Twenty-Four Short Sermons On The Doctrine Of Universal Salvation Part 6

But instead of this, they stand aloof, even from the respectable, because they are poor, and instead of visiting those, who indulge in dissipation and vice, and trying to lead them to the paths of virtue and peace, are heaping upon them the most opprobrious epithets. By esteeming the rich and a.s.sociating with them, they practice a course of conduct, which has rooted the impression deep in every mind, that to be esteemed, and to rank with them in the social circle, they must be rich. This has driven many a virtuous man into crime, many into bad company, and finally into discouragement and intoxication. This no one can deny. What, we ask, is the reason, that there is so large a proportion of the middle and lower cla.s.s of society, compared with the rich, who indulge in _crimes and intemperance_? Why is it when misfortune falls upon the rich, that they, so often, resort to the intoxicating draught? The mystery can only be unriddled in the stubborn fact, that wealth, more than virtue, gives a man a reputation in the world, and this destructive vice involves thousands in ruin.

If every man were a.s.sured that, be he _rich or poor_, he could a.s.sociate with those who are wealthy and respected, and move in the higher ranks of life, if he only maintained his integrity, and that he would be esteemed in proportion to his moral virtues and mental acquirements, every man would be induced to merit a good name; and their good opinion would operate as a constant check upon his conduct.

Every man, by early attention to his deportment, can become respectable, but every man cannot become wealthy.

Did the rich esteem the poor, and admit them into their social circle _solely_ on the ground of moral worth, there would be but little danger of these poor ever forfeiting their standing, by plunging into the floods of intemperance and crime. And did they reject from their circle the rich, who were vicious until reformed--in fine, did they only strip away from wealth its fancied charm, to make them either respectable, or influential, did they confine it to its due limits, as being only necessary to satisfy our animal wants, and did they with one consent declare that an improved mind and virtuous worth should be the only criterion by which men should take their stations in social life, intemperance and crime would soon cease. Men would then be as much engaged in striving to merit a fair reputation, as they are how in striving to obtain wealth. It is, therefore, the conduct of the great by falsely attaching character and influence to wealth, that is driving their fellow creatures into crimes to obtain it, and other thousands into discouragement and intemperance. From this charge preachers are not exempt. They too respect, and visit the rich more than the poor, and thus indirectly lend their influence to drive them from virtuous life to a course of dissipation and crime. And when once they get them there, then they wish to devise some _great means_ to bring them back to the paths of sobriety and virtue. Do they endeavor to effect this, by ceasing to mind high things, and by condescending to men of low estate? No--but instead of going among them, and taking this unhappy cla.s.s of our fellow creatures by the hand, and leading them by encouragement and persuasion to the paths of temperance and reformation, they have, in substance, said, "stand by thyself, I am holier than thou." They have minded high things, by placing themselves on an elevation above them, and made them out to be worse than murderers, thieves and robbers, by ascribing all the crimes, that are committed, to the use of rum! This has discouraged and exasperated many, and made them feel that reformation would be of no avail to raise them to be the a.s.sociates of those, who appeared so anxious to reform them. Their language has, in substance, been--you must reform, give us the credit, but must stand where you are in the lower circles of life, obey our exhortations, and look up to us as your benefactors, but you cannot expect to rank with us, because you have no cash to introduce yourselves into our circles. And as all men desire society, they have remained with their companions in iniquity.

For any cla.s.s of society to take a station above others, and endeavor to force men to abandon the cup by pa.s.sing votes or enacting by-laws, that no spirits shall be sold them, is but exciting their rage, and causing the intemperate to drink the more out of revenge, and causing those, that are already temperate, to increase the quant.i.ty as an act of defiance. It is a fearful precipice on which we stand as a religious community. Estimating a man's standing in society by his immense wealth, or learned profession, rather than by his integrity and virtue, is attended with the most dangerous circ.u.mstances, as we have already noticed. Men cannot be reformed by force, nor by declaiming what a low, mean, unworthy, degraded part of the human race they are.

There is too much pride in our world. We ought to bear in mind that death will soon lay our heads equally low in the dust, and "the worms shall cover us!" O the folly of human pretensions to greatness! Let us not mind high things, but condescend to men of low estate. By preachers and people of all denominations obeying the exhortations of our text, mankind would, in a great measure, be restrained from crime, and certainly from being openly intemperate. If then, we sincerely desire to reform them, and to hold a powerful check upon their conduct, and prove ourselves the benefactors of our race, let us begin the work, by adhering most scrupulously to our text, which exhorts us to be of the same mind one towards another, to mind not high things, but to condescend to men of low estate.

It is the duty of preachers, in particular, to be meek and lowly in spirit--to be humble and watch over the moral maladies of mankind--to break down the arrogant distinctions, which the fashions and riches of the world have set up--to esteem men purely for their moral and intellectual worth, independent of the gifts of fortune, and to visit those, who are given to intemperance, and, by gentle persuasive measures, endeavor to lead them to habits of sobriety. And when this is effected, treat them according to that respect, which their virtues merit. G.o.d is kind to the evil and to the unthankful, and ought we to be unkind to them? Heaven forbid.

We have now set before you, what we conceive to be the _princ.i.p.al cause_ leading to _intemperance, dishonesty, and crime_. True, there may be some exceptions to this, but we are conscious, that it is the conduct of those very men, who are declaiming against _intemperance and crime_, that first drives their fellow creatures into those deplorable haunts of vice. They do this _indirectly_, and perhaps _innocently_. They do it by giving too much reputation and influence to the wealthy cla.s.s of the community, by paying too much homage and respect to gold, and by withholding, from the virtuous poor, that respect which their conduct merits. We cannot set this truth before you in a more forcible light, than by relating, from memory, an anecdote of Dr. Franklin, with which we will conclude. The rich merchants and professional men in Philadelphia proposed to form themselves into a social circle from which all _mechanics_ were to be excluded. The paper, drawn up for the purpose, was presented to Dr.

Franklin for his signature. On examining its contents, he remarked that he could not consent to unite his name inasmuch as by excluding mechanics from their circle, they had excluded G.o.d Almighty, who was the greatest mechanic in the universe!

SERMON XVII

"And be ye kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as G.o.d for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." Ephesians iv. 32.

A tender heart is the kind boon of heaven, and forgiveness is a virtue too little exercised in the common intercourse of life. Men are too apt to be in character Pharisees. They are too apt to love those that love them, and hate their enemies. Retaliation is inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel, and is a vice deeply to be stigmatized and deprecated by all lovers of peace and morality. By retaliation, we are to understand the injuring of another because he has injured us. This spirit of revenge betrays a contracted mind in which the feelings of compa.s.sion and forbearance never found a permanent abode. A man of a peevish, irritable and revengeful temperament, is to be pitied, instead of being injured in return. By retaliating the evil he may have done, you involve yourself in the same condition of meanness, and in your turn become the injurer.

All those men, whose names are rendered ill.u.s.trious and immortal, have been distinguished for a spirit of forbearance, kindness and mercy.

Were there no examples of rashness--no failings and imperfections among men, there would, then, be no opportunity to distinguish ourselves by a spirit of forgiveness. G.o.d has so const.i.tuted the present existence of his creatures, that the perfections of his divine character might be manifested to them in the unchanging exercise of his paternal compa.s.sion and forgiveness; and thus afford them an opportunity to imitate himself in the exercise of those exalted feelings, which emanate from heaven.

We are not, however, to understand that tenderness of heart and forgiveness are to be exercised to the utter exclusion of the principles of honor and justice. If our children offend, or our dearest earthly friend do wrong, we are to manifest the feelings of tenderness and forgiveness, but these ought not to induce us to overlook their crimes or faults, by remaining silent in regard to their vices. This would be suffering our compa.s.sion to degenerate into weakness. It would in fact be hardness of heart. It would betray a spirit of indifference to their dearest interest, as by our silence, they might remain in blindness to the demerit of their deeds, and hurry on to the ruin of their reputation, and consequently, of their earthly happiness. True tenderness of heart makes us watchful over the conduct of those we love, and with whom we are connected in life-- moves us to lay naked before them their faults, so that they may early correct them, and thus inspires their hearts with tenderness, and prompts them to regard the happiness, feelings and welfare of others.

It is immaterial how near and dear your friend may be, you should, by the feelings of mercy, be induced to tell him his faults, however much it may wound his heart. The wise man says "the wounds of a friend are faithful; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful." Too many parents, for want of determination of character, and for suffering their compa.s.sion to degenerate into weakness and remaining blind to the faults of their children, having seen them come to some disgraceful end--a state prison, or even the gallows. This, instead of being true tenderness of heart, was infatuation and the worst species of hardness and insensibility to the welfare of their offspring. On the other hand, we ought never to suffer a spirit of revengeful indignation to slumber in our bosoms, ready on every trivial occasion to awake into resentment and retaliation. In fine, we ought to imitate our G.o.d in feelings and conduct towards each other, as it is expressed in our text. But many suppose that G.o.d is filled with feelings of revengeful indignation towards his creatures, and that the period is rolling on when he will cease to be merciful, and will commence torturing us in the future world for the sins committed in this, and that too, when punishment can do no good to the sufferer--when reformation will be out of his reach. To torment a frail dependent creature, under such circ.u.mstances, would be the most degrading species of revenge. And if this is the conduct of G.o.d, then we must practice the same, because we are commanded to imitate him. Our text says--"Be yea kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another; even as G.o.d for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."

In this pa.s.sage, our Father in heaven is held up to the world as the model of _kindness tenderness and forgiveness_, that mortals are to imitate. G.o.d is the moral standard to which every bosom ought to aspire. The highest perfection and loveliness of man fall infinitely short of the intrinsic loveliness and divine perfection's of Jehovah.

If he is the standard of moral excellence which we are to imitate, then we must admit that the copy far exceeds the imitation. If man is called upon to act like G.o.d in order to improve his character and affections, then G.o.d is better than man, and every opposing objection must, forever, fall to the ground. Perhaps it may be said, that all denominations of men allow him to be so. This is not correct. It is true, they _say this_ in so many words. But words are one thing, and what a doctrine involves is quite _another_. I might believe, and most rigidly maintain, that an earthly father had prepared a palace of comfort for his five _obedient_ children, and a furnace of fire to torture his five _disobedient_ children; and suppose he had dealt with his ten children as above stated;--with what propriety could I step before the public, and contend that he was the best man in America?

Even were I persuaded, in my own mind, and firmly believed him to be the best man in existence, would either my _belief or acknowledgment_ make it a fact? No; every man of common sense, and common humanity would think me deranged. My saying that he was good, and even believing him so, could not alter the awful reality, but would be an evidence of my want of consistency and propriety. He would still be a bad unfeeling man, and in no comparative sense so good as that father, who should punish his children in mercy, and for their future amendment and benefit.

But what is all this compared with the character that thousands ascribe to the G.o.d, who rules above? It is no more than the drop to the unmeasured ocean: because those five children would soon cease to suffer; but G.o.d, they contend, will torture without mercy or end, millions on millions of his poor dependent creatures for the sins of a short life! The most abandoned, and unrelenting savage, that roams the American forest--the worst wretch in human form would not do this, but release, at length, the sufferer from pain. And those, who contend that G.o.d will not release, but on the contrary involve the victim of his ire deeper in who, attribute to him a character infinitely worse, than the most cruel and degraded of our race, and no argument, to the contrary, can be for one moment maintained. If a man desire the holiness and happiness of all his fellow creatures, and would bring them to a glorified state of beat.i.tude in heaven, had he the power, and still contends that G.o.d will not, it is elevating his goodness far above the goodness of G.o.d. And for any man to come forward with this acknowledgment on his lips, and yet address the benignant Parent of all, and, in prayer, acknowledge him to be the best of all beings, is only using words without propriety or meaning. There is no sense, no reason in such logic. It completely contradicts itself, and what is contradictory cannot be true.

Would you save all men from sin and its attendant misery if you could?

O yes, is the answer, I would, and carry them all in the arms of unbounded benevolence to glory. Well, has G.o.d the power to do it? Yes, is the reply. But do you believe that he will exert his power so as to accomplish it? No says the objector, I believe that he will sentence a large portion of his erring offspring to endless and inconceivable wo.

Very well; then you are the best being of the two. And it is a melancholy circ.u.mstance to these unfortunate beings, that you are not on the throne of the universe. If this be so, then our text ought to be reversed. G.o.d ought to copy your tenderness, and forgive men as you do! We are certainly called upon to conform our conduct to the best standard, and to imitate the _best_ being. If you are the _best_, then G.o.d and man ought to be called upon, and _entreated_ to imitate you!

No; says the objector, G.o.d is superlatively the best being in the universe. You may talk, and tell me so, till the morning sun sinks beyond the western hills, and yet your _creed_ will contradict every word you utter. What you have just acknowledged, unchangeably stares you in the face. You say, that you would forgive all, save them from sin, and raise them to a blessed eternity, if you had the power. This power, you say, G.o.d possesses, and yet you _believe_, and that he will not do it. It is certainly an unfortunate circ.u.mstance to the human family, if their Father in heaven is dest.i.tute of that goodness which you feel! From whom did you receive all those compa.s.sionate feelings of heart? Why says the objector, G.o.d gave them to me. But how can G.o.d give you what he has not himself? If you possess more benevolence than G.o.d, you could not have received it from him; because on this princ.i.p.al he did not have it in possession to give. Surely he could not communicate to you, or any other being, what he did not originally possess. From what source, then, did you derive so much tenderness and love? There must, certainly, be some being in the universe in whose bosom is rooted as much benevolence and love as you feel, or how could it have been communicated to you from another? Now, where did you get it? G.o.d gave it to me, says the objector. This cannot be, because your doctrine proves, that you have more love than the G.o.d who made you! If you insist that he has given it to you, has he not in such case, given you more than he originally possessed? He has. If so, endless misery may be true; for on this principle he has none left!

The scriptures teach that "G.o.d is love"; and all his works speak the same language--saying, "the Lord is good, and his mercies endure forever." But how good is he? The doctrine of endless wrath says, he is not as good as you. You are but a small stream from an infinite ocean of love; and yet this little stream is greater than the ocean from which it issues, and rises far above its fountain head! Can this be true? Impossible. O, do you not perceive how your own feelings, which you daily experience, contradict your creed! You feel, desire, and pray for the salvation of all men, and if you had the power, all your feelings, prayers and desires would be carried into execution.

And yet your doctrine denies, that G.o.d, the fountain, in which all your affections originate and live, will do it;--and at the same time you say, that you have no love only what he gave you! What inconsistencies, contradictions and blindness are here! Man, a small drop, from the benevolent fountain G.o.d, is willing to do, what the source from whence he came is unwilling to do! Then a drop of love, in the human bosom, is more tender and benevolent than an ocean in the G.o.d, who placed it there!

We all know, that the fountain must be more extensive than the stream it sends forth--yea, larger, than all its running streams put together. This we know to be correct, as well as we know, that the sun enlightens the world. Let us then collect these little streams into one. Bring, if you please, into one body, the love and benevolence of men and angels, of cherubim and seraphim--stretch your thoughts to unnumbered worlds, extract the love from countless bosoms, and condense the whole into one being. How great, lovely, and adorable, would that creature be! Then, let the question be put to him--from whence did you derive all those n.o.ble qualities of love, mercy and goodness? He replies, _from my Father G.o.d_! Now, we must grant, that G.o.d far exceeds him in goodness, because this n.o.ble creature is but an emanation from him--and the good desires of this creature would be equal to the good desires of the countless millions of men and angels in all worlds; and could have no other intentions only those, which goodness and mercy dictate--and goodness itself can do nothing contrary to its own nature, any more than ice can burn or fire freeze.

This creature would desire the happiness of all; and yet even he is but a small rivulet flowing from the crystal fountain of life and being! This creature would inst.i.tute a government _perfectly merciful_; and mercy would, of course, require, that the _disobedient_ should be punished to bring them to _obedience_, and perfect them in the same state of glorification and love with that being itself.

"G.o.d is _love_," and it, therefore, follows that he is _love_ to every creature he has made, and it is utterly impossible that he can do any thing contrary to his own nature. "He cannot deny himself." He will, therefore, do all that love dictates. It is consistent with parental love to punish for the good of its offspring, but not to punish unmercifully. But inquires the objector, does G.o.d punish for the good of his creatures? We will let Paul settle this question--Heb. Xii.

Chap. "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. But if ye be without chastis.e.m.e.nt, whereof _all_ are partakers, then are ye b.a.s.t.a.r.ds and not sons. Furthermore, we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence; shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure, but he for our profit that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceably fruit of righteousness unto them that are exercised thereby." Now show us, if you can, any punishment which G.o.d inflicts, that contradicts his paternal goodness. It cannot be done. He has threatened and inflicted _everlasting punishment_ upon nations, as such, but not a solitary pa.s.sage can be produced from Genesis to Revelations, where he has threatened any individual with _everlasting_ punishment.

G.o.d is the adorable fountain of all tenderness, love, and compa.s.sion, and no mother's son was imbued in the fount of mercy like his, who was "the brightness of his glory and the express image of his perfections." True, her yearnings over the babe of her bosom are great; still they bear but little comparison to him who breathed those feelings there. G.o.d compares himself to the mother. "Can a woman forget her sucking child"? Woman, being of a more delicate formation than man, possesses a mind susceptible of more fine, deep, and lasting impressions than his. The affections of her soul, when fully roused into action, and fixed upon their object, are deeper than those of man, extend far beyond the compa.s.s line of his, and n.o.bly range those sequestered haunts--those delightful fields of mental felicity, where his finest affections never penetrated. Let her heart once become fixed upon its darling object, and it is immaterial in what situation in life we contemplate her--whether prosperous or adverse, we behold the same unshaken constancy, the same bright and burning flame. Her love to her children is pure as the dew-drops of the morning, high as the heavens and unchanging as the sun. It scorns dictation, bids defiance to oppression, and never for one moment loses sight of its object. No disappointments that cross her path, no scenes of adverse fortune that darken her sky, can wrench it from her grasp, obscure it from her vision, or tear a.s.sunder the silken cord that binds it to her heart.

The truth of these remarks we see verified in that unwearied watchfulness and care, which she exercises over her children in supplying their countless, and ever varied little wants; in allaying their little griefs, in soothing their tender hearts by the soft whispers of encouragement and love; in hushing them to repose and in watching over the slumbers of their pillow. Are her children exposed to danger, and full in her view? Then no devouring flame, that wraps her dwelling in destruction--no rolling surges that lash the foaming main, can, in such a moment of peril, over-awe her spirit, or deter her from rushing into the very jaws of death to save them. Are they sick? Sleepless she sits beside their bed, and watches every breath they draw. Are they racked with pain? Her soul inhales the pang; and freely drinks at the same fount of agony, and breathes over them the prayer of mercy. Love is that _attribute_ in her nature to which all the _others_ are subservient. It is the _shrine_ at which they all bow, the _centre_ to which they all gravitate. If her children do wrong, she freely forgives.

Has G.o.d given the mother all these n.o.ble affections, and does he feel less to his helpless, sinful and erring children? Let G.o.d answer--"Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compa.s.sion on the son of her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet will not I forget thee."

[Concluded in our next.]

SERMON XVIII

"And be ye kind one to another, tender hearted, forgiving one another, even as G.o.d for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." Ephesians iv. 32.

In our last, we showed that that compa.s.sion, tenderness, and love of our Father in heaven, are the origin of all the sublime affections in the human bosom, and from this acknowledged fact, have shown that he is infinitely more regardful of the welfare of his offspring than the tender mother, with whom he compares himself; is of the welfare of her sucking child. We now resume the subject.

In our text, we are called upon to forgive one another, as G.o.d has forgiven us. In examining this point, we are to be guided by what he has revealed. The question here arises, how many does G.o.d command us to forgive? He commands us to forgive _all_, even our enemies. This then must be forgiving them as he does. He therefore forgives all. He commands us to bless them that curse us, and to pray for them that despitefully use us, and persecute us, that we may be the children of our Father in heaven. Does G.o.d command us to do more than he is willing to do himself? No, he lives up to his own command. If G.o.d requires us to forgive, even as he does, and then commands us to love and forgive _all_, then he loves, and forgives _all_, otherwise he would violate his own command; and then there would be no resemblance between his forgiveness and ours. Even as G.o.d, for Christ's sake hath forgiven you, so ought ye also to forgive one another.

Would you forgive all, and bring them home to glory? Yes. Will G.o.d?

No, says the objector, he will not forgive his enemies, but his friends only. Then you must not forgive all. Do you ask why not?

Because you are to forgive, _even_ as G.o.d. He is the standard you are to imitate. If you forgive more than G.o.d, you are better than he. He cannot command you to do different from himself. If G.o.d requires you to love and forgive _all_, while he himself will forgive only a part, then G.o.d acts contrary to his own command. We are exhorted in the text _to be kind, tender-hearted and forgiving even as he is_. Do your kindness, tenderness, and forgiveness extend to all, and desire the happiness of the universe? Yes. Then also does that of G.o.d, or else you are, in every sense of the word, better than he. You differ from, instead of imitating G.o.d. If so, you are doing wrong, because you are violating the text. He commands you to be kind, tender, and forgiving _only as he is_;--and you contend that his kindness, tenderness and forgiveness, extend to a part only, and that all the rest he will torture world without end.

But, says the objector, G.o.d is now kind, tender, forgiving, and merciful to all; but he will not be so, when they enter eternity, for "the doors of mercy will then be shut." How do you know that--who told you so? Will G.o.d change in some future day? If he change, he will not be the same being, he is now. I thought, he was the same yesterday, today, and forever, without variableness or even the shadow of turning. I thought he was the same Jehovah in all worlds. Do you intend to make him kind, tender, and forgiving _here_, but unkind, unforgiving, and hard-hearted to a part of his offspring _hereafter_?

If you intend to change both the nature and character of the Almighty in the future world, then you and myself are done arguing. That doctrine is, certainly in a pitiful condition, which drives its advocate to the necessity of changing the Almighty wholly into another being to support it. "G.o.d so loved the world, even when dead in trespa.s.ses and sins," as to deliver up his Son to "taste death for every man." And being unchangeable, he could never hate them. In our text, G.o.d commands us to forgive as he has forgiven. How many does G.o.d forgive? Ans. As many as he commands you to forgive. How many is that?

_All, even your enemies--to bless and curse not_.

We will now introduce the question--If G.o.d has not forgiven a man today, will he ever forgive him? I answer no, for he is unchangeable.

We are to apt to think that our Creator is altogether such an one as ourselves--that he loves one day, and hates the next--that he is in reality angry one hour, and pleased the next--or that he holds a grudge one moment and forgives the next, if we will only ask him to do so. But all such ideas are calculated for children--for babes in Christ. The scriptures come down to the weakest capacity; but this is no reason we should always continue children, but rise in knowledge to the strength of manhood. We ought not to be "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." Paul said to his brethren "when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you" &c. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

The Scriptures are calculated for every capacity--for a child as well as a philosopher. We must rise from one degree of glory to another. We are not to fasten our minds down on the inventions of men, and live and die children. No--we must "forget the things that are behind, and reach forward to those that are before." As full grown men, we are not to suppose that prayer of any mortal can move the Almighty to pardon him. But says the objector, if we sincerely ask G.o.d to do thus and so, he will certainly grant our request. Very well, admit this for a moment. G.o.d, you say, will answer every _sincere_ prayer. Now suppose two armies are to meet in battle, one from France and the other from Holland. The hour when the engagement is to commence is precisely one month from tomorrow noon. Every day, there are millions of sincere prayers offered to G.o.d to give them the day. Holland, with one voice, prays for victory and for the preservation of her subjects; and France, with united supplication, prays right the contrary. How, we ask, are all those _sincere_ opposing pet.i.tions to be answered?

Impossible. Again--one denomination prays for the prosperity of its cause, and the destruction of error. And as each believes all others to be in error, of course pray for their downfall. If the Lord answered their pet.i.tions, all denominations, of course, of course would fall! One man prays far rain, and another, that it may not rain.

If G.o.d answered all these pet.i.tions, he would be as changeable, not as _one man_, but as the whole human family together.

As it respects G.o.d's pardoning the human race, I contend that this pardon existed from the beginning. Do not the Scriptures declare that G.o.d chose us _in Christ_ before the foundation of the world? Yes, for "he calleth those things which be not as though they were." Well, could we be chosen _in Christ_ without being pardoned? No, for the apostle says, "he that is _in Christ_ is a new creature;" and, certainly, a man cannot be a new creature _in Christ_ without being pardoned in the mind of Deity. If then in the omniscient mind of G.o.d, to whom there is no future, they were chosen _in Christ_ before the foundation of the world, then in his mind, they must also have been pardoned before the world began. G.o.d never does a new act. By _pardon_ we are not to understand the clearing of a guilty man from deserved punishment, but an entire deliverance from a disposition to sin. The period, when we are to be released from sin, is through death, where the earthly nature, with all its wants and temptations to sin, falls, and the heavenly nature rises in incorruption and glory through a resurrection from the dead. Is not this the day of redemption when we are set free? Yes, so saith the Scripture. Well do not _redemption, remission, and forgiveness_ mean the same thing? They do. Then our _pardon, remission_ or redemption will be _realized_ through death and the resurrection. We will produce the Scriptures "in whom we have _redemption_ through his blood, even the _forgiveness_ of sins according to the riches of his grace." Here forgiveness and redemption are used synonymous, and are declared to be _through the blood of Christ_--that is, through his death, as a sacrifice for sin. Sin cannot exist beyond the sacrifice designed to take it away. He is represented as taking away the sin of the world under the figure of a _Lamb_. Sin will come to a finish, under the first covenant, exactly where Christ said "it is finished," at which moment the vail, concealing the "holy of holies," will be rent in twain, and the second covenant be opened. If we step beyond what Christ has said, we may as well give up the Scriptures, and trust to our own vain imaginations.

There sin will end; and that is _dismission_, pardon or redemption from it. "O death! Where is thy sting? O grave! Where is thy victory?

The _sting_ of death is _sin_, and the _strength_ of sin is the _law_ --but thanks be to G.o.d, who giveth us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Now, here it is represented, that our victory, over _sin and death_, is _when_ we rise to immortal glory. Our _victory_ over sin is at the _same instant_ with our victory over _death_; and who will deny that our _victory over death_ will be at the resurrection? The objector may as well deny our victory over _death_ at the resurrection, as to deny our _victory over sin_ at that period. The whole is said to be "through Christ." He was our "forerunner" and "first fruits" to represent our condition _there_. When he expired, he was free from _pain_, and when he arose, he was free from _temptation_. So when we pa.s.s the same scene, we shall be like _him_, who is our "resurrection and life," otherwise the harvest will not be like "the first fruits."

G.o.d, then pardoned the human race, _in Christ_, when he made them.

How? Ans. By ordering their existence in such a manner, that they should be freed from sin through death and the resurrection. That is the day of our final discharge--the day, when the prisoner shall be set free--the day, when our redemption shall come. But asks the objector, are we not to _realize_ our pardon in this world? Ans. Only _through faith_ in the _reality_. We look forward, and anchor our hope within the veil of death, and enjoy our pardon, or redemption, only by an eye of faith. This "faith works by love and purifies the heart." It causes us, in a great measure, to break off our sins by righteousness.

But this has no influence, whatever, over the sins already committed.

For _them_, we must still continue to feel miserable. Punishment is _certain_. From the sins that are committed, we only enjoy our pardon or redemption from them through faith in Christ the resurrection. Paul told the believers, that if there were no resurrection, their faith was vain, they were yet in their sins. This proves that they only enjoyed the pardon of their sins through faith in the resurrection, otherwise I see no force in his language.

But inquires, the reader, why do you pray that G.o.d would pardon our sins? Ans. I do not pray to turn the Almighty from his will and purpose; but humbly trust, that I spend my days in searching out what "that perfect will of G.o.d is," and then pray in reconciliation to his revealed will. It is wicked to pray what we do not believe.

"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." I believe that G.o.d pardoned us from the beginning, and that this pardon will be realized through death and the resurrection. And when I pray that G.o.d would pardon our sins, I mean that he would grant us an evidence of that pardon, which unchangeably existed in his eternal mind, by enlightening our understanding in the Scriptures of truth, and giving us correct views of his character as a Being of tenderness and compa.s.sion to the children of men. So when we say, G.o.d has pardoned us, we do not mean that he has been moved by our pet.i.tions to do a new act; but that through the appointed means, he has so far enlightened our minds, that we have received an evidence of that pardon which existed with him from the beginning, and by faith we look forward, believing it will take place through death and the resurrection, as Christ has proved.

By this faith we perceive the love of G.o.d, and break off our sins by righteousness. But while in the flesh, we feel a thorn--a h.e.l.l of conscious guilt for the sins we have committed, and though the penitent may beseech G.o.d, that this messenger of satan, buffeting him, may depart from him, yet the answer will be, "my grace is sufficient for thee."

We now perceive how G.o.d pardons sin, and yet punishes us for it. The misery, sin brings upon us, is our just punishment, and to be released from it, by the free grace of G.o.d, through death and the resurrection, is our pardon and redemption--For example--we say, in a cloudy day, "the sun does not shine;" but still he does. The clouds, just above our heads, prevent his rays from shining upon us. The change is not in the sun. The clouds disperse, and we say, "the sun shines," while in fact he is ever the same. The Scriptures say, "our G.o.d is a sun." He is unchangeably the same in all his brilliant perfections. "Sin like a cloud, and transgression like a thick cloud," rise over the mind and darken the understanding. Through this dark medium we look up to G.o.d, and think he has changed--that he is angry, and thunders are rolling from his hand, while in fact the whole change is in us. The moment our minds are enlightened by the beams of truth we rejoice, and say G.o.d has forgiven us. We receive an evidence of pardon, and enjoy it through faith, while G.o.d has remained unchangeably the same.

While we are children in christianity, we speak and act like children; and think if we join together, and pray as loud as we can as though the Lord were "deaf, or all asleep or on a journey," that we can prevail, and make him do as we wish. And while we are children, if we sin, we think the Lord is our enemy, and is angry. Now, this is all well enough for those whose experience has gone no further. We are not to "despise the day of small things," but kindly receive such an one as a babe in Christ, and feed him with milk. But still it does appear to be a pity that thousands, under the gospel, should live and die children.