Thy wife has been virtuous and faithful, and thy children a
blessing to thee.
And if he could add, I have gone about preaching to, and exhorting
large assemblies of people in thy name.
May not the answer sometimes be, And hast thou not been richly
rewarded by the incense of flattery and applause which thou
hast received.
Here, then, is no balance; virtue is generally rewarded in this life;
and, if the Christian is to look for redemption, is it not "by standing
fast and holding to the traditions which we have been taught," by which
we shall know that as all have sinned and fallen short, so we can only
be justified by grace "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;
whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,
to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,
through the forbearance of God."[34]
Footnote 34:
Romans, 3d Chap.
You may say that your idea of opening an account with the Creator was
only by way of illustration, but what does it illustrate? Is our
situation with our Creator such, that works are sufficient to insure our
salvation? and do you believe that if "in looking over the leaf and
seeing where the balance strikes,"[35] we should find it to be in our
favour, we may indulge in sin and iniquity until the balance is brought
to an equilibrium? Do not you believe in the efficacy of repentance, and
that the truly repentant sinner may receive remission of his sins,
although it may be in the eleventh hour, and when they are of a crimson
colour, or a scarlet dye?
Footnote 35:
Sermons, p. 45.
The idea is indeed cold and heartless; in sentiment most degrading, and
in its deductions most pernicious. How different from the inspirations
of the man of old, when musing on the sacred mount of Zion, or on the
banks of Shiloah's stream fast, by the oracles of God, he saw the dawn
of that auspicious day, when HE, our promise would appear to blot out
our transgressions and redeem us from our sins--and with what holy
rapture did he announce the joyful tidings? "Speak ye comfortably to
Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her warfare is accomplished, that her
iniquity is pardoned; for she hath received of the Lord's hand double
for all her sins. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son. Unto us
a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be
upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,
the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. The sun
shall be no more thy light by day: neither for brightness shall the moon
give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting
light, and thy God thy glory."
But this is not the Messiah of whom you preach: yours is like yourself,
a peccable man clothed with infirmities and liable to transgression; and
who, so far from having the power to give salvation to others, was
himself tempted to sin.[36] You profess to believe that Jesus Christ is
"the way, the truth, and the life," but in direct opposition to the
plain intent and purport of the sentence, you declare it only means that
he had power to cure outward diseases and give strength of body to enjoy
the good things of this life;[37] that for this only was he sent, and
his power was but as a figure or shadow of the great Comforter. But even
with this perversion, the facts you state will not support your
argument. It is true that Jesus Christ healed the diseases of
individuals; but surely no rational being can suppose that such was the
object of his mission, for the number of the healed was so small that it
could have had no perceptible effect on the general outward health of
mankind, or even of the particular people to whom he appeared.
Footnote 36:
Sermons, p. 253. E. Hicks says, "He, (Jesus,) was tempted in all
points as we are. Now how could he be tempted if he had been fixed in
a state of perfection in which he could not turn aside. Could you
suppose as rational beings that such a being could be _tempted_? No,
not any more than God could be tempted. Perfection is perfection, and
cannot be tempted, it is impossible." Here is an evident perversion of
the Scriptures; for we nowhere find that Jesus yielded to temptation;
and it is a most irrational conclusion, that because there was a
tempter he was subject to temptation; and so far from such attempts
evincing that _he was not perfect and could turn aside_; the
resistance and reproof of the tempter proves, (and was probably
intended to prove,) the very reverse. It is one thing to be tempted,
and another to yield to temptation, and E. Hicks could not have
forgotten that the authority from which he drew his account of the
temptations likewise declares that though Jesus "was in all points
tempted like as we are, _yet without sin_." Heb. 4. 15. By E. Hicks's
erroneous construction of the sentence, he could with equal ease prove
the fallibility of the Almighty, for the Scriptures in several places
speak of His being tempted by the people.
Footnote 37:
Sermons, p. 50.
You say you believe that the Scriptures were written by divine
inspiration, and that Jesus did nothing "but as he received power and
command from His heavenly Father;"[38] and these Scriptures tell us that
when the Pharisees began to reason and said "who can forgive sins but
God alone?" Jesus answered, is it "easier to say thy sins be forgiven
thee; or to say, rise up and walk? But that ye may know that the _Son of
Man hath power upon earth to forgive sins_, he said unto the sick of the
palsy, I say unto thee arise, and take up thy couch and go unto thine
house: and immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon
he lay, and departed to his own house glorifying God."[39]
Footnote 38:
New York Sermons, p. 97.
Footnote 39:
Luke, chap. 5th.
Here we have a plain historical narration, from which it is evident that
the sick was healed to convince an unbelieving people, by an act of
supernatural power perceptible to their senses, that Jesus was clothed
with authority to forgive sins. You however say it was a figure or
shadow, and as these terms are often in your mouth, it may be proper to
enquire whether you understand their true meaning, and whether by any
possible construction of language they can be considered as illustrative
of your view of the subject. They are here used as synonymous, and mean
_the expression of an idea by resemblances_: if I speak of persons in
the morning of life, I am understood to mean youth; and if I say, the
king of day is rising in the east, every body understands it to mean the
sun; and there are other figurative resemblances more obscure, but no
one can, without violating every principle of reason, attempt to adduce
as authority for, and illustrative of his opinions, expressions which so
far from resembling are in direct opposition to them, merely because he
chooses to call them figurative.
If indeed there are any individuals who believe they can perceive any
resemblance between your inferences and the facts; and that when Jesus
said he healed the sick, in order that the Pharisees might know that he
had power on earth to forgive sins, he meant it only as a figure, and
that he claimed authority only as to the cure of outward diseases; their
conclusion must be arrived at by a process which the uninitiated do not
understand: and if your argument is according to the _analogy of
reason_, it cannot be of that reason which arrives at the truth by
observation and deduction, but the reason of your new school of
metaphysics, which discerns _without reflection_ all things at first
sight.[40]
Footnote 40:
Sermons, p. 207.
Were you reading a letter informing you that a friend had departed on a
journey, riding on a black horse, and was told by one of your auditors
that the expression was figurative and that he meant a white cow, you
would probably laugh; and yet the incongruity is not greater than some
of your own discoveries. For instance, Paul said "let your women keep
silence in your churches;" and you observe that all who _are truly
enlightened_ will understand that the woman means the selfish spirit
which ought not to be permitted to speak in churches; but you have
forgot to tell us how to apply the succeeding observation that "if they
will learn any thing they must consult their husbands at home." Nor is
it probable that Paul, (although a bachelor,) was so uncharitable as to
believe the selfish spirit so identified with woman, as to render her a
proper emblem of it.
In this instance Paul was recommending a rule of conduct, and ought to
be allowed to speak for himself: so thought Robert Barclay, and in
accounting for the exhortation he has given the probable reason of it.
He considered it neither as an allegory or a figure; but he had not
arrived at that degree of spiritual knowledge which enabled him to
discover in every page of the Bible a meaning in direct contradiction to
the plain and obvious sense of the written language. Religion was with
him not an occult science, nor the Bible a caballistick book which can
never be read to advantage until the truths contained in it have been
previously revealed to us.[41] On the contrary, he believed with the
Apostle Paul "that these things were written for our learning," that
"the holy scriptures are able to make wise unto salvation, through faith
which is in Christ Jesus," and that "all Scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work."[42]
Footnote 41:
Sermons, p. 313.
Footnote 42:
2nd Timothy, Chap. 3d.