[return to SERMON]NOTES TO THE PRECEDING DISCOURSE.
NOTE (A.)
The true nature of imputation ought to be well understood.The doctrine that sinners are justified, by the imputed righteousness of Christ, is as old as the visible church. The fathers of the reformation, and all orthodox divines, maintain that "we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us and received by faith alone."
Not that ever God imputed the righteousness of Christ to an unbeliever. He that believeth not is condemned. Thc mere fact of imputation, is not that which makes the righteousness of Christ become the believer’s own. Union to Christ by the bond of the Holy Spirit and by the bond of faith, puts the believer in possession of his righteousness. God then accounts it to be the believer’s, or imputes it to him. And the judgement of God is according to truth. He reckons that to the believer which is really his.
Faith alone, appropriates Christ’s righteousness. We are justified by faith, not by hope, patience, or any other grace of the Holy Spirit. All the other graces accompany faith. It is never alone. But faith is the hand of the soul, by which it lays hold on Christ, and appropriates his righteousness, or makes his righteousness its own in possession. It is no contradiction to say that faith alone justifies, yet never being alone, but accompanied by all the other graces of the Spirit.· A man whose external senses are perfect, may be said to see with his eye alone, yet in relation to the other senses, the eye is not alone, but is accompanied by all the other senses—the organ of smell, taste, touch &c.
As soon as faith lays hold on Christ’s righteousness, God, as a judge, imputes that righteousness to the person acting this faith, and justifies him, on account of that righteousness thus received by faith. Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him, for righteousness i.e., the righteousness of Christ was imputed to him. Rom. 4:3. The same thing also, holds true in all Abraham’s believing seed. Ver. 25-24. Now, it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for as also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe.
A late writer maintains, that the righteousness of Christ is imputable to sinners, because it is the righteousness of the law, or covenant of works, and they are under this law, or covenant of works, therefore, it is imputable to them.[1]
This opinion is rather novel. It is a play upon the word imputed, which is generally used, when speaking of this subject.—Or rather, it is a misunderstanding of the term. It ascribes to the word impute or its derivatives, a meaning altogether new and unusual. Impute is used both by sacred and profane writers, in relation to both praise and blame. And literally, and constantly signifys, to ascribe to, charge upon, reckon, or account to a person, something either good or bad, as that person’s own.· It invariably carries in it the idea of possession. There is no instance of its being otherwise used in the Bible, or, as far as it is recollected, out of the Bible, except by Dr. Gray.
The sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity, because it is their own, Rom. 5:12. For that all have sinned. The sin of, Adam is their own sin, from the identity of representation. And being their own, it may be fairly and justly imputed to, or charged upon them. Indeed, as the judgement of God is according to truth, it does not appear, how it could have been, imputed to them, if it had not been their own.
Again, the sins of all the elect are imputed to Christ. Why? Because he assumed them, and thereby made them his own.—Otherwise they would not have been justly imputable to him.—Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Let us now try the doctrine, "that Christ’s righteousness is imputable to all men, because they are under the law, and because it is the righteousness of the law."
If it be imputable, then it was theirs, in order to make it thus imputable, for nothing is justly imputable, but what not only may be imputed, but ought to be imputed. How then can God send to everlasting punishment, any of those, who really possess the righteouness of Christ? It is impossible. God is just. Upon the ground of the doctrine of Dr. Gray, all must be saved who are under the covenant of works—that very covenant too, by which all under it are condemned. The scriptures give us a very different ground for the righteousness of Christ being imputable, namely, being one with him by faith. Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith, of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe—all that believe that righteousness might be imputed to them also.[2]
It was not designed to take any further notice of the "Fiend of the reformation detected," which, we believe, is entitled to only part of its name; but on looking over Dr. Ely’s Review of M’Chord’s Essays and Dr. Gray’s Fiend, it appeared necessary to make a few remarks on that performance also, in connexion with the Fiend &c.
It is freely granted, that in the Review, many sound criticisms are made, and the ground which Dr. Gray assumed about the "righteousness of the law—its imputability &c." Dr Ely has shown to be utterly untenable. There are, however some things in the Review itself, which do not appear altogether perspicuous and with some opinions in it we cannot entirely coincide.
There is a strange disagreement among all these writers, and it would seem that there is something incorrect in every, one of them. Mr. M’Chord refuses that Christ is the representative of any until they are regenerated and united to him by the bond of the Holy Ghost. Dr. Gray admits that Christ stood in a covenant relation to his elect from all eternity. He however, avoids using the word representative, which he calls a "spectre" page 43. and threatens to "put it down." Yet a few lines afterwards he has no objection to it. And in page 46, he makes representation essential to the very being of the eternal covenant, and again and again asserts, that without it there could be no eternal covenant.
In Dr. Ely’s Review No. II. page. 178, he seems to approve, of what Dr. Gray has written "Fiend" Sect. III. without exception. And in page 190, he approves of Dr. Gray’s remarks on Mr. M’Chord’s theory of representation, also without exception. We shall extract some observations from these, which we think rather incorrect. In Sect. III. page 45, Dr. Gray asserts, "that it is an absolute truth as Mr. M’Chord states, that the Holy Spirit is the bond of union between Jesus Christ and believers." (He speaks of the mystical union.) Now Mr. M’Chord states, "Body of Christ" page 44. "The Holy Ghost is the actual bond of union, and in the strict sense of the words, exclusively the bond of Union &c. In pages 72, 73 of the "Fiend," Dr. Gray in attempting to explain our oneness with Christ, lays down the following order, Election producing a oneness with him in covenant relation. Imputation of his righteousness, and then he says, they are one with him, being equally justified by the law of works. Faith and love, by which they are one with him in moral righteousness. Does Dr. Ely approve of all this? Is the Holy Ghost exclusively, the bond of the mystical union? Is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness before faith? And does that imputation make believers one with Christ?
What appears to be the scriptural view, and undoubtedly the view which our standards give of the unity established, between Adam and those whom he represented; and between Christ and those whom he represented, is this; Adam was constituted a covenant head, and representative of all human persons. He stood bound for all his posterity descending from him by ordinary generation. The legal principle of connexion, or bond of union, by which he and they are identified in the covenant of works, is representation. The actual bond by which they are identified with Adam, is natural generation. By it, Adam’s sin is conveyed to them. The moment they come to exist, or actually to be, they are personally embraced by the principle of representation, and become actually chargeable with the guilt of Adam’s first sin. Accordingly it is imputed to them as their own. In relation to the second Adam, the new covenant head, and all whom he represented, the case appears to be this. All the elect were chosen in Christ. He stood as their representative in the covenant of redemption. His federal representation, or covenant headship, identified him and them in legal acceptation. He and they are viewed as one in law reckoning, in the court of heaven. The Head then actually existing, and all the members ascertained in the divine counsel, and contemplated as hereafter actually to be, and now viewed as virtually existing in their head and representative.
The stipulations of this covenant embrace certain arrangements respecting these contemplated members thus ascertained. Natural generation is not, as in the case of Adam and his posterity, to unite them, actually and personally with their new covenant head. They are to come into being, related to the old covenant—under its curse and children of wrath, even as others—that, however in due time, that connexion should be broken, and they should be personally instated in the covenant of grace, in which they had virtually and representatively been from all eternity.
And as in natural generation, the seed of Adam, become actually, or in their own persons, united to him; so. in regeneration, the seed of Christ become actually, or in their own persons, united to him. This is a spiritual, real, and mystical union.
These writers appear to agree representing this union, as if it were the act of only one party. The bond of it, they say, is the Holy Spirit exclusively. But what can be more absurd than to suppose a union between intelligent beings without the consent ,and engagement of both parties? The union is a mutual act. A marriage would be unintelligible if represented as the act of the bridegroom only. The union of a soul to Christ is a union of persons. It is not a personal union, like the hypostatical union of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ. It is a spiritual marriage. Jesus is himself the bridegroom, and the regenerated sinner the bride.—He gives himself to her, and by the bond of his Spirit unites himself to her, engaging to be her husband for ever. She cordially accepts his offer and engagement, gives herself to him, and binds herself as his spouse for ever. This bond by which she closes and completes the Union, is faith. The engagement is mutual and reciprocal, and forms a union never to be dissolved.
I, with pleasure, quote here the words of two distinguished divines on this subject.
Speaking of those who are with the Lamb on mount Zion; "Their highest privilege" says Dr. M’Leod, "and their distinguishing blessing, is to be with him as their living Head, who, as the Lamb without spot, made atonement for them. Faith forms this union with the Saviour. Two intelligent beings cannot unite without a mutual giving and receiving of the one to the other.
The Son of God is given that we may receive him. Faith receives and rests upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel. It appropriates the Saviour to the person, and for the salvation of the convinced sinner."—Lect. upon the Revel. p. 455-456, New York.
To the same purpose speaks President Edwards:—
"In order to an union’s being established between two intelligent active beings or persons, so as they should be looked upon as one, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive the other, as actively joining themselves one to another."—Sermon on justification by faith alone. Works, vol. VII, p. 23. Worcest. 1809.
On this mystical union, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and believers’ consequent justification, have formally predicated, and not on their virtual and representative union in eternity. Nevertheless, that union in eternity, and Christ’s representing them in the covenant, lie at the very foundation of the whole system; and had it not been for the representative character of the Lord Jesus Christ in the covenant, his righteous could never have been imputed to them. So far is it from true, therefore, what Dr. Gray asserts "that the imputability of Christ’s righteousness does not depend in any manner nor in any degree, on his representative character," that nothing can be more remote from the matter of fact.
Dr. Ely highly applauds Dr. Gray’s discussion of the covenant of works, and particularly notices the clearness of his probation concerning Eve, in that covenant, p. 199-201. But this part of the discussion appears; indeed, greatly defective. Dr. Gray represents Eve, in precisely the same relation to Adam, as their posterity were, in the covenant of works. But surely there is something peculiar in her situation.
She was in some sense one party with Adam in that covenant. He was properly the covenant head and representative, to all their natural posterity. But he was not so, without the woman, but with her. Adam in conjunction with his wife, was the root of the whole human family. When the covenant was entered into with Adam, the woman was not yet formed, but God spake to her in Adam. She is viewed as one with him, as being a part of himself. And God called their name Adam.
There is no doubt but Eve is thus represented in, and by Adam. And had Adam only fallen, she, as well as his natural offspring, must have been a sharer in the transgression, upon the principle of representative identification, but it appears, that God spake to her, personally, after she was made, and informed her of the covenant. And it is contended, that she had a conjunct concern with Adam in that covenant, distinct from what any of his posterity had, or could have. She was to be the mother of the human race, and without her, Adam could have had no offspring. Adam, then,can never be considered as the head and root of mankind, but in conjunction with his wife. They twain were one flesh.
In relation to his posterity, the keeping or breaking the covenant, depended solely on Adam, and not on Eve. Did it so depend in relation to Eve herself? It is astonishing that Dr. G. adverts not to the circumstance, that Eve was first in the transgression. Was it for the fact of Adam’s eating the forbidden fruit, or her own personal eating, that she is judged and condemned? It may be fairly admitted, that if Adam only had eaten, she would have fallen in him, as the great representative; but nothing can more clearly prove the peculiarity of her situation, in that covenant, and that she is to be viewed as one party with Adam, than the fact, that she, by her own personal act, did break the covenant, and is distinctly judged and condemned for her own act of eating the forbidden fruit; while Adam’s after act is not mentioned in the process of her judgment.
In relation to the posterity of Adam the test of obedience was restricted to him alone, but not so in the case of Eve. The Confession and the generality of Divines have said little on the subject of Eve’s relation in the covenant of works, but surely silence is much preferable to the account furnished by Dr. Gray and applauded by Dr. Ely.
In the Review, p. 189, it is refused by Dr. E. that sin is "an absolutely infinite evil." This might be soundly explained. But in p. 268-269, he denies that sin is an infinite evil at all, and asserts that "every sin is a finite, though an exceedingly great and horrible evil."
That a finite being could perform an act subjectively infinite, is indeed impossible. But it does not follow, that a finite being cannot do an act objectively infinite.
That every human person is under the obligation of God’s moral law will not be disputed. This law possesses an infinite obligation. And consequently all the subjects of that law are under infinite obligation to perform what it requires. Though they cannot be required by it, to perform infinite acts of obedience, yet they are laid under infinite obligation to perform finite acts. Sin is the violation of this infinite obligation. But the violation of an infinite obligation is infinitely criminal. Sin is, therefore, an infinite evil.
"If God be infinitely worthy," says President Edwards, "of love, honour, and obedience, then our obligation to love, honour, and obey him, and so to avoid all sin, is infinitely great. Sin is the violation of this infinite obligation, it is, therefore, an infinite evil."[3]
"In order to form just conceptions of the greatness of Christ’s sufferings," says a late accurate writer, "it is necessity to enquire into the cause from which they proceeded. This is the infinite evil of sin. When we speak of sin as infinitely evil, we do not mean to affirm that the act of the soul, in sinning, is infinitely intense; as this is impossible in a creature, all whose powers are limited. The malignity of sin, from which its demerit arises, must be considered as it relates to God, the divine lawgiver. He and the rational creature, though closely related, are infinitely distant in point of greatness and excellence. Men are under an obligation to love God. This obligation must be great in proportion to the infinite excellence of the object. Worth and excellence are the proper reasons and grounds of loving any object; and as these, in God, are infinite, men must be infinitely obliged to love him. This is undeniable; as they cannot be under the same obligation to love one another, or the highest Seraph, as to love God. Sin is a violation of this obligation, or an acting contrary to it: the evil, then, relatively considered, must be proportioned to the obligation.
Though the infinite evil of sin is inferred from the infinite dignity of the object against whom it is committed, it will not warrant the conclusion, that a good action must be infinitely good, because performed to the same object. The contrary is true. Sin is heinous, in proportion to what it denies to the object, or attempts to take from it. Sin treats God as a contemptible being, neither to be regarded nor feared; and therefore treats him with contempt. It depreciates his excellence, love, and goodness, impeaches his justice, denies his holiness, and sets his power and anger at defiance. It is an attempt to pluck God from his throne, &c. On the other hand, the goodness of an action must be in proportion to what it gives to the object. Besides God’s respect to any man’s obedience must be according to the degree of respect to which he is entitled; but the respect due to man is infinitely less than what is due to God, because of the meanness of man, and his infinite distance from God."[4]
But after all, is it not substantially granted by Dr. E. Rev. p 269, that sin is an infinite evil, since he admits that "every sin deserves God’s wrath and curse, both in this life and that which is to come?" Is not the wrath of God infinite wrath? And is not the life to come infinite in duration? And must it not be an infinite evil that will subject to such punishment? His own objections, if indeed they had any weight, would strike against his own concession, with equal force as against the doctrine he combats. Let us however, attend to them. They are briefly these, "that sin being committed by a finite being, must be a finite evil, and requires a finite satisfaction—in is an effect, every effect requires an adequate cause;—If therefore, sin be an infinite effect, man the cause of it, must be an infinite being.—Infinities will not admit of degrees of comparison—if sin is an infinite evil, all sins must be alike—no man is a greater sinner than another—and if every sin is infinitely evil, every sin deserves infinite punishment—a man cannot endure more than one infinite punishment; consequently, no man can be punished for more than one sin." This is the sum of the objections to sin being an infinite evil.
These objections, however, are mere sophistry. The objections, that sin is committed by a finite being—that it is not an infinite effect, because its cause is finite, are predicated upon the mistake that it is to be viewed subjectively, and not objectively, and have been already considered.
The remaining objections suppose, that there can be no degrees in any thing, which is in its nature infinite. We would enquire if divine wrath be in its nature infinite? It is presumed that it is, and that it will scarcely be denied even by Dr. Ely. And cannot God inflict more or less of this infinite wrath, according to the demerit of the guilty offender? If any should dispute it, we refer him to the seventy-eighth psalm. In verse 38th, God is represented, as not stirring up all his wrath. What? Is not the wrath of God infinite? And "there are no degrees in things that are infinite." If, therefore, he stirred up his wrath, according to the objection, he must have stirred up all his wrath. This, however, is contrary to the text. We, therefore, leave the Dr’s. logic and the text to settle it.
Again, is not the power of God infinite power? According to the objection, he cannot withhold, or extend this power, more or less, at pleasure, because there are no degrees in things that are infinite. Yet in allusion to the awful display of his infinite power on mount Sinai, Hab. 3:4. God is represented as having horns coming out of his hand, and there, says the inspired penman, was the hiding of his power. What then must have been the discovery of his power, if all this was only the hiding of it? Or, because it is infinite, must God have discovered it all?
But would not a similitude of the Dr’s. own, completely set aside his own objection, about the "equality of all sins," and "all infinities being equal," and (upon the supposition of sin being an infinite evil) "the impossibility of any man’s being punished for more than one sin?" Let us hear the Dr. In Rev. p. 189, he says, "As we may conceive of a cable, and of a twine, which shall be alike interminable, or infinite in continuation, and yet finite and different in diameter, &c."
According to the supposed example, the cable and the twine are alike in continuation—they are infinitely extended. This may point out the evil of sin, as being, in its nature, infinitely criminal, for the nature of the cable, and the twine is the same. But they differ in thickness. They are both infinitely long, and in this they agree. But the one has more folds than the other. In this they disagree. So of sins. They are all infinitely criminal in their nature. This bears upon the length. Some are more heinous, or more horribly aggravated than others. This bears upon the thickness. The punishment will be proportioned to this. For though the punishment of all sin will be eternal, and in point of duration equal, like the length of the cable and the twine, yet the intensity of it, or weight of divine wrath, will be varied in proportion to the degrees of guilt in the offender.
We shall here quote the words of two eminent divines, whose praise is in the churches, in corroboration of our views on this subject.
The first is the eminent President Edwards, who well understood the subject.
"Another objection (that perhaps may be thought hardly worth mentioning) is, that to suppose sin to he infinitely heinous, is to make all sins equally heinous; for how can any sin be more than infinitely heinous? But all that can be argued hence is, that no sin can be greater with respect to that aggravation, the worthiness of the object against whom it is committed. One sin cannot be more aggravated than another in that respect, because in this respect the aggravation of every sin is infinite; but that does not hinder but that some sins may he more heinous than others in other respects: As if we should suppose a cylinder infinitely long, it cannot be greater in that respect, viz. with respect to the length of it; but yet it may be doubled and trebled, and made a thousand fold more, by the increase of other dimensions. Of sins that are all infinitely heinous, some may be more heinous than others; as well as of divers punishments that are all infinitely dreadful calamities, or all of them infinitely exceeding all finite calamities, so that there is no finite calamity, however great, but what is infinitely less dreadful, or more eligible than any of them, yet some of them may be a thousand times more dreadful than others. A punishment may be infinitely dreadful by reason of the long duration of it; and therefore cannot be greater with respect to that aggravation of it, viz. its length of continuance, but yet may be vastly more terrible on other accounts." Serm. on Justif. by Faith alone.
The second is the celebrated Turretine, professor of theology, in Geneva.
"Though a death of infinite value," says this great and good man, "was due for every individual sinner, yet such a death as Christ’s is quite sufficient for the redemption of the whole elect world. A penal satisfaction is not of the same nature with a pecuniary payment, which is only valued by the amount paid, without regard to the person who pays: and hence can be of avail to none but the individual for whom the payment is made. But penal satisfaction is appreciated by the dignity of the person who makes it, and is increased in worth in proportion to his dignity, and hence avails for many as well as for one. Money paid by a king is indeed of no more avail in the discharge of a debt, than money paid by a slave: but the life of a king is of more value than the life of a vile slave, as the life of king David was of more worth than that of half the Israelitish army.—2 Sam. 18:3. In this way Christ alone is more excellent than all men together. The dignity of an infinite person swallows up all the infinities of punishment due to us—they sink into it and are lost. Besides it is no new thing that what is necessary for one should be amply sufficient for many. One sun is necessary to the illumination of an individual, and yet the same sun illuminates the whole human family. One victim was sufficient for the priest and all the people, and yet it would have been requisite for one. The great annual expiatory sacrifice, made atonement for all the people, while yet there were as many atonements necessary, as there were Israelites, because by divine appointment it was offered for the whole congregation, as well as for individuals."[5]
Upon the whole, if sin be not an infinite evil, it was not necessary, that the Saviour of sinners should have been an infinite person. Finite evils however numerous, and aggravated, require, only a finite satisfaction. And if a finite satisfaction only was required, Adam might have been set to rights again, without the intervention of the Son of God. A finite person could have suffered a finite penalty.
Nor will the allegation have any opposing force "that a finite creature is under obligations to render all the obedience in its power, for itself." Be it so. Let it only be innocent, and the law of God does not require it to suffer for itself. It is indeed under obligations to obey, but under none to suffer. Suffering alone, is the penalty. Let the finite creature obey for itself, and suffer the finite penalty for Adam, and all will be well. Upon this ground also, "had another man been formed like Adam, and had he perfectly obeyed the law," for himself and suffered the finite penalty, which he well might have done, in due time, then "a divine Saviour" would have been "a needless gift of the counsels of Jehovah." If Dr. Ely "is right in his doctrine on this subject, the Saviour of the Socinians, provided he be a perfectly obedient man," and suffer this finite penalty, "will answer all the wants of sinners."
But if sin is not an infinite evil, why is the punishment of it in hell, of infinite duration?
Dr. E. answers, "God may extend the amount of penalty incurred to any assignable duration; and for ever may continue to punish one, who for ever continues to multiply transgressions."—p. 269-270.
This will require a little examination. It assumes, in the first place, that God may extend the amount of penalty incurred to any assignable duration. Does punishment flow from God’s sovereignty? Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? God may not extend the amount of penalty one moment longer, than justice demands. If only finite punishment be due, there is no attribute of Divinity, that will concur with this infinite extension.
In the second place Dr. E. ascribes the eternity of the punish. merit of the damned, to their continued sinning. He says, "God for ever may continue to punish one who for ever continues to multiply transgressions."
This opinion takes for granted, that the sins which the damned shall commit through eternity, are taken into the account, at the day of judgment, as well as "the deeds done in the body." It is certain that the judgment at the last day is final. The sentence is then past for eternity—Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire.—Why this sentence? Why are the wretched criminals doomed to everlasting fire? According to Dr. Ely’s plan, it is upon a two-fold ground—Because they have sinned, and have not believed in Christ—and because they will continue to sin, and will not believe in Christ to all eternity! So much, and so long they are to suffer for what they have done; and then to eternity for what they shall hereafter do to eternity!
Notice is taken by our Saviour, in the account which he himself gives of the last judgment, both of what the wicked have done, in opposition to the divine law, and what they have neglected contrary to its requisitions; but he is entirely silent respecting their future sins, as forming any part of the formal reason, or cause of the sentence of everlasting punishment. They, indeed still remain subjects of the law, and every sin deserves punishment, and shall be punished, though committed in hell, yet the infinite duration of the torments of the damned, is not, in the sentence of condemnation, predicated upon what they shall hereafter do, but upon what they have already done. Punishment is not in its nature prospective, but retrospective.
Should it be foreseen by a judge, that a murderer on whom he pronounces sentence of death, would, on his way to the place of execution, take away the life of one or more of the guard that conducted him to the gallows, still it was not for this, as yet uncommitted crime, that he pronounced the sentence of death, but for the murder already perpetrated. According to Dr. Ely’s scheme, the Judge of the quick and the dead could not pronounce sentence of everlasting punishment, on the reprobate, at the last day, for all the guilt with which they are justly chargeable, previous to that time.
But as the sinning period of the elect is bounded, their sins must, according to Dr. E. require only a finite satisfaction; and the Redeemer must bear so many finite pains, according to the number of the elect, and the every way finite magnitude of their transgressions. So that if more in number had been redeemed; or if their sins had been greater, or more numerous, he must have suffered more, in proportion—so much for the sins of Peter—so much for the sins of Paul, &c. &c. For says the Dr. "all the sins of the elect are of a definite amount—the punishment merited by all the sins of the elect is of a definite amount—Christ bare a definite amount of punishment, even such a degree of punishment considering the divinity and dignity of his person," (did that consideration diminish the number of the finite stripes, or any of the items of the finite debt?) "as was an equitable commutation in God’s esteem, for the punishment due unto all the sins of the elect." P. 188.
This, the Dr. thinks, is not cutting up the righteousness of Christ into shreds and patches; but he must surely admit, that it is dividing and subdividing it into millions of fractions, and assigning to each individual elect sinner, as much as the demerit of his sin may require. The scale, however, is not yet graduated.
This is the age of discovery, of invention, and of system making. Mr. M’Chord’s system contemplates a body of indefinite extension, or interminable enlargement. "This scheme," says Dr. Ely, "he seems to have invented, that he might, according to his own notions, preach the gospel. Dr. Gray invented his scheme of imputation without representation, for the same reason."—And no doubt, for the same reason, Dr. E. invents a scheme of sin being a finite evil, and of course that there neither is the fact, of any infinite value in the atonement of Christ, nor any need of it!—What scheme shall be invented next? Would it not be better, after all, to be contented with the scheme invented by God himself, and preach the gospel according to the commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ? There seems to be little good in this system making. When shall the blessed period arrive when the gospel will be preached in its own native simplicity, without the inventions of men! [return to SERMON]
NOTE (B.)
There is no doctrine more plainly taught in scripture, than the unity of the Church of Christ. Separate communions in the church, or separate churches of Christ, holding different creeds, necessarily infers something wrong. It certainly was not so by Christ’s institution when he organized his church. The pattern he has given is for one church. All that differ, however little, from that pattern, are so far departing from the law of the house laid down by its glorious Head. But it is quite common with the advocates of what is called catholic communion, to recommend a kind of confederation among these different denominations, while yet they may remain distinct sects, with their respective different creeds.It is indeed granted by them, that an agreement in all the articles of faith, would be very desirable, "but the churches are not ripe for it." But what shall be done in the mean time? Why, let them compliment one another with church hospitality—let them exercise the most ungrudging fellowship in holy ordinances, as opportunity serves—let the one say of the other, they have invited us to eat of their bread, let us do so, and welcome them, in turn, to eat of ours. Is this, or is it not a confederation of churches? Where is the warrant in divine revelation for such a system? Do they not hereby recognise one another’s creeds and modes of worship? Most assuredly. For they join in eating the sacrifice?—Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? Few, it is presumed, would venture to answer, no. Whatever, therefore, belongs to the altar—the principles, doctrine and worship of any church, is recognised by eating the sacrifice—partaking of the Lord’s supper in that church. If you differ with that church in any thing, it is because you think that thing wrong—How then can you eat of the sacrifice, thereby recognizing what you think wrong? [return to SERMON]
NOTE (C.)
Much labour has been spent, and great pains have been taken, to destroy the distinction between ecclesiastical, and mere christian communion. It is attempted too, to put the distinction to ridicule.Those who maintain it, are represented, as if they held, that christian communion and church communion are in opposition to each other—that christian communion includes christianity, while church fellowship excludes it entirely.
It is asked, "if the communion which, in public worship, saints hold with saints, as such, is not comnmnion of saints—which christians there hold with christians, is not christian communion—what is it?" Do the christians disappear when the church assembles? Do the saints become unsainted the moment they sit down at the Lord’s table?"[6]
Is this generous? Is it fair? Did ever any person who avowed the distinction, think of contrasting the two kinds of communion? Or is it necessary that there must be an opposition[7]—a contradiction, in order that there may be a distinction? The powers or faculties of the human soul are distinguished from one another—must they therefore be opposite? A celebrated writer on the powers of the human mind, informs us "that the will always follows the last dictate of the understanding—that volition has always for its object that which appears most agreeable."[8] It is apprehended this is far enough from opposition. A husband and wife are distinct persons; must they, therefore, necessarily be in a state of opposition? Church fellowship is distinguished from mere christian communion, therefore christians disappear, when the church assembles, i.e., when church fellowship commences! Church communion is distinct from what is termed, only christian communion, therefore the saints must become unsainted the moment they sit down at the Lord’s table! We envy no man such extraordinary powers of reasoning.
It may be said, we have introduced qualifying words, such as mere christian communion—only christian communion, while the objection contemplates the distinction in an unqualified manner. To this we answer, if those who use the distinction, ever explained themselves, as intending to exclude christianity, or christian communion, from church communion, there might be ground to object. The manner in which the distinction has been uniformly used, is this, that christianity itself, if, in the judgment of charity, we had ground to believe any man possessed it, was a sufficient warrant for us to hold private christian fellowship with him, whether we agreed in our respective creeds, and ecclesiastical terms of communion, or not. So far as mere christian exercises were concerned, we were agreed, and so far we might walk together. This has been called christian communion, meaning that it was christian communion only, and not ecclesiastical. It did not call up the public terms of church fellowship, in agreement with which, the members of a church hold public communion together, as an organized body.
That for this organical, ecclesiastical communion, something more than the mere fact of christianity, is necessary. It also requires a specification of the faith once delivered to the saints, and an agreement therein, that they may all speak the same thing, and have no divisions among them. This necessarily requires a public test, or bond of ecclesiastical fellowship, and by this it is distinguished from mere christian communion, which however it still includes, but adds thereto. And this is what is so triumphantly, perhaps I should say sneeringly, represented, as banishing christianity.
After all, the distinction between ecclesiastical and mere christian communion, appears necessary, while imperfection so far characterises the visible church, that her members cannot see eye to eye, in doctrine, order, and worship. Before all real christians will be ready, in a scriptural and orderly manner, to join together in ecclesiastical communion, the time must have arrived, when the Lord shall have turned to his people a pure language, and given them one heart and one way, and then shall they join sweet counsel together, and go to the house of God in company, serving the Lord with one consent.
Nor was the distinction unknown to the Apostle Paul, 2 Thess. 3: 14, 15. And if any man, says the Apostle, obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. "Even those that are under the censures of the church," and so deprived of church fellowship, for the time, are still to be counted as brethren, and so entitled to christian communion. The interpretation, that such an one, as the Apostle commands the Thessalonian christians to withdraw from, to have no company with, was a man unfit for "personal intimacy—private and familiar intercourse" on account of his disorderly conduct, "living in idleness"—"disturbing his neighbours"—being a "lazy professor," a person "of idle and impertinent habits," but yet fit for the communion of the church, and still enjoying it, must be referred to the great liberality of catholic communion. [return to SERMON]
NOTE (D.)
Much is said by the advocates of what is termed a liberal communion, about "visible christianity being the only term of communion, authorized by the Lord Jesus Christ." This visible christianity must be explained. Is it "a profession and practice becoming the gospel?" This is well. The man, then, who is to be esteemed a visible christian, is one who professes to make the law of God his rule in all things—who continues stedfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine, and endeavours to walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the LORD blameless. To such an one we have no objection, He is welcome to our most intimate communion. We receive him with heart and hand. But if "visible christianity," is also to be predicated of the man, who, professing to be a christian, selects certain parts of the word of God, which, he says, contain the "substantial doctrines of the cross"—"substantial truth," the "substantial doctrines of the gospel" and the like, as a rule and a test of fitness for communion; while he rejects others, as, of course, not substantial—not essential, or not necessary to be taken into the account, and we be called to admit such a man to communion, on the ground of having all that the Redeemer requires for church fellowship, it is confessed, that we would demur, because Christ has said, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. [return to SERMON]NOTE (E.)
Union in the church of God is most desirable. The disruption of it never took place without a crime somewhere. But desirable as it is, we must not sacrifice truth to obtain it. I here quote with pleasure, the words of an accurate writer, who appears to understand the subject."I am, indeed, aware that there is much talk of union; that schemes are devised, no doubt with the best designs, for its extension; and you likewise know, that there is very little of it in the church. That there should be more is readily confessed. That means more efficient for its attainment must be employed, all but the most superficial thinkers do admit. Too much, we have reason to fear, is attempted on this subject by one effort, and that one not well directed. Under the influence of a thoughtless impulse: early opinions, ancient prejudices, and confirmed habits, may, for a moment be forgotten; but that impulse once gone, that moment past they will return in all their wonted force. So far as contending parties unite on principle, and for an unprincipled union, no man of enlightened piety will plead, it must be effected by deliberation, and a precise inspection of the ground on which they meet."—M’Master’s Apology for the Book of Psalms, p. 12, 13. [return to SERMON]
NOTE (F.)
There are no rights held so sacred among men, as the rights of conscience. They are deservedly so held. Conscience has its rights, and they are, indeed, sacred rights. They ought however, to be understood, lest we attach something to conscience as a right, which deserves a very different name. The best things are most liable to be abused. The excess of liberty is licentiousness.The rights of conscience, as well as all other human rights, are derived from God, and are bounded by the law accompanying their delegation. The law of God embraces the whole man, and all his rights, and all his relations. This is not always attended to, in considering this subject.
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, as originating in their judgment, or in their authority. To believe such doctrines, or obey such commands, as the rule to regulate the conscience, is to betray the true freedom of the conscience; and to require this to be done, is to require implicit faith and blind obedience, and is the destruction of liberty of conscience.
It, however, ought never to be forgotten, that God himself is the rightful Lord of thc conscience, and constantly holds it subject to his law. Conscience never was by its author intended to be itself a law; but as the vicegerent of heaven, it is appointed as a judge to decide according to the law furnished by the legislator of the universe, for that purpose. This law, and not conscience, is the rule both of belief and action. There can, therefore, be no right of conscience inconsistent with the divine law—no right but what is derived from it. Modern claims for the rights of conscience, are not kept within the bounds of sober reason. In their eagerness to discard the unjust claim of one man to lord over the conscience of another, some have assumed a ground which gives conscience a negative over the divine law itself. I, with great satisfaction quote here, the words of an eminent scholar and divine, the Rev. Dr. Wylie, of Philadelphia. They fully express my sentiments on this subject.
"All power to be found among the creatures, is, necessarily, derived from God. He is the original source and fountain from which it flows, For in him we live, and move, and have our being.[9] All this delegated or derived power, should be exercised to his glory, and regulated by his law, Whether, therefore, ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.[10] To effect this end, all our powers should be directed; and of this, his law is the unerring rule. By this, therefore, all rational beings are indispensibly bound. God has given them no right to do what it prohibits. To suppose men to possess any such right, is wicked and blasphemous. This would be the same as to suppose God to say to them, I, as the Supreme Legislator, give you my law. To the least breach of it, I annex the penalty of eternal damnation; yet I give you a right to violate this my law, and to wage war with your God, and direct your artillery, against the Sovereign of the Universe!" From this the Dr. justly argues, "that no man has a right to worship God any other way, than he himself hath prescribed in his law—that it is criminal for a man’s conscience to approve any way repugnant to this sacred rule—and that this crime cannot legitimate another, or make an action right, which God expressly condemns, under pain of eternal wrath."
"If conscience can legitimate," continues this accurate reasoner, "what God’s law condemns, it must be paramount to the divine law, and, consequently to the Legislator also, in having a negative over the requisitions of both the one and the other.
Were this the case, it would not only free from criminality, but would render virtuous, laudable, and praise-worthy, the most damnable errors—the most horrid blasphemies, and detestable abominations; if but dictated by the consciences of Pagans, Mahometans, &c. Then the Egyptians worshipping God under the form of a snake or crocodile, would be as lawful, yea, as commendable, as doing it precisely according to the manner which he has prescribed in his word, provided that, in both cases, conscience said amen!
But, supposing for a moment, that men had such a right, let us enquire how they came by it? Either they must have it by derivation from God, or they must hold it independently of him. It cannot be by derivation from God: it would be absurd in the nature of it, and incompatible with the essential holiness of his character.
To suppose God giving to his moral subjects a law, to the breach of which he annexes eternal punishment, and at the same time, giving them a right to break it, is inconsistent and impossible. Right would be opposed to right—a right to obey, and a right not to obey!—A man may be persuaded in his conscience, that a false way of worshipping God is the most proper way"—According to the modern claims for unlimited rights of conscience, "he has a right to worship this false way! But worshipping in a false way offends God. No matter, he has a right (of conscience) to offend God; for if worshipping falsely, and offending God, are equivalent; seeing he has a right to do the one, he has a right to do the other!!!"[11] [return to SERMON]
NOTE (G.)
For an interesting and judicious view of the character, history, death and resurrection of the witnesses, I refer the reader to M’Leod on the Revelation, Lect. X. I quote the following remarks from that Lecture, as perfectly corresponding with the view I have taken of the witnesses."These," says the Dr. "are a small company of true christians defending the interests of religion against all opposition, and frequently sealing with their blood the testimony which they hold—They are distinguished as a part from the whole, from the great body of those who are to be considered as true christians, and even from the visible church of God in general, at this period. (The duration of the antichristian system.) They are christians; and they belong to the true visible church: but they are a distinct class of christians in the communion of the visible church. These witnesses differ as much from their contemporaries, the 144,000 sealed ones, as Elijah differed from the 7000 in Israel in his time, who did not bow the knee to Baal.—These witnesses are two in number, because one is not sufficient according to the law[12] to prove the guilt of the antichrist; and because there were as few employed as would be sufficient to attest the truth, and protest against the perversions of the christian system.
There is besides in this number, two, an allusion to well known characters who appeared, two and two, and who exemplified in their own day, and taught with fidelity, that doctrine which antichrist remarkably opposes, and which these witnesses are authorized to maintain—the doctrine which requires that man should regulate all his social concerns by the principles and precepts of revealed religion. This doctrine has always been opposed by the supporters of the man of sin; and in direct hostility to it, the antichristian system has been established. The two great branches of that system, the heathenish church and beast of the abyss, have of course corrupted the moral order of the two great kinds of society in Christendom, civil and ecclesiastical. They who bear testimony against this twofold corruption of religion and morals, are not improperly called two," &c. M’Leod on the Rev. p. 316-321. [return to SERMON]
NOTE (H.)
That power, against which, the witnesses direct their testimony, during the 1260 years in which they are to prophecy clothed in sackcloth, is, in scripture, denominated antichrist, 1 John, 2:18. Ye have heard that antichrist shall come. If we compare with this text, 2 Thess. 2:8, And then shall that wickced be revealed, whom the LORD shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming; we shall find clearly ascertained, the fact, both of his existence and his destruction.Two questions engage the attention of enquiring christians, with no small degree of interest—What constitutes the antichrist?—When shall he come to his end? We shall offer a few observations on both these.
ANTICHRIST signifies an opposite Christ or one in opposition to Christ. One may be opposite to another, as an avowed enemy, or he may be opposite, as a rival, or a competitor, for the honour, which really, and of right belongs to the other. It is in this last sense that antichrist obtains this name, as being an opposer to Christ, by pretending that the honours, and rights, which exclusively belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, belong also to him. We may, generally learn, what really belongs to Christ, by the presumptuous claims, and arrogant pretensions of antichrist.
Antichrist is a complex term. Sometimes, indeed, it is represented in scripture, as one person, that wicked—the man of sin—the son of perdition. The mystery of iniquity is then personified: But the apostacy—the antichrist, is really a complex system.—"It includes the beasts of the pit, of the sea, and of the earth; the head, the horns, the image of the beast; the mother of harlots, and all who are drunken with the cup of her intoxication."[13]
Its grand constituent parts are given in detail, in the XIII. chapter of the Revelation, under the symbolical representation of a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads, and ten horns; verse 1.—a beast coming up out of the earth with two horns like a lamb; verse 11—And an image, which the second beast causes to be made to the first.—verse 14. These three, the beast of the sea—the beast of the earth, and the image of the beast, include all the component parts of the antichristian system, and to one or other of these, or to them all together, every other description of antichrist, under whatever symbol, may be referred.
The beast of the sea, is the civil powers of the Western Roman empire, in its divided state; for it is represented as having 7 heads, and 10 horns with crowns.
The 7 heads refer, not only to the seat of this power, "the capitol of which was located on seven well known hills,[14]" the seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth; but also to the seven different forms of government, under which the Roman empire passed, and there are seven kings.
The 10 crowned horns are the 10 different kingdoms or dynasties, into which the Latin or Roman empire was divided. They correspond exactly with the 10 horns of the fourth beast in the vision of Daniel, chap·7:7 and with the 10 toes of the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, chap. 2:41, 42. These 10 horns, or10 toes, are the different powers within the limits of the Western Roman empire, after it ceased to be one great sovereignty under one despot. The beast appeared to John with these ten horns.—This sets aside all application of the beast of the sea to Rome pagan; because the empire was not divided into ten kingdoms, until after the death of Constantine, when the empire was become, at least nominally, christian.
The beast of the earth is the ecclesiastical hierarchy, embracing all ecclesiastical power, order, and worship, devoted to the support of the antichristian apostacy. It symbolizes with the "little horn" "which makes war with the saints," and "speaks great words against the Most High,"[15] and with the "mother of harlots," that is seated upon the "scarlet coloured beast," and "drunken with the blood of the saints,"[16] also with the "false prophet," who works miracles before the beast, with which "he deceives them that have the mark of the beast and worship his image."[17] This beast is seen coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. This system is earthly in its origin and nature, as opposed to the true church of Christ, which is of heavenly origin and of a heavenly nature.
He has two horns like a lamb. He professes the mildness, the meekness, and the innocence of a lamb, but he is really a beast of prey, and speaks like a dragon. Instead of preaching the gospel in its purity, as the glad tidings of salvation, he utters blasphemies, and his speeches breathe of cruelty and death.
His two horns are the two orders of the Romish hierarchy—the regular and the secular Clergy. The first comprehending all the monastic orders, as being in some measure secluded from the world. The second embracing all the parochial clergy, who profess to live in the world and take the charge of souls.
This beast causeth the people who dwell on the earth to worship the first beast, i.e., to yield submission to the civil power, however wicked and tyrannical, as if it were the ordinance of God. And finally it causes an image to be made to the first beast. This image is the papacy. The pope of Rome is the creature of the church. The cardinals as the representatives of the Romish church, or second beast, create him.[18] He is made the image of the civil power or first beast; for "he is the common centre," "the principle of unity to the ten kingdoms of the beast," i.e., the empire, and procures for the civil rulers, "a blind obedience from their subjects." He delivers over to the secular arm, at his pleasure. He claims to be set over the political empires of the earth, and to dispose of crowns and kingdoms. He is equally tyrannical with the first beast, for he has received power from his makers to cause that as many as will not worship him shall be put to death. This whole complete system is the antichrist. There is observable in it throughout, a regular derivation of power, and dependence. The pope derives his power from the church—the woman clothed in scarlet. She is supported by the beast having seven heads and ten horns—the civil governments of the Western Empire. And the beast receives from the dragon, his power, his seat, and all his authority: and this dragon is declared, Rev. 12:9, to be—the devil. He is as the soul of the whole system. From beginning to end, through every part of this complex system of apostacy, which is to waste the true church of Christ 1260 years, and finally slay the witnesses of the Redeemer, it is diabolical, and cannot be acknowledged as the ordinance of God, by any conscientious christian.
The question, so anxiously asked by every lover of the church of Christ, When shall the end of these things be? When shall antichrist be brought down? demands our attention.
The time is fixed in Jehovah’s decree, when the mystery of God shall be finished, by bringing the mystery of iniquity to an end. But as it is a mysterious providence indeed, the sober christian will not be confident in deciding with certainty, when that end shall be.
The number of years, during which antichrist shall be permitted to exercise his complex system of misrule, tyranny, and superstition, is limited to 1260 days,[19] a prophetical day being put for a year.[20] The difficulty is to know when this period commences.
In Daniel’s prophecy, chap. 7:25, we are informed that the saints of the Most High shall be given into the hand of the little horn. The little horn symbolizes the hierarchy of the church of Rome. The hand of the little horn will represent the power, by which the church executes her designs. This power is the pope, whom she creates for this purpose. But some other power distinct from the little horn, must give the saints into his hand.—There appears to be a league between the church and the beast of the bottomless pit. This beast carrys her, and she in return causes the nations to worship the beast and receive his mark in their foreheads, or at least in their right hands; open and avowed, or hidden and implicit subjection to the thrones of iniquity, with activity in supporting their unhallowed claims.
We may expect then, that in this mutual co-operation, the civil power will be that, which will give the saints into the hand of the executive power of the church. We find a remarkable instance of this in the emperor Phocas, who, for brutality, tyranny, and blood-thirsty cruelty, may rank with Caligula, Nero, or Domitian, when in the year 606, he constituted pope Boniface III. universal Bishop, and head of the church, and required all the churches to acknowledge the papal supremacy. This was indeed, a giving the saints of the Most High into the hand of the little horn. The year 606, therefore, seems to be the time from whence to date the rise of the antichristian apostacy. By adding 1260 years to 606, we are brought to the year 1866. And if we are to reckon according to our own calendar, it will be so long until antichrist come to his end.
There is, however, something in the numbers used by John that seems to favour the mode of calculation in use among the Jews. Their months were 30 days each. Of course their year consisted of 360 days only. The period of antichrist’s reign is represented by John under different forms. Twice it is said to be 1260 days.[21] Once it is denominated, a time, and times, and half a time.[22] And twice it is represented as 42 months.[23] All these point out the same period.
Time is put for one year;[24] times will then be two years, and half a time will be half a year. Three years and a half, of twelve months each, make forty and two months: and forty two months of thirty days each, amount to 1260 days, i.e., years, according to prophetic style. Now, as all these point out the same period, it would seem that the same principle should regulate the whole—that no interpretation should be given to the days that would make them differ from the months. If the forty two months are taken to be thirty day months, according to the Jewish calculations they will produce 1260 days. But if they contain either more or less, they will not. But twelve months of 30 days each, will not make one year of our calendar. They will produce 360 days only.—The difference of five days and almost six hours each years during the whole 1260, will amount to eighteen years, round numbers.—These, according to this calculation, must be subtracted from 1866, which would bring us to the year 1848. If this calculation be correct, less than 30 years will put an end to the antichristian system.
This mode of calculation will be further justified, by the co-incidence of the probable destruction of one of the principal horns of the beasts which will appear by another process of calculations taken from the specific threatening of the second commandment.
Of all the civil powers that belong to the ten horns, none have so remarkably distinguished themselves in the support of the hierarchy and the image of its creation, as the present British government. Though professedly protestant, yet have they done all in their power to aid and support the tottering fabric of the man of sin. Rome has been saved from destruction by British cannon. How warmly has this power testified her attachment to popery, by establishing it in Canada, and in Corsica during the short time it was attached to the crown of Great Britain! And has she not been the principal support of the antichristian system, against the terrible attack made on it by Revolutionary France? It is true, that in the late re-establishment of the pope, after the downfall of Buonaparte, the power of the Greek church united with the power of the English church, i.e., Russia and Britain joined heart and hand. How strikingly are they exemplified, by the two women with the wind in their wings, Zech. 5:9. who bear away the ephah, with the woman of wickedness, to build it an house in the land of Shinar and to establish it, and set it there on its own base. Thus did these two powers restore to, and re-establish the Roman pontiff, in his ancient antichristian dignity, in his own Babylon.—This was to establish the woman of wickedness—the scarlet woman on her own base. Yet still in the whole history of the transactions of the British government in relation to the pope and his interest, they are the most active and zealous supporters, and to them he acknowledges he is the most indebted. It is reasonable then to suppose that they should stand and fall together.
According to the threatening of the second commandment, the iniquities of the fathers shall be visited upon the children of them that hate the Lord, to the third and fourth generation; that is, in relation to public, or national wickedness, persisted in, from generation to generation, God will not delay the execution of national judgments longer than the third, or at farthest the fourth generation.
The present British government was constituted upon the ruins of the ancient Reformation. The blood of the Martyrs shed in the times of persecutions was never purged from the throne of Britain.
The period of a generation according to scripture reckoning is forty years.[25] The present government of Britain commenced with the Revolution of 1688. Let us then add four generations (the longest extension of divine forbearance, in relation to national punishments,) to the commencement of the British government. Four times forty make 160. This number added to 1688, brings us to the year 1848, precisely the same year, in which, according to the former calculation, the whole system of antichrist is to give up the ghost. It is astonishing how the one synchronises with the other.
Let us, however, beware of deciding peremptorily, in this mysterious calculation. The prophetic numbers are certain, and the prediction infallible, but human calculations are liable to mistake.
These 42 months of 30 days each, and their product 1260 days, may refer, not to the kind of years, but to their number only.—Neither more nor less than 1260 years, is the point expressly determined. They may be solar years. These are true years, for they are according to nature. If they are to be thus reckoned, the man of sin will retain his power, at least to a certain degree,for 47 years yet to come.
There are other numbers mentioned by the prophet Daniel, which ought not to be overlooked, because they must have reference to a period either immediately preceding or succeeding the commencement of the Millennium. These are found in chap. 12:11, 12—"And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days."
There are here two specific periods, one of 30, and another of 45 years, making 75 years, distinct from the period of 1260 years. If these succeed the commencement of the Millennium, as is generally supposed, then it would appear, that 30 years from that period, will bring about a general improvement of the world. All nations shall have begun, and considerably progressed in the work of reformation—the Jews brought to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, as the promised Messiah, and the heathens, generally made acquainted with the true God, will have embraced christianity.—But it will require 45 years more, or 1335 years from the commencement of the antichristian system, until the Millennium be at its height; when the light of the moon shall be as the light of. the sun, and the light of the sun shall be seven fold—when the glory of the church shall shine in all its meridian splendor.
A late writer [26] who combines judicious observation with true evangelical piety, supposes, that both these periods of Daniel’s precede the commencement of the happy Millennium. He considers Daniel and John, as presenting "two different schemes of prophecy, in which, though they most harmoniously agree, different numbers and symbols are employed"—a double scheme of numbers relating to the rise and fall of antichrist, and to the subjugation and emancipation of the church of God, embracing two conspicuous dates, one of which exactly agrees to the numbers of Daniel, and the other to the number of John, and both harmoniously terminate in the same year."
He attaches considerable weight to the analogy between the Old Testament Babylonish captivity, and the New. As there were different times of the Jews being carried to Babylon, and as many corresponding periods of their return; but one principal captivity, and one most general and public return; so in relation to antichrist, of which Babylon was a type, it is not unreasonable to suppose, that something of the same kind may be found. And this is found in the predictions of Daniel and John, embracing two different periods for the rise and fall of antichrist, but one more public and conspicuous, in the accomplishment of which the prophecies of both coincide, which perfectly reconciles their different schemes of prophecy.
The author observes, "The 1335 days are Daniel’s gross number,[27] which has a respect to the church’s low condition, and to the reign and tyranny of the antichristian horn.—In this number there are three other numbers included, and they are brought before us in this chapter. The first of them is mentioned in verse 7; time, times, and an half. The second of these numbers is stated in verse 11—a thousand two hundred and ninety days. In this number there is an addition of 30 days made to 1260 days, (the time, times, and a half.) Those 30 days constitute Daniel’s second number. The third number is discovered by what is said in the 12th verse,—blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. From this it is evident, that 45 days are added to the 1290 days, which raise that number to 1335 days. The period of 45 days forms Daniel’s third number—Distinct and important events, which will be most conspicuous accomplishments of scripture predictions, will commence at the explanation of each of Daniel’s three numbers, which are contained in his 1335 years."
The author’s view of these important events, is briefly, the following; That Daniel’s first number 1260, commenced with the decree of the emperor Justinian in 533, when that emperor constituted the bishop of Rome the head over all the churches. That this is the first rise of antichrist, according to the scheme of prophecy, by Daniel—That it terminated in 1792, at the commencement of the terrible wars in Europe with Revolutionary France. Then commenced the thirty years—Daniel’s second number; when the judgment began to sit upon antichrist, and he as a great state prisoner is put upon his trial, which, however, is not to be brought to a final issue at the end of the 30 years, but is still in progress.
Nevertheless at that time, an important accomplishment of scripture predictions, may be expected. The author gathers from the last chapter of Daniel, that this will probably be the commencement of the public conversion and restoration of the Jews. This will take place in 1822, at which time the 30 years or 1290 days will expire.
The third number, or remaining 45 years, will terminate in 1866, as the last of them, viz. 1867, is the first of the Millennium, when Satan’s kingdom in its heathenish, mahometan, and popish forms, shall have fallen as lightning from heaven, and antichrist shall be completely destroyed.
This period exactly synchronizes with the latter part of the 1260 days of John. These, Mr. Mason supposes, commenced in 606, when the emperor Phocas declared the bishop of Rome to be the head of the church. This is the second date, from which, John in his scheme of prophecy commences the rise of antichrist, which, though it terminates at the same time with Daniel’s, yet does not embrace the first 75 years of his 1335 days.—
This is a short abstract of the view of the rise and fall of antichrist taken by this excellent author. In some things it is entirely new. It is impossible to do it justice in this short compend of it. The book itself is recommended to the serious perusal of every one, who is longing for the time, when the little stone shall smite the image upon his feet, and shall break them to pieces, and itself shall become a great mountain and fill the whole earth.
Whatever be the mode of calculation, one thing is certains, the period of antichrist’s reign draws near to a close. A few years only remain, until the mystery of iniquity be finished. But much has to be done in these few years. "The kings of the earth must hate the whore, and burn her flesh with fire." Forgetful of their vain determinations, and their futile leagues for an everlasting peace, they shall soon hear the alarm of war, and speedily be engaged in it. The remainder of the harvest must be reaped—the vintage must succeed the harvest and its judgments are terrible. The witnesses must be slain, and lie dead three years and a half, and rise again. Remarkable changes must take placed before these things can be accomplished. Popery may be established in Britain, before the slaying of the witnesses takes place. They must be slain where they exist; and it would seem reasonable too, where they exist in the greatest numbers. All who are acquainted with their true character, will admit that this is in the British dominions.[28] If popery be established there, where the reformation was the most perfect, we may expect it generally over all Europe. And it scarcely appears possible, that the witnesses could be slain without such an establishment. To persecute to the death—to shed the blood of the Martyrs of Jesus, requires all the sanguinary principles of the scarlet woman, aided by the power to carry them into execution. Let us never forget, however, that when God has work to be done, a short time will suffice.—One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. [return to SERMON]
NOTE. (I.)
There is a most unwarrantable distinction made by some, between the obligation to believe a doctrine, or truth, and the obligation to obey a command.It is quite common to say, "that is only an article of faith"—"it is not a divine command." "If men do not differ in matters of duty, a mere point of faith is of little moment."
Multitudes of professed christians, it is to be feared, sadly impose upon themselves, in this matter. There is as much of the divine authority connected with the revelation of a point of faith—an article of doctrine, as there is with the revelation of a statute law,—a commandment regulating our life and practice. Are we not under the same obligation to yield obedience to God, in that which he commands us to believe, as in that which he commands us to do? A man who lives and dies despising the law of God, will no doubt die in his sins. And eternal ruin is connected with making light of Jehovah’s commandments. But is not the man in an equally dangerous situation, who makes a mock of what God has revealed as an article of faith, and commanded him to believe? If ye believe not that I am he, says the Redeemer, ye shall die in your sins.[29]
All that God has commanded us to believe is truth, emphatically the truth of God. All the doctrines of the Bible are his truths. Can there be among these, a little truth—a truth of little value, so that it is a matter of small importance whether we believe it or not? As the same authority is equally connected with commands, we might with equal propriety, ask, if there can be a little divine command? If either is admitted, the consequence doubtless will be admitted also, namely, that for the breach of it, there can be but a little eternal punishment—a little everlasting hell!
"As things are proposed unto us," says Dr. Owen, "to be believed as true, faith in its assent respects only the truth or veracity of God; but whereas this faith is required of us in a way of obedience, and is considered not only physically in its nature, but morally also as our duty, it respects also the authority of God, which I therefore join with the truth of God. "Thus saith the Lord, is that which is proposed unto us as the reason why we should believe."[30] [return to SERMON]
NOTE (K.)
Confessions of faith, have generally, been considered as subordinate standards in the church. They have been viewed as a constitutional security to the church, regulating the ecclesiastical citizenship of her members. It is not, therefore, a very uncommon thing, that they should be supposed, and in some instances, declared, to contain the terms of church communion; i.e., the terms upon which, and upon which alone, an individual can be admitted into church fellowship.It is, however, doubted by the author of the Plea for Sacramental Communion on Catholic Principles, whether such an opinion be correct, and such a declaration discreet?[31] And he refuses that when they are expanded into a comprehensive system of theology, as in the Westminster confession, they ought to be proposed for approbation, in all their latitude, to every one who desires baptism for his children, or a seat at the table of the Lord.[32] Taking care at the same time to warn the reader, not to be stumbled at what might thwart his prepossessions.
There was need for this warning, especially as he had immediately before maintained that they ought to be a test to the ministers of the church, and terms of official union.[33] He views a confession of faith as the "fixed testimony of a church," and seems to think it difficult to conceive, "how it can be dispensed with," when the doctrine, government, and worship of the christian church "are matters of controversy."
His arguments in support of the view he takes of this subject are, that it was not the original design of the Protestant confessions, that they should be terms of communion for private christians—that they were not in fact terms of communion for private christians; nor even for the reciprocation of ministerial fellowship—and because they cannot be, in effect, terms of christian (we presume he means what we call church) communion.
The Dr’s. arguments, however, do not seem altogether satisfactory. He grants that the confession of faith is the church’s fixed testimony. It does not appear quite correct to denominate a confession of faith a testimony, as these have been, from time immemorial, in the usage of reformed churches, considered as distinct.—A testimony, as a public document in a church, has uniformly been understood, to be distinguished from her confession of faith, by, not only stating the doctrinal articles of the holy scriptures, as the confession also did, but likewise stating the contrary errors, and testifying against all that held them, which the confession did not.
We know of but one instance, where a church in her judicial capacity, attempted to amalgamate these two distinct, public documents, by representing her confession of faith as her fixed testimony. And even the approbation of Dr. Mason, will not be sufficient, to sanction the unwarrantable departure from principle and usage.
But taking it in his own application, as the fixed testimony of the church, it appears not a little strange, that the members of the church should not be bound by the church’s testimony. A testimony is the evidence which a witness gives in court, or when regularly called before some tribunal. It is generally given on oath, but whether or not, it is constantly understood to be the act and deed of the witness himself—that he is the author of his own testimony, and that he declares what he believes to be the truth. The contrary of any of these would render a witness something worse than suspicious, and his testimony wholly unworthy of credit.
According to the Dr. we have here the testimony—the fixed testimony of the church, but her members are not bound to believe it. The officers to be sure must all believe the evidence which they have given, but the private members need not! This is rather serious trifling. In all conscience, would it not be better not to admit them to give testimony at all?
But I shall be told, this is the very thing contended for. This same fixed testimony is not to regulate private communion—it is not required of every one—it ought not to be even proposed to every one for approbation in all its latitude. Then it is not, it seems, after all, the fixed testimony of the church. It is only the fixed testimony of the officers of the church. Why then is it denominated the fixed testimony of the church? Do officers alone constitute the church? I know they do constitute the church judicative. But is that what is meant by the church, when the principles of the church—the doctrines of the church—the tenets of the church—the confessions or testimonies of the church are spoken of?
Let this matter be fairly understood. Let the people who are immediately concerned, be apprized of this fact. "You, the private members of this church, are not to consider yourselves, as having any thing to do with the confession of faith. That belongs to us the ministers and officers, and it is our confession of faith, not yours. For this strong reason, that it is the fixed testimony of the church, and we are the church. If you were the church, then indeed, it would be your testimony, and you would have to believe it, for it would be ridiculous to suppose, that you were giving a testimony that you yourselves did not believe. It would even forfeit your claims to moral honesty, should it be true, and, in fact, make you neither more nor less than false witnesses.· Now the point to be supported is this, you may be admitted to communion though you should not approve of the fixed testimony of the church. It must not then be your testimony, the confession of your faith—your principles or your terms of communion."
If this be refused, and the side taken that will embrace the private members, in the testimony of the church, then it is respectfully enquired how the testimony that these private members give is to be no test to them, while the same testimony is to be a test to the officers? There probably would not have been all this torturing contradiction, if the confession had been kept in its own place, and not forced to invade the territories of the testimony. But even then the denying the confession of one’s faith would have been tormenting.
There is a difficulty even respecting the ministers themselves, and their connection with this testimony, which does not appear quite so easy to be removed, as could be wished. Why should they be bound by this test, and the private members be all free?—I say all free; for if one may be admitted not approving, that is disapproving, in other words denying the confession of faith, another may; all may. And why not? Confessions of faith were never, it seems, intended to regulate private communion, neither by their original design, nor in fact, nor in effect. The question then is, why is it necessary that the ministers should be so bound, when the system to which they are bound is of so little impedance, that all the private members of the church may be admitted to communion, disapproving it? Is this order or confusion?
There is yet another difficult case, among these tests and no tests, that it would be desirable if light could be cast upon it. We shall endeavour to prepare it for the reception of light, by shewing that it needs it.
It is strenuously contended by the Dr. that the ministers of the church must all be bound by her fixed testimony. It must be a test to them. The church "must exact from them a positive unequivocating engagement, to maintain her confession of faith, constructed so as "to contain all those cardinal points which are essential to christian faith and fellowship," and likewise "others, which though not thus essential, are nevertheless, important; and worthy to be maintained with zeal and constancy."[34] While at the same time, he maintains, that as "thus constructed, they were not in fact terms of communion—even for the reciprocation of ministerial fellowship."
It is no easy matter to reconcile all this. The maintaining the confession with "an explicit avowal," and "a positive, unequivocating engagement," is strictly enjoined, as a necessary test to be exacted from all the church’s ministers; while at the same time it is to be no term of communion "for the reciprocation of ministerial fellowship." We learn from the Dr’s. practice, and explanations given at the beginning of his book, what he means by " ministerial reciprocation." The question now to be asked, is, whether the minister who reciprocates with Dr. Mason, be, while he is officiating in his church, for the time one of the church’s ministers? If he is not, what relation is there between him and the church? And how came he there? Or what is the church doing with ministers that she claims not as hers? If he be one of her ministers, as .common sense would say he is, what about the test—the explicit avowal of her confession, and the positive, unequivocating engagement to maintain it? While at the same time this very test, avowal, and engagement, is not a term of communion for the reciprocatian of ministerial fellowship. We are not able to admit both sides.
But it seems that this liberal mode of dispensing with the confession of faith, has had advocates 100 years ago. Professor Dunlop, we are informed,[35] "in a work expressly defending confessions of faith," refuses that ever the church of Scotland established the confession of faith, a term of communion.
Professor Dunlop appears to have been about as firm a defender of confessions of faith as Dr. Mason; but according to his own account, was not so hardly beset by the judicial acts of his church as the Dr. is by his. "In so far as is known to us," says Dunlop, as quoted by Dr. Mason, "there is no act of Assembly, nor even of any inferiour church-judicature, establishing the confession of faith a term of christian communion, and requiring an assent there. to from christian parents, in order to their being admitted to all the privileges of church communion, and particularly the baptism of their children."
But the Dr. informs us,[36] that "the Westminster confession of faith, catechisms, form of church-government, and directories for worship, are declaratively and legally terms of permanent communion or membership in the Associate Reformed church."[37] But having quoted Dunlop, whose work he takes care to inform us, "was first published at Edinburgh, in 1719; thirteen years before Ebenezer Erskine’s famous sermon which occasioned the Secession," he adds, "such were the views and practice of the church of Scotland before the Secession." That is to say, such is the account of the views and practice of the church of Scotland before the Secession, given by Professor Dunlop, therefore they were the views and practice of the church of Scotland.
One hundred years after this, a person reading Dr. Mason’s views of confessions of faith, might draw the conclusion that such were the views and the practice of the Associate Reformed church, unless happily he should notice the place where the Dr. states that the (he says Westminster) confession of faith, catechisms, &c. are declaratively and legally terms of permanent communion or membership in that church. He would then discover that the Dr. was writing against his own church; notwithstanding his agreement with these very terms of communion; for we cannot suppose, that there was an exception made in his favour, from the terms of permanent communion, or membership in his own church.
"Such were the views and practice of the church of Scotland before the Secession." It would seem by this remark, that the Dr. means to charge the Seceders with being the first, who ever viewed the confession of faith as a term of communion. The Dr. undesignedly does them honour. For if it were true that the church never made her own confession of faith, a confession and profession of the faith of her members until the Secession did it, then they were the first whoever had correct views of the church’s confession of faith, or ever applied it according to its very name; and the use for which it was designed. Indeed, there is no doubt but their views of the confession were very different from those exhibited by Professor Dunlop. But that there was such an opinion as he represents, entertained by himself, and many more in the Revolution church, it is supposed no one will call in question.—The famous sermon by Ebenezer Erskine, and the rise of the Secession occasioned by that sermon, furnish the most indubitable proof that there were many erroneous opinions, entertained by the church of Scotland at that time. The confession, however, was a term of communion long before the rise of the Secession.
To obtain correct views of the confession of faith, and how it was used in relation to communion, we must go a little farther back, than thirteen years before Mr. Erskine’s sermon;—to a period of greater purity in the church of Scotland, than that in which Professor Dunlop lived. The Revolution church of Scotland, never was to be compared to the Reformation church of Scotland.
The approving act of the General Assembly of a church far superior in purity and faithfulness, to the present establishments in Britain, will give other views of the nature and use of the confession of faith, than those afforded by their time serving successors.
This act commences, with declaring a confession of faith to be the chiefest part of uniformity in religion, &c. It further states that the confession of faith agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster, had been duly examined, and found most agreeable to the word of God—and that the General Assembly did, after mature deliberation, agree unto, and approve the said confession, as to the truth of the matter, as most orthodox, and grounded upon the word of God—as to the point of uniformity, agreeing that it be a common confession of faith for the three kingdoms.
The new notion of its being a confession only for the ministers and officers of the church, was not then known.
The Solemn League and Covenant, and acts respecting it, will further elucidate and establish the point, that the confession was intended to be a term of communion, generally, and not to be confined to the ministers and officers of the church only. The first article of the Solemn League engages to this confession, and is not confined to the officers of the church, but embraces the common people of all sorts. The act of commission of the General Assembly, Oct. 11, 1643, did, by virtue of power given them by the Assembly, ordain, that the Solemn League and Covenant, be, with all due solemnity, sworn, not only by all the ministers, but by all the professors within the kirk, and that this be universally performed. The same decree obliges every minister upon the first Lord’s day after the Solemn League and Covenant shall come to his hands, to read and explain it, and by exhortations to prepare the people, to the swearing and subscribing thereof, solemnly, on the next Lord’s day—and that suitable censure, through the interference of the several Presbyteries, should be inflicted on such as refused to swear, and their names notified to the commission of the General Asembly. Was not this making the confession, which the Covenant embraces, a term of communion?[38]
It seems, then, that the Secession are not entitled to either the credit or the disgrace, of being the first who made the confession of faith a term of communion, the authority of Dr. Mason, aided by all the authority of Professor Dunlop to the contrary notwithstanding. Indeed, it was drawing too deep upon the credulity of his readers, to make such a representation.
The Dr’s. last reason why the confession of faith ought not to be made a term of communion to private christians, is taken from the nature of the thing, "it cannot be, in effect a term of communion.
But it does not appear, that there is any more weight in this reason, than in that taken from authority, which we have already considered. It never was intended, that all, to whom the confession is to be made a term of communion, should be able, either clearly to explain, or even to understand all the system of divine truth contained in it;—"a work which occupied for years the care and study of a body of divines, second to none in the world—covering the whole ground of didactic and polemic theology."—It is enough that so far as they understand it they are agreed with it; and hold no opinion subversive of its known doctrines. They are disciples. The church is a school, where they come to learn, and to be more thoroughly instructed in the knowledge of he doctrines of salvation. A competent knowledge, and a perfect knowledge, may be very different things, though having the same thing for their object. Might it not be difficult, sometimes, upon the ground of the objection, to apply the case admitted by the Dr. himself? namely, that the confession should be a test to the officers of the church.
With pleasure we admit, that Dr. Mason is a scholar and a divine. And with confidence we put the question to himself, If a perfect, or even a correct, and accurate knowledge of the "whole doctrine of those standards," were required from every officer in the church, how many of them could abide the ordeal? The Dr. is acquainted with many ministers in different churches, who, more or less, claim the confession of faith. Does he believe, that all these are proficients in the system, which "covers the whole ground of didactic and polemic theology?"—that they are all able "to grasp a work like this?—to distinguish its numerous propositions; and to fathom their sense?" We shall venture the answer in the negative.
There must be a discretionary power used.—Something qualifying as to the degree of knowledge. While it will be sternly required, that they hold no opposite principle, no contradictory doctrine. And will not the same principle extend to the private members of the church? The allowance may be greater, but the principle is the same. Whatever, therefore, be the force of the objection, upon the allowed principle of the Dr’s. own application of it, if it operates against us, it equally, in the nature of the thing operates against himself, and is calculated to set aside the use of confessions of faith altogether. [return to SERMON]
Footnotes:
[1] See Dr. Gray’s, "Fiend of the Reformation detected" Sect. VI. [back][2] Rom 3:22—4:11. [back]
[3] Sermon on the Eternity of Hell Torments. [back]
[4] Thomson’s Theol. Disc. Vol. 1. p. 56-57. [back]
[5] Turret. De Satisfact. Chris. Verit. Translated by [J.R.]Willson, p. 251-252. Philadelphia. [back]
[6] Plea, p. 227. [back]
[7] Ibid, p. 233. [back]
[8] Edwards on Free Will, Part I. Sec. 2. [back]
[9] Acts 17:28. [back]
[10] 1 Cor. 10:31. [back]
[11] The Two Sons of Oil, p. 7, 41, 42. [back]
[12] Deut. 17:6; 2 Cor. 13:1. [back]
[13] M’Leod on the Rev. p. 260. [back]
[14] The city of Rome, "Urbs septicollis." [back]
[15] Dan. 7:8, 21, 25. [back]
[16] Rev. 17:3, 6. [back]
[17] Rev. 19:20. [back]
[18] "Quem creant adorant," whom they create, they worship. [back]
[19] Rev. 12:6. [back]
[20] Ezek. 4:6; Numb. 14:34. [back]
[21] Rev. 11:3, and 12:6. [back]
[22] Rev. 12:14. [back]
[23] Rev. 11:2, and 13:5. [back]
[24] Dan. 4:16. [back]
[25] Numb. 32:13; Psalm 95:10. [back]
[26] Mason on the Church’s Happy Prospect. Glasgow, North Britain, 1813. [back]
[27] Dan. 12:12. [back]
[28] We do not decide positively. It is highly probable Britain will be the place; but it is a matter of little moment where. Wheresoever it may be, the effects will soon spread themselves elsewhere, and the consequent change shall shortly be universal. [back]
[29] John 8:24. [back]
[30] Reason of Faith in Scrip. p. 25, 26. Glasgow, 1801. [back]
[31] Page 351. [back]
[32] Page 353. [back]
[33] Ibid, p. 352, 353. [back]
[34] Ibid, p. 352-354. [back]
[35] Plea, p. 354, 355. [back]
[36] Plea, p. 356. [back]
[37] The Westminster confession!—He surely would be understood cum grano salis. Is there no alteration? [back]
[38] See also Act of the Commiss. of the Gen. Ass. for renewing the Solemn League and Covenant. Edinb. Oct. 6, 1648. Likewise Act of the Gen. Assembly, against Disaffecters of the Covenant. Edinb. June 3, 1644. Sess. 6. [back]
Return to Homepage