« PreviousContinue »
condition of pardon; agreeably to the words of the Lord himself: "He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved."
I am now to show, that James, in the passage at the head of this essay, is speaking of the evidence of justification. "By works a man is justified, and not by faith only ;" i. e. by works, as an indispensable evidence of his having true faith, a man is justified, and not by faith only, or by such a faith as is alone, and consequently dead. The only faith which is the condition of justification, is a living faith, a faith that gives evidence of its existence by good works. That this is his meaning, is evident from the connection. "Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works." Here he plainly represents works, not as the ground or the condition of justification, but as the evidence of it; or rather as the evidence of that faith which is the grand condition of justification. And again, speaking of Abraham, he says, "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect." Abraham, by going in obedience to God's command, to offer up his only son, made it evident that he had a true and living faith, such as works by love; his faith was acted out, and thus perfected by his obedience and selfdenial. Hence it appears, that James is not speaking of either the ground or "condition of justification, but only of the evidence of it. And in this sense, men are doubtless justified by works. Good works give men the only evidence they can have, that any one is a true believer, and so in a justified state. At the last great day, men are to be judged according to their works, as furnishing the proper and infallible evidence of their having been saints or sinners, believers or unbelievers. When the works of believers shall be made known at the day of judgment; they will carry conviction to all present, that their faith was such as worketh by love, and not such as is alone and dead.
Now, in view of the preceding observations, does it not most clearly appear, that Paul and James perfectly harmonize, in what they say on this important subject of justification? Paul does not deny that we are justified by works in James' sense: and James does not deny that men are justified by faith, in Paul's sense. Paul does not say, that works are not necessary, as the fruits of faith and evidence of one's justification: and James does not say that faith is not the great condition of jnstification. Paul does not say that men are justified by a dead faith, which is alone and James does not say that works
are either the ground or condition of justification. Paul was not an Antinomian; nor was James an Arminian. Though these apostles both treat of the same subject; yet they treat of it in different respects. Paul shows the atonement of Christ to be the ground, and faith the condition of justification; while James shows works to be the necessary and indispensable evidence of a man's having a living faith and being in a justified
(To be concluded.)
"On the scheme presented in the sermon, I offer the following remarks:
1. It is altogether gratuitous and false in its fundamental principle; viz. "We must be dedendent on God for holiness and God himself cannot help it." That we are dependent on God for holiness is freely admitted. But to affirm that we must be in such a sense as" that God himself cannot help it," is an assertion altogether gratuitous and false. Who can prove that God cannot create an agent and give him power adequate to his own perfect holiness? Who can prove that he has not created such beings; that our first parents were not; that the unfallen angels are not such beings? To say that he cannot, and leave the matter here, is merely begging the question. Let us have the proof. But this is not all. God himself is such a being; dependent on no agency, efficiency, or causal influence, out of himself, for holiness. The existence
· of such a being therefore must be admitted to be possible in rerum natura. This spoils Dr. G's assumption. But the assumption is false as to the fact. We have decisive scriptural authority that man, as he is now created, is created in the image of God. "Men made after the similitude of God."(James iii. 9. 1 Cor. xi. 7.) This must mean at least a resemblance in the constitutional properties or nature of the soul. Else how are men now made in the image of God? Dr. G. will not say that men are now made in the moral image of God. It only remains that they are made in his image in regard to the powers and capacities of a free agent. But man is not a free agent unless he has power adequate to holy action. The assumption therefore is false."
We copy the above from an article of about five columns in the N. Y. Evangelist, on Dr. Griffin's sermon in the National Preacher. It seems worthy of some attention, as teaching a doctrine which, we think, will sound strangely to pious ears. Dr. G. says, "We must be dependent on God for holiness, and God himself cannot help it." His reviewer says, this is "altogether gratuitous and false." If it is "false" that we
must be dependent, and that God cannot help it," then it is true that God can help it; i. e. God can bring it to pass that we shall not be dependent; in the language of the reviewer, God can give us "powers," adequate to our own "perfect boliness." If this means any thing to the purpose, it must mean that he can give us such power to be holy, that we shall no longer be dependent on him for holiness.
To prove this, he brings two arguments. The first is, that God is not dependent on another for holiness. This, we are told, proves that a being, not dependent on another for holiness, may exist, and this spoils Dr. G.'s assumption." The assumption is, that "we," men, creatures, must be dependent for holiness. How does the fact that God, the Creator, is thus independent, prove that man the creature may be? Can the man who writes thus have any proper sense of the difference between God and himself? God possesses creative power.May that, too, be communicated to the reviewer of Dr. Griffin's sermon? If not, we ask why the argument-God has it, and therefore man may have it—is it not as good in the one case as the other.
The second argument is, if possible, still worse. We are told, "the assumption," that we are dependent &c. "is false as to fact." What fact will this writer bring, to prove that God can make us independent of himself for holiness ?— Why, men are now "created in the image of God,”—not his "moral image," but "his image in regard to the powers and capacities of a free agent." This must mean, that we resemble God in that we are, like him, "dependent on no agency, efficiency, or causal influence out of" ourselves "for holiness;" i. e. we resemble God in not being dependent on any other being for holiness. This must be his meaning; for he says it proves the "assumption," that we must be dependent, "false.' A fact, relating to our creation which proves this, must be the fact, that he has made us independent. The "assumption” is, that "we must be dependent on God for holiness and God himself cannot help it." The reviewer argues that "man is now created" with such powers and capacities, as prove this assumption "false." The " powers and capacities," which prove this, can be nothing short of power to be holy independently of God.
Suppose that some unconverted sinner should read this review, and adopt its doctrines. Suppose he should say "YesI have power adequate to holy action independently of God. It is for my interest to be holy. I will, therefore, use the power I have, to be holy. I am not dependent on God for holiness. I therefore ask none of his aid. My sufficiency is of myself. He must indeed uphold me in being; but I will be holy by my own power, independently of him." And suppose he should set himself to executing this resolution: laboring with all his might to do one duty and another without God's help. Suppose he should, in this spirit, do ever so many things
prescribed in the Bible. What sort of holiness would that be? or suppose that any of the "unfallen angels," or any other created being, existing or imaginable, should take the same course-what sort of holiness would that be? Pause and reflect-what sort of holiness would that be? Does not the very idea of holiness in a creature, include the idea of reliance on God for all good, and especially for holiness itself? And why should that creature rely upon God for holiness, who is not dependent on God for holiness? No the created being, who says, "I do not need God's help to be holy," has, by saying it, taken the ground of a rebel.
We know this writer says, "that we are dependent on God for holiness is freely admitted;" but, keeping this admission in mind, what becomes of his "facts" which prove that God can make us independent of him for holiness? Certainly, if we are independent, then no such "facts" in relation to us exist, and his whole argument falls to the ground. Has he really two opinions on this subject?
We shall not undertake to defend Dr. Griffin's sermon. It is eloquent, in many respects able, and in some, we think, objectionable. Nor should we have noticed such an illogical, self-contradictory attack upon it, but for its staring impiety. Of this, we presume the author is not aware. We trust that he, like many others who do not know it, has two creeds :— one on which his soul lives, and under the guidance of which, he performs the duties of a Christian; and another, according to which he speculates, and of which the extract at the head of these remarks is a specimen.-Ver. Chron.
Extract from the speech of Mr. FREELINGHUYSEN, U. S. Senator from New-Jersey, at a Temperance meeting in the city of Washington, January 20th, 1832.
Let me ask one moment's indulgence while I add a word or two in reply to the great plea most frequently urged in opposition to the Temperance cause. I mean, among intelligent men and by many of high moral character. For there are many men of this class still against this cause, and their plea is, "We drink temperately; we are guilty of no excesses: we are our own keepers, and we intend to pursue a moderate course; what evil can there be in the use of that which refreshes us and harms nobody?" Sir, in view of what the Temperance cause may, if faithfully pursued, accomplish for our children and our country this plea always fills my mind with pain. The truth is, these are the very men who alone stand in the way of the progress and success of this great design. If the hopes of its friends be blasted: if they are to look in vain for the consumation of its triumph in producing here a sober people, that result will be
chargeable on those who denominate themselves temperate drinkers. Sir, the poor besotted wretch who reels and stag gers along the public way presents no object of temptation.Šuch as he, will never beguile our youth from the paths of sobriety. The loathsomeness of his person furnishes an effectual antidote to the effect of his example. And were none others but such as he, advocates for the use of ardent spirits, the mischief would die of itself. But it is the decent, the respectable, the temperate drinker, who comes before the eyes of our youth in the daily use of ardent spirits, the power of whose example surrounds them with an atmosphere that spreads a moral death. Sir, no man ever meant,-no man ever deliberately determined to drink otherwise than temperately. It is this resolution which has proved the Pandora's box from whence have proceeded all those baneful consequences which have filled so many early graves, and spread wretchedness throughout our land. Go ask the drunkard, as he staggers over dissolution, whether he ever meant to drink to excess. He will answer, "No-I never intended to drink but temperately. I never meant to be a drunkard. A drunkard! I abhored the thought. I resolved to drink temperately; and here I am, a wretched outcast from human sympathies. Lost to honor and usefulness here ;-and lost, I fear, to heaven and happiness hereafter." Sir, if we could hear the language which issues from 10,000 graves; if we could turn aside the veil and listen to the accents that proceed from the world of retribution; we should hear but one verdict from the regions of despair:-"It was the resolution to drink temperately, that hurried us hither."
Sir, we want a standard of temperate drinking. We want some safe-guard for our youth and ourselves. Will the mere resolution to drink temperately, think you, prove a sufficient security? Is there any father here, who can die in peace with no better safe-guard for his sons, than the force of such a resolution? Will any man tell me what it means? Is it to drink one glass, or six glasses, or twenty glasses? Is it not in effect to drink whatever quantity our vitiated taste may desire? This, this, Sir, has been the fruitful cause of all the woes and tears, the misery and despair, which have overspread our land. If I had a voice of thunder, I would peal it on the conscience of every temperate man. There are (so to speak) nine chances to one, that he dies a drunkard. Should any one here deem me to have made an extravagant exhibition, let each man make for himself his own calculation. Let him sum up the number of all he ever knew, who have been hurried to the grave by the effect of ardent spirits, and of all who, though liv ing, are now fast sinking under its power, and if the result is not a column of testimony, calculated to astonish the understanding and to break the heart, I will surrender the question. It is only a few weeks ago, since one of the friends of my youth, the fourth in the same family went down to the grave, a wretched victim of intemperance. Sir, what family is there among