}

On Justification and Salvation.

9

tures, signifies deliverance from past sin, as is evident from the language of Peter in the Acts, (c. xiii.) "By him all that believe are justified from all things from which he could not be justified by the law of Moses." What were the things which the law of Moses could not justify? The spirit of that law amounted to this, "thou shalt not sin." Every man, therefore, who did not sin, was justified by the law; but every man who did sin was not justified by the law, because he had violated the law, and the law contained no power to pardon sin when once committed therefore it could not justify the man who had committed it. It is evident, therefore, that sin was the thing which the law could not justify, and consequently man remained to be justified, or acquitted from sin, by some other means. Now then, if sin was the thing from which man was to be acquitted, must not the discontinuance of sin have formed, at least, a part of the object of acquittal? If the Supreme Being had no wish that man should reform his conduct, why should be pardon, why should he acquit him from that which he did not require him to discontinue? And if he did intend that man should no longer continue in the practice of sin, and pardoned his past transgressions, in order that he might be free from past blame, why then it is evident, that virtue was the object of justification; and, consequently, to suppose a justification without virtue, without the anticiptation of good deeds, would be irraional.

The scriptural idea of justification is equally at variance with that which I reject, it being a deliverance from past sin by faith in the mission of Jesus, agreeable to the language of Paul, "wherefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God;" and a determination to lead a life of purity and virtue-which determination, if not carried into effect, renders justification itself of no avail. This is so admirably argued by James, in his epistle, that I cannot do better than give his ideas in their original language. "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say be. hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou

VOL. IV.

doest well the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness and he was called the friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

The passage to which your correspondent refers in the Romans, is at first perhaps imposing; but if he examines it attentively, I think he will perceive that it forms a part of a very close piece of reasoning, in connection with which it must be taken. Without going into the minutia of the subject, it will suffice our present purpose to observe, that Paul has evidently some particular object in view which he is combating. The church at Rome was composed of both Jews and Gentiles, and the Jews being proud of their own law, and prejudiced in its favour, boasted of it, and endeavoured to persuade the Gentiles to submit to it. The apostle takes up the subject, and endeavours to shew that the Jews had no ground to boast of their law, for two reasons; first, because they had broken it themselves; and, secondly, because the Christian religion had nothing to do with it; for, says he, "we reckon therefore that man is acquitted by faith, independently of any works of law :" or, as though he bad said, "we consider that every man, whether Jew or Greek, is justified or acquitted of his past transgressions by believing in the resurrection and mission of Jesus, without being compelled to perform any works under the Jewish law." That this was his meaning, and that when he spoke of the works of the law, he did not mean virtue independent of the Jewish law, I think is evident from the connected parts, and from the general tenor of his writings, for in the preceeding chapter he shews very forcibly, that it is right action only which is acceptable to God; and that it is not the bearers but the practisers of the law that would be acquitted. We must therefore admit that he could not apply his observation to virtue in general, or otherwise we must allow the much greater improbability, that he contradicted himself. The passage in Galatians is evidently to the same effect.

With respect to salvation by grace, a few words will in a great measure remove the difficulty. Salvation implies deliverance, and grace, properly rendered, is favour. The passage, therefore, in the Ephesians, should be, not "by grace are ye saved," but "by favour ye are delivered;" by the favour of God ye are delivered from your past sins, through a belief in the mission and resurrection of Jesus, and that deliverance is not on account of your own good deeds, but it is the free gift of God, so that no man can boast of his own merit." The passage thus rendered will have little or no difficulty; and if the real purport of the words grace and salvation be kept in view, they will be sufficient to explain most of the passages where they are used; and, as a further illustration, I would refer C. B. to page 117 of the first volume of your Magazine, where he will find the doctrine of salvation more fully discussed.

Before I conclude, I would notice an article in your last number, stating an objection to my opinion concerning heaven. The remarks of your correspondent " A," entirely rest on the supposition that I do not imagine Jesus and the prophets to exist on this earth; but I would inform him that in this respect he presumes too much-I allow that whereever they exist it may be probable we also shall exist, but I did not state where that place was, because, as the scriptures are silent, I cannot tell. If I supposed they did not exist on this earth, why then I must of course conclude that they existed somewhere else. But my opinion, as a speculative one (and I beg to be understood as advancing it on no other ground) is, that Jesus and his messengers are now in existence upon this earth, and will so continue until the time appointed for their second appearance to mankind. Your's, &c.

TIMOTHEUS.

DIVINE INFLUENCE.

To the Editor of the Freethinking Christians' Magazine,

TO

SIR,

NO sentiment is more generally entertained among religious professors, than that the Divine Being communicates to them an influence, similar to that possessed by the prophets and apostles in the times in which they lived. Hence it comes, that, in their prayers, they so often ask God to pour out upon them his holy spirit, to zend his spirit into their hearts, &c.

The whole of this doctrine is founded either on mistake or misrepresentation. God did, in an extraordinary manner," influence the prophets, the apostles, and many others, during the time he was making the revelation of his will to man; but this being completed, those interpositions of course have been discontinued. Men have now the revelation of God before them; it has been fully confirmed by the miracles which were wrought by Jesus and the apostles, and we are not warranted to look for any thing far, ther of a miraculous nature. 1 shall just refer to a few of the leading mistakes entertained on this subject.

Ist. It is said (Rom. viii. 9) "Now if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his." This is sup posed to mean, that if any man does not possess the influence, in some degree at least, by which the apostles acted, he cannot be a Christian. Now if men would be candid on this subject, they would answer the following question, viz. What is the precise thing meant when they speak of the spirit of Christ? If it is supernatural power, and if they, as they affirm, possess it, what proof do they give of the truth of their assertion? What sign do they shew that we may believe them? Can they shew any of those proofs which the prophets and apostles shewed? Can they heal the sick, raise the dead, or speak with different tongues ? No, they are weak as other men; they can see no farther into futurity, they are constantly erring, they cannot, without being taught, speak or read any language but their own. They give no proof of having any thing beyond the common gifts of God to men; and therefore their pretensions are at least very questionable.

2nd. The advocates of this doctrine contradict themselves, and contradict one another. They contradict themselves when they change their minds on any particular doctrine; they affirm that they believe the doctrine of their creed by the teaching or influence of the spirit; conse quently what he teaches must be the truth. But it is often the case, that important changes take place in their opinions, so that what they formerly called truth they now denominate error; and yet assert that the spirit of God has produced the change. Suppose then that the change has been effected as they say, does it not argue that they formerly were mistaken, when they so firmly believed themselves to be under the guidance of the spirit? and if they were mistaken then, how do they know but that even now they may be wrong?

But they contradict themselves also by praying for the

spirit; for if, as they affirm, a man cannot be a Christian who has not the spirit, and they consider themselves Christians, surely they must suppose that they already possess him; and if so, what do they mean by praying that God would give them his spirit? And they pray thus always, Hence it would appear that they never obtain what they ask nor indeed can they hope to obtain what they are not warranted to ask.

They contradict each other. This no one can at all deny; does the spirit of God teach some to erect national establishments, and others to oppose them? Does he teach some to believe Calvinism, and others to laugh at it? Does he teach some that God has decreed and determined that nine out of ten of the race of man shall be eternally damned, and others that the whole of this is gross absurdity? Does the spirit of God influence an archbishop to support the mockery of the church of England, and a Quaker to wear a broad hat, and plain coat, and to denominate the church of England the eldest daughter of the whore of Babylon? Does the spirit of God lead a man to rant and rave and talk nonsense, and act as if he were convulsed by a fit, or possessed by a demon? Does he in short teach the vari ous sects who lay claim to his teaching? If he does, then a fool may prove that he teaches downright contradiction. And if this should be denied, it must be admitted that there are a great many spirits, for truly there are a great many opposite doctrines believed by those who declare, (some of whom swear) that they have the spirit.

3rd.-Those who lay claim to such influence reject the use of reason in religion. Reason is one of the noblest and most distinguishing blessings which God has conferred on man; and on no account ought it to be undervalued ; yet the people who have the most to say about a divine influence are the readiest to treat this quality with contempt. Because they themselves are unreasonable in their religion, they despise every thing that has reason on its side. Hence you may hear an ignorant and unreasonable Methodist declaiming against the works of such men as Locke, Newton, Addison, and Paley, as not being sufficiently evangelical, although, as is frequently the case, he have not brain enough to comprehend a single page of the writings of such men. The scriptures command us to prove all things; but those people tell us that enquiry is dangerous, and that to examine any thing which is contained in scripture, is arraigning God at the bar of human wisdom. This one