Page images
PDF
EPUB

to be good. It was testified of Enoch, that he pleased God; from whence the apostle to the Hebrews infers, that he was a believer, inasmuch as without faith it is impossible to please God. "It does not consist with the honour of the Majesty of the King of heaven and earth, to accept of any thing from a condemned malefactor, condemned by the justice of his own holy law. till that condemnation be removed."* The Lord had respect first to Abel, and then to his offering. Even those works which are the expressions of faith and love, have so much sinful imperfection attached to them, that they require to be presented by an intercessor on our behalf. The most spiritual sacrifices are no otherwise acceptable to God than by Jesus Christ.

Perhaps I ought not to conclude this part of the subject without noticing the apparent opposition between Paul and James; the one teaching that we are justified by faith, without the deeds of the law; the other, that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. The words are, doubtless, apparently opposite; and so are those of Solomon, when he directs us, in one proverb, not to answer, and, in the next, to answer a fool according to his folly. In reconciling these apparently opposite counsels, we are led, by the reasons given for each, to understand the terms as used in different senses; the first, as directing us not to answer a fool in a foolish manner, for this would make us like unto him; the last, to answer him in a way suited to expose his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. In like manner, the terms faith and justification were used by Paul and James in a different sense. By faith, Paul meant that which worketh by love, and is productive of good fruits; but James speaks of a faith which is dead, being alone. By justification, Paul means the acceptance of a sinner before God; but James refers to his being approved of God as a true Christian. "Both these apostles bring the case of Abraham in illustration of their principles; but then, it is to be observed, they refer to dif ferent periods and circumstances in the life of that patriarch. Paul, in the first instance, says of Abraham, that he was justified by faith, while yet uncircumcised: this was his justification in the

*President Edwards's Sermon on Justification.

sight of God, and was without any consideration of his works. James refers to a period some years subsequent to this, when, in the offering up of his son, he was justified by works also; that is, his faith was shown to be genuine by its fruits. Paul therefore refers to the acceptance of a sinner; James to the approbation of a saint."*

Supported by this body of scripture-evidence, as well as by the experience we have had of the holy and happy influence of the doctrine, I trust we shall continue unmoved in our adherence to it. Let others boast of the efficacy of their own virtues, we, with the Apostle, will count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord; will count all things but dung, that we may win Christ, and be found in him, not having our own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

The word 'Justification' is used in this sense, Matt. xii. 37. 1 Cor. iv. 4. See Williams' Vindication against Belsham, pp. 145, 146.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

SERMON XIX.

ROMANS iii. 24.

Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

HAVING endeavoured to explain and establish the doctrine of justification, it remains for me,

III. TO SHOW THE CONSISTENCY OF ITS BEING OF FREE GRACE, AND YET THrough the REDEMPTION OF JESUS CHRIST. This is a subject of the last importance. Almost every thing pertaining to the way of salvation is affected by it. The principal reason alleged by those who reject the doctrine of atonement is, its inconsistency with grace. God needed nothing, they say, but his own goodness, to induce him to show mercy; or if he did, it is not of grace, seeing a price is paid to obtain it. The question, however, does not respect the first moving cause of mercy, but the manner of showing it. The friends of the doctrine of atonement allow that the sacrifice of Christ was not the cause, but the effect, of the Father's love. They do not scruple to admit, that his love was sufficient to have pardoned sinners without an atonement, provided it had been consistent with the righteousness of his character and government." It is not the sentiment, but the expression of love" that requires an atonement. David was not wanting in love to his son Absalom; for his soul longed to go forth to him; but he felt

for his honour, as the head of a family and of a nation, which, had he admitted him immediately into his presence, would have been compromised, and the crime of murder connived at. Hence, for a time, he must be kept at a distance, and, when introduced, it must be by a mediator. This statement, which has been made, in substance, by our writers repeatedly, has seldom, if ever, been fairly met by writers on the other side. I never recollect, however, to have seen or heard any thing like a fair answer to it.

It is remarkable too, that those who make this objection never appear to regard the doctrine of grace, but for the purpose of making void the atonement. On all other occasions, grace is virtually disowned, and works are every thing; but here it is magnified, in much the same manner as the Father is honoured, as the object of worship, to the exclusion of the Son.

. Cases may be supposed, I acknowledge, in which the ideas of grace and atonement would be inconsistent. First: If the atonement were made by the offender, himself enduring the full penalty of the law, his deliverance would be a matter of right, and there would be no grace in it. But, as in a case of murder, it is not in the sinner's power to make atonement for himself, so as to survive his punishment. The punishment threatened against sin is everlasting, which admits of no period when the penalty shall have been endured. No man, therefore, can, by any length of suffering, redeem bis own soul.

it.

Secondly If the sufferings of another could avail for the of fender, and he himself were to provide the substitute, his deliverance might be a matter of right, and there might be no grace in But neither of these suppositions can exist in the case before us. Strict distributive justice could not admit of the innocent suffering for the guilty, even though the innocent were willing. Its language is, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. But, if it could, the guilty party could not find a substitute either able or willing to stand in his place.

Thirdly: If God himself should both consent to accept of a substitute and actually provide one, yet if the acts and deeds of sinners be considered as literally becoming his, and his theirs, whatever grace there might be in the acceptance and provision of the

« PreviousContinue »