that there are some passages in the New Testa-
ment, especially m the Epistle to the Galatians, and to the
336 INFANT BAPTISM.
Hebrews, which seem at first view to militate against what I have
advanced in regard to the spiritual nature of the Mosaic economy.
This is a subject which requires a longer and more minute investi-
gation than would be proper in this place. I must therefore refer
you to what others have written, after suggesting two things, which
I think very obvious.
First. The Apostle in his whole argument in Gal. iii. makes a
distinction between the llosaic economy, or law, and God's cove-
nant with Abraham ; and he takes special pains to teach, that the
covenant with Abraham was unalterable ; that believers in Christ
come under that very covenant ; that they are Abraham^ s seed,
and heirs according to the promise, that is, the promise made
to Abraham ; and that it is the blessing of Abraham, — the
blessing promised to Abraham and his seed, which all believers
inherit. It must therefore be obvious, that whatever there was in
the Mosaic economy which was earthly and changeable, Grod's
covenant with Abraham was spiritual and immutable, securing all
the blessings to which believers in Christ are entitled. And it
must not be forgotten, that circumcision was first appointed to be
the seal, not of the Mosaic economy, but of this spiritual and im-
mutable covenant of Grod with Abraham.
Second. When in Heb. viii. the writer says, that the first
covenant, (evidently meaning the Mosaic or Sinai covenant,) was
faulty and ineffectual, that it had waxed old and was ready to
vanish away ; he evidently refers to the Levitical PHesthood and
the ancient ritual, which were both appointed only for temporary
purposes, and were to cease after the death of Christ. How then
does the passage prove that a spiritual and unchangeable covenant,
the same as the one made with Abraham, was not contained in the
Mosaic dispensation ? The spiritual precepts and promises found
there, prove that such a coveifant was contained. Accordingly,
circumcision, though it was connected with the Mosaic ritual and
made a part of it, was still, through that whole dispensation,
what it was originally designed to be, a confirmation to all true
saints of the spiritual blessings secured by Grod's covenant toith
Abraham.
INFANT BAPTISM. 337
The general position then stands firm, tha.t the covenant, of which
circumcision was appointed to be the seal, was spiritual, gracious
and iynmutahle*
* This principle is ably and, I think, unanswerably defended by Rev. Kalph
Wardlaw, D. D. in his Dissertation on Infant Baptism.
VOL. III. 29
LECTURE CXII.
INFANT BAPTISM.
We now come to the introduction of the Christian dispensation,
and the appointment of Baptism as a sign of discipleship to
Christ, or, which is the same thing, a seal of God's covenant with
believers.
I remark, first, th&t the Christian religion was evidently/ founded
upon the Old Testament /Scjij^tures, and was, for substance, a
continuation of the religion there taught. Christ frequently
declares, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament make known
his character, and the principles of his gospel. He appeals to the
Law and the Prophets and the Psalms, for the confirmation of
what he taught. The apostles do the same, and clearly make it
known to be their wish, that the soundness of their instructions
should be tested by the Scriptures. And we well know that,
whenever they speak of the Scriptures, they refer to the Old
Testament. Carefully peruse the gospels, the Acts of the apos-
tles, and the epistles, and see in what manner Christ and the
apostles treat the Scriptures, and how they labor to show, that
Christianity is not a neiv religion, but, as to its substance, is the
very religion which was taught in the law and the prophets ; —
from which consideration they justly conclude, that no man can
reject Christianity without rejecting the Old Testament Scriptures,
and that no one can truly beheve those Scriptures without behev-
ing Christianity.
I cannot think that any quotations in proof of the foregoing
INFANT BAPTISM. 339
remarks will be thought necessary by those who are conversant
with the Scriptures.
From such a view of the subject it seems very natural to con-
clude, that any general principle of rehgion, and any practice,
established under the former economy, will be continued, though
it may be in a different form, under the Christian economy, unless
the reasons have ceased on which that principle or practice was
founded, or unless God has expressly set it aside. For example ;
it is just to conclude that public worsJdp, Which was estabhshed
under the former dispensation, will be continued under the latter,
though doubtless with such changes in the fortn, as the pecuhari-
ties of the Christian economy shall require. If Christ or his
apostles ever intimated to the Jews, that a change was called for
in the spirit of their religion, they did it, unquestionably, with
reference to the corruptions and abuses which had prevailed, not
with reference to the religion which was actually taught in the
Scriptures.
The institution of the Sabbath, which has already been referred
to, furnishes another illustration of the propriety of our reasoning
on the present subject. This institution Avhich was established in
Paradise, rests on the authority of God and on the essential prin-
ciples of our intellectual and moral nature. There must be a
sacred day, — a day devoted to the worship of God. There is
the same reason for it under both dispensations. The change
then, if there be any, must relate to outward form and circum-
stance. By the will of him who is the Lord of the Sabbath, the
particular day to be observed under the Christian economy is dif-
ferent, and the observance attended with fewer and simpler cere-
monies. Still there is a sacred day every week under the present
dispensation, as really as there was under the Jewish or Patriarchal.
In respect to the necessity and utility of such a day, and the
command of God to observe it, there is no change.
The same appears to be true in regard to the subject under
consideration. There must be a seal of God's gracious covenant,
and of the relation which his people sustain to him. The impor-
tance of such a seal to promote in the highest degree the ends of
340 INFANT BAPTISM.
religion, must be ob\aous to all who are acquainted with the con-
stitution of the human mind ; and it must be equally obvious in all
ages. It is reasonable therefore to think, that, under both dis-
pensations, God's covenant will have a seal, whatever difference
there maj be in the form of it. Why should not the momentous
and unalterable relation of children to parents, and of both to
God, be marked by a religious rite now, as well as formerly ?
According to the will of God, that rite, under the former economy,
was circumcision ; under the present, it is baptism. The general
import of both is the same.
I remark, secondly, that we can by no means conclude that our
Saviour did not give his apostles specific instructions on this or
any other subject, merely because such instructions are not pre-
served in the records of the New Testament. The Evangelists
have given us no more than a very summary account of what
Christ taught during his public ministry. They could do nothing
more than this, as John plainly suggests at the end of his gospel,
where he tells us, that if all should be written^ the world itself
could not contain the books. We are not, however, to infer from
this, that the instructions of Christ, which are not found in the
sacred records, were unimportant ; or that they had no effect, or
were of no use ; or even that their effect does not reach to the
present day, or that they are of no use to us. They were designed
to have their primary and direct influence on the apostles them-
selves, who were to be teachers of the Christian religion, and were,
at the commencement of Christ's reign, to give a right direction to
all the affairs of his kingdom. Accordingly, the effect of Christ's
instructions to them must have appeared in the constitution and
form of the churches which they established. In various respects
this is the only method in which it is possible for us to determine
what Christ's instructions were. And under proper restrictions,
it is a just and satisfactory method.
From the effects which the apostles produced, we may learn
what they did. And from what they did we may learn what in-
structions they received from Christ. In this way we proceed in
regard to the Passover, and the Seventh-day Sabbath. There is
INFANT BAPTISM. 341
no record of any direction of Christ to set aside either of them.
But we find that they were set aside among those Christians
whom the apostles taught. From this we may reasonably con-
clude what instructions the apostles gave ; and then, what they
received from Christ. And we form this conclusion respecting
the last, without the record of any command or counsel from
Christ to his apostles, or from the apostles to Christian converts.
We find, further, that Christians did, in some special sense,
observe the fii-st day of the week. This the sacred records
clearly show. We learn from other sources, that while the
Seventh-day Sabbath gradually ceased to be observed in the
primitive churches, the Lord's day was observed in its place.
From these circumstances we infer what the apostles taught the
first Christians, and what they themselves were taught by Christ,
or by the Holy Spirit. And I venture to say, if the New Testa^
ment had been altogether silent respecting the first day of the
week being made a sacred day, and if we only found that the
Christian church does now'uniformly observe the Lord's day as a
Sabbath, and that this has been the case from the time of the first
Christian churches ; we should be satisfied that such was the will
of Christ ; that he had so instructed the apostles, and that they
had so instructed the first Christians.
The same general remarks apply to the present subject. Be it
so, that the New Testament does not contain any definite instruc-
tions of Christ to the apostles, or of the apostles to Christians, in
regard to the baptism of little children. Can we infer from this,
that no definite instructions were given ? Such instructions
might have produced the effect designed, first, upon the apostles
themselves, and then, through them, upon the minds of Christian
converts. And it may remain for us to learn what those instruc-
tions of Christ and the apostles were, from what we discover to
have been the practice of the first churches. We should unques-
tionably reason so now, in a similar case. Suppose, without any
previous knowledge of the subject, we should visit a place in
Africa, where a Christian missionary had successfully preached,
and- founded a church, he having been the only minister of the
29*
342 INFANT BAPTISM.
gospel who had labored in that place. And suppose our visit to
take place some time after his death. Would not the prevailing
usages of that church show, to our perfect satisfaction, what
instructions he gave ? If we should find it the practice of that
church to baptize onlj adult believers, and to do it bj immersion ;
should we not conclude at once, that the minister who taught
them was a Baptist? But if we should find that the church,
thus founded bj his faithful labors, and guided by his wisdom,
was in the practice of baptizing their infant children, and that this
had been their uniform practice from the beginning ; should we
not conclude that he taught them to baptize their children ?
Most certainly men in general, of whatever denomination, would
judge in this manner, and would be satisfied what the instructions
of any distinguished missionary were, from the prevailing usages
of a church founded by his influence. And such would be the
conclusion we should form, for a long time after his decease,
unless the influence of subsequent teachers of diflerent views, or
some other visible causes, had operated to produce a change.
Indeed it is clear, that the form and usages of a church in any
place must be derived from the principal teacher, and conformed
to his views. And if those Christians who deny Infant Baptism,
could, among the treasures of antiquity, discover a history bear-
ing every mark of authenticity, and containing a particular
account of the churches in Asia Minor immediately after the days
of the apostles, and if that history should plainly aflirm that those
churches never baptized children, and that the children of behev-
ers, on coming to adult years and professing their faith in Christ,
were then baptized ; I say, if those who deny Infant Baptism could
find from authentic records, that such was the usage of those
churches ; they would think this to be a very valuable discovery,
and the uniform practice of those churches to baptize adult believ-
ers, and those only, to be a valid proof that they were so taught
by the apostles.
But I shall now proceed to argue the point from the inspired
records, just as they are. My position is, that the Scriptures of
the New Testament, understood according to just rules of inter-
INFANT BAPTISM. 343
pretation, clearly sJioiv that the children of believers are to he
baptized.
The rule of interpretation, which is of the highest consequence,
and which will aid us most in discovering the true meaning of
the Scriptures in relation to every subject, particularly the
one now before us, is, that we put ourselves, as far as may
he, in the place of those who gave instruction, and of those who
received it.
You will easily perceive the importance and necessity of this
rule. For in numberless instances, a declaration or direction
derives its peculiar meaning from the consideration of the person
who speaks, or of those to whom he speaks. Who does not know
that the same combination of words has a very different meaning
in one place from what it has in another ? Even when the gene-
ral sense of the words is the same, the circumstances of the case
must determine the extent of meaning which they bear, or what is
implied in the application of them to the subject in hand. Some
fact, some prevalent custom, or habit of thinking, may give them
a specific signification ; and without taking such fact or custom
into view, we may miss the exact sense and import of the words.
In how many instances should we be at a loss respecting
the meaning of historians, poets, and orators, without taking into
account the age and place in which they hved, and the character,
laws, and usages, of the people with whom they were conversant,
arid for whom they wrote.
As a single illustration of the importance of this principle ;
look at a text in the Old Testament, in which the observance of
the Sabbath is mentioned ; for example, Is. 56: 2, " Blessed is
the man that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it." How do
you ascertain which day is meant ? Simply by considering what
previous instructions and commojnds had been given on the sub-
ject, and what their usage was. In this way you are satisfied
that the seventh day was meant. Look now at a law, in an Eng-
lish or American statute book, requiring the people to abstain
from secular business on the /Sabbath. How do you ascertain
which day is meant here ? By considering what has been the
844 INFANT BAPTISM.
usage of Christians generally, and particularly of that people for
whom the law was made. In this way you are satisfied that the
first day of the week must be meant.
Come now to the subject. Christ appointed baptism to be adminis-
tered to all who should become proselytes to his religion, that is,
to all Christians ; and when he was about lea\dng his apostles,
who were to be employed as the instruments of converting the
world, he gave them this commission ; " Go ye, and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The word f^ad-tjTsvaars, rendered
teach, properly signifies, 7nake disciples ; proselyte ; convert to the
Cliristian religion. The commission then is this ; " (ro ye, prose-
lyte, or make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Glwsty This
command was given by one who was bom a Jew, who was edu-
cated among the Jews, and was perfectly acquainted with all
their institutions and laws, with their customs and usages, and
with the dispensations of divine providence towards them. And
the command was addressed to Jeivs. Now whatever there
was in this general circumstance, which could have an influence
upon the meaning of the command, or which would naturally
cause it to be understood in one way or another, is worthy of spe-
cial attention.
Consider, then, that the Jews had long been accustomed to
make proselytes from paganism to their religion. The obligation
to do this had been brought to view in the divine law, and rules
had been given for the proper treatment of proselytes. To make
proselytes was regarded as a great object ; and the efforts of the
Jews to bring others to embrace their religion were crowned with
extensive success. Proselytes were numerous both in Greece
and m Rome ; and it seems that, after the persecuting reign of
Antiochus Epiphanes, some whole nations, as the Idumeans,
Itureans, and Moabites, professed the Jewish faith. And when-
ever gentiles embraced the Jewish religion, they were treated in
regard to circumcision, according to the Jewish law ; that is, they
were circumcised, — parents and children. This was the law of
INFANT BAPTISM. 345
the Jews ; and this was the uniform practice. Hence it must be
easy to determine how Christian Jews would be likely to under-
stand the duty of proselyting idolaters and unbelievers to the true
religion. Suppose that God, previously to the Christian dispensa-
tion, had selected twelve Jews, and sent them forth to convert
Greeks and Romans to their religion, and without any mention of
children, had merely given them this commission : Go ye, proselyte
and circumcise them. Would they not have understood such a
commission as requiring them to circumcise the children of con-
verted Greeks and Romans ? Unquestionably they would. And
why ? Not because they Avere children ; but because iliey were
Jews, and had always been accustomed to the circumcision of
children, as well as parents. In obedience to this divine com-
mand, they would have gone to the people specified, and in all the
instances in which men were made proselytes, would have circum-
cised them and their children.
Again. Suppose, in such a case, a command had been given,
which included baptism with circumcision ; thus : Gro ye, and
proselyte tlwse nations, circumcising and baptizing them. Still
not a word about children; but simply. Go and proselyte those
nations to Judaism, circumcising and baptizing them. Most cer-
tamly they would have understood that baptism, as well as circum-
cision, was to be appHed to proselytes and their children.
But suppose that baptism had been put in the place of circum-
cision, as the sign to be put upon proselytes to Judaism ; and so
the command to those Jewish teachers had been ; Go ye, prose-
lyte and baptize the peo-ple of Grreece and Borne. Must they not
have understood the command in the same way ? Surely those
who were acquainted with the commands and institutions which
God gave to Abraham and to Moses, and who had always been
accustomed to observe them, could have had no doubt, that the
rite which marked the relation of proselytes to God, was to be
appUed to their children also.
Thus far, all must have the same opinion. Such a divine com-
mand to Jews before the time of Christ, whetlaer it appointed cir-
cumcision only, or circumcision together with baptism, or baptism
346 INFANT BAPTISM.
instead of circumcision, as a mark to be applied to those who
were proselyted to the Jewish religion, must have been under-
stood as intended to be applied also to the children of proselytes,
though no mention was made of children in the command.
I am now only availing myself of one of the most important
principles of interpretation, and attempting to show what influence
must have been produced upon the meaning of Christ's direction
by the circumstance, that he was a Jew, and that he gave the
direction to Jeivs, whose laws and usages had been what the Scrip-
tures represent.
But to illustrate this principle still further ; suppose it to have
been the appointment of our Saviour, after his public ministry
began, that circumcision should be applied to converts to Chris-
tianity, as it had been to converts to Judaism ; and suppose him
to have said to his apostles ; " Go ye, proselyte all nations, and
circumcise them," — making no mention of children. Could the
apostles have doubted a moment, whether circumcision was meant
to be applied to the cJdldren of proselytes ? But why should we
suppose they would put a different construction upon the commis-
sion they received from Christ, because baptism was made the sign,
of proselytes, instead of circumcision ? There is evidently nothing
in the import of the sign, which would require any difference in its
application. For baptism is appointed simply as a sign, to be put
upon those who are proselyted to Christianity. If circumcision had
been continued, and Christ had commanded it to be put upon Chris-
tian proselytes, as it had been upon proselytes to the religion of
Moses, the meaning and use of it would have been perfectly the
same, as the meaning and use of baptism.
But there is another consideration, which may help to show us
still further, how the apostles must have understood their commis-
sion to baptize converts to Christianity ; namely, the jjrevious
practice of the Jews to baptize proselytes and their children.
The evidence of such a practice among the Jews has been very
satisfactory to most men of distinguished learning and judgment.
Knapp, in his Theology, gives the following brief view of the
arguments in proof of proselyte baptism ; namely ; " The unani-
INFANT BAPTISM. 347
mous testimony of all the Rabbins ; the universality of this prac-
tice among the Jews of the second century ; the striking similarity
of the Jewish expressions concerning the baptism of proselytes, to
those which occur in the New Testament respecting the Christian
rite ; and the circumstance that Josephus, in his account of John
the Baptist, does not express the least surprise at the practice of
baptism, as a new and unwonted ceremony." Knapp suggests
also, what I think to be deserving of special consideration, that if
the baptism of proselytes was customary among the Jews at or
before the time of Christ, many things could be explained more
clearly from this circumstance, than in any other way.
Some have doubted whether the baptism of proselytes was in
use before the Christian era, because the earliest of the Jewish
writers who mention the practice, lived some time after Christ.
In regard to this subject, let the following things be consi-
dered.
1. The Rabbins unanimously assert that the baptism of prose-
lytes had been practised by the Jews in all ages, from Moses
down to the time when they wrote. Now these writers must have
been sensible that their contemporaries, both Jews and Christians,
knew whether such a practice had been prevalent or not. And
had it been known that no such practice had existed ; would not
some Jews have been found, bold enough to contradict such a
groundless assertion of the Rabbins ? At least, would there not
have been some Jewish Christians, fired with the love of truth,
and jealous for the honor of a sacred rite first instituted by Christ,
who would have exposed to shame those who falsely asserted that
a similar rite had existed for more than a thousand years ? But
neither of these things was done.
2. Had not the Jews been accustomed to baptize proselytes
previously to the Christian era, it is extremely improbable that
they would have adopted the practice afterwards. For their con-
tempt and hatred of Christianity exceeded all bounds, and must
have kept them at the greatest possible distance from copying a
rite peculiar to Christians.
3. It seems to have been perfectly consistent and proper for
348 INFANT BAPTISM.
the Jews to baptize proselytes. For tlieir divine ritual enjoined
various purifications by washing, or baptism. And as they consi-
dered all gentiles to be unclean, how could they do otherwise
than understand the divine law to require, that when any of
them were proselyted to the Jewish religion, they should receive
the same sign of purification, as was, in so many cases, applied to
themselves ? *
I will only add, that the more carefully I have considered the
arguments which prove proselyte baptism, and the objections
urged against it, the stronger has been my conviction that it was
practised.
If then it had been the uniform custom of the Jews to baptize
proselytes to their religion, as we have so much reason to think ; it
is clear that the baptism of proselytes by John and by Christ was
no new thing. It is at any rate clear that baptism, as a religious
rite, had been familiarly known among the Jews from the time of
Moses. So that the rite which John the Baptist instituted was
not by any means a new rite. The question put to him (John
1: 25) implies, that baptism was not regarded by the Jews at
that time as a new rite. — It was this rite, long used for ceremo-
nial purification, and also in the case of proselytes to the Jewish
religion, which John applied to those Jews who hstened to his
instructions, and gave signs of repentance. Afterwards Christ
ordained, that this same rite, which had thus been used among
the Israehtes for purification, and thus apphed to converted gen-
tiles and to Jews who repented under the preaching of John,
should from that time be apphed to all in every part of the world,
who embraced Christianity. The work of proselyting men to the
true religion had before been carried on within narrow limits. It
was now to be carried on extensively ; and baptism, in the Chris-
tian form, was now to be administered to all proselytes. " Go ye,
* I beg leave to refer those who wish to examine the subject more particularly,
to Lightfoot's Hor. Hob. on Matt. iii. and John iii. Wall's Hist, of Infant Bap-
tism, Introduction. Gale's Eeflections on Wall's History: Michaelis Dogm. §
180. Ernesti Vindicite arbit. div. § 49. Jahn's Archaeology. Wetstein on Matt.
3: 6. Gill's Body of Divinity. E. Robinson's History of Baptism, and other
works on the same subject.
INFANT BAPTISM. 349
and proselyte all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holj Ghost." In judging of the true
meaning and intent of this commission, the apostles would natu-
rally consider in what manner baptism had been administered ;
and particularly, its having been applied to i^roselytes and their
children. This last circumstance, in addition to the other with which
they Avere so familiar, that of having children as well as parents
consecrated to God by circumcision, must have had a direct and de-
cisive influence upon the construction which the apostles put upon
their commission, and must have led them to conclude, that under
the Christian dispensation, children as well as parents were to be
devoted to God by baptism, unless some contrary instruction was
given to prevent such a conclusion. Knapp says ; " If Christ in
his command to baptize all. Matt, xxviii, had wished children to be
excepted ; he must have expressly said this. For since the first
disciples of Christ, as native Jews, knew no other way than for
children to be introduced into the Israelitish church by circum-
cision ; it was natural that they should extend this to baptism, if
Christ did not expressly forbid it. Had he therefore wished
that it should not be done, he would surely have said so in definite
terms."
Another consideration which shows, that it must have been per-
fectly consistent for the apostles to understand their commission
in the manner above stated, is, that the Scriptures so often rep-
resent parents and children as receiving the same treatment from
divine providence, and as being closely connected together in re-
spect to their most important interests. " I will be your God,
and the God of your seed." — " Visiting the iniquities of the fa-
thers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of
them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands," — that
is, thousands of generations, " of them that love me and keep my
commandments." " That he may prolong his days, he and his
children." " Keep my commandments, that it may be well with
thee and with thy children after thee." " They are the seed of
the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them." With
such representations as these the course of divine providence had
VOL. III. 30
350 INFANT BAPTISM.
a striking correspondence. It -svas a general fact that, whether
mercies or judgments came upon men, their children were par-
takers of the same. And this principle of the divine administration
had a special reference to the interests of rehgion. Now the
apostles were perfectly acquainted with this principle. They had
the highest reverence for those sacred writings, which exhibited
such views of the connection between parents and children ; and
they had been brought up under a divine economy, which afforded
continual confirmation of what their Scriptures taught in regard to
this connection. What violence then must they have done to all
those habits of thinking and feehng, which they had derived from
the word and providence of God, had they supposed, that parents
and children were no longer to be connected together in the con-
cerns of rehgion, or in public and sacred transactions, or that the
consecration of parents and children to God was no longer to be
marked, as it always had been, with the sign of the dispensation
under which they were placed !
It is no objection to tliis train of thought, that the promises,
above recited, were conditional. For they were no more con-
ditional in regard to cJiildrm, than in regard to parents. And the
fact that a promise or covenant has proper conditions, is surely no
reason why it should not have a token or seal.
LECTURE CXIII.
INFANT BAPTISM.
The general position, which I have endeavored to support is
this ; that the apostles, being native Jews, and having the impres-
sions and habits of thinking which pious Jews would necessarily
derive from a familiar acquaintance with the usages of the nation,
with the rites enjoined in their sacred writings, and with the rep-
resentations there made respecting the divine conduct towards
parents and children, must have understood their commission to
baptize proselytes, as intended to include children with their
parents.
The conclusiveness of the mode of reasoning which has been
pursued, rests on a principle of interpretation, which is of the first
importance ; namely ; that we should place ourselves, as far as
possible, in the circumstances of those who wrote the Scriptures,
and of those to whom they were addressed, and in this way en-
deavor to ascertain the meaning of what was written. From
Ecclesiastical History we can derive a very conclusive argument,
that the apostles did in fact understand the institution of baptism,
as intended for behevers and their children. But why did they
understand it in this manner ? I answer, that without the suppo-
sition of any direct and explicit instruction on the subject from
Christ, there Avere reasons, in the circumstances in which the
apostles were placed, sufficient to satisfy them, that such was the
design of the institution. Take the New Testament just as it is,
and consider what instruction Christ gave his apostles in regard to
352 INFANT BAPTISM.
baptism, particularly his final commission to tliem, to go and proselyte
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The proper iuquirj is not how
Greeks and Romans would have understood such a commission ;
for the apostles were neither Greeks nor Romans, and their Lord
who commissioned them, was neither a Greek nor a Roman. Our
inquiry is, how such a commission would naturally be understood
by those who were, both by birth and education, Jews ; how it
Avould be understood by those, who had derived their opinions
from the Jewish Scriptures and Jewish usages, and who were the
willing servants of one who was himself a Jew, and the King of
the Jews ? To me it appears evident, that the circumstances of
the case, taken together, must have had a decisive influence in
favor of the baptism of infants. For it was a well known fact,
that the seal of God's gracious covenant had, from Abraham to
that time, been applied to children. And this application of it
was manifestly grounded on a permanent, unchangeable principle,
that is, the natural relation between parents and children, and the
propriety and duty of both being consecrated to God. The seal
which was appointed to be put upon God's people under the reign
of Christ, was of the same general import with the one previously
used. In this view, therefore, there was the same apparent rea-
son for applying it to the children of God's people then, as before.
As to its/orm, the seal was changed ; but as to its import, it was
the same. The relation of good men to God, which was marked
by this sign, was the same ; and the relation of their children to
them was the same. How then could the apostles doubt that chil-
dren were still to receive the sign of the covenant, as they had for-
merly ? With their impressions and their usages ; with their sacred
regard to the principles established by the Scriptures and by the
divine administration ; particularly, with their habit of looking
upon children as being, by God's appointment, closely united
to their parents in respect to privileges and prospects ; they must,
as it seems to me, have understood the command of Christ to bap-
tize Christian proselytes, as extending to their children also. Had
the promise of God, " I will he a God to thee, and to thy seed," or
INFANT BAPTISM. 353
had the circumcision of the children of God's people in connection
with that promise, rested on any principle which appertained to the
Patriarchal or Jewish dispensation in distinction from the Chris-
tian ; the apostles, placed at the commencement of the Christian
dispensation, and instructed as they were in regard to its nature,
would have heen satisfied of course, that children were no longer
to be marked with the seal of God's covenant, or to be consecrated
to him by any religious rite. But children's being comprehended
with their parents in God's covenant, and their receiving the same
mark of his covenant mercy and of consecration to him with their
parents, all rested upon principles, which were universal and im-
mutable, and which were to have as much prominence and influ-
ence under the reign of Christ, as before.
We have seen too, that the reasoning in this case is analogous
to the reasoning commonly relied upon in relation to the Sabbath.
The reason of a Sabbath day lies in the nature of man, and in his
relation to God, and so is immutable. Consequently, the fourth
command, however changed as to form, or circumstances, must
continue as to substance. There must be a sacred day. Its be-
coming a Christian institution, and its being observed on the first
day of the week, instead of the seventh, alters not the substance
of the fourth command, nor the obligation of Christians to obey it.
In the same manner, the reason for Infant-consecration lies in the
nature and importance of the relation existing between children
and their parents, and the relation of both to God, and so must
be the same in all ages. This relation is as obvious and important,
and as worthy of being marked by a religious rite now, as for-
merly. The sign of consecration now is baptism ; and all the
reasons in the case conspii^e to favor the application of it to chil-
dren. Thus we apprehend the subject must have presented itself
to the minds of the apostles and first Christians.
The view which we have adopted on this subject agrees best
with the common method of understanding a charter, securing to
any society of men the enjoyment of privileges. Such a charter
is, by common consent, to be understood in the largest sense it
will bear. Suppose the grant of privileges to a society is made in
30*
354 IXFANT BAPTISM.
general terras ; that is, neither the individuals nor classes of men
belonging to the society are specified. Now he, who is entrusted
with the execution of the charter, is bound to bestow the privileges
granted, on all who can fairlj be considered as belonging to the
society. And if any one should object to bestowing the chartered
privileges on any individuals fairly comprehended within the
society, it would be incumbent on him to show that those individu-
als were expressly excepted in the terms of the grant. Especially
would it be proper to give this wide construction to the grant, if it
wei'e well known, that a previous grant, of the same nature, had
expressly required this extensive application of its privileges. And
it would be a stronger reason still for understanding the charter in
such a sense, if the charter itself were evidently nothing more,
than the modification, as to outward form, of a previous charter,
which was more particular, and which, in the most explicit terms,
secured its privileges to those, whose title is now called in ques-
tion. In such a case, it would aid us much in determining the
extent of meaning to be put upon the more general terms of the
charter in its present form, to inquire how it was with the charter
when first given. And if, on examination, it should be found that
it was the will of the prince, that the privileges, originally granted,
should be thus extensively applied ; we should be satisfied at once
that the privileges of the charter in its present form, were meant
to be applied to an equal extent, unless there was an express limi-
tation. And we should feel this satisfaction in the highest possible
degree, if it appeared that the prince made the alteration in the
form of the original charter, with the declared design of carrying
its privileges to a larger extent.
Now all the considerations, which would lead us to give such a con-
struction to the decree or charter here supposed, exist in relation to
the subject of Infant Baptism. Our inquiry is, whether the lan-
guage, employed in Christ's commission to baptize, would naturally
be understood by his apostles, as extending to the children of be-
lievers. In answer to this inquiry, I have endeavored to make it
appear, that all the circumstances of the case, which can be sup-
posed to have had an influence upon the minds of the apostles,
INFANT BAPTISM. 355
were in favor of extending baptism to children ; and that, before
they could understand their commission in any other manner, they
must have ceased to be children of Abraham, and must have
erased from their minds all the impressions which had been made
upon them by the word and providence of God.
The want of qualifications in children is a subject which deserves
particular consideration. It is sufficient however for our present
purpose to say, that a grant of privileges is often made to children
p'ospectively and conditionally. In such cases, some mark or seal
of those privileges is always deemed proper ; and as to the privi-
leges themselves, it is the common understanding, that they are
secured to the children, and will actually belong to them, as soon
as they become capable of enjoying them and have complied with
the conditions on which they are granted.
Thus far we have considered merely those circumstances, which
would be likely to influence the apostles in tlieir understanding of
flie meaning of their commission. The reasoning has proceeded
independently of the consideration of any other means which they
might have had of knowing what was the will of their Lord.
But we must not stop here, but proceed to inquire, whether
there was anything in the previous instructions of Christ, which
could have contributed to satisfy the apostles in what light he re-
garded the children of his people, and in what manner he would
have them treated ; or which could have had any influence on their
minds in regard to the subject before us.
The evidence I shall adduce is circumstantial, and by way of
inference. But such evidence, it will be remembered, is often as
satisfactory as any other.
I here refer you to Matt. 19: 13, 14. " Then were brought to
Jesus httle children, that he should put his hands on them and
pray ; and the disciples rebuked, them. But Jesus said, SuflFer
little children and forbid them not to come unto me ; for of such
is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them." The
same thing is related in nearly the same manner by Mark, 10: 13,
14, and by Luke, 18: 15, 16. In Luke ^Qscpt] is used, wliich
denotes young children, infants. The phrase kingdom of heaven,
856 INFANT BAPTISM.
or Tdngdom of God, unquestionably signifies here, as it generally
does in the Evangelists, the Christian church, or the kingdom which
Christ set up in the world, in distinction from the society of God's
people as it existed under the former dispensation.
That part of this passage which relates more directly to our
subject, is the declaration at the close ; rcoy yaq roiovzcov iauv )J
^aadsia zcov ovgavmv ; for to such the kingdom of heaven belongs.
They have a right to its blessings.
The common rendering of the phrase is, " for of such is the
kingdom of heaven;" — which is understood to mean, that the
kingdom of heaven consists or is made up of such. But the render-
ing which I have given and which I think more exactly agreeable to
the sense of the original, is the same as is given to a similar phrase
in Matt. 5: 3, 10. " Blessed are the poor in spirit, Sri avrmv
iariv ij ^aaiXsia rav ovgavoiv, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,"
the kingdom of heaven belongs to them ; they have a right to it.
The same v. 10. " Blessed are they who are persecuted for
righteousness' sake, ozi avrcav ianv ^ ^aoiXsia zmv ovQavmv ; for
theirs is the kingdom of heaven ; " it belongs to them.
The whole verse then will stand thus ; " Suffer little children
and forbid them not to come unto me ; for to such the kingdom of
heaven belongs." They are entitled to its privileges. In what
particular sense the privileges of the Christian church belong to
children will be considered in the sequel.
There are two ways of interpreting the declaration above men-
tioned. According to one of them, the declaration relates to
those who resemble little children; that is, to those who are docile,
and free from ambition and malice. Those who adopt this sense
of the passage, consider the declaration, " of such is the kingdom
of heaven," as signifying, that the kingdom of heaven belongs, not
to little children themselves, but to those who are like them — to
real Christians.
The principal arguments in favor of this interpretation are the
following.
1. It is said, this interpretation is suggested by the passages in
which Christ professedly undertakes to show what character his
INFANT BAPTISM. 357
disciples must possess, from the obvious qualities of a little cliilcl ;
as in Matt. 18: 1 — 6. The disciples, influenced by feelings of
ambition, inquired who was the greatest in Christ's kingdom.
Christ called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst, and
said : " Verily I saj unto jou, except ye be converted, and be-
come as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little
child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso
shall recieve one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But
whoso shall oflend one of these httle ones who believe in me, it
were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and that he were drowned in the midst of the sea." Here the
phrase, nai8iov toiovtov, such a child, is used to signify one who re-
sembles a child ; that is, a disciple of Christ ; as appears from the
next verse. When therefore Chi-ist says, in the passage under con-
sideration, " of such is the kingdom of heaven," or to such, that
is, to such little children, the kingdom of heaven belongs ; he must,
it is thought, evidently mean the same, as in the place where he
speaks expressly of those little ones who believe.
2. This interpretation of the passage, it is supposed, may be de-
fended by what directly follows in the context, as Mark and Luke
have it. According to these Evangelists, after Christ says, " Suffer
little children to come unto me and forbid them not," he immediately
adds : " Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little
child, shall not enter therein." This is evidently intended to point
out the character of his disciples ; and why should not the declarar-
tion, " of such is the kingdom of heaven," be understood as referring
to the same ? Kuinoel argues in favor of this sense of the passage,
by what Christ says immediately after ; " whosoever shall not re-
ceive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter therein."
3. There is a general reason for giving the passage this sense,
which, though I have not seen it distinctly mentioned by any author,
seems to me deserving of consideration. I refer to the fact, that
Christ so often took pains to instruct the people as to the nature of
his kingdom, and the necessary qualifications of those who should
be admitted to enjoy its blessings, and insisted upon the preeminent
368 INFANT BAPTISM.
importance of their being like a little child, or their being free
from pride and malice, and possessing a humble, teachable disposi-
tion. Now it would seem that a declaration of Christ, showing to
whom his kingdom belongs, would most naturally be intended to
refer to the character of true disciples.
These, so far as I know, are the chief reasons which have been
or can be urged in favor of this sense of the passage.
But there are weighty considerations against tliis interpretation,
and in favor of that which makes the phrase, " of such is the kingdom
of Jieaven,''^ or to such the kingdom of heaven belongs, relate to
children themselves, such as those that were brought to Christ.
The first reason I shall mention is, that Toiomog properly denotes
the nature or quahty of the tiling to which it is applied. " Innuit
quahtatemrei." Schleusner. ^^ Such, o^ this kind or sort.''^ Robin-
son's Wahl. Accordingly, tmv yaq roioizmv egtIv ^aailsia tojv ovga-
vnv, signifies, to such children, (natdicov being understood,) to such
children as these the privileges of Christ's kingdom, or of the
gospel dispensation belong. The children who were brought to
Christ must have been included. For if those privileges belonged to
such children as they were, why not to them f This sense of the
word may be illustrated from its current use in similar circum-
stances in the New Testament. Matt. 9: 8. " The multitude glori-
fied God, who had given such power to men f^ i^ovaiav Toiavz?jv,
power of such a kind, or so glorious, — the very power which had
just been displayed being intended. Mark 4: 33. " With many
such parables spake he unto them ; ^^ roiavrai.gnaQa^oXai'g,'^i^h
many parables such as these. Mark 6: 2, — " that such mighty
works are wrought by his hands ; " dvvd[^Eig toiavxai. Luke 9: 9.
" Who is this of whom I hear such things ; ''"'roiocura, things of such
a nature as these. Luke 13: 2. " Suppose ye that these Galileans
were sinners above all the Gahleans, because they sufiered such
things .^" roiovta, things of so dreadful a nature as those mentioned.
John 9: 16. " How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles f
toiavza arjfiEia, miracles of so remarkable a nature as those referred
to. So in several passages in Romans, joiavza signifies such things
as those before mentioned. This appears to be the sense of zoiovzos,
INFANT BAPTISM. 359
except wlicn it is employed in a peculiar, unusual manner. Ac-
cordingly the phrase, " of such is the kingdom of heaven," must
mean, of such children as these, the very children that were brought
to Christ being included. The other sense of zmv roiovtcov, name-
ly,— of those who are like these children, that is, of those who are
not real children, but docile, humble men, would be altogether an
exception from the prevailing sense, and ought not to be adopted,
without imperious reasons.
To satisfy ourselves as to the correctness of the meaning above
given to the passage, let us suppose a variation in the predicate,
while the subject, which is signified by roiovzmv, remains the same.
Thus : SuflFer little children to come unto me, — for to such God
has given immortal souls ; or, I came to save such ; or, such are the
objects of my kindness, and are to be trained up for me. Here
it would be evident to all, that what was said was to be understood,
not of those who had a temper resembling that of children, but of
children themselves. And it must be so in the case under con-
sideration, unless we are to assume, that what is denoted by the
kingdom of heaven, cannot in any sense belong to children. But
who will venture on such an assumption ?
I allow that naidiov zoiovtov, in Matt. 18: 5, may at first view
appear to favor the other interpretation. But a careful attention
to all the circumstances will lead, I think, to a different conclusion.
" Jesus set a child in the midst of his disciples, and said, except
ye be converted, and become as Uttle children, ye shall not enter
into the kingdom of heaven." Thus he directed the attention of
those around him to the character of a true disciple. He repre-
sented a disciple, a member of his kingdom, to be like a little child,
or to be a child in disposition. So that when, in the next verse,
he says, "whosoever shall recieve one such child, " the way was
prepared for understanding him to mean a person of a lowly dis-
position, a true disciple. A person of this character had been
made the subject of discourse, — the subject on which the thoughts
of all were fixed. In these circumstances, natdiov toiovtov must of
course have been taken to mean a person of a childlike disposition.
And we find in verse 6, IVa tcov (iihqoov, one of these little ones, is
360 INFANT BAPTISM.
expressly made to signify one ivJio believes in Christ. He was speak-
ing of such a one under the image of a child. And so he calls
him a child.
There is then an obvious diiference between the two passages.
In one, the attention is fixed upon the character of a Christian, as
the principal subject. In consequence of the method wliich was
taken to illustrate his character, it became perfectly natural to call
him a child, a little child. Tlaidiov toiovtop, thus introduced, must
have been understood to signify a disciple of Christ. But, in the
ot^er passage, the subject presented before the mind was, the little
children themselves. They were brought to Christ for his blessing.
Upon them the attention of all was fixed. To them the objection
of the disciples related. And surely what Christ said in the way
of reply to that objection, must also have related to them. We
rest then on a general principle ; namely ; that words are to be
taken in their hteral sense, unless there is a plain and satisfactory
reason for taking them in a metaphorical sense. In Matt. 18: 5,
there is such a reason. In Matt. 19: 14, there is not.
My second reason in favor of the interpretation we are now consid-
ering is, that the declaration, " of such is the kingdom of heaven," is
expressly made the reason for suffering little children themselves
to come to him. " SuJBfer little children and forbid them not to come
unto me, rmv yag ruiovraiv, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Both in the New Testament and in classic authors, ydg is com-
monly used to denote the reason of what has been asserted or
implied. The declaration, "for of such is the kingdom of heaven,"
according to the common acceptation of the words, must then be un-
derstood to be the reason for suffering the little children themselves
to come to him. But how could this be a reason for suffering the
little children to come to Christ, if they did not belong to his king-
dom, but only certain others who resembled them ? When, however,
I say that their belonging to the kingdom of heaven is given as
the reason why they should be suffered to come to Christ, I do not
rely merely on the causative conjunction, yaQ ', which, though it is
commonly used in this sense, is sometimes used in a different sense.
For even if this conjunction were omitted, the very collocation of
INFANT BAPTISM. 361
the YTords, and the obvious relation of the ideas contained in the
former and in the latter part of the sentence, would clearly suggest,
that the fact last mentioned was meant to be given as the reason of
what was before said. The disciples forbid little children to come
to Christ. He rebukes them, and says, — Suffer the little cldldren
to come unto me ; of such is the kingdom of heaven. Now who
could tell tvht/ this last should be said, if not meant to be a reason
for suffering the little children to come ? And it is to be remem-
bered, that the little children did come, and that they came too in
consequence of that very direction which Christ gave respecting
them, and which was accompanied with such a reason.
These two considerations ; namely ; the prevailing use of the
word zoiovzcop, and the assigning of the last circumstance men-
tioned in the sentence, as the reason of the direction just before
given, are of great weight, being the prominent considerations
both of a philological and logical nature, which relate to the inter-
pretation of the text. And if the last interpretation given is not
the right one ; then the word toiovtav is not here used in its com-
mon sense, and the reason assigned by Christ for suffering the
little children to come to him, seems to have no weight or per-
tinence.
Now considering that this interpretation of the text is supported
by such considerations, we certainly ought not to reject it, and
to adopt another, without very strong and conclusive reasons.
But do such reasons exist ?
Let us then inquire, whether there is any thing in the nature
of the case, which is conclusive against this interpretation. Is the
kingdom of heaven, or the Christian church such, as would make
it inconsistent to suppose that it belongs, in any sense, to chil-
dren ? I answer in the negative ; and the propriety of this an-
swer may be made to appear in two ways.
First ; Christ's kingdom may belong to httle children, or they
may be members of it, in the highest sense. They may have
been designated as heirs of salvation, and the grace of God may
have sealed them for heaven. No one can show that the actual
salvation of little children is impossible, or improbable.
VOL. III. 31
362 INFANT BAPTISM.
But secondly ; witliout supposing that all children, or even all
the children of believers, are actually members of Christ's king-
dom in the highest sense ; we may consider them as being related
to it, and entitled to its privileges, in a lower, though a very im-
portant sense. We may consider them as sustaining a very near
relation to their own parents, and through them to the church.
They may have a right to the privileges of the church, somewhat
as children may have a right to the privileges of a particular civil
community, of which their parents are members. The children of
pious parents may have such a connection with the church, as will
secure to them special advantages for moral improvement, and a
prospect specially favorable to their final salvation. It may be
the design of God, that the Christian religion should be transmitted
from one generation to another, and perpetuated in the world,
generally, by the pious education of those who are the children of
the church, rendered successful by the divine "blessing.
Now this relation of children to the church, which I consider to
be a matter of fact, is of vast importance to the interests of re-
ligion ; and resulting, as it does, from the constitution of human
beings, and the appointment of God respecting his kingdom, it ia
deserving of special notice. Such notice Christ seems to have
given it in the passage under consideration. According to the
views which have now been suggested, this passage may be par-
aphrased thus : — These Httle children, whom you would hinder
from being brought to me for my blessing, are objects of my
kindest regard. They, and such as they, stand in a near relation
to my church. The kingdom, which I am setting up, is not to
overlook them, but to embrace and cherish them. Pecuhar favor
was shown to children under the former dispensation ; think not
that less is to be shown to them under my reign. Look not upon
them, therefore, with feelings of indifference. Strive not to de-
prive them of my blessing. Suffer them to come unto me ; for to
such children the privileges of the gospel dispensation belong.
My conclusion is, that as there is nothing in the nature of the
case, which makes it impossible or inconsistent that little children
should, in some important sense, hold a relation to the church,
INFANT BAPTISM. 363
or that the privileges of the Christian dispensation should belong
to them ; there is nothing in the nature of the case, which can
furnish any valid objection against that interpretation of the text,
which I have undertaken to support.
Again. Is there any conclusive objection against this inter-
pretation from the other passage referred to, that is. Matt. 18:
1 — 6, in which Christ professedly makes use of a little child to
inculcate upon his disciples the importance of humility ? There
can, I think, be no such objection, because the words of Christ
recorded here, were spoken on an occasion and for a purpose
entirely different from those of the passage we have been examin-
ing. There, that is, Matt. 19: 18, 14, little children were brought
to Christ. His disciples wished to exclude them. But Christ
disapproved of their conduct, and gave them a reason why the
children should be permitted to come ; and the reason was, that
to such as they were his kingdom belonged. But in Matt. 1 8: 1 — 6,
the disciples manifested the workings of ambition ; and Christ, to
teach them humility, took a little child, and set him before them,
and told them that they must become unambitious and humble, like
that child, or they could not be admitted into his kingdom. Here
the character required of his disciples was the object and the only
object Christ had in view. He brought forward a httle child,
merely to illustrate that character. In the other place, the
children themselves were the objects of attention, and the evident
design of Christ was to show how he regarded them, and, conse-
quently, how he would have them regarded and treated by his
disciples. Now because on one occasion, it was the object of
Christ in all that he said to inculcate humility upon his followers ;
we cannot surely infer, that this and this only was his object on
another occasion, which was in itself, and, in all its circumstances,
different.
But it is said, referring to Mark 10: 15, that on the very occa-
sion, on which Christ declared respecting little children, " Of
such is the kingdom of heaven," and immediately after he had
declared this, he inculcated the same lesson of humility, and in
nearly the same way, as on the other occasion. " Whosoever shall
364 , INFANT BAPTISM.
not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, oJi,' naidlov, shall
not enter therein."
Mj answer is, that Christ was accustomed to make use of all
the means which were at hand, to inculcate duty upon his disci-
ples, especially the duty of being humble ; and that, after he had
shown his aflfection for the little children who were brought to him,
and had declared that the privileges of his kingdom belonged to
them, it was perfectly according to his usual manner, to introduce
another subject, and by means of the lovely children, who were
then before him, and who were entitled to such consideration, to
teach his discij)les what disposition they must possess. It was
clearly another subject, though introduced on the occasion of the
children being brought to him. Jesus chose that such an occa-
sion should not pass without profit to his disciples, whom he
doubtless saw to be in special need of the instruction then given
them.
There is also a general consideration which has been already
mentioned, and which should not be overlooked in the interpreta-
tion of the text Matt. 19: 13, 14, and which is of special use in
the interpretation of many a doubtful passage in the gospels and
the epistles, namely, that it ivas addressed to Jews. We have
already considered what influence this circumstance must have
had on the manner in which the apostles would understand the
commission they received to proselyte and baptize. Why should
we suppose it had less influence here ? The Jews were accus-
tomed to a dispensation, under which the children of God's people
were considered and treated, as belonging to their sacred commu-
nity, and as entitled to inherit its blessings. Their Scriptures
plainly required that they should be treated in this manner. But
on the particular occasion now referred to, the disciples seem to
have forgotten this principle. They treated the little children
who were brought to Christ, as though it had escaped their recol-
lection, that children were the objects of God's favor, and that
they sustained so high a relation to the society of his people.
Had there not been something faulty in the feelings of the disci-
ples, they would not have done such a thing, as to forbid the
INFANT BAPTISM. 365
children to be brought to Christ for his blessing ; and most cer-
tainly they would not have incurred his rebuke. The answer of
Christ was perfectly suited to correct their mistake, and to teach
them what, as the posterity of Abraham, they would easily under-
stand ; namely ; iliat children were to have the same relation to
God and his people under the Christian dispensation, as before.
For I cannot but insist upon it, that, as the disciples in that case
were chargeable with overlooking the importance of little children,
at least, with not manifesting a suitable regard for them ; it is
perfectly natural to understand what Christ said in reply, as
having been intended to correct their mistake, and to show in
what light children were to be regarded under his reign.
The sense I have given to the passage in Matt. 19: 14, may
receive further support from what Paul says respecting children,
1 Cor. 7: 14 ; " Else were your children unclean, but now they
are holt/.'' This text will be considered more particularly in the
next Lecture. At present my object is simply to show, that, being
understood according to very respectable and» judicious commenta-
tors, it has an exact correspondence with my interpretation of the
text Matt. 19: 14.
"Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy;"
vvv ds ayM ianv. According to Schleusner, this means, but noio
are they held as members of the Christian church ; " Jam vero
habentur membra ecclesiae Christianae." At the head of the arti-
cle under which this text is quoted, he says, Se is called holy,
who is to be numbered with the society of Christians. Wahl, refer-
ring to this place, says, it is spoken of one who is in any way con-
nected with Christians, and therefore to be reckoned among them.
According to these and other distinguished authors, the Apostle
Paul, who so perfectly understood the nature and circumstances
of the Christian dispensation, represented children as those who
were to be numbered with the society of Christians, and to be
regarded as holding an important relation to the Christian church,
even when only one of their parents was a believer. This must
have involved the general principle, that the children of believers
were considered as belonging to the Messiah's kingdom, or the
31*
366 INFANT BAPTISM.
Christian church. And this is the same thing as that which I
have understood to be taught by the words of Christ : " Of such
is the kingdom of heaven." The declaration of Chx'ist, and that
of the Apostle, had relation to the same subject. They were both
intended to show in what light the children of believers were to be
regarded. This comparison of the two texts affords additional
satisfaction as to the true meaning of each.
I have thus gone through with an examination of the passage in
Matt. 19: 14, and, without relying on the opinions of others, have
carefully attended to those considerations on both sides, which
appeared to be of particular consequence to a right interpretation.
But I would not suffer myself to feel any undue confidence in my
own opinion on such a subject as this ; and I would certainly treat
with great respect those who adopt a different opinion. Having
endeavored impartially to exhibit whatever appertains to a fair
discussion of the subject, I very cheerfully refer the whole to the
judgment of enlightened and candid men.
Respectable authors are divided. According to Rosenmiiller
and Kuinoel, Christ taught merely that his disciples must -resemble
little children in humility and gentleness, and not that children
themselves belonged to his kingdom. But many English writers
defend with various arguments the sense which I have given.
Storr and Flatt are on the same side. And they do not merely
give their opinion, although that would be entitled to great
respect ; but what is better, they give a reason for their opinion ;
and that reason is the very one, to which I have attached the
highest importance in the preceding discussion. The passage
relating to this text is the following.* " Tav yag roiovxcov iariv ri
^aoiXsia rmv ovquvojv; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
CJdIdren must have been included in the word, such ; because the
proposition that the kingdom of heaven belongs to those who have
as little pride as children, would be no reason why children should
not be prevented from coming to Jesus."
Now for the application of this passage, thus interpreted, to the
subject in hand. No one pretends that the children spoken of in
* See Storr's Bib. Theol. Book 3. § 68.
INFANT BAPTISM. 367
this passage, were brought to Christ for baptism, or that the pas-
sage aflfords direct proof of our doctrine. Still it has an important
bearing on the subject. Our inquiry is, in what way the apostles
must have understood the commission which Christ gave them, to
proselyte and baptize all nations ; particularly, whether they would
understand the children of proselytes to be included. After
attending to various circumstances directly pertaining to the sub-
ject, and finding what reason we have to think, that the apostles
inust have understood the commission to baptize as extending to
the children of behevers ; we proceeded to inquire, whether
Christ, the Author of the new dispensation, had previously given
any instructions, which could have an influence on their minds in
regard to this subject ; particularly whether he had said anything
to show in what light he regarded little children. We fixed on
the passage in Matt. 19: 14, as answering this inquiry ; that is, as
showing that the children of God's people were considered as
belonging to their community, just as they had belonged to the
community of his people under the former dispensation. For-
merly, they were considered a holy seed, consecrated to Grod, and
blessed with special ^privileges, in consequence of being the chil-
dren of his people. Christ here seems to teach, that they were to
be considered in the same light, and treated in the same manner,
under his reign. When therefore the apostles received a commis-
sion to proselyte and baptize all nations, they had this special
reason for understanding it as extending to children, that Christ
himself had taught them before, that children were to belong to
his kingdom, just as they had belonged to the society of God's
people under the former economy. And if, wherever the Chris-
tian religion should be propagated and the kingdom of Christ
established, the children of believers were, according to his instruc-
tions, to enjoy, in an important sense, the privileges of that king-
dom, and to be connected with the society of the disciples ;
there could be no doubt that they were to receive the mark of
discipleship. If they were to be regarded as holy, that is, conse-
crated to God; they were undoubtedly to receive the sign of
consecration.
368 INFANT BAPTISM.
I close this Lecture -with a passage from Knapp's Theology,
under the head of Infant Baptism ; where he shows that he gave
the same sense to the text in Matt. 19: 14, and reasoned from it
in the same manner as I have done.
" That Infant Baptism, considered as a solemn rite of consecra-
tion, cannot be opposed to the design and will of Christ, may be
concluded from his own declaration. Matt. 19: 14. Suffer little
children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; zav yag toiovrav
iaTiv ri §aaikua tov d^eov ; for of such is the Mngdom of God.
This is indeed* no command for Infant Baptism. But if children
can and should have a share in the Christian church and in all
Christian privileges, Qaaihia tov &£ov,^ it cannot be improper to
introduce them into the Christian church by this solemn rite of
initiation. And if, according to the design of Christ, children,
from their earliest youth up, are to have a share in the rights and
privileges of Christians ; it must also be agreeable to his will,
solemnly to introduce them, by this rite of consecration, into the
nursery of his disciples. Compare 1 Cor. 7: 14."
LECTURE CXIV,
INFANT BAPTISM.
We have already inquired, -whetlier there was anything in the
particular instructions of Christ to his apostles, previous to the
final commission he gave them, which would naturally lead them
to understand that commission, as intended to include infant chil-
dren. We shall now inquire, whether we can be assisted in deter-
mining how they understood that commission, by anything in their
conduct ivhile executing their commission., or any declaratio7i made
in their writings.
The mode of reasoning which I have adopted, does not require,
and does not lead us to expect a direct, positive declaration, that
they baptized infants, or considered them proper subjects of bap-
tism. For if the apostles and first Christians had a persuasion,
that children were to hold a place in the community of God's
people under the new dispensation, similar to what they had
held before, and that they were to receive the new mark of spe-
cial relation to God, as they had received the old ; then there
was no more occasion for the apostles expressly to mention the
fact that children were baptized, than there was for Joshua, and
Samuel, and all the writers of the history contained in the Old
Testament, to mention at every period, that children eight days
old were circumcised. And the case might be exactly so at the
present time. Ministers or missionaries who hold to Infant Bap-
tism, might write a history of their ministry, and the success
attending it, for many years, without any mention of the baptism
370 INFANT BAPTISM.
of children. But -we should consider such an omission as this, to
be no proof that children were not baptized. For it would be ob-
vious, that such ministers might be in circumstances, which would
render it unnecessary for them to make any express mention of
Infant Baptism. It might be that no one acquainted with them
could have the least doubt respecting their practice. At the
present day, indeed, when Christians every where are divided on
this subject, such silence might not be what we should look for.
But were all Christians united in the practice of Infant Baptism,
as we apprehend the primitive Christians were, there might be no
occasion wdiatever to make particular mention of it. In all such
cases, we should understand the practice of ministers to be ac-
cording to what we knew of their opinions. If they believed in
Infant Baptism, we should have no doubt of their being in the
practice of baptizing children, although in a brief account of their
ministry, they should say nothing about such a practice.
The evidence, to which I now invite your attention, is incidental
or circumstantial ; but it is not on that account less worthy of con-
sideration. It is obvious, that an undesigned reference or allusion to
the practice of Infant Baptism, or the declaration of some principle
or fact implying it, may afford evidence as satisfactory", as a direct
assertion of the apostles.
After these introductory remarks, let us proceed to the subject
above stated. My position is, that there are passages in the Acts of
the apostles, and in the epistles, which fairly imply that the apostles
baptized children, and that they understood their commission to
baptize, as extending to children ; and that the^e passages have a
more natural and consistent sense on the supposition that Infant
Baptism was the apostoHc practice, than on the contrary supposition.
I shall first refer to the passages which speak of the baptism of
households or families. It is said of Lydia, Acts 16; 14, 15, that
the Lord opened her heart to attend to th? instructions of Paid,
and that she was baptized and her household. And in the same
chapter, v. 33, we are told that the jailer was baptized, he and all
his, that is, all who belonged to him, straighttvai/, or immediately.
And Paul says, 1 Cor. 1: 16, " I baptized the household of
Stephanas."
INFANT BAPTISM. 371
The reasoning from such passages is this. The -word oixia, ren-
dered house or household, had been commonly used to comprise
children with their parents, much in the same manner as the word
family or household is used now. And it is well known, that it
had been the manner of the people of God, to consider and treat
their families, as consecrated to God, and intimately associated
with them in the concerns of religion. As therefore the apostles,
who were accustomed to the language of the Old Testament, and
to the practice there enjoined, speak familiarly of their baptizing
households, or families ; it is no more than reasonable to suppose,
that those families generally contained children, and that those
children were baptized. And if this was the case, the apostles must
have understood "their commission as including children. It will
be observed, that whenever the apostles speak of baptizing house-
holds, they speak of it without any restriction. Now is this a
circumstance which is familiarly mentioned in histories, written by
those ministers who do not baptize infants ? For them to speak
freely and without qualification, of baptizing families, would be
inconsistent Avith their practice. As to the instances mentioned in
the New Testament of the baptism of families, — who has any right
to say, that none of those families contained any but adults, — and
adult believers '? Who can think this in any degree probable ?
To show more clearly what is the natural import of the account
given in the New Testament of family haptisms, suppose the fol-
lowing case. Two missionaries have for a number of years been
successfully laboring for the conversion of an Indian tribe in the
wilderness of America. We have heard of their labors, and of
their success, and have rejoiced in it, but have never learned, and
have never to this day inquired, whether they practised Infant
Baptism, or not. For special reasons, this now becomes a subject
of inquiry ; and the only means of information which we have at
hand, is a brief history which those missionaries have published of
their labors. In that history, they speak of several instances in
which individuals embraced Christianity and received baptism.
They inform us, that at such a time they baptized one of the
chiefs, and his family ; and that, at another time, they baptized
372 INFANT BAPTISM.
sucli a man, and all his ; and again, another man, and his house-
hold. This is all the information they give. They mention, with-
out explanation, the baptism of several persons, and their house-
holds, and so make family-haptisms a noticeable circumstance in
the history of their mission. Would not such a circumstance lead
us to think that they practised Infant Baptism ? Be sure, it might
be said, that they do not expressly mention the baptism of the little
children, and that all who belonged to those famihes may have
been adults, and adult believers. This, I admit, would be possible.
But would it be j9ro6a5?g.^ Would those, who do not baptize
children, be hkely to speak in this manner ? Should we not think
it very singular, to find accounts o^ family-baptisms in a history of
Baptist Missions ?
I do not offer the cii'cumstance under consideration, as a decisive
argument. But does not the account, which the apostles give of
the baptism of households, perfectly agree with the supposition,
that they were in the practice of baptizing children ? If we admit
that they understood children to be proper subjects of baptism, aa
they had before been of circumcision ; would not such an account
be just what we would expect ? But would it be so, if we should
not admit this ?
If any one should ask whether the famihes referred to might not
contain servants, as well as children ; and whether we are to sup-
pose that such servants were baptized, as the servants of Abraham
were circumcised ; — my answer would be, that, for ought we know,
there might be servants, and that if the servants stood in as near
a relation to their Christian mastei-s, and were to be as much under
their pious instruction and guidance, as the servants of Abraham
where under his, I see no reason why they should not have been
consecrated to God by baptism.
I have already referred to 1 Cor. 7: 14, as affording collateral
support to the construction which was given to Matt. 19: 14. I
propose now to give this text a more particular examination.
There are two interpretations of the text, which deserve special
notice. The first that I shall mention is that of Dr. Gill, a very
distinguished Baptist writer, who expresses what he understands
to be the meaning of the text in the following paraphrase. The
INFANT BAPTISM. 373
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving
wife is sanctified by the husband : else were your children unclean ;
hut now are they holy. The parties spoken of " are duly, rightly,
and legally espoused to each other; — otherwise, that is, if they
are not truly married to each other, the children must be spurious,
and not legitimate. JElse were your children unclean, but now are
they holy; that is, if the marriage contracted between them was
not valid, and if since the conversion of one of them, it can never
be thought to be good ; then the children begotten and born, either
when both were infidels, or since one of them was converted, must
be unlawfully begotten, baseborn, and not a genuine, legitimate
offspring ; but as the parents are lawfully married, the children
born of them are in a civil and legal sense holy, that is, legitimate."
The most powerful argument which has been urged in favor of
this interpretation, and one attended with much plausibility is,
that it seems, at first view, to agree with the object of the Apostle,
who directs that a believer should not put away an unbelieving
partner, and who asserts as Dr. Gill understands him, that the
believing and unbelieving partners are lawfully joined in marriage ;
and that, were it not so, their children would be illegitimate ; but
that, in consequence of the lawfulness of the connection between
the parents, their children are legitimate.
I remark in reply to this, that a different sense will agree, to
say the least, equally well with the manifest object of the Apostle.
The very direction, that an unbelieving husband or wife should
not be put away by the other party, implies, that there is a mat-
rimonial connection between them, and that the connection is
lawful. But the Apostle not only gives this direction, but enfor-
ces it by a proper reason, and the reason he suggests, as I under-
stand it, is this ; that the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified
by the believing partner in such a sense, that, in consequence of it,
their children are separated from heathenism, consecrated to Crod,
md brought into the society of Christians. This was then, and
would be now, a consideration of great weight, — much greater, I
should think, than the mere legitimacy of the children. This con-
sideration did indeed presuppose their legitimacy ; but it had this
VOL. III. 32
374 INFANT BAPTISM.
important point in addition, namely, that the children ivere a holy
seed, consecrated to God, and entitled to the special privileges of
the Christian dispensation. Now this consideration, as it includes
the other, and has so much in addition, must be a more powerful
reason to enforce the observance of the direction, than the other
taken by itself. So that, in respect to the design of the Apostle,
and the reasoning employed. Dr. Gill's interpretation has certainly
no advantage over the other.
But there are considerations of great weight against Dr. Gill's
construction.
1. It is contrary to the usus loquendi. It puts a sense upon
the words riylaarai and aym, which is widely different from the
prevailing sense ; yea, different from the sense which they have in
any other passages of Scripture. And Dr. Gill himself does not
pretend that either of the words is used in the sense he contends
for, in any other text. He does indeed attempt to support his
rendering by referring to the use of the Hebrew la^p in the Tal-
mudic books, where it has the sense of espousing merely. But
Schleusner objects to the argument, and says, " that the notion of
espousing, which certain interpreters have attributed to the word
TO a^ial^slv from the use of the word uJnp in the Talmudic books, is,
as any one must see, manifestly foreign to this place." There is
not one of the senses of ttj'i;^, given by Gesenius, and not one of
the many senses of ayi(x.ll,03, given by Schleusner and Wahl, which
favors the rendering of Dr. Gill. The same is true of the adject-
ive ayia. Schleusner and Wahl give a great variety of senses, but
none of them relate to the legitimacy of children. Nor is axa-
d-aQtog, nor the corresponding Hebrew word, ever used to designate
a spurious or illegitimate offspring. Good use, then, is entirely
against the rendering of Dr. Gill.
2. Although the advocates of Dr. Gill's interpretation of the
text say much of its perfect correspondence with the object and
the reasoning of the Apostle ; I think the reasoning, or the train
of thought, in one important respect, though not mentioned by any
writer whom I have consulted, is clearly inconsistent with that in-
terpretation. The Apostle says, " Otherimse,^' that is, were it not
INFANT BAPTISM. 375
as I have said, that the unbeUeving husband is sanctified bj the
wife and the unbeheving wife bj the husband ; " youi- children
would be tmclean,hnt now are they 7«o?y," The children are holy,
in the sense intended, in consequence of the influence which the
believing wife has upon the unbelieving husband, or the beheving
husband upon the unbelieving wife. He is sanctified by her, and
she by him ; and in consequence of tids satictification, whatever it
is, the children are holi/. Without this sanctification of the unbeliev-
ing party by the beheving, the children Avould be unclean. Sup-
pose now husband and wife are both unbelievers. The sanctification
spoken of, whatever it is, does not exist ; of course, the reason or
cause of the holiness of the children does not exist. And if the
cause of their hohness does not exist, they cannot be liohj ; they
are unclean. But are they illegitimate ? May there not be lawful
marriage between a husband and wife who are both unbelievers ?
Is it necessary to the laivfulness of marriage and to the legitimacy
of children, that the husband or the wife should have Chi*istian
faith ? How was it with those who were married and had children
while they were heathen ? Were their children bastards ? Were
they ever considered and treated so by the apostles ? They cei-
tainly would have been considered so, had not their parents been
lawfully mariied. But if lawful marriage may exist, where neither
husband nor wife is a Christian ; they may surely have legitimate
children. But they cannot have children who are holy, in the
sense of the Apostle ; because being holy in that sense is evidently
the consequence of an unbelieving father being sanctified by a
believing mother, or an unbelieving mother by a believing father.
Or the argument may be stated thus : If both parents are unbe-
lievers, — if they are pagans, most surely their children cannot
be considered a holy seed, in the sense of the Old Testament or
the New. They are dxd&aQTa, unclean, heathen. But are they
illegitimate? If not, — if those who are joined in marriage,
though both of them are unbelievers and pagans, may have legiti-
mate children ; then clearly the faith of one of the parents and
the sanctification of the other by means of that faith, cannot be
necessary in order to . the legitimacy of the children. But it is
876 INFANT BAPTISM.
necessary in order to their being holy in the sense of the Apostle ;
for he says expressly, that were it not for such a sanctification of
one parent by the other, the children would be unclean, which is
the opposite of being holy. Thus it becomes manifest that ayia
and dxd&uQra cannot be rendered legitimate and illegitimate^
■without involving us in inextricable difficulty as to the Apostle's
reasoning. But this difficulty is avoided by another interpretation,
as we shall see in the sequel.
There is no occasion to dwell upon the ojjinion of those, who
consider the Apostle as speaking of the real conversion of an un-
believing by a believing partner, or of the prospect of such
conversion. For although this opinion may seem to derive some
support from v. 16, it does not agree with the statement of the
case.
The other sense of the text, which I shall now particularly con-
sider, is this : The unbelieving husband, by his voluntary connec-
tion with a believing wife, is, in a manner, separated from the
heathen, and brought into an alUance with Christians. His being
^^ pleased to dwell with " such a wife shows, that he is not an out-
rageous infidel, but that he has some sober reflection, and is will-
ing to be in Christian society. He stands in that relation to his
wife in which, as Scripture teaches, he becomes one with her. On
account of this near relation, he is to be regarded and treated very
differently from what he would be, if no such relation existed. He
has been and is so sanctified, riyiaarai, — his condition relatively is
so affected by his marriage with her, that her living with him will
be attended with no guilt, and will deprive her of no privileges.
She has therefore no occasion to put him away, but may as lawfully
and properly continue to dwell with him, as if he were a Christian.
Were it not for this ; that is ; were it not that his state relatively
is thus affected by his connection with her ; in other words, were
he, in all respects, to be reckoned among the unsanctified heathen ;
■were he openly and entirely united to their society ; were his wife's
piety and her relation to him a matter of no consideration, and were
he to be regarded just as he would be, if he had no connec-
tion at all with God's people ; then indeed his children would be
INFANT BAPTISM. 377
iincUan. Their relation to such a father, if he had not a
matrimonial connection with a pious wife, would render them
heathen children, and would exclude them from the peculiar priv-
ileges of the children of God's people. But now, as his condition
is so altered by his matrimonial connection with a believing wife ;
as he is by that connection so sanctified, that he and his wife stand
well in respect to their domestic state ; his children are not to be
regarded as heathen children, but as a holy seed, a Christian off-
spring, entitled to the privileges of a special relation to the Chris-
tian Church, and the privileges of a Christian education. In other
words ; the people of God are not to treat them as unclean, — are
not to separate them from their society ; but are to receive them, to
adhere to them, and to train them up for the service of Christ.
But there is another argument in favor of this interpretation,
namely, common usage, the sense generally attached in other parts
of Scripture to the principal words on which the interpretation
must depend ; and especially the sense which these words have,
when apphed to the same subjects. It should never be forgotten,
that the Apostle Paul, who wrote the book containing the text
under consideration, was by birth and education a Hehreiv ; that
he was perfectly familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures, and that in
a very remarkable degree he transfused the peculiarities of those
Scriptures into his own writings. He adopted the phraseology of
the Hebrew Scriptures. He wrote in their idiom. Accordingly
it will be of the first importance to notice the peculiar Hebrew
sense of the principal words found in the passage before us.
'AKa&aQTog, according to Schleusner, signifies, that which is
prohibited hy the Mosaic law, or that from which the people of Crod
were required to separate themselves. Referring to Acts 14: 28,
he says : " A man is here called dxd&aQzog, unclean, with whom
the Jews thought it unlawful to have any familiar intercourse."
He represents it as often used to denote apaga7i,an alien from
the worship of the true Crod, or one who does not belong to the peo-
ple of God, or to the society of Cliristians. The text under
consideration he renders thus : " Ahoquin et liberi vestri remoti
essent a societate Christianorum ; " Otherwise your children also
32*
378 INFANT BAPTISM.
would he removed from the society of Christians. He quotes the
passage in 2 Cor. 6: 17, as exhibiting the same sense of the word :
'And&aQxog fit] anzea&a; touch not the unclean thing ; i. e. as the
connection shows, have no intercourse with pagans. Wahl agrees
with Schleusner : " If it were otherwise, it would follow that your
children also were not to be considered as belonging to the Chris-
tian community." Lightfoot is of the same opinion. He says :
" That the words dxd&aQta and dyia refer not to legitimacy or
illegitimacy, but to the gentile or Christian state ; that the chil-
dren of the gentiles, or pagans, were by the Jews considered as
dxdOaQza, unclean, and the children of Jews, dyia, holy, and that
in the passage under consideration, the Apostle refers to this well
known sense of the word ; that his treatment of the subject does
not turn on this hinge, whether a child, born of parents, one of
whom was a Christian and the other a heathen, was a legitimate
offspring, but whether he was a Chistian offspring." Whitby
presents the argument still more fully. " The Apostle does not
say, else were your children bastards, but now are they legitimate ;
but else were they unclean, i. e. heathen children, not to be owned
as a holy seed, and therefore not to be admitted into covenant with
God as belonging to his people. That this is the true import of
the words dxd&aQra and ayia, will be apparent from the Scrip-
tures, in which the heathen are styled the unclean, in opposition to
the Jews in covenant with God, and therefore styled a holy peo-
ple. The Jews looked upon all heathens and their offspring, as
unclean, by reason of their want of circumcision, the sign of the
covenant. Hence, whereas it is said that Joshua circumcised the
people, the Septuagint say, TieQisxd&aQsv, he cleansed them. To
this sense of the words unclean and holy, the Apostle may here
most rationally be supposed to allude, declaring that the seed of
holy persons, as Christians are called, are also holy. And though
one of the parents be still a heathen, yet is the denomination to be
taken from the better, and so their offspring are to be esteemed
not as heathens, i. e. unclean, but holy, as all Christians by denom-
ination are. So Clemens Alexandrinus infers, saying ; ' I suppose
the seed of those that are holy, is holy, according to that saying
INFANT BAPTISM. 379
of the Apostle Paul, the wife is sanctified by the husband, etc."
Whitby confutes the other rendering, ' Else were your children
bastards,' by saying ; " The word used for bastard by the Apostle
being vo&og, Heb. 12: 8, and the word yv^aiog being the proper
word for a legitimate offspring ; had the Apostle intended such a
sense, he would have used the words, which in the Greek writers
are generally used in that sense, and not such words as in the
Septuagint and in the Jewish writers always have a relation to
federal holiness, or the want of it."
The authors to whom I have referred, and other writers of the
highest character as philologists and commentators, are all of one
mind as to the sense of the phrase, " now are they holy." Noiv
are they to he considered as belonging to the Christian community.
God's people are not to separate from them as heathen children,
but to treat them as Christian children. Wahl says, " it is spo-
ken of one who is in any way connected with Christians, and
therefore to be reckoned among them." So also Calvin. " The
children of the Jews, because they were made heirs of the cove-
nant, and distinguished from the children of the impious, were
called a holy seed. And for the same reason, the children of
Christians, even when only one of the parents is pious, are ac-
counted holy, and according to the testimony of the Apostle, differ
from the impure seed of idolaters. Doederleifi and Knapp allude
to this text as having the same sense. Against supposing that the
Apostle meant to assert the legitimacy of children, Doddridge
urges, that " this is an unscriptural sense of the word, and that
the argvmaent will by no means bear it."
The interpretation I have given of the text agrees very nearly
with what is expressed in the following quotation from Flatt's com-
mentary. He says ; " riyiaatai may be rendered thus : he is
made ayiog in a certain respect. Inasmuch as he lived in society
with a Christian wife, he is, in a measure, separated from Jews
and heathen, and stands in connection witli the Christian commu-
nity." In consequence of which, his children, who would other-
wise be considered as having no connection with the people of
God, will be Christian children.
380 INFANT BATTISM.
It may perhaps be said bj way of objection to this rendering,
that ijyiaGxai must have the same general sense with ayia ; and
that if ayia, Jioly, implies that the children, to whom it was
applied, were consecrated to God, and were entitled to special
privileges ; then tjyiaarai, is sanctified, must imply, that the unbe-
lieving husband or wife was in like manner consecrated to God,
and was entitled to the same special privileges.
But to this it may be repHed, that it is nothing uncommon for
the same word to have a variety of significations, not only in dif-
ferent sentences, but in the same sentence. Instances of this
might easily be pointed out in the Scriptures, and in other writings.
In all such cases, the obvious nature and circumstances of the
subject to which the word is applied, must help us to determine in
what particular sense it is used. Any one who M'ill consult an Eng-
lish or Latin Dictionary, or a Greek Lexicon, may see how different
subjects, and the different circumstances of the same subject, con-
stantly vary the signification of the same word, sometimes in small
and almost imperceptible degrees, and sometimes in higher degrees.
And if the sense of the sajne word thus varies ; surely it can be
nothing strange that these two words, one a verb, and the other an
adjective, should vary a little in their signification, when apphed to
subjects so different, as those now referred to. So that our giving
somewhat of a different sense to ^yiaarai is sanctified from what we
give to ayia, are holi/, is no valid objection to our interpretation of
the text.
After all, it will be seen that, according to the interpretation I
have given, the two words, though the one is a verb and the other an
adjective, have the same general sense, i. e. the sense of being
separated, set apart, or made fit for a particular use ; and that the
difference arises from the obvious difference of the subjects. The
general notion of being sanctified is first applied to an uncon-
verted heathen, connected in marriage with a Christian ; and it is
apphed in reference to a particular question, that is, whether it is
proper and advisable, that a Christian should continue to live with
an unbeheving partner. Now when the Apostle says, in reference
to this question, " the unbelievdng husband is sanctified by the
INFANT BAPTISM. SSI
wife," it is natural to understand him to speak of a sanctification
adapted to the subject under consideration. And a sanctification
adapted to that subject would seem to be this ; that by his con-
nection in marriage with a believing wife, he is, in some sort,
separated from the society of the heathen, certainly from the
familiar intercourse with them which he once had ; that, on account
of the pious woman with whom he is so closely connected, he is to
be regarded in a light different from that, in which he would be
regarded, if he were altogether a pagan, and had no such relation
to a Christian partner ; and that, by the effect which her faith
produces upon him, he is brought into such a state, that she may
with propriety continue to live with him. Their intercourse comes
under a sanctifying influence, bt/ means of her piety. This inter-
pretation, it is evident, gives the same general sense to ijyiaatai as
to ayiUy the last being applied to children, and denoting that they,
by their very birth, are separated from paganism, and brought into
the nursery of the Christian church, where they are to be conse-
crated to God, and trained up for his service.
It will cast a still clearer light on the meaning of the text, to
inquire what was the occasion of the doubt which arose in the
minds of the Corinthian converts, and rendered the advice of the
Apostle necessary. This doubt unquestionably arose, not in con-
sequence of anything in the original institution of marriage, but in
consequence of the special law which God gave to the Israehtes,
forbidding them to contract marriages with any of the idolatrous
people around them ; a law which was intended, like many others,
to preserve them a holy natmi, separate from the rest of the world,
till the coming of Christ. The doubt might be occasioned more
directly by the instances, in which such prohibited marriages had
been dissolved by divine direction, particularly in the time of Ezra.
The people of God had formed marriages with the daughters of
the surrounding nations ; so that as it was said, the holy seed i. e.
the Jews, had mingled themseUes tvith those idolatrous people.
After a time, those who had thus offended, were brought to con-
sider the evil of what they had done ; and they made a covenant
•with God to put away all the wives, and such as were born of hirrif
382 INFANT BAPTISM.
according to the di\ine command. See Ezra, Chap. ix. and x.
Now the Apostle, considering that the economy of the former dis-
pensation was changed and that a new precept was called for, vir-
tually told the Corinthian Christians, that that ancient national law
respecting marriage was not binding upon them, any more than
the law of circumcision ; that those believers who were lawfully
married to unbelievers had no occasion to dissolve the marriage
bond. And he suggested to them one consideration of great weight ;
namely ; that if according to the Mosaic law, and the example of
the people in the time of Ezra, they were to put away their \x-q!c)Q-
ViQYmg partners, and so treat them ^?, 2)agans, dxd&aQTa, unclean ;
they must consider their cliildren also as unclean, i. e. heathen
children, and put them away hkewise, as the people did in the case
referred to. In opposition to this, the Apostle appeals to a fact
which was well known ; namely ; that the offspring of such mar-
riages were considered, as they are now, to be a holy seed, dyiu,
just as if both parents were believers, and so were fit to be devoted
to God, and to enjoy special privileges in the society of his people.
It will be seen that, in this examination of the passage before
us, my chief reliance is upon well known usage as to the word dyiog,
and its corresponding Hebrew ttj'^|5 among the Jews, especially
when applied to Israelites, whether men or children, by way of
distinction from other nations.
I have only one more remark. Those who hold to Infant Bap-
tism, believe that the Children of Christians, even those children
who had only one believing parent, were, in the Apostle's time,
and in the Corinthian church, actually devoted to God in baptism,
and so brought into a peculiar relation to the Christian church.
Now on this supposition, what can be more natural, than to sup-
pose that the Apostle referred to this fact, when he said, the chil-
dren spoken of were dyia, holy, i. e. set apart, consecrated to Grod?
The text, thus interpreted, presents a very satisfactory view of
the subject under consideration, and shows how the apostles under-
stood their commission. Eor we see, that wherever the Christian
religion took effect, and men became believers, and formed them-
selves into a society, their children were considered as appertain-
INFANT BAPTISM. 383
ing to the same society, and as set apart, and devoted to God ; just
as they were under the former economy. And as they were thus
considered to be ayia, a holy seed, separated from paganism, and
consecrated to God; how can we reasonably doubt that they had
the sign of consecration put upon them ? Whitby states the ar-
gument from this text thus : " If the holy seed among the Jews were
to be circumcised, and be made federally holy by receiving the
s'gn of the covenant and being admitted into the number of God'3
people, because they were born in sanctity, or were seminally holy ;
for the root being holy so are the branches ; then, by like reason,
the holy seed of Christians ought to be admitted to baptism, the
Sign of the Christian covenant, and so to be entered into the society
of the Christian church."
On the whole, my conclusion is, that although the word ayia
does not properly mean baptized, it denotes that the children
referred to were in such a condition, or were regarded as standing
in such a relation to God and his people, that the appointed sign
of consecration to God was of course to be apphed to them. Or
to express it differently ; the word ayia does not by itself mean,
and is not to be rendered, subjects of baptism. But it signifies
that the children, to whom it was applied, were to be regarded as
Christiayi children, a holy seed, separated from the heathen, con-
secrated to God, and to be received and treated as such by the
Christian community. The word ayia, by itself, can signify no
more than this. But if the children were thus regarded as a holy,
consecrated seed, it is natural to conclude that they received the
sign of this. And the supposition of their being devoted to God
by baptism most satisfactorily accounts for the Apostle's calling
them ayia, holy, or consecrated children.
LECTURE CXV.
INFANT BAPTISM. COLLATEKAL EVIDENCE.
In order to give simplicity and unity to my reasoning on the
subject of Infant Baptism, I have made it rest chiefly on the
inquiry, how the apostles must have understood the commission
ihej received from Christ, to proselyte and baptize all nations. I
have considered the point at issue as relating to the just interpre-
tation of Scripture. And as the passage which records the com-
mission, does not explicitly inform us whether iyifant children were
meant to be included or not ; I have thought it indispensable to
consider what there was in the circumstances of the apostles, as
native Jews, especially in their usages respecting cliildren, which
would be likely to influence them in their understanding of such
a commission from one, who was born and educated in the same
community with them. I have thought it important also to
inquire, whether there was anything in the previous instructions
of Christ, or in the writings of the apostles afterwards, which
could help to show in what light they regarded little children.
And here we have found, that Christ, exactly in accordance with
the principle which was established by the God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, represented little children, as entitled in a
peculiar sense to the privileges of the gospel dispensation, and
that the Apostle Paul represented it as a fact, generally known
and acknowledged, that the children of believers were a holy seed,
consecrated to God, and admitted to special privileges in the
Christian community. And if this was the case, we have supposed
INFANT BAPTISM. 385
it would follow of course, that baptism, the sign of such consecra-
tion to God, and of such a relation to the Christian community,
was administered to them. Every consideration of this kind will
be strengthened, and every such probable conclusion confirmed,
by the historical proof which will by and by be produced, that
Infant Baptism was actually practised in the early Christian
churches. This proof might indeed have been exhibited before
any other consideration ; and this method might have been
attended with some important advantages. But it must be
remembered, that, according to our belief, there were obvious
considerations, which influenced the apostles and early Christiana
to practise Infant Baptism. Now what can be more natural than
for us first of all to inquire, what those considerations were ; and
afterwards to present the evidence of the fact, that Infant Bap-
tism was practised in the early Christian church ? In this way
we at length become fully satisfied, that the considerations which
operated upon the minds of the apostles, did actually produce the
eflfect which we have supposed. According to our views, they
were the men who introduced the baptism of infants as a Christian
ordinance ; of course they could not have been influenced in their
judgment as we are, by the consideration, that Infant Baptism
was a practice already existing. They must have been influenced
in another way. The method which I have chosen is, first, to
inquire into the circumstances and usages of the apostles, as mem-
bers of the Jewish community, and to satisfy ourselves, as far as
may be, what were the considerations, which would naturally lead
them to understand their commission to proselyte and baptize, as
including children ; next, to attend to anything recorded in the
'New Testament, which has an obvious correspondence with the
supposition, that Infant Baptism was practised by the apostles ;
and finally to exhibit the proof, that baptism was in fact applied to
children in the early Christian churches. This order appears best
suited to present the whole subject in a clear light, and to make a
just impression on the minds of Christians.
Before proceeding to the argument from Ecclesiastical History,
I shall advert to three additional considerations as collateral proof.
VOL. III. 33
386 INFANT BAPTISM.
First. Tlie manner in loMch the Apostle requires children to be
educated. In Ephesians 6: 4, Christian parents are required to
bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
This is the general precept. Others more particular, but of
the same import, might be cited. According to apostolic direc-
tion, the children of believers were, from their earliest years, to be
instructed in the principles of the Christian religion. They were
to have the doctrines and precepts, the invitations and promises,
the w^arnings and threats of God's word, clearly set before them,
and earnestly inculcated upon them. They were to be considered
and treated as scholars, placed in the school of Christ, and there
to be brought under the influence of faithful and pious instruction ;
so that, through the divine blessing, their minds might be enlight-
ened, and their affections and actions conformed to the principles
of Christianity. In a word, their education was to be conducted
with a direct view to their being made followers of Christ, and
active members of his spiritual kingdom. Now the precepts of
the New Testament, requiring all this instruction and discipline of
children, perfectly agree with the yiew we have taken of their
state. If God is pleased to place our children in such a near
relation to us, and if he requires us to consecrate them to him,
and to put upon them the sign of consecration, the mark of disci-
pleship, that is, the mark of their being placed, as young disciplea
or learners, in the school of Christ ; it becomes perfectly suitable,
that he should require us to treat them with all this affection and
care, and so to endeavor to bring them up for God. And it is
true not only that these precepts of the New Testament, pointing
out the duty of parents, are perfectly consistent with the doctrine
we maintain, but that they derive additional importance from this
doctrine. If, according to divine appointment, we pubhcly dedi-
cate our children to God by a solemn religious rite, and thus
bring them into a special relation to the church of Christ, and
secure to them a prospect of special blessings ; we must surely
feel, that we are under strong obhgations to cherish a tender affec-
tion for them, and to labor, by all the methods of a mse Christian
discipline, to make them what the privileges of their birth and the
INFANT BAPTISM.
387
commands of God require them to be. So the divine precept
given by Moses, that parents should teach their children diligently
the things of religion, laboring to inculcate them morning and
evening, and all the hours of the day, became specially suitable,
and acquired a special force, on account of their children hav-
ing been publicly devoted to God, and marked as his, by circum-
cision.
These observations are not meant to imply, that those who do
not devote their children to God by baptism, may not feel their
obhgation to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord ; but that those, who practise Infant Baptism, will find
themselves drawn to this duty by a special obligation, and will be
fikely to perceive with additional clearness, and to feel with addi-
tional force, the propriety and importance of giving them a reli-
gious education. Now the circumstance, that Infant Baptism,
considered as a divine institution, has such an obvious and striking
correspondence with those precepts which point out the duty of
parents, and invests those precepts with new force, is a circum-
stance in favor of Infant Baptism. Whereas, if the contrary
were fact ; that is, if the doctrine of Infant Baptism were calcu-
lated to diminish in our view the importance of a religious educa-
tion, or to render us less attentive to the duty ; if, while holding
to Infant Baptism, we felt a less powerful motive, than we other-
wise should, to bring up our children in the nurture and admoni-
tion of the Lord ; this certainly would be a consideration of no
small weight against it. Because it is the manifest design of all
the positive institutions of reUgion, to have an effect upon our
minds in favor of its moral precepts, and to excite us to the per-
formance of our duty.
The second consideration referred to is, that the New Testament
does not contain any express mention of Infant Baptism. This
circumstance has already been noticed in another connection. But
I wish to dwell upon it more particularly here, as I think it must
appear to be a circumstance in favor of our doctrine.
I can by no means admit, as I intimated in a previous Lecture,
that the New Testament does not contain anything which fau-ly
o08 INFANT BAPTISM.
implies Infant Baptism. Still it is evident that Infant Baptism is
not introduced as a subject of particular discussion in the New
Testament ; that it is neither explicitly enjoined nor prohibited ;
and that neither the practice of baptizing children nor the absence
of such a practice is expressly mentioned.
But this fact cannot be urged as an argument against Infant
Baptism, because, as circumstances were, there was no occasion to
enjoin it, and no occasion to discuss the subject, or even to name
it. The circumstances referred to have already been brought to
view. The Jews had always been accustomed to have their
children consecrated to God by the same rite as was appointed
originally for Abraham and his seed, and afterwards for all men
from among the gentiles, who should become proselytes to the
true religion. They had always been accustomed to see children
treated as a holi/ seed, and members of the society of God's
people. They had never heard the propriety of this questioned,
and had never been acquainted with a contrary practice. In these
circumstances, it was, I apprehend a matter of course, that they
should understand the divine appointment of baptism for Christian
proselytes, as including their ckildren. And it being a matter of
course that they should so understand the subject, there was not
the least necessity that the baptism of children should be expressly
required, or even mentioned.
To be perfectly satisfied on this subject, just look at the manner
in which circumcision is spoken of. Acts 15: 1. Certain Juda-
izing Christians came from Judea to Antioch, and said to the
brethren there, " Except ye be circumcised after the manner of
Moses, ye cannot be saved." Why did they not express all that
they meant, and say, " Except ye and ■t/our children be circum-
cised, ye cannot be saved ? " And afterwards, v. 10, when Peter
spoke in opposition to the Judaizing Christians in regard to the
same subject, and said, " Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon
the neck of the disciples," — that is, Wh^ do ye require the dis-
ciples to he circumcised f Why did he not in so many words
object to laying this burdensome rite upon the disciples and their
children? The answer to both questions is the same. There
INFANT BAPTISM. 389
was no occasion for the mention of children, because it was per-
fectly understood by all. that children were to be included with
their parents. It had always been sq. And who could need to
be informed, that it was to be so still ? The same I think must
have been the case, when baptism was appointed, instead of cir-
cumcision, as the mark to be put upon the people of God. The
apostles and Jewish Christians had always been accustomed to
consider children, as united with their parents, as belonging to
the same religious community, and as entitled to the sariffe mark
of consecration to God. They would understand that this prac-
tice of applying the sign of consecration to children, as Avell as
parents, would be continued under the Christian dispensation,
because the reasons for it contuiued, and because nothing was
said or done by the Author of the new dispensation to show that
there was to be any alteration in this respect. So that it cannot
be regarded as anything strange, that children are not expressly
mentioned in the command to baptize, or in the accounts of
baptisms contained in the New Testament. Nor is it strange
that no express declaration on this subject is found in the writings
of the eai'ly Christian fathers ; as there is no evidence that the
practice had ever been objected to, or had ever occasioned any
controversy. This silence of the Scriptures and of the early
fathers respecting the baptism of children, is analogous to the
fact, that the circumcision of children on the eighth day is scarcely
mentioned for a thousand years before Christ. Now as we can
satisfactorily account for the fact, that the New Testament con-
tains no express mention of Infant Baptism, on the supposition
that Infant Baptism was admitted and practised by all Christians,
without any controversy ; this fact cannot surely be considered as
affording an argument against Infant Baptism.
But this is not all. The fact that there is no command prohi-
biting the practice of Infant Baptism, and that there are no such
remarks as would naturally arise from the absence of the practice,
is an important argument in favor of Infant Baptism. As it
had always been the custom of God's people from the time of
Abraham, to consecrate their children to God, to put upon them
33*
3&0 INFANT BAPTISM,
the seal of the covenant, and to admit them as belonging to their
holy community; if Christ had intended to make any alteration
as to the manner in "which they were to be regarded and
treated, we should suppose that he would have mentioned such
alteration ; and that, when he commanded his apostles to prose-
lyte and baptize all nations, he would have expressly informed
them, that under the new dispensation childi"en were not meant
to be included.
But ffiere is another view of greater consequence still. All the
Jews, those who embraced Christianity, and those who rejected it,
had always been accustomed to consider their children as a holy
seed, consecrated to God, and to see them receive the seal of
God's covenant. Now if Christianity had cut them oflF from this
relation to God, and had deprived them of the sign of being
consecrated to him, and had treated them as having no part or
lot with God's people ; can we think that such a change as
this could have been made without occasioning animadversion ?
Can it be that neither the friends nor the enemies of Christ would
have made any complaint ? The unbelieving Jews, and even
some who professed to believe, were ready enough to complain of
innovation, and of everything in Christianity, which implied the
surrender of what belonged to the Jewish religion. How ear-
nestly, for uistance, did they object to giving up circumcision,
although baptism was introduced in its place, as a mark of disci-
pleship ? But in consequence of the ardent affection which, as
men, especially as IsraeUtes, they cherished for their offspring,
they must have felt a much stronger objection to depriving them
wholly of the privilege of being consecrated to God by any reh-
gious rite, and to excluding them wholly from that sacred relation
which they had always sustained to the church of God, than to a
change merely in the outward rite. But, with all their disposition
to complain, what complaints did they ever make of Christ or the
apostles, for treating children with less regard, than had been
exercised towards them before ? There is not the least appear-
ance of there having ever been any complaint or any controversy
on this subject in the time of Christ, or his apostles, or in the
INFANT BAPTISM. 391
period succeeding. Now I cannot but regard this as unaccount-
able, on the supposition that baptism, the initiatory sign appointed
by Christ for his disciples, had been withheld from their children.
Of all the subjects of complaint, this must have been first
among those Jews who rejected Christianity, and even among
those who embraced it. And as there is no trace of any such
complaint, and no command or intimation respecting children
which could have occasioned such a complaint ; in a word, as
there is silence among the writers of the New Testament, and
among the early fathers, respecting any change in the standing
or privileges of children ; we must conclude that no change took
place, and that they were in substance regarded and treated by
the teachers of Christianity, as they had been by the people of
God before.
The third consideration referred to is, that Infant Baptism,
when, apprehended correctly, must be agreeable to the best feelings
of pious parents respecting their infant offspring. This is not
produced as an independent argument. But after having a^
tended to the principal reasons which support the doctrine of
Infant Baptism, it must be a gratification to find, that the doc-
trine corresponds with our purest and best affections. It would,
on the contrary, be a serious difficulty in our way, and would
lead us to question the soundness of our arguments, if the most
tender and pious dispositions of our hearts were found in array
against the practice for which we plead. The laws and institu-
tions of religion are all intended to exercise and improve our
benevolent and pious afiections. And when we perceive in them
an obvious fitness to do this, we cannot but consider it an argu-
ment in their favor. How common is it, for example, to illustrate
and enforce the obligation of men to pray, and to attend on the
Lord's Supper, from the consideration, that these duties perfectly
agree with our most devout feelings, and are suited to improve
them. Indeed how often do we satisfy ourselves that it is our
duty to perform certain things, not expressly enjoined by the
word of God, because we are drawn to them by those afiections
■which we consider to be right. But if we find that any practice
392 INFANT BAPTISM.
stands in opposition not only to our natural affections, but to
the feelings of benevolence ; we are disinclined to believe that
it could ever have been appointed by God. Come then to the
subject now before us. And what pious parent, rightly appre-
hending the nature and design of Infant Baptism, would not
acknowledge it to be a benevolent appointment of God ? Who
would not be gratified to find such a doctrine, as that of Infant
Baptism, true ? Who would not deem it a privilege to be per-
mitted to perform such a duty ? And who would not regard
it as a subject of heartfelt grief, to be deprived of such a privi-
lege ? It must surely be the wish of pious parents to give up
their children to God; and to do this in the temple of God,
where the prayers of many will ascend with their own to the
Lord of heaven and earth, in behalf of their children. Publicly
to apply to them a sacred rite which marks them for God ; which
signifies that they are placed in the school of Christ, and in the
nursery of the church ; that they are to enjoy faithful parental
instruction, the preaching of the gospel, and the affections and
prayers of Christians, and that they are to come under the
influence of a divine economy, fraught with the most gracious
promises, and the most precious blessings ; — to apply to children
a sacred rite of such import, must be inexpressibly delightful
to godly parents. If then such parents give up Infant Baptism,
they give up a privilege, which I should think they would
regard as of more value to their children, than all the riches
of the world. Now I cannot but deplore a mistake, which
leads parents to act against those sincere and devout affections,
which God requires them to cherish, and which rehgion, with
aU its observances, is designed to improve. Pious parents, I
repeat it, who rightly apprehend the doctrine of Infant Baptism,
cannot but wish it true. And it would seem to me that their
first inquiry must be, whether they may be permitted thus to
devote their dear offspring to God, and to apply to them the seal
of his gracious covenant. If nothing is found to forbid their
doing this ; especially, if they have reason, from the word and
providence of God, to believe that he would approve it ; I should
INFANT BAPTISM. 393
suppose thej would embrace such a privilege with the sincerest
gratitude and joy, and hasten to confer such a blessing upon their
children. That it is a privilege and a blessing will be made still
more evident, by the remarks I shall offer in another place on the
utility of Infant Baptism.
LECTURE CXVI.
INFANT BAPTISM PROVED FROM ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
I NOW proceed to the argument in favor of Infant Baptism from
Ecclesiastical History.
The testimony of Ecclesiastical History on this subject is just
such as we should expect, on the supposition that Infant Baptism
was, from the beginning, universally regarded as a Christian insti-
tution. The earliest Christian fathers had little or no occasion to
enter on a particular discussion of the subject, or even to make
any express mention of it. Accordingly we find in the writers,
who next succeeded the apostles, only allusions to Infant Baptism.
These allusions, however, are of such a nature, that they cannot
well be accounted for without supposing that Infant Baptism
was the uniform practice. But the fathers, who wrote in the fol-
lowing ages, were more and more particular and explicit in their
testimony.
Mj' intention is only to make citations sufficient to show the
nature of the argument ; referring you to Wall's History of
Infant Baptism, and other works, where the subject is treated at
full length.
A citation has commonly been made from the apology of Justin
Martyr, written about the middle of the second century. Among
those who were members of the church, he says, there were many
of both sexes, some sixty, and some seventy years old, who were
made disciples to Christ, in naidav, from their infaiicy or
childhood. The word he uses is the same as was used in the
INFANT BAPTISM. 395
final commission given to the apostles to go and proselyte and*
baptize all nations ; sfia&Tjrev&Tjaav, they were proselyted, or made
disciples. It is, I think, altogether probable and beyond any
reasonable doubt, that Justin meant in this place to speak of those
who were made disciples, or introduced into the school of Christ
by baptism, when they were infants.
Irenteus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, was
born near the close of the first century. He says ; " Christ came
to save all persons, who by him are bom again unto God, (renas-
cuntur in Deum, infants and little ones, and children, and youths,
and elder persons)." Wall and Schroeckh, and other writers of
the first ability, consider the word, renasei, in the writings of
Irenseus and Justin, as signifying baptism. "Any man," says
Wall, "who has been at all conversant in the fathers, — will be
satisfied that they as constantly meant baptized, by the word
regenerated or born again, as we mean the same by the word
Christened.^' In this argument we are not concerned at all with
the opinions entertained by Irengeus as to the efficacy of baptism.
Our only inquiry is, whether it appears from his writings, that
Infant Baptism was the prevailing piractice. The passage above
cited is with good reason supposed to contain proof of this.
The testimony of Tertullian must be considered with special
care. He wrote about a hundred years after the apostles, and
was in many respects a Stoic, rather than a Christian. But the
strange opinions which he entertained, as a Montanist, have nothing
to do with his testimony as io facts ; especially as to facts which
he does not cite in support of his peculiar opinions ; and most of
all as to facts against which he objects, and which he attacks with
severity. In regard to such facts, his testimony is entitled to full
credit. For what motive could he possibly have to assert things,
which stood in the way of his own sectarian views, unless those
things actually existed ? Would any author, especially one who
wished to set himself up as the head of a sect, speak of the exis-
tence of a practice which he disapproved, and which was directly
opposed to his favorite scheme, when at the same time he was
aware that no such practice existed ? It is futile to say, that Ter-
396 INFANT BAPTISM.
• tullian was an enthusiast. Was he an enthusiast in favor of
Infant Baptism ? And were the facts to which he alludes, of such
a nature, that speaking of them as he did could in any way tend
to justify him in his enthusiastic notions ? Could he have had any
motive whatever to treat Infant Baptism as he did, unless he, and
those for whom he wrote, knew that it was a common practice ?
The passage in Tertullian's treatise De Baptismo, chap. 18, is
very important, though it is attended with difficulties, and has
been a subject of no small controversy. The following is a
translation.
" But they whose duty it is to administer baptism, should know,
that it is not to be given rashly. ' Grive to every one that asketh
thee, ' has its proper subject, and relates to almsgiving. But
that command is rather to be regarded ; Crive not that ivhich is
holy to dogs, neither cast your pearls before smne; and, Lay
hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's
sins. Therefore according to every person's condition and dis-
position, and age also, the delay of baptism is more profitable,
especially as to little children. For why is it necessary that the
sponsors should incur danger ? For they may either fail of their
promises by death, or may be disappointed by a child's proving
to be of a wicked disposition. Our Lord says indeed, forbid them
not to come to me. Let them come then, when they are grown up ;
let them come when they understand ; let them come, when they
are taught whither they are to come ; let them become Christians
when they are able to know Christ. AVhy should their innocent
age make haste to the forgiveness of sin ? Men act more cau-
tiously in temporal concerns. Worldly substance is not committed
to those, to whom divine things are intrusted. Let them know
how to ask for salvation, that you may seem to give to him that
asketh."
"It is for a reason of no less importance, that unmarried per-
sons, both those who were never married, and those who have
been deprived of their partners, should, on account of their ex-
posure to temptation, be kept waiting, till they are either married,
or confirmed in a habit of chaste single life. They who under-
INFANT BAPTISM. 397
stand the importance of baptism, will be more afraid of hastening
to receive it, than of delay : an entire faith secures salvation."
An attentive examination of this passage will make the following
things evident.
1. The object of Tertullian is, to caution the Christian church
against a hasty, premature, rash administration of the rite of
baptism: — non temere credendum esse, — it is not to be rashly
administered. He meets the objections which some might make
to delaying the ordinance, or to declining to administer it, by
appealing to the Scriptures ; Give not that which is holy to the
dogs ; lay hands suddenly on no man^ etc.
2. He urges the delay of baptism in regard to several sorts of
persons, especially in regard to infants. " A delay of baptism,"
he says, " is more profitable according to every one's condition,
disposition, or age, but especially in regard to little ones, parvulos,
[nai8la, /J^/gpea.] For what necessity is there that the sponsors
should incur danger ? For they may fail of their promises by
reason of mortahty, or be disappointed by the springing up of a
bad disposition. "
The argument is plainly this, "The Httle ones especially
( prsecipue ) ought to have their baptism delayed. " Why ?
because a bad disposition may spring up, and the sponsors, (those
who offered them up in baptism, and became responsible for their
religious education, and their good behavior,) be thus disappointed
and fail of performing their engagements. The whole argument
clearly shows, from its very nature, that infants must be intended
by parvidos. If not, why did they need sponsors f They could
engage for themselves. Moreover if adults were intended, then
their disposition would have already sprung up, and developed
itself; and what danger would there have been of the disappoint-
ment which Tertullian fears ?
The whole passage, by the most certain implication, shows that
the " little ones " (parvulos) were such as had not developed
their disposition, and such as did not and could not stand sponsers
for themselves. Now Tertullian cautioned the sponsors not to
VOL. m. 34
398 INFAK-T BAPTISM.
take such engagements upon themselves, as all their efforts to
fulfil them might be frustrated.
3. This passage clearly shows, that Infant Baptism was com-
monly practised at the time "when Tertulhan lived, that is, a
hundred years after the apostles.
This appears from the reasoning. He notices a text which was
doubtless appealed to by those who were accustomed to baptize
their children. Our Lord says indeed, /orJzc? them (parvulos) not
to come unto me. The force of this he feels it necessary to parry.
" Let them come, then," he says, " when they are grown up : let
them come when they learn : [let them come] when they are
taught whither they are coming." All this shows beyond any
reasonable doubt, that TertuUian was attacking the custom of
bringing children to be baptized before they were grown up, or
had learned, or had been taught whither they were to come in
baptism ; that is, that he was attacking the custom of having them
baptized in an infantile state. This must be admitted, or there is
no sense in the passage. And what follows makes it, if possible,
still more clear that he was opposing such a custom.
" Let them become Christians" he says, " Avhen they are able
to know Christ. " Their being devoted to Christ in baptism he
represents as their heco7ning Christians ; and he objects to their
becoming Christians at an age, when they were incapable of know-
ing Christ. Again he says : " Why should those who are of an
age that is innocent, be eager for remission of sins ? " That is,
why should those who are so young as to be incapable of sinning,
be eager to obtain forgiveness ? — as he thought was done by
baptism.
With the correctness or incorrectness of Tertullian's religious
opinions we have, I have said, no concern here. Our only inquiry
is, whether it is implied in the passage above quoted from his
writings, that it was in his day the prevailing custom to baptize
little children. That there was such a custom is evident from
the fact, that he made opposition against it as actually existing.
He goes on with his objection against the practice of Infant
Baptism. " Men act with more caution," he says," in temporal
INFANT BAPTISM. 399
matters. Worldly substance is not committed to those, to whom
divine things are entrusted. " That is, little children, as all agree,
are not to be entrusted with the care of worldly substance ; and
yet you entrust them with divine things, which are so much more
important.
Still, not content with all this, he repeats an idea which he had
before suggested. " Let them know how to seek for salvation,
that you may appear to give to them who ask." That is ; you
have been accustomed to give baptism to those who could not
ask for it. Discontinue this practice ; and give baptism to those
only Avho are capable of requesting it for themselves.
He finally urges delay in administering baptism to unmarried
persons, on account of their being peculiarly exposed to temp-
tation. He does not forbid baptism in their case, but urges the
postponement of it, until they are either married, or established
in habits of continence. He says ; " If any understand the weight
of baptismal obligations, they will be more fearful about taking
them, than about putting them off."
From this famous, singular, and controverted passage in Tertul-
lian, it is then perfectly clear, that there w^as in his day a practice
of baptizing ivfatits, that is, those "who had, and could have, no
knowledge of Christ ; that he was himself strongly opposed to the
practice ; and that he was opposed because he thought that, while
baptism secured the forgiveness of all the sins previousli/ commit-
ted, the sins committed after baptism exposed the soul to the
utmost peril. It was on this account that he would have baptism
delayed in respect to all those who would be particularly liable to
temptation and to sin, — which he considered to be the case with
those who were unmarried, and those who were in infancy. This
was at the bottom of his zeal for delaying baptism in regard to
infants and others. And it all implies that the practice against
which he argued, was common. Otherwise, why did he so earn-
estly oppose it ?
The reasoning of Tertullian against the baptism of unmarried
j)ersotis, is, you have seen, the same as against the baptism of in-
fants ; namely, that they are exposed to temptation, and are in
400 INFANT BAPTISM.
special danger of falling into sin. But if Chrstian rites are to be
deferred until men are free from temptation and the danger of
sin ; when are they to be performed ?
It should be specially noted, that Tertullian does not appeal to
any usage of the church, or of any part of the church, from the
apostles' day to his, in support of his opinions against Infant
Baptism. Now if it had not been the uniform practice of the
Christian church from the begimiing, to baptize infants, how easy
would it have been for him to say so, and to represent Infant Bap-
tism as a dangerous innovation, and thus to put it down at once.
He showed great zeal against the practice ; and if he could have
opposed it by asserting that it was a practice unknoAvn in the early
Christian churches ; could he have failed of using such an argu-
ment?
Suppose that Tertullian had set himself to argue on the other
side in the same manner as on this ; suppose he had taken great
pams to point out the evils of neglecting or delaying Infant Bap-
tism, and had earnestly expostulated with those who exposed them-
selves and others to those evils ; would it not be implied, that
Infant Baptism was neglected or delayed in his day ? And sup-
pose he had shown great zeal to support Infant Baptism, and had
labored to persuade the churches to practise it, and yet had made
no mention of its having ever been the usage of the Christian
church ; would not every one say, this is a presumptive proof that
he was endeavoring to support an innovation, and that there had
been no established usage in favor of Infant Baptism to which he.
was able to appeal in support of his opinion ? Could it be sup-
posed that a learned Christian bishop, within a hundred years of
the apostles, would be ignorant of what the custom was which they
handed down to the churches, or would neglect to refer to the
usage of the churches, as far as he was able, for the support of
his own views ? *
* Tlie following remarks are extracted from Wardlaw's Dissertation on Infant
Baptism. See Appendix A. p. 207 : " Tertullian was remarkable for singular and
extravagant opinions. On the particular subject before us, he not only advised
the delay of baptism in the case of infants, but also of unmarritd persons. Will
IIS^FANT BAPTISM. 401
Perhaps some one may say, that, if Infant Baptism had been
the general practice of the Christian church, it must have been
expressly mentioned by some writer previous to TertuUian. But
it is to be remembered, that there was no considerable Avriter pre-
vious to the age of TertuUian, except Justin Martyr. Irenaeus
and Clemens Alexandrinus were his contemporaries. Now are
there not many questions of great moment respecting the canon-
ical credit of the books of the New Testament, and respecting
various doctrines and usages in the Christian church, which are
not mentioned in any of the scanty remains of the first ages after
the apostles ? But it is to be particularly noticed, that the first
express mention we find of Infant Baptism clearly implies, that it
■was then the common practice.
As to the construction which R. Robinson, in his History of
Baptism, and others who agree with him, put upon the testimony
of Tertulhan — how can any man think that it has the least
shadow of reason to support it, or that it can stand a moment be-
fore an impartial examination ?
our Baptist brethren admit the inference as to the latter, which they draw as to the
former ? The truth is, that, as to both the legitimate inference is the contrary. The
ver\' advice to delay ^ is a conclusive evidence of the previous existence of the practice.
This is the point. The opinion is nothing to the purpose. It has no authority.
His condemning the practice of baptizing infants, not only proves its previous exist-
ence ; it proves more. It proves that it was no innovation. When a man con-
demns a practice, he is naturally desirous to support his peculiar views by the
strongest arguments. Could TertuUian, therefore, have shown, that the practice
was of recent origin ; that it had been introduced in his o^vn day, or even at any
time subsequent to the lives of the apostles ; we have every reason to believe, he
would have availed himself of a ground so obvious, and so conclusive. It proves
still further, that the baptism of infants was the general practice of the church in
TertuUian's time His opinion is his own. It is that of a dissentient from the
universal body of professing Christians. He never pretends to say, that any part
of the church had held or acted upon it. But the total absence of any attempt to
support and recommend it by appeal to the practice of the church in apostolic
times, or of any part of the church at any intervening period between those times
and his own, certainly goes far to prove the matter of fact, that Infant Baptism
was the original and universal practice.
34*
402 INFANT BAPTISM.
Testimony of Oi-igen.
" Since Origen was born, a. d. 185, that is 85 years after the
apostles, his grandfather, or at least his great-grandfather must
have lived in the apostles' time. And as he could not be igno-
rant whether he was himself baptized in infancy, so he had no
further than his own family to go for inquiry, how it was practised
in the times of- the apostles. Besides, Origen was a learned man,
and could not be ignorant of the usages of the churches ; in most
of which he had also travelled ; for as he was born and bred at
Alexandria, so it appears from Eusebius, that he had Hved in
Greece, and at Kome, and in Cappadocia, and Arabia, and spent
the main part of his life in Syria and Palestine." *
The principal passages in the writings of Origen, in which the
baptism of infants is mentioned, are the following :
Homily 8th, on Levit. c. xii.
" According to the usage of ilie church, baptism is given even
to infants ; when if there were nothing in infants which needed
forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be
superfluous."
This testimony needs no comment in regard to the fact, that in-
fants were baptized.
Homily on Luke xiv.
" Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins ?
Or when have they sinned ? Or can there be any reason for the
laver in their case, unless it be according to the sense we have
mentioned above ; viz., no one is free from pollution, though he has
lived but one day upon earth. And because by baptism native
pollution is taken away, therefore infants are baptized."
But the testimony of Origen which is the most important of all,
is in his
* Wall's History of Infant Baptism, vol. I. p. 73.
'... INFANT BAPTISM. 40S
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, lib. 5.
" For this cause it was that the church received an order from
the apostles, to give baptism even to infants."
These testimonies not only imply that Infant Baptism -was gen-
erally knoAvn and practised, but also mention it as an order re-
ceived from the apostles. And although some may doubt the
correctness of Origen's reasoning as to the ground of the practice ;
no one can reasonably doubt that he is a good witness of the fact,
that such was the practice, and that it was understood to be
received from the apostles.
To any objections which have been made to the genuineness of
these quotations from Origen, I refer to Wall's History, Chap. 5,
as containing a satisfactory answer. I shall cite only the follow-
ing:
" In these translations of Origen, (translations from the origi-
nal Greek, Avhich is lost, into Latin,) — " if there were found but
one or two places, and those in Rufinus alone, which speak of
Infant Baptism ; there might have been suspicion of their being
interpolations. But when there are so many of them, brought in
on several occasions, in translations made by several men, who
■were of several parties, and enemies to one another, and upon no
temptation, (for it is certain that in their time there was no dis-
pute about Infant Baptism,) — that they should all be forged
without any reason, is absurd to think. Especially if we consider
that these translators lived not much more than a hundred years
after Origen's time ; the Christians then must have known whether
infants had been used to be baptized in Origen's time, or not ; —
the very tradition from father to son must have carried a memory
of it for so short a time. And then, for them to make Origen
speak of a thing which all the world knew was not in use in his
time, must have made them ridiculous."
Testimony of Oyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 150 years after the apostles.
In the year 253, sixty-six bishops met in Council at Carthage,
404 INFANT BAPTISM.
Fidus, a country bishop, had sent a letter with two cases, on
which he desired their opinion. The one, which related to our
present subject, was, whether an infant might be baptized before it
was eight days old. It will be sufficient for my purpose to cite
the following passages from the Letter of the bishops.
" Cyprian and the rest of the bishops who were present in the
council, sixty-six in number, to Fidus our Brother, Greeting."
— " As to the case of Infants ; — whereas you judge that they
must not he baptized within two or three days after they are horn,
and that ike rule of circumcision is to he observed, that no one
should he baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after he is
horn; we were all in the Council of a very different opinion."
" This therefore was our opinion in the Council ; that we ought not
to hinder any person from baptism and the grace of God. And
this rule, as it holds for all, is, we think, more especially to be
observed in reference to infants, even to those newly born."
Respecting these quotations, I would suggest the following
remarks :
First. Whatever we may think of the opinions of Cyprian and
the bishops connected with him, respecting the grounds of Infant
Baptism ; their testimony to the fact, which is all we now inquire
after, holds good.
Second. The quotations above made from the letter of the
bishops prove incontrovertibly, that Infant Baptism was well known
and commonly practised at that time. It is plain that Fidus who
put the question, and the bishops who resolved it, both took it for
granted that infants were to be baptized ; only Fidus thought it
should be omitted till the eighth day.
Third. This testimony has great weight ; as it is impossible to
suppose that not one of sixty-six bishops, living 160 years after
the apostles, and so near the time of Origen and Tertullian, and
headed by the most distinguished man then in the Christian church,
should not have doubted the propriety of applying baptism to
infants, if the church hitherto had not made it their common
practice.
The arguments of Wall prove, beyond all question, the genuine-
INFANT BAPTISM. 405
ness of this Epistle of Cyprian and his fellow hishops. (See
History of Inf. Bap. Vol. I. chap. 6.) The Epistle contains incon-
trovertible, overpOAvering evidence of the usual practice of the
churches in Cyprian's time, and, of course, in times previous to
his. If the practice had been a novelty, or if there had been
any considerable division or controversy in the churches respect-
ing it ; how could such a circumstance have been forgotten, or
passed over in silence ?
Optatm.
This father lived 2^0 years after the apostles. In the passage
to which I shall refer, he had been comparing a Christian's put-
ting on Christ in baptism, to putting on a garment. He then
says : " But lest any one say, I speak irreverently in calling
Christ a garment, let him read what the Apostle says, as many of
you as have been baptized in the name of Christ have put on
Christ. Oh ! what a garment is this, which is always one, and
which fits all ages and all shapes. It is neither too large for in-
fants^ nor too small for young men."
The meaning of this passage in regard to the subject before us,
is perfectly plain.
Gregory Nazianzm, 260 years after the apostles.
The passage I shall cite is from his Oration on Basil. Orat. 20.
After comparing Basil to Abraham, Moses, etc., he compares him
to Samuel, and undertakes to show the points of similitude between
them.
" Samuel among them that call upon his name was given before
he was born, and immediately after his birth was consecrated, and
he became an anointer of kings and priests out of a horn. And
was not this man, (Basil,) consecrated to God in his infancy from
the womb, and carried to the steps," (doubtless the baptismal
font,) " in a coat? " He plainly referred to the coat which was
used in baptism, and compared it to the coat which was made for
406 INFANT BAPTISM.
Samuel by his mother. This is a clear testimony to what was
usual in regard to baptism at that time.
Wall has given an abstract of Gregory's oration on baptism, to
which I must refer the reader. Gregory first gives his opinion in
favor of delaying the baptism of children till they are three years
old. Still he expresses it in such a manner as to imply, that the
usual practice was against him. But on reconsidering all the cir-
cumstances of the case, he advises that infants should be baptized.
The testimony of Ambrose shows that the baptism of infants
was common in his day.
Chrysostom, who hved 280 years after the apostles, plainly
shows what was the practice of the churches in regard to Infant
Baptism in his day, and how he regarded it himself.
I quote only one passage, which is in a Homily cited by Julian
and by Austin, and which contains a very explicit recognition of
Infant Baptism. He says, " Some think that the heavenly grace
(of baptism) consists only in forgiveness of sins ; but I have reck-
oned up ten advantages of it. For this cause tve baptize infants
also, though they are not defiled with sin ; " or as Austin has quoted
it from the Greek of Chrysostom, — " though they have not any
transgressions," — meaning, doubtless, actual sins.
Augustin, (or Austin) a Christian father highly distinguished
both for his learning and piety, flourished 288 years after the
apostles. The testimonies which he gave to the fact, that infants
were baptized, and that this usage was universally understood and
acknowledged to have been handed down from the apostles, are
very plain and expHcit.
Remarking on the passage 1 Cor. 7: 14, Austin says ; " There
were then Christian infants, (parvuli Christiani,) who were sancti-
fied," that is, baptized, " by the authority of one or both of their
parents." In another place, he speaks of the good wliich Chris-
tian baptism does to infants, and says that the faith of those hy
whom the child is brought to be consecrated, is profitable to the
child. In his book against the Donatists, he speaks of those who
were baptized in infancy or in childhood.
In the same book, he says, where baptism is had, if faith is by
INFANT BAPTISM. 407
necessity wanting, salvation is secured. He then adds ; " "VYhich
the whole body of the church holds, as delivered to them, in the
case of little infants who are baptized ; who certainly cannot be-
believe with the heart unto righteousness. And yet no Christian
will say, they are baptized in vain."
Although Austin here mentioned Infant Baptism incidentally,
his Avords show that it was universally practised, and had been so
from time immemorial, and that no Christian of any sect was of a
different opinion. " And they had only 300 years to look back
to the apostles ; whereas we now have 1800. And the writings
and records which arc now lost, were then extant, and easily
known."
Austin's Letter to Boniface, which treats mainly of the subject
of Infant Baptism, shows beyond the possibihty of doubt, that
it was universally practised by the church, and was understood
to be a divine appointment.
In his book on Genesis, he says : " The custom of our mother
the church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded, nor
accounted useless ; and it must by all means be believed to be
a tradition, (or order) of the apostles; apostolica traditio." And
in accordance with this, he says, in another jjlace : " It is most
justly believed to be no other than a thing dehvered, " (ordered,
or taught,) by apostolic authority ; that is, that it came not by a
general council, or by any authority later or less than that of
the apostles, " And again he speaks of baptizing infants " by
the authority of the whole church, which was undoubtedly deliv-
ered by our Lord and his apostles. "
In his book against the Donatists, while maintaining the validity
of baptism, though administered to those who are destitute of
faith, he refers especially to those who were baptized when they
were infants or youths ; " maxime qui infantes vel pueri baptizati
sunt."
The universal acknowledgment of Infant Baptism as a practice
derived from the apostles, is brought out frequently and very
clearly in the controversy between Austin and the Pelagians.
The Pelagians, who denied original sin, were pressed with the
408 INFANT BAPTISM.
argument from Infant Baptism. It would have been very much
to their purpose to assert, had it been in their power, that the
baptism of infants was not enjoined by Christ or his apostles.
If they had known any society of Christians existing in their day
or before, who disowned Infant Baptism ; their interest would
have led them to plead such an example in their own behalf.
But they were far from anything like this. Celestius owns that
infants are to be baptized according to the rule of the universal
church ; and Pelagius complained that some men slandered him
as if he denied baptism to infants ; but declared that he never
had heard of any one, no not even of an impious heretic or
sectary, who denied Infant Baptism.
Now, according to Wall, (to whom I am chiefly indebted for
these testimonies and results,) if there had been any church in the
world that did not baptize infants, these two men must have heard
of them, being such travellers as they were. For they were bom
and bred, the one in Britain, the other in Ireland. They lived
a long time at Rome, to which all the people of the known world
had resort. They were both for some time at Carthage in
Africa. Then the one settled in Jerusalem, and the other trav-
elled through all the noted churches in Europe and Asia. It
is impossible there should have been any church, which had a
singular practice as to Infant Baptism, but they must have heard
of it. So that we may fairly conclude that there was not at that
time, nor within the memory of the men of that time, any Chris-
tian society which denied baptism to infants.
I shall here subjoin an argument of great weight, and nearly
in the words of Wall, Vol. I. chap. 21 ; namely ; that Irenaeus,
Epiphanius, Philastrius, Austin, and Theodoret, who wrote cata-
logues of all the sects and sorts of Christians that they knew or
had ever heard of, make no mention of any who denied Infant
Baptism, except those who denied all baptism. Each of them, he
says, mentions some sects that used no baptism at all ; and these
sects Austin represents as disowning the Scripture, or a great
part of it. But of all the sects that acknowledged water baptism
in any case, no one is mentioned that denied it to infants.
INFANT BAPTISM. 409
Now since all these authors make it theii' business to rehearse
the opinions and usages which the various sects held different from
the church at large, and yet mention no difference in this respect ;
we may well conclude that all of them practised in this particular
as the church at large did. If the church had not baptized
infants, and the sectaries had, it would have been noted. And
if the church had baptized infants, and the sectaries had not, that
also would have been noted. For these writers tell us that each
sect had its peculiarities. And they mention differences of much
less moment than this would have been.
I shall only add the remark of Wall, that the first hody of men
we read of, that denied baptism to infants, were the PetrohrusianSj
A. D. 1150.
Thus it appears that we have evidence as abundant, and spe-
cific, and certain, as history affords of almost any other fact, that
Infant Baptism universally prevailed from the days of the apostles
through four centuries. Baptists and Pedobaptists are satisfied,
on the ground of Ecclesiastical History, that the churches im-
mediately succeeding the apostles, observed the first day of the
week as a sacred day ; that the books, of which our Testament is
composed, were generally acknowledged as of divine authority ;
that the Lord's Supper was frequently celebrated, and that women
partook of it as well as men. But Avhich of these facts is better
supported by historical evidence, than the baptism of infants ?
On the value of this argument from early Ecclesiastical History,
I shall offer a few remarks.
It cannot with any good reason be denied or doubted that those
Christian writers, who have, in different ways, given testimony to
the prevalence of Infant Baptism in the early ages of Christianity,
are credible witnesses. Nor can it be denied, that they were
under the best advantages to know, whether the practice of
Infant Baptism commenced in the time of the apostles. On this
subject, as they were not likely to mistake, so their testimony is
entitled to full credit.
Infant Baptism was a subject, in which early Christians must
have felt a very lively interest. It was a thing of the most public
VOL. III. 35
410 INFANT BAPTISM.
nature, and a mistake concerning it must have been altogether
improbable, — I might say impossible. It was certainly impos-
sible that Christians should be mistaken as to the question, whether
Infant Baptism was generally practised in their own age. And
it must have been almost as impossible for them to be mistaken,
as to the practice of the preceding age. For they had memories,
as well as we ; and they had oral communications ; and they had
written records also. And why should not they have known what
took place in the time of their fathers, as well as we know what
took place in the time of our fathers ? But surely we have no
doubt whether ive were baptized in infancy ; or whether our parents
were baptized in infancy ; or whether in the days of our fathers
it was the uniform practice of the churches with which we are
connected, to give baptism to children. Who can imagine that
we are in any danger of mistake, as to the practice of the first
churches of New England relative to their infant offspring ? If
any one should take upon him to deny that those churches baptized
their children ; we should think him extremely ignorant, or in
sport. We deem it sufficient, that our fathers have told us
it was so, and that we never heard any one question it. But
besides this, there are many circumstances which plainly imply
it ; and we have books, written at the time, which contain indubit-
able evidence of the fact. We say too, that the very existence
of the practice at the present time, considering how public and
how important a thing it is, must be regarded as conclusive evi-
dence that it was the practice two hundred years ago, unless it
can be made to appear, that a change has taken place, and that our
churches have been induced to renounce their former views, and to
embrace the doctrine of Infant Baptism. If such a change has
taken place, let it be made to appear. If no evidence of this
can be produced, it is just to conclude, that no change has taken
place, and that the present practice is only a continuation of that
which prevailed in New England from the first.
These remarks are applicable to the subject under consideration.
My position is, that the fathers, from whom I have made citations
relative to the practice of Infant Baptism, are credible witnesses j
INFANT BAPTISM. 411
that thej were under the best advantages to know whether the
practice had prevailed from the days of the apostles, and accord-
ingly, that their testimony on the subject is entitled to entu-e con-
fidence. In different circumstances, and in different countries,
they stand forth as witnesses, that Infant Baptism had been the
uniform practice of the Christian church from the beginning. Al-
though they lived at different periods, they were all near enough to
the time of the apostles to obtain correct information respecting a
practice hke this. In their own time the practice was universal.
They tell us it had beeil so from the beginning. Some of them
would have been quite ready to deny this, if they could have
found any reasons for doing so. But they unite in declaring, that
the practice had been universal in the Christian church from the
time of the apostles.
Should any one say, there might have been a change, and the
baptism of infants might have been introduced afterward, either
gradually or suddenly ; I would ask, where is the evidence of
this ? Even if all, who lived at the time, had been united in such
a change, it could not have taken place without leaving some clear
proof of the fact ; some traces, which would have been visible to
those who succeeded. But is it supposable that all who lived at
the time of such a change, would be united in it ? And if they
were not united, there must be some evidence of the disunion ;
some traces of the controversy of disagreeing parties ; some ac-
count of the remonstrances of the more conscientious and faithful
against those who were unstable, and who wished to make unwar-
rantable changes, and of the arguments of such innovators to
justify themselves against the charge of corrupting the simplicity
of a Christian institution. But where is the evidence of such a
change ? Where do we find any traces of it ? What declara-
tion, suggestion, or allusion is there, in any written history, or in
any tradition, making it certain, or in any degree probable, that
such a change ever took place ? Who ever heard of the conten-
tion of parties on this subject ; of the remonstrances of the faith-
ful, or the apologies of innovators ? Now if the early Christians
had among them any of the vigilance and zeal of those who, in
412 INFANT BAPTISM.
modern times, have denied Infant Baptism ; how could the baptism
of infants have been introduced without exciting dissatisfaction,
complaint and opposition ? Take the Baptist churches, now dis-
tinguished for their pietj and zeal in Great Britain, America or
India. Should any of these churches attempt to introduce Infant
Baptism, would not a loud voice be quickly raised against them ?
"Would the J. not be obliged to encounter arguments too many, and
opposition too decided, to be either despised, or forgotten ? Now
turn to the primitive churches. If they did not consider Infant
Baptism a divine institution, Avhy did they not lift up their voice
and array their arguments against it, w^hen it was first brought
into use ? We have very ancient and particular accounts of contro-
versies and heresies on a great variety of subjects, both doctrinal
and practical. How happens it, that we have no account of tlie here-
sy of Infant Baptism, and no account of any controversy respecting
it? If we may judge from what has appeared in modern times,
we should think that there are few subjects more likely to excite
attention than this, and few subjects on which the disagreement
of Christians would be more hkely to be attended with warmth, or
more likely to be remembered.
These remarks are sufficient to show the value of the argument
from Ecclesiastical History. The testimony of the early Christian
writers in favor of Infant Baptism, as the uniform practice of the
church, is worthy of full credit, and as the circumstances were,
affords a conclusive argument that it was a divine institution. And
I well know, that an argument like this on the opposite side, would
be quite as much relied upon by those who deny Infant Baptism,
as this is relied upon by us. If they could but make it appear by
citations from Ecclesiastical Histories, that the churches, immedi-
ately after the time of the apostles, were united in rejecting Infant
Baptism, and that this continued to be the case for more than a
thousand years, without the exception of a single church or indi-
vidual Christian who pleaded for the practice ; would they not
earnestly seize this fact, and confidently rely upon it, as an unan-
swerable argument against Infant Baptism ? I would seriously
propose this view of the subject to the consideration of those who
INFANT BAPTISM. 413
differ from us on the question at issue. Let them remember how
much writers on their side have labored to show, that Infant Bap-
tism was not the universal practice of the early Christian churches ;
and how much stress they have laid on the least shadow of evi-
dence, that primitive Christians, in any instances, did not baptize
their children. Now if they could produce clear evidence that
Christians in general were not accustomed to baptize children ; if
they could produce one plain declaration, or even the slightest
hint, from Origen, Augustine, or Pelagius, showing that Infant
Baptism was not practised by the first Christian churches, and that
no order or tradition in favor of it was ever received from the apos-
tles, — or even expressing a doubt on the subject, would they not
hold this to be an unquestionable proof against Infant Baptism ?
And would not their confidence in such a conclusion rise to the
highest pitch, if they could make it appear that, when Infant Bap-
tism was first introduced, earnest and repeated remonstrances
were made against it, as a dangerous innovation ? But as the
proof from Ecclesiastical History is wholly on the other side, and
shows clearly, that infant Baptism was the uniform practice of the
church in the ages succeeding the apostles ; and as no want of
genuineness in the w^orks referred to, and no want of clearness or
fulness in the testimonies which they contain can be pretended ;
how can our Baptist brethren deny the force of this argument in
favor of Infant Baptism ?
If there should be any remaining doubt in your minds, as to the
propriety of relying on the testimony of uninspired men on such a
subject as this, and if you should think, that nothing but an express
declaration from the word of God ought to satisfy us ; I would turn
your attention for a few moments to the consequences of adhering
to this principle. In the first place, what evidence have you,
except the testimony of uninspired men, that the several books
which constitute the Old Testament, as we now have it, are the
very books to which Christ and the apostles referred as the word
of God ? Neither of them has given us any specific instruction
on this point ; and we go to Josephus, who was neither an inspired
man, nor a Christian ; to the Talmud, and to Jerome, Origen,
35*
414 INFANT BAPTISM.
Aquila, and other uninspired men, to find a list of the books, which
we are to receive as given bj inspiration of God ; and having
proved from their testimony, that these were the books which
Christ and the apostles regarded as sacred writings, we prove in
other ways, that those writings have come down to us without
any material alteration. And we must use the same kind of rea-
soning in regard to the New Testament. "We have no voice from
heaven, and no express testimony of any inspired writer, that the
several books, which compose the entire Canon of the New Tes-
tament, were given by inspiration of God, or that they were all
written by the apostles, or even by Christians. But we go to
Eusebius, and to other uninspired writers, and we find, that they
regarded these books, as the genuine productions of those to whom
they are commonly ascribed, and as having divine authority. It
is on such evidence as this, that we rely for the support of those
sacred books, which are the basis of our faith, and which teach us
what are the doctrines and precepts and rites of our religion. And
why should we not rely on their testimony, in regard to the man-
ner in which a religious rite was understood and apphed by the
churches, in the first ages of Christianity ? Why should we not
confide in them as credible witnesses of a fact, which they had the
best opportunity to be acquainted with, and no temptation to
misrepresent ? *
* I am reluctant to say what I think respecting the manner in which some Bap-
tist writers have treated the historical argument in favor of Infant Baptism. I
make the appeal to men of any denomination, who have the requisite qualifica-
tions, whether an instance can easily be found, of greater unfairness, or of a more
determined effort to discolor all focts, and evade all arguments on the opposite
side, than is exhibited in the writers referred to.
Whether we are engaged in confuting error, or in defending the truth, it is our
bounden duty to use the faculties which God has given us, with Christian candor, and
with the most exact integrity and impartiality. Any deviation from these in our
inquiries after truth, or in the manner of conducting controversy, must be as offen-
sive to God, to say the least, as unfairness, dishonesty, or artful evasion, in the
common transactions of life. The God of truth neither requires nor permits us to
use carnal weapons in defence of his cause. I have frequently been ready to say
that God would rather see us contend for error with a right spirit, than for trutA,
with a wrong.
LECTURE CXVII.
BAPTISM IN RELATION TO CERCUMCISION.
I HAVE now exhibited the arguments which I regard as most
weighty and conclusive in favor of the position, that the apostles
understood their commission to proselyte and baptize, as including
children. There are, however, several remaining topics, more or
less related to the subject, which must be carefully considered.
And when thus considered, they will afford important collateral
evidence in support of Infant Baptism, and will have a favorable
influence upon the minds of candid inquirers after the truth.
One of these remaining topics is, baptism considered in relation
to circumcision.
It is common to speak of one thing as coming in the place of
another, when there is a general agreement between them, as to
the object sought, or the end to be answered, how different soever
they may be in other respects. Thus our meeting-houses, or
churches, are spoken of as coming in the place of the Jewish
temple and synagogues, because they agree in being designed for
public ivorship, and public religious instruction. As to the form
of the buildings, and the particular mode of worship and instruc-
tion, they differ greatly. So also in regard to the general end
sought, we consider ministers of the gospel as substituted for the
Levitical Priesthood ; the more spiritual services of Christians for
the daily sacrifices of the Jews ; and the Lord's Supper for the
Passover. In each of these cases, there is an obvious agreement
in regard to the general object in view, between the former insti-
416 INFANT BAPTISM.
tution, and that which comes in its stead. So in civil matters.
A law formerly existed, requiring a thief to be punished by
scourging ; but that law has been set aside, and another enacted,
requiring a thief to labor in prison, with solitary confinement at
night. This mode of punishment, we speak of as a substitute for
the other, because it relates to the same subject, and is intended
to answer the same general purpose. Thus too we speak of impris-
onment or exile as substituted for death.
From these examples you learn how such language is com-
monly used. And it must be proper to use it in the same sense,
in relation to the subject before us. The position which has been
maintained by the ablest writers, and which I shall endeavor to
defend, is, that baptisyn comes hi the 'place of circumcision. This
position is not founded so much on any particular text, as on the
general representations of Scripture, and the nature of the case.
When God adopted Abraham and his posterity to be his peculiar
people, he commanded them to be circumcised ; and it appears
from the representations of Moses and Paul, that those who
received this rite were under special obligations to be holy. Cir-
cumcision was, then, a sign put upon Abraham and his seed,
showing them to be a peculiar peo-ple^ under peculiar obligations to
God, and entitled to peculiar blessings. Just so baptism is a
sign, put upon the people of God under the new dispensation,
signifying substantially the same obligations and blessings, as
those which were signified by circumcision ; — the same, I say,
suhstantially, though in some circumstances diflFerent. If then
circumcision Avas a rite, by which persons were admitted into the
society of God's people, and consecrated to his service, under the
former dispensation ; and if circumcision is set aside, and baptism
is the rite by which persons are admitted into the society of God's
people and consecrated to his service, under the new dispensation;
it is evident that baptism has succeeded in the place of circum-
cision. We cannot but be satisfied with this conclusion, if one of
these rites was, in all important respects, the same as the other ;
and particularly, if they were both appointed, as a seal of the
same general promise of God to his people, and of the same gene-
ral relation of his people to him.
INFANT BAPTISM. 417
No\Y if baptism comes in the place of circumcision, and is, in
the most important respects, designed for the same purpose ; we
shouki think there must be some sirnilarity between them in
ro"-ard to the extent of their personal application. Under the
former dispensation, if any who had been aliens from the common-
wealth of Israel, were made proselytes to the Jewish religion,
they were circumcised. Accordingly, if under the present dispen-
sation, any who have been enemies to the spirit of Christianity,
are converted and made disciples of Christ, they are to be bap-
tized. This conclusion, which we should naturally adopt from the
circumstance that baptism was substituted in the place of circum-
cision, perfectly agrees with the particular instruction given in
the New Testament. The command as to baptism related primor
rily to those who became proselytes to Christ, whether they were
Jews or gentiles. It related to believers. These were to be
baptized, just as adult proselytes to Judaism had before been cir-
cumcised. And what is the natural conclusion respecting the
cMldren of believers ? Plainly this ; that as the children of
Abraham, the father of believers, and the children of all prose-
lytes to the true religion, were formerly circumcised ; so the
children of all believers are now to be baptized. This must be
our conclusion, unless the word of God expressly forbids Infant
Baptism, or unless there is something in the nature and design of
baptism, which makes it manifestly unsuitable to apply it to infant
children.
The fact that circumcision was applied only to wen, is of no
consequence as to the argument ; because women in that case, as
in many others, were considered as represented by men, and con-
nected with them. Consequently the meaning of mfant circmn-
cision must have been the same, as though it had been applied to
persons of both sexes. - But the distinction, formerly made
between male and female in regard to the application of the seal
of the covenant, is done away under the Christian dispensation.
The seal is now to be apphed to behevers of both sexes ; and of
course to all their children, whether sons or daughters.
The chief objection to this view of the subject arises from the
fact, that Abraham's servants were all circumcised.
418 INFANT BAPTISM.
In reply to this objection, I remark, first ; that the great
promise of the covenant expressly related to parents and cJnldren.
" I will be a God to thee and to thi/ seed^ This was the natural,
2mmary relation. The relation of servants to their master was
not natural, but incidental and subordinate. So that it would be
nothing strange, if less respect should be shown to this relation,
than to the relation of children to parents. It was so under the
former dispensation. The circumcision of children was a promi-
nent thing. This was to be observed in all generations, so long as
that economy continued. Whether there was any occasion to cir-
cumcise servants, or not, the circumcision of children was never to
fail. Now it would seem perfectly reasonable to suppose, that in
respect to this natural 'primary relation, the seal of the covenant
under the new dispensation should be applied in the same manner
as under the old, though it might not be in respect to the other
relation, which is incidental and inferior. But secondly, I do not
consider baptism as by any means intended to be confined to
parents and children. If a Christian takes the children of his
children, or the children of any relative, into a near relation to
himself, and engages to be as a father to them ; it is, in my view,
perfectly suitable that he should consecrate them to God by bap-
tism. And I think the same also in regard to orphans, or any
other children, whom a Christian guardian or master receives into
his family, and undertakes, as sponsor, to bring up in the nurture
and admonition of the Lord. So that the parallel between
circumcision and baptism need not be supposed entirely to fail,
even in regard to those who stand in other relations beside that of
children.
A very careful examination and reexamination of this subject,
has brought me to the conclusion, that the appointment and uni-
form practice of infant circumcision, in connection with the reasons
on which it rested and the circumstances attending it, would natu-
rally lead the apostles, and must lead us, to understand the rite of
baptism as coming generally in the place of circumcision, and as
meant to be applied to infant children. The reasoning which
appertains to this subject mW be exhibited more fully in another
INFANT BAPTISM. 419
place. I might make citations from a multitude of the most
respectable authors, containing statements of this argument in
diiferent forms. But I shall content myself with referring to
Calvin's Institutes, Book 4, ch. 16 ; Dwight's Discourses on
Infant Baptism ; Storr's Bib. Theol. Book 4, § 112, together with
111. 4th of the same section ; and Knapp's Theology, § 142, 2.
Seal of the Covenant.
If we would arrive at satisfactory views on this subject, we must
learn directly from the Scriptures, in what sense the word cove-
nant is there used.
The Greek 8ta&i^xt], like the corresponding Hebrew niia , sig-
nifies, in general, ani/ arrangement, constitution, establishmentf
economy, or plan of proceeding. Schleusner says, notat disposi-
tionem, qualiscumque ea sit ; and generally, omne, quod cum
summa certitudine et fide factum est. The use of the word in
the Septuagint he represents to be the same : Omne, quod cerium
et constitutum est; tvhatever is appointed and made sure; an
established constitution, or plan. It is from this general sense,
that all the particular senses are derived. Thus 8ia&i^xij, appoint-
ment, plan, establishment, is sometimes a Will, or Testament;
sometimes a promise ; sometimes a precept ; sometimes a com-
pact; and sometimes an economy, or method of acting. The
"word signifies one or another of these, as circumstances require.
Thus in Heb. 9: 16, 17, dia&tjiiij must evidently mean a' Testa-
ment, or Will. The writer says, a Testament, dtu&rjxij, is of force
after men are dead, and is of no force while the testator liveth.
Here the word signifies, the arr-angement, or disposition, which a
man directs to be made of his affairs after his decease. In Luke
1: 72, the word denotes the divine promise. Zacharias celebrates
the faithfulness of God in " remembering his holy covenant, the
oath that he swarc to Abraham," referring to the promise of a
Saviour. Hei-e dia&ijy.tj signifies that divine arrangement, ^ylan,
or appointment, respecting a Saviour, wliich was made known in
the way of a promise to Abraham. In Gen. 9: 9 — 18, God
speaks of making a covenant with man, and with the whole ani-
mal creation, and with the earth too, and represents this covenant
420 INFANT BAPTISM.
as between him and them. Many persons understand such a
phrase to denote an agreement or contract, in which two parties
unite, and in the execution of which both parties have an agency.
But this cannot be the meaning of the phrase in the present case ;
for the irrational part of the creation were incapable of having
any agency either in forming or executing such an agreement.
The thing promised was, that the earth should not again he
destroyed hy a deluge. This was G-od''s covenant ; and it was said
to be between God and all the inhabitants of the earth, rational
and irrational, because the thing which God determined and
promised related to them. So that what is here called Q-od's
covenant., was in reality his determination and j^foniise as to the
manner in which he tvould treat man, and beast, and the earth.
The earth and its inhabitants were in no sense a party to this
divine covenant or arrangement, except as they were to be bene-
fited by it. This establishment, or declared purpose of God, had
a seal. " God said, I will set my bow in the cloud, and it shall
be a token of the covenant between me and the earth. '^ The
rainbow was appointed to be a sign of the truth of God's prom-
ise ; a pledge of the certain execution of the purpose he had
declared.
From this case we learn, that a covenant of God may have
respect to those who are incapable of having any agency either in
agreeing to it, or in carrying it into execution. It may respect
the animal creation, day and night, and the earth itself. And if
so, it may surely have respect to infant children. And this is no
more than saying, that God may have a determination, or settled
purpose, as to the manner in which he will treat infant children ;
and that he may make known such a determination by his word.
To such a determination, or settled plan of conduct, the Scriptures
give the name of covenant.
In some passages, dtcid^ijxTj signifies a cominand. It certainly
has this sense when applied to the decalogue ; as Heb. 9: 4. It
has this sense, Acts 7: 8 ; " God gave him the covenant of cir-
cumcision ; " that is, a command to circumcise. I apprehend,
however, that the word has a broader meaning here, and denotes
INFANT BAPTISM. 421
the whole economy, whicli God established in regard to Abraham
and his seed, including precepts, promises, and privileges ; of
which economy circumcision was the sign. And if so, the word
in this place has nearlj^ the same sense as it appears to have in
Gal, 4: 24, where the phrase two covenants, 8vo dia&tjxai, clearly
means, the Mosaic and the Christian economy. So in Ileb.
9: 15, the first covenant doubtless means the 3Iosaic dispensation,
and in v. 20, the blood of the covenant is the blood by which that
divine economy was confirmed. In the same way we must under-
stand the words of Christ when he instituted the Supper : " This
cup is the New Testament in my blood." This ciqj of wine repre-
sents mi/ blood, by lohich the new dispensation or the Christian
covenant is confirmed.
There is hardly any passage in the Bible, where covenant
directly and properly means a compact or agreement between two
parties. But in various instances, it may imply this, or something
like this, by necessary consequence. For when the word diad^xtj,
signifying a divine appointment, precept, or promise, has respect
to moral agents, there must be an obligation on their part to
accede to such appointment, precept, or promise, and to act
according to it. But when the divine covenant, that is, the
divine appointment, or constitution, has respect to things not pos-
sessed of moral agency ; it cannot imply, that they are under any
obligation to conform to it, or that they are in any way parties in
the covenant, except merely that it has a relation to them. The
word covenant, therefore, considered as the translation of diaO-^xtj,
and of the corresponding Hebrew, no more signifies an actual
agreement between two parties, than the word economy, law, or
appointment.
We see, then, that the Scripture sense of the word covenant, is
materially different from the meaning of covenant in common dis-
course, where it denotes a mutual agi-eement. The supposition
that the word, as used in the Common Version of the Bible, has
this signification, must encumber the subject before us with need-
less diflSculties. For if dia&t'ixr], covenant, is understood to mean
an agreement between two parties in relation to the interests of
VOL. III. 36
422 INFANT BAPTISM.
religion ; then there must be two parties capable of such agree-
ment,— capable of engaging in a mutual religious transaction.
God must be one of the parties ; and the other must be intelligent
agents, capable of acting in religious concerns. Infant children
must of course be excluded. Whereas if we duly consider the
nature of a covenant in the Scripture sense, we shall see, that it
may just as well relate to infant children, as to adults. For
surely God may have a determination, may make a promise, may
settle an economy or plan of proceeding, in regard to children, as
well as in regard to men. And such a determination, promise, or
economy, being a matter of great consequence, may with the
utmost propriety, be marked by a religious rite. And a religious
rite, thus introduced, may very justly be considered a seal or eon-
firmation of God's gracious economy. The obvious use of such a
seal is, to keep in lively remembrance the divine determination
and promise ; to impress the minds of parents with the obligations
it imposes on them ; and in due time to be a remembrancer to the
children of the privileges which the God of their fathers has
granted them, and of the gracious economy under which they are
placed ; and in this way, to produce in their minds a becoming
sense of their peculiar obligations, as children of pious parents.
These remarks are sufficient to show, the suitableness of applying
the appointed seal of the divine covenant to children, as well as to
parents. Both parents and children have a deep interest in the
covenant, and its s^al has an obvious and important significance,
whether applied to the former or to the latter.
The Scriptures teach us, that God made a covenant with Abra-
ham and his seed ; that is, that he made known what was Ms
purpose respecting them; that he declared hotv he would treat
them. But what was this purpose of God ? What was to be his
economy, or the course of his administration, towards Abraham
and his seed ? The Scriptures furnish the answer. God said ;
" Thou shalt be a father of many nations. And I will estabhsh
my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in
their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a G-od unto
thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give to thee and to
INFANT BAPTISM. 423
thy seed after thee — all the land of Canaan for an everlasting
possession ; and I ivill he their God^ Such was the dertermin-
ation which God made known ; the economy which he had estab-
lished. This economy involved essential conditions on the part of
Abraham and liis seed. And these conditions, declared in one
way and another, were that they should walk before God, and be
upright and obedient. But the circumstance, that a divine prom-
ise or plan of proceeding is conditional, need not be supposed to
diminish its importance, nor to render it any the less proper that it
should be marked by a religious rite.
Still more specific views of the nature and extent of God's cov-
enant with Abraham and his seed, may be derived from other
declarations of Scripture, and from that conduct of God's prov-
idence, which is the best interpreter of his word. I shall refer
only to one text. Rom. 9: 4. Here, in a very summary way,
the Apostle mentions the pecuUar privileges of the Israelites, and
says, that to them belonged " the adoption, and the glory, and
the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God."
This agrees with the representations, elsewhere made, of the pecu-
liar favors which God bestowed upon that people. He adopted
them as his children. He gave them a holy law, written on tables
of stone, and a great variety of other precepts, moral and ceremo-
nial, suited to their condition. He raised up prophets to teach
and warn them. He displayed his glory in the midst of them ;
made great and precious promises to them, and from time to time,
wrought wonders of power and mercy in their behalf. Thus the
children of Israel were a highly favored people ; and the place
where they dwelt, was a highly favored place. Those who were
born there from generation to generation, were born in propitious
circumstances. They inherited special privileges. It was the
pleasure of God, that they should all be placed under the opera-
tion of a gracious economy ; should be taught by pious parents,
and by consecrated men ; should, from their earhest years, hear
what God had done for their fathers, and what a holy law he had
given them : and should come under those divine influences which,
if cherished, would impart to the various privileges they enjoyed,
424 INFANT BAPTISM.
a saving efficacy. This was God's establisliment respecting Abra-
ham and his seed. This was his chosen method of transmitting
the true rehgion from one generation to another ; of continuing a
church in the world, and of training up his people for heaven. It
was a system of religious education. The children of God's peo-
ple were to be considered from their birth, as consecrated to him ;
and, as soon as they were capable, were to have the doctrines and
precepts of his word inculcated upon them, accompanied with the
pious example and the prayers of parents, and followed by the
promised blessing of God. Children, born under that gracious
economy, were thus, by their very birth, brought into a state
highly auspicious to their present and eternal welfare. The token
of God's covenant, that is, circumcision, was a token of all this
kindness on his part, and of all these privileges, prospects, and
obligations on the part of parents and children.
Now the divine economy under the reigm of Christ is, in all im-
portant respects, the same as it was formerly. Children have the
same relation to their pious parents, and that relation is of equal
importance in the concerns of religion. It is as much the con-
stitution of God, as it was formerly, that religion shall be preserved
in the world, and transmitted from one generation to another,
chiefly through the influence of a pious education. The children
of Christian parents are born into a state as favorable as the chil-
dren of Israelitish parents were : yea much more favorable. It
is as much the will of God, as it was formerly, that they should be
piously consecrated to him, and that they should enjoy a rehgious
education, including all the proper forms of instruction and disci-
pline, and all the accompanying influence of a good example and
of prayer. And it is as much the appointment of God now, as it
ever was, that his blessing shall attend this mode of educating
children, and that in this way generally, persons shall be brought
into the kingdom of Christ. This is the plan of the divine con-
duct now, as much as it ever was. So that in regard to the great
interests of man, the children of believers are now brought, by
their birth, into a state similar to that of the children of God's
people in former times. The only important difference is, that
INFANT BAPTISM. 425
God's establishment, dia&i^xtj, is more merciful now, — is fraught
with higher blessings, than formerly. So that there are all the
reasons, which formerly existed, and some in addition, for ap-
plying to the children of pious parents a religious rite, which is the
appointed token of that gracious economy under which they are
placed.
Thus, when we consider what God's covenant or plan of conduct
respecting children was formerly, and what it is under the reign
of Christ ; we cannot but conclude that it is as reasonable and
proper to apply to them the present seal of the covenant, as it was
iha former. And this view of the subject is, at least, sufficient to
expose the futility of any presumption against Infant Baptism,
and to show that the presumptive arguments are decidedly in its
favor.
The common difficulty which meets us in regard to this reason-
ing is, that the transition from the former economy to the latter
implied a great change.^ and that we cannot reason from the one
to the other.
I readily admit, that a very great change took place, when the
people of God passed from the Mosaic to the Christian economy ;
— a change from obscurity to noonday light ; from a state in which
the Saviour was set forth in promises and symbols, to a state in
which he was presented in all his glory, as actually come, and ful-
ly invested with the office of the Prophet, Priest, and King of the
church; — a change too respecting the place and mode of worship,
the power of the motives which enforce the obligations of religion,
and the extent to w'hich the blessings of salvation were to be dif-
fused. But w^hatever was the nature of the change, and to M'hat-
ever objects it related ; it certanly did not imply any diminution
of privileges to children, and, of course, it could have no influ-
ence to prevent the application to them of the seal of the new
economy.
In many respects, it is perfectly proper to reason from one econ-
omy to the other. Christ and the apostles did reason thus ; and
it would be easy to produce various instances in which this must
be acknowledged by all to be perfectly proper. For example, as
36*
426 INFANT BAPTISM.
it was the duty of men under the former dispensation, to worship
God, and as the worship comprehended confession, thanksgiving
and supplication ; and as it was their duty to love their neighbor
as themselves ; the same must be the case now. But why ? Be-
cause the change which took place had no respect to these sub-
jects. These duties rested on principles common to both dispen-
sations. Just so it is with the duty of consecrating children to
God by a religious rite. This duty rests on the natural and im-
mutable relation between parents and children, and on the general
purpose and promise of God to propagate rehgion and perpetuate
the church, by sanctifying the seed of believers. This was the
divine economy formerly ; and it is so now. It has as much in-
fluence now, as it formerly had. Its importance is above all con-
ception, involving the rehgious character and the eternal destinies
of men. Now the same token of this gracious economy, and of
consecration to God, was formerly applied to parents and to cliil-
dren, and was thus applied for reasons which are common to all
ages. It is plain, therefore, that the difference existing between
the two dispensations cannot affect the subject before us, and that
it is as suitable to apply the token of the Christian economy to
children, as it formerly was to apply to them the token of the
Ahrahamic economy.
This course of reasoning, which is only auxiUary to the main
argument, was introduced for the particular purpose of removing
the difficulties which have frequently been felt in regard to Infant
Baptism, on account of the change from one dispensation to an-
other. This change, which is admitted to have been great and
extensive, could not affect the propriety of consecrating children
to God by a religious rite, for the plain reason, that it did not
affect the principle on which such consecration rests. Though it
affected the/orm of consecration, it did not affect the propriety of
consecrating children ; because the Christian economy, of which
baptism is the seal, as properly relates to children, as that econ-
omy of which circumcision was the seal. Consequently no reason
against Infant Baptism can arise from the difference between the
Christian and the Abrahamic economy.
INFANT BAPTISM. 427
The requisition of faith in order to baptism, may be thought
to be a proof, that the application of baptism was meant to be
more limited, than that of circumcision. But of whom was faith
required in order to baptism ? Of those, evidently, who were
capable of undei-standing the nature of the requisition. The
command to believe could relate to no other. This was so per-
fectly obvious, that no teacher of Christianity could have any
occasion to mention it. This command, or any other command,
coming from a just God, must be understood as relating to those
only, who were capable of complying with it. So that the fact,
stated exactly, was this ; tJiose xvho ivere capable of believing,
that is, adult persons, loere required to believe in order to be bap-
tized. A requisition not unlike this, was made under the former
dispensation. Adult persons, in order to be admitted by circum-
cision into the society of God's people, were required to renounce
idolatry, to believe in the God of Abraham, and to submit to the
institutions and laws which he gave by Moses. Such faith as
this, under the Mosaic economy, answered to the faith which is
required under the Christian economy. The requisition of faith,
then, in order to baptism, has nothing new in it, but this, that the
faith required is to be adapted to the circumstances of the Christian
dispensation ; whereas the faith required before, was to be adapted
to the Mosaic dispensation. Thus, in regard to adult persons,
the case is very similar under both dispensations. How then can
the fact, that Christ required adult persons to believe in order
to be baptized, prove that baptism was to be more limited in its
application than circumcision ?
But it is said, that tlie circumcision of children was expressly
commanded, and that, without this command, no one could have
inferred from the institution of circumcision for adults, that chil-
dren were to be circumcised. I grant, that an express command
may have been necessary at first, to authorize the application of
the seal of the covenant to children. And if baptism had been
the first seal, such a command might have been necessary in re-
lation to this. But the principle having been once established, that
the seal of the covenant is to be applied to children, there can be no
42S INFANT BAPTISM.
occasion for the repetition of a divine command to justify an
adherence to that principle. In respect to circumcision, an ex-
press command Avas given ; because circumcision was the first
rite which was appointed to be the seal of God's covenant. Had
baptism been the first seal, and had Infant Baptism been settled
by divine command, as infant circumcision was ; and had the
practice of God's people been for ages conformed to it ; and had
circumcision been then introduced in the place of baptism, as the
seal of the Christian covenant ; who will say that a new command
would have been necessary to authorize the circumcision of in-
fants ? But, on the other hand, if so great a change was to be
made, as the withholding of the seal of the covenant from the
seed of believers ; such a change would surely require to be
authorized by a new divine command.
If any one still thinks, that Christ's requiring men to believe
and be baptized, implies that infants are not to be baptized, be-
cause they cannot believe ; I ask whether the same mode of
interpreting Scripture would not debar infants from salvation.
"He that beheveth shall be saved, and he that believeth not
shall be condemned, " is the grand principle of the New Testa-
ment. Faith is required in order to salvation as much, certainly,
as in order to baptism. And this requisition furnishes as much
reason for excluding infants from salvation, as for excluding them
from baptism. But all Christians are united in holding, that the
requisition of faith in order to salvation, cannot be applied to chil-
dren. And to be consistent, they must hold, that the requisition
of faith in order to baptism cannot be applied to children. The
requisition most evidently has as much to do with salvation as
with baptism. The two cases then are alike. Christ requires
men to believe, in order to be saved. But when he requires this,
he does not say, that infants are excluded from salvation, because
they cannot believe. So he requires faith in order to baptism. But
he does not say, that infants are excluded from baptism, because
they cannot believe. Thus so far as the requisition of faith is
concerned, there is no more propriety in excluding infants from
baptism, than in excluding them from salvation. And if we admit
INFANT BAPTISM. 429
that, notAvithstanding this requisition of faith, infants may be
saved; we must admit, also, that they may be baptized. The
requisition of faith, which is intended only for adults, proves
nothing one way or the other, as to children. The question of
their being baptized, or saved, must be determined on other
grounds. We ask not whether they believe ; for this they cannot
do ; but, whether there are other reasons for baptizing them, and
other reasons for thinking they may be saved.
The same principle may be satisfactorily illustrated by 2 Thess.
3: 10. The Apostle says ; " This we commanded, that if any one
would not work, neither should he eat. " But who ever under-
stood this command as relating to children ?
The command to believe and be baptized, which has now been
considered, is the most plausible argument ever advanced against
Infant Baptism. And, if I mistake not, our opponents rely upon
it more than upon any other. But they ought well to consider,
that the mode of reasoning which they adopt, would exclude all
infants from salvation. And they certainly have good reason to
pause, before they admit the conclusiveness of an argument, which
would lead to such fearful consequences.
The import of Infant Baptism may be understood from the pre-
ceding discussion. Circumcision was the seal of God's covenant
with Abraham and his offspring ; that is, of his gracious design and
promise respecting them. This design and promise was, in brief,
that he would be their God. Circumcision signified, that such was
the promise of God, — such the plan of administration he had fixed
upon towards Abraham and his seed. And it manifestly imphed,
that there were obligations on their part, to love, worship and obey
him, who promised to be their God. Thus it was a seal of God's
promise to them, and of their obligations to him. But it was never
intended to signify, that all to whom it was applied, were actually,
at the time, intelligent worshippers and servants of God. In
regard to infant children, this was impossible. But the rite did
signify, that, in process of time, they would be under high obliga-
tions to worship and serve God, and that he would pursue a course
430 INFANT BAPTISM.
of conduct towards them, which would be suited to influence them
to this. As to those, who had attained to mature understandinc',
and were voluntary in receiving the rite of circumcision, it signi-
fied their readiness to accept the good promised, and to perform
the duties required. In them it was an indication of right feel-
ing ; a profession of piety. But it became so, not as the direct
and necessary import of the rite, but from their voluntary agency
in its application. So far as circumcision was concerned, this
view of the subject must be admitted by all to be correct. And
why not in regard to baptism ? The divine economy, though
circumstantially different, is the same in substance now, as before
the coming of Christ, — the same, most evidently, so far as re-
lates to the connection between parents and children and the high
interests which that connection involves. When this Christian
rite is apphed to believers^ it is a seal of the new dispensation
towards them. And it signifies their consent to this economy ;
their belief of its truths, and their readiness to receive its bless-
ings, and comply with its obligations. But it comes to signify
this, and so to be a profession of piety, not as the direct and
necessary import of baptism, but from the fact, that it is applied
to those, who have a voluntary agency in receiving it. Its gen-
eral import, as a token of God's gracious economy, is as consistent
with its being apphed to children, as to men. Its particular im-
port varies with the state and circumstances of those to whom it
is applied.
Baptism by water may always be considered as signifying, that
those, to whom it is applied, are the subjects of moral pollution,
and need that spiritual cleansing, or purification from sin, which
is effected by the Holy Spirit through the blood of Christ. When
adult believers receive baptism themselves, they hereby express
their behef, that they are by nature polluted with sin, and must
be sanctified by the Spirit of God in order to be admitted into
heaven ; and they express their desire for such sanctification, and
their determination to seek after it, in the diligent use of all
appointed means. When we present our infant children for bap-
tism, we express our belief, that they are the subjects of moral
INFANT BAPTISM. 431
pollution, and must be born of the Spirit in order to be admitted
into the kingdom of heaven ; and we express our earnest desire
that they may experience this spiritual renovation, and our solemn
detei-mination to labor to promote it by fei-vent prayer to God,
and by faithful attention to all the duties of Christian parents.
This seems to me a perfectly natural and satisfactory view of what
is signified by the baptism of children. The use of water in this
Christian rite is indeed a token of spiritual cleansing ; not always
however as a thing actually accomplished, but as a thing which
is absolutely necessary. Whether we are concerned in the bap-
tism of children as ministers of the gospel, or as members of
the church, we do, by this public token, express our belief, that
spiritual purification is indispensably necessary for the children
who are baptized, and our determination and engagement to do
whatever belongs to us, for the accomplishment of that important
end. And it is of great consequence to the interests of religion,
that this ob^dous import of Infant Baptism should be often set
forth, and that the obligations of parents and churches should be
often explained and inculcated, especially at the time of the
baptism.
" Infant baptism contains a constant memorial of original sin.
— Of the corruption of our nature being not merely contracted
but inherent. And this doctrine of original corruption, of which
Infant Baptism is a standing practical recognition, is one of funda-
mental importance ; one, I am satisfied, to inadequate conceptions
and impressions of which may be traced all the principal perver-
sions of the gospel. In proportion to its relative importance in
the system of Divine truth, is it of consequence that it should
not be allowed to slip out of mind. The baptism of every child
brings it to view, and impresses it. If in any case it should be
otherwise, the fault is not in the ordinance, but in the power of
custom, and in the stupidity and carelessness of spectators, of
parents, of ministers. It teaches, very simply, but very signifi-
cantly, that, even from the womb, children are the subjects of
pollution ; that they stand in need of purification from the
inherent depravity of their nature, in order to their entering
heaven."
432 INFANT BAPTISM.
" Whilst Infant Baptism reminds us of the humbhng doctrine
of original depravity, it brings before our minds a truth of a dif-
ferent kind, — eminently cheering and encouraging, — namely,
that little children are not incapable of being subjects of the
spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ, and participating in its bless-
ings. I need not set about proving this ; because their capability
is granted by Baptists themselves." *
Offering up our children in baptism, according to the Christian
formula, implies an open and solemn profession that we ourselves
receive, with cordial faith, what the Scriptures reveal respecting
God, and that we dedicate our children to him, as Father, Son
and Holy Spirit, with earnest desires that he would be their Gx)d,
their Redeemer, and their Sanctifier.
The utility of positive institutions consists, generally, in the
moral influence they exert upon us ; in their adaptedness to pro-
mote good affections, and to excite us to the diligent performance
of duty. Now there is no institution of religion, which is more
evidently suited to have a salutary influence, than this. When
we consecrate our children to God in baptism, we have our eyes
turned directly to that glorious Being, to whom we and our off-
spring belong, and we are made to feel the perfect reasonableness
of such a consecration. We look to God's holy and merciful
economy, of which baptism is the appointed token, and are im-
pressed with the divine condescension and goodness manifested in
it, and the invaluable blessings resulting from it. The transaction
is public, and on this account is likely to excite in us a more
constant recollection of the sacred obligations which bind us as
parents, and greater diligence in performing the duties we owe
to our children.
For the truth of these remarks, I make my appeal to thousands
of pious parents. They well know how their hearts have been
affected with the love of God, and the interests of the soul, while
they have been engaged in consecrating their children to God in
baptism ; how earnestly they have longed and prayed for their
* Wardlaw's Dessertation.
INFANT BAPTISM. 433
salvation ; what resolutions they have made to bring them up in
the nurture and admonition of the Lord ; and how sensible the
efifect of this transaction has been upon them afterwards. The
view they have taken of God's gracious promises and administra-
tion proves a mighty encouragement to earnest endeavors and
prayers for the good of their children. If, for a time, their en-
deavors and prayers seem to have little or no effect ; still they
are not disheartened. They look upon their children, as having
been placed under that gracious economy, in which God says to
them, I will be your Gfod and the God of your seed. They re-
member with what glorious success he has crowned the persevering
endeavors of pious parents, and how frequently he has done this,
after many years have passed away in sorrowful disappointment.
Their confidence in the merciful covenant of God, which has been
sealed to them and their children by the sacred rite of baptism,
bears them above discouragement, and inspires a cheering, stead-
fast hope of the salvation of their offspring. Now it is evident,
that all the effect which this public and sacred rite produces upon
pious parents ; this deep impression of their obligations ; this ex-
citement of their good affections ; their faithful endeavors, and
their fervent, persevering prayers, turn directly to the benefit of
their children. We are not to look at the mere baptism of a little
child, and to confine our thoughts to the act itself, or to the
present effect of it upon the child. We must view this transaction
in all its relations and consequences. We must consider, that the
child is a rational, immortal being, just entered on his probationary
state ; that his eternal happiness depends on the formation of a
virtuous and holy character ; and that his character depends, in
a great measure, on the circumstances in which he is placed, and
the moral causes which act upon him, in the first periods of his
existence. We must then consider that the child, who is baptized
in a manner correspondent with the spirit of the institution, is,
at the very commencement of his being, brought into circum-
stances highly auspicious ; that he is placed under a divine econ-
omy, which secures to him the affections and prayers of parents
and other Christians, and which distils upon childhood and youth
VOL. ni. 37
434 INFANT BAPTISM.
the dews of divine grace. He is brought into a near connection
with the church. He is placed in the school of Christ, where
he is to receive faithful instruction and discipline, and to be
trained to holy worship and obedience. The child, who is offered
up in baptism by devout parents and a devout church, is placed
in these circumstances, and is entitled to these privileges ; the
substance of which is, a faithful, Christian education, accompanied
with prayer and the divine blessing. All this is signified by bap-
tism. The design of the transaction evidently is, to produce a
moral effect upon parents and children ; upon parents directly,
and upon children as a consequence.
It would avail little to say, in the way of objection, that parents
would be under all these obligations, and would have suflScient
motives to faithfulness, without such an ordinance as baptism.
The obvious design of baptism is, to cause these obligations to
be felt more deeply and constantly, than they would otherwise
be, and to give greater efficacy to these motives, than they would
otherwise have. The influence of public rites and observances
has been acknowledged in all ages, both in civil and rehgious cou-
cerns. In our own country, and in other countries, they are kept
up, in order to perpetuate the principles of civil government.
Among the Israelites, they were established for the purpose of
giving to one generation after another, a knowledge and a lively
impression of the principles and laws of their religion. The hu-
man mind is so constituted, that it is very doubtful whether the
truths of rehgion could be inculcated and impressed with the ne-
cessary efficacy, without the help of public rites and observances.
The utility of the Lord's Supper, which is generally acknowledged
to be great, rests on the very same principle, as that which gives
importance to Infant Baptism. Thus it was also with the utihty
of the passover and circumcision. And we may as well say, that
the principles of religion might have been effectually taught and
impressed, and transmitted from one generation to another among
the posterity of Abraham, without the passover or circumcision,
or any of their sacred rites ; and that the principles of the Chris-
tian religion might be effectually taught and impressed, and its
INFANT BAPTISM. 435
motives rendered sufficiently powerful, without the Lord's Supper,
as to say that the influence of Infant Baptism is unnecessary, and
that parents will be as likely to feel their obligations and attend
to their duties without it, as with it. The experience of the whole
world is in favor of visible signs and tokens, of public rites and
observances. The human mind requires them, as means of incul-
cating moral and religious truth. To undervalue them would be
a discredit to our understanding ; and to neglect them, an injury
to our moral feelings.
But suffer mc here to say, that the utility of Infant Baptism
cannot be measured, by the influence which it has actually exerted
upon the generality of Christians. For what sacred institution,
and what divine truth, has not fallen short of the influence which
it ought to have upon the conduct of men ? The question is,
■what effect is Infant Baptism designed and adapted to produce ?
What has been its influence upon those parents, whose minds have
been in the best state ; whose parental affection has been most
highly sanctified, and whose piety, most active ? And what will
be its influence, when the great body of Christians shall come to
be fully awake to the interests of religion, and shall make it the
constant object of their sohcitude and labors and prayers, that
their offspring from one generation to another, may become chil-
dren of God and heirs of the kingdom of heaven ? The value
of this sacred rite taken in connection with the divine economy
of which it is the sign, and with the obligations of parents and
churches Avhich it is intended to enforce, cannot be perfectly
known, before the present low state of rehgious feeling among
Christians shall give place to a more elevated piety, and to more
constant and more faithful exertion to promote the welfare of the
rising generation. In my apprehension, it is chiefly to be attrib-
uted to the unfaithfulness of parents and churches, and their
faiUng to act according to the spirit of this divine ordinance,
that it has so far fallen into disrepute, and that any can feel
themselves justified in saying, it is of no use.
There is still another way, in w^hich children may experience
the salutary effect of baptism. When they come to adult years
436 INFANT BAPTISM.
they may be induced to attend to the duties of reHgion, by means
of the baptism -which they received in infancy. As soon as a
child of ours becomes capable of being influenced by rational
considerations ; we may address him in such a manner as this : In
your infancy, we devoted you to the service of your Creator and
Redeemer; and we put iqjon you the mark of discipleship,the
mark of that gracious economy under which you were j^lcic^d hy
your birth. In that transaction, ive hound ourselves to bring yoit
U'p for Grod, and to seek diligently your eternal happiness. As
you are now come to years of understanding, you are bound to
devote yourself to God, and by your own act, to confirm what your
parents did for you in your infancy. The child may be taught^
that there is nothing so conducive to his highest interest, as for
him to choose the God of his parents for his God. It may be
inculcated upon him, that, by neglecting his soul, and living in
sin, he will be guilty of casting contempt on the pious solicitude,
the exertions and prayers of his parents ; on the sacred ordinance
by which he was consecrated to the service of Christ, and on all
the obligations laid upon him, and all the privileges secured to
him, by such an early consecration. If a youth, who was devoted
to God by baptism in infancy, possesses even an ordinary degree
of moral sensibility ; considerations like these must produce a
powerful effect upon him, and, through the divine blessing, may
prove the means of his salvation.
The view which I have taken of this subject is, you perceive,
very different from that which was entertained by some of the
early Christian fathers, and by the Roman Catholic church.
They attribute to baptism itself an inherent saving efficacy. They
suppose that it directly conveys grace and salvation to the soul,
and that, without it, no one can be saved. But I have repre-
sented the utility and efficacy of Infant Baptism, as consisting
primarily in the influence it has upon the feelings and conduct of
parents ; and then, secondarily, in the effect which parental in-
struction, example and prayer, with the divine blessing, produce
upon children. This effect I have considered as resulting from
God's gracious economy ; that is, his appointment and promise.
INFANT BAPTISM. 437
And I have referred and always would refer to facts which occur
in the course of divine providence, as proof of the correctness of
these representations. These facts are striking and momentous,
and deserve to be contemplated again and again with the liveliest
interest. Behold the mighty influence of parental character and
instruction ! How is it that pagan idolatry, Jewish infidelity, and
the violent superstition of Mohammed are continued in the world,
and transmitted from one generation to another ? What is it which
leads us to expect, that according to the common course of events,
the children of paga,ns will be pagans, and that the children of Mo-
hammedans will be Mohammedans, and the children of Jews, Jews ?
It is the general principle, that the character of children is formed
by parental influence. And is not this as true in regard to Chris-
tians, as in regard to any other class of men ? In ordinary cases,
the children of faithful Christian parents will be Christians ; and
they will become so, by means of the influence which their parents
exert upon them. Such is the divine economy. That cliildren
are placed under it is signified by baptism. And the apphcation
of baptism to children is a suitable expression of the piety of
parents, and of their love to the souls of their ofispring, and is a
powerful means of exciting them to recollect and feel their obli-
gations, and to be active and persevering in the performance of
parental duties. And when the piety and diligence of parents
shall rise to a proper height, and they shall address themselves
to the duties, which they owe to their children, with united zeal
and prayer ; the true import of Infant Baptism will be more fully
understood, and its utility acknowledged with more fervent grat-
itude to God.
Relation of baptized cJdldren to the church.
This relation of children to the church is generally represented
by the most respectable authors as infant member ship. In a very
important, though in a qualified sense, baptized children are to
be considered as members of the Christian church ; just as for-
merly the children of the Priest were members of the Priesthood;
and as now, all children that are born here are considered as
members of our civil community, entitled to enjoy, as far as they
37*
438 INFANT BAPTISM.
are capable, the benefits of society, and in clue time to become
complete and active members. But we cannot regard infant chil-
dren as members of the church in the full and complete sense
in which adult believers are members ; for of this thej are mani-
festlj incapable. Nor can it be impHed, that baptized chil-
dren can ever become members of the chui-ch in this complete
sense, on any lower terms, than those which are prescribed for
others. They can sustain this high relation only on the condition
of their exhibiting the character of Christian piety. Still it is
clear that baptized children are placed in a real and very endear-
ing relation to the church. And although they are not at present
capable of being members in the full and active sense ; they are
evidently capable even now of enjoying some of the previous
benefits resulting from their condition as children of the church ;
and they will be more and more capable of enjoying these ben-
efits as they advance in age ; and at length, unless their own
impenitence and wickedness prevent, they will become complete
and active members of the church. Such is the design of the
economy under which they are placed ; such the end of their
being consecrated to God, and placed in the school of the church.
And we may hope that, through divine mercy, this will ordinarily
be the happy result.
To avoid as far as may be the difficulties which attend this
subject, we must consider the relation of baptized children to the
church to be such, and only such, as they are capable of sus-
taining. At first, they are merely children of the church; that
is, children of those who are members of the church. The priv-
ileges which belong to them at this period are chiefly prospective.
After they become capable of receiving instruction, they stand
in the relation of catechumens, — young persons who are in a
course of discipline and training for the service of Christ. Here
the advantages of their condition begin to appear. As children
consecrated to God, they are brought under a system of means
suited in the highest degree to promote their salvation. If through
the divine blessing these means prove eiFectual, they become de-
voted servants of Christ, and complete members in due form of
INFANT BAPTISM. 439
his spiritual kingdom ; that is ; they come to be just what it was
intended in their baptism that they should be. Thus the relation of
baptized children to the church is not an imaginary or unin-
telligible relation, but one which is real and obvious, and which
secures to them the privileges of that gracious dispensation under
which they are placed, and gives them a special prospect of
obtaining its spiritual and eternal blessings.
The views I have advanced are in accordance with the belief of
the Puritan churches of New England from the beginning. I shall
select a few passages from the works of the earlier and later Pu-
ritans to show this. In 1643 the elders of the several churches
of New England spoke thus ; " Infants with us are admitted
members in and with their parents, so as to be admitted to all
church privileges of which infants are capable ^ They add ;
" We fully approve the practice of the reform churches, among
whom it is the manner to admit children, baptized in their infancy,
to the Lord's table, by public profession of their faith and en-
tering into covenant." The same is asserted in the Cambridge
Platform. — "The like trial," that is, a trial of their Christian
character, "is to be required from such members of the church
as were born in the same, or received their membership and were
baptized in their infancy or minority, — -when being grown up
unto years of discretion, they shall desire to be made partakers
of the Lord's Supper ; unto which, because holy things must not
be given to the unworthy, therefore it is requisite that these as
well as others should come to their trial and examination and
manifest their faith and repentance by an open profession thereof,
before they are admitted to the Lord's Supper ; and otherwise not
to be admitted. Yet these church members that were so bom,
or received in their childhood, before they are capable of being
made partakers of the communion, have many privileges which
others have not ; they are in covenant with God, and have the
seal thereof upon them, namely, baptism ; and so if not regen-
erated, yet are in a more hopeful way of attaining regenerating
grace, and all the spiritual blessings both of the covenant and
the seal ; they are also under church watch, and consequently
440 INFANT BAPTISM.
subject to the reprehensions, admonitions and censures thereof,
for their heahng and amendment as need shall require."
Shepard of Cambridge says ; " Hereby God gives parents some
comfortable hope of their children's salvation, because they are
•within the pale of the visible church. '" And he thinks pious
parents have no reason to doubt that God will save their children,
if they die in infancy, or that he will do them good if they live.
The Synod of 1662 also held that the children of believers are
members of the visible church ; but that they are " not to be
admitted to full communion without such further qualifications
as the word of God requires." Edwards considered baptized
children to be truly members of the church, but not in complete
standing, unless they become by profession and in the judgment
of the church godly or gracious persons.
It was then the general belief of the early Puritans of New
England, and is now the general belief of Congregationalists and
Presbyterians, that baptized children are really, in a qualified
sense, members of the church, but that they are not to be
considered as complete and active members, entitled to full com-
munion and to baptism for their ofispring, before they give evidence
that they possess repentance for sin and faith in Jesus Christ.
Duties of parents and the church towards baptized children.
On this subject, which is of the highest practical importance,
my remarks must be very summary.
When we dedicate our infant children to God in baptism, we
should consider them as rational and moral beings just commen-
cing an endless existence. Instead of confining our thoughts to
their bodily wants and their earthly interests, we should direct
our attention chiefly to the worth of their immortal souls, to the
state of moral degeneracy and ruin into which they are brought
by their natural birth, and to the grace of God which has pro-
vided deliverance and salvation for them ; and then we should
draw near to the God of mercy with strong desire and fervent
prayer, beseeching him that these dear children, who are destined
to live forever in heaven, or in hell, may inherit the blessings of
the everlasting covenant ; and that in the morning of their exis-
INFANT BAPTISM. 441
tence, they may be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. In this solemn
transaction we should consecrate ourselves anew to the service
of God, and resolve humbly, but firmly, to be faithful to our
children.
The general duty of parents and of the church, is the same ;
namely ; such a course of pious instruction and discipline, such
an example of holiness, and such fervent prayer both in public
and private, as are suited to promote the salvation of the rising
age, and to transmit the Christian religion, with all its institutions
and blessings to future generations. This duty belongs primarily
to parents. And the church is to seek the good of -the children
chiefly through the faithfulness and piety of the parents. In
every thing which is important to the children, the parents are
to take the lead. But their pious efforts are to be encouraged
and sustained by the whole body of Christians with whom they
are associated. These are all under obhgation to cherish a hvely
interest in baptized children, and with unwearied diligence to
labor for their good ; always looking to God for those spiritual
blessings which result from his gracious covenant.
It is impossible for me, m this place, to give a particular enu-
meration of the methods, which ought to be pursued by parents
and by the church, for the welfare of children. I shall only say,
that our benevolent efforts are to be made in various ways, and
to be continued so long as there is any hope of success. And
why should we abandon such a hope, while the life of our children
continues ?
On the question, whether the church ought in any case, to
cut off those, who give evidence of determined impiety, by a
public act, there have been various opinions. That view of the sub-
ject which I have found the most satisfactory, is briefly as follows.
The church is to join with parents in administering instruction,
admonition and warning to children and youth in the most
discreet, affectionate, and faithful manner ; and to do this per-
severingly. In judging of the reasons which ought to encourage
us to exertion, we are not to attend chiefly to present appear-
ances J but are to consider the forbearance and long suffering of
442 INFANT BAPTISM.
God, and the multiplied instances in which his grace has visited
those who had long lived in sin, and who, in human apprehension,
had been fitted for destruction. And if those who have been
devoted to God in baptism, wander far and long from the path
of dutj, and show fearful symptoms of obduracy ; we are not
quickly to despair of their salvation, but are to follow them with
every effort which the sincerest love can dictate. And when no
other effort seems to promise any good, we are to abound in prayer,
relying on the infinite grace of God, and earnestly hoping that
our prayers will prevail, and that our children will at length be
persuaded to consider their ways and turn to the Lord.
It is, in my view, utterly inexpedient to attempt to fix upon
any particular age, at which those who were baptized in infancy,
and who exhibit no evidence of piety, are to be abandoned by
the church, as those for whom no further efforts ought to be made.
For suppose you fix upon the age of eighteen, or twenty, or
twenty-one : who can be sure that a youth at that age, though
without any evidence of regeneration, may not be in a state of
mind, which is more susceptible of good impressions, and which
affords more hope of salvation, than at any period of his life
before ? Now if any person should be in this state, and the
church should adopt a principle hke what I have referred to ;
they must forthwith exclude such a person from all the advan-
tages of their Christian friendship ; and they must do this at the
very time, when those advantages would be most highly prized.
How directly would such a principle oppose all the feelings of
Christian benevolence and compassion ! And what havoc would
it make of the interests of the soul !
To conclude. The day of Zion's glory draws near. And when
that happy day arrives, a clearer light will shine upon the minds
of God's people, as to the principles and rites of Christianity.
The duties of parents to their children will be more cori*ectly
understood, and more diligently and successfully performed. Di-
vision and strife will cease ; and those who love the Lord Jesus
Christ will be of one mind. The shortest and best way, there-
fore, to solve our doubts, and settle our differences, is, to labor
INFANT BAPTISM. 443
unitedly and earnestly to hasten the arrival of that blessed day,
when a brighter sun will arise upon the church and chase away
all the shades of night. Then Christians, having a more perfect
illumination, and being united in judgment and feeling, will more
justly prize the blessings of the Christian economy, and will
combine their prayers and efforts to transmit those blessings from
one generation to another, and to promote the increasing and per-
petual prosperity of the Redeemer's kingdom.
LECTURE CXVIII.
FORM OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. CLOSING REMARKS.
The subject of Infant Baptism has no necessary connection with
the mode of Baptism. Christians who baptize by immersion, as
well as those who baptize in other ways, may apply baptism to in-
fants, and in numberless instances have done it. While, on the
other hand, those who administer baptism by sprinkling, as well as
those who use immersion, may confine it to believers. If we were
now convinced, that immersion is the only proper mode, it would
make no difference in our beUef, as to the duty of Infant Baptism.
In this Lecture, I propose to suggest, under two propositions,
the principal thoughts which have occurred to me on the manner
of performing this rite.
First. It cannot he certainly determined from the New Testa-
ment, that baptism was administered hy immersion.
What declaration is there in the New Testament, that every
one who was baptized was completely immersed in water ? And
what command is there of Christ or his apostles, expressly re-
quiring that Christians should be baptized by total immersion ?
The manner of various purifications and other rites, under the
Mosaic economy, was exactly described; and thus it was made
evident, that God would have those rites executed in 07ie ptrecise
form. But the particular manner of administering baptism is no-
where described.
It cannot be certainly determined, that total immersion was the
only mode of baptism from the signification of ^ami^m, and the
nouns derived from it.
INFANT BAPTISM. 445
Though it might be supposed that ^annXm, being a derivative
from ^dnro), would have a less definite and forcible meaning than the
original ; thej seem to be often used in the same sense. But a
total immersion is not necessarily signified by either. This is
perfectly evident from the New Testament. First, as to ^dmm,
Matt. 26: 23. " He that dipijeth Ms hand with me in the dish ;"
ifi^d^pag—TTjv x^^Qa- Mark has it, 6 ifi^amofievog, " he that dip-
peth with me in the dish." No>v whatever liquid the dish con-
tained, it cannot be supposed, that Judas plunged his hand all
over in that liquid. Nothing more can be meant, than that he
took the bitter herbs which were eaten at the Passover, or other
articles of food, and with his fingers dipped them in the sauce
prepared. And yet it is said by Matthew, that Judas di2)ped his
hand, and by Mark, that he himself dipped in the dish. And as
to ^aTitiZco, baptize ; — the word does indeed signify to immerse
or dip in water ; but it also signifies to wash, and to wash in
diflferent ways. It is said, 1 Cor. 10: 2, that the Israelites were
all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." This does
not mean that they were plunged or immersed in the cloud or the
sea — for they went through " on dry ground." The most that
can be intended by the expression is, that they were sprinkled
or wet from the cloud or from the spray of the sea as they passed
through. The Apostle however had a moral or spiritual meaning,
as I shall notice soon. " Divers washings " are mentioned Heb. 9:
10. The original is diacpoQoig ^anxiaiiolg, divers baptisms. These
were not all performed in one way ; and certainly not by immer-
sion. The adjectvie Sidcpogog signifies different, of various kinds,
dissimilar; as in Rom. 12: 6. The divers baptisms or ablutions,
mentioned Heb. 9: 10, doubtless included all the different ablutions,
or ceremonial cleansings prescribed in the Mosaic law. These
were performed in different ways, but chiefly by sprinkling con-
secrated water. The word ^anriaiiog, baptism, is used with great
latitude of signification in Mark 7: 4. The Evangelist says, the
Pharisees hold many other usages, " as the baptism of cups, and
pots, and brazen vessels, and beds or couches.''^ The common
version has tables. But the word ulivii uniformly signifies a couch
VOL. ni. 38
446 INFANT BAPTISM.
to sleep on, or to recline upon at meals. Now the haptism, or
ceremonial purification of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and
couches, were doubtless performed in different ways. Cups and
pots and brazen vessels might possibly be imviersed all over in
water ; though this is not probable. But to suppose that hed^, or
couches, were immersed in the same way would be unreasonable,
especially since one of the prescribed modes of ceremonial purifi-
cation, and indeed the most common mode, was, the sprinkling of
consecrated ivater.
Since then it appears, that ^anriaiiog, haptism, when used to
denote ceremonial purification, did not by any means signify im-
mersion exclusively, and generally signified other modes of puri-
fication ; why should we suppose that the Avord ^ajiTi^co, always
signifies to immerse when used to denote a Christian rite ? If bap-
tism was performed in different ways under the former dispensation ;
how can we determine, merely from the use of the word, that it is
not to be performed in different ways under the present dispen-
sation ? What is there in the Christian religion which would pre-
vent a word from being used with as much latitude of signification,
as it was under the Mosaic economy ?
And even if ^anri^a always signified to dip or immerse all over
in water, when applied to other subjects, — which is not the case,
— it would by no means follow that it has this signification, when
applied to the Christian rite of haptism. There may be suificient
reasons, why a religious rite, though denoted by a word in common
use, should not be performed in a manner exactly in conformity
with the common signification of that word. This we well know is
the case with the word which denotes the other Christian ordi-
nance. The word Suprper in English, and Snnvov in Greek, have
a very different sense when applied to that institution, from what
they have in ordinary cases. Eating a morsel of hread does not
constitute a sujyper, a prrincipal meal, although this last is the
common signification of dslnvov. But in this reHgious rite, eating
a small morsel of hread is called a Supper. 1 Cor. 11: 20. And
the Apostle charged the Corinthians with abusing the ordinance,
because they made use of more food, than the design of the ordi-
INFANT BAPTISM. 447
nance required. Now if the word which denotes one Christian
rite, has a sense so widely different from its usual sense ; why
may it not be so with the word, which denotes the other Christian
rite ? As demvov, in reference to one rite, signifies not a usual
meal, but onl}' a very small quantity of bread; why may not
^anTiXoo, in reference to the other rite, signify, not a complete
dipping or washing, but the application of water in a small degree ?
This would present the two institutions in the same light. In the
first ; as bread and wine are used, not to nourish and invigorate
the body, but, as mere symbols, for spiritual purposes, or, as signs
of spiritual blessings ; a very small quantity is sufficient. Indeed
the Apostle decides, that a small quantity is better suited to the
ends of the institution, than a larger quantity. So in the other ;
as water is used, not to cleanse the body, but merely as a sign of
spiritual purification, a small quantity of water is sufficient ; — as
sufficient for the purposes of this ordinance, as a small quantity of
bread and wine is for the purposes of the other. The nourishment
of the body in the one case, and the cleansing of it in the other,
being no part of the end to be answered ; a large quantity either
of bread or of water can be of no use.
I shall now endeavor to show, that the circumstances, which at-
tended the several instances of baptism recorded in the New Tes-
tament, do not prove that immersion is either the only mode, or the
most proper and scriptural mode.
The circumstance mentioned John 3: 23, does not prove this.
" John was baptizing in iEnon, because there was much tvater
there.^^ In such a country as Palestine, John found it of special
importance, (as any Christian missionary would at the present
day,) to collect the multitude of people who resorted to him for
instruction and baptism, in a place, where there was an abundant
supply of water. This he knew to bo necessary for their accom-
modation, and even their comfortable subsistence. So that there
is not the least need of supposing, that tlie mention of much water,
or many springs or streams of water, v8aza nolld, had any refer-
ence to the particular mode of baptism. Whatever the mode
might have been, a large supply of water was indispensable to
448 INFANT BAPTISM.
such a concourse of people ; and such a supply could be obtained
in only a few places in that country. And who can suppose the
"waters of JEnon were resorted to for the simple purpose of hap-
tizing, when three thousand Avere, in one day, baptized by the
apostles even at Jerusalem, in the driest season of the year ?
That total immersion was the mode of baptism cannot be proved
from the circumstance mentioned Matt. 8: 16, that Jesus, when
he was baptized of John in the river Jordan, went up straightivay
out of the water. The preposition dno generally signifies from.
" He went up from the water ; " — an expression perfectly natu-
ral and proper, on supposition that he had only gone into the river
•where the water was a few inches deep, or that he had gone
merely to the edge of the river, without stepping into the water at
all. It will be kept in mind, that the river Jordan had banks of
considerable height above the water, except when it was so swollen
by the melted snows of Antihbanus, as to fill its upper channel.
Of course, Jesus must have ascended, or gone up an ascent, when
he left the w^ater, whether he had been in the water so as to be
immersed, or had been only to the margin of the water.
The same remarks may be made respecting the baptism of the
Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 8: 38. " They went down into the water,
both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when
they were come up out of the water, etc." Every one acquainted
with the Greek language knows, that the passage may be just as
well rendered, " they descended to the water, and ascended fronC
it." Besides, it has often been remarked that, as it is said of both
Philip and the eunuch, " they went do^vn into the water ; " the
mere circumstance of going into the water no more proves that the
eunuch was immersed, than it proves that Philip was.
It was evident then the argument above mentioned in favor of
immersion from the baptism of Jesus and of the Ethiopian eunuch,
vanishes on the slightest examination, being founded on the mere
sound of the words in the Common Version.
The circumstances attending the baptism of the jailer equally
fail of proving that he was baptized by immersion. Acts 16: 19
—39.
INFANT BAPTISM. 449
In the first place, he was baptized in the night. Secondly ; he
was evidently baptized in the outer prison. Paul and Silas were
thrust into the inner prison or dungeon. After the earthquake,
the jailer brought them out ; that is, out of the dungeon, but
clearly, not out of the limits of the prison. There Paul taught
him and his household ; and there, in all probabiUty, he baptized
them. Thirdly ; after the jailer professed to believe, he was bap-
tized immediately. These three circumstances, namely, his being
baptized at such a time, in such a place, and irnmediately after
professing to believe, are very far from proving that immersion
was the mode of baptism. They rather prove the contrary. — If
any one should say, there was probably a stream or fountain of
water in the prison, or a bath filled with water, sufficient for bap-
tizing by immersion ; I would merely ask, what evidence he finds
of this in the New Testament ?
Nor can it be proved that immersion was the mode of baptism
from the account given, Acts x, of the baptism of those who were
converted at the house of Cornehus.
After Peter had preached, and the gentiles believed, and re-
ceived the Holy Ghost ; Peter said : " Can any ma^nforUd water
that these should not be baptized ?" It is most natural to under-
stand this to mean, can any man forbid water to be brought ? It
is far less natural to understand it to mean, can any man forbid
us to go out to a river or fountain of water? How can this
account be thought by any one to favor the idea of baptizing by
immersion ?
And what evidence of this mode of baptizing can be derived
from the baptism of the three thousand converts, as related in
Acts ii. The place of those numerous baptisms was not by the
river Jordan, nor at ^non where there was much water, but at
Jerusalem. It was too on the day of Pentecost, which was about
the twentieth of May. At that season, which was summer at
Jerusalem, there was no rain. The brook Kidron was doubtless
dry. And there was no natural fountain of water in Jerusalem,
or near it, except the pool of Siloam, or Siloah. This is " the
only fountain, whose waters gladdened the city." Such ha\'ing
38*
450 INFANT BAPTISM.
been tlie circumstances of the case, is there no difficulty in sup-
loosing, that the apostles found places where they could baptize
three thousand in one day by immersion ? All the apostles were
undoubtedly engaged in baptizing at the same time. Had they
baptized by immersion, they must probably have made use of sepa-
rate tanks, cisterns, or bathing places in private houses. But is
there no difficulty in supposmg that they divided themselves into
so many different companies for the purpose of administering the
rite of baptism ? And is there no difficulty in supposing that they
had access to so many bathing places? These doubtless were
confined to the houses of the more wealthy ; among whom few
could at any time be found at Jerusalem, who were disposed in
any way to befriend the cause of Christ. And what intimation is
there, that the apostles made use of such bathing places for the
purpose of baptizing the three thousand converts ? And what
reason have we to suppose, that such a multitude, who were sud-
denly collected from various regions, and who, we must presume,
were generally poor, had such changes of raiment, as would have
been necessary for baptizing by immersion ?
But there is still another difficulty. It appears exceedingly
improbable, that the apostles could have baptized such a number
by immersion in so short a time. Before they began to baptize,
all the other business mentioned in the narrative had been accom-
plished. The apostles had met together in one place. The Holy
Spirit had been poured out upon them ; so that they declared the
wonderful works of God to people of many different countries, in
their own languages. The powerful effects produced by their
preaching had been noticed. Heavy accusations had been brought
against them. Peter had undertaken their defence, and had rea-
soned with them largely from the holy Scriptures. Multitudes had
been pricked in their hearts, and inquired what they should do to
be saved. Peter had taught them the way of salvation. What is
related, Acts ii. must be considered as a very brief outline of the
instruction he gave them ; as appears from verse 40. Now all
those miraculous operations of the Holy Ghost ; all those discourses
of the apostles to people of many different countries ; all the agita-
INFANT BAPTISM. 451
tions and differences of opinion which took place among such a
multitude ; the discourse of Peter ; the convictions and anxious
inquiries of three thousand souls, with the particular instructions
given them in regard to the way of salvation and the duties of a
holy life, — all these must have occupied a considerable portion of
the day. It was the third hour, that is, nine o'clock in the morn-
ing, when some of the people, after having seen the effects pro-
duced by the effusion of the Spirit, accused the apostles of being
unduly excited by new wine. What has been mentioned could
not have taken place in less than half the day ; and they certainly
could not have had more than half the day left for baptizing. In-
deed I can hardly bring myself to believe that they devoted so
much as half the day to this ritual service. But let it be supposed
that they baptized three thousand in five hours. This would make
six hundred an hour ; and for each apostle, fifty an hour, or two
hundred and fifty in five hours ; that is, but little short of one a
minute for each apostle, through the whole of that time. Accor-
ding to this calculation, who can suppose they were baptized by
immersion, without supposing at the same time, that God worked
wonders in this, as in other occurrences of that memorable day,
and that he miraculously multiplied the hours and minutes, as he
had on another occasion multiplied the loaves and fishes ?
There are two places in the epistles, which contain allusions to
the rite of baptism, and which have been thought by some to prove
that immersion was the mode. Rom. 6: 3, 4. Col. 2: 12. In
these texts, believers are said to be buried with Christ in, or by
baptism. I remark, first, that the language is figurative. In this
all are agreed. Secondly : The word avverdcpTj^ev, tve were buried,
does not appertain to living men, but to dead men ; not to water,
but to earth. It does not mean, we were immersed, or plunged
in water, but, as dead bodies, we were interred or covet-ed up in a
grave, or laid in a tomb. " The Greek word, gwet dqtrmsv, we
were buried with him, cannot mean ivater baptism ; for in what part
of the Bible is being washed or bathed in water, an emblem of death
or interment ? In the Jewish ceremonies, it is always an emblem
of purification, not of death. The Baptists greatly mistake the
452 INFANT BAPTISM.
force of this text."* The figure of speech is the same, as in the
expressions used in connection with this, in which Christians are
said to be crucified and dead. It designates their character.
They are crucified to the world; dead to sin; yea, dead and
huried. Now this 7nortified temper of Christians, and their con-
formity with Christ, is signified by baptism ; and equally so, what-
ever may be the mode of baptism. According to the representa-
tion of the Apostle in the context, it is as true that beHevers are
crucified with Christ and dead with Christ in baptism, as that they
are huried with him in baptism. And how does it appear from
the language employed in these passages, that baptism has any
more resemblance to Christ's hunal, than to his crucifixion and
death ?
In Gal. 3: 27, the Apostle says ; " As many of you as have
been baptized into Christ, have jmt on Christ." Here the metar
phor is taken from the putting on of clothes. Believers have put
on Christ ; have assumed his character ; have invested, or clothed
themselves with his moral excellence, as one covers himself with a
garment. And this is signified by their being baptized into
Christ. But who would ever think of inferring from this, that the
mode of baptism must have a resemblance to putting on clothes ?
And yet this would be just as proper as to argue from the other
passages, that, the mode of baptism must have a resemblance to
Christ's burial.
After all, what resemblance is there between a man's being
dipped or plunged in water, and Christ's being laid in a sepulchre
which was hewn out of a rock ?
The common manner of burial among us is very different from
that in which Christ was buried, and may have been the occasion
of misleading the judgment of common readers. There are still
remaining in the neighborhood of Jerusalem many ancient tombs,
which clearly show the manner of interment formerly practised.
A chamber or excavation was made in a rock, and at the sides
niches were formed for the reception of dead bodies. The body
of Jesus was wrapped in linen and laid in one of these niches.
* Professor Stuart. See also Dr. Wardlaw's Dissertation.
INFANT BAPTISM. 453
Now Avhat resemblance is there between a body's being carried,
— not let doton as into a grave, but carried into such a chamber
or excavation in a rock and Ijing there three days in one of the
niches at the side, and the plunging of a living person for a mo-
ment in water ? If there is any resemblance, is it not too remote
and fanciful to be regarded by an Apostle ?
Let me just remark in addition, that if circumcision had been
continued, as the seal of the covenant under the Christian dispen-
sation ; it would have been perfectly just and proper, for the
Apostle to make use of the metaphors found in the passages above
quoted, and to say, that Christians are crucified with Christ, dead
with Christ, and buried with Christ in or by circumcision ; as
this, according to the supposition, would have been the appointed
sign of their being thus crucified, dead and buried in a spiritual
sense.
The ob\'ious design of the Apostle is to illustrate the character
and obligations of believers from the circumstance, that they are,
in a certain respect, conformed to Christ's death ; that as he died
for sin ; so they are dead, or are under obligation to be dead to
sin ; that is, they are holy, or are by their profession obliged to be
holy." So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were
baptized into his death.^^ This is explained by what follows. " In
that Christ died, he died unto sin (or on account of sin,) once ;
but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye
also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, (or in respect to sin,)
but alive unto God through Jesus Christ^ This is what was sig-
nified by baptism. And so believers were baptized into Chrisfs
death ; not that baptism was a symbol of death, or the state of the
dead ; for water or washing in water never was a symbol of this.
But water, used in ceremonial ablutions, whether by washing or
sprinkling, and afterwards in Christian baptism, always signified
purification. Now being dead, or in a state of death as to sin, is
the same thing as to be spiritually purified, or made holy. And
this is the very thing that baptism, following the ablutions under
the former economy, is exactly adapted to signify. Or to say all
in a word ; water used in baptism is a sign of that moral purifica-
454 INFANT BAPTISM.
tion of believers, whicli the Apostle means to express by their
being " crucified," and dead," and conformed to Christ's " death."
Their being dead in conformity Avith Christ, is the expression which
contains the metaphor. And baptism, as an appointed token, or
symbol, denotes what is signified by the metaphor, not the meta-
phor itself.
The argument which has been derived from this passage in fa-
vor of immersion is founded on the supposition of a real resem-
blance between baptism and death. But this supposition is- very
unnatural, and I think far different from what the Apostle had in
view.
What has been said above as to the obligation implied in bap-
tism, may be confirmed by 1 Cor. 10: 2. The Israelites " were
all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Baptism, as
a religious rite, was not then instituted. But the Apostle know-
ing the special obligation implied in baptism, makes use of the
word, to set forth the obligation of the children of Israel. " They
were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." That is, in
consequence of God's mercy towards them, especially at the Red
Sea, they came under special obligations to obey Moses, the servant
of God, or, which is the same thing, to obey the commands of God
b^ Moses. Their being baptized implies, that they were brought
under special obligations to worship and obey their gracious Deliv-
erer. Baptism is here spoken of, in regard to its spiritual import,
just as I understand it to be in the passages above quoted from
Rom. and Col.
As to 1 Pet. 3: 21, 1 shall stop to make only two concise re-
marks. First. The Apostle here expressly tells us, that the
thing he had in his mind, when he spoke of baptism, was not an
outward, but an inward, spiritual washing. Second. The con-
dition of Noah and his family in the ark was by no means the
condition of persons buried or immersed in water. This was the
condition of the ungodly world. It was from this condition, as
the Apostle tells us, that those in the ark were saved. And this
preservation from the ruin of the ungodly world he refers to, as
illustrating the salvation of Christians, who have that inward
INFANT BAPTISM. 455
purification, that " answer of a good conscience toivards Crod,"
■which he tells us is what he meant by baptism.
The mistake into which many writers have been betrayed, in
regard to several of the passages which speak of baptism, particu-
larly those in Rom. vi, and Col. ii, has, in my apprehension, been
owing to their not attending, with sufficient care, to the nature
and design of the metaphorical language there used.
In the foregoing discussion of the mode of baptism, I have not
thought it proper to suggest any particular reason for preferring
sjyrinMing to immersion. But if we look at the ancient manner
of purification and consecration established by the authority of
God, we may perhaps find such a reason. It is evident that
lustrations, or purifications, and consecrations under the Levitical
law, were commonly performed by sprinkling, not by immersion.
See Num. 8: 7. 19: 18—21. Heb. 9: 13, 19. And there are
various allusions to sprinkling as the prevaling mode of ceremonial
purification, as Ezek. 36: 25 ; " Then will I sprinkle clean water
upon you, and ye shall be clean." Is. 53: 15. " So shall he.
sprinkle many nations."
Now how can a mode of baptism, which has such a resemblance
to the ancient mode of purification, be otherwise than very sig-
nificant ? The early Christian Jews associated the idea of the
Passover with the Lord's Supper. The sacramental bread and
wine were symbols of the body and blood of Christ, whom they
considered as the Paschal Lamb. 1 Cor. 5: 7. In like manner,
the mode of baptism which we commonly use, may have a happy
effect by being associated in our reflections with the prevailing
mode of purification under the former economy, and especially by
impressing our minds with that inward purification, that cleansing
from sin, which is effected by the influence of the Holy Spirit. I
present this view of the subject merely to show, that the mode of
baptism which we adopt has a striking siguificancy, and that in
regard to moral effect, which really constitutes the value of the
rite, this mode is not inferior to any other.
Our Baptist bi'ethren undertake to prove from Ecclesiastical
History, that immersion was the prevailing mode of baptism in
456 INFANT BAPTISM.
ages subsequent to the apostles. In regard to this argument, I
remark, first, that it is the only clear proof in favor of immersion,
as the mode of Christian baptism. It is apparent, that no such
proof can be found in the Scriptures. For the Scriptures nowhere
declare, as the Ecclesiastical writers do, that baptism was per-
formed by immersion. They nowhere describe the mode.
Secondly. Those who regard the testimony of Ecclesiastical
History, as an argument in favor of baptizing by immersion^ ought,
to be consistent, to allow the same testimony to be an argument in
favor of Infant Baptism. If they reject this last argument, they
ought also to reject the former ; as this is quite as clear and con-
clusive, as that.
I proceed now to my second general proposition ; which is, that
Christians ought not to attach to the mode of baptism any greater
importance than the Scrip)tures do.
All men are in danger of attaching more importance to external
rites and forms, than really belongs to them. The people of God
did thus under the former dispensation ; and the prophets fre-
quently warned them against it, and told them plainly, that outward
rites, though enjoined by divine authority, were of little conse-
quence, compared with spiritual duties. Christ often found it
necessary to guard his disciples against the same danger, and to
teach them that obedience to the moral precepts of the law w^as
the great thing required, and that outward observances were com-
paratively of but httle consequence. In the time of the apostles,
Christians had a zeal about the externals of rehgion, which proved
a great hinderance to the peace and prosperity of the church ; and
some of them needed to be told by Paul, that the kingdom of Grod
consisted not in meats and drinks, that is, in external ohservatices,
but in righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. I am
well satisfied, that Christians are exposed to a mistake of this kind
at the present day ; and exposed in a high degree, Avhere any
external rite or form is made the subject of controversy. In such
a case the disputed rite is likely to occupy their thoughts too fre-
quently ; to make a deeper impression on their minds than other
subjects which are inconceivably more important ; and in conse-
INFANT BAPTISM. 457
quence of this, to pervert tlieir judgment, to misguide their con-
science, and to excite them to a warmth of feehug and effort, which
exceeds the importance of the subject, and which can be justified
only when directed to the high and spiritual interests of Christ's
kingdom. Agahist such a mistake, and such excess, especially in
regard to the mode of baptism, I would earnestly and affectionately
•warn the followers of Christ.
From the foregoing examuiation, I think it must have become
evident, that no particular mode of baptism is exactly described
in the New Testament, and represented as the one which beUevera
are required to use. I would not allow myself to speak with un-
becoming confidence on such a subject. But I confess I am
unable to find a single text, which, according to just rules of
interpretation, clearly proves, that baptism is ^o be administered
by immersion. And the conclusion which I draw from this fact
is, that if we contend for this particular mode, we go beyond our
rule.
I am confirmed in this view of the subject by other considerations.
Christ intended that his people should be free from inconvenient
and burdensome rites, and should have no yoke put upon them,
which was not easy to be borne. But scarcely anything in the
Mosaic ritual was so inconvenient and burdensome, as baptism
would in some circumstances be, if it could be administered in no
"way but by immersion. The coldness of some climates, and of
some seasons of the year in more temperate climates, renders it
almost impracticable to baptize in this way. Those who practise
immersion find it, in some cases, exceedingly inconvenient and
difficult, and submit to it merely because they think God requires
it. Now I have serious doubts whether all this is consistent with
the simplicity and spirituality of the Christian religion, and whetlier
the unqualified declaration of Christ that Ms yoke is easy and Ms
burden light, would lead us to expect, that an outward rite would
be enjoined upon all Christians in such a form, as would render it
in many cases so difficult to be complied with. And I have stiU
stronger doubts, whether it is consistent with the genius of Chris-
tianity that baptism by immersion should be required of all be-
VOL. m. 39
458 INFANT BAPTISM.
lievers, when I consider that the thing required must, in some
places, be rendered not only difficult but impossible for want of
water, and in various instances must necessarily be given up, on
account of bodily infirmity.
The Christian religion was designed to be a universal religion,
and its external rites, as well as its spiritual precepts were un-
questionably adapted to this design. But the rites of Christianity,
in order to be adapted to the design of making it a universal reli-
gion, must be practicable and convenient in all circumstances.
An absolute, unvarying uniformity in the mode of administering
either baptism, or the Lord's Supper, or in the mode of performing
pubhc worship, would operate as a hinderance to the spread of the
gospel. As to pubhc worship, we never think of such uniformity,
but vary in regard to external forms, just as the ends of public
worship seem to require. And we feel that we have the same
liberty in regard to the Lord's Supper. As to the exterior of
this solemn rite, we depart greatly from the -original pattern.
I have often thought it strange that Christians of the Baptist
denomination should feel themselves authorized to take such liber-
ties as they do, respecting the manner of observing the ordinance
of the Supper, while they plead for so strict a conformity to what
they conceive to have been the original mode of baptism. Why
are they not as much bound to a strict conformity in regard to
one ordinance, as in regard to the other ? But do they practise
such conformity as to the eucharist ? Do they practise it in re-
spect to the time ? They do indeed observe this ordinance near
the close of the day, so that it may seem to be a Supper. But
Christ kept the Passover with his disciples in the night, that is,
after it was dark, and at the close of the Passover instituted the
Supper. The Baptists conform in this respect as far as they can
consistently with convenience. But do they not perceive that the
plea of convenience is as good in regard to one ordinance, as in
regard to the other ? Christ and his apostles kept the sacramental
Supper in an upper chamber. But who at the present day thinks
it necessary to conform in this respect ? Christ and his apostles
reclined at the table on a couch or sofa. And why do not the
INFANT BAPTISM. 459
Baptists imitate them in this respect ? Because, at the present
day, it would not be agreeable to common usage, so it would not
be suitable or decent. And doubtless this plea of suitableness and
decency has weight. And why has it not as much weight in regard
to baptism, as in regard to the Lord's Supper ? The bread which
Christ brake and gave to his disciples, was unleavened. And why
do not the Baptists use unleavened bread ? Because they do not
think an exact conformity in this respect is cither necessary or
important. The wine which Christ and his disciples used was the
pure juice of the grape. And why do not the Baptists conform
to Christ's example in his respect ? Because it is difficult to pro-
cure such wine. Now the Baptists take the hberty, and I doubt
not very properly, to vary from what they believe to have been
the rmde of the original institution and the example of Christ, in
all these respects. And yet, did he not do as much at least to
enjoin an exact conformity in regard to this ordinance, as in regard
to baptism ?
I shall just refer to another subject, on which our Baptist
brethren agree with us, and which, in my view, they treat accord-
ing to the will of Christ. Aftei* he had, with the most conde-
scending, amiable kindness, washed the feet of his disciples, he
commanded them to ivash one another's feet. This command of
Christ was as express, and for aught that appears in the form of
the command itself, as much intended for all his followers, as the
command to baptize, or to eat the sacramental Supper. And yet
the Baptists, as well as we, dispense with a literal observance of it,
and content themselves with obeying it virtually ; that is, with
performing acts of condescension and brotherly kindness. And to
justify themselves in this, they plead that present usages are
different from what they were Avhen the command was given ; that
what was then an act of kindness would not be so now ; that our
Lord and Master would not have us violate the common customs
and civilities of social intercourse, for the sake of conformins to
the letter of such a precept ; and that the duty required is a con-
formity to the spirit of the command in doing acts of condescen-
eion and love.
460 INFANT BAPTISM.
Of the propriety of treating the command of Christ here
referred to, in this manner, I am fully satisfied. Taking into
consideration the changes which have taken place in the circum-
stances and usages of society, and exercising judgment and discre-
tion in putting a reasonable construction on the command, and in
complying with the Sj)irit instead of the letter of it, we act, I be-
lieve, in conformity with the mind of Christ. The principles on
which we proceed in all this are evidently right. And why should
we not proceed on the same general principles as to baptism ?
Even if it could be determined that baptism was at first adminis-
tered by immersion, though I think this can by no means be
determined ; still might not a regard to common usage, to decency,
or to convenience be a sufficient reason for varying the mode ?
Might not compassion for those believers, who are in a state of
infirmity, be a sufficient reason for exempting them from an expo-
sure, which they caimot bear, and baptizing them in a manner suited
to their circumstances ? And why should not the Baptists content
themselves in this case as well as in the other just mentioned, with
conforming to the original institution virtually, though not literally
and exactly? I say this, even on the supposition, that immersion
was evidently the form of baptism in the time of Christ and his
apostles. But this supposition, as I have said, wants proof. And
accordingly the reason in favor of baptizing by sprinkling is, to
my mind, strong and conclusive. And it is very clear, that when
the Baptists fix upon immersion as the only proper mode, and
refuse to vary from this in any circumstances ; they abandon the
just and reasonable principles which they adopt in regard to the
Lord's Supper, and in regard to his command to wash one an-
other's feet ; and they debar from baptism some Christians, who
are quahfied for the ordinance, and desirous of receiving it.
There is another consideration relative to the subject before us,
which I think calculated to have a very salutary influence on our
minds. The consideration is, that God equally approves of sincere
Christians, whether they are baptized by immersion, or by sprink-
ling. My meaning is, that the judgment of God respecting
Christians depends altogether upon their real internal cha,racter ;
INFANT BAPTISM. 461
and that, if they are equally conscientious and lioly^ they are
equally the oljects of his approbation, although they are baptized
in different ways. Their not observing an external rite in the
same manner can be of no account with God. In the midst of
our discussions and controversies respecting outward rites and
forms, let us charge ourselves to remember this.
That God does in fact regard Christians, who are baptized in
different ways, with equal approbation, might- be made evident
from the representations of his word, and from his actual adminis-
tration. But formal proof cannot be necessary. Those who are
familiar with the Scriptures have learnt, that God judges of men
in the manner I have described. And we cannot fail to receive
the same impression from what is manifest in his administration. I
am happy to acknowledge those, who prefer immersion as the mode
of baptism, to be sincere friends to Christ ; and I would not cease
to rejoice in all the tokens of the divine favor which they receive.
But do not those Christians, who use sprinkling or affusion, receive
as many tokens of divine favor ? Does not God give them as
high a degree of the influence of the Holy Spirit ? And in con-
sequence of this, do they not exhibit as high a degree of sanctifi-
cation ? Have they not as ardent love to the Saviour, and as
much zeal for the promotion of his cause ? Do they not labor as
diligently and pray as fervently for the salvation of the world ?
Are not their labors as successful ? And do not their prayers
meet with as much acceptance, and obtain as many gracious
answers ? Do they not as sensibly enjoy the presence of God in
the special ordinances of the gospel, in seasons of affliction, and
in the hour of death ? Will nat as welcome and joyful an entrance
be ministered to them into the everlasting kingdom of their
Saviour ? And will they not enjoy as high a degree of blessed-
ness in heaven ? Now if it is indeed so, that God grants to those,
who believe sprinkhng or affusion to be the proper mode of baptism,
as many tokens of his approbation and love, as to those who prefer
immersion ; is not the conclusion obvious, that God does not con-
sider the particular form of baptism to be of any essential conse-
quence as to the great interests of reUgion ? It clearly foUoA^'S
39*
462 INFANT BAPTISM.
then, that we ought to love the followers of Christ who baptize in
one way, as much as those who baptize in another waj ; and that
if we consider the form of this rite as of any essential consequence,
or suffer it to have any great influence upon our feelings, we com-
mit a lamentable mistake, and place ourselves in opposition to the
mind of God. And how deeply is it to be deplored, that any
Christians should cherish views and feehngs, which are at variance
with the divine will, and the divine administration !
And here, as I am about to take my leave of this subject, I
must solicit the candid indulgence of those who differ from me,
and also those who agree with me in regard to the mode of bap-
tism, while I allow myself in great plainness of speech, and utter
my thoughts seriously and unreservedly, as in the presence of him
who is the Saviour and Judge of the world.
We must all, I think, be satisfied, that our relation to Christians
generally, I mean to those who are real friends to Christ, is
unspeakably more important, than our relation to any particular
religious denomination, or party. Our relation to Christians gen-
erally respects them m Christians, as those who belong to Christ's
spiritual family and bear his image. But the particular relation we
sustain to those of our own denomination or party respects them in a
very inferior point of light. For their belonging to our party is
clearly a matter of infinitely less importance, than their belonging to
the holy kingdom of Christ. But do we always regard the subject
in this fight ? Are we not liable to make more of the particular
relation which men sustain to us and to our party, than of that
high, that paramount relation, which all real Christians sustain to
God and his kingdom ?
Again. We must all be satisfied, that the salvation of sinners,
and the spiritual prosperity of Christ's kingdom, together with our
own sanctification and eternal life, should be to us the great ob-
jects of desire and pursuit ; that no other objects should be suffered
to come into competition with these ; and that we should do nothing,
and countenance nothing, which can in any way interfere with
them. But have these great, spiritual interests been always kept
uppermost in our minds ? Have they not sometimes been almost
INFANT, BAPTISM. 463
forgotten ? And have they not too frequently been made subor-
dinate to local or sectarian interests ? I have heard of Christians,
and of gospel ministers, who have made the mode of baptism their
grand, engrossing subject. I have heard of those, who have been
actuated by such an intense zeal in favor of one particular form
of this external rite, that they have seemed almost inclined to
make it the sum of all religion. Even in those auspicious seasons,
when God is pleased in mercy to pour out his Spirit, and produce
in the minds of multitudes a deep and overwhelming impression
of the evil of sin, and the value of eternal salvation ; there are
some Christians, and some teachers of rehgion, (I hope the num-
ber will be found small,) who show an unaccountable forwardness
to introduce discussions respecting the mode of baptism; and,
instead of striving with all their hearts, to bring sinners into the
kingdom of heaven, and to promote the holiness of believers, make
it a favorite object to convince them, that baptism must be admin-
istered by immersion. I must say too that I have known those
who, in similar circumstances, have shown an unbecoming forward-
ness and warmth in opposing and decrying the peculiar tenets of
the Baptists, and in establishing those of their own party. Now
it is well known, that discussions of this kind, whether on one side
or the other, have a direct tendency to gi-ieve the Holy Spirit, and
to divert the attention of saints and sinners from the one thing
needful. The introduction of such a subject, in the way of con-
troversy, especially in a revival of religion, I am sure is wrong.
It is offensive to God, and will be followed, as it often has been,
by the withdrawment of his gracious influence. And I would
earnestly beseech any ministers or Christians, who are inclined to
stlch a course as that to which I have now referred, to pause a
few moments, and seriously to inquire, whether they are pursuing
the great object, for which Jesus died on the cross, and for which
he has given us the gospel, and the day of salvation ; whether they
are not in danger of substituting an excessive zeal for an outward
rite, or rather, the form of such a rite, in the place of pure love
to Christ, and to the immortal souls of men ; and whether they
have any reason to think, that a subject of this kind will appear
464 INFANT BAPTISM.
as important to them at the Judgment day, as it does now. Mj
Christian brethren, with whom I am expostulating, expect to dwell
eternally in heaven with an innumerable multitude of God's peo-
ple, who differ from them as to the mode of administering baptism.
And I am very sure, that " the general assembly and church of
the first born, who are written in heaven," and " the spirits of just
men made perfect," will not be divided into different and contend-
ing parties, on account of their having received baptism in differ-
ent ways. The presence of their Saviour, and their perfect love
to him, will make them all one. And any strife, or prejudice, or
coldness, existing among them in this world, will either be buried
in a happy obhvion, or will be remembered with grief, (if grief
can be found in that happy world,) and with emotions of gratitude
for that infinite grace, which has delivered them from the weak-
ness and imperfection of their earthly state, and prepared them
for the holy employments and pleasures of heaven.
With these few suggestions I dismiss the subject. But there
are other subjects, relating to the present and future happiness of
all the children of God, on which I should love to enlarge. If
we are real Christians, we are entitled to an inheritance incor-
ruptible, iindefiled, and that fadeth not away. Christ is even now
the portion of our souls ; and we shall shortly be with him where
he is. Having this hope in us, let us purify ourselves, as Christ
is pure. Let us walk by faith, not by sight. As to the general
interests of Christ's kingdom, and as to the particular interests of
our own denomination ; as to the substance of religion, and as to
its outward forms, let us endeavor to judge and feel as Christ
does, — and as we ourselves shall, when the shadows of time shall
vanish, and we shall arrive at a world of perfect Hght. There all
the redeemed, — delightful thought ! — all the redeemed, forget-
ting every distinction of name or sect, will unite their joyful hearts
and voices in praise to him who loved them, and washed them
from their sins in his own blood. Let us do all in our power to
prepare ourselves and others for that blessed world, and to render
the society of the redeemed on earth like what it will bfe in hea-
ven. Henceforth we will have no strife, but to copy the love and
INFANT BAPTISM. 465
meekness and forbearance of the blessed Jesus, and to advance
his cause. We will heartily rejoice in the work of the Holy
Spirit among Christians of every description, and guard with the
most sacred care against everything which would hinder its pro-
gress. We will suffer no zeal for any personal object, or for
the interest of any -one sect, to take place of that holier zeal which
we ought to cherish, for the glory of our common Lord, and the
prosperity of his universal empire. If we may but have the joy
to see him inherit all nations, our souls shall be satisfied. We will
not cease to love thee, and to pray for thy peace, 0 kingdom of
Christ. If we forget thee, let our right hand forget her cunning.
If we do not remember thee, let our tongue cleave to the roof of
our mouth.
LECTURE CXIX.
THE lord's supper.
The opinions whicli have been- entertained respecting this ordi-
nance have been very different from each other, and this difference
of opinion has occasioned a variety of controversies. And in con-
sequence of these controversies, the conceptions of the bulk of
Christians have -become indistinct and obscure, and the appropri-
ate benefits of the ordinance in a great measure prevented. It
is with a strange mixture of pleasure and pain, that I review the
opinions held by distinguished writers among the Catholics and
even among the Protestants, relative to the Lord's Supper. Their
writings contain a large amount of plain Scriptural truth. But
how much do we find that is erroneous or unintelligible !
One of the chief sources of error and obscurity on this subject
is the confounding of the hteral with the tropical sense of the
words used in the ordinance. By a very common figure of speech,
the bread and wine are called the body and blood of Christ. And
it is by a similar figure that the Apostle calls believers bread.
1 Cor. 10: 17, " We are one bread." The bread used in the
sacrament is a symbol or representative of the body of Christ.
And when Christians are called " one bread," bread, that is, the
one loaf of bread, is a symbol of the union of behevers as one
body. The language in both cases is equally figurative.
The elements used in the ordinance are, hterally, bread and
wine, — not something else which has the appearance of bread
and wine, but real bread and wine, and nothing else. These are
THE lokd's supper. 467
the signs or symbols. It is also true that the body and blood
which are signified, are literally the body and blood of Christ, the
very body which was crucified on Calvary by order of Pilate, and
the very blood which was there shed for the remission of sin.
The bread and wine, and the body and blood of Christ, are all
reahties, — not imaginations, or fictions. Their relation to each
other is that of signs to the things signified. So when it was said
of the rock in the wilderness, " that rock was Christ," a relation
was asserted between the rock and Christ, and it was the relation
of a sign to the thing signified. To suppose the language to be
literally true, would be to suppose that the rock was so changed as
to become really that living being, the Son of God, or that the
Son of God was really changed into the substance of a rock. The
declaration of the Apostle could not be literally true on any other
supposition.
I have referred to the case just mentioned for the purpose of
showing what would be the consequence of giving a literal inter-
pretation to the figurative language of Scripture. Who can count
the errors which are to be traced to this source ? But I shall
limit my remarks to the ordinance of the Supper. If the words
of Christ, " This is my body and this is my blood," should be
taken hterally, the popish doctrine of transubstantiation and the
sacrifice of the mass would follow of course. But the doctrine is
palpably false and absurd. For Christ never had but one body,
and that was the body which was offered up " once for all," as the
Scripture says, and which was raised from the dead, and which
was carried up into heaven, where it is to remain till Christ's sec-
ond coming. To say that the sacramental bread is the real and
veritable body of Christ, is to say that his body is at the same time
in heaven and on earth, and that it is at the same time in ten thou-
sand different places on earth, which would imply that he has ten
thousand bodies or that his one body, which has only the common
dimensions of a human body, is enlarged so as to be in a sense
omnipresent. Furthermore, to suppose that the sacramental bread
and wine are really transmuted into Christ's body and blood, so
that instead of eating real bread and drinking real wine, we do
468 THE lord's supper.
really and literally eat his flesh and drink his blood, would be to
suppose that we are cannibals, and not Christians.
The Romanists hold that, in the mass, Jesus Christ is really and
truly immolated, or offered up as a sacrifice, for the sins of the
"world, and this doctrine follows of course from their manner of in-
terpreting the language of Scripture. But the doctrine directly
contradicts the teachings of the writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, who takes special pains, ch. ix. and x., to show that
Christ was distinguished from the former sacrifices, which were
offered up often, in that he was offered up only once, and by that
one offering wrought out a perfect redemption for his people.
Further, Christ was offered up as a sacrifice by cnicifixion. He
bore our sins in his own body on the tree. This is the way in
which he was immolated. Now if he is truly and literally sacri-
ficed in the mass, in other words, if he is literally crucified, it is
natural to ask, who crucifies him ? The Catholics say, he is
immolated by the priest. But does the priest really crucify him ?
Does he perpetrate the deed, which was perpetrated on Calvary
" by wicked hands ? " Those who immolated Christ were " mur-
derers." Is the Catholic priest a murderer ? If not, then are
the Roman soldiers raised from the 'dead to do again what they
did so long ago at Jerusalem ? Or are other enemies present to
accomplish the work of crucifixion ? The Scriptures mention
none who crucify Christ afresh, except the vilest apostates.
But there is still another difficulty. If Christ is truly and lit-
erally offered up as a sacrifice in the mass, and offered up in the
only way, that is, by crucifixion ; then every time the mass is
repeated, he suffers anew the agonies of crucifixion. And he
suffers those agonies at the same time in all the places where the
mass is celebrated. And the more frequently it is repeated, the
more frequently does he suffer and die. On this supposition, his
crucifixion on Calvary was only the commencement of a series of
sufferings to be endured by him in all ages. And as he is now
immolated every week in so many thousand places, his sufferings
every week are immeasurably greater than they were when he was
crucified in only one place. Catholics ought to regard this as a
THE lord's supper. 469
fearful subject, and to consider ^Yell what pains and agonies they
cause the Saviour to endure at the 7nass, — real pains and agonies,
if his crucifixion is now repeated, — unless indeed he can literally
suffer the pains of crucifixion so frequently and in so many places,
without being conscious of it.
I should not thus spend time to expose opinions which every
man of sober judgment knows to be false, did I not wish to show
what consequences flow from a manifest violation of the just prin-
ciples of interpreting the word of God, and from perverting the
faculties of the mind to the purposes of superstition.
Will you now, in the exercise of a sound mind, dismiss all these
groundless fancies and monstrous absurdities, and see how plain,
how simple and precious is the institution of the Lord's Supper ?
First, notice the adaptedness of the bread and wine to the pur-
poses to be answered by the rite. The body and blood signified
by the bread and wine, were not mere human flesh and blood, nor
even Ohrisfs body and blood considered in a general, indefinite
sense, but his body broken and his blood shed on the cross, as an
atoning sacrifice. Now as bread and wine nourish and strengthen
us corporeally, so Christ crucified, received by faith, imparts the
blessings of salvation to our souls.
The ordinance is expressly designed to be commemorative.
Whenever we eat the sacramental bread and drink the wine, wo
are to do it in remembrance of Christ, and to show his death.
Such is the object' of the institution, as set forth by Christ and the
Apostle Paul. The Saviour, knowing how prone his disciples
would be to forget him, appointed this sacred feast to be kept as a
perpetual memorial of him.
In this ordinance we are to remember the Lord Jesus Christ.
We are to dwell in devout contemplation upon his attributes, his
offices, his woi-ks, and his blessings. We are particularly to medi-
tate on " the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge." Of all
the precious things in the universe, what is so precious as Jove?
And where was pure love ever so gloriously displayed as in Christ ?
Take the best of men ; and there may peradventure be some one
of them, who would lay down his life for his friends. But Christ
VOL. III. 40
470 THE lord's supper.
suflfered and died for his enemies. Even divine love, which had
from the beginning been constantly active in the bestowment of
good through the ^^'ide creation; had never before accomplished a
•R'ork Hke this. " Herein is love," said the disciple who had so
often leaned on the bosom of Jesus ; — " herein is love ;" love in
a new and peculiar manifestation ; love submitting to the severest
sufferings, even the untold agonies of crucifixion for the benefit of
the ill-deservuig ; — love bearing the tremendous burden of human
guilt. The angels in heaven, who had long witnessed the
operations of divine goodness, felt a new interest in this manifesta-
tion of love, and desired to look into it. At the sacramental Sup-
per, this is to be a leading subject of contemplation with us. We
are to remember the love of Christ. And what can be more con-
sonant to the dictates of an enlightened mind and a pious heart,
than to be conversant with such a subject — to have communion
in our souls with Christ crucified ? Who can duly estimate this
privilege ? In the exercise of that faith which gives present reality
to invisible, sjiiritual objects, we are to behold the Lamb of God ;
in devout contemplation we are to be present vrith the blessed
Jesus in that chamber where he kept the Passover with his disci-
ples and instituted this significant and commemorative rite ; to
listen to his last conversation with his apostles, and his earnest
prayer for them and for all his people ; then to follow him to the
garden, where he was exceedingly sorrowful, and fell on his face,
and repeatedly offered up such an agonizing hni submissive prayer
to his Father ; then to witness his meeting with the traitor and his
yielding himself to the band of soldiers, though he could have sum-
moned legions of angels to his rescue, or could have confounded
them in a moment by his own omnipotence ; then to be with him
while he stood before his persecutors and to behold his lamb-like
meekness and gentleness, his fortitude and majesty ; to accompany
him as he carried his own cross to the place of execution, and to
see what took place there from the sixth to the ninth hour ; — then
to fix our eyes upon him as he was laid in the sepulchre of Joseph ;
and early on the first day of the week to follow the pious women
in their visit to the place where the Lord lay, and to witness their
THE lord's supper. 471
ecstasy when they found that he was risen from the dead ; to bo
present at his repeated interviews with his disciples after his resur-
rection ; to hear his touching questions to penitent Peter, " Simon,
Bon of Jonas, lovest thou me ?" — to notice his condescending
kindness to the incredulous Thomas, when he said to him, " reach
hither thy finger and behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand
and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing."
We are also to remember the last meeting of Jesus with his disci-
ples in Galilee, his gracious commission to his apostles, and his
ascension into heaven, where he ever liveth to make intercession
for us.«
These and such as these are the recollections which are to occupy
our minds when we celebrate this Christian ordinance.
But we do not answer the design of the ordinance by the "mere
act of memory. We are to exercise an aifectionate faith and confi-
dence in Christ and a rehance upon him, as an all-sufiicient
Saviour. His glorious character is to excite in us the highest
veneration and homage ; and while we consider his voluntary suf-
ferings and death for our salvation, we are to abhor ourselves for
sua, to repent, and to resolve, that henceforth we will Hve unto
him who died for us. If we would do what belongs to us as duty
in observing this sacred rite, we must abound ui all the fruits of
the Spu-it, and devote ourselves to a holy and useful life.
But the Lord's Supper is to be regarded in still another light.
It has indeed a happy moral influence, promoting faith, and grati-
tude and love, and exciting us to dihgence in the discharge of duty.
But it has a higher office. When rightly attended, it becomes a
channel of divine influences, a medium through which God bestows
his blessings upon believers. In this Avay God honors his own in-
stitution. And it is not to be forgotten that all the good moral
effect which the ordinance produces upon the minds of behevers,
is owing to the grace of God imparted to them through this sacred
channel. While in the exercise of a penitent and belicAdng heart,
they receive the sacramental bread and wine, their divine Saviour
is graciously present, and manifests himself to them as he does not
to the world, and by granting them larger measures of his Spirit,
472 THE lord's supper.
raises them to higher attainments in hohness, and gives them to
experience purer jojs.
But when I saj that this sacred rite is the channel of divine
grace, I do not mean to distinguish it in this respect from other
divinely appointed means. It is indeed eminentlij adapted to im-
part to the followers of Christ clear and affectkig views of his glorj
and grace, to bring them into spiritual communion with him, and
to make them partakers of his benefits. But other things, par-
ticularlj the word of God, the preaching of the gospel, the obser-
vance of the Sabbath, and the faithfulness and the prayers of
parents and other Christians are also means appointed of God for
the spiritual welfare of man. They are all channels of divine
blessings. The word of God whether preached or read, is, through
the Holy Spirit quick and powerful, a savor of hfe, a channel of
that divine influence wliich sanctifies and saves the soul. Can
more than this be said of the Lord's Supper, or any outward
observance ? The fact is, that God, in his great mercy, has
appointed a variety of means for the promotion of our spiritual
good. And these means produce the best efiect when they operate
together. The Lord's Supper, separated, as it commonly is in the
Catholic church, from its rightful connection with faithful gospel
instruction and the clear knowledge of divine things, becomes the
occasion of gross superstition and fatal delusion. While, on the
other hand, reading or hearing the word of God and the mere
knowledge of divine truth, unaccompanied by the use of the out-
ward ordinances of Christianity, would conduce but partially to a
truly spiritual life, and would fail essentially of maldng us comjilete
in all the will of God. The Catholics mistake in attributing a
saving efficacy to a mere attendance on the sacrament, without the
knowledge of divine truth and the exercise of the Christian
graces. And it is the mistake of some modern sects to suppose that
Christians in the present life can dispense with the use of the
appointed visible ordinances without essential loss to their spiritual
interests.
Again. This sacred rite is to assist us not only to recollect what
is past, but to keep in mind what is future. We are to show forth
THE lord's supper. 478
Christ's death " till he come." The second appearing of Christ is the
dearest object of our hopes. Our hearts are sometimes filled with
sorrow to think that we are so long separated from our Saviour, —
that our eyes have never seen him whom our soul loveth. But we
are reminded of his sure promise, that he will come again and
receive us to himself, that where he is, there we may be also.
Then, we shall not see him through a glass darkly, but face to face.
This will be the consummation of our blessedness. Until this
blessedness is realized, we shall find these outward ordinances,
these symbols of distant, invisible objects, unspeakably precious.
But when we shall attain to perfection in holiness, and shall fix our
enraptured eyes on that merciful Saviour who loved us and died
for us, these outward rites now so needful for us, will give place to
purer and nobler services and to celestial enjoyments.
Finally. The Lord's Supper is a means of manifesting and
promoting the mutual love and union of believers. " The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not the communion," that is, the par-
taking together, " of the blood of Christ ? The bread which we
break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? For we,
being many, are one bread and one body," The followers of Christ
are, in reality, all one. They serve the same Lord. They are
enhsted in the same cause. And so far as they act in character,
they love one another. In this ordinance we show that we are
one. And if our hearts and lives should fully correspond with the
design of this ordinance, the world would be consti-ained to say, be-
hold ! how these Christians love one another ! The Lord's Supper
not only expresses this union, but is a means of promoting it.
When we join together in commemorating the death of Chrfst, and
consider that sinful, wretched state from which we are all delivered
by his atoning blood, and when we consider that we must all be
saved by the same abounding grace, and are to dwell forever in
the presence of the same adorable Redeemer ; we feel an influence
which softens the heart, and gently but powerfully draws us to
mutual affection and kindness. And how strange it is, that Chris-
tians should ever separate themselves from one another in the
observance of this uniting ordinance ! If they differ in some other
40*
474 THE lord's supper.
things, they are agreed in this. They eat the sacramental bread
and drink the wine in remembrance of Christ, and in obedience
to his command. And why not obey together ? Why not com-
memorate Christ's dying love together ? This is a common duty,
and a token of union. In regard to this sacred rite they are
agreed ; and why not thus far walk together ? To attempt to force
a union, or an expression of union where there is a real disunion,
would be unwise. But what shall we say of forcing a disunion,
where there is a real union? The Lord hasten the time, when
all Christians shall not only be but appear to be one family, and
shall more fully exhibit that spirit of mind which Jesus represented
as the grand evidence of discipleship ; — "By this shall all men
know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another.''*
LECTURE CXX.
THE lord's day OR CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
The Lord's day or the Christian's Sabbath, is of vital conse-
quence to the interests of mankind. Whatever may be the value
of other means appointed for our spiritual benefit, they would
have but Uttle efficacy without the Sabbath. Even the sacred
Scriptures, the only standard of our faith and practice, and the
institution of the gospel ministry, would turn to but small account,
should we give up " the day which the Lord hath made," and so
deprive ourselves of any regular and divinely appointed season
for reading the Scriptures in private, and hearing their doctrines
and precepts explained and inculcated in public, I say a divinely
a^ppointed season. A day enjoined by the authority of God is
manifestly required in this case ; because no consideration of
mere expediency, no civil or ecclesiastical decree, and no agree-
ment made among individual Christians will be likely to bind
the consciences or to regulate the actions of men. Unless the
day of holy rest is beUeved to be set apart and consecrated by
God himself, the current of worldly business and pleasure will at
length sweep it away even from the church ; the only alternative
then is, that there must be a Sabbath set apart by divine authority,
or no Sabbath at all. Even if a particular day should be volunta-
rily observed for rehgious purposes by individuals, or by a Chris-
tian community, without the behef of any divine command en-
joining it ; such a day would be very different, and its influence
upon the minds even of good men would be very different, from
476 THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
"what it would be, if it were regarded as an appointment of God.
The same principle obtains here as in regard to the Scripture.
If we consider it as a mere human production, it will exert but
an inconsiderable influence upon us. Its doctrines and precepts
will have little or no power over our consciences. God must
speak, or man will not hear, God must command, or man will not
obey.
We shall find all this verified in the history of Christendom,
and particularly in the history of our own times. Who are they
that trample on the Sabbath, and make it subservient to their
worldly pursuits ? Not merely infidels ; but the generality of
those who profess a respect for the Sabbath, but do not regard it
as a divine institution. And who are they that conscientiously
and faithfully perform its sacred duties, and secure its inestimable
benefits ? Those who look upon it as set apart for holy purposes
by the authority of God. A proper belief, that our Creator and
Sovereign requires the Sabbath to be kept holy, silences the
elamors of the world, bars out vain thoughts, subdues the passions,
diffuses a sacredness through all the hours of the day, and im-
parts a special influence to divine truth, whether heard in the
sanctuary, or contemplated in the stillness of retirement. With-
out such a belief, the benefits naturally resulting from this divine
institution, will not be obtained. The ministers of religion and
civil rulers may unite their efforts to promote the observance of
a day which is made sacred only by human authority ; but they
will have no prospect of success. The command to " remember
the Sabbath day and keep it holy," coming from man, is imbe-
cile. It excites no cordial reverence. It produces no fear of
transgression, except so far as outward, visible actions are con-
cerned. Who will stand in awe of a command which is laid upon
him by a being like himself? But the command to keep the
Sabbath holy, coming from the Sovereign of the world, is clothed
with power, and takes hold on the conscience and heart. Being
the command of Him who is everywhere present, and whose
searching eye is ever upon us, it has the same authority over us
when we are removed from the notice of man, as when we are
THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. 477
placed in the most public view. It is a motive which touches all
the springs of action.
When we look upon the nations of Europe, we behold scenes
of revolution, strife, carnage, and anarchy. Various attempts
are made to introduce improvements into the forms of government
and to promote (quietness and harmony, and the salutary influence
of law. But these attempts arc not successful. Things remain
in the most omiiwus condition, and patriots and politicians know
not what to do. Their wisdom fails them. Now why do they
not see, that the cause of all these evils lies in the destitution of
moral and religious principle in the mass of the community ? The
experiment which has so often been made, may be a thousand
times repeated ; and the result will be the same. No constitu-
tions of government, however wisely framed ; no improvement of
the people at large in mere literature and science ; no lessons
derived from history and experience, and no motives addressed
to personal interest or safety, can hush the commotions which agi-
tate the nations ; because none of these can subdue pride, ambi-
tion and selfishness, make men upright and benevolent, and en-
gage them in those employments which will contribute to indi-
vidual and public happiness. Why are not patriots and legisla-
tors sensible of this ? Why do they not see and feel, after so
much Hght has been cast on the subject, that the only effectual
means of removing the calamities which now afflict the nations,
and of warding off the still more fearful evils which threaten
them, is, the healthful influence of moral and rehgious principle,
diffused through the mass of society ? It is evident, that the
same character which qualifies men to be happy in the world to
come, will qualify them to be, in the highest sense, good members
of civil society. And if civil society shall be chiefly constituted
of enhghtened and good men, a sure foundation will be laid for
permanent peace and prosperity. Now without undervaluing any
of the appointed means of human improvement, I hold it to be
an obvious and certain truth, that the chief means of forming
men to a good character is, the due observance of the Christian
Sabbath; and that without this, all other means will fail. If this
478 THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
benevolent institution were rightly observed, the evils which
threaten this and other nations would disappear. The remejij I
propose, is simple and easy ; but it is sure. And if the violence
of ambition and party zeal and the prevalence of vice and dis-
order should so increase, as to overturn our free governments,
and involve us in all the horrors experienced by other nations ;
I am bold to affirm, that no individual, either among the rulers or
the people, who conscientiously and faithfully keeps the Christian
Sabbath, will be chargeable with helping to bring these evils upon
the land ; and that the whole guilt will lie at the door of those,
who do not reverence the Lord's day, and do not faithfully attend
upon its holy and sanctifying duties.
As to those gospel ministers, and rulers, and private citizens,
who keep the Sabbath day holy, who diligently engage in its
public and private services, and who use their influence to impress
upon the minds of others the high obligations of this divine insti-
tution, — they ought to be acknowledged as true patriots ; and
they are entitled to the warmest gratitude of the community for
the substantial contribution they make to the pubhc good. While
on the other hand, every man who neglects to remember the
Sabbath day and keep it holy, shows himself an enemy to the best
interests of his fellow creatures. He is guilty of casting contempt
upon the most effectual means which infinite wisdom has provided
for curing the madness of the passions, for checking the preva-
lence of error and vice, and preparing the human family for the
highest enjoyment of which they are capable.
In regard to the means best adapted to promote the due ob-
servance of the Sabbath ; some have reUed upon the salutary in-
fluence of civil laws requiring the Sabbath to be treated with
respect, and forbidding, under severe penalties, all open violations
of it. But, in my apprehension, we have no reason to expect,
that mere civil enactments will ever be productive of any exten-
sive and permanent benefit in regard to this subject, except merely
as they afford protection to Christians in worshipping God accord-
ing to their own consciences.
The experiment has been often tried here, and in other coun-
THE CHKISTIAN SABBATH. 479
tries ; but the result has made it evident, that the great interests
of morality and rehgion cannot be safely made to rest on the
power of civil law. The due observance of the Sabbath must be
promoted by considerations directed to reason, conscience, and
the heart. Let men be addressed on the subject from the pulpit,
and the press ; and let them be addressed with sound argument,
and with earnest and affectionate exhortation and entreaty ; let
them be addressed as rational and moral and accountable beings,
whose everlastuig destiny will be fixed according as they profane
the Sabbath, or keep it holy. Let the sacredness of the day
be inculcated upon the minds of children and youth, and let the
faithful instructions of parents and teachers be accompanied and
enforced by a good example ; and let all who reverence the Sab-
bath lift up their fervent supplications to him who is the Lord of
the Sabbath, that he would graciously interpose and by his effect-
ual influence, bring men everywhere to remember and love the
day of spiritual rest : — let these and other congenial methods be
pursued, and with the divine blessing, it will ere long be seen by
all men, that the objections which have been made against the
institution of the Sabbath, have sprung from depravity or igno-
rance ; that the appointment of a sacred day is the source of
immeasurable good to the world, and is one of the highest mani-
festations of divine love.
I have represented it as indispensable to the appropriate in-
fluence and usefulness of the Sabbath, that it should be regarded
as of divine authority. I shall now show, that the Sabbath is
indeed invested ivitli divine authority, and is obligatory upon the
consciences of men.
Go back then to the beginning of the world ; and you find
that, immediately after God had finished the Avork of creation,
he instituted the Sabbath. He appointed the very first day
which followed the creation, to be a sacred day. " God rested
on the seventh day from all his work which he had made ; and
he blessed the seventh day and sanctified it," — that is, he set it
apart to a special and holy use. God thus made known his
will, that man should enter on his immortal existence by observ-
480 THE CHRTSTIAX SABBATH.
ing this sacred institution, and by enjoying its benefits. And by
appointing it at the commencement of human existence, God
plainly signified, that he intended it for the whole race. " The
Sabbath was made," not merely for the parents of the species,
and not for any nation or tribe, but ''^for man.^^ It was ap-
pointed from the beginning, and it was appointed for the whole
race. And thus it was distinguished above all other positive
institutions.
Some learned writers have held, that the Sabbath was first ap-
pointed at the giving of the law on Sinai, and that the mention of
it in Genesis was by way of anticipation. But it is manifest, that
the account of what took place on the seventh day, as much as
what took place on each of the preceding six days, is a simple
narrative of facts ; and we may just as well say that the creation
of hght, or the creation of man, was mentioned in Gen. i, by
way of anticipation, as that the appointment of the Sabbath is
to be so understood.
It is to be kept in mind, that the History which Moses wrote
of the antedilunan world is exceedingly succinct, containing ac-
counts of hundreds of years in a few short sentences. But it
might be shown, that even in that brief narrative evidence is not
wanting of the counting of time by weeks. But when we come
down to the time of Moses all is made plain.
We find in Ex. xii. the first express mention of the Sabbath
after its appointment in Paradise. And it is to be particularly
noticed, that it is here recognized as an institution already existing.
Even before Moses said anything ta the people on the subject,
it is said ; Ex. 16 : 22, " that on the sixth day, they gathered
twice as much bread, two omers for one man." This being told
to Moses, he said, (it being the sixth day) — " To-morrow is the
rest of the holy Sabbath.'' He did not say, God now appoints to-
morrow to be a Sabbath ; but it is the Sabbath ; — just as we should
say now, to-morrow is the Sabbath and we must make provision
for two days.
Proceed now to the giving of the law, Ex. 20: 9 — 11. God
said " Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Remember
THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. 481
that it was set apart bj God at the begmnmg of the world. This
original appointment of the Sabbath in Paradise is expressly men-
tioned in the fourth commandment itself, as a reason why it should
be kept holy. " For in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth, — and rested the seventh day ; wherefore the Lord blessed
the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Thus it appears that the
obhgation to keep the Sabbath did not originate at the giving of
the fourth commandment on Sinai, as the commandment itself
refers to the origin of the institution in Paradise. God reminded
the people of the original appointment, and now enjoined it anew,
and urged the observance of it by additional motives. His great
mercy in delivering them from Egyptian bondage, was in truth
a weighty motive to obey this and every other command. But
the fact that this instance of divine mercy was mentioned as a
reason for remembering the Sabbath, no more proves that the
duty of observing the day commenced at that time, than it proves
that the duty of worshipping the true God or of honoring father
and mother then commenced. You may say, that all the precepts,
excepting the fourth, were the laws of our intelligent and moral
nature, and were written on the heart, and so were of universal
obligation. This is true. And I think that a thorough exami-
nation will show, that the law of the Sabbath is also a law of our
nature ; that it as really results from the constitution of our minds,
as moral and religious beings, as the law which requires us to
worship God and to avoid idolatry ; that we must keep one day
in seven, yes, just that proportion of time, as holy, or we cannot
reach the ends of our moral existence. I adopt this conclusion
from my coniBdence in God, who perfectly knows what we are,
and who unquestionably adapts all his institutions and commands
to our nature and necessities, so that the appointment of the
Sabbath as truly as any other divine law, " is holy, just, and
good." I am led to the same conclusion from common experi-
ence, — the experience of those who by keeping the Sabbath
holy, secure to themselves the blessings of spiritual purity and
Ufe and joy ; and the experience of those who, by neglecting and
VOL. III. 41
482 THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
desecrating the Sabbath, involve themselves in the evils of utter
moral iniin.
It is a circumstance which cannot be overlooked, that the com-
mand enjoining the Sabbath was, together with the other nine
precepts of the law, written bj the finger of God on tables of
stone, indicating that it is, like them, of permanent obligation.
The decalogue is made up of what are called moral precepts.
These precepts are expressly enjoined by God, and they are
moreover groimded in our intellectual, spiritual nature ; and thus
they come to us with a two-fold obligation. And while the
obUgation of laws which are merely ritual or ceremonial, may
pass away, mankind in all ages are held to observe these moral
precepts.
We learn from the Old Testament how the Sabbath was re-
garded by the prophets and the faithful servants of God, and what
divine judgments came upon those who profaned the day. I
shall quote only one passage to show how preeminently important
the Sabbath was in the view of God himself. Isa. 58: 13, 14 ; " If
thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure
on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the
Lord, honorable ; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways,
nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words :
Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord ; and I will cause thee
to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the
heritage of Jacob thy father ; for the mouth of the Lord hath
spoken it."
Let us now see how the institution of the Sabbath was treated
under the Christian dispensation. Nothing can be more obvious
than that Jesus Christ, the head of the church, uniformly man-
ifested a pious reverence for the day of rest. He did indeed
both by his instructions and his example aim to free the institution
from the influence of superstition and bigotry. Accordingly it
was a lesson which he repeatedly inculcated upon the people, that
it was lawful to do works of mercy and charity on the Sabbath.
When he was accused of violating the Sabbath because he and
his disciples went through the field and plucked com to eat, the
THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. 483
manner in which lie defended himself is worthy of special notice.
Matt. 12: 3, 4 ; " But he said unto them, have ye not read ^Yhat
David did when he was a hungered, and they that were with him ;
How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shew
bread, which was not lawfiU for him to eat, neither for them which
were with him, but only for the priests ? " David was justified
in doing what he did, because it was a matter of necessity, as he
was suffering for want of food. In other circumstances it would
not have been lawful. Christ's reference to this case, as a justi-
fication of his conduct, imphed an acknowledgment of the sanctity
of the Sabbath, and an acknowledgment too that, in ordinary
circumstances, he should not have done what he did on the Sab-
bath, but that he and his disciples were hungry, as David and
his company were, and were therefore justified, as David was, in
departing from the letter of the law to satisfy hunger. It was
a plain recognition of the law of the Sabbath, as having divine
authority ; and it was a good example for Christians, showing that
they are not to depart even from the letter of the fourth com-
mandment, except in cases of necessity. At the close of his
remarks to those who charged him with profaning the Sabbath,
Jesus declared that he was the Lord of the Sabbath, and therefore
had a right to liberate the observance of it from whatever was
burdensome under the former economy, and so to modify it, that it
should in all respects be adapted to the new dispensation. Such
was the position taken by our Saviour. He maintained the obli-
gation and sanctity of the seventh day, and at the same time
asserted, that he was Lord of the Sabbath.
It was, I doubt not, in conformity with the instructions which
Jesus gave his apostles while he remained with them, or with the
teachings of the Holy Spirit which he sent to be their guide after
his departure, that they early began to show a special regard to
the first day of the week. Jesus himself conferred great honor
on that day, by choosing it as the time of his resurrection, and
by repeatedly meeting with his disciples on the return of that
day. Again. The first day of the week was marked by that
new and extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit which was to char-
484 THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
acterize the gospel dispensation. The Pentecost has been clearlj
shown by learned men to have fallen on the Lord^s day. Thus
the first day of the week, or the Christian Sabbath, may be con-
sidered as at the same time dedicated to God the Creator of the
world, to the Son of God as the Redeemer, and to the Holy Spirit
as the Sanctifier.
The apostles, who were filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed upon
the first day as the day of holy rest. This is evident from the
sacred records. The apostles and early Christians met for pub-
lic worship on the first day of the week ; and it is frequently
mentioned as a thing well understood, that this was the day
to be kept holy. At the close of the century, John the aged
Apostle, had the revelation which closes the New Testament,
made to him on the first day of the week. He says, " I was in
the Spirit on the Lord's day." He does not speak as though this
was a new name given to the day, but a name well understood,
and with which Christians were familiar.
It is apparent that the change of the Sabbatical institution from
the seventh to the first day of the week, was completed, not
suddenly, but by a gradual process. This was true also in the
transition from circumcision to baptism. Though the latter was
intended to supersede the former ; yet for a time they existed
together. All Christians were baptized ; and some retained cir-
cumcision, till at length circumcision was abandoned. The same
appears to have been the case as to the Sabbath. Christians gene-
rally, I suppose universally, observed the first day of the w^eek,
called the Lord's day ; and some retained the seventh day also,
called the Sabbath. And the apostles themselves often made use
of that day for public worship. But mutual prejudice and dis-
sension soon appeared among the followers of Christ. And it
was evidently the Apostle's aim to remove these, and to promote
forbearance and charity, in what he said to the Roman Christians,
Rom. 14: 5, 6, and to the Colossiaus in Col. 2: 16. There is
good reason to think, that the Apostle referred to the dispute
about the duty of observing the seventh day, and meant to give
liberty to Christians to observe it or not, according to the dictate
THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. 485
of their own consciences ; and thus to prepare the way for it to
subside quietly, and for the Lord's day universally to take its
place. It does not appear that the Apostle ever spoke of ^he
observance of the Lord's day, as a matter of indiiference.
That the seventh day Sabbath was soon given up in the churches
planted by the apostles, might be made perfectly evident by
citations from the earliest writings extant. I shall quote but a
few of the many passages which relate to the subject.
Ignatius, a companion of the Apostle, says, " Let us no longer
/Sahbatize, but keep the Lord's day on which our life arose."
Justin Martyr, about the close of the first century, speaks of
Christians assembling to hear religious instruction on the day
called Sunday, and says, " it was the day on which the creation of
the world began, and on which Christ rose from the dead." Ire-
nseus, a disciple of Polycarp, who had been a disciple of the Apootle
John, says, " On the Lord's day every one of us Christians keeps
the Sabbath." Augustine says, " The Lord's day was by the
resurrection of Christ declared to Christians and from that very
time it began to be celebrated as the Christian's festival." And
Athanasius says, " The Lord transferred the Sabbath to the
Lord's day."
It has been supposed by some, that under the Christian dispen-
sation, the fourth command is given up, and that we can no
longer appeal to it as having authority to bind the conscience.
I cannot but regard this as a great mistake. The conclusion
which I have been led to adopt, and which I think may be fully
sustained by sound arguments, is this ; that the appointment
of one day in seven as holy time, was made in Paradise, and ex-
pressly repeated at Sinai ; that from the beginning of the world
to the resurrection of Christ, the seventh day was to be observed
in commemoration of the finishing of the work of creation, that
being a work so glorious to God and so worthy to be celebrated
by man ; but that the work of the Redeemer on earth, which was
brought to its consummation by his resurrection, is in some respects
still more interesting and important to redeemed sinners, and
that, in commemoration of this event, it was the will of God, that
41*
THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
the original institution, that is, the setting apart of one day in
seven for holy purposes, should be observed under the new dis-
pensation on the first day of the week, thus changing, not the
substance of the institution, but only the particular day on which
it is to be observed. According to this view of the subject, the
fourth command of the decalogue still expresses the will of God
as to keeping a holy day, and as to the proportion of time to be
kept, nothing in reality being detracted from the essential nature
of what is required in that command, but on the other hand a
new and most momentous circumstance, that of the resurrection
of Christ, being made specially prominent in the celebration of
the sacred day.
The proper manner of observing the Sabbath is indicated by
the nature of the institution. God sanctified the day, that is, set
it apart to a sacred and holy use. If 'we would harmonize with
the divine appointment, we must abstain from our ordinary worldly
employments and recreations, and spend the day in the public
and private exercises of God's worship, and, when occasion re-
quires, in works of necessity and mercy. Is it not a fact that
Christians generally fall far short of the use they ought to make
of holy time, and indeed that they liave but a very imperfect
conception of what it is for them to sanctify the Sabbath ? And
in our reflections on a dying bed shall we not recal with sor-
row our neglects of duty in this respect? If we would com-
ply with God's command to remember the Sabbath day and
keep it holy^ we must fill up the time with spiritual and holy
duties ; must devoutly read the word of God, and other books
which are peculiarly spiritual and holy. In conversation we must
avoid what is vain and worldly, and dwell on sacred and holy
subjects. We must aspire after fellowship with the Father, and
with his Son Jesus Christ, and with the Holy Spirit. Divine and
eternal objects must be brought near. We must strive to have
all our affections holy, and to attain to an entire conformity with
the character and law of God. We must make it our object
every Lord's day, to subdue the evils of our hearts and to grow in
grace, and must watchfully guard against whatever would dis-
THE CnillSTIAN SABBATH. 487
tract our minds, or turn off our thoughts from divine things, or
hinder our communion with God in prayer. Now if, through
divine grace, we should keep a single Sabbath as we ought, what
blessed effects would result from it ! And if through the help
of God, we should rise to the habit of spiritual diligence and
watchfulness and fervent prayer on each holy day through the
year, and from year to year ; we should make visible advances in
the divine life. The Lord's day would become a distinguished
day. We should look back upon every Sabbath as a season
of spiritual life and joy, a day in which we tasted that the Lord
is good, and enjoyed the beginning of heavenly rest. If now
you would conquer sin and be adorned with the beauties of holi-
ness ; if you would please God, and secure his blessing upon
yourselves, your friends and fellow creatures ; if you would be
useful to the church and the world, and be prepared to die in
peace and to enter into the joy of your Lord ; then, trusting in
the grace of Christ, deliberately and earnestly resolve, that
henceforth you will remember the Sabbath day and keep it
holy.
LECTURE CXXI.
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. PRELACY.
In our treatment of this subject, we must carefully observe all
the principles which are laid down in the Scriptures. Christ and
his apostles must be regarded as infallible teachers. Whatever
doctrine they taught, we must receive as binding upon our faith.
If we find any direction or act of Christ or his apostles respecting
the government of the church, we must consider it as expressing
his mind or the mind of his inspired apostles. And why is not an
expression of the divine will as obligatory on us in relation to this
subject, as to any other ? If in regard to any of the particular
ways of proceeding in church government, we are left without
instruction from the word of God, we are at liberty, and are under
obligation, to make a pi'oper use of our own discretion. In such a
case it is manifestly the will of God that we should proceed
according to our conviction of what is expedient and suitable.
But so far as general principles of ecclesiastical government are
laid down in the word of God, those principles must govern us ; —
making what may be called the basis of Church Cfovemment.
Particular legislation will be called for. But whenever we
legislate, we should keep our eye upon those permanent principles
which form our ecclesiastical constitution ; remembering that any
act of ours contravening those principles, would be wholly unau-
thorized.
There is only one thing which can in any way modify these sug-
gestions. It is admitted that Christ and his apostles were guided
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. PRELACY. 489
by infallible wisdom. But it may be said, that their wisdom was
exercised with reference to the circumstances of the times in
which they lived, every direction and act of theirs having been
certainly right in those circumstances. But suppose some direc-
tion or act of theirs related, not to what was of a moral or spiritual
nature, but to some outward form, the propriety of which depended
upon existing circumstances. The question is, whether, in differ-
ent circumstances, we are bound to conform to such a direction or
such an example. And this is my reply. If the direction or
act was manifestly grounded upon the pecuhar circumstances then
existing, and if circumstances now exist which are so mate-
rially different that, had they existed in the time of Christ or his
apostles, the direction or act referred to would unquestionably
have been different ; in such a case we should be at liberty to
govern ourselves by other principles. As an illustration, take the
judgment which the Apostle gave to the Christians at Corinth,
that it was expedient for them to abstain from marriage. His
judgment was grounded upon the pecuhar circumstances of the
time. He expressly referred to those circumstances, as the reason
of his advice. Now in circumstances essentially different, the
reason of the Apostle's advice does not exist ; and it is manifest
that we are at hberty to regulate our conduct by those other con-
siderations, which are obvious to reason, and sanctioned by Scrip-
ture.
If then it shaU appear, that any direction or act of Christ or his
apostles relative to the government of the church, was grounded
upon peculiar circumstances then existing, and not on general
principles ; and if those circumstances have now ceased, and others,
having a different bearing on the subject, have come in their
place ; then, I apprehend, that direction or act is not to govern
us. With the exception of such cases we must regard any direc-
tion of Christ, or any direction or act of his apostles, in regard to
church government, as establishing a principle which is obUgatory
on Christians at all times.
There are, in a general point of view, two forms of church gov-
ernment. 1. Prelacy, or government administered by prelates^ or
bisJiops. 2. Government of a popular character.
490 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
Prelacy is thus described by Hooker : " A bishop is a miui3ter
of God, unto "whom with permanent continuance, there is given,
not only power of administering the word and sacraments, which power
other presbyters have, but also a further power to ordain ecclesias-
tical persons, and a power of cliiefty in government over presby-
ters as well as laymen. So that this office as he is a presbyter or
pastor, consisteth in those things wdiich are common to him with
other pastors, as in ministering the word and sacraments ; — but
those things incident to his office, which properly make him a bishop,
cannot be common to him with other pastors. Now — bishops — •
are either at large, or else with restraint; at large, when the
subject of their government — is not tied to any certain place.
Bishops with restraint are they, whose government over the church
is contained within some definite, local compass beyond which
their jurisdiction reacheth not." Episcopahans expressly claim
for their system the sanction of Scripture and the primitive
church, and maintain that from the time of the apostles there have
been three orders of ministers in the church of Christ, bishops,
priests, and deacons.
In my deliberate opinion, I differ from the advocates of pre-
lacy ; and I shall now state somewhat particularly the reasons of
ttis difference.
My first reason is, that tlie leading principles of prelacy, as
now understood and practised, are not autlwrized hy the Christian
Scriptures.
5^he constitution of the Jewish priesthood has been considered
by some, as requiring, or warranting, a similar constitution in the
Christian ministry. In the Jewish priesthood there were three
orders ; the high priest, the priests, and the Levites. But there ia
110 intimation in the New Testament, that the Christian ministry
was to be formed after the model of the former priesthood. The
writer of the epistle to the Hebrews takes pains to show that the
Jewish priesthood, which was a part of the Mosaic ritual, is done
away ; that Jesus Christ, and he only, is the High Priest of Chris-
tians; and that all who are set apart to the work of preaching
the gospel, are his ministers, or servants. There is a wide and
PRELACY.
«h
obvious difference between the plan of the gospel ministry as laid
down in the New Testament, and the plan of the priesthood, as
laid down in the Old Testament. And whatever may be pre-
tended by some Episcopalians, they are far from making the
Jewish priesthood their model. The three orders among Episco-
pal ministers do not by any means correspond with the orders in
the Jewish priesthood. And any attempt to make them more
nearly to correspond, would end in a still more visible and un-
warrantable departure from the teachings of the New Testa-
ment.
It is clear, that there is no foundation for prelacy in any of the
appointments or instructions of Christ. Take his appointment of
the seventy disciples, who were sent forth to teach, to work mir-
acles, and to call sinners to repent and believe. This arrangement
was intended for important purposes at the commencement of
the Christian dispensation. But no one considers it as permanent.
And if it had been designed to be permanent, it would be as far
as possible from giving any countenance to the Episcopal scheme
of three orders in the ministry.
In the next place, Jesus chose twelve of his disciples to be his
constant companions, to hear his instructions and witness his mir-
acles, and thus to be trained up for the special work assigned
them. " He ordained twelve," says Mark, " that they should be
with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to
have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out devils." These
disciples Jesus finally commissioned to go forth as his apostles,
and quahfied them by the gift of the Holy Spirit to be witnesses
of his miracles, and particularly of his resurrection, and to be
infallible teachers and guides. See Matt. 28: 19, 20. Mark
16: 15, 16. Acts 1: 8. The work to which they were called
was a special and momentous work. It was the work of pro-
claiming the gospel, founc^jng the first churches, establishing the
Christian religion by preaching and by miracles, completing the
volume of inspiration, and exercising, under Christ, a paramount
authority in all the concerns of religion. Their commission and
their endowments were adapted to the peculiar objects which
492 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
were then to be accomplished. Those pecuhar objects having
been accomphshed, the j^eculiarities of their oflBce ceased. They
were indeed religious teachers, ministers of the gospel ; and as
such^ they have successors. But they were teachers and minis-
ters in a peculiar sense, and with peculiar qualifications, and pe-
cuhar authority. Considered in this light, they have no succes-
sors. Others have been sent forth as missionaries, as the word
apostles literally signifies. But those first Christian missionaries
were distinguished above all others ; and the word apostles, in a
high and peculiar sense, has been appropriated to them. Now
how does the fact that Christ appointed the apostles to that pe-
culiar work, and distinguished them by their qualifications from
other ministers, prove that one set of ministers in after ages is to
fill an office and possess qualifications above others ? All true
ministers of Christ take place of the apostles considered simply
as gospel ministers. But where are the men at the present day,
who inherit what was peculiar to the apostolic character and
office, or what distinguished the apostles from other gospel minis-
ters ? The welfare and even the continuance of the church
requires, that men, properly qualified, should from time to time
be set apart for the work of the ministry ; and that the ministry
should be b, permanent institution. In this sense there is a suc-
cession, I do not say an uninterrupted, but a real succession from
the apostles to the present time. But it can no more be proved
that subsequent ministers of the gospel share the peculiarities of
the apostohc office, than that they share the peculiarities of the
office of Moses or David. When a special and temporary work
is to be accomplished, God gives men special qualifications, and
a special, temporary commission. And when there is an ordinary
work to be accomplished, a work which is to be continued from
age to age ; God gives men qualifications and invests them with
an office suited to that ordinary work. As far as the work to be
done by ordinary ministers of the gospel bears a resemblance to
the work which was to be done by Moses, or David, or the twelve
apostles, so far, and no farther, can we suppose a resemblance be-
tween them in regard to their respective offices and qualifications.
CHURCH GOVEllNiMENT. 493
So far as the peculiarities of the work assigned to Moses, or David,
or the apostles are concerned, a resemblance between them and
ordinary ministers is precluded.
If it was indeed the design and the appointment of Christ,
that there should be permanently a superior order in the gospel
ministry, sharing in the peculiarities of the apostolic office^ it would
certahily be reasonable to expect them to be possessed of the
peculiar qualifications of the apostles, and with qualifications
above those of the inferior orders. But I know not that the
superior order of ministers in the Episcopal church pretend to be
endued with any of the peculiar qualifications of the apostles, or
with qualifications above those which are found in the inferior
orders. And I am sure that the work which prelates take upon
themselves to perform, is widely different from the peculiar work
of the apostles, — in some respects falling short of it, and in
other respects going beyond it. Whereas, if prelacy were
founded upon the superior office of the apostles, it ought to have
substantially the same functions assigned to it, not varying from
its standard either in the way of deficiency or excess. But in
reaUty, modern prelates are altogether precluded from the princi-
pal works which were peculiar to the apostolic office, such as
being witnesses of the life and death and resurrection of Christ,
casting out devils, and doing other miracles, and preaching and
writmg under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit ; while in
other respects, particularly in assuming and exercising exclusively
the right of ordination, they transcend the powers exercised by
the apostles. But the consideration of this point comes more
properly under another head. It is sufficient for my present
purpose to show, that the existence of the superior office and superior
endowments of the apostles, aff'ords no ground for the existence of a
superior order among gospel ministers in subsequent ages. In othfer
words ; it having been the will of Christ that the apostles, for
the special purposes then to be accomplished, should be invested
with distinguished powers and hold a special and distinguished
office, does not prove it to be his will that a particular order of
ministers should exist in after ages, holding an office like that of
VOL. III. 42
494 PRELACY.
the apostles, and superior to that of ordinary ministers. Prelacy
cannot be legitimately founded on the apostolic office. And how
it comes to pass, that the advocates of prelacy rest their cause so
much on the superior authority belonging to the apostles, it ig
difficult for me to understand. Their reasoning on this point ap-
pears to be wholly inconclusive, unless they can show that there is
now the same necessity for the office of prelates, as there was
originally for the office of apostles.
It may be thought that the passage. Matt. 18: 18, affords sup-
port to the high claims of bishops. Christ said to his apostles,
" Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ;
and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
But what does this prove ? The apostles, as appointed and quali-
fied by Christ, were invested with peculiar authority, and were
enabled infallibly to exercise their authority in the business of
church discipline; for this was the subject introduced in the
three preceding verses. They were to have the gift of the Holy
Spirit in such measures, that their instructions and their decisions
should always be right, and their acts in the affair of binding and
loosing should be confirmed in heaven. But this proves nothing
as to three orders in the ministry. And it is no proof of the
superior authority of bishops, unless it is made to appear that
they possess the miraculous endowments which belonged to the
apostles. In connection with this, take the passage, John 20:
22, 23. " Jesus breathed on the apostles, and said, receive ye the
Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." The
authority here intended, whatever it was, belonged to the apostles,
as endued with the Hohj Ghost. But what proof does it afford of
the authority of one order of ministers in the Episcopal church
afcove that of other orders ? Episcopalians themselves do not re-
gard it in this light. For when the bishop ordains priests, he
says to them, " receive ye the Holy Ghost for the office and work
of a priest — whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven;
and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained." Now the
priest actually exercises the authority thus committed to him by
PKELAOY. 4^5
the bishop. But how does he exercise it ? This appears from
the declaration of absolution, or remission of sins, made bj the
priest in the daily service. He says : " Almighty God, the Fa-
ther of our Lord Jesus Christ, — hath given power and command-
ment to his ministers to declare and pronounce to his people, being
penitent, the remission of their sins. He pardoneth all those who
truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy gospel. Wherefore
let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, etc." This then
I judge to be the meaning ; that when it is said to the priest at
his ordination, " whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ;"
he is authorized to declare, that God will forgive those who repent,
and then to pray for repentance, etc. This is what the priest
does in the affair of absolution. It is evident that the bishop is
not at all distinguished above the priests, in this affair of pro-
nouncing absolution to the penitent. Whether done by the bishop
or priest, it is merely declaring that momentous doctrine of the
gospel, that God will forgive the penitent. And the right to de-
clare this truth, which belongs ahke to all gospel ministers, is no
proof of the superiority of one order above another. This right,
or authority, was exercised by the apostles, as inspired men, and
therefore infallible. It is exercised by ministers at this day, not
as inspired, — not as having received the Holy Ghost in the pecu-
liar sense in which the apostles received it, but as instructed by
inspired men. Understood as a declaration of a gospel truth,
followed by a prayer for repentance and pardon, the rite or prac-
tice of absolution is very suitable, and occasions no mistake. But
the application to any uninspired men of the exact words which
Christ addressed to his inspired apostles, -is, in my apprehension,
unwarrantable. And I am glad to see in the ordination ser-
vice, that a second form is provided, in which the words of
Christ to his apostles, John 20: 22 are omitted.
Having found that there is nothing in the appointment of the
apostles to their peculiar office, which can give support to prelacy ;
I proceed to say, that prelacy can receive no support from the
instructions of Christ. If we could find that, in any of his teach-
ings addressed pubUcly to the multitude, or privately to the apos-
496 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
ties, he made it known as his will, that there should in following
ages be different ranks or orders among his ministers, there would
be no place left for any question or hesitation on our part. But
no intimation of this kind appears in any of the instructions of
Christ related by the Evangelists, or in anything which the in-
spired apostles said or did after the ascension of Christ. If the
apostles had on any occasion signified, that, in their free inter-
course with Christ, they had learnt it to be his intention, that
there should be different orders in the ministry, either immediately
or ultimately ; this would be a conclusive argument for prelacy.
But nothing Hke this can be found.
A sermon was delivered in Boston, by an American prelate,* in
which he gives a description of the character and reward of a faithful
bishop, which is worthy of the serious attention of every gospel min-
ister. I now refer to it, because it contains a passage relative to the
subject which has just been under consideration. The author un-
dertakes to reply to the objection urged against Episcopacy, from,
the alleged uncertainty of the succession ofbishojjs. He says ; " Our
answer is, that the promise of perpetuity is from the lips of him, who
has explicitly declared that his words shall not fail. ' As my father
hath sent me, even so send I you.' ' Lo, I am with you alway, even
unto the end of the world.' The same power, which has preserved
the Scriptures true, through the successive copies and editions,
amidst the distractions of persecution, the perversities of ignorance,
and the distortions of heresy and schism, so that, at this moment,
the pure word of God can be ascertained, is fully adequate to the
faithful preservation of the ministry." — " It is not to human plan-
ning, but to divine interposition, that we appeal. The promise
is from the lips of liim whose power is adequate to the fulfil-
ment."— Again he says ; " We may repose, with unshaken confi-
dence, on the abihty of the Promisor to fulfil his pledge."
We heartily agree with the prelate, that we " may repose, with
unshaken confidence, on the ability of the Promisor to fulfil his
pledge ;" that his " power is adequate to the fulfilment of his
promise," that is, " to the faithful preservation of the ministry ;"
* The Right Rev. William H. De Lancey, D. D.
PRELACY. 497
and also that the promise of Christ implies " a succession of val-
idly commissioned ministers, to the end of the world." All this
we hold as strongly as Episcopalians can do. With devout grati-
tude we receive the promise of our Redeemer, as a blessed en-
couragement to all his faithful ministers, whether in the Episcopal,
Congregational, Presbyterian, Baptist or Methodist Church. True
gospel ministers of different denominations have rehcd upon this
gracious promise, and have experienced its fulfilment, and have
been animated and comforted by it in their labors. And I can-
not doubt that minister? of other denominations have received the
benefits of the promise as uniformly, and in as high a degree, as
those of the Episcopal church. Nor can I admit that the benefits
they have thus received, are stolen benefits, — benefits to which
Christ has given them no title. As a matter of fact, he has be-
stowed the benefits of his presence as readily and as bountifully upon
good ministers who are out of the Episcopal church, as upon those
who are in it. The Lord Jesus is no respecter of persons ; and
in the fulfilment of his gracious promise, he makes no difference
among pious and faithful ministers, because they differ as to oui^
ward forms. If Episcopalians set up an exclusive claim to the
promise, that claim we know will not be sanctioned by their Lord
and Master. We appeal from them to him. And we shall con-
tinue to go to him, and plead his promise, and beseech him to
grant his presence, with all the blessings involved in it, not only
to us, but to all his faithful ministers, whether they follow with us
or not, being fully persuaded, that whatever straitness or partial-
ity there may be among poor, imperfect, erring men, there is
none in him. Yes ; we shall always prize that promise of Christ,
and shall apply it to ourselves, undeserving as we are. Sensible
that we are utterly insufficient for the arduous duties of the min-
istry, we shall trust in his all sufficient grace, praying him to be
with us according to his word. And why should any of those who
differ from us in rcgatd to ecclesiastical forms, attempt to exclude
us from the benefits of Christ's precious promise ? In his infinite
fulness is there not enough for them, and for us ? With our
present views, we shall continue to appropriate the promise to
42*
498 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
ourselves. And if we are ever convinced that it does not belong
to us, we shall at once abandon the ministry, well knowing the
truth of Christ's declaration ; " without me ye can do nothing."
The author of the able sermon referred to considers the promise
of Christ, " Lo I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world," as a clear and certain proof of the perpetual succession
of bishops. Bishops, that is, prelatieal bishops, he regards as
the successors of the apostles. In a qualified sense, bishops, such
as he describes in his sermon, are doubtless successors of the
apostles ; that is, they follow or come ftfter the apostles, and
sustain an office in some respects like that of the apostles. In a
limited sense, they carry forward the work of the gospel ministry,
which, in a higher sense, was committed to the apostles at the
commencement of the Christian dispensation. In this qualified
sense, I hold that faithful bishops are successors of the apostles.
But are they the ordi/ successors ? And does the promise of Christ
belong exclusively to them ? If bishops are the only successors
of the apostles, and if the promise of Christ belongs to none
except bishops ; then what becomes of the great body of gospel
ministers in the Episcopal church and in other parts of the Chris-
tian church, who are not bishops ? There are in the kingdom of
Christ on earth many hundreds of gospel ministers to one prelate.
What, I ask, becomes of all these, left as they are without the
presence of their Lord and Master ? But if the promise relates
to gospel ministers who are not bishops ; then it may be fulfilled
towards a succession of such ministers. And if so, how does it
imply a succession of bishops? And wherein lies the strength
of the argument, by which the author attempts to prove the per-
petual succession of bishops, that is, prelates, from the promise
of Christ ?
It may be said, that the promise belongs primarily and by way
of eminence to bishops, and, in a lower sense, to the other order of
ministers, ordained by bishops. But how is this made to appear ?
There is nothing in the promise which indicates, that it was meant
to be understood in these different senses, as apphed to different
orders of ministers. The promise is very simple. "Lo, I am
PRELACY. 499
"with ?/(?Jt alway, even to the end of the -world." With -whom!
He does not say with one order of ministers in a higher sense,
and with another in a lower sense. He promised to be with the
apostles, and, by implication, with others after them who should
possess the character of gospel ministers, and be engaged in car-
rying on, in a restricted sense, the great work which the apostles
began. The promise may indeed be fulfilled in different measures,
as other promises are. Ministers who are distinguished for their
piety and faithfulness, such as Leighton, Scott, Cecil, Henry
Martyn, Baxter, Edwards, Brainerd, Payson, Andrew Fuller, and
Davies, will undoubtedly enjoy the presence of Christ in a higher
degree, than ministers less pious and faithful. And this is equally
true in regard to ministers of different denominations. The Lord
Jesus Christ is a Great King ; and in administering the affairs of
his great kingdom, he does not proceed according to the narrow
and exclusive notions which so often influence the minds of men.
His thoughts and ways are exceedingly different from ours. Show
me a gospel minister of whatever name, who is filled with the Holy
Ghost, and preaches the truth in love and fidelity ; and you show
me one, to whom Christ will especially grant his promised presence.
And surely the fulfilment of his promise manifests to whom he
intended it should belong. For does he not act according to his
intentions ? I ask the pious author of the sermon before me, and
other Episcopal ministers like him, whether it is not so. And
they will permit me also to ask, whether they think their Blessed
Lord is present with them because they are EpiBcopalians^ — or,
because they truly love him, and faithfully preach his gospel. If
any of them say, for the former reason, that is, because they
are Episcopalians ; then, I ask, for what reason Christ is so
evidently and so graciously present with those ministers who are
not Episcopahans ? But if they say, for the latter reason, that
is, because they truly love him, and do the work of the ministry
faithfully ; then they will doubtless admit, that other ministers, «
possessing the same character, may regard the promise as made
to them also, and may expect to realize its accompHshments.
There are, besides bishops, multitudes of gospel ministers, who
500 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
have the heart and who do the work of true and faithful servants
of Christ, and to whom he does in fact, and according to his
intention, fulfil his precious promise. And if all that is implied
in the promise has or maj have its accomi:)lishment in a succession
of those whom the omniscient Redeemer regards and treats as good
and faithful ministers, though 7iot bishops; then the question re-
turns ; how does the promise prove a succession of bishops, in
distinction from other gospel ministers ? The promise of Christ
is a matter of great p-actical moment ; and I have chosen to
treat it as such. And let me saj again, so that it may not be
forgotten ; — if being included within the reach of this gracious
promise, and enjoying the benefits of its fulfilment, proves men
to be successors of the apostles ; then faithful Congregational,
Presbyterian, and Baptist ministers are such successors, as truly
as bishops; and the promise no more proves the continued exis-
tence of these, than of those. The fulfilment of the promise
by the unchangeable Promiser, certainly shows how he intended
his promise to be understood and apphed. Pious and faithful
bishops, such as are set before us in this sermon, are, I doubt
not, in an important, though qualified sense, successors of the
apostles, to whom the promise belongs. Pious and faithful pres-
byters and deacons in the Episcopal church, are also successors
of the apostles. Otherwise how could they, equally with bishops,
be entitled to the promise ? Thus far the strong advocates of
prelacy agree with us. And here they stop. But He who is
Head over all things to the church, which he bought with his
own blood, does not stop here. Thej/ limit the succession of true
gospel ministers and the intent of Christ's promise to bishops, and
those who are ordained by bishops. Not so with him who made
the promise, and who has all power in heaven and earth. He
speaks and acts on larger principles. There is nothing at all
either in the language of the promise, or in its obvious mean-
•ing, or in the manner of its fulfilment, which restricts it to
a succession of bishops, or which proves the existence of such a
succession, any more than a succession of other gospel ministers.
And if we would agree with our blessed Lord, — if we would have
PRELACY, 501
our views and feelings correspond with his mind, as expressed in
his word and providence ; we must guard not only against pride
and bitterness, but against all narrowness and bigotry and party
spirit, and must pray for enlargement of heart, and must rejoice
in the wide extent of Christ's promise, and in the length and
breadth of his love.
It is in this way that I dispose of the passage quoted above,
in which the author cites the promise of Christ, Matt. 28 : 20,
as a plain, conclusive argument, on which he confidently relies, to
prove the perpetual succession of bishops. I maintain, that neither
the occasion, nor the language of the promise, nor its obvious
meaning, nor the facts of its accomplishment, prove any such thing.
Episcopalians may affirm, that it is a principle settled and certain,
that bishops are the only successors of the apostles, and that they
and those ordained by them are the only authorized and lawful
ministers of Christ. What I have aimed to show in these remarks,
is, that this principle cannot be proved from the promise of Christ.
And I can no more admit, that bishops and those who are ordained
by them, are the only authorized and lawful ministers of Christ,
than that hereditary kings and nobles are the only authorized and
lawful rulers.
LECTURE CXXII.
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. PRELACY.
In the last Lecture, I stated it as my first reason against pre-
lacy, that it is Tiot authorized hy the Christian Scriptures. In
discussing this point, I referred you particularly to the appoint-
ments and instructions of Christ, during his public ministry on
earth.
Let us now inquire whether anything favorable to prelacy can
be found in the Acts of the Apostles ; — anything in the conduct
of those, whom Christ appointed to preach his gospel and propa-
gate his religion, which implied, that there should be three orders
in the ministry, and that one of these orders, namely, bishops,
should exercise authority, not only over the churches, but over
two subordinate orders of ministers. Had the apostles so under-
stood the matter, they would doubtless have said or done some-
thing to show it. For they were commissioned and quahfied to be
witnesses and ministers of Christ, and, in his name, to teach the
doctrines and laws of his kingdom, to establish churches, and to
settle everything pertaining to their order and prosperity. And
it was manifestly of great importance, that they should give
a right direction to the great concerns of Christianity at the out-
set. What, I ask, is the practice of zealous bishops of the present
day, who believe themselves called to fill an office similar to the
apostles ? Do they not on all occasions make the doctrine of
prelacy very prominent ? And if they go to places where Christ
has not been known, and engage in the great work of preaching
PRELACY. 503
the gospel and establishing churches ; do they not, among the
very first things, make known theii' principles of church govern-
ment ? And whenever thej organize a church, do thej not take
good care to have those principles well understood, and to arrange
everything according to the Episcopal plan ? Their peculiar belief
naturally leads to such a practice. And if their behef is right,
their practice is right ; and every one who honestly entertains
that belief, will show it by his practice. But how was it with the
apostles, who were called of God to take the lead in establishing
the kingdom of Christ among Jews and gentiles, and who were
responsible for giving, from the first, a right direction and form to
the churches ? If they had been led by the teaching of Christ,
or of the Holy Spirit, to hold the ecclesiastical principles now held
by Episcopalians ; would they not have been as honest and faith-
ful as Episcopalians now are ; — and would they not have done, in
some good measure, as Episcopalians do ? Look, then, into the
history of the Acts of the Apostles, and carefully notice their par-
ticular proceedings and instructions, and see whether they did as
Episcopalians do ; — see whether they did anything or taught
anything, which shows, that they really meant to establish the
Episcopal plan of church government. Do you find anything in
the account given of the choice of one to fill the place of Judas ?
Do you find anything in the proceedings of the apostles on the
day of Pentecost ? Do you find anything in chapter vi, where
we have an account of the choice of seven men, commonly called
deacons, whom the apostles set apart to their work by prayer and
the imposition of hands ? What is there in this transaction, which
is favorable to any part of the Episcopal plan of church polity ?
These deacons or servants of the church were chosen and set
apart as almoners, that is, distribviters of the charities of the
church ; not as an order of gospel ministers, or preachers, though
some of them afterwards preached. But what resemblance has
this transaction to the proceeding of bishops in ordaining those
whom they call deacons, and who constitute the lowest order of
Episcopal ministers?
In Acts XV. we are informed of disputes and diflBculties which
604 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
arose at Antioch respecting circumcision, and of the manner in
which they were adjusted. It was a very important affair, and
required the exercise of the highest wisdom and the highest
authority. But by whom was it decided ? Not by a bishop ; not
by an apostle, nor by a number of apostles ; but by the apostles,
and elders, and " the whole church " at Jerusalem. Was there
anything in the mode of proceeding on that occasion, which was in
any respect like that which is marked out by the rules of the epis-
copal church. Was there any appearance of a prelate, either at
Antioch or at Jerusalem ? In those large churches, was there, in
this important and diflEicult case, any exercise of prelatical author-
ity, even by the apostles ? But I shall have occasion to advert to
this case again. All that my present object requires is to show,
that what took place at Antioch and Jerusalem, as here related,
gives no support to the Episcopal plan of church polity.
The next passage in the Acts, which relates to our subject, is
chapter xx. The Apostle Paul gathered together the elders or
presbyters of the church of Ephesus, that he might make his
farewell address to them. But there is nothing in his address
to those presbyters, or in what we leam of the state of things
in the church at Ephesus, which can give any support to pre-
lacy. Let any one carefully read this chapter, and then say,
whether there is any reason to think, that Paul, who had a
direct agency in the first formation of that church, which doubt-
less comprised several congregations, established different orders
of ministers ? Is there anything which imj)lies, tliat one of those
called elders, was invested vdth authority over the others ? Tak-
ing everything into view, can we find the least evidence, that Paul
did, what any Episcopal bishop would now do in a similar case,
that is, that when he established the church or churches at Ephe-
sus, he introduced prelacy, and that, among the oflScers of the
church whom he addressed, there was a prelate, that is, a bishop,
having authority over the presbyters ? But this case will be
brought up again under another head.
Let us now proceed to tlie epistles, and inquire whether they
give any support to Episcopacy.
PRELACY. 505
Paul directed, his Epistle to the Philippians thus : " To all the
saints at PhiUppi, with the bishops and deacons^ This, you will
see in a moment, is no argument for prelacy, as there is abundant
evidence, Episcopalians themselves being judges, that bishop and
elder, or presbyter, were used by the Apostle as synonymous
terms. This appears also in his Epistle to Titus, chapter i. Paul
directs Titus to ordain elders, adding a particular description of
the qualifications which they must possess, and showing clearly,
before he has done, that by bishop and elder he means the same
officer. In Eph. 4: 11, the Apostle says, that Christ " gave some
apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pas-
tors and teachers — for the work of the ministry, etc." But what
is there in all this, which is favorable to the Episcopal scheme ?
Here, indeed, different orders of ministers are mentioned ; but
they are five orders, not three; and there is no mention at all of
the orders established in the Episcopal church, either bishops,
presbyters, or deacons. Besides, the Apostle does not give the
least intimation that one of these orders was set over the other
orders. It will be natural to take this passage in connection with
1 Cor. 12: 28 ; " God hath set some in the church, first apostles,
secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, gifts of
heahng, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." Here are
eight varieties. The first three are orders of ecclesiastical offi-
cers ; but they have no correspondence with the three orders in
the Episcopal church. The passage seems to be intended to mark
different classes of duties, or different departments of labor, rather
than different orders or ranks of church officers. If you will
excuse me, I will attempt some illustration of the Apostle's mean-
ing, by what exists in this Seminary. Here the officers are all
Professors, all gospel ministers, all pastors and teachers ; and all
are of the same rank, and, in many respects, attend to the same
duties. Yet they fill different departments, and with reference to
those departments, they have different titles, marking the particu-
lar work • assigned to them ; as. Professor of Sacred Literature,
Professor of the Hebrew Language and Literature, Professor of
Christian Theology, Professor of Sacred Rhetoric, Professor of
VOL. III. 43
606 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
Ecclesiastical History. But instead of this, they might, properly
enough, be designated by five distinct names, as the Greek Exe-
gete, (if I may coin a word,) the Hebrew Exegete, the Theolo-
gian, the Rhetorician, and the Historian ; — though it comes out,
that they all, in a sort, teach exegesis, and Rhetoric, and History,
and all, doubtless, are Theologians.
It may be thought that the case of Matthias, and Barnabas, and
some others, who were called apostles, furnishes an argument in
favor of prelacy. As to Matthias ; he was appointed to fill a
vacancy made by the apostasy of Judas, and so came to be one of
the twelve apostles, not a successor of the apostles. And it is very
easy to account for it that Barnabas and others should be called
apostles, on the ground of their being engaged as missionaries in
the same general work of preaching the gospel with the apostles,
and perhaps being endued with miraculous gifts ; though the chief
peculiarities of the apostolic office did not belong to them. At any
rate, there is no evidence that they sustained an office like that of
p-elates ; and of course, they cannot be referred to as afibrding
any support to prelacy.
Episcopalians have argued in favor of prelacy from 1 Tim.
1: 20. Paul, speaking of Hymeneus and Alexander, says :
" Whom I dehvered unto Satan, that they may learn not to
blaspheme." The sum of the argument is this : Paul, in the
exercise of his authority/ as an Apostle, administered church disci-
pline upon tivo notorious offenders in the church at Ephesus.
Bishops are the successors of the apostles, and are in this respect
invested ivith the same authority ; and therefore it belongs to
them to administer church discipline. Let us examine this argu-
ment.
The punishment of these apostates at Ephesus, like that of the
incestuous person at Corinth, was, I think, preternatural. The
language plainly denotes something more than simple excommuni-
cation. The power of the Apostle to inflict such punishment, was
miraculous, and was as real though not so remarkable an instance
of supernatural agency, as the punishment inflicted upon Ananias
and Sapphira. This miraculous power belonged preeminently to
PRELACY. 507
the apostles. But surely the exercise of this power in some extra-
ordinary cases was not intended to make void the precept of
Christ in Matt, xviii, as to the ordinary treatment of offences. If
the fact, that Paul, by his supernatural power, as an Apostle,
inflicted such a punishment upon heinous offenders, proves any-
thing relevant to the case in hand, it proves that modem bishops
are competent to do the same as the apostles did. And if it proves
this, it proves that bishops may now write inspired epistles as the
apostles did.
Episcopahahs hold, that the church at Ephesus had a bishop,
that is, Timothy, as well as presbyters; and they hold that a
bishop is entrusted with the same power of administering church
discipline, as belonged to the apostles. Timothy, then, the bishop
of Ephesus, had the power, and, no doubt, he knew that he had it.
And if so, why did he not exercise it ? And why did. Paul, who
had given it to the bishops, interfere with it ?
According to the reasoning of Episcopalians, the Apostle's
exercising the power of church discipline in this case, is a proof
that it did not belong to the church, or the elders of the church.
And does it not equally prove that it did not belong to the bishop ?
The argument then seems to stand thus : A bishop, that is, Timo-
thy, is a successor of the apostles, and is invested with the sole
power of administering discipline in the church. But the Apostle
comes forward, and exercises that power himself in the very diocese
of Bishop Timothy ; — which shows very clearly, they say, that the
power does not belong either to the church, or to the presbyters ;
and, if the argument is straight, it shows equally that it does not
belong to the bisJiop.
If we should extend our inquiries further, the result would be
the same ; namely, that prelacy, as now understood and prac-
tised, is not founded upon the Christian Scriptures. The ablest
advocates of prelacy do not pretend that it is. This is my first
objection to the Episcopal scheme of ecclesiastical polity. And it
is in my mind, an objection of no small weight. For it is to be
kept in mind, that Christ was the Founder and Head of the
church ; and it is surely reasonable to suppose that he Avould, in
608 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
his own personal ministrj, or by the ministry of those whom he
appointed and quahfied to act in liis stead, do all which was neces-
sary to the due establishment and subsequent prosperity of his
kingdom on earth. It is certain that he and his inspired apostles
knew what was necessary. And considering what their relation
to the church was, and what was the work they undertook, and
how deep an interest they felt in it, and how great their zeal and
how constant their efforts for its full accomplishment ; we must
regard the /a c^, that there is nothing in their recorded instructions
or acts which gives support to prelacy, as a clear indication that
they did not look upon it as properly belonging to the Christian
estabhshment. If then the matter ended here, and nothing more
appeared than this absence of clear and explicit Scripture evidence
in favor of prelacy ; I should feel myself constrained to pause, and
to ask, how could this be, if Christ and the apostles meant to
establish prelacy in the church ?
But the New Testament is not only destitute of evidence in
favor of prelacy, but contains much evidence against it. This is
my second reason against prelacy, namely, that there is in the
instructions of Christ, and in the instructions and acts of his
apostles, evidence, direct and indirect, against the Episcopal
scheme, both as to church discipline, and as to different orders in
the ministry.
The New Testament furnishes evidence against the Episcopal
scheme, in regard to the treatment of jjersonal offences and other
difficulties in the church. On this subject Jesus Christ gave a
particular direction to his disciples ; Matt. 18: 15 — 17, " If thy
brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault betM'een
thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy
brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or
two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word
may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it
to the church. But if he neglect to hear the church, let him be
unto thee as a heathen man and a publican," This is a gendral
direction from Christ himself for the treatment of offences. It
manifestly had respect to future time ; for there was not, as yet.
PRELACY. 509
any regularly organized Christian church, that could act, as here
required, in the business of disciphne. The direction of Christ
requires, that the church, that is, the assembly of believers, should
ultimately hear, and judge, and act in regard to offences commit-
ted by its members. This mode of proceeding is palpably at
variance with the system of Episcopacy, which places the govern-
ment of the church, in this as well as in other respects, in the
hands of the bishop. The parish minister may have a subordinate
agency in the discipline of offenders. But ultimately the whole
power belongs to the bishop. On this plan, the proceeding from
beginning to end, must be different from that required by Christ.
And to bring his direction to correspond with the Episcopal plan,
you must make it stand thus : If thy brother trespass against
thee, go and tell him his fault, etc. If he neglect to hear thee,
take one or two others. — And if he neglect to hear them,
tell it, — not to the church, but to the minister of the parish, and,
at last, to the hisho2J. But the minister is not the church, and the
bishop is not the church.
See now Avhat was the judgment of the Apostle Paul, who had
so important an agency in establishing Christian churches ; and
what direction he gave, in regard to the treatment of offences.
A gross crime was committed by a member of the church at
Corinth ; and the Apostle directed the church, the whole church,
to come together, and act in excluding the offender. Now what
is there in the doings of any Episcopal church, which agrees with
this apostolic direction ? In what instance is the complaint
against an offender brought before the church for decision ? In
what instance are the members of the church gathered together to
act in cutting off a man from their fellowship ? How is it that
Episcopalians so easily overlook the direction of an apostle, and
the example of a primitive church acting according to his direc-
tion, and then make so much of the opinions and conduct of erring
Christians in after ages ? If there were in the New Testament
any precept or example as directly favorable to their scheme of
church discipline, as the above precept and example are to ours ;
they would be quick to discover it, and would at once fix upon it
43*
510 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
as aji unfailing support to their principles. Should it be said by
any one, that the Apostle in this case plainly asserted and exer-
cised his authority over the Corinthian church, and was thus an
example for prelates ; my reply Avould be ; — let prelates then
take care to copy the Apostle's example, and exercise authority
just as he did, not by a separate final act of their own, but
by referring the business to the churches, and directing the mem-
bers to come together to deliberate and act in excommunicating
©flFenders.
The proceedings recorded in Acts xv. are evidently contrary to
the Episcopal mode of church government. There was one Apos-
tle, that is Paul, at Antioch, and there were apostles at Jerusalem.
And we may be quite sure that these apostles, quahfied as they
were for their office, adopted a plan of proceeding, which was
agreeable to the mind of Christ, and which may be regarded as a
pattern for ministers and churches in subsequent ages. A dis-
pute arose among the disciples at Antioch respecting circumci-
sion. They finally sent Paul and Barnabas and certain others to
the apostles and elders at Jerusalem to attend to this matter.
" And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of
the church, and of the apostles and elders." After Paul and Bar-
nabas had stated the case to " all the multitude, ^^ that is, to the
apostles and elders and the church, and after Peter and James
had spoken on the question before them, their deliberations were
brought to a happy close ; and it pleased the apostles and elders,
with the ivhole church, to send chosen men of their own company
to communicate the result of their deliberations to the church at
Antioch, that result being contained in a letter with this introduc-
tion : " The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting to the
brethren at Antioch, etc."
In this remarkable case, we see how the concerns of the church
were managed and how disputes and difficulties were adjusted in
the primitive church. The apostles, though divinely commissioned
and inspired, did not decide the question before them by their own
authority, but chose to act in connection with the elders, or
presbyters, and '■'■ the whole CJmrch.'^ And in the final result,
PRELACY. 511
the elders and the whole church had a joint agency with the
'apostles.
Now what is there in any doings of the Episcopal church, which
agrees with these transactions ? Where do jon find it recorded,
that in removing difficulties and settling great ecclesiastical princi-
ples, the brethren of the Episcopal church in any place, even in
this Republic, came together and joined with the bishops and
presbyters in deliberating freely^ without being controlled by the
will of any one, on a question respecting the interests of religion,
and in adopting the final decision ? Place a bishop, if you will,
on a level with the apostles ; but why place him above them ?
Why should he, in such transactions, set aside the brethren of the
church, and the elders too, and assert his supremacy over them,
and act the part of dictator, when the apostles themselves, though
invested with such high authority, did not proceed thus, but acted
in concert with the elders and the whole church ? Say, if you
will, that the apostles, though they had a right to decide and act
on the ground of their own plenary authority, intended by such a
proceeding, to set an example of singular condescension and
modesty. Why then do not bishops, who consider themselves
successors of the apostles, copy so charming an example ? The
plain truth is, that there is ai radical fault in the system of prelacy.
That system does not agree with the teachings of the New Testa-
ment. When it was introduced, it was, as we shall see, an inno-
vation upon the ecclesiastical order established and acted upon by
the apostles. It was an innovation made by uninspired men, —
good men, I admit, but as liable to error, as good men are now.
The system held by Episcopalians, either as to the three orders of
ministers, or the mode of conducting the affairs of the church,
cannot be reconciled with the pattern showed us in the New
Testament. It is not derived from the word of God. In the
respects above mentioned, it is a continuation, for substance, of the
system which existed so long in the Papal church, and the system
of the Papal church grew out of the innovations and corruptions
which were gradually introduced in ages long after the time of
the apostles. Henry the Eighth did indeed, from personal con-
612 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
siderations, renounce the supremacy of the Pope of Rome. But
so far as the church of England was concerned, he took the place'
of the Pope, that is, he became the Head of the church. And
he mth his bishops retained for their church, as any one may see,
the essential features of the previous hierarchy, both as to cere-
monies, and the orders of the Priesthood.
We have now touched upon the prominent passages in the New
Testament, which relate directly to the manner of treating offences
and removing disputes and dissensions occurring in the church.
And I know not how to suppress the thoughts, which a review of
"these passages suggests to my mind.
Suppose, then, that the advocates of the Episcopal scheme of
Ecclesiastical government at this day, could find in the gospel,
that Jesus, who had a perfect knowledge of things to come, directed
his followers, in case of an offence, to deal once and again with the
offender in private, and if no satisfaction should be given for the
offence, to tell it to the presbyter or the bishop, — not to the
church, but to the presbyter or the bishop ; would they pass over
such a passage, as they do Matt. 18: 15 — 17 ? And suppose
they should find in one of Paul's epistles, that he gave an express
command to a bishop, — not to the members of the church assem-
bled together, but to the bishop, " with the power of the Lord
Jesus " to cut off an offender ; would they pass over such a
direction, as they do the direction of Paul to the members of the
church of Corinth respecting the treatment of the incestuous per-
son ? And if they could find it related in the history of the Acts
of the Apostles, that an important and difficult question respecting
the interests of the church was determined and settled, not by
apostles and elders and all the church acting together, — but by
a bishop, or several bishops united, — could Episcopalians find
anything like this, would they pass over it, as they do the case
mentioned in Acts xv. ?
It has already been suggested, that any direction of Christ or
any direction or act of his apostles respecting the transaction of
business in the church, is binding upon us, unless such direction or
act was grounded upon pecuhar circumstances then existing, and
PRELACY. 513
that circvimstances so essentially different now exist, that we are
evidently at liberty, and even re(|uired, to govern ourselves by
other considerations. Let us inquire then, whether there is any-
thing like this in the case now before us. Have circumstances so
changed since the commencement of the Christian dispensation,
that we are required, or left at liberty, to deviate from a direction
of Christ, or a direction or example of an Apostle respecting the
treatment of offences, or the conduct of other church affairs ?
Now if there is in New England and in other parts of our
country, a substantial reason at the present time, why the mem-
bers of the church should be excluded from any agency in matters
of discipline, and why the government of the church should be
ultimately in the hands of the bishop^ the reason must, I think,
consist in one or more of the following facts ; namely ; that the
interests of the church are essentially different from what they
originally were, and consequently require a different management ;
or, secondly, that the members of the church are less competent
than they originally were, to have an agency in the concerns of
the church ; or, thirdly, that the bishop is possessed of higher
quahfications, and is of course, more competent to the government
of the church, than he was at the beginnmg of the Christian dis-
pensation ; or, fourthly, that the state of civil society is here so
different, as to require a change from the popular forms of church
government to prelacy. Let us consider each of these.
First. Are the essential interests of the church different from
what they were when Christianity was first established in the
•world ? If any one affirms that this is the case, it will be incum-
bent on him to show in what respect those interests are different,
and why they require different management. Till this is done,
we cannot admit that the change referred to in the plan of church
government, is either necessary or lawful.
Secondly. Is there reason to think, that the members of our
churches generally are less competent to have a share in ecclesi-
astical government, than the members of the first churches at
Jerusalem and at Corinth were ? Are not Christians here as well
educated, as much accustomed to think correctly, and as well
514 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
prepared for important duties, as those were, who had just emerged
from Judaism or Paganism ?
Thirdly. Will any one maintain, that a bishop at this day is
possessed of higher qualifications, and is more competent to the
government of the church, than a bishop was in the church at
Jerusalem, at Corinth, or at Antioch ? And is he more compe-
tent, than an inspired apostle ? You will keep in mind, that there
were apostles there, but that no apostle undertook to decide upon
the questions which came up at Jerusalem, except in concert with
the presbyters and the brethren of the church. And as to the
case of discipline at Corinth, Paul did not go there to manage it ;
nor did he direct the bishop to manage it ; — (and doubtless the
Corinthian church had a bishop ;) but he directed the assembled
church to do it. The question is, whether a bishop now is better
qualified to govern, than a primitive bishop, or an inspired apostle ?
Finally. Is the state of civil society in our country such, as to
require a change from a popular form of church government to
prelacy ? ' The question carries its own answer with it. If eccle-
siastical government is to conform to civil government ; then, as
civil government, in the time of the apostles, was in the hands of
a Monarch, ecclesiastical government should certainly have been
in the hands of a prelate. And as we live under a Republican
government, (if this circumstance is to have influence,) it would
seem to follow, that even if prelacy had been the original plan, it
should now be changed to a popular shape. But what reason can '
you find in our Mepublican principles for a change from the
original popular form of church government to an ecclesiastical
monarchy, or aristocracy ?
We come therefore to the conclusion, that there has been no
such change of circumstances, as to justify a deviation from the
plan of church discipline, which was marked out by the instruc-
tions of Christ, and by the instructions and example of the
apostles ; and, of course, that we are as much bound to conform
to that plan, as primitive Christians were. My objection then
against prelacy remains.
I now proceed to the other branch of my second objection,
PRELACY. 515
namely, that the New Testament contains evidence, both direct
and indirect, against the Episcopal scheme, in regard to different
orders in the ministry and the authonty of bishops.
It seems to me, that everything in the New Testament relative
to the Christian ministry is different from what it would have
been, if Christ and his apostles had intended to establish different
orders, and to give one order authority over the others. The
seventy disciples that Jesus sent forth were all of one order. So
also were the twelve apostles. And Jesus took special pains to
guard them against supposing, that one of them was to be supe-
rior in rank to the others. " Be not called masters," he said ;
" for one is your master, even Christ ; and all ye are brethren."
And when some of them made the request, that they might
be distmguished above their brethren ; he rebuked them and
said ; " Ye know not what ye ask." He then proceeded to
inform them, that it should not be among them as it was
among the nations of the earth, where some are appointed to
exercise lordship over others ; that they should not aim at power,
but should look upon each other as brethren 'and equals. If the
Saviour and Head of the church had intended to establish
prelacy, that would have been a very favorable opportunity for
him to allude to the subject, and to signify, that although no
distinction of rank should be made among the twelve apostles, who
were to be his first ministers, it would be otherwise in subsequent
times, and that the welfare of the church would ultimately require,
that there should be three orders of ministers, the second being
superior to the third, and the first having authority over both.
Whereas all that he said on this occasion, was decidedly against
any such distinction.
Proceed now to the Acts of the • Apostles, and consider the
passages, which most directly relate to the subject before us. The
first is Acts 13: 1 — 3. In the church at Antioch, which doubt-
less comprised several congregations, there were certain prophets
and teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon, and Lucius, and Manaen,
and Saul. "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the
Holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work
516 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
whereunto I have called them. And when thej had fasted and
prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away."
The proceeding does not correspond at all with the Episcopal
scheme. There was no one among them, so far as we can judge,
who was superior in office to the others, and to whom the business
was committed of separating Barnabas and Saul by prayer and
the laying on of hands, and then sending them forth to the work
of preaching the gospel among the heathen. No one of the twelve
apostles was there. Saul was indeed called to be an Apostle in
the highest sense. But it was he and Barnabas, that were to be
set apart for the special work whereunto they were called. But
was there any prelate there ? Or did the Holy Ghost direct
them to send for an Apostle, or for one whom the apostles had
ordained as a prelate, to come and set apart Barnabas and Saul ?
Now I do not say that this was an ordination in the sense in
which we commonly use the word. But I ask, whether any
transaction like this takes place, or can take place, among modern
Episcopalians ; whether it would be consistent with their princi-
ples, that two of thar young men should be solemnly set apart
for the work of the gospel ministry among the heathen, by the
laying on of the hands of those who are not bishops ? And I
ask, whether the Episcopal scheme and the Episcopal practice are
not, in this matter, at variance with the proceedings of the first
Christian churches ?
It cannot be alleged, that these proceedings took place before
there had been time to organize the churches, and to develop the
real and ultimate design of Christ in regard to the ministerial
office. Eor the apostles had been preaching about twelve years
after the death of Christ, had established many churches, and
had unquestionably given the necessary instruction relative to
the permanent institutions of Christianity. The affairs of the
church had, for many years, been receiving direction and form
under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit. And from the
proceedings at Antioch in setting apart men to the gospel ministry
among the heathen, we learn what that form was.
The next passage to which I refer, is Acts xx. Paul gathered
PRELACY. 517
the elders or presbyters of the church at Ephesus, and said to
them : " Take heed to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath
made you mlanonovg, bishops." The presbi/ters Avere bishops.
The two words were used interchangeably. They were applied
to the same men, and denoted the same ofEce. Now Paul had
been at Ephesus no less than three years, and had done what he
deemed necessary for the establishment of gospel order. The
church at Ephesus was a large church, consisting doubtless of
several congregations, and having several bishops, or presbyters ;
all, however, forming one church. Now, why had not Paul,
during his long stay there, and in the first organization of the
church, in which it was so important that everything should be
done right, — why had he not appointed a prelate for Ephesus,
who should have authority over the other bishops, or presbyters,
and a general supervision over the whole church ? This certainly
would have been done by any one who entertained the views of
our prelates. Why had not Paul done it ? Or if he had done
it, why does it not appear ? Why is it not said he sent and called
the hisliop and the presbyters ? And why is it not said that he
addressed himself to them distinctly, as any bishop would now
do, charging the prelate to maintain a faithful care and gov-
ernment over the other orders of ministers, and charging the
presbyters to be faithful in their respective congregations, and to
shoAV due honor and submission to their bishop ? If Paul agi-eed
with Episcopahans in principle^ why did he not agree with them
in practice? And if Episcopalians differ from the Apostle in
practice, is it not probable they differ from him in principle too ?
I argue against the doctrine of prelacy from Paul's Epistle to
Titus, Chap. 1 : 5, 7. He directed Titus to ordain presbyters in
every city, and specified the quahfications they should possess ;
and then suggests to Titus the reason for such care as to the
character of a presbyter. " For a bisJiop must be blameless,
etc." The whole passage makes it certain that the Apostle
meant the same officer by presbyter and by bishop.
The address of Paul's Epistle to the Philippians imphes some-
thing unfavorable to prelacy. " To all the saints at Phihppi,
VOL. III. 44
518 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
with the bishops and deacons." The bishops were just such
church officers, as those at Ephesus, who were first called pres-
byters, and then bishops. You observe, thej were bishops, — not
a bishop, but bishops, — and bishops of the same church or col-
lection of churches, or, if you please, bishops of the same diocese.
It would suit the views of Episcopalians far better, had the
Apostle directed his Epistle thus : "To all the saints at Philippi,
with the bishop, presbyters, and deacons.^'
As to deacons ; all we have to do is to find what information
the New Testament gives. They were servants, or ministers, as
the word signifies. It is apphed to Phebe, Rom. 16 : 1, who
in a more private way ministered to the saints. It is often
applied to the apostles. See 1 Cor. 3:5.2 Cor. 3 : 6. It is
apphed to Timothy, 1 Thess. 3:2; to Tychicus, Eph. 6: 21,
and to Epaphras, Coloss. 1 : 7. Thus it appears, that the apostles
and other ministers were famiharly called deacons, i. e. servants.
This is the general use of the word in the New Testament. In
1 Tim. iii, bishops and deacons are mentioned and described
distinctly, implying that they were employed, in different depart-
ments of labor. But what evidence is thei-e, that the deacons,
were subject to the bishops ? What evidence is there that the
bishops had authority over them. This cannot be inferred from
the name. They were indeed called deaco7is, or servants ; and
so were Timothy and Tychicus, and so were the apostles. And
while the deacons described by Paul, 1 Tim. iii, were truly
servants, they were servants of Christ, but are never said to be
servants of a bishop.
1 Tim. 4 : 14. " Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which
■?yas given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of
the presbytery.^' Presbytery denotes an assembly of presbyters.
These laid their hands on Timothy, and thus inducted him into
his office. Presbyterians and Congregationalists naturally adopt
this language in giving an account of their ordinations. The
passage is plainly in favor of ordination by a council of presbyters.
But it is against the notion of ordination by a prelate. And Epis-
copalians do not naturally describe their ordinations in this way.
PRELACY. 519
They refer you at once to 2 Tim. 1: 6, where the Apostle speats
of the gift -which was in Timothy, by the laying on of Ids hands.
This passage unquestionably implies, that Paul joined with the
presbyters in ordaining Timothy by the imposition of hands. But
there is no evidence from the two passages taken together, or
from anything else, that the presbyters had not as good a right to
ordain by the laying on of hands, or as real a concern in confer-
ring the gift spoken of, as the Apostle had. The gift came
indeed from above, and was ascribed to human agency in only a
secondary sense. But it was ascribed to the presbytery, as much
as to Paul. And it was thus ascribed to the presbytery by Paul
himself.
1 Pet. 5: 1 — 3. Peter evidently agrees with Paul in regard
to the subject under consideration. He here addresses elders, or
presbyters, calling himself an elder, and then exhorts them to do
the work of bishops, imaxonovvzeg ; clearly identifying the office of
bishop and elder. A bishop, according to the New Testament
use, was a minister and overseer of a church, not an overseer of
presbyters. Presbyters were bishops, and bishops were presby-
ters. The language of the apostles makes it eWdent, that they
considered all ministers on a footing of equality. They mention no
such officer as a prelate, that is, a bishop which had authority over
a number of churches, and over other bishops.
This is acknowledged by many Episcopalians. Bishop Burnet
says : " I acknowledge the office of bishop and presbyter to be
one and the same office." Dr. Reynolds, former Professor of
Divinity in Oxford, says, that" all who labored for hundreds of
years before him taught, that all pastors, whether entitled bishops
or presbyters, have equal power and authority bi/ Grod's u'ord.
And he declares this to be the common judgment of the Reformed
churches in Switzerland, Savoy, France, Germany, Hungary,
Poland, the Netherlands, Scotland, and England. And in a
work called " The Institution of the Christian man," expressly
approved by Cranmer, Jewell, Willet, and Stillingfleet, together
with the King and Parhament, and the main body of the English
clergy, is this declaration ; " In the New Testament there is no
520 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
mention of any other degrees, but of deacons or ministers, and of
presbyters ov bishops.''^ Burnet says: " The jfiTeV?^ gave bishops
their power to ordain ministers, to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion, and to perform all other parts of the Episcopal function."
Dr. Holland, King's Professor at Oxford, says : " To affirm the
office of bishop to be different from that of presbyter, and superior
to it, is most false, — contrary to Scripture, to the fathers, to the
doctrine of the church of England, yea, to the very schoolmen
themselves." The Editors of the Christian Observer, 1804, say :
" EpiscopaUans found not the merits of their cause upon any
express injunction or dehneation of ecclesiastical government in
the Scriptures; for there is none." I shall add a recent tes-
timony. Bishop Onderdonk says, that " in the New Testament,
the name, bishop, is given to the middle order, or presbyters ; and
that all which we read in the New Testament concerning bishops,
— is to be regarded as pertaining to that middle grade." " It
was," he says, " after the apostohc age, that the name bishop was
taken from the second order, and appropriated to the first."
LECTURE CXXIII.
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. PRELACY.
We have seen that the New Testament, instead of supporting
the Episcopal scheme, furnishes evidence against it. This is
acknowledged by many Episcopahans.
Here our inquiries might end. For the Holy Scriptures must
be our guide on this subject, as well as on any other. If the
authorized founders and guides of the church saw proper to estab-
lish general principles of church government, those principles
should govern us. Now, if I mistake not, it has been made evi-
dent, that presbyters and bishops were origmally officers of the
same order ; and that the members of the church should act in
matters of discipline.
The great reason which is urged by Episcopahans to justify
them in departing from the Scripture standard and m estabhshing
prelacy, is, that prelacy was introduced at an early period m the
Christian church.
I encounter this argument at once with several inquiries.
First. Were the early fathers guided by divine inspiration,
and thus qualified and authorized, as infallible guides, to make
alterations in the order which the apostles had estabhshed ? If
they were, then we ought to submit to their decision as readily, as
to the decision of the apostles. But this no one maintains.
Secondly. Were the early Christian fathers instructed hy the
apostles to make the alteration intended, and to introduce pre-
lacy ? If there is any evidence of this, it must be found either in
44*
522 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
the instructions of the apostles recorded in the Scriptures, or in
the testimony of the early fathers, that they received 07-al instruc-
tions from the apostles in favor of such a change, though the
instructions were not recorded.
Let us look at the first of these suppositions. In the Acts of
the Apostles and in the epistles, we have particular instructions in
regard both to the ministry and the church. But does it appear
that they said, or in any way intimated, that although, for the
time being, they estabhshed only one order of ministers, called
presbyters or bishops, they would have three orders estabhshed in
following ages ? They directed that presbyters should be ordained
in every city. But did they signify that, after a while, a prelate
should be ordained over presbyters ? The subject being of
great importance, it is reasonable to think that something, Hke
what I have suggested, would have been found in some part of the
New Testament, if the mind of the apostles had been in favor of
the change alluded to. But where do you find it ?
Look then at the other supposition. Do the early fathers tes-
tify, that the apostles gave oral instructions, which are not
recorded, that there should be three orders in the ministry ? Do
they inform us, that there was an unwritten tradition handed
down from the apostles in favor of prelacy ? In the writings of
the Christian fathers there is, in my judgment, no evidence of
this, but much to the contrary. I cannot go into an examination
of this subject, but others have done it. And I recommend to
you a careful perusal of the best works which have been written
on both sides of the question.
But early practice is appealed to. Prelacy, it is said, gene-
rally prevailed very early ; and it can hardly be supposed that
this would have been the case, without some warrant from the
apostles.
It is admitted that prelacy did at length obtain a general
prevalence in the church. But it is important to inquire,
when it thus prevailed. There is clear evidence, that during the
age of the apostles, and for more than fifty years after, the
churches were taught and governed by presbyters ; that those
PRELACY. 523
who were called bishops, were the same as presbyters, and were
pastors and overseers of particular churches, and that there was
no officer of superior rank, having authority over inferior orders of
ministers ; and also that the members of the church acted in mat-
ters of discipline, according to the direction of Christ in Matt,
xviii. But instead of undertaking to present this evidence before
you in detail, I can do little more than state the positions which I
think tenable, and refer you to several works of a high character,
in which the subject is handled particularly and fully.
Pedobaptists have sometimes been charged with an inconsis-
tency, because they derive an argument in support of Infant Bap-
tism from Ecclesiastical History, and yet deny the force of the
same argument when urged in support of prelacy.
A statement of the case, just as it is, will show, that the charge
has no foundation.
The chief historical evidence in favor of Infant Baptism does
not, in my view, arise from the fact, that the practice did at
length generally prevail m the early ages ; but from the testimony
of the fathers, that it was received from the apostles. In their
practice, early Christians did, in many things, deviate from the
principles established by the apostles. Hence it is evident, that
the mere prevalence of any practice in the fourth, third, or second
century, cannot be considered as proving its divine origin. But
it is admitted on all hands, that the Christian fathers were upright
men, and that their testimony, as to matters of fact within their
knowledge, is worthy to be relied upon. Now it was doubtless
known among them, what the apostohc institutions were ; just as
it is known among us, what were the original institutions of our
Puritan forefathers in New England. Those who lived in the
second, third, and fourth centuries had such means of information,
that they cannot be supposed to have fallen into any mistake.
They were honest men, and cannot be supposed to have given a
false testimony. And their testimony is, not only that Infant
Baptism was universally practised among Christians, but that it
was delivered to the churches by the apostles. It is chiefly from
this testimony as to the origin of the practice, and not from the
524 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
mere fact of Its prevalence, that I would argue in support of
Infant Baptism. Now to make the cases parallel, you must have
the testimony of Christian fathers not only that prelacy generally
prevailed at such a time, but that it was handed down, as a divine
ordinance, from the apostles. You must have their testimony,
that prelacy had uniformly existed in the Christian church, and
was received from the inspired apostles as a permanent institution.
If such a testimony could be produced, who would not acknowledge
its weight ?
But we have testimony that prelacy was 7iot received from the
apostles. And to place the historical argument for Infant Bap-
tism on the same footing with this, it must be shown that, while
Infant Baptism was universally practised in the days of Origen,
Augustine, Pelagius, Tertullian, etc., the fathers, at least some of
them, declared, that it was not the practice in the Christian
church originally, but was, for special reasons, introduced after-
wards. If any evidence like this could be adduced, we should be
obhged to abandon the historical argument for Infant Baptism, and
to acknowledge that, so far as the testimony of the fathers goes,
the Baptists are right.
In opposition to prelacy, we have just such testimony from the
fathers, as I have hinted at. Chrysostom says : " The presbyters
were formerly called bishops ; and the bishops, presbyters."
Theodoret says : " Those who were called bishops evidently held
the rank of presbyters." But Jerome, who lived in the latter
part of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century, gives the
most particular testimony. " In the judgment of Erasmus,
Jerome was without controversy by far the most learned and
most eloquent of all the Christians, and the prince of Christian
divines ; " and he was unquestionably familiar with the history of
the Christian church from the begiiming. His testimony is found
in his Annotations on Paul's Epistle to Titus, where he gives an
account of the nature and origin of the office of a bishop. He
says : " A presbyter is the same as a bishop. And until there
arose divisions in rehgion, churches were governed by a common
council of presbyters. But afterwards, it was everywhere decreed,
PRELACY. 525
that one person, elected from the presbyters, should be placed
over the others." Referring to Paul's Epistle to the Philippians,
which was addressed to the saints " with the bishops and dea-
cons," he observes ; " Philippi is a single city of Macedonia ; and
certainly there could not have been several hke those who are now
called bishops, at one time in the same city. But as, at that time,
they called the same bishops, whom they styled presbyters also,
the apostles spoke indifferently of bishops as of presbyters."
Jerome alludes to the fact, that Paul, having sent for the presby-
ters of the single city of Ephesus, afterwards speaks of them as
bishops ; and he refers also to what Peter says : " The presbyters
who are among you I exhort, who am also a presbyter. — Feed
the flock of God — taking the oversight, inioxonovvTsg, exercising
the office of a hishoj?, etc." " These things," Jerome says, " we
have brought forward to show that, with the ancients, presbyters
were the same as bishops. But in order that the roots of dissen-
sion might he plucked up, a usage gradually took place, that the
whole care should devolve upon one. Therefore, as the presbyters
know, that it is bg the custom of the church that they are subject
to him who is placed over them ; so let bishops know, that they
are above presbyters rather bg custom than by the truth of our
Lord's appointment."
Many of the advocates of prelacy in the English church, as
well as elsewhere, admit the identity of bishops and presbyters in
the primitive church, and that the distinction, which prevailed in
the third and fourth centuries, was unknown for a long time after
the Christian church was founded by the apostles.
I have said, that the mere practice of the ancient church cannot
in any case be adduced, as conclusive evidence of a divine institu-
tion. But in regard even to ancient practice, there is an obvious
difference between Infant Baptism and prelacy. In the first
place ; there is evidence that Infant Baptism was practised uni-
versally in the early churches ; while there is no such evidence,
but the contrary, in regard to prelacy. Secondly ; there is clear
evidence, that prelacy was gradually introduced long after the
age of the apostles, with a view to remedy existing evils. But
526 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
there is no evidence that Infant Baptism was thus gradually in-
troduced, or introduced at all, after the time of the apostles. So
that the argument, which is grounded upon ancient practice
merely, though by no means conclusive, is yet of more weight in
favor of Infant Baptism, than of prelacy.
Suppose now that the facts in the case were different from what
they are. Suppose that respectable writers among the Christian
fathers had given a testimony to the apostolic origin of prelacy,
like that which they have given against it. Suppose Chrysostom,
instead of saying, that presbyters were formerly called bishops,
and bishops presbyters, had said, that bishops from the begin-
ning were superior to presbyters. And suppose, that Theodoret,
instead of saying ; " those who were called bishops, evidently held
the rank of presbyters," had said, that bishops evidently held
a rank above presbyters. And suppose that such a man as
Jerome, instead of saying what I have quoted from his Annota-
tions, had said, that a presbyter was not the same as a bishop,
and that, from the beginning, the churches were governed, not by
presbyters, but by a bishop. And suppose he had said, not that
a usage, after a while, gradually took place, but that it was a
usage /rom the first that the whole care of the churches devolved
upon one, and that it was always the case, that one was chosen
from among the presbyters to be placed over the others. And,
instead of inculcating humility upon bishops from the considera-
tion, that they are above presbyters rather by custom, than by
the truth of the Lord's appointment, suppose he had inculcated
submission upon presbyters^ from the consideration that bishops
were placed over them not merely by common custom, but by
the Lord's appointment ; — suppose that these and other ancient
fathers had thus given the very same testimony in favor of the
apostolic origin of prelacy, as they actually gave against it ; would
not the advocates of prelacy feel, that they were in possession of
a new and powerful argument, and that all the world must acknow-
ledge their cause to be founded upon a rock ?
But I meet the argument from early practice in another way.
Suppose then, that prelacy was in fact introduced soon after the
PRELACY. 527
age of the apostles, and was extended rapidly through the Chris-
tian world. My question is, on what grounds the practice of
uninspired men can bind us ? The apostles mourned over the
ignorance, the superstition, the party spirit and strife, that ap-
peared in the churches which they had planted, and even among
the religious teachers who lived in their day ; and they bore a
solemn testimony against evils so dishonorable to the character of
Christians. And can you think it is the will of God, that we
should regard those as safe guides, who were so prone to corrupt
the simplicity of the gospel, and to I'un into all sorts of disorder,
as many of the churches of Asia did even in the apostolic age ?
There were indeed faithful ministers and Christians. And such
are found at the present day. But does the piety and fidelity
of ministers and Christians render them infallible, and authorize
them to unsettle what the apostles settled ? Does it invest them
with power to control our opinions or our practice ? Are we to
follow them, any further than they followed Christ and the apostles ?
And when we find uninspired men differ among themselves, as they
always have done, especially in regard to church government ; to
which of them shall we submit ? Some say, to the most ancient — to
those who lived nearest to the ajMstles. But what special title had
they to dictate to those who should come after them ? Were there
not errors and corruptions among them ? And why is it not just
as proper and necessary for us to examine their opinions and prac-
tices, and to receive or reject them according as they agree or
disagree with the word of God, as it is that we should treat the
opinions and practices of modern divines in this manner ? Who
will assert, that uninspired men in the primitive church, — men
just recovered from the errors of Judaism and paganism, subject
to so much ignorance and prejudice, and exposed to so many
influences adverse to the purity of our religion, — who will assert
that such men are entitled to our veneration and confidence,
above the best men that have Hved since the Reformation ? If
we were reduced to the necessity of following uninspired teachers
of religion ; who of us would not prefer Calvin, Leighton and
Scott, Howe, Edwards and Dwight, before TertulUan, Cyril and
Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrose and Augustine ?
628 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
The remarkable saying of Tertullian has been often repeated ;
" Whatever is first is true ; whatever is later is false.'''' Look at
this a moment. The traditions of the Jews, which made void the
law of God were '■'■first;" and Christ's sermon on the mount was
^'^ later." It may be said, the law of God was still '■'■first" and
those traditions " later." This I admit. And I say too, that the
New Testament Scriptures were ^^ first" and the writings of the
early fathers " later." The rule of Tertullian is sometimes right,
and sometimes wrong. It is not a fact, that men were, in all
cases, nearer to the truth, in proportion as they lived nearer to
the time of the apostles. Who will say, that the Catholic writers,
who supported all the corruptions of the Church of Rome previ-
ously to the Reformation, were nearer to the truth, than the great
lights of the Reformed churches ?
Some think, that those opinions and practices, in which the
fathers all agreed, must correspond with the instructions of
the apostles. In regard to this, I remark, first, that the fathers
were all agreed on hardly any subject, certainly not on the subject
now under consideration. But, secondly, if they had all been
agreed, it would prove nothing to the purpose. For if a few
good men may agree in adopting a particular error, why may not
many ? We well know that the fathers generally fell into palpa-
ble mistakes on moral and religious subjects. And can we set
limits to the number of uninspired men, who, under the influence
of their own imperfections, and of unpropitious outward circum-
stances, may fall into false opinions or wrong practices ? We can
never safely make it our rule to follow the multitude. If you
could argue in favor of prelacy, that it was universally adopted
in the fourth, the third, and even the second century, I could by
no means admit the validity of the argument, but should still
maintain, that no agreement of uninspired men, unsupported by
the Scriptures, can be obligatory on us. In direct opposition
to the dogma of the Romish church, I hold that the Scriptures
themselves are, to all Christians, the sufficient and only authorita-
tive rule of faith and practice.
But here you may ask, whether there was not such a change
PRELACY. 529
of circumstances, as justified the fathers in departing from the
instructions and the example of the apostles. We have already
considered this general question in relation to church discipline.
We are now to consider it in relation to different orders in the
ministry, and the authority of a prelate.
The parity of ministers which was estabhshed by the apostles,
must have been just and proper at the time ; because the apostles
were infallible. And it must be just and proper at all times,
unless such circumstances occur, as plainly show it to be the will
of God, that prelacy should be introduced. Is it then a fact,
that such circumstances have occurred ? And particularly, did
they occur during the period when prelacy was first introduced,
that is, during one or two hundred years after the apostolic age ?
And was there at that time any sufficient reason for the change ?
The chief reason for establishing prelacy according to Jerome,
and other Christian fathers, was, that divisions and disorders
prevailed, and it was thought these evils might be avoided by
investing some ministers with higher power, and making them
overseers or bishops, not only over the churches, but over other
ministers. Was this a sufficient reason for the change ?
Here consider, that great divisions and irregularities early
appeared in the churches which the apostles planted, and over
which they extended their watchful care. This was specially
the case in the Corinthian church. With what sorrow did Paul
notice the disorders which had crept into that church, or that
cluster of churches ; and vnth what earnestness did he labor to
put an end to them ! And he was so under the guidance of
that wisdom which is from above, that he must have known what
means would be best adapted to remove those hurtful disorders.
Why did he not hit upon the expedient, which EpiscopaUans
would instantly resort to in any such case ? Why did he not tell
the Corinthians, that common ministers and members of the
church had too much concern in administering; their affairs, and
that, if they would keep things in order, they must have a bishop,
who should have power to rule over the churclics, and over other
ministers ? There was, at that time, the very reason for intro-
VOL. III. 45
530 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
ducing prelacy, which has been considered most weighty. It
was a very favorable opportunity to make the change. The
Apostle was alive, and had power to do the very thing which was
'called for. The reason for a more energetic government existed
in all its strength ; and the Apostle knew it. They were carnal.
There was envying and strife, and division among them ; they
were formed into parties, each party setting up its own favorite
teacher ; there were immoralities in the church ; and they were
guilty of shocking irregularities even while commemorating the
death of Christ. The Apostle knew all these disorders, and he
knew what was the best way to remedy them, and to promote the
welfare of the church. And it was the easiest thing in the world
for the great Apostle to say, if he had only thought so; — you
have tried the principle of equality amoyig ministers, and popular
proceedings in the church, long enough. You cannot succeed, while
there are so many concerned in the government. You must have
a bishop. But the Apostle did not think so. Amid all his
advices to the Corinthians, he did not advise this. He had seen
what evils prevailed, and he clearly foresaw what divisions and
strifes would disturb the churches after his decease. But so it
was, that he never gave them the least hint in favor of prelacy.
It may perhaps be alleged, that those disorders, which called
for a change of government afterwards increased. Doubtless this
was the case. And the apostles knew it would be so. And they
were authorized to do whatever the order and prosperity of the
church then required, and whatever it would require in time to
come. It was perfectly within their province, to give instructions
for the use of Christians through all ages. In many respects
they actually did this. Why did they not say something in favor
of prelacy ? If they saw that this was an establishment which
would be called for in following ages, though not called for at
that time ; why did they not leave a direction to this effect, —
that when circumstances should require it, ministers and churches
should introduce prelacy, or, at least should have liberty to do it ?
The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the introduction
of prelacy in times subsequent to the apostles, was an innovation
PRELACY. 531
■wholly unauthorized, — a measure founded on reasons, which the
apostles themselves had fully considered, but which they did not
regard as favoring such a change. The measure was evidently
adopted from the faulty inclination so frequently found even in
good men, to overlook the divine directions, and to think them-
selves able to improve the simple institutions of the New Testa-
ment.
The early Christian fathers were certainly fallible. And one
of the great mistakes which they made was, their supposing that
the evils which they wished to remedy, arose from a defect in the
system of ecclesiastical order which was established by Christ
and the apostles. Had this really been the case ; then some
alteration in that system might have answered the purpose in-
tended. But the dissensions and party strife which prevailed,
sprung from another source, that is the corrupt inclinations of men.
This is what we are expressly taught by the Apostle, who says
to the Corinthian church with reference to this very subject : " ye
are yet carnal ;" that is, under the influence of corrupt, earthly
affection. " For whereas there is among you envying, and strife,
and divisions ; are ye not carnal and walk as men ? " It was
this carnal, sinful state of Christians, not the want of a bishop,
which was the source of the evils complained of. Accordingly
when the Apostle strives most earnestly to remedy these evils,
he does not recommend any change whatever in the plan of
church government. And you will observe that, instead of pro-
posing that one church officer should be invested with authority
over others, he really teaches the contrary, laboring to make the
impression, that the ministers of religion, even Paul and Apollos
and Cephas, are in themselves nothing, and can do nothing ; that
their success depends wholly on God ; that they are all fellow-
laborers and fellow-sei'vants of Christ, and therefore that one
of them should not be set up above others. Instead of giving
advice to the Corinthians, to put down their dissensions by estab-
lishing a superior order in the ministry, and a more consoHdated
government in the church, he deals plainly and faithfully with
th-eir hearts, and tells them that the disorders of which he com-
532 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
plains, originated there. He teaches that the "waj to rid them-
selves of the evils existing among them is to subdue that spiritual
evil from which they sprung.
Let not the lesson here taught, be forgotten. If you suppose,
that the disorders which have existed and the unhappy events
which have taken place in the Puritan churches and among the
Puritan ministers of New England, have sprung from defects in
our plan of Church Government, and that a remedy may be
found in the adoption of an essentially different plan ; you have,
in my apprehension, fallen into a great mistake. There may
indeed be faults, as I doubt not there are, in our system of
ecclesiastical pohty, and these faults may have more or less aug-
mented the evils complained of; and m relation to this matter,
the Head of the Church may call us to some special duties. But
the principal source of the evils lies in the faulty dipositions and
characters of ministers and church members. Were ministers
and Christians right, — did they bear the image of Christ, and
abound in the fruits of the Spirit ; they would honor God, and
be peaceful, orderly and happy, although their form of govern-
ment may be imperfect. But if they are essentially wanting
in these moral excellencies, — if, hke Christians at Corinth, they
are carnal and walk as unsanctified men ; evils will come. It is
in vain to expect that, by any change in outward forms, and
particularly by a change unauthorized by the word of God, we
can prevent those disorders, which arise from the corruptions of
men. The Christian fathers thought they could cure prevailing
divisions and wicked practices among Christians by changing the
form of church government, and by giving higher, and still higher
authority to bishops. But did they succeed ? Did disorder and
immoraUty subside ? Or did they grow less in proportion as the
power of hierarchs was increased ? How was it, when ecclesi-
astical government was most completely consolidated, and the
CHIEF BISHOP was invested with plenary authority, not only over
churches and priests, but over kings and emperors ? Wlien was
it that moral evils the most tremendous overspread the nations
of Christendom ? And what was the actual result of the prela-
PRELACY. 533
tical scheme of church government, from its commencement and
gradual spread in ages subsequent to the apostles, to the period of
its highest supremacy just before the Reformation ? Prelacy cer-
tainly had a long and thorough trial. And what was the result ?
I have been willing to admit, for the sake of argument, that
prelacy was introduced in the period immediately succeeding the
apostles.
But I have admitted too much. And I must here state it, as
another serious objection against prelacy, that it does as really
fail of being supported by the practice of the primitive church
immediately folloAving the apostles, as by the apostles themselves.
If the Episcopal scheme had prevailed at that early period, it
would seem to furnish a plausible argument in its favor ; as it
might be alleged, that those Christians who lived at that time, and
some of whom had even been personally acquainted with the apos-
tles, undoubtedly knew what the mind of the apostles was, and
were disposed to conform to it. But it has been clearly shown by
different writers, and acknowledged by many Episcopalians, that
prelacy has not the benefit of this argument. I have no time to
go into a particular consideration of the merits of the case ; and
must content myself, according to a pre\'ious suggestion, with
merely laying before you, in a few simple propositions, what have
been the results of the most laborious and candid investigation of
the subject ; referring you to the works in which the investigation
is found.
1. No satisfactory proof can be derived from Ecclesiastical
History, that prelacy prevailed more or less during the first cen-
tury. The Letters of Ignatius, it is well known, are of such
doubtful authority, that they cannot be properly appealed to in
this controversy. Clement's Letters, which are allowed to be
genuine, and which were written near the close of the first cen-
tury, contain evidence against the existence of prelacy at that time.
See quotations from Clement's Letters, in Coleman's Primitive
Church, p. 164, 5.
2. There is no clear evidence that prelacy prevailed, during the
first half of the second century. The fathers, who lived at that
45*
534 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
period, have left nothing that favors the idea that this was the
case ; and the writings of those who followed, contain much evi-
dence to the contrary. The supposition of some Episcopalians, that
the apostles gave oral instructions, which are not recorded, but
which were of divine authority, and were carried into effect by
those who came after them, has nothing to support it, or to render
it even probable. If there were any such instructions, who were
the men that must have received them, and that must have
remembered and executed them, except those who had a personal
intercourse with the apostles ? But as it is evident that neither
they nor their immediate successors did execute any such instruc-
tions ; we conclude that no such instructions had been received.
For who would be willing to charge the early fathers with neglect-
ing, for fifty years, instructions which some of them had received,
and which all of them knew had been received, from the hps of
the apostles ? That the apostles gave directions in favor of pre-
lacy, which were to remain unexecuted till a distant future time,
is utterly incredible. But there is positive evidence, that during
the first half of the second century it was as it had been before ;
— that the same officers, without distinction of rank, were called
bishops and presbyters interchangeably, and that the members of
the church had an important agency in disciphning offenders, and
in managing other ecclesistical affairs.
8. When prelacy was introduced, in the latter part of the
second or beginning of the third century, it was introduced very
gradually. And for some time after bishops began to be distin-
guished above their brethren, it was only a temporary or occasional
distinction, — much Uke the distinction which is now conferred on
those who are made Moderators or Presidents of ecclesiastical
Assemblies, — those bishops still having a permanent oversight
over single churclies, not over a diocese, and claiming no exclusive
right of ordination. There was nothing which had the essential
features of what is now called prelacy, for at least two hundred
years after the commencement of the Christian era. And while
modern Episcopahans can plead in defence of their scheme, the
general practice of the church in the fourth and fifth and following
PRELACY. 535
centuries, they cannot plead that such a practice gained footing,
more or less, in the earliest periods of the church. Accordingly,
•when they speak oip-imitive practicfe as in their favor, they ought
in justice to say, that they use the word primitive with great lati-
tude, and not as relating to any time previous to the latter part of
the second or heginnmg of the third century. What is most
properly called primitive, they cannot claim. — Wlien any man in
New England says, that it was the primitive practice of the Puri-
tans to keep the Sabbath very strictly, and to take special pains
for the -education of the young ; is he not understood by every one
to refer to their practice the first forty or fifty years after their
arrival here ? And should we not think him guilty of impro-
priety, if he should assert that this or that was the primitive prac-
tice of the Puritans in New England, when there was no such
practice for the first half centui*y and more, and the practice
spoken of was introduced gradually afterwards, and was a real
innovation upon primitive usage, and a palpable departure from
it ? Primitive practice is the original or first practice.
The following are the principal works to which I must refer
those, who wish to pursue the examination of the subject more par-
ticularly and fully, than I am able to do in these Lectures.
Jerome's Annotations on the Epistle to Titus. Neander's His-
tory of the Christian Church, and his Planting and Training of the
Christian Church by the Apostles. Campbell's Lectures on Eccle-
siastical History. Chauncy's Views of Episcopacy. Inquiry into
the Constitution of the Primitive Church, by Sir Peter King,
Chancellor of England. Review of Essays on Episcopacy, by Dr.
Mason in the Christian Magazine. Miller's Letters on the Consti-
tution and Order of the Christian Ministry. Goode's Divine Rule
of Faith and Practice, particularly Vol. II. Smyth on Presbytery
and Prelacy. Barnes's Apostohc Church. Coleman's Primitive
Church.
LECTURE CXXIV.
CHURCH GOVERNMENT. PRELACY.
The Episcopal doctrine of Apostolic Succession, as now held by
one part of Episcopal ministers in England and America, is
rejected by another part. The doctrine I understand to be this ;
that the blessings of the Christian dispensation are restricted
chiefly, if not wholly, to the channel of a ministry episcopally
ordained ; that no one is a true minister of the gospel, unless he
has been ordained by a bishop, consecrated by another bishop, and
he by another, and so on through an unbroken series of duly con-
secrated bishops extending back to the apostles ; that no ministers
who are not found in that line of succession, have a right to
preach, or to administer the sacraments ; that if non-episcopal
ministers undertake to preach and administer the sacraments,
they assume what does not belong to them, and their ministrations
must be expected to prove inefficacious, as they have not received
and cannot communicate the sacramental virtue ; that whatever
their intellectual and spiritual quahfications may be, they are not
true Christian ministers ; while those who have been Episcopally
ordained are to be acknowledged as true ministers of Christ, how-
ever destitute of knowledge and piety.
There are some doctrines which are so extravagant, that the
bare statement of them is, with all intelligent and unprejudiced
persons, a sufficient confutation. And I think this doctrine is
nearly of this character.
All that my limits permit me to do, will be to make some quo-
PRELACY. 53T
tatlons from writers of the highest reputation, with a few remarks
of mj own.
" Whether we consider the palpable absurdity of this doctrine,
its utter destitution of historical evidence, or the outrage it implies
on all Christian charity, it is equally revolting. The arguments
against it are infinite ; the evidence for it absolutely nothing. It
rests not upon one doubtful assumption, but upon fifty. First, the
very basis on which it rests — the claim of Episcopacy to be con-
sidered undoubtedly and exclusively of apostohcal origin — has
been most fiercely disputed by men of equal erudition and acute-
ness, and, so far as can be judged, of equal integrity and piety.
And one would think that the only lesson, which could be learned
from the controversy, would be the duty of mutual charity, and a
disposition to concede, that the blessings of Christianity are com-
patible with various systems of church polity. God forbid that we
should for a moment admit that they are restricted to any one. —
But this first proposition, however doubtful, is susceptible of evi-
dence almost demonstrative, compared with that ofiered for half a
dozen others involved in the integral reception of the doctrine of
apostolical succession. Accordingly, there are thousands of Epis-
copalians, who, while they affirm a preponderance of evidence in
favor of Episcopacy, contemptuously repudiate this incompreliensi-
ble dogma. — The theory is, that each bishop, from the apostohc
times, has received in his consecration a mysterious ' gift,' and
also transmits to every priest at his ordination a mysterious ' gift,'
indicated by the awful words. Receive the Holy Grhost; that on
this the right of priests to assume their functions, and the preter-
natural grace of the sacraments administered by them, depends ;
that bishops, once consecrated, instantly become invested with the
remarkable property of transmitting the ' gift ' to others ; —
that this high gift has been incorruptibly transmitted — from the
primitive age till now — through the hands of impure, profligate,
and heretical ecclesiastics ; — and that it is perfectly irrespective
of the moral character and qualifications of l)oth bishop and
priest."
" Numberless are the questions which reason and charity forth-
538 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
with put to the advocates of this doctrine. What is imparted ?
What transmitted ? — Is consecration or ordination accompanied,
(as in primitive times,) by miraculous powers, by any invigoration
of intellect, by increase of knowledge, by greater purity of
heart ? It is not pretended. Do the parties themselves profess
to be conscious of receiving the gift ? No. Is the conveyance
made evident to us by any proof, which certifies any fact
whatsoever, by sense, experience, or consciousness ? It is not
affirmed."
" Again, who can certify that this gift has been incorruptibly
transmitted, through the impurities, heresies, and ignorance of the
dark ages ? — The chances are infinite that there have been flaws
somewhere or other, in the long chain of succession ; and — as no
one knows where the fatal breach may have been, it is sufficient to
spread universal panic through the whole church. What bishop
can be sure that he and his predecessors in the same line have
always been duly consecrated ? Or what presbyter, that he was
ordained by a bishop who had a right to ordain ? " — " But the
difficulties do not end here. It is asked, how a man who is no
true Christian, can be a true Christian minister; — how he, who
is not even a disciple of Christ, can be a genuine successor of the
apostles ? "
" But — will Christians be content to receive this strange doc-
trine ? Are they willing to sacrifice even charity itself to an
absurdity ? Powerful as are the arguments on all hands against
this paradox, none is so powerful with us as this. We feel that if
there were nothing else to say, there is no proposition more cer-
tain, than that a dogma, which consigns the Lutheran, the Scot-
tish, and indeed the whole reformed non-episcopal clergy to con-
tempt, however Jioly, and which authenticates the claims of every
Episcopal priest, however unholy^ must be utterly alien from the spi-
rit of the New Testament."*
" Since the first century, not less, in all probabihty, than a
hundred thousand persons have exercised the functions of bishops.
That many of these have not been bishops by apostohc succession,
* See Edinburgh Review, 1843, on Puseyism.. or. the Oxford Tractarian School.
PRELACY. 539
is quite certain. Hooker admits that deviations from the general
rule have been frequent, and, with a boldness worthy of his hi"h
and statesman-like intellect, pronounces them to have been often
justifiable."*
The doctrine of apostohcal succession is overthrown bj the
clear and abundant evidence Avhich we have from the earlj fathers,
that ordination was performed by presbyters. Any one who wishes
to be acquainted with this evidence in its details, may consult
Goode's Divme Rule, Vol. II, Coleman's work on the Constitution
and Worship of the Apostolical and Primitive Church, Smyth'a
Presbytery and Prelacy, and other well known works.
That there may be lawful ordinations by presbyters without a
bishop is conceded and maintained by many Episcopalians, and
those of the first respectability. Hooker gives it as his decided
opinion, " that there may be sometimes very just and sufficient
reason to allow ordinations made without a bishop."
Archbishop Whately, a man of distinguished talents, learning,
and integrity, and sustaining the highest office in the Episcopal
church, after a thorough examination of the doctrine of apostolic
succession, comes to the conclusion, that it is destitute of satisfac-
tory proof.
He says : " If a man consider it as highly j^robable that the
particular mirnster at whose hands he receives the sacred ordi-
nances, is really apostolically descended, this is the very utmost
point to which he can, with any semblance of reason, attain ; and
the more he reflects and inquires, the more cause for hesitation
will he find. There is not a minister in Christendom, who is able
to trace up, with any approach to certainty, his own spiritual pedi-
gree." " If a bishop has not been duly consecrated — his ordi-
nations are null ; and so are the ministrations of those ordained by
him, — and so on without end. The poisonous taint of informal-
ity, if it once creep in undetected, will spread the infection of
nullity to an indefinite extent. And who can pronounce that
during the dark ages, no such taint was ever introduced ?
Irregularities could not have been wholly excluded, without a
* See Edinburgh Review for 1839, On Church and State.
540 CHUKCH GOVERNMENT.
perpetual miracle. Amidst the mmierous corruptions of doctrine
and of practice, and gross superstitions, that crept in — we find
descriptions not only of the profound ignorance and profligacy of
many of the clergy, but of the grossest irregularities in respect of
discipline and form. We read of bishops consecrated when mere
children ; — of men oflBciating who barely knew their letters ; —
of prelates expelled, and others put in their place, by violence ; —
of illiterate and profligate laymen and habitual drunkards, admit-
ted to holy orders ; and in short, of the prevalence of every kind
of disorder and indecency. It is inconceivable that any one, even
moderately acquainted with history, can feel — any approach to
certainty, that amidst all this confusion and corruption, every
requisite fbrm was, in every instance, strictly adhered to ; — and
that no one not duly consecrated or ordained, was admitted to
sacred offices.
" The ultimate consequence must be, that any one who sincerely
believes that his claim to the benefits of the gospel covenant
depends on his own minister's claim to the supposed sacramental
virtue of true ordination, and this again, on perfect apostolical
succession, — must be involved, in proportion as he reads, and
inquires, and reflects on the subject, in the most distressing doubt
and perplexity."
Archbishop Usher, one of the brightest ornaments of the Epis-
copal church, affirmed, that in ancient times presbyters alone suc-
cessively ordained even bishops. And he said, he honored the
non-episcopal churches of Europe as true members of the church
universal, and should readily receive the sacrament at the hands
of Dutch ministers, if he were in Holland. Bishop Stillingfleet
says: "It was acknowledged by the stoutest champions of Epis-
copacy, before these late unhappy divisions, that ordination per-
formed by presbyters in case of necessity, is valid." Sir Peter
King says, he finds clearer proofs of presbyters ordaining, in the
early church, than of their administering the Lord's Supper. I
might multiply testimonies of the like kind from Episcopalians
almost without end. But it is sufficient for my purpose to give you
a few specimens.
PRELACY. 541
The Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to Timothy and Titus, gives a
very particular description of what he regards as essential quali-
fications of a bishop. But he makes no mention of the circum-
stance of his being duly ordained. Had he attached such conse-
quence to this circumstance, as many do at this day, it is not pro-
bable he would have passed it in silence. In this and in every
other instance he showed, that his mind was intent upon important
realities, and not upon outward forms. It is indeed said, in
order to show the importance of outward, visible forms and rites,
that man must have a body as well as a spirit. I agree to this.
But we must take care to let the body be as God has made it,
never attemptmg to add to it, or in any way to alter it. If true
spiritual religion is to be embodied in outward forms and ceremo-
nies, let those forms and ceremonies be as God in the New Testa-
ment appointed them to be. This visible body of internal, invisible
Christianity, when not n^isshapen or made monstrous by man's
contrivances, is a fit companion and help to the spirit.
I must now refer this doctrine of apostolical succession to your
own free consideration ; only expressing my conviction, that the
doctrine understood in that high and exclusive sense in which I
have here considered it, though held very tenaciously by many at
the present time, will, by its extravagance and uncharitableness,
occasion reproach and injury to the cause of Episcopacy, and -will,
for that and other reasons, be gradually, and in the end, entirely
abandoned by Protestant Episcopalians, — retaining its seat only
where it properly belongs, that is, in the Catholic church.
I cannot leave the present topic without adverting to the gene-
ral question of divine ajj^^ointment and divine authority, in regard
to the gospel ministry. Presbyterians and Congregationahsts hold
as much as Episcopalians, that the gospel ministry is appointed of
God, and derives all its authority ultimately from God, not from,
man. But it is here, as in other cases, that God's appointment is
ordinarily carried into eifect and his government administered,
through the agency of man. But it would be culpable presump-
tion in us to decide, that the manner in which God executes his
appointments is and must be always the same. In his infinite
VOL. III. ' 46
542 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
wisdom, he chooses a variety of methods, always adapting them to
circumstances, and to the ends which he has in view. Under the
former dispensation, he gave prophets to his people, in ways
suited to the purposes intended. At the beginning of the new
dispensation, he gave apostles to be witnesses of the miracles of
Christ, preachers of his gospel, the first founders of Christian
churches, etc., and he gave them in a manner adapted to those
objects. But even here, the manner was not the same. Matthias
was chosen in a way different from the other eleven, and Paul in
a way different from any of the twelve. But the age of miracles
has ceased, and the divine appointment is now executed in the
ordinary course of pro^ddence. The essential qualifications of
ministers are pointed out by an inspired Apostle, but not the par-
ticular manner in which they shall come into the sacred office.
If ministers possess the qualifications required, and are inducted
into the ministry in a regular and becoming manner, and do the
duties of the office faithfully, they are GocVs ministers, and he
truly gives them for the good of his church, whether he brings
them into the office in one way or another. Faitliful ministers in
the Episcopal church are God's gift, and Christians should receive
them as such. And many and precious have been these gifts.
And are not ministers in evangelical churches of other names
equally God's gift ? And should not Christians, particularly
those who have received spiritual profit under their ministry,
thank God for them, and for all the blessings resulting from their
labors ? Whatever may be the particular mode of proceeding
among men in introducing well qualified and faithful ministers
into the sacred office, they are there bi/ divine appointment. They
are God's ministers ; and he owns them and blesses them as such.
And they have equally a divine right to perform all the duties of
the ministerial office.
The principle which I maintain may be illustrated by a refer-
ence to civil government. The Bible teaches as plainly and
expressly, that civil rulers are ininisters of Cfod, and divinely
appointed, as that preachers of the gospel and pastors of churches
are so. Moses, and Samuel, and Saul, and David, were set
PRELACY. 543
apart to their office as rulers, by a special and miraculous divine
interposition. Afterwards the office of chief ruler or king became
hereditary ; and those who held the office on the ground of here-
ditary right were laAvful kings, and were divinely appointed. But
observe, that when Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Jews, and
acquired dominion over them, Jeremiah exhorted and commanded
them to " serve the king of Babylon," and rebuked the false
prophets who endeavored to persuade them not to serve him.
Nebuchadnezzar was then the divinely appointed ruler of the
Jews ; — God sent him to reign over them, and it was their duty
to submit to him as " the ordinance of God ; " and obedience to
him became obedience to God. Even when the Jews returned
from their captivity, their rulers were indebted for their authority
to Cyrus and his successors. Come now to the time of Christ and
the apostles. Through the arrangements of providence, the
supreme government had passed into the hands of the Romans,
and Caesar was the king of the Jewish nation. But he came to be
so, not by any supernatural or special divine designation, but by
the very ambiguous right of conquest and superior power. It was
however a wise and righteous God that shaped the concerns of
both these nations, and, by his overruling Providence, subjected
the Jews to the Roman power. And whatever may be said of the
means by which the Romans brought the Jews into subjection, or
of the way in Avhich Csesar came to have authority over them ;
yet as, under divine providence, he actually possessed that
authority, and was the king of the Jews, Jesus recognized that
authority and submitted to it, and inculcated the duty of obe-
dience upon his disciples. The apostles did the same. The rulers
whom they acknowledged as the ministers of God, and whom
Christians were to honor and obey, were generally tyrannical and
cruel men. But the apostles considered them as appointed and
sent of God to fill the office of rulers. The language of Paul,
Rom. xiii, is very plain. He calls rulers, — such as were then in
office, — " the higher powers ; " and says they are " of God," —
" ordained of God," — " the ordinance of God," and " ministers
of God ; " and requires Christians to be subject to them.
544 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
Follow now the history of the Roman Empire. iSee how it was
rent asunder by factions and revolutions, and divided and subdi-
vided into a great number of smaller kingdoms, each one having
its own ruler, and generally on the gi-ound of hereditary right.
Come at length to the British nation. Whoever was the king,
and hoAvever he came to be so, he was " tJie minister of G-od," and
was made so by the arrangements of providence ; and he was
divinely designated to his office, as really, though not in the same
manner, as David was. You finally reach our own country.
Casting off the British authority, we established a government and
elected rulers in our own way. But our Governors, and Presi-
dents, and Judges are all " ministers of God ; " and government
in our Republican form is as much a divine institution, as in the
Kingly or Imperial form. Episcopalians fully recognize this prin-
ciple, and, in their 37th Article, expressly affirm the duty of " a
respectful obedience to the civil authority, regularly and legiti-
mately constituted." They do not mean that a civil authority
must be monareJdcal, or hereditary, or be constituted in any one
particular way. They acknowledge the legitimate authority of
our Repubhcan rulers, just as they are, and have altered the
English prayer for the King into an American prayer for the Pre-
sident ; and in all respects they conduct themselves as faithful
subjects of our Republican government. And if our government
should again be changed, and go back to what it was ; if it should
come to pass, that the King of Great Britain should be our King,
and we should be under a hereditary Monarch, American Episco-
palians would readily submit to that government, and would
restore the Liturgy to its original form, so that they might offer up
prayer for the King and Queen and the Royal Family. And if
after a while there should be still another revolution, and another
Oliver Cromwell should come to be established as our chief ruler
and Protector ; I suppose Episcopahans would still be subject to
" the powers that be," and would pray for the Lord Protector,
just as they now do for the President. Episcopalians are good
citizens, and hold to sound principles in regard to civil govern-
ment ; — whiqh is as truly an ordinance of God as the gospel min-
istry.
PRELACY. 54o
In this way we may get a just idea of the principle of sucee-s-
siorij — succession not as an abstract thing, but as a realitt/, a
matter of fact. There has been a succession of rulei-s in the dif-
ferent nations of Europe, how many soever may have been the
interruptions and changes in the order of that succession. So in
these United States. Have we not, from the beginning had a
succession of rulers ? For a long time our chief ruler was the
King of Great Britam. George the Third was the last. He
was the predecessor of George Washington. There was indeed
a time when no one man was chief ruler of all these States, —
although they were in some respects, under the authority of the
Old Congress. But at length Washington became our Chief
Magistrate, as truly as George the Third had been before. Ac-
cordingly, as chief ruler of all these States, Washington was
the successor of George the Third. Thus these American
States have had from the beginning a succession of rulers, — a
real succession, though not an unvaried or unbroken succession ;
a succession of rulers invested with their office in diflferent ways,
but all " ordained of God." No man in our Repubhc can be
President, Governor or Judge, unless he is regularly brought into
office according to our Republican Constitution and Laws. But
when he is thus regularly brought into office, is he not mvested
with a just authority ? And does not God give rulers in this way
as truly as in any other? Is not a Republican government
founded on divine right, as much as an hereditary monarchy ?
Does the King of Great Britain or any of the governments of
Europe refuse to acknowledge our government, and deny the
validity of its acts, because it is Hepublican ? And do we refuse
fellowship with the governments of Europe, because they are
Monarchical or Imperial ? No. Men have sense enough to man-
age these matters properly in civil concerns.
And I verily think that Christian ministers and churches of
different countries, and different forms of government, should have
as much good sense and enlargedness of mind, as the officers and
members of civil communities. The different denominations of
Christians have their order, their rules of proceeding, in regard to
46*
546 CHUECH GOVERNMENT.
the formation of churches and the ordination of ministers, — all
of them regarding the church and the ministry as divine institu-
tions. Their rules of proceeding may not be perfectly wise and
proper. But they all have order of some hind. Now if churches
or ministers have the essential qualifications larescribed in the
•word of God, and conform to the rules of order in their own
denomination ; that is, if Richard Cecil and John Newton and
their churches conform to the rules of the Episcopal denomination,
and Andrew Fuller and Robert Hall and their churches conform
to the rules of the Baptist denomination, and Timothy Dwight and
Edward Payson and their churches, to the rules of the Congrega-
tional denomination, and Samuel Davies and John H. Rice and
their churches, to the rules of the Presbyterian denomination, and
Wilber Fisk and John Summerfield and their churches, to the
rules of the Methodist denomination, — assuming that these de-
nominations do all hold the essential truths and obey the essential
laws of the gospel, and have severally their rules of order ; —
then I say, all these ministers and churches are to be acknowl-
edged and treated by each other as true Christian ministers and
churches. And if any one stands off from others because they
differ from him in outward forms ; does he not contradict the Scrip-
ture principle which he acknowledges relative to civil government ?
Does he not forget that the kingdom of Christ consisteth in right-
eousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost ? As to the rules
of order — I would insist upon them strenuously, not exclusively
upon the order estabhshed in my own denomination ; but upon
order in some ivay^ and its appropriate rules. If a man calls him-
self a Presbyterian minister, or a Baptist minister, or an Episco-
pal minister, and yet has not conformed to the order established
in his own denomination, and has not a regular and honorable
standing there ; I cannot receive him in the character he assumes,
any more than I can receive one as a congregational minister, if
he despises or neglects congregational order. Congregationahsts
as well as other denominations have rules of order — rules which
are intended and in some measure adapted to secure order. Our
rules may need mending. Still they are rules. And good order
PRELACY. 547
is promoted more by a strict observance of imperfect rules, than
by a partial observance of those which are more perfect. Let us
always support the principle of order, not in any one form exclu-
sively, — this would be illiberal and narrow, — but in the several
forms in which it is found among good men. Let us stand up,
firmly and zealously in behalf of our brethren of other names, as
well as in our own behalf, for the principle of order ; endeavoring,
with a noble liberality, to promote the peace and prosperity of
every part of the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Thus let us aim
to feel and act, in some humble measure, as he does, who is Head
over all things to the church, and who looks down upon all the'
branches of it with equal kindness, and upon all that is holy in
his redeemed people with equal complacency.
But the Episcopal form of church polity is sometimes regarded
as a human arrangement, and is adopted because its tendency and
the influence it actually exerts, are supposed to be better than
those of any other denomination. Let us examine the matter in
this light. Let us inquire whether the obvious tendency of prela-
cy and the influence it has exerted are such, as to render it expe-
dient for us to adopt it.
Let us then turn our attention to what is a prominent object in
the episcopal church, as it is in every other church, that is, its
ministers. And in endeavoring to satisfy myself whether that
church has a title to be preferred before churches under other
forms, I inquire, not whether Episcopal ministers are good men and
faithful ministers, but whether they are better than others. If, as
the claim of some is, they are God's true ministers, specially and
exclusively ; if at their ordination, they receive the Holy Ghost in
a sense in which ministers who are ordained in other forms do not
receive it ; it is certainly reasonable to expect, that they will excel
other ministers in those qualifications which the sacred office
requires, and in the fidelity and success of their labors. Other-
wise, their being thus endued with the ineffable gift of the Holy
Ghost, would seem to be of no value. Are then the episcopal
clergy, as a body, possessed of hfgher qualifications than other
ministers ? Do they more completely sustain the character of a
648 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
bishop or elder, as drawn bj an apostle ? Are tbej more diligent
and faithful in the duties of their calling, or more fervent in pray-
er ? Are they more sound in the faith ? Do they more earnestly
preach Christ crucified, and more fully make known his unsearch-
able riches ? Do they exhibit more zeal to spread the word of
God, to evangelize the heathen, and convert the world ? Or do
they make greater efforts and sacrifices to promote good institutions
at home, and to advance the cause of learning and moraUty ?
Have the episcopal clergy in our country been superior, in any of
the above mentioned respects, to congregational or presbyterian
ministers ? Cast your eye over Massachusetts and other parts of
New England from its first settlement to the present time, and
compare the three orders of the Episcopal clergy with congrega-
tional ministers, and see whether the former have possessed higher
ministerial excellencies, than the latter ; or whether they have
enjoyed more visible tokens of the divine approbation ; or whether
the substantial interests of religion have been better promoted by
their labors ? I do not undervalue the worth of their characters,
or the usefulness of their labors. I only ask whether they have been
superior to others. And in conclusion, I ask, whether, if we should
go over to Episcopalians, we should have a prospect of being con-
nected with better ministers.
Pass then from the ministry to the churches, and inquire,
•whether those of the Episcopal order are better than thosQ of other
denominations. Do the members of episcopal churches exhibit
more satisfactory evidence of piety ? Are higher qualifications
required of persons who are admitted to the fellowship of the church
and the sacrament of the Supper ? Do Episcopal churches main-
tain a more vigilant inspection and discipline over their members ?
Do they show a more devout regard to the Christian Sabbath, and
do they give a more constant and reverent attendance on public
worship ? Have professors of religion among them less of a
worldly spirit ? Are they less devoted to fashion and vain amuse-
ments ? Have they a higher degree of domestic and personal
godliness? Go from church t(5 church, from house to house, and
from closet to closet, and see whether you find more abundant
fruits of the Spirit, more of pure and undefiled religion ?
PRELACY. 549
Now if neither ministers, nor churches, nor individual Christians
of the Episcopal denomination, however excellent they may be,
are found to be no more excellent than those of olher denomi-
nations ; — if prelacy, after time for a fair trial, appears to have
contributed nothing above other forms of church government, to
the spiritual benefit of ministers or churches, or private Chris-
tians ; then in these respects, there seems to be no reason, why
we should give up the ecclesiastical system which was held by
our Puritan fathers, and which we think existed in the time of
the apostles, and adopt the system of prelacy. And what shall
we say of those who maintain, that the Episcopal church is the
only true church of Christ, and that their ministers are the only
ministers who have received the Holy Spirit to qualify them for
their office, and that their ordinances are the only ordinances
which can secure the blessing of God ; while yet there is seen
among them no degree of spiritual health or activity, above what
is seen among those whom they exclude from the benefits of
church-fellowship.
There is, on the ground of expediency, another reason against
adopting prelacy, namely, that it introduces into the Christian
church a principle of hurtful tendency, that is, a distinction in
regard to office and rank among the ministers of Christ. Were
this distinction of divine authority, we would quietly submit to
it, and confide in that divine wisdom which appointed it. But as
it is an ordinance of man, we ought to inquire whether it is of
such a nature and tendency, as to justify us in adopting it. There
is evidently no foundation for this distinction in the characters
or quahfications of gospel ministers. There would be a bishop,
though no one could be chosen, who was superior to common
presbyters. Is there then any reason for the distinction in the
nature of the work to be done ? I think not. For all, if properly
qualified, are able to preach the gospel, administer the ordinances,
and preside in the church. And as to the work of ordaining ; —
why is not a body of presbyters, as competent to set apart others to
the same office as a bishop is ? Now as this distinction is not re-
quired by the nature of the work to be done, and so is arbitrary ; it
550 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
specially tends to beget pride and self-complacencj in those who
are raised to the superior rank. Some of the apostles Avith the
meek and lowlj Jesus before their eyes, aspired after a higher
office, than others were to occupy. But Jesus told them, that
there was to be no such office in his kingdom ; that they were all
brethren. And why should we create an office, which is suited
to be an object of ambition to aspiring minds ? Why make a
distinction, which will be likely to excite that unhallowed principle
to a perilous activity ?
But this is not all. So far as one portion of the clergy are
in rank and power, raised above the proper level, the other part
are sunk below it. It is a matter of fact, that the order of
things in the Episcopal church thrusts the inferior clergy down
from their proper station, deprives them of a part of their rights,
and hinders them from performing a part of the duties incumbent
upon all the ministers of Christ. According to the word of God,
they are all rulers in the Church, imder Christ, the Supreme
Ruler. Their being under him is not a degradation, but an
honor ; — not a loss of rights, but a matter of truth and justice,
and an unspeakable privilege. But for them to be subjected to
an unnecessary human authority is a loss of just rights, and a
hinderance to the performance of important duties ; and so it is
a degradation. It is the right and duty of every gospel minister,
not only to administer baptism, but to admit persons to the com-
munion of the church and to the participation of the Lord's Supper.
And to take the right out of the hands of common pastors, and
put it into the hands of a prelate, is as arbitrary and unjust,
as it would be to put the right of baptizing exclusively into his
hands. What is there in the business of confirming, as set forth
in the " Book of Common Prayer," which is more important or
more difficult than baptism ? And yet wliile a presbyter baptizes,
he cannot confirm. If either is the more important, surely it is
baptism. And we should naturally think that, if either of them
is to be deemed of superior importance, and, on that account, to
be assigned exclusively to the bishop, it must be baptism, which is
plainly a divine institution, rather than confirmation, wliich is a
PRELACY. 551
human institution. And when I compare confirmation with the
Lord's Supper, I find equal reason to regard the latter as the
more solemn and important. Why then is an ordinary pastor who
is allowed to administer the Lord's Supper, forbidden to admin-
ister the rite of confirmation ? If the less important duty is
assigned exclusively to the bishop ; why not the more important ?
Why is it not made the duty of the bishop, and of him only, to
administer baptism and the Lord's Supper ? And for the same
reason, why should he not do all the preaching too, as this is
vastly more important and difficult, than the work of confirmation ?
The same may be said in regard to the right and the duty of
consecrating men to the office of ministers, by prayer and the
imposition of hands ; — a transaction to which presbyters are as
competent as bishops. My position is, that, so far as the Episcopal
system deprives presbyters of any rights which naturally pertain
to their office, and so far as it hinders them from the performance
of any ministerial duties, to which they are competent ; it de-
grades them in the public estimation, and, by an unnecessary and
arbitrary arrangement, curtails their influence and usefulness.
It is a serious objection against the system of prelacy, that it
hinders the members of the church from performing an important
part of their duty as Christians. We have seen that it deprives
them of all direct agency in the discipline of offenders. In this
way, it tends to prevent them from feeling the interest which
they ought to feel in the character and conduct of each other,
and, of course, from exercising the watchful care over each other,
which is required as a duty. To induce men to do such a duty,
and to do it faithfully, it is important to make them feel the force
of a direct responsibility. Any sincere Christian will be likely
to watch over his brethren for their good, to reprove them when
the case requires, and labor for their amendment, if it is under-
stood, that this is a duty which properly belongs to him. But
how can we expect that individual Christians will faithfully watch
over and reprove one another, as required by the precepts of
Scripture, and that the business of discipline will be faithfully
accomplished, if it all devolves on a single man, and that man
652 CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
generally at a distance, occupied with other cares, and not likely
to be sufficiently acquainted with the persons concerned to be a
suitable judge ? There ought at least to be something which
answers to trial by jury, which is deemed so indispensable to the
security of individual rights and the exercise of justice. Let
every private member of the church be tried and judged either
by his brethren regularly assembled as a judicial body, or by
their representatives, chosen and authorized to act for them. This
last is truly a republican proceeding ; and it recognizes the prin-
ciple, that it is the right and duty of the members of the church
to attend to the business of discipline, although they choose to do
it, as the members of our civil communities do, by or through
their representatives, to whom they delegate the necessary power.
Where the members of the church are possessed of intelhgence
and judgment, quahfying them to have a direct, personal agency
in managing the disciphne of the church, the Congregational plan
is, in my opinion, preferable, and more exactly in accordance with
the primitive practice. Either the Congregational or Presbyte-
rian systems appears to me altogether preferable to the Episcopal.
And, if I mistake not, all experience will show, that wherever
the business of discipline is taken out of the hands of the churches,
and committed to the hands of a single man, who is to take care
of a large number of churches, the duty cannot be faithfully
performed.
LECTURE CXXV.
THE LITURGY.
My next reason against adopting the Episcopal scheme is, that
tt imposes unscriptural and burdensome restrictions upon all the
clergy. The Bible makes it the duty of ministers to offer up
prayer in public assemblies ; but it does not prescribe the form
of their prayers ; and it nowhere gives the right to do this to any
man, or any body of men. If ministers are, in any good measure,
qualified for their ofiice, they are qualified to conduct the devo-
tions of the church. And their prayers should be such as the
spirit of piety in them suggests, and such as are suited to the
circumstances of the congregation. And why should they not
be trusted with this part of the service of the sanctuary, as well
as other parts ? Why should they be required to pray in one
particular form, and forbidden to vary one iota from it ? Who
on earth has a right to tell the ministers of Christ the very
thoughts they shall think, and the very words they shall speak
in their supplications and confessions and thanksgivings to God
on every occasion ? Were it not for the influence of custom,
what gospel minister at the present day would yield this right to
any one ? Is not a well qualified minister, — is not a bishop as able
to make a prayer as others are to make it for him, — and others
who lived hundreds of years ago ? Bishops are, it is said, suc-
cessors of the apostles, and stand up in their place. And did the
apostles read written forms of prayer ? — It is an unwarrantable
restriction. And I cannot but think, that many ministers in the
VOL. III. 47
554 THE LITURGY.
Episcopal church feel it to be so. Suppose an Episcopal priest or
bishop, in accordance with the feelings of all others, wishes to
make some uncommon event, not mentioned in the liturgy, a
subject of pvxblic prayer. But he must not do it. His prayer
is in his book, and he must read it just as it is, — how much
soever he may desire to pray, and how much soever others
may desire that he would pray, in a different manner. Again.
Suppose a scene occurs, such as has frequently occuiTed, and
such as we hope will occur still more frequently ; — suppose that
he who is ministering in the sanctuary, sees evident signs of
awakened and solemn attention, deep anxiety, and tenderness of
heart through the assembly before him, and he well knows that
many are ready to ask, what shall I do to be saved, and his own
heart is full of love for lost souls, and strong desires for their
salvation, and he longs to cry to God in their behalf in a man-
ner adapted to their state, and to his own devout emotions.
What shall he do ? Why, he can only read a prayer, written
many hundreds of years ago — a prayer good for some other
occasions, but not for this. Now, were I anEpiscopal minister, I
do not say, were I a bishop, but were I a minister of the lowest
rank, and found myself in such circumstances, I would instantly
forget that I was under authority to any one, but to my Lord and
Saviour, Jesus Christ, — I would cast off my bondage, and would
offer up prayer to God, according to the impulses of my own
heart.
Reading public prayers from a book may be advisable and
usefal, when ministers have but little cultivation of mind and are
very imperfectly prepared for their office. But if ministers are
possessed of the requisite qualifications, what human being has a
rightful authority to dictate to them how they shall pray ? and
how can they submit to such dictation, from whomsoever it may
come ? I know not how it is in this country ; but in the church
of England, when any new and remarkable event takes place,
suitable to be mentioned in public prayer ; all the clergy, and all
the bishops too, are silent, till the archbishop composes and pub-
lishes a prayer for them to read. Now what apostle ever under-
THE LITURGY. 555
took anything like this ? It is a palpable innovation upon apos-
tolical and primitive practice ; — a gross infringement of the liberty
and the duty of the ambassadors of Christ.
" The liturgy of the Episcopal church is chargeable Avith un-
necessarily repeating the same petitions, and with joining together
those which have no kind of connection." Another objection,
is the shortness of the prayers. " The longest are ended
almost before you have time to bring your mind into a proper
frame for joining in it ; and some of them, are finished almost as
soon as they are begun. Besides the constant interruption which
is thus given to devotional feelings, there is a want of dignity and
of sense in a collection of what may be called shreds ov fragments
of prayers. The Lord's prayer is sometimes introduced where
no person can perceive any reason for using it, and is brought
forward so often in the course of the same service, as to have the
appearance of vain repetition."
As I have undertaken to inquire a little into the reason of
things, I would ask why the Episcopal church, which prescribes
pray&rs for ministers, does not also prescribe their sernwns ? It
may be said, that this was in some sort actually done ; that two
volumes of homilies were early written and published, and or-
dered to be read by the clergy in the church. I suppose how-
ever that even then, those ministers who were competent to write
edifying discourses, had liberty to do it. This was all well. And
those who were competent to make edifying prayers, should have
had liberty to do this also. But why is not the use of homilies
continued, as much as the use of written prayers ? You may
say, that ministers now are well educated, and are qualified to
make their own sermons. And are they not also qualified to
make their o\vn prayers ? Who can see any reason for the dif-
ference ? If the Episcopal church prescribes the whole course of
public devotions, it should, to be consistent, prescribe the whole
course of public instructions, and bishops, as well as the inferior
clergj', should use a book of homilies, as they now use the book
of common prayer. If it is said, that old homilies, though very
edifying and acceptable when they were composed, are not
656 THE LITURGY.
adapted to a modern assembly, — (which is verily the case) ;
then why do not the bishops, or an archbishop, write and publish
new homilies ?
The Episcopal church " suspends the order for the reading of
the homilies in churches, until a revision of them may be con-
veniently made for the clearing of them from obsolete words and
phrases, and from the local references." Now if the reading of
homilies is suspended, because they need revision ; I should sup-
pose the same would be done with the book of common prayer.
The reasons for this are the same in kindj though not equal in
degree. A revision of the prayers is demanded for " clearing
them of obsolete words and phrases," as is said in the other
case. They have already cleared them of " local references."
Why not do more ? Why should it retain anything which, by
common consent, is laid aside as unsuitable ? I refer now to
what is called " the Churching of Women ;" which has gone into
general disuse. It may be said, the service is to be referred to
the discretion of the minister, and to the option of women. But
so it is, that their option is against the service. And so it is Hkely
to be ; and so I think it ought to be. Why then is an obsolete
ceremony still prescribed ?
As to the general current of thought and sentiment contained
in the book of common prayer, — I would treat it with the sui-
cerest veneration, not because the form in which it is presented
is derived from the fathers of the church of England, or from
the Christian fathers in the early ages of the church ; but be-
cause it is Scriptural, and suited to promote evangehcal piety.
I rejoice in the thought, that it has, through the blessing of God,
been the means of aiding the devotions of an innumerable mul-
titude of believers, and training them up for the worship of heaven.
And I am confident that mmisters and Christians of all denomi-
nations may be benefited by a famihar acquaintance with it.
But I object to the constant and exclusive use of ani/ prescribed
forms of prayer, however excellent.
Man is so constituted, that he craves variety ; and you can-
not deprive him of it, and confine him, without any obvious
THE LITURGY. 557
reason, to one invariable course, even in religious duties, without
doing violence to the principles of his intellectual and moral na-
ture. Look now at the manner of introducing public worship.
At the commencement of everj morning and every evening ser-
vice, the minister must say : " Dearly beloved brethren, the
Scripture moveth us in sundry places to acknowledge and confess
our manifold sins and wickedness, etc." Now this introduc-
tory address, which is of some length, is all true and im-
portant; and, whenever a congregation need to be informed,
that confession of sin is required by the word of God, it is
proper and useful. But after the people have been frequently and
fully instructed on this point, why take up their time with a con-
stant and needless repetition, which is almost sure to become a
dull formaUty ? Instead of reiterating continually, and in the
same words, that the Scripture moveth us to confession, why not
proceed at once to make confession ? When Christians meet
together for the express purpose of prayer, there is surely no
occasion for them to be always told before they engage in prayer,
that the Scripture moveth them to pray. And if you say, it is
proper for them to be continually reminded of it, you might as
well say, that the people should be continually reminded of their
duty to receive instruction ; and that when we come to the ser-
mon, it is proper for us always to repeat exactly the same form
before we begin, and say, that " the Scripture in sundry places
moveth us to" ihu service, that is, ministers to preach, and the
people to hear. And I cannot but think that, although ministers
quietly submit to use this invariable introductory address out of
respect to Episcopal authority, they would after all, choose to be
left at liberty to introduce the service as their own good taste and
judgment should dictate.
See too how remarkably particular are the directions given to
ministers in regard to the manner of conducting the public ser-
vice, — directing them just what they shall say before they begin
and after they close the reading of the lesson. " Before every
lesson, the minister shall say, here beginneth such a chapter, or
verse of such a chapter, of such a book : and after every lesson,
47*
668 THE LITUKGT.
here endeth the first, or the second lesson." It is mdeed proper
that the minister should inform the congregation what portion of
Scripture is to be read, as ministers of all denominations are ac-
customed to do. But why is it necessary to prescribe the par-
ticular manner, in which this information shall be given ? In the
Episcopal service, the whole congregation, several times repeat the
Lord's prayer with the minister, and they all join in saying other
prayers after the minister, as httle children say prayers or hymns
after their parents. Now everything of this kind appears to me
to be a real hinderance to devotion, and a disorder and confusion
inconsistent with the soleminity and stillness which ought to per-
vade a rehgious assembly. And it seems to me, if Paul were
here, he would reprove it, — as he reproved the confusion in the
Corinthian church which was occasioned by several persons speak-
ing together. What I have now noticed, and also the very fre-
quent changes of postvire in the assembly, must, I think, appear
strange and unbecoming to any one, who has not been reconciled
to them by long use.
The order of service in the Episcopal church extends through
the whole year, and is exceedingly particular. There is a spe-
cial service for the first, second, third and fourth Sundays in
advent, then for Christmas, and the first Sunday after Christmas ;
then for the circumcision of Christ ; then for the epiphany, then
for the first, second, third, fourth, fith, and sixth Sundays after
epiphany ; then for the third Sunday before lent, then for the
second, and the first ; then for each Sunday during the forty days
of fasting in lent ; then for good Friday, — easter, — and the
five Sundays after easter ; then the ascension day ; then pente-
cost ; then Trinity Sunday, and each of the twenty-five Sundays
after Trinity ; then St. Andrew's day, St. Thomas's day, etc.
then all saints day. Now my curiosity leads me to inquire, what
is the reason of all this ? Why was such a particular and uniform
arrangement made ? Neither Christ nor the apostles give any
instructions favorable to it. And if it is considered in the light
of expediency, I inquire, whether imposing one and the same
course for each and every year tends to spiritual improvement,
THE LITURGY. 559
and whether it has resulted in intellectual and moral attainments
above those which have been found under other forms of public
worship.
I have one more question, namelj ; whether the above men-
tioned assignment for each Sunday is founded on any obvious rea-
sons, and whether the services assigned to each Sunday are in
general any better adapted to that Sunday, than to some other.
For example ; is the short prayer provided for the sixteenth or
seventeenth Sunday after Trinity, any more adapted to that Sun-
day, than to the eighteenth or nineteenth ? The prayer for the
seventeenth is this : " Lord, we pray thee, that thy grace may
always prevent and follow us, and make us continually to be given
to all good works, through Jesus Christ." Now is there any rea-
son for assigning this prayer to the seventeenth rather than to the
eighteenth, for which the following prayer is provided : " Lord,
we beseech thee, grant thy people grace to withstand the tempta-
tions of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and with pure hearts
and minds to follow thee, the only God, throu<^^h Jesus Christ."
No reason appears. While then the service provided for some
occasions has an evident adaptedness to those occasions ; the
arrangement in other cases is altogether arbitrary. Now, if it is
expedient to require ministers and churches to conform to a par-
ticular arrangement of public services when there is an obvious
reason for it ; is it expedient, when there is no reason ?
But I must now state a more serious objection against the lit-
urgy, namely, that it contains some passages wJiich are highly
exceptionable. And no one will say, that its general excellence
can justify its errors. The Episcopal church has the power to
make alterations in the liturgy. They have actually made altera-
tions. And there is nothing to prevent them from making more,
if they judge best. Must we not then consider whatever is found
in the liturgy, to be a true expression of the belief of the Prot-
estant Episcopal church in America ?
I now refer to the false doctrine contained in the baptismal ser-
vice. After the child is baptized, the minister says : " Seeing
now that the child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of
560 THE LITURGY.
Christ, let us give thanks to Almighty God for these benefits."
Then follows the Thanksgi^'ing : " We give thee hearty thanks,
most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this
infant with thy Soly Spirit^ to receive him for thine own child by
adoption^ and to ingraft him into thy holy church.''^ Now if it
were a fact, that every baptized child is regenerated by the Holy
Spirit and made God's own child by adoption, it would be a duty
to acknowledge it with gratitude. But there is no evidence of
the fact, either from Scripture, observation, or experience. And
when those Episcopal ministers, (and there are many such,) who
cordially receive the teachings of Holy Writ as to the native cor-
ruption of man and the necessity of a spiritual regeneration, go
through with the baptismal service, and say, that the baptized
child is regenerated by the Holy Spirit ; they do not believe what
the words naturally express. For when the baptized child comes
to years of understanding, they do not tell him that he has already
been born again of the Divine Spirit, but they urge upon him, just
as all evangelical ministers do, the important doctrine, that he
must experience tliis spiritual renovation in order to prepare him
for heaven, and that it is unsafe to place any reliance upon the
circumstance of his having been baptized. And yet those minis-
ters are obliged to say, in so many words, that the baptized child
is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and received as God's own
child by adoption, and incorporated into God's holy church ; —
language which expresses the idea of a saving change both of
character and state, as clearly as any language can do it. Such
ministers must, I think, regret the necessity of sajnng this : be-
cause the language does plainly express a sentiment which is not
theirs ; and they must have found by experience, that the practice
of using words in this manner cannot, without some painful strug-
gles, be made to sit quietly upon an enlightened and upright mind.
Those, who hold the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, according
to the plain, literal meaning of the language employed in the ser-
vice, believe that regenerating grace, or more exactly, regenera-
tion by the Holy Spirit, or the new birth, is conveyed to the child,
through the efficacy of baptism. The moment before baptism the
THE LITURGY. 561
child is unregenerate ; the moment after, he is regenerate. Ac-
cordingly it is during the few moments occupied in baptism, that
the child is " regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and received as
God's own child by adoption, and incorporated into God's holy
church." In this transaction, a great change is accomplished, the
very change which Jesus declared to be necessary for every
human being, — a change from a state of sin to a state of holi-
ness. But if such a momentous and instantaneous change as this
is really produced by baptism, or during the time of baptism ; it
is certainly reasonable to expect some evidences of it. Do any
such evidences appear ? Does not the baptized child exhibit the
same moral qualities as children who are not baptized ? When he
comes to years of understanding, does he not after all show that
he needs to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, as much as though
he had not been regenerated by baptism ? As baptized children
grow up, do not most of them show, that they are not children of
God by adoption ? And when they are awakened to considera-
tion, and convinced of sin, do they not know and feel, the ineflScacy
of all outward rites, and the necessity of regeneration by the Holy
Spirit ? And what gospel minister would tell them, that they had
already been regenerated, and that their anxiety on that subject
was needless ?
Bishop Hobart says, " that there is a distmction made in the
language of the Episcopal church as well as in Scripture, between
regeneration and renovation.'" And he maintains " that unless
the baptized person is reneived by the Holy Ghost, his baptismal
regeneration will only increase his guilt." It comes to this, that
the baptized person is " regenerated by the Holy Ghost," but not
^^ renewed by the Holy Ghost;" and although he is already
" regenerated by the Holy Ghost," it will profit him nothing,
unless he is " renewed by the Holy Ghost." The author does not
undertake to tell us what the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneror-
Hon is, and how it differs from the work of the same Spirit in
renovation. We had supposed that whatever might be the case
as to the influence of outward rites, the work of the Hblg Spirit
is inward, and influences the affections. But he holds to an im-
662 THE LITURGY.
portant work of tlie Holj Spirit in regeneration, which does not
touch the inward affections ; although in another part of the ser-
vice, the child is spoken of as receiving " forgiveness of sin bj
this spiritual regeneration.'''' The bishop maintains baptismal
regeneration " in this sense, that the baptized person is horn again,
not in the affections of his soul, but into a new state, etc." He is
regenerated or " born again," and that too bg the Holg Spirit, but
is not regenerated " in the affections of his soul." And the " netv
state " into which he is brought, when in baptism he is regenerated
bj the Holy Spirit, is not a new spiritual state, — it does not per-
tain to his inward affections ; and of course it must be a new out-
ward state. The bishop says, the baptized person is born again
" into a new state, in which he receives conditionally a title to the
blessings of the gospel covenant." " Receives conditionallg.^^ But
the baptismal service does not hint at anything conditional. It
declares directly, that the baptized child is " regenerated by the
Soly Spirit, and received as Crod's own child by adoption, and
incorporated into God's holy church." Are not these the bless-
ings of the gospel covenant? The Episcopal minister renders
thanks to God that all these blessings are actually bestowed upon
the baptized child. And he does the same in regard to the bap-
tized adult ; and the service for adults, in several parts, implies,
that the baptized person, before baptism, is unregenerate, and that
in or by the act of baptism, he is born again not only of water,
but also of the Spirit. The minister does not say, " We yield
thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee
conditionally to give to tliis child a title to be regenerated by the
Holy Spirit, and to be received as thine own child by adoption,
and to be incorporated into thy holy church." He does not thus
thank God for giving the child a conditional title to these gospel
blessings ; but he thanks God that he has already, in the rite of
baptism, actually bestowed them. Accordingly, I find no small
difficulty ui making the bishop's explanation of the baptismal ser-
vice, agree with the language of the service. The one says, " a
conditional title to gospel blessings " is received in baptism ; the
other says, the blessings themselves are received. And the church
THE LITURGY. 663
catechism also says, that the persons baptized, " being by nature
born in sin, and children of wrath, are hereby," (i, e. by baptism)
" made the children of grace."
It would gratify my feelings to know precisely what is meant in
the above quotation by " the baptized person receiving condition-
ally a title to the blessings of the gospel covenant." The gift of
the Holy Spirit to renew and sanctify the heart is mentioned in
the Scriptures as one of the special blessings of the gospel cove-
nant. Another of these blessings is set forth in that gracious
promise of God, " I will be your God, and ye shall be my sons
and daughters." These are the principal blessings of the new
covenant. The baptized child receives a conditional title to these
blessings. A conditional title, is a title depending on certain con-
ditions. What are the conditions in this case ? The conditions
cannot be the apphcation of water to the child and solemnly pro-
nouncing over him the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Ghost ; for it is in or by this baptismal service, that he
receives the conditional title, — the conditions being still to he ful-
filled. What then are the conditions ? And by whom are they
to be performed ? It appears from the baptismal service, that the
conditions are to be performed for a time, by the sponsors, that is,
the parents or other persons, who present the child for baptism,
and enter into solemn engagements for him. The minister, after
referring to the promise of Christ, says to the sponsors : " This
infant must also — for his ^vi, promise hy you that are his sure-
ties (until he come of age to take it upon himself,) that he will
renounce the devil and all his works, and constantly beheve God's
holy word, and obediently keep his commandments." He then
puts the particular questions to each one of the sureties and
receives the answers. " Dost thou, in the name of this child,
renounce the de\il and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of
the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and all sinful de-
sires of the flesh — ? " Answer. " I renounce them all ; and will
endearor by God's help, not to follow them — ." " Dost thou
believe all the articles of the Christian faith, as contained in the
apostles' creed ? " Ans. " I do." " Wilt thou be baptized into
664 THE LITURGY. -
this faith ? " Alls. " That is my desire." " Wilt thou then obe-
diently keep all God's commandments, and walk in them all the
days of thy life ? " Ans. " I will, by God's help." In these
promises, the sureties, severally, personate the infant ; they speak
in his name, and enter into engagements for him. Now there are
some things in this transaction which a plain Puritan finds it
rather hard to understand. Are the sureties responsible for the
fulfilment of the promises they make ? Or, as they speak in the
name of the child, does the responsibility rest on him f It seems
from the transaction, that they become responsible, till the child
comes of age. If so, then in what way are they to fulfil their
promises, that is, in what way is each of them to renounce the
devil and his works, and to believe and obey God's word for the
child during his infancy/ ? Is the faith and obedience to be exer-
cised by the sureties, or by the child? If the sureties do them-
selves, in the exercise of their own faculties, truly believe and
obey, is that a fulfilment of the promise they make in the name of
the child ? If not, then what more shall they do, seeing they
cannot so identify themselves with the mind of the child, that their
act in believing and obeying shall become his own personal act ?
But if, whatever may seem to be implied in the promise, the spon-
sors are not really responsible for the child's faith and obedience
during his infancy, and if, as is plainly signified, the child is not
responsible, until he grows up ; then where does the responsibility
lie for the fulfilment, during the child's infancy, of the promise
made by the sureties ? After the child is of sufficient age, he of
course takes the responsibility upon himself.
If the real import of the promise which the sponsors make, is
meant to be this, — that they will take care, as far as possible,
that the child shall receive a religious education ; that he shall be
restrained from vice, and be brought up in the nurture and admo-
nition of the Lord ; then why should not the language of the
promise be such as clearly to convey this meaning ? Why should
a transaction made up of mysteries, — an (enigma cenigmatorum,
more puzzhng than Samson's riddle, be used to set forth, or rather
to cover up so plain a matter ? — an enigma too, the explanation
of which is another and a still darker enigma.
THE LITURGY. 665
So far as the sponsors arc concerned, the condition of the
child's title to gospel blessings must be the fulfilment of the
promises they make in behalf of the child. And these promises
you will understand as well as you can. But what are the condi-
tions which relate to the child himself ? On what conditions, to
be performed by 1dm, does his title to the blessings of the gospel
covenant rest ? The gospel itself represents these conditions to
be, repentance toward God, and faith toward the Lord Jesua
Christ. The child, then, in baptism, receives a title to the bless-
ings of the gospel covenant, on condition that, in due time, he
shall repent and believe. But are not these very blessings
offered to all, whether baptized or not, on these same conditions ?
And does not every faithful minister, whether Episcopal or not,
declare to all men, that all spiritual blessings will be theirs, if
they will repent and believe in Christ ? If then this conditional
title is common to all who live under the gospel dispensation ; how
is it received in baptism ?
Episcopalians have, in some instances, provided a second form
of the service, to be used by any who shall pi-efer it. This is the
case in the ordination service. The bishop is to repeat the first
form, or another which follows it. The same choice between two
modes of proceeding is provided as to the sign of the cross in
baptism, and as to the mode of applying the water, and as to
repeating a part of the apostles' creed. Now such a provision
appears to me much more important in this case, than in either of
the other cases referred to. And I have often been inclined to
ask, why Episcopalians have not exercised their authority and
their charity, and provided a second form of the baptismal ser-
vice, in which the doctrine of regeneration by the Holy Spirit in
baptism, should be omitted, so that ministers of different views
might be freed from a heavy burden, and be at liberty to act
according to their honest convictions.
Again. The Wtur gj presents a low and unscriptural standard
of the Cliristian character. Those doubtless are regarded as
true believers and heirs of eternal life, who are confirmed by the
bishop, and received to the communion of the Supper, and who are
VOL. III. 48
i(jo THE LITURGY.
spoken of as Christians in the funeral service. As to the last,
although the liturgy has been improved bj the Protestant Episco-
pal church in America, it still plainly implies, that the person
deceased, whether pious or not, was a Christian, and died in the
Lord. And there is no way to avoid this conclusion, but by an
unnatural explanation, or rather an evasion, of the import of the
language. The service is exceedingly solemn and impressive, and
is remarkably appropriate to the funeral of a devout Christian.
But if used at the burial of a person who was evidently destitute
of the Christian character, as it so frequently is ; it conveys the
false and dangerous sentiment, that a life of ungodliness is not
incompatible with a title to heaven ; and in this way it directly
tends to confirm the irreligious in their irreligious life. And I
cannot but notice the manifest inconsistency, not to say absurdity,
of attempting to frame a single service, which shall be suited to
the burial of the most eminent servants of Christ, and at the same
time suited to the burial of the worldly and profane. The ser-
"sdce is indeed " not to be used for any unbaptized adults, or any
who die excommunicate, or who have laid violent har^ds upon
themselves." These are the only exceptions. It may be used
for baptized inebriates, or infidels. There are many persons,
who, for some cause, have not been baptized, who yet have
exhibited, in fife and in death, the character of exemplary Chris-
tians. To these, Christian burial is, according to the rubric, to be
denied.
An unscriptural standard of Christian character is also held
forth in the " Order of confirmation." In the first place, the
minister says to the sureties for the baptized child : " Ye are to
take care that this child be brought to the bishop to be confirmed
by him, as soon as he can say the creed, the Lord's prayer, and
the ten commandments, and is sufficiently instructed in the other
parts of the church catechisyn set for that purpose.^' The same
qualifications are mentioned at the beginning of the " Order of
Confirmation." These are the qualifications required in order to
confirmation, and in order to communion with the church in the
Lord's Supper. There is in this a manifest deficiency, which
THE LITURGY. 667
comes continually, with all its deceptive influence, before the
minds of those who attend the service of confirmation in the Epis-
copal church.
It is, with me, a grave objection to the Episcopal church, that it
retains so many of the additions which were inade to the simple
institutions of the gospel hy the superstition of the church of Rome.
The corruption of Christianity by human inventions began even in
the time of the apostles. And these inventions, tvhether recom-
mended hy their novelty^ or rendered venerable by their antiquity^
the apostles repeatedly condemned. And they foretold, that still
greater corruptions would be brought into the church after their
decease. The Christian fathers, during the three or four centu-
ries after Christ, laid the foundation of the church of Rome.
That church, during the period of its greatest power and corrup-
tion, constantly appealed to the fathers ; and the appeal was not in
vain. If the fathers, during the first four or five centuries, are
allowed to possess decisive authority in regard to opinions, rites,
and ceremonies ; the peculiarities of the Romish church can, for
the most part, be vindicated and sustained. Many of the best
writers in the church of England, and in the Protestant Episcopal
church in America, disclaim the authority of the fathers, and hold
to the Scriptures as the sufficient and only rule of faith and prac-
tice. And yet Episcopalians at this day retain a great propor-
tion of the rites and ceremonies of popery ; — not so much, I
suppose, because they belonged to popery, as because they
have so long been practised in their own church. Some indeed
consider it as a conclusive argument in their defence, that they
were in use during the first ages of Christianity. A late re-
spectable writer in favor of prelacy says, " that the distinguishing
characteristic of the Protestant Episcopal church is, the defer-
ence it pays to the primitive church ; that it is the principle con-
stantly maintained by that church, that whatever is first is true,
und whatever is later is false.'''' On this ground, many Episcopa-
lians contend for those ceremonial observances, which have been
added to the simplicity of the gospel.
Y\0>i I do not admit that ancient fathers had any more authoi'ity
568 THE LITURGY.
to make additions to tlie divine institutions, than modern fathers.
Why should we joay deference to uninspired men in the third
and fourth centuries, more than those in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries ; — or, to the fathers of the Episcopal church
in England, more than to the fathers of the Presbyterian church
in Scotland, or to the fathers of the puritan church in New Eng-
land ? The opinions of uninspired men cannot bind us. We are
Protestants. And it seems to me, that Episcopalians, professing
as they do to be Protestants, act inconsistently with their profes-
sion in paying so much regard to antiquity, and especially in
retaining so many of the peculiar forms and observances of the
Romish church. And I think too, that the Episcopal church is
inconsistent with itself, in that it adopts some of the ancient
observances, while it rejects others. The holy days kept in honor
of the Trinity, of angels, of the birth and circumcision of Christ,
of the virgin Mary, of the apostles, of several martyrs and Chris-
tian fathers, etc., were all at first innovations ; but they became
settled usages in the ancient church. The founders of the Pro-
testant Episcopal church, by taking some of these, and omitting
others, showed that they had no implicit confidence in antiquity,
and that they claimed the right of judging and acting for them-
selves. When they pleased, they adopted an observance which
originated in the bosom of popery in the fourteenth century, and
rejected one which was generally observed in the third century.
Now are not those, who profess such deference to ecclesiastical
antiquity, while after all they are not governed by it, chargeable
•with some inconsistency ? Does their deference really amount to
any more than this, that they will follow the ancients or not, as
they judge best ? If they profess more than this, their practice
falls short of their profession. If then modern Episcopalians
charge us with the want of a due veneration for antiquity,
because we reject most of the ancient ceremonies which they
adopt ; the same charge, substantially hes against them, because
they reject so many of the ancient ceremonies. The ancient
fathers in administering baptism, in the fourth century, immersed
the jperson three times, 7iaked, and then made the sign of the eross
THE LITURGY. 569
on his forehead, and anointed him with holy oil. But Episcopa-
lians reject the trine immersion, and the ceremony of nakedness,
and the anointing, and do not commonly use immersion. I do not
blame them for this. But where is their deference to the ancient
church, when they reject the greater part of the ceremonies which
were anciently used in baptism ?
The Episcopal church have, if I am rightly informed, about
twenty-eight festivals, and about one hundred fasts ; — that is, one
hundred and twenty-eight holy-days, in addition to the Lord's
day ; — taken either directly from the Romish church, — for
instance, the festival in honor of the Trinity, which Hobart says is
comparatively of modern date, originating as it did in the four-
teenth century, — or from what they call the primitive church ;
and all on the ground of their antiquity. But the Romish church,
and what is called the primitive church, had many more festivals
and fasts. If then the founders of the Episcopal church were
governed by a respect for antiquity, why did they not take the
whole list of the holy-days, as well as a part ? And if they are at
liberty to reject more or fewer of the holy-days of antiquity, as
they judge best; we are at hberty to do the same. If ancient
jisage has authority over us, it has authority throughout. But if
we renounce the authority of ancient and primitive usage, we are
thrown back, as we should be, upon the authority of what is more
ancient and primitive, that is, the word of God.
These multiplied outward observances, every one must see, are
a departure from the Christian Scriptures. Neither Christ nor
the apostles appointed any particular days to be kept as sacred by
the church, except the Lord's day. On the contrary, the Apostle
Paul expressly discountenanced such observances. In the way
of rebuke, he said to the Galatians : "Ye observe days, and
months, and times, and years." And in view of these supersti-
tions, he said to them, — "I am afraid of you, lest I have
bestowed upon you labor in vain." And he spoke of them as in
bondage to these " beggarly elements." If the same Apostle were
here, what would he say to that church, which has made about one
third of the days in the year religious festivals and fasts ?
48*
570 THE LITURGY.
These multiplied rites and observances though they fall far
short of those in the Romish church, are, in my view, carried to a
great excess, and, if fully practised, would prove an intolei*able
yoke. Think of more than one hundred and twenty festivals and
fasts, — one third part of the whole year ! Think of forty days
in Lent. Who has a right to load Christians with such imposi-
tions ? I was born free, and I will not sell my birth-right. Most
cheerfully will I submit to the authority of God. And I will
show my respect and veneration for the apostles, not by keeping
days in their honor, which I know they never wished, — but by
believing and obeying their instructions. But what is uninspired
man, that we should bow the knee to him, and should eat or not
eat, work or pray, at his bidding ?
This whole business of observing days and months and times,
which began in the Apostle's day, and for which he rebuked the
backsliding Galatians, has an obvious tendency to corrupt Chris-
tianity, and to substitute external forms and ceremonies in ike
place of real godliness. When I look at the machinery of the
Episcopal church in her Sunday services ; her multiplied short
prayers, consisting often of a single sentence ; the frequent repe-
tition of the Lord's prayer ; the continual change of posture among
the worshippers, now standing, now sitting, now kneeling ; the
confused noise of the whole congregation often speaking the
same things together ; the minister's singular dress, and change
of place and attire ; — when I look at her many scores of fasts
and festivals in honor not only of God, and Christ, but of the mother
of Christ, and each one of the apostles, — in honor of the
slaughtered infants of Bethlehem, — in honor of all saints, — and
in honor of Michael and all angels ; — at her crosses, and her
pictures, and the magnificence of her cathedrals ; — at her pro-
tracted meetings in Lent, and at other times ; when, accustomed
as I am to the simplicity of Puritan worship, I look at all this
solemn machinery ; I am sometimes affected with a mixture of
respect and doubt and fear ; — and sometimes with feelings,
which I wish to avoid.
It may be said, that the ceremonials of the church are mat-
THE LITUKGY.
ters of taste, not of- argument. So be it. I too have a taste ;
and, if it does not contradict anything in the Bible, I have a
right to conform to its suggestions. Let me say then, that I have
a preference, too strong to be expressed, for what is plain and
simple. The worship of the Puritans, and their freedom from
rites and forms of human origin, instead of being contrary to any
principle of Christianity, are certainly conformed, in a good
measure, to the pattern set before us by Christ and the apostles.
In this respect the Puritans acted on a different principle from
the church of England, — which did not even pretend to follow
the simplicity of the mode of worship adopted by Christ and his
apostles, but conformed, and that professedly, to the ceremonies
and observances which originated in the ancient church, long
after the days of inspiration.
LECTURE CXXVI.
POPULAR FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. CONGREGATIONALISM
AND PRESBYTERIANISM.
Having given particular attention to the government of the
church bj bishops or prelates, we shall now consider the popular
form.
Congregationalists and Presbyterians were treated with equal
regard by the Founders of this theological Seminary, as appears
from their statutes. In various respects these two denominations
of Christians agree.
1. They agree in acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as
the Supreme Head of the church, and the Scriptures as the
sufficient and only infallible rule of our faith and practice.
2. They agree as to the doctrines of revelation, on the prin-
ciples of evangelical religion.
3. They agree substantially as to the mode of conducting
public worship and administering the sacraments.
4. They agree in rejecting prelacy, and in maintaining the
parity of Christian ministers.
5. They agree in maintaining the validity of Presbyterian or-
dination. They both do the work of ordaining by an assembly
made up of presbyters, or ordained ministers, and lay delegates
from the churches ; although the delegates who represent the
churches, are chosen, and the ecclesiastical body that ordains,
is constituted, in different ways. Presbyterian churches elect
those who represent them, beforehand, and constitute their
CONGREGATIONALISM. 573
presbyteries as standing bodies ; -while among Congregational
churches the delegates are elected and the presbjtery or ordain-
ing council is constituted from time to time, as occasion requires.
But in both, the ecclesiastical body that ordains, called presbj^tery
or council, is composed of a competent number of ordained min-
isters and lay delegates.
6. In a Congregational church, the disciphne of its members
in case of offence, is conducted, and other ecclesiastical business
is transacted, by the members of the church regularly assembled
with the pastor, as an ecclesiastical body. In a Presbyterian
church, this is all done by the pastor and the ruling elders, called
the session.
7. In both denominations, there is provision for an appeal from
the first and more private act of discipline ; in one, from the act
of the church as a popular assembly ; in the other, from the act
of the session ; the appeal in the former ca!se being to a mutual
council, chosen at the time by the parties ; in the latter case, to
the presbytery, previously agreed upon by the churches. In the
Presbyterian church, there is a farther appeal from the presbytery
to the synod, and from the synod to the general assembly. But
in the Congregational church, there is no appeal to any ecclesias-
tical body superior to the mutual council.
8. In the Presbyterian church all questions in regard to the
treatment of oflfences and other concerns, are finally determined
by the judicial bodies provided by the constitution of the church.
But Congregational churches claim to themselves, as popular as-
semblies, the right of ultimate decision ; although the contending
parties frequently deem it expedient to refer the ultimate decision
to a council mutually chosen.
9. In both denominations, the individual members of a church
act in choosing their pastor ; and in both, the ecclesiastical body
to whom the right of ordination belongs, decide as to the qualifi-
cations of the pastor elect, and as to the expediency of setting
him apart to the pastoral office.
10. The Presbyterian churches act generally on the principle
of representation. Congregational churches adopt the principle
574 CONGREGATIONALISM.
in the business of councils. And many of them appoint a com-
mittee to act with the pastor in attending to other ecclesiastical
concerns.
I have here spoken of Congregational principles as they exist
in Massachusetts. But in some parts of New England, the Say-
brook Platform is adopted, and consociations are formed, having
a nearer resemblance to presbyteries, than mutual councils.
The above is a general, though not a complete view of the
points of agreement and disagreement between Congregationalists
and Presbyterians.
The examination of the subject of church government in the
preceding Lectures on prelacy, has brought to view the principal
arguments from Scripture which support Congregationalism. And
this examination, I think, shows, that the popular form of govern-
ment adopted by Congregationalists, agrees more exactly with
the teachings of the New Testament, than that which is adopted
by any other branch of the Christian church.
After the free discussion in the foregoing Lectures on church
government, and the remarks above made, I shall lay before you
in a concise, connected view, only the general principles of Congre-
gationalism as they are made known by the Cambridge Platform,
together with other well known writings of the Puritans and the
settled practice of regular Congregational churches.
1. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Supreme Lawgiver of the
church. And no one has any rightful power or authority in the
church, except what the Lord Jesus has given him in his word.
Neither the church at large, nor any branch of it, can properly be
held under obligation to submit or yield obedience to any ruler,
civil or ecclesiastical, except in conformity with the instructions
of the New Testament.
2. The Christian Scriptures are our only infallible guide in
regard to the constitution and government of the Christian church,
as well as in regard to all other subjects. So far as any writings
of human origin coincide with Scripture, or help us to understand
its instructions, they are to be gratefully received. But whoever
and whatever differs from the Bible, is to be rejected. In this
CONGREGATIONALISM. 575
respect, wo dlflfer from all those, who regard the writings of the
early Christian fathers, the decisions of councils or the judgment
of any uninspired men, as constituting, in whole or in part, the
rule of our faith, or as possessing any ultimate authority over our
conscience, either as to the doctrines of religion, the worship of
God, or the government of his church,
3. Cambridge Platform, together with other writings and public
acts of the Puritans, is to be recognized as exhibiting the essential
principles of Congregationalists in regard to ecclesiastical polity.
4. There is, according to the Scriptures, only one order in the
gospel ministry, jNIinisters may indeed differ from each other as
to knowledge, piety, and usefulness. But thej- are all equal in
office. No one is invested with authority over others ; and no
one is subject to the control of others.
6. While the leading principles of church government are
clearly made known in the word of God, the business of applying
these principles to different cases, and framing by-laws for the
regulation of public worship and church discipline, belongs to the
churches, and is to be executed according to their sober judgment
and discretion, provided that they do not violate or neglect any-
thing settled by the word of God.
6. A congregation or society of Christians, bound together by
solemn covenant, maintaining the great truths of Christianity, and
attending together to the public worship of God and the adminis-
tration of gospel ordinances by regularly authorized officers, is a
true and complete church of Christ, and has power within itself to
Conduct its own concerns ; and is under no subjection or respon-
sibility to any other church, except that which is mutual, and
which is enjoined by the word of God.
7. It belongs to the individual members of every church to
choose their own pastor, to discipline offenders, and to transact
all other business appertaining to them as a particular church.
When regularly assembled, they are to deliberate and act, and
by a majority of votes to decide every question which properly
comes before them.
8. Congi-egational churches, though they are '•'■distinct^ and
576 CONGREGATIONALISM.
therefore may not be confounded one with another, and equal, and
therefore have no dominion one over another," * yet are not sep-
arate bodies, but sustain a mutual relation, as servants of the
same Lord, and branches of the same spiritual kingdom, and are
bound to maintain Christian fellowship with each other, to watch
over each other in love and faithfulness, and to do all in their
power to protect each other's rights, to encourage each other in
the discharge of duty, and in all proper ways to promote each
other's peace and prosperity.
9. In order that the fellowship existing among the churches
may effectually accomplish its objects, it is important that the
churches should agree upon a definite plan of intercourse, and
should determine in what manner they are to watch over each
other, in what respects they are responsible to each other, and in
what ways they are to protect each other's rights, and promote
each other's welfare ; — and also what shall be the conditions of
their fellowship, and when and how it shall be ended.
10. As the community of churches is interested in the char-
acter and influence of gospel ministers ; every Congregational
minister whether he is a pastor or not, is to be considered as
having a real and responsible connection with Congregational
churches and pastors. Accordingly, either the members or the
pastors of Congregational churches, after properly dealing wjth
him in private, may, in a regular manner, prefer charges against
him before an ecclesiastical council, convened according to rule,
for his trial.
11. Any member of a church, who feels himself aggrieved by
any act of the church, shall have the right to appeal to a mutual
council.
12. Synods, or larger councils, duly assembled, and rightly
proceeding according to the Scriptures, are an ordinance of God.
And it belongeth unto synods and councils to determine controver-
sies of faith and cases of conscience ; to clear from the Scriptures
directions for the worship of God and the government of the
church ; to bear testimony against mal-administration and cor-
* See Platform ch. 15, and Upham's Ratio Disciplinae, pp. 37, 43, 174 — 6, and
206.
CONGREGATIONALISM. 57"^
ruption in any particular church, and to take proper measures for
the reformation thereof.*
The only platform of church government -which has ever been
adopted by the ministers and churches of this Commonwealth, is
the Cambridge Platform. This must be regarded as the basis
and standard of Congregationalism. For although this Platform
has been much neglected ; and although certain provisions of it,
particularly the office of ruling elders and the distinction between
pastors and teachers, have been given up by universal consent ;
and although certain usages, not authorized by the Platform, have
worked themselves into our ecclesiastical affairs ; still Congrega-
tionalists adhere to the essential princijjJes of the Platform.
And no scheme of church poUty, which is essentially at variance
with those principles, can meet the approbation of enhghtened and
judicious CongregationaUsts.
But in order that Congregational ministers and churches may
more clearly manifest the excellence of their ecclesiastical system,
and more fully realize its benefits, the following things are evi-
dently important and necessary.
1. It is important and necessary that the fundamental princi-
ples of Congregationalism, and the rules of church government
resulting from them, should he well defined and firmly established.
The Platform is an ancient document ; and though it was the
product of men of powerful intellects, after much thought and
experience, and though the Puritan fathers deemed it well suited
to the wants of the churches in their day ; it evidently needs a
careful revising, in order to fit it more fully for general use at the
present day. It is agreed on all hands, that it contains some
principles which cannot now be adopted. It is clear too that it
has some obscurities which ought to be removed, and deficiencies
which ought to be supplied. A manual of discipline, derived
from the Platform, and adapted to the present time, would be of
great use to ministers and churches. For how can they avoid
mistakes and irregularities in matters of discipline, unless they
have before them a system of principles and rules, which has been
* See riatform, ch. 15, Sec. 1 and 4.
VOL. III. 49
678 CONGREGATIONALISM.
derived from Scripture and experience, and which thej can regard
as a safe directory in ecclesiastical proceedings ? ' And hoAv can
they enjoy the benefits of Christian* fellowship, unless they have a
clear understanding of the duties they owe to each other, and of
the manner in which those duties are to be performed.
Our Puritan fathers felt the necessity of definite principles and
rules. This necessity is more urgent now, in proportion to the
increased number and extent of our churches and the prevalence
of other systems. We do indeed hold that Christ is our Lawgiver,
and that no man and no number of men can properly undertake to
legislate for the churches. But it is important for us to have a
clear understanding of the laws which Christ has given us. And
if, in anything, he has left it to us to proceed according to our own
judgment ; it is important that we should take pains to use our
judgment right.
2. It is important that ministers and churches should come to a
substantial agreement, and should in all 7naterial points, adopt the
same system of ecclesiastical principles and rules. Without this,
how can they maintain fellowship with one another ? If some
churches proceed in one way, and some in another, they will not
only lose the benefit of cooperation, but will be likely to clash
with each other ; and instead of afibrding mutual aid and support,
they Avill often occasion embarrassment and trouble to each other.
" Such looseness, neglect and disagreement," as now exist
among us, " are neither seemly nor profitable ; nor would they in
other communities be tolerated. Every human society, that is
permanent in its nature and great design, should, as far as practi-
cable, be governed by definite, settled, and well known rules.
And where communities, like our churches, are associated, and
members of them are frequently transferred from one to anotlier,
inconvenience, dissatisfaction and offence are likely to result from
the application of jjrinciples and rules, about which there is igno-
rance, or in respect to which there are different views and habits
of feeling. Where wholesome laws are definite and known, they
are more apt to be approved, and are more readily obeyed ; and
when broken, the offender is more easily made sensible of his fault,
and is therefore more likely to forsake it."
CONGREGATIONALISM. 579
Various writers have pu1»lished books of great value, setting
forth what they understood to be the principles of Congregational-
ism. In most eases, these writers agree, in some they differ.
But Congregationalists have not adopted the views of either. Is
it not important that we should seriously endeavor in some proper
way, to come to an agreement as to the principles and rules of
church government ? There is no more reason to think that Con-
gregational churches can have order and prosperity without a
system of deifinite rules in which they agree, than that the differ-
ent parts of the Commonwealth can have order and prosperity
without a code of well defined civil laws, published for common
use. Is it not then the manifest duty of Congregational ministers
and churches to determine, deliberately and unitedly, what the
principles of Congregationalism are, and then in all their ecclesi-
astical proceedings to carry them into practice ?
The want of uniform and definite rules is manifest in regard to
the treatment of church members who are chargeable with offences.
Suppose an offender is excommunicated. In present circum-
stances he has it in his power to give great trouble to the church,
and frequently to evade the force of its most solemn acts. The
church claims, and that justly, the right to discipline its own mem-
bers. At the same time, any one who is under censure has, by
common consent, the right of appeal to an ecclesiastical council.
Now this right of appeal, and the inherent right of the church,
might be so defined and adjusted, as not to clash with one
another. But at present, we have no effectual provision to sus-
tain a chui'ch in the exercise of its right, and to bring the disci-
pline of an offender to a final and peaceful issue. The church
may, at the request of one under censure, consent to a mutual
council, and that mutual council may approve the doings of the
church. But in present circumstances, what is there to prevent
an excommunicant from demanding a second mutual council, and
a third? And in case of a refusal on the part of the church,
what can hinder him from calhng an ex parte council ? And it is
well known that even after a church has consented to one, or
more than one mutual council, an ex parte council may come in,
680 CONGREGATIONALISM.
and, instead of sustaining the church in the exercise of its rights,
may nullify its most righteous acts ; and by receiving an offender
•who is under censure, to their fellowship, may give countenance to
the commission of offences in other members, and tramj^le under
foot the honor and authority of the church. How important and
how easy it is for the churches to agree upon a rule, which shall
shut the door against these disorders, and shall effectually sustain
every church in the exercise of its rights, and at the same time
provide a remedy for the injustice of any of its acts towards its
members. Congregational churches pretend not to be infallible ;
and they are willing to grant to any member who complains of
injustice, the right of appeal to an ecclesiastical council. All that
seems necessary is, that they should determine, by a united act,
how the appeal shall be made, and how the case of disciphne shall
be terminated. Let it be settled by common agreement, whether
an excommunicated member, if he requests it, shall be entitled to
appeal to a mutual council ; and then what shall be the influence
of that council's result. If the council sustains the act of
the church, shall the excommunicant be entitled to a second and
third appeal, or shall the act of the church, thus supported by a
mutual council, be regarded as final ? On the contrary, if the
council disapproves the act of the church, and judges that the
member who makes complaint, has been injured, and ought to be
restored ; shall such a decision of the council be final ? Or shall
it still lie with the church to determine by its own act, how the
case shall be treated ? And shall this act of the church be final,
leaving no room for the excommunicated person to make any fur-
ther appeal ? The great thing wanted is, that the churches
should come to a definite agreement on this point, so that they
may support each other in the exercise of their inherent right to
discipline their own members, and may scrupulously avoid what-
ever would in any way interfere with that right. If this matter
is left unsettled, what prospect is there of efficient disciphne and
mutual harmony and love among the churches ? And how can
the fundamental principle of Congregationahsm be maintained, if
the power of disciphne is wrested from the church, and wielded
CONGREGATIONALISM. 681
by others ■who choose to act in concert with an offender ? And
who can think it right that any church, in its endeavors to dis-
charge its most difficult and painful duties, should be hindered or
discouraged by those sister churches, who ought always to afford
the most friendly coimtenance and aid ?
Again. The want of uniform and definite rules is at present
manifest, in regard to the discipline of ministers chargeable with
immorality or heresy.
A Christian minister, whose character and conduct are so insep-
arably connected with the interests of Christ's kingdom, should
certainly be subject to the inspection of his brethren, and, in some
proper way, should be admonished by them, and deposed from the
ministry when the case requires it ; and, when unjustly accused,
should be able to avail himself of their protection and support.
It would be a great evil for private members of the church to be
free from responsibihty to their brethren. But if ministers of the
gospel should be thus free from responsibihty, the evil would be
still greater. According to the general practice at the present
time, a church may complain of their pastor for any offence, and
bring him for trial before a mutual council. But they may
neglect their duty in this respect. And in that case, how shall
the offender be called to accomit ? Suppose him guilty of gross
immorahty or heresy. And suppose that notwithstanding this, he
is still sustained by his church. His brethren in the ministry, and
in the neighboring churches, may be grieved at his conduct. But
what ecclesiastical rule is there, which would authorize them to
bring him before a council for trial, or in any way to deal with
him for his offence ? Take another case, — that of a regularly
ordained minister, not connected as a pastor with any church,
though still active in the ministry ; and suppose him guilty of
flagrant immorahty. Is it not a manifest defect in the present
condition of Congregationahsts, that there is no way agreed upon
among them, in which such a minister can be subjected to ecclesi-
astical discipline ? It is indeed true, that individuals may with-
draw fellowship from him. But ought they to do this, without
giving him a fair trial ? And is it not important that they should
49*
582 CONGKEGATIONALISM.
agree upon some definite method in which such a trial may be
instituted ?
There is also a manifest defect in our present ecclesiastical
state in regard to the fellowship of the churches, and the manner in
which they are to treat one another when offences occur.
Congregational churches have always professed to hold fellow-
ship with each other. And the Platform (ch. 15.) points out
several ways in which that fellowship is to be maintained. In
various respects it has been maintained ; and the benefits of it
have been experienced. But do we carry out fully into practice
the provisions of the Platform and the principles of the New Tes-
tament in regard to the fellowship and the mutual responsibihty of
the churches ? The Platform provides, that if any public offence
is found in a church, other churches are to deal with it in the way
of admonition, and finally, if the case so requires, in the way of
withdrawing fellowship. Is it not important that the churches
should determine whether they will hold to this provision ? — and
if they do, that they should agree upon the method in which they
will maintain this inspection over one another ?
It is also desirable and important that the Congregational
churches should be agreed in the adoption of a Confession of
Faith. This was a main point with those who framed the Plat-
form. In 1648, they unanimously adopted the following vote,
namely : " The Synod, having perused and considered with much
gladness of heart and thankfulness to God, the Confession of
Faith published of late by the Reverend Assembly in England, do
judge it to be very holy, orthodox, and judicious in all matters of
faith, and do therefore freely and fully consent thereto, for the
substance thereof." And they afterwards expressed their approval
of the same confession of faith at different times and in various
ways. If the ministers and churches of Massachusetts are united
in receiving the great principles of rehgion which are contained in
the word of God, why should they not, for the honor of their reli-
gion, publicly express their union ?
As to the essential principles of CongregationaUsm, we have no
occasion to shrink from scrutiny. Though in many respects we
CONGREGATIONALISM. 583
agree with the other branches of Protestant Christendom ; in
some respects we differ from them. But we have no fear that the
most thorough sifting and weighing of the essential principles of
the Congregational system would be otherwise than advantageous
to it. What seems to be necessary is, that the genuine principles
of our denomination, together with the rules of discipline, should
be definitely stated, and arranged in proper order, and that minis-
ters and churches should unitedly adopt and maintain them. This,
with the divine blessing, is what is wanted to give increasing
prosperity to Congregational churches, and to recommend their
principles to the approbation of others.
LECTURE CXXVII.
PERSONAL RELIGION A NECESSARY QUALIFICATION FOR THE
CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.
In these closing Lectures, I shall endeavor to show the im-
portance of real piety to those who are preparing for the sacred
office. This is a subject which, I trust, the members of this
Seminary have often and very seriously considered. But does it
hold as high a place in your esteem as it ought ? My wish is,
that the subject may be so impressed on your minds and may so
influence your habits of thinking and feeling, that neither the
charms of literature, nor the diligence and zeal which you exercise
in the pursuit of knowledge, may ever turn you aside from the
cultivation of vital godliness as the most essential qualification for
the ministry.
First of all then, search the Scriptures, and see how the present
subject is treated by those who were infallibly guided by the
Holy Spirit. According to their instructions, he that undertakes
the work of the ministry, " must be blameless as the steward of
. God ; not self-willed ; not soon angry ; not given to wine, or to
filthy lucre ; but a lover of hospitahty ; a lover of good men ;
sober, just, holy, temperate." He must " follow righteousness,
godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness." His piety must be so
uniform and unexceptionable, that he may be an example to
believers in all the branches of goodness.
Next, consider the nature of the church, for whose welfare
ministers are to labor. The church is the object of God's ever-
PERSONAL RELIGION. 685
lasting love, and is to bear the image of his holiness. Here his
perfections are to have their highest manifestation, and his grace
is to abound in the salvation of sinners. Into this sacred society,
this spiritual kingdom, the apostate children of men are to be
introduced bv the agency of the ministers of Christ. But how
can their agency turn to any good account in this spiritual, holy
•work, unless they are the subjects of holiness themselves ? Can
you expect that an enemy of God will successfully persuade
others to become his friends ? Is it wise to commission a rebel to
vindicate the law and the government which he hates ?
Consider the high and sacred object for which the ministry was
instituted. The Apostle says : " We are ambassadors of Christ,
as though God did beseech you by us ; we pray you in Christ's
stead, be ye reconciled to God." The salvation of men is the
appropriate end which the ministers of the gospel should con-
stantly seek. But with what prospect of success can those men
seek the salvation of others, who have never in good earnest
sought their o^vn ? Can it be expected that they who have never
known the preciousness of Christ in their own experience, will
heartily recommend him to them that are lost ?
Further to illustrate the subject before you, I shall point out
distinctly some of the principal duties of ministers.
One of their chief duties is, to preach the gospel. But if desti-
tute of religion, they will be likely to fail both in the matter and
the jnanner of preaching. Whatever speculative knowledge they
may acquu-e, the things of the Spirit will be fooUshness to them,
and they cannot know them, because they are spiritually dis-
cerned. In respect to the peculiar doctrines of the gospel, espe-
cially those which relate to inward, spiritual religion, their
preaching will, in all probability, be deficient. They will not
declare all the counsel of God. They will be led by their own
feehngs, or by a regard to the feelings of others, to pass over in
silence those parts of evangeHcal truth, in which ministerial fidehty
is chiefly concerned. Or if they undertake to preach the more
spiritual, humbling doctrines of the gospel, they will be likely so
to shape and quaUfy them aa to obstruct their efficacy. Nothing
586 PERSONAL RELIGION.
can impel a minister faithfully to hold forth the whole extent of
evangelical truth, but that decided principle of piety, that cor-
dial love to Christ, which is never intimidated by danger, and
never drawn aside by the attractions of worldly honor or pleasure.
But even if any of those who are destitute of piety, should not
fail essentially as to the matter of their preaching, they will doubt-
less fail as to the manner. They will offend discerning hearers
by the display of vanity, or a haughty independence ; or by man-
ifesting a temper which delights in giving pain, or by making it
evident that they go through their duties as an unwelcome task.
In one way or another, their unsanctified spirit will insinuate itself
into their preaching or prayers, so as to hinder the edification of
Christians and the conversion of sinners. They cannot be expect-
ed to have that affectionate manner, which flows from goodness of
heart. The Apostle addressed men with parental kindness. He
says to the Thessalonians : " We were gentle among you, even
as a tender mother cherisheth her children." And he was willing
to labor and suffer for them, because they were dear to him.
Ministers who possess this spirit, will declare the most mortifying
truths, and administer the most solemn warning and reproof with
faithfulness and love. But how can this be done by those in
whom the inward affection is wanting ? Who can successfully
counterfeit the language, the looks and the voice of love ?
Another important duty of a minister is to visit the sick and
the dying, and by conversation and prayer adapted to their state,
to labor for their spiritual good. In the chamber of sickness he
meets, perhaps for the last time, those who have been committed to
his care and for whom he must give account. What seriousness,
wisdom, and tenderness does he need ! What care should he take
on the one hand, against causing agitation and needless distress,
and on the other hand against contributing to false comfort and
security in sin ! In such circumstances, what a clear apprehension
of divme truth does a servant of Christ need ! What tenderness
of feeling ! What plainness and gentleness of speech ! What
near views of eternity ! How can a man be fit for duties like
these, who has never experienced the power of godliness in his
own heart !
PERSONAL RELIGION. 687
To a truly pious minister the death-bed of believers is inde-
scribably solemn and delightful. Before him are those who have
been washed from their sins, and have known the conflicts and
joys of a Christian hfe, — now about to be absent from the body
and present with the Lord. It is his duty to aid them in the last
work of preparation for heaven. By setting before them the
unsearchable riches of Christ, he must strengthen their faith, and
cheer their drooping spirits. He must enlighten and comfort
those who are soon going to the regions of light and joy. He
must unite in prayer and praise with those who are shortly to join
the general assembly of the saints above. He must help them
to achieve their final victory over their spiritual enemies. He
must speak of the truths of the gospel and the glories of heaven,
and must speak of them as what he himself has known and felt.
While he pronounces over them, — " Blessed are. the dead who
die in the Lord ; — to him that overcometh will I grant to sit
with me on my throne ;" he must feelingly anticipate with them
the blessedness of such a death, and the rewards of such a
victory. How unprepared for these solemn duties is a minister
destitute of holiness ! The death-bed of believers must be to him
an unwelcome, gloomy place. And if he intrudes himself upon
this threshold of heaven, it ought to be for the purpose of learning
the first lessons of divine wisdom.
The whole business of deahng with men in public and private
respecting their spiritual interests, requires in a minister a practical
acquaintance with divine things, and the steady influence of evan-
gehcal affection. Without this, he will be in danger of giving coun-
tenance to the delusive hopes of the impenitent, or of discouraging
those who are poor in spirit. He will not give to sinners the
instructions which love and fidelity require. He will not duly
declare, the holy requirements of God's law, the perfect obhgation
of all men to obey, and the necessity of being renewed by the Holy
Spirit. It is through this want of watchfulness, this neglect of
ministers to set forth plainly the truths of the law and the gospel,
that the name of Christ is so often dishonored by the admission
of unregenerate persons into his church.
588 PERSONAL RELIGION.
It is evident that not only real but eminent piety is necessary
to enable a minister to perform his various duties with suitable
resolution, self-denial, and zeal. The Apostle Paul, whose ex-
ample should be followed by all who bear the sacred office, was
wholly in his work. He shrunk back from no labor or suffering.
He was willing to spend and be spent for the salvation of men,
fearless of opposition and danger. He approved himself a faith-
ful servant of Christ in much affliction and distress, in watchinga
and fastings, in stripes and imprisonment. But his resolution and
zeal were joined with discretion and mildness. He made himself
servant to all that he might gain the more. To the Jews he
became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews : to the weak, he
became as weak, that he might gain the weak. He was, in the
right sense, made all things to all men, that he might by all
means save some. This combination of seemingly opposite virtues
extended its happy influence over all his conduct as a servant
of Christ.
But how is it with a minister without the grace of God in his
heart. He may have a kind of zeal — a zeal which will act itself
out in ostentation or rashness — a zeal which will compass sea
and land to make proselytes, or will breathe out threatenings and
slaughter against opposers. Or if you see in him the appearance
of meekness, it will be a meekness which will lead to conformity
with the world, and a forsaking of Christ in time of danger. It
will be a meekness or gentleness, w^hich will render him accessi-
ble to temptation, and dispose him to move with the current of
popular feeling. If he shows a pliable, yielding disposition, it will
not be for the cause of Christ, but for his own selfish ends. The
zeal of a minister of distinguished moral excellence, will from its
very nature be joined with discretion ; his resolution with gentle-
ness ; his firmness with condescension and kindness. In him all
these properties are of the same nature, and by being har-
moniously blended together, form a completeness of ministerial
character.
Uniform and eminent piety is necessary to prepare a minister to
encounter the trials and difficulties of his office. Sooner or later,
PERSONAL RELIGION. 589
he must meet not only -with those adverse events which are com-
mon to men, but Avith those which are pecuhar to the ministry.
If possessed of habitual and exeraplarv goodness, he will bear his
trials with fortitude and submission. What can exceed the simpli-
city and calmness with which the Apostle recounts his sufferings.
" Of the Jews five times I received forty stripes save one. Thrice
was I beaten with rods ; once was I stoned ; thrice I suffered
shipwreck ; a night and a day I have been in the deep ; in jour-
neyings often ; in perils in the city ; in perils in the wilderness ;
in perils in the sea ; in perils among false brethren ; in weariness
and painfulness ; in watchings often ; in hunger and thirst ; in
cold and nakedness." Under all these sufferings, he was not
only patient, but cheerful and happy. And such in a measure
will every minister be, whose heart is governed by divine grace.
He will be prepared for trials, particularly the trials which result
from the misconduct of those to whom he is called to minister in
holy things, some of whom despise his instructions, and even
regard him as an enemy because he tells them the truth. He
cannot but notice their ingratitude and perverseness with anxiety
and grief. But he will still love them and seek their welfare.
He will cheerfully bear with their faults and their injuries,
and think little of his own sufferings, for the sake of promoting
the salvation of their souls. How often soever they requite his
faithful labors with coldness and contempt, he will still persevere
in his sacred work with unabating zeal.
Far otherwise will it be with a minister who is destitute of
piety, or whose piety is wanting in activity and steadfastness.
How soon will his temper be ruffled and his patience exhausted
by the difficulties of his office. The evils to which he is subjected,
from the prejudices or the divisions of his flock, which should
excite his pious solicitude in their behalf, produce an abatement
of his pastoral affection, and render his duties unpleasant and
irksome. Forgetting the silent meekness and gentleness of Christ,
he complains of the trouble which comes upon him from the mis-
conduct of his people, yea, he complains of those very evils which
his own negligence or indiscretion has occasioned ; and sometimes
VOL. III. 50
590 PERSONAL RELIGION.
he heaps reproaches upon those -who have been committed to his
charge, when he ought to mourn before God for the obstacles
■which his own unfaithfulness has thrown in the way of their sal-
vation. He becomes at length so far alienated from them, that
he would gladlj cast off the obhgations which bind him to their
service.
LECTURE CXXVIII.
NECESSITY OF PERSONAL RELIGION.
Consider in the next place how necessary it is that a minister
should be devotedly pious in order to his usefulness. I would
not deny that a minister may in various ways be useful, though
influenced merely by natural principles. My position is, that
real and active piety is indispensable to that kind and degree of
usefulness, which is appropriate to the ministerial office.
The example of an ungodly minister will, in point of salutary
influence, fall very far below that of one possessed of distinguished
piety. It is in this important respect, that a minister who has
httle or no religion, will be likely sooner or later to show his woful
deficiency.
Again. No one who duly considers the well known principles of
God's moral government, can suppose that he will crown the
labors of an unsanctified minister with as much success, as the
labors of one who is sincerely pious and faithful. Whatever his
natural or literary quahfications may be, he has no title to the
di\dne blessing, and no reason to expect that God will hear his
prayers.
"Verily," says one of the best of ministers* — "verily it is the common
danger and calamity of the church to have unregenerate pastors. Many become
preachers, before they are Christians ; are sanctified by dedication to the altar as
Grod's priests, before they are sanctified by hearty dedication to Christ as his disciples.
* Eichard Baxter.
592 PERSONAL RELIGION".
Thus they worship an unknown God, preach an unknown Saviour, an unknown
Spirit, an unknown state of holiness, and a future glory that is unknown, and to
he unknown to them forever. And can it be expected, that such persons will
prove any great blessings to the church ? How can it be imagined that he is
likely to be successful, who dealeth not heartily and faithfully in his work ; who
never soundly believes what he says, nor is ever truly serious, when he seems
most diligent ? And can you think that any unsanctified man can be hearty and
serious in the ministerial work? A kind of seriousness indeed he may have.
Bat the seriousness and fidelity of a sound believer, who ultimately intends the
honor of God and the salvation of men, he cannot have. Oh, Sirs, all your
])reaching will be but dreaming and trifling hypocrisy, till the work be thoroughly
done upon yourselves ! How can you constantly apply yourselves to a work to
which your carnal hearts are averse ? How can you, with hearty favor, call upon
sinners to repent and come to God, who never did either yourselves ? How can
you follow them with importunate solicitations to forsake sin and betake themselves
to an holy life, who never felt the evil of the one, or the worth of the other ? And
let me tell you, that these things are never wdl known, till they are felt ; and that
he who feeleth them not himself, is not likely to speak feelingly of them to others.
He that does not so strongly believe the word of God and the life to come, as to
take off his own heart from the vanities of this world, and to bring him with reso-
lution and diligence, to seek his own salvation, cannot be expected to be faithful
in seeking the salvation of other men. He that dares to destroy himself, will dare
to let others alone in the way to destruction. Alas, many preachers of the gospel
are enemies to the gospel which they preach. Oh, how many such traitors have
been in the church of Christ, who have done more against him under his colors,
than they could have done in the open field ! "
" Your people," the same author says, •' are likely to feel it, when you have been
much with God. I must say from lamentable experience, that I publish to my
flock the distempers of my own soul. When I let my heaii grow cold, my
preaching is cold ; and when it is confused, my preaching is confused also. And I
have often observed it in the best of my hearers, that when I have grown cold in
preaching, Jhey have grown cold accordingly. You cannot decline and neglect
your duty, but o^/fcrs will be losers by it. If we let our love decrease, — it will
appear in our doctrine. If the matter show it not, the manner will ; and our hearers
are likely to fare the worse for it. Whereas, if we could abound in faith, and
love, and zeal ; how would they overflow to the refreshing of our congregations !
Watch therefore over your own hearts. If it be not your daily, serious business
to study your own hearts, to subdue your corruptions and to walk with God, all
will go amiss with you, and you will starve your audience."
The pernicious influence of a minister destitute of godliness,
can hardly be described. In the minds of many, his character,
and the rehgion he professes to teach, will be identified. In
proportion as he falls below the proper standard of ministerial
sanctity, their views of Christianity will be erroneous. He is set
PERSONAL RELIGION. 593
up to give light. But if the light which he gives is darkness, how
great is that darkness. Ilcnce the unthinking multitude will lose
sight of the distinction between right and wrong. For what
regard will thej feel for a distinction which is disregarded by
him who is placed before them as a spiritual guide ! Whence
is it that so many persons in a Christian land form low and in-
correct opinions of the nature of religion ? It is because they
turn aAvay from the word of God, which holds up a standard of
true but unseen excellence, and fix their eyes upon the character
of a minister who is near them, and with whom they have a
familiar acquaintance. It is gratifying to their depraved hearts
to look at such a character, because it administers so Httle reproof.
They may occasionally open the Scriptures and read, that Jesus
was holy, harmless and undefiled, and that all men are required
to love God with all the heart, and to be holy as he is holy. But
they pass by these teachings of Scripture and banish any con-
victions of sin or fears of divine wrath which may disturb their
peace, by referring to one who is consecrated to the service of
God, and is employed in teaching the doctrines and duties of
religion, in whom they can discover nothing of the excellence of
Christ, and nothing of the benevolence and sanctity inculcated
by his gospel ; and in despite of the authority of revelation, they
will judge of truth and duty from what they see in such a minis-
ter ; and this way of judging confirms them in error, and gives
countenance to the indulgence of their passions.
But you may say, an ungodly minister sometimes preaches the
truth. Undoubtedly he does so. And the consequence is, that the
doctrines of the gospel, as well as the sacredness of his office,
are associated with the unrighteousness of his character. In this
view, how great a pestilence is a minister whose character is
stained with vice, l^either the sophistry of infidels, nor the
ridicule of the profane, nor the persecution of the powerful has
ever injured the cause of Christ so much as the impiety and profli-
gacy of some of his professed ministers.
What a striking contrast to all this is found in the usefulness
of a minister, whose exemplary piety shows the excellence of
50*
694 PERSONAL RELIGION.
•
religion, awakens the consciences of the wicked, and excites
believers to press towards the mark.
Finally, a life of piety is necessary to a minister's enjoyment.
The enjoyment of a faithful, devoted minister arises in part from the
performance of his duties. The study of the Scriptures, preach-
ing the unsearchable riches of Christ, and being perpetually conver-
sant with spiritual and heavenly objects, yields him inexpressible
delight. Even in his suflferings he has such a supporting sense
of the divine presence, that he can say, " I am filled with com-
fort ; I am exceedingly joyful in all my tribulations." The apos-
tles speak of rejoicing always, — of triumphing and glorying in
their afflictions. The lonely deserts through which they travelled,
and the dungeons in which they were confined, witnessed their joy
and their songs of praise.
It contributes much to the enjoyment of a minister who is sin-
cerely pious, to witness the success of his labors. If it please
the God of all grace, to look upon those to whom he ministers, and to
quicken them by the Holy Spirit, what joy is like his ? A tender
parent feels unutterable joy over a dear child raised from dangerous
sickness, or snatched from devouring flames. But still purer is
the joy of an afiectionate minister, when he sees his people washed
from their sins, and deUvered from the wrath to come ! Even if
he prevails to win only a few souls to Christ ; with what holy
dehght does he stand and gaze upon those few redeemed souls,
lately enemies to God by wicked works, now bearing fruit to his
praise ! What then must be his emotions, when the Holy Spirit is
poured out, and multitudes of converts are added to the church !
He participates the joy of the angels in heaven. Like the
blessed Jesus, he rejoices in spirit, and thanks the Lord of heaven
and earth for his distinguishing mercy. He enjoys the bhss of
every converted sinner ; and is himself enriched with the riches
of divine grace displayed among his people. And if he may but
see, behevers fervent in spirit, growing in grace, and shining as
lights in the world, — Oh, what pure, holy delight does he feel !
Even if he should at present be without visible success, he still
has resources, which cannot fail. He resolves to do his duty in
PERSONAL RELIGION. o95
obedience to the divine commands, quietlj leaving the result of
his labors to the disposal of infinite wisdom, and resting on the
truth, that Crod ivill he glorified. He knows that if he is faithful,
he will " be unto God a sweet savor of Christ in them that are
saved, and in them that perish." He has moreover the joy of
anticipating the glorious triumph of the cause in which he is en-
listed. In the darkest seasons, he is supported by Christian hope,
and by his endeavors to do good. For the rest, he patiently
waits, till the Lord, the righteous Judge shall give him the
unfading crown.
Besides all this, he enjoys the success of the gospel in the hands
of other ministers, and the prosperity of Zion in other places.
And when he reads the book of prophecy, which reveals the fu-
ture enlargement and glory of the church, he is raised above his
troubles, and filled with transport.
But what are all these things to a minister destitute of rehgion,
and under the influence of an earthly mind ? Can he be happy
in the service of a master, whom he does not love ? — happy,
while occupied with business not congenial to the temper of his
heart ? Can he, who has never tasted the goodness of God in
his own salvation, enjoy it in the salvation of others ? Assign to
him the most sacred labors. Let him be daily conversant with
holy, heavenly objects. These are all adverse to his feehngs.
Present to him the glory of the only begotten of the Father, and
the beauty of grace in the redeemed ; but this is a beauty and
glory which he has no eyes to see, and no heart to love. Assure
him that the set time to favor Zion will come ; that she will be for
a name and a praise in all the earth. His heart is unmoved.
He sees only barren, clieerless deserts, in those fields and gar-
dens " which the Lord hath blessed."
And if religion is so indispensable to the proper enjoyments of
a minister in this world ; how much more to prepare him for its
rewards in the world to come. No one who has not been renewed
by the Spirit, and labored faithfully to bring sinners to repentance,
can meet the approbation of the final Judge. Even if an un-
godly minister should be admitted into the celestial paradise, he
604 PERSONAL RELIGION.
would have no relish for its pleasures. The same impiety,
which disqualifies him for the enjoyments of the ministry here,
would disqualify him for its holy rewards hereafter. As he has
in the present life no heart to rejoice in the good of Zion, so,
at the last day, when he looks upon the innumerable multitude
who have been ransomed from sin and made perfect in holiness,
and beholds the exalted majesty and glory of the kingdom of
Christ ; it will be no joy to him. He will turn away from
the sight, envying the happiness which he cannot taste.
The truth which I have thus aimed to establish is a truth of
the highest moment to all who expect to be invested with the
sacred office. If destitute of holiness, whatever may be their
attainments and qualifications in other respects, they are unfit for
the ministry, and with all their gifts, are really as sounding brass
or a tinkling cymbal. They do not answer the description, which
the Spirit of God has given of his ministers. They can do nothing
to piirpose in advancing the kingdom of Christ. They cannot
accomplish the great end of the Christian ministry. They cannot
rightly perform its duties. They cannot rightly encounter its
trials and difficulties. They will fall short of the proper useful-
ness of the sacred office ; and will be incapable of enjoying its
appropriate pleasures.
Out of regard then to their own interest, as well as to the
interest of the church, it becomes candidates for the ministry to
pause on the threshold of the sacred office, and examine them-
selves as to their fitness for its duties, lest they should incur the
guilt of touching the ark of God with unhallowed hands.
.1' se-«;,V,^!«Vilirill
»*ST2 01092 1007
DATE DUE
'ttS^
^
40mm
i
CAY1.0R0
VaiNTSOIMU.B.A.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11