Page images
PDF
EPUB

2. We object to the idea, that justification through faith relates only to the future; justifying, not from the past, but by preventing the commission of sin for time to come, on the ground that such a justification would be essentially by works. If men are not justified by grace through faith from the guilt of the past, but are only led to break off from their sins and obey God in future, and are, therefore, said to be justified because they have not committed sin, i. e. because they have answered the claims of the law, then, they are justified by the works of the law. If they are not, it would be difficult to understand what can be meant by justification by the deeds of the law. Is it said that the law is kept by faith, and therefore, the justification is by faith? We answer it would be a perversion of language to say that a man is justified by faith merely because faith is concerned in his compliance with the requisitions of the law, by which alone he can be justified. Let it be noted, that if a man could keep the law without faith, he would be justified thereby, but if he could have faith without keeping the law, on the above principle, he would not be justified; therefore the works of the law are indispensable, but faith is not indispensable to justification; it is only an auxiliary in the work of keeping the law by which he is justified. Not only so, but if we should admit that it is by faith, because the law is kept by faith, still it would not make out justification by faith in a gospel sense; for there would be no justification without the works of the law: whereas, St. Paul says, Rom. iii. 28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law." Let it not be supposed by this, that good works are not necessary after we are justified by faith, in order to retain it. On this point we cannot express our views better than in the 10th Article of the Church. "Although good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgments: yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and spring out of a true and lively faith insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree is discerned by its fruit."

The points which we have labored to establish in this ar gument are the following:

1. Justification, as held forth in the gospel, is opposed to condemnation, so that those who are justified, in a gospel sense, are absolved from guilt and delivered from punish

ment..

2. This justification is by grace through faith, and not by the works of the law or by enduring its penalty; as must be the case if men are punished for all the sin they commit, and are said to be justified, only, by keeping the law, or by

the non-commission of sin in future.

Therefore justification as taught in the gospel implies salvation from the punishment of sin that has been committed. IV. The scriptures clearly teach that some have been saved from the punishment they deserved.

Ezra ix. 13. "And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou, our God, hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this." The text is as plain as words can make the sentiment we advocate. If being punished less than we deserve, does not imply salvation from deserved punishment, we have yet to learn the meaning of language.

Exo. xxxii. 9, 10, 11, 12, 14. "And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people," &c. "Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Here God is represented as threatening his people with an overthrow, and as turning away from the evil which he thought to do, at the intercession of Moses. The evil, with which God threatened them, was a punishment for the sin of idolatry, in making and worshipping a golden calf. Now, this threatened punishment was just, or it was not; if it was just, then God saved the rebellious Israelites from a just punishment, for he turned away from the evil which he thought to do unto them, and did it not; and if the threatened punishment was not just, then God once thought to do an unjust evil to his people; therefore, it must be admitted that

God did save the people from a just punishment, in this case, since it cannot be admitted that he threatened and thought to do that which was not just.

The divine clemency, exercised towards condemned and devoted Nineveh, is another instance of salvation from just punishment. God threatened Nineveh with an overthrow in forty days, and yet, on their repentance, it is said, Jonah iii. 10. "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.” The remarks which have just been made, on the case of the idolatrous Israelites, will apply with equal force to the preservation of Nineveh. God either saved the people of Nineveh from a just punishment, or else he threatened them with an unjust punishment. It will not be a sufficient reply to this, to say that the punishment, with which they were threatened, would have been just had they not repented, but in view of the change which took place in their moral character, it was not just, and therefore was not inflicted; for this would be to suppose that the threatened overthrow was intended as a punishment for their sins which they had not committed, but which they would have committed in future time, which is false.

1. They were threatened directly for what they had already done. The Lord said unto Jonah, Chap. i. 2. "Arise, go to Neneveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me." God here speaks of their wickedness in the present tense, is come up, and not in the future, will, or will have come up. God did not command Jonah to cry against them because they were about to be very wicked, but because their wickedness had already come up before him.

2. Jonah attributes the preservation of Nineveh to the grace, mercy, and great kindness of God. Chap. iv. 2. "I knew that thou art a gracious God, merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil." Now, on the supposition that the Ninevites did not deserve the threatened overthrow in view of their reform, wherein do the grace, mercy, and great kindness of God appear in their preservation? This view represents God as being grciaus,

merciful and great in kindness, merely because he did not inflict an unjust punishment, which is too absurd to be indulged for a moment. It is clear then that the punishment, with which Nineveh was threatened, was just, in view of what they had already done; and if so, it is conclusive that God saved them from a just punishment. It is unnecessary to multiply examples of this character, for were we to attempt to bring forward all that might be adduced, it would require a comment on a great portion of the divine administration, as recorded in the Bible. In every case in which God is said to be entreated, and turn away from doing a threatened evil, to be slow to anger, to turn away his wrath, &c. &c. salvation from a just punishment is implied; and these instances are frequent, as is declared in a text which has already been quoted. Ps. lxxviii. 38. "But he being full of compassion forgave them their iniquity, and destroyed them not, yea many a time turned he his anger away and did not stir up all his wrath."

V. In support of the theory of salvation from the punishment of sin, we will adduce a few passages of scripture, which, we think, clearly imply the doctrine in question. These scriptures are various, some being introduced by way of explanation and others in the form of promises.

Ezek. xviii. 21, 22. "But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him." We have nearly the same language in chap. xxxiii. 14, 16. "When I say to the wicked, thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right, none of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him." These texts most clearly assert that past sins shall not be mentioned to the sinner on condition of his reformation. Now, by this assurance, that past sins shall not be mentioned, nothing can be meant less than that God proposes to remit the punishment of past sins, if the sinner will repent and reform. What does God mean, when, he says, 66 none of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him," if it is not that he

shall be exempt from suffering the punishment they deserve? If it be said that past sins are intended, for which the sinner has already been punished, we reply, that this would make God threaten the sinner with another punishment, for sins for which he had already been punished all he deserved, which is manifestly absurd. When God says to the sinner, that all his transgressions that he hath committed shall not be mentioned unto him, if he turn from his sin, it most clearly implies that they shall be mentioned if he does not turn; hence to suppose that reference is had to sins for which punishment has been already inflicted, would be to make God threaten a double punishment. If it be said that in the expression, "none of his sins shall be mentioned unto him," no reference is had to punishment, or to release from punishment, we repeat the question asked above, what does God mean by this expression? Is it said that the meaning is that the sinner shall not be reproached or upbraided with his sin? We answer, to be reproached and upbraided with sin, is a punishment itself, to some extent, especially if God reproach us with our sins. This throws it back on the former ground, so that if sins are intended for which the sinner has been already punished, God is made to threaten him with a second punishment for the same offence; and if sins are intended, for which the offender has not been punished, then, God promises to save from the punishment due to past sins, if the sinner will repent and reform. When God says, "none of his sins which he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him," he, no doubt, holds out some advantage to be possessed by the returning sinner; and this advantage is negative, or the advantage of exemption from some inconvenience, evil, or malediction, growing out of sin and as it relates exclusively to sins which have been already committed, such exemption is most clearly salvation from punishment. Give it any exposition of which it is capable, and still, if it mean any thing, it means all for which we have contended. Deny salvation from punishment, after sin has been committed, and when God says of the sinner, none of his sins which he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him, he, in effect, says just nothing at all.

The parable of the barren fig tree is full in proof of the point in question. Luke xiii. 6,7,8,9. "A certain man had

« PreviousContinue »