But
the gospel can be obeyed or disobeyed, and therefore in it there is a
command. Hence, always, in ancient times, the proclamation of the
gospel was accompanied by some instituted act proposed to those whose
views were changed. Alexander Campbell, Restoration Movement.
Remission of Sins.
[153] Luther said that the doctrine of
justification, or forgiveness, was the test of a standing or falling
church. If right in this, she could not be very far wrong in any
thing else; but if wrong here, it was not easy to suppose her right
in any thing. I quote from memory, but this was the idea of that
great reformer [The reformer also said: "If the article of
justification be once lost, then is all true Christian doctrine
lost." Preface to the Ep. Gal, Phil, ed. 1800.] We agree with him in
this as well as in many other sentiments.
Emerging from the smoke of the
great city of mystical Babylon, he saw as clearly and as far into
these matters as any person could in such a hazy atmosphere.
Many of his views only require to be carried
out to their legitimate issue, and we should have the ancient gospel
as the result.
The doctrine of remission is the doctrine of
salvation: for to talk of salvation without the knowledge of the
remission of sins, is to talk without meaning.
To give to the Jews,
"a knowledge of salvation by the remission of
their sins," [Lu 1:77]
was the mission of John the
Immerser, as said the Holy Spirit.
In this way he prepared a people for the Lord. This doctrine of forgiveness was gradually opened to
the people during the ministry of John and Jesus,
but was not fully developed until Pentecost,
when the secrets of the Reign of Heaven were fully opened to
men.
From Abel to the resurrection of Jesus,
transgressors obtained remission at the altar, through priests and
sin offerings;
but it was an imperfect remission as
respected the conscience. "For the law," says Paul, (more perfect in this
respect than the preceding economy)
"containing a shadow only of the
good things to come, and not even the very image of these things,
never can, with the same sacrifices which they offer yearly forever,
make those who come to them perfect. Since being offered, would they
not have ceased?
because the worshippers being once purified, should have
no longer conscience of sins." [Heb 10:1,2]
The good things to come were future during the
reign of Moses and his institution. They have come; and a clear, and
full,
and perfect remission of sins is
the great result of the new economy
in the consciences of all the citizens of the
kingdom of Jesus.
The perfection of the
conscience of the worshippers of God
under Christ, is the grand
distinguishing peculiarity in them
compared with those under Moses. They have not only clearer views of
God, of his love, of his character, and of immortality;
but they have consciences which the
Jewish and Patriarchal ages could not produce.
[154] If faith
only were the means of this superior
perfection and enjoyment,
and if striking symbols or types were all that were
necessary to afford this assurance and experience of pardon,
the Jewish people might have been as happy as
the Christian people.
They had as true testimony, as strong
faith, and
as striking emblems as we have. Many of them through faith obtained a high
reputation, were approved by God, and admired by men for their
wonderful achievements.
The difference is in the
constitution. They lived under a constitution of law--we under a
constitution of favor. Before the law their privileges were still
more circumscribed. Under the government of the Lord Jesus there is
an institution for the forgiveness of sins, like which there was no
institution since the world began. It was owing to this institution
that Christians were so much distinguished at first from the subjects
of every former institution.
Our political happiness in these United States
is not owing to any other cause than to our political institutions.
If we are politically the happiest people in the world, it is because
we have the happiest political institutions in the world. So it is in
the Christian institution.
If Christians were, and may be, the
happiest people that ever lived, it is because they live under the
most gracious institution ever bestowed on men.
The meaning of this institution has been buried
under the rubbish of human
traditions for hundreds of years.
It was lost in the dark ages, and has never
been, till recently disinterred. Various efforts have been made, and
considerable progress attended them; but since the Grand Apostacy was
completed, till the present generation,
the gospel of Jesus Christ has not been laid
open to mankind in its original plainness, simplicity, and majesty. A
vail in reading the New Institution has been on the hearts of
Christians, as Paul declares it was upon the hearts of the Jews in
reading the Old Institution towards the close of that economy.
The object of this essay is to open to the consideration of the reader the
Christian institution for the remission of sins; to show by what
means a
person may enjoy the assurance of a personal and plenary remission of
all his sins. This we shall attempt to do by stating, illustrating,
and proving the following twelve propositions:
PROP. I.--The
Apostles taught their disciples, or converts, that their sins were
forgiven,
and uniformly addressed them as pardoned or
justified
persons.
John testifies that the youngest disciples were
pardoned. "I write to you, little children, because your sins are
forgiven you on account of his name. [1 John 2:13] The young men
strong in the Lord and the old men [155] steadfast in the Lord, he
commends for their attainments; [1Jo 2:13,14] but the little
children, the youngest converts, he addressed as possessing this
blessing as one common to all disciples, "Your sins are forgiven you,
on account of his name."
Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, asserts,
that one of the provisions of the New Institution is the
remission
of the sins of all under it. "Their sins and iniquities I will
remember no more." [Hebrews 10:17 ]
From this he argues, as a first
principle, in the Christian economy,
"Now where remission of these is, no more
offering for sin is needed. Hebrews 10:18
The reason assigned by the Apostles why
Christians have no sin offering is, because they have obtained remission of sins
as a standing provision in the New Institution.
The same Apostle testifies that the Ephesian
disciples had obtained remission. "Be to one another kind,
tenderhearted, forgiving each other, even as God for Christ's sake
has forgiven you." Eph 4:32 Here, also, in the enumeration of
Christian privileges and immunities under Christ, he asserts forgiveness of sins as the
common lot of all disciples.
"In whom we have redemption through
his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of
his favor. Eph 1:7 In his letter to the Colossians, he uses the same
words--"By whom we have the forgiveness of sins." Col 1:14
Figurative expressions are used by the same
Apostle, expressive of the same forgiveness common to all Christians.
"And such (guilty characters) were some of you;
- but you are washed; but you are
sanctified; but you are justified
- by the
name of the Lord Jesus, and
- by
the Spirit of God. 1Co 6:1
-
- Peter, also, is a witness here.
- "Seeing you have purified your souls
- by obeying the
truth through the Spirit. Ro
5:9
But there is
no need of foreign, or remote, or figurative expressions, when so
literally and repeatedly the Apostles assert it as one of the
adjuncts of being a disciple of Jesus. Had we no other testimony than
that found in a single letter to the Colossians, it would be
sufficient to sustain this position. The command as given in Col 3:13
assumes it as a principle. "As Christ forgave you, so also do you."
But in the second chapter Col 2:10-13 he makes this an inseparable
adjunct of being in Christ. "You are complete in
him--circumcised--buried with him--raised with him--made alive with
him--HAVING FORGIVEN YOU ALL TRESPASSES."
These explicit testimonies from the most
illustrious witnesses, sustain my first proposition. On
these evidences I rely, and I shall henceforth speak of it as a truth
not to be questioned, viz.; that all [156] the disciples of Christ
converted in the apostolic age, were taught by the Apostles to
consider themselves as pardoned
persons.
PROP. II.--The
apostolic converts were addressed by their teachers as
justified
persons.
We know that none but innocent persons can be
legally justified; but it is not in the forensic sense this term is
used by the Apostles. Amongst the Jews it imported no more than
pardoned; and when applied to Christians,
it denoted that they were
acquitted
from guilt--
discharged
from condemnation, and accounted as righteous
persons in the sight of God.
Paul, in Antioch in Pisidia, assured the Jews,
that in or by Jesus all that believed were justified from all things,
(certainly here it is equivalent to pardoned from all sins,) from
which they could not be justified by the law of Moses.
The disciples are said to be
justified by faith. Ro 5:1 By favor or grace. Ro 3:24 or by the
blood of
Christ. Ro 5:9 By the name of the Lord Jesus.
1Co 6:11 By works. Jas 2:24. It is God who justifies. Ro 8:33
Christians are said to be justified by God, by
Christ, by favor, by faith, by the blood of Jesus, by the name of the
Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God--also by works. Pardon and acquittal are
the prominent ideas in every application of the term. God is the
justifier. Jesus also, as his Messiah, justifies, and the Spirit
declares it. As an act of favor it is done, by the blood of Jesus as
the rightful and efficient cause--by the faith as the instrumental
cause--by the name of Jesus the Lord as the immediate and connecting
cause, and by works, as the demonstrative and conclusive cause.
Nothing is more plain from the above testimonies than that all
Christians are declared to be justified under the Reign of Jesus
Christ.
PROP. III.--The ancient Christians were addressed by the Apostles
as sanctified persons.
Paul addressed all the disciples in Rome as
saints or sanctified persons. In his first letter to the Corinthians,
he addresses them all as the sanctified under Christ
Jesus. "To the congregation of God which is at Corinth, to the
sanctified under Christ Jesus." [1Co 1:2] Paul argues with the
Hebrews that "by the will of God we are sanctified by the offering of
Jesus Christ once only." [Heb 10:10] "For by this one offering he has
forever perfected (the conscience of) the sanctified." [Heb 10:14] So
usual was it for the Apostles to address their disciples as
sanctified persons, that occasionally they are thus designated in the
inscription upon their epistles. Thus Jude addressing
indiscriminately the [157] whole Christian community, inscribes his
catholic epistle--"To the sanctified by God our Father and to the
preserved (or saved) by Jesus Christ; to the called." [Jude 1:1] "The
sanctifier and the sanctified are all of one family," says the
Apostle to the Gentiles. And therefore the sanctifier addressed the
sanctified as his brethren, and the brethren the disciples as
sanctified. But once more we must hear Paul, and hear him connecting
his sanctification with the name of the Lord Jesus. He says, "But now
you are sanctified by the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of
our God. 1Co 6:11
PROP. IV.--The
ancient Christians, the apostolic converts, were addressed as
"reconciled to God."
Paul repeatedly declares that the disciples
were reconciled to God. "When enemies, we were reconciled to God by
the death of his Son.. Ro 5:10 To the Corinthians, he says, "God has
reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ;" 2Co 5:18 and to the
Colossians, he asserts, "It pleased the Father by him to reconcile
all things to him, having made peace by the blood of his cross; I say
whether they be things on the earth, or things in the heavens. Even
you [Gentiles] who were formerly alienated in mind, and enemies by
works which are wicked, he has now, indeed, reconciled in the body of
his flesh through death. Col 1:19-22 To the Ephesians he declares,
that though "once they were without God and without hope in the
world, far off, they are now, through the blood of Christ, made
nigh." [Eph 2:12,13] He has made the believing Jews and Gentiles one,
that he might, under Christ, reconcile both in one body to God,
through the cross, having slain the enmity between both thereby. [Eph
2:16] ndeed, he represents God as in Christ, reconciling a world to
himself; [2Co 5:19] and so all under Christ are frequently said to be
reconciled to God through him; [Ro 5:10 1Co 5:18] which was the point
to be proved.
PROP. V.--The
first disciples were considered and addressed by the Apostles, as
"adopted
into the family of God."
This adoption is presented by the Apostle as
the great reason which called forth the
Son of God.
"God," he says, "sent forth his Son,
born of a woman, born under the law, that he might buy off those under
the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." [Ga 4:4,5] "And
because you are sons, he sent forth the spirit of his Son into your
hearts, crying Abba, Father." Ga 4:6 "You are, therefore, now sons of
God."
Indeed, the same writer, in his letter to the
Ephesians, goes still farther, and represents this adoption of Jews
and Gentiles into the [157] rank and dignity of the sons and
daughters of the Lord Almighty, as the great object contemplated in
God's predestination. "Having," says he, "predestinated, or
beforehand determinately pointed us out, for an adoption into the
number of children by Jesus Christ, for himself, according to the
good pleasure of his will. Eph 1:5 Another testimony must suffice on
this point. "Beloved," says the Apostle John, "now are we the sons of
God; [1Jo 3:2] and what manner of love God has bestowed upon us, that
we should be called sons of God!" [1Jo 3:1] "If sons, then we are
heirs of God--joint heirs with Christ." [Ro 8:17]
PROP. VI.--My
sixth proposition is, that the first Christians were taught by the
inspired teachers to consider themselves as saved persons.
Because of some ambiguity in the popular import
of the term saved, when applied to the disciples of Christ, we shall
define it as used in this proposition. I need not here descant upon
the temporal saviours and temporal salvations which are so
conspicuous in sacred history. I need not state that Noah and his
family were saved from the judgment inflicted upon the Old World; the
Israelites from the Egyptians, and from all their enemies--that
Paul's companions were saved from the deep, and God's people in all
ages, in common with all mankind, from ten thousand perils to which
their persons, their families, and their property have been exposed:
It is not the present salvation of our bodies from the ills of this
life;
but it is the salvation of the
soul from the guilt, pollution, and
dominion of sin.
"Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he will
save his people from their sins." [Mt 1:21] It is the salvation of
the soul in the present life of which we speak. And here it ought to
be clearly and distinctly stated that there is a present and a future
salvation, of which all Christians are to be partakers. The former is
properly the salvation of the soul, and the latter is
the salvation of the body, at the resurrection
of the just. There are few professing Christianity, perhaps none, who
do not expect a future salvation--the glory of salvation to be
revealed in us at the last time. Peter who uses this expression in
the beginning of his first epistle, and who invites the saints to
look forward to the salvation yet future, in the same connexion
reminds them that they have now received the salvation of the soul.
[1Pe 1:3-9]
Indeed, the salvation of the soul is but the
first fruit of the Spirit, and but an earnest until the adoption,
"the redemption of the body" [Ro 8:23] from the
bondage of corruption. It was in this sense of the word that
salvation was announced to all who submitted to the Lord Jesus, and
hence it is in this connexion equivalent to a deliverance of the soul
from the guilt, pollution, and dominion of sin. Having thus defined
the present salvation [159] of the soul, I proceed to the proof of my
sixth proposition, viz.; that the first Christians were taught by
their inspired teachers to consider themselves as saved
persons.
Peter, on Pentecost, exhorted the Jews to
save themselves from that untoward generation, by reforming and being
"immersed
for the remission of their sins, in the name of the Lord Jesus." [Ac
2:38]
Luke, in recording the success attendant on
Peter's labors, expresses himself thus: "And the Lord added, daily,
the saved to the congregation." Ac 2:47
Those who obeyed the gospel, were recorded by
Luke as "the saved." The King's translators, supplied out of their
own system the words "should be." They are not
in any copy of the Greek Scriptures. Such is the first application of
the words, "the saved" in the Christian scriptures.
Paul uses the same words in the first letter to
the Corinthians, and applies them to all the disciples of Jesus. "To
the destroyed, the doctrine of the cross is foolishness; but to us,
the saved, it is the power of God. 1Co 1:18 In the same letter, he
says of the Gospel, "By which you are saved, if you retain in your
memory the word which I announce to you. 1Co 15:2 In his second
letter he uses the same style, and distinguishes the disciples by the
same designation: "We are through God a fragrant odor of Christ among
the saved, and among the destroyed." [2Co 2:15] The Ephesians he
declares are saved through favor; [Eph 2:7] and to Titus, he says,
"God has saved us not by works of righteousness which we have done,
but according to his own mercy"--by [Tit 3:5] what means we shall
soon hear Paul affirm. Promises of salvation to the obedient are to
be found in almost every public address pronounced by the Apostles
and first preachers. For the Saviour commanded them to assure mankind
that every one who believed the gospel, and was immersed, should be
saved. [Mr 16:16] And, connecting faith with immersion, Peter averred
that immersion saved us, purifying the conscience through the
resurrection of Jesus. 1Pe 3:21
While the Christians are taught to expect and
hope for a future salvation--a salvation from the power of death and
the grave--a salvation to be revealed in the last time--they receive
the first
fruit of
the Spirit, the salvation of the soul from guilt, pollution, and the
dominion
of sin, and come under the dominion of righteousness, peace, and joy.
This is what Peter affirms of all
the Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and
Bithynia, to whom he thus speaks: "Jesus, having not seen, you love;
on whom, not now looking, but believing, you rejoice with joy
unspeakable and full of glory, receiving the reward of your faith,
the salvation of your souls.. 1Pe 1:1 ,8, 9 [160]
These six propositions being each and every one
of them, clearly sustained by the unequivocal testimony of God, now
adduced, and, as is well known to the intelligent disciple, by many
more passages, equally plain and forcible, not adduced; we shall now
engross them into one leading proposition, which we shall in this
essay consider as not to be questioned--as irrefragably
proved.
The converts made to Jesus Christ by the
Apostles were taught to consider themselves pardoned, justified,
sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved; and were addressed as
pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved
persons, by all who first preached the Gospel of Christ.
While this proposition is before us, it may be
expedient to remark that all these terms are expressive
not of any quality of mind--
not of any
personal attribute of body, soul, or spirit;
but each of them represents, and
all of them together represent a state
or condition. But though these terms
represent state and not character, there is a relation between state
and character, or an influence which state has upon character, which
makes the state of immense importance in a moral and religious point
of view.
Indeed, the strongest arguments which the
Apostles use with the Christians to urge them forward in the
cultivation and display of all the moral and religious excellencies
of character, are drawn from the meaning and value of the
state in
which they are placed. Because forgiven, they should forgive; because
justified, they should live righteously; because sanctified, they
should live holy and unblameably; because reconciled to God, they
should cultivate peace with all men, and act benevolently towards
all; because adopted, they should walk in the dignity and purity of
sons of God; because saved, they should abound in thanksgivings,
praises, and rejoicings, living soberly, righteously, and godly,
looking forward to the blessed hope.
As this essay is designated for readers of the
most common capacity and most superficial education, I trust I may be
permitted to speak still more plainly upon the difference between
state and
character.
Childhood is a state; so is
manhood. Now, a person in the state of childhood may act sometimes
like a person in the state of manhood, and those arrived at the state
of manhood may in character or behaviour resemble those in a state of
childhood.
A person in the state of a son, may have the
character of a servant; and a person in the state of a servant may
have the character of a son.
This is not generally to be expected, though it
sometimes happens. Parents and children, masters and servants,
husbands and wives, are terms denoting relations or states.
To act in accordance with these states or
relations is quite a different thing from being in any one of these
states. Many persons enter into the state of matrimony, and yet act
unworthily of it. This is true of many other states. Enough, we
presume, is said to contradistinguish state and character, relations
and moral qualities.
It is scarcely necessary to remark here, that
as the disciples of Christ are declared to be in a pardoned,
justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved state, they are
the only persons in such a state; and all others are in an
unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, unadopted, and
lost state.
When, then, is a change of state effected,
and by what means? This is the great question soon to be
discussed.
We are constrained to admit that a change in
any one of these states necessarily implies, because it involves, a
change in all the others. Every one who is pardoned is justified,
sanctified, reconciled, adopted and saved, and so every one that is
saved is adopted, reconciled, sanctified, justified, and
pardoned.
To illustrate what has already been proved, let
us turn to some of the changes which take place in society as a
present constituted. A female changes her state. She enters into the
state of matrimony. So soon as she has surrendered herself to the
affectionate government and control of him who has become her
husband, she had not only become a wife, but a daughter, a sister, an
aunt, a niece, &c.; and may stand in many other relations in
which she before stood not. All these are connected with her becoming
the wife of a person who stands in many relations. So when a person
becomes Christ's, he is a son of Abraham, an heir, a brother, or is
pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted and
saved.
To be in Christ, or under Christ, then, is to
stand in these new relations to God, angels, and men; and to be out
of him, or not under his mediatorship or government, is to be in, or
under Adam under. It is to be in, what is called "the state of
nature," unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, and an
alien from the family of God, lost in trespasses and sins.
These things premised, the question presents
itself,
When are persons in Christ?
I choose this phrase in accommodation to the
familiar style of this day. No person in a house, in a ship, in a
state, in a kingdom, but he that has gone or is introduced into a
house, into a ship, into a state, into a kingdom; so no person is in
Christ but he who has been introduced into Christ.
The scripture style is most religiously
accurate. We have the words "in Christ," and the words
"into
Christ," often repeated in the Christian Scriptures; but in no place
can the one phrase be substituted for the other.
Hence in all places, where any
person is said to be in Christ, it refers not to his conversion, regeneration,
or putting on Christ, but to a state of
rest or privilege subsequent to
conversion, [162] regeneration, or putting on Christ.
But the phrase into Christ is always
connected with conversion, regeneration,
immersion, or putting on Christ. Before we are justified in Christ,
live in Christ, or fall asleep in Christ, we must come, be
introduced, or immersed into Christ. Into belongs only to verbs implying motion
towards; and in to verbs implying rest, or motion in. He eats,
sleeps, sits in the house. He walks into the field; he rides into the
city. "Into Christ" is a phrase only applicable to conversion,
immersion, or regeneration, or what is called putting on Christ,
translation into his kingdom, or submission to his governmen.
NOTE:
NOTE: To prevent mistakes, I shall here transcribe a part of
a note found in the Appendix to the second edition of the new version
of the Christian Scriptures, p. 452.
"I am not desirous of diminishing the
difference of meaning between immersing a person in the name of the
Father, and into the name of the Father. They are quite different
ideas. But it will be asked, Is this a correct translation? To which
I answer most undoubtedly it is. For the preposition eis is that used
in this place, and not en. By what inadvertency the king's
translators gave it in instead of into in this passage, and elsewhere
gave it into when speaking of the same ordinance, I presume not to
say. But they have been followed by most modern translators, and with
them they translate it into in other places where it occurs, in
relation to this institution: For example: 1Co 12:13 For by one
spirit we are all immersed into one body; Ro 6:3 Don't you know that
so many of you as were immersed into Christ, were immersed into his
death? Ga 3:27 As many of you as have been immersed into Christ, have
put on Christ. Now, for the same reason they ought to have rendered
the following passages the same way. Ac 8:16 Only they were immersed
into the name of the Lord Jesus. Ac 19:3 Into what name were you then
immersed? When they heard this, they were immersed into the name of
the Lord Jesus. 1Co 1:13 Were you immersed into the name of Paul?
Lest any should say I had immersed into my own name. 1Co 10:1 Our
fathers were all immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
Now in all these places it is eis and en is clearly marked in
the last quotation. They were immersed into Moses--not into the
cloud, and into the sea,
but in the cloud and
in the
sea. To be immersed into Moses is one thing, and in the sea is
another. To be immersed into the name of Father, and in the name of
the Father, are just as distinct. "In the name" is equivalent to, "by
the authority of." In the name of the king, or commonwealth, is by
the authority of the king or commonwealth.
Now the question is, Did the Saviour mean that
the disciples were to be immersed by the authority of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit? If by the authority of the Father, for what
purpose were they immersed?
The authority by which any action is done is
one thing, and the object for which it is done is another. Now who
that can discriminate, can think that it is one and the same thing to
be immersed in the name of the Lord, and to be immersed into the name
of the Lord Jesus. The former denotes the authority by which the
action is performed--the latter the object for which it is performed.
Persons are said to enter into matrimony, to enter into and alliance,
to get into debt, to run into danger. Now to be immersed into the
name of the Lord Jesus was a form [cont on p. 163] of speech, in
ancient usage, as familiar and significant as any of the preceding.
And when we analyze these expression, we find they all import that
the persons are either under the obligations or influence of those
things into which they are said to enter, or into which they are
introduced. Hence those immersed into one body, were under the
influences and obligations of that body. Those immersed into Moses,
assumed Moses as their lawgiver, guide, and protector, and risked
every thing upon his authority, wisdom, power, and goodness. Those
who were immersed into Christ put him on, and acknowledged his
authority and laws, and were governed by his will:
and those who were immersed into the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, regarded the Father as the fountain of
all authority--the Son as the only Saviour--and the Holy
Spirit as the only advocate of the
truth, and teacher of Christianity.
Hence such persons as were immersed into the name of the Father,
acknowledged him as the only living and true God--Jesus Christ as his
only begotten Son, the Saviour of the world--and the Holy Spirit, as
the only successful advocate of the truth of Christianity upon
earth."
[163] Presuming on the intelligence of our
readers, so far as to suppose them assured that this is no mere
verbal criticism, but a discrimination that detects one of the
pillars of an apostate church, I proceed to another preliminary
proposition, which I choose to submit in the following word, to
wit:
PROP. VII.--A
change of views, though it necessarily precedes, is in no case
equivalent to, and never to be identified with, a change of
state.
In all the relations of his life, in all states
or conditions of men, we feel the truth of this; and I would to
Heaven that our readers could see as plainly what is of infinitely
more importance to them, that no change of heart is equivalent to, or
can be substituted for, a change of state! A change of heart is the
result of a change of views, and whatever can accomplish a change of
views may accomplish a change of heart or feeling, but a change of
state always calls for something more.
Note: State here has respect to the
whole person. It may be argued that state is as pertinently applied
to the mind or heart as to the whole person; and
that when the state of the mind is
changed by a belief of God's testimony,
the subject of that change is brought into as
near a relation to God as he can be in this life;
and as the kingdom of Jesus is a
spiritual
kingdom, he is as fit for admission into it, and for the enjoyment of
its blessings, whenever his heart is changed from enmity to love, as
he ever can be; nay, in truth, is actually initiated into the kingdom
of Jesus the moment his mind is changed--
and that to insist upon any personal act as
necessary to admission, because such acts are necessary to admission
into all the social and political relations in society,
is an over-straining the analogies between
things earthly and things heavenly. Not one of our opponents, as far
as we remember, has thus argued. We have sometimes thought that they
might have thus argued with incomparably more speciosity than appears
in any of their objections.
[Cont on pg 164] But without pausing to inquire
whether the state of the heart can
be perfectly changed from enmity to love,
without an assurance of remission on some
ground, or in consequence of some act of the mind prerequisite
thereunto;--without being at pains to show that the truth of this
proposition is not at all essential to our argument, but only
illustrative of it; we may say, that as Christ has redeemed the whole
man, body, soul, and spirit, by his obedience even to death--
so in coming into his kingdom on earth, and
in order to the enjoyment of all the present salvation, the state of
the whole
person must be changed; and this is what we apprehend Jesus meant by
his saying,
"Unless a man is born of water and
spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God," [Joh 3:5] and what
we mean in distinguishing a change of heart, or of views and
feelings, from a change of state.
[164] Lavinia was the servant of Palemon, and
once thought him a hard master.
She changed her views of him, and
her feelings were also changed towards him;
still, however, she continued in the state of a
hand maid.
Palemon offered her first his heart, and then
his hand,
and she accepted them. He vowed and
she vowed before witnesses, and she became his wife.
Then, and not till then, was her
state changed. She is no longer a servant--she is now a wife.
A change of views and of feelings led to this
change in state; but let it be noted that this might not have issued in a
change of state;
for Maria, who was another handmaid
of Palemon, and changed her views of him and her feelings towards him
as much--nay, more than did Lavinia;
yet Maria lived and died the servant maid of
Palemon and Lavinia.
William Agricola and his
brother Thomas, both Canadians, were once much opposed to the
constituted government of New England. They both changed their views,
and, as a matter of course, their feelings were changed.
William became a citizen of Rhode
Island;
but Thomas, notwithstanding his change of
heart, lived and died a colonial subject of a British king.
John and James Superbus became great enemies to
each other. They continued irreconciled for many years.
At length a change of views brought
about a change of heart:
but this change for more than a year was
concealed in the heart, and by no overt act appeared.
They were not reconciled until
mutual concessions were made and pledges of a change of feeling were
tendered and reciprocated. From enemies they became friends.
A thousand analogies might be adduced, to show
that though a change of state often--nay, generally results from a
change of feelings, and this from a change of views, yet a change of
state does not generally follow, and is something quite different
from, and cannot be identified with a change of heart.
So in religion, a man may change his
views of
Jesus, and his heart may be changed towards him;
but unless a change of state
ensures, he is still unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified,
unreconciled, unadopted, and lost to all Christian life and
enjoyable.
For it has been proved that these terms
represent states and not feelings, condition and
not character; and that a change of views or of heart, is not a
change of state.
To change a state is to pass into a
new relation, and relation is not sentiment nor feeling.
Some act, then, constitutional, by stipulation
proposed, sensible, and manifest, must be performed by one or both
the parties before such a change can be accomplished.
Hence, always, in ancient times, the
proclamation of the gospel was accompanied by some instituted act
proposed to those whose views were changed,
by which their state was to be changed,
and by which they were to stand in a new relation to Jesus
Christ.
This brings us to "the obedience of faith." From
the time the proclamation of God's philanthropy was first made,
there was an act of obedience proposed
in it by which the believers in the proclamation
were put in actual possession of its blessings,
and by conformity to which act a change of
state ensued.
To perceive what this act of faith is, it must
be remarked that where there is no command there can be no obedience.
These are correlate terms.
A message or proclamation which has
not a command in it, cannot be obeyed.
But the gospel can be obeyed or disobeyed, and
therefore in it there is a command. Lest any person should hesitate
in a matter of such importance, we will prove [In Prop. VIII-IX}
Restoration Movement
Alexander Campbell and The Christian
System
Baptism Index
Home
Page
Kenneth
Sublett
Counter added 9.11.06
