THE
GOSPEL PLAN
OF
SALVATIONBY
T. W. BRENTS"Men and brethren, what shall we do?" - Acts II:37
"Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" - Acts IX:6
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" - Acts XVI:30EIGHTH EDITION
Gospel Advocate Publishing Company
Nashville, Tenn.
1890Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1874, by
T. W. Brents,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER III
CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER V
CHAPTER VI
CHAPTER VII
CHAPTER VIII
CHAPTER IX
CHAPTER X
CHAPTER XI
CHAPTER XII
CHAPTER XIII
CHAPTER XIV
CHAPTER XV
INDEX OF TOPICS
Predestination
Election and Reprobation
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
The Foreknowledge of God
Hereditary Depravity
The Establishment of the Church
The Identity of the Church
The New Birth
Faith
Repentance
The Confession
Baptism, what is it?
Who should be Baptized?
The Design of Baptism
The Holy Spirit
7- 14
15-49
50-91
92-108
109-145
146-166
167-188
189-208
209-233
234-248
249-263
264-392
393-478
479-570
571-661
663
PREFACE
A wise man has said, "Of making many books there is no end; and much study
is a weariness of the flesh." Why, then, should we add another to the "many books"
already before the public? It has now been all of fifteen years since we conceived the
plan, and, began the preparation of this work, only bestowing upon it, however, such
fragments of time as we could spare from other labors. Sometimes we rested a month,
sometimes a year, feeling by no means sure that we would ever finish the work, but
intending to do so if permitted to live until our head become sufficiently gray. Some
portions were occasionally given to the public as contributions to the Gospel
Advocate and in tracts, in the hope that they might accomplish some good, if the
entire work should never be published. A very general demand for the completion
and publication of the book soon came from those who read the portions published;
but we have deemed it prudent to "hasten leisurely" lest we might prematurely
publish something of which we would be ashamed in maturer years. When we passed
our fiftieth year we engaged the services of the publisher, and now, on our fifty-first
anniversary birthday, we are writing a preface, and yet we are not quite sure that we
are old enough to publish a book on a theme so transcendently important as the
"Gospel Plan of Salvation." Our highest ambition is to honor the name of our Master,
and direct sinners to the way of life; hence we would not, for any earthly
consideration, publish a sentence known to be untrue. We wish our book to live
when we shall be sleeping the years away. Yes, and live it will. This is the frightful
thought. LIVE IT WILL. A mistake from the pulpit may soon be forgotten -- should we
make a mistake in an article furnished a paper or periodical, it may be lost or worn
out, and soon pass away; but a book will live on, when he who wrote it lives only in
the work left behind him. How important it is, then, that every thought penned
concerning THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION should be tried "as by fire" that not a
single error should escape the refining crucible of Holy Writ, and make its way into
the permanent literature of the age. Had this responsibility been rightly appreciated,
surely many of the books now on the market would never have met the public eye.
But there is another side to the picture. While it is unquestionably true that much
mischief has been done by the publication of error, it is equally true that much good
has been done, and may yet be done, by publishing the
iii
iv
truth. Ceasing to publish truth will never arrest the publication of error. It will
continue to be published as long as man lives in a tenement of clay; hence the best
that may be done is the publication of truth with which, in some degree, to counteract
its influence. But for this the world would have been to-day overwhelmed in the
stygian waters of infidelity and idolatry; hence we would not erase a single
impression made by any truth ever given to man by any one who has written before
us. It is no part of our object to supersede any work that has appeared among us;
rather would we be an humble co-worker with all lovers of truth in pointing sinners
to the "Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world."
Every writer has a taste and a style as peculiarly his own as are his features or his
temperament; hence no two are likely to select exactly the same field of labor, or
adopt the same method of arranging the material used by each respectively. While
others have written upon some, perhaps all, the subjects treated in this work, we are
not aware of any single book filling the place which this is designed to occupy. While
it is directly addressed to the alien, we hope it will aid the young disciple in
obtaining a more extensive knowledge of the "form of doctrine" by which he was
made free from sin: especially will young preachers find it a valuable compend of
argument and critical authority in elucidation of many subjects which they will find
it necessary to examine. They will here find an amount of authority which would cost
them much labor and money were they compelled to get it from the original authors
quoted by us. Many of the works are out of print, so that only second-hand copies
can be had at all, and these only by importation at fabulous cost. We found it
necessary to pay ten, fifteen, and even as high as twenty-Jive dollars for works from
which to obtain the author's definition of a single word, which will be found in this
work. Many of these authors define in Latin which could not be read by the common
English scholar if he had them; here he will find only the English translation of the
author's Latin, which all can read and easily understand.
We have made no effort at elegance of style, seeking rather to clearly and
forcibly express as much truth as possible in the space occupied. We dare not hope
that every thought is expressed in the best possible manner; but he who reads to be
benefited will likely understand us, and for such readers only were our labors
intended. If we have not spoken as the oracles of God speak, then prove all things,
and hold fast that which is good. By the word of God we are ever willing that our
teaching may be tried. It alone can build us up and give us an inheritance among them
who are sanctified; hence to it we commend our readers in the fear of Him who will
judge us all according to our works.
T. W. BRENTS.
RICHMOND, TENN., February 10, 1874.
THE
GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATIONCHAPTER I
Are you "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and
PREDESTINATION
strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope,
and without God in the world?" If so, we propose to assist you in
arriving at a knowledge of your duty, in order that you may become
citizens of God's government on the earth -- children of God's family
-- members of Christ's body, the Church -- that you may escape the
punishment of the damned, and secure for yourselves the favor of
God and the bliss of heaven. But while our primary object is to
benefit the alien, it is hoped that a careful reading of our book will
be interesting and profitable to the babes in Christ. They should not
regard themselves as fully grown at birth, and therefore cease their
investigations; but they should desire and feed upon the sincere milk
of the Word, that they may grow to the stature of men and women
fully grown in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ. Knowledge
is one of the adjuncts of faith: "Besides this, giving all diligence, add
to your faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge." 2 Pet. i:5.
"Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in
remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be
established in the truth. Yea, I Think it meet, as long as
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in
remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my
tabernacle." Ver. 12, 13.
But before we proceed to look for the conditions upon which
aliens may secure the favor of our Heavenly Father, it may be well
to inquire whether or not there is any thing they can do that will be
conducive to this end. There are prominent doctrines taught by
those for whose learning and piety we have the most profound
respect, which; if true, render it wholly unnecessary, it seems to us,
to spend time or labor in instructing the sinner with regard to his
duty either to God or man.
That we may place these doctrines properly before the mind of
the reader, without any reasonable probability of misrepresenting
them, we beg permission to make a few quotations from the fountain
whence they flow.
"God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel
of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes
to pass." Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. iii, sec. 1. To the
same import we have the answer to Question 12 (Larger Catechism),
as follows: "God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the
counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own
glory, unchangeably fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass,
especially concerning angels and men.
Now, if the doctrine here set forth is true, we think it impossible
for man to err. Whatever he does, is in keeping with and brought
about by God's fore-ordination or decree, and therefore can not be
wrong. If he does any thing -- it matters not what -- whether good or
bad -- if God has ordained every thing, He has ordained that thing.
If it comes to pass that a man lies, God has not only ordained that
he should lie, but He has unchangeably ordained it. If it comes to
pass that a man steals, God has unchangeably
Predestination
9
ordained that, too. If it comes to pass that a man kills his
neighbor, God has unchangeably ordained that, also. It did come to
pass that Cain killed his brother: why, then, did God put a curse
upon him for it? It was not only in accordance with the most wise
and holy counsel of His will, but He had freely and unchangeably
ordained that Cain should do the very thing for which He cursed
him!!! Can any sane man believe it? God has said: "Thou shalt not
kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Ex. xx:13-16. As
God has thus plainly forbidden things which do come to pass, it can
not be true that He has unchangeably ordained them. That God
should unchangeably ordain that a certain thing should come to
pass, and at the same time positively forbid it, is an inconsistency
entirely incompatible with His divine character, especially when we
add to it the thought that He threatens the guilty with endless
punishment. Surely He, whose laws ever bear the impress of that infinite
justice, goodness, love and mercy which characterize their Author,
would not punish His dependent creature man in the rude flames of
an angry hell forever for doing that which He had unchangeably
ordained that he should do: "The Lord is good to all: and his tender
mercies are over all his works." Ps. cxlv:9. "The Lord is righteous
in all his ways, and holy in all his works." Ver. 17. Therefore when
the murderer stains his hands in the blood of his fellow, he can not
take shelter under the doctrine of the creed by saying that God, in
ordaining every thing that comes to pass, ordained that he should
kill his neighbor, and thereby avoid the responsibility of the act and
the punishment due his crime. It is true that the makers of the creed
disclaim the consequences of the doctrine, saying, "Yet so as
thereby neither is God the author of sin;" but they have failed to
show us
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
how His character may be vindicated from such a charge in harmony
with such a doctrine; and we are unable to see how God is not the
author of what He has unchangeably ordained should come to pass.
If He has unchangeably ordained every thing that comes to pass,
then how can man change God's unchangeable ordinance? and if he
can not change it, surely no blame can attach to him for any thing
he does. If God unchangeably ordained that a certain man, on a
certain day, should do a certain thing, then there is no power left to
man not to do the thing; for were he to avoid doing it, he would
have changed God's unchangeable decree, and therefore had more
power to change than God had to enforce. Is any one prepared to
assume such a POSITION as this? The reader will please note the
extent of the doctrine in controversy. It is not that God has from all
eternity ordained, but that he has unchangeably ordained; not some
things, but whatsoever cometh to pass -- every thing. Surely, the
ordinances or decrees of God are broken every day. He has ordained
that men shall not kill, yet they do kill. He has ordained that they
shall not steal, yet they do steal. He has ordained that they shall not
bear false witness, yet they swear falsely every day. God compels no
man to keep His ordinances, but He will visit upon him merited
punishment if he does not keep them. Paul tells us that "the powers
that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall
receive to themselves damnation." Rom. xiii:1, 2. How can any one
successfully resist that which God has unchangeably ordained? God
said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Jonah iii:
4. Here was a positive decree or ordinance of God that did not come
to pass, for "God saw their works, that they turned from their evil
way; and God repented of the evil, that
Predestination
11
he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not." Ver. 10.
Was not this decree changeable? God said to Hezekiah, "Set thy
house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." 2 Kings xx:1. Here
was another positive ordinance which was changeable, for Hezekiah
turned his face to the wall and prayed, after which God said to him:
"I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears; behold, I will heal
thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord,
and I will add unto thy days fifteen years." Vers. 5, 6. Here was a
decree concerning Hezekiah's death, which was changed, and his life
prolonged fifteen years, and the change induced by his prayers and
tears.
When David was at Keilah, he inquired of the Lord, saying:
"Will Saul come down as thy servant hath heard? O Lord God of
Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the Lord said, He will
come down. Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and
my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, They will deliver
thee up. Then David and his men, which were about six hundred,
arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they
could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah;
and he forbare to go forth." 1 Samuel xxiii:11-13. When David left
Keilah, Saul turned his pursuit in the direction of David's flight, and
did not go to Keilah at all. Had God decreed, from all eternity,
whatsoever comes to pass, it occurs to us that He would have
answered David differently; perhaps something after the following
style: "No, David, Saul will not come to Keilah, nor will the men of
Keilah deliver you into his hands, for I have unchangeably ordained
that you shall leave Keilah, and Saul will turn his pursuit in the
direction to which you go." This was what did come to pass, and
certainly God did not tell David what he had
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
foreordained to be untrue. Had David remained at Keilah, Saul
would have gone there; hence circumstances, and not immutable
decrees, controlled this event, even as they do most others. Other
examples might be given, but these are enough to show that God has
issued decrees that never have come to pass, nor never will come to
pass. Now, if it is true that God foreordained every thing that comes
to pass, then it follows that He fore-ordained the reformation of the
Ninevites, the prayers of Hezekiah, and the flight of David from
Keilah; hence when He said, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be
overthrown," He had fore-ordained, before time began, that it
should not be overthrown. When He told Hezekiah to set his house
in order, for he should die and not live, He had fore-ordained that
he should live fifteen years longer. And when He told David that
Saul would come to Keilah, and that the men of Keilah would
deliver him and his men to Saul, was it not telling him that events
should happen which He had unchangeably ordained to be
otherwise? How such a theory is to be harmonized with the word of the
Lord, we know not.
By the mouth of his prophet, the Lord said (Jer. xviii:7-10): "At
what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a
kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that
nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will
repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what
instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom,
to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my
voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would
benefit them." Here we see the same law obtains as to nations that
we have seen applied to cities and individuals. If they, having done
evil, turn from
Predestination
13
the evil, then the Lord proposes to turn from the evil which He
purposes doing to them; on the contrary, if they persist in
disobedience, they will suffer the consequences, even to
extermination. Hence circumstances have ever varied God's dealings
with men.
Again: "God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the
earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made
man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Gen. vi:5, 6. Now,
if the Lord fore-ordained every thing that comes to pass, He fore-
ordained every thing the antediluvians did: why, then, should He
grieve over their wickedness, when every act was but the
consummation of His own immutable and eternal decree? Really, it
would seem like God grieving over His own folly.
The Lord said that the children of Judah had "built again the
high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom,
to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I
commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." Jer vii:31.
"They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons
with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor
spake it, neither came it into my mind." Jer xix:5. If God fore-
ordained every thing, He fore-ordained these things, for they came
to pass; yet He says He did not command them, nor speak them,
neither came they into His mind. Will the advocates of the doctrine
please to enlighten the world as to how God fore-ordained things
which never entered His mind? But we will not press the argument
further. If the doctrine be true, the whole theory of sin,
accountability, rewards, and punishments, in harmony with justice
and mercy, is to us utterly incomprehensible. Every act of man is but
carrying out the immutable purposes of Jehovah; and when He gives
a man a law, He
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
does it expressly that he may violate it, so as to furnish a pretext for
the punishment previously ordained for him. Take the sin of Adam
as an example: God made him and placed him under law. It came to
pass that he violated this law. He ate of the fruit whereof God
commanded him not to eat. If God fore-ordained whatsoever comes
to pass, then of course He fore-ordained that he should eat. Hence
Adam was in a strait between the law and the unchangeable
ordination or decree. It came to pass that he eat; therefore God
ordained that he should eat. The law said he should not eat. One or
the other must be broken. He must eat and violate the law; or not
eat, and change God's unchangeable decree. This was impossible:
hence to eat and violate the law was a necessity; and yet God would
punish him for it!! Surely, such a theory is at war with the
Bible -- with all reason and common sense -- as well as a reproach
upon the character of our Heavenly Father. But able and learned
men have taught it, good and true men believe it; therefore we must
treat it respectfully, yet examine it fairly, patiently, and thoroughly.
CHAPTER II
We come now to examine the subject of unconditional
ELECTION AND REPROBATION
election and reprobation; and that we may see the
doctrine in its purity, we beg permission to quote again from the
creed: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory,
some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and
others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus
predestinated and fore-ordained are particularly and unchangeably
designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it can not
be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are
predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was
laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose and the secret
counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto
everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any
foresight of faith or good works or perseverance in either of them, or
any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him
thereunto." Confession of Faith, chap. 3, sees. 3, 4, 5.
It is quite easy to see that the doctrine of unconditional election
and reprobation is true if the doctrine of unchangeable fore-
ordination obtains as to every thing that comes to pass, unless we
find relief in the more ample folds of Universalism. If God has
unchangeably fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass, then of
course He has fore-ordained
15
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
just who shall be saved, and who, if any, shall be lost; and if He has
unchangeably fixed the destiny of every man before time began
without any conditions whatever, then Calvinism or Universalism
must be true. But we think we have seen that God did not so ordain
every thing, and hence this doctrine can not support either of the
others. If either stands at all, it must be proved by other testimony.
For the present, then, we propose to inquire whether or not God has
unconditionally and unchangeably fixed the destiny of a definite
number of two classes -- the elect and the reprobate.
And first, we remark that the words elect, elected, election,
reprobate and reprobates, are Bible terms; hence there must be a
Bible doctrine concerning them. Elect means to choose; hence the
elect of God are God's chosen. God has elected persons, families,
nations, and bodies or organizations in different ages of the world,
for the benefit of his creatures, but the final salvation and happiness
of the elected were by no means secured by their election. On the
contrary, God's elect have to "work out their own salvation with fear
and trembling." Phil. ii:12. Hence in very many instances they have
sinned and fallen far from the favor of God, and often forfeited the
positions to which they were elected. But to comprehend the whole
subject we must inquire who were elected and for what purposes;
then we may be able to see what effect, if any, their election had
upon their final destiny.
"Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my
soul delighteth; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth
judgment to the Gentiles; he shall not cry nor lift up, nor cause his
voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break,
and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth
judgment unto truth." Isa. xlii:1-3. That the servant
Election And Reprobation
17
of God here called His elect was Jesus the Christ may be seen by
reference to Matt. xii:17-21, where this prophecy is quoted by Jesus
as fulfilled in himself. Surely, it will be admitted that Jesus was not
elected to secure His own salvation, but to be the Saviour of men.
"Wherefore also it is contained in Scripture, Behold I lay in Zion a
chief corner-stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him
shall not be confounded." 1 Pet. ii:6. Here Jesus is represented as the
elect corner-stone of the church, on whom others believe to their
salvation. But we are more concerned in examining the election of
men, as individuals, collective bodies, and nations.
Abraham was elected of God to be the father of the faithful, in
whose seed all families of the earth were to be blessed in Jesus
Christ. Gal. iii:16. But as Abraham had more sons than one, it was
necessary that an election take place in his family, for Ishmael and
Isaac could not both be the father of the family from which Jesus the
promised seed should come; hence God said, "In Isaac shall thy
seed be called." Gen. xxi:12; Rom ix:7. Isaac had two sons, Esau
and Jacob, both of whom could not be the father of the royal family;
hence God said, "Thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have
chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend." Isa. xli:8. Jacob had twelve
sons; Judah was elected. And so election has been a necessity all the
way from Abraham to Jesus the promised seed -- not to benefit the
elected exclusively, but to benefit the world through them.
When God determined to deliver the children of Israel from
Egyptian bondage, He elected Moses for their leader and lawgiver:
"Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his
chosen stood before him." Ps. cvi:23. But Aaron was elected as
speaker for Moses; hence "He sent Moses his servant and Aaron
whom he
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
had chosen." Ps. cv:26. Notwithstanding Moses and Aaron were
elected -- chosen of God to conduct the Hebrews from Egypt to
Canaan, a type of the final home of the righteous; and Moses was
the Jewish lawgiver, in this respect a type of Christ our lawgiver; and
Aaron was anointed high priest, in this respect a type of Christ our
High Priest; and he was permitted to enter the most holy place,
which was typical of heaven, where Jesus our High Priest hath for
us entered -- yet they both sinned, and incurred the displeasure of
God, in consequence of which neither of them were permitted to
enter the land of Canaan, the type of the Christian's home in heaven.
"And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, because ye believed
me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore
ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given
them." Num. xx:12. Concerning this decree, Moses said: "The Lord
was angry with me for your sakes, and sware that I should not go
over Jordan, and that I should not go in unto that good land, which
the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance: but I must die in
this land, I must not go over Jordan: but ye shall go over, and
possess that good land." Deut. iv:21, 22. After taking Moses to the
top of Pisgah and showing him the beauties of the land, the Lord
said to him: "This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto
Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed; I have
caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over
thither. So Moses, the servant of the Lord died there in the land of
Moab, according to the word of the Lord." Deut. xxxiv:4, 5.
Aaron and his sons were not only elected, but consecrated and
anointed priests of God, and officiated in that most sacred office for
themselves and the people. In the eighth chapter of Leviticus may be
found an account of
Election And Reprobation
19
the grand and sublime ceremony with which they were inducted into
that holy office. Thus the male portion of a family were elected and
inducted into the priesthood; and what became of them? The Lord
said: "Aaron, shall be gathered unto his people, for he shall not
enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel,
because ye rebelled against my word at the water of Meribah. Take
Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up unto Mount Hor; and
strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son, and
Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there. And
Moses did as the Lord commanded: and they went up into Mount
Hor in sight of all the congregation. And Moses stripped Aaron of
his garments and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died
there in the top of the mount." Num. xx:24 to 28. "Nadab and
Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put
fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before
the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire
from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord."
Lev. x:1, 2. Now, if the doctrine of eternal unconditional election
and reprobation be true, to which class did Nadab and Abihu
belong? The destiny of all being unalterably fixed before time
began, it follows that these were of the eternally elect, or of the
eternally reprobate. Did God elect them of the non-elect, or
eternally reprobate, and anoint them priests to officiate in the
tabernacle, having previously determined upon their destruction,
and unchangeably fore-ordained the wickedness for which He
intended to kill them? Or were they of the eternally elect, and their
interest in heaven made sure before the foundation of the world,
and God killed them for wickedness which he had unchangeably
fore-ordained they should do, that he might take them home to
glory? Is it not
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
more rational to conclude that God elected them, anointed and
consecrated them priests, intending to be with and bless them as
long as they were faithful to Him, and punish them when they
forsook Him; and that their unhappy end was the result of their own
voluntary rebellion against the law of the Lord?
God elected Saul to be the first king over Israel. He told Samuel
how he might know him; and having presented him to the people,
"Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the Lord hath
chosen, that there is none like him among all the people? And all
the people shouted and said, God save the king." 1 Sam. x 24. He
not only elected him, but he gave him the spirit of prophecy, and
when "a company of the priests met him, the Spirit of God came
upon him, and he prophesied among them." 1 Sam. x:10. Nor was
this all, but he sacredly anointed him to reign over his people.
"Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and
kissed him, and said, Is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee
to be captain over his inheritance?" 1 Sam. x:1. The Lord was with
and prospered him in battle, as long as he was faithful to Him, but
when he disobeyed him, Samuel said: "hath the Lord as great
delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of
the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken
than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and
stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected
the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king."
1 Sam. xv:22, 23. Will the reader observe the fact that he was
rejected, not because God had eternally reprobated him, or
unchangeably fore-ordained his rejection, but because he rejected
the word of the Lord. From all these examples we learn that when
God elected any one to any position however important, it did not
unconditionally secure for
Election And Reprobation
21
him an entrance into the climes of endless bliss, or even a
continuance in the office to which he was elected; but on the
contrary the general principle is quite apparent that He blessed and
prospered him as long as he continued faithful to His will, and failed
not to punish and reject him when he rebelled against Him.
Thus far we have seen individuals in the age of types and
shadows elected to peculiar privileges, for the benefit of themselves
and others; and we have seen many of the elect perish on account
of their sins, and the time would fail us to record all the cases which
illustrate these principles in the government of God; we come now
to look for the election of nations and bodies to religious
promotion on the same principles.
One of the first promises made to Abraham by the Lord was: "I
will make of thee a great nation, and will bless thee, and make thy
name great; and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that
bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all
families of the earth be blessed." Gen. xii:2 3. In due time God gave
Abraham a son, Isaac, to whose wife Rebecca the Lord said: "Two
nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be
separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger
than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger." Gen.
xxv:23. As we will have occasion to notice this passage again, it is
sufficient here to remark that this was said to her concerning Jacob
and Esau, as the representatives of two nations which were to
descend from her through them, one of which was to be stronger
than the other and bear rule over it; and this was "that the purpose
of God according to election might stand." Rom. ix:11. Thus we find
that the descendants of Jacob were elected the national family of
God; hence he said: "O Jacob, my servant; and Israel, whom I have
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
chosen." Isa. xliv:1. "For Jacob my servant's sake and Israel mine
elect." Isa. xlv:4. God changed the name of Abram to Abraham,
because He made him the father of many nations. Gen. xvii:5. He
also changed the name of Jacob to Israel, saying: "Thy name shall
be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power
with God and with men, and hast prevailed." Gen. xxxii:28.
Henceforth the descendants of Jacob were called the "children of
Israel;" and very often only Israel, the adopted name of their
illustrious progenitor -- an example of which Paul gives, Rom. x:1:
"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they
might be saved." These God clearly recognized as His people. When
He appeared to Moses for the purpose of sending him to deliver
them, He said: "I have surely seen the affliction of my people which
are in Egypt." Ex. iii:7. And verse 10, he says: "Come now therefore,
and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my
people the children of Israel out of Egypt." Moses said to them:
"The Lord hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron
furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance,
as ye are this day." Deut. iv:20. Again: "Because he loved thy
fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought them
out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt." Deut. iv:37.
"The Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose
their seed after them, even you above all people." Deut. x:15. "For
thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath
chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the
nations that are upon the earth." Deut. xiv:2. "For thou art an holy
people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God had chosen thee
to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon
the face of the earth. The Lord did not set his love upon
Election And Reprobation
23
you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any
people; for ye were the fewest of all people: but because the Lord
loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn
unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty
hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the
hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." Deut. vii:6-8. Though we are here
to prove that those children of Israel were the elect people of God
in that age of the world, yet in passing we may note the additional
fact apparent in the last quotation, that He loved them, not because
they were elected from all eternity as individuals; nor did He elect
them because He loved them personally "before the foundation of
the world was laid," but because He loved their fathers and had
entered into a covenant with them; and He refers their election to a
time when they had, not only an individual and personal, but a
national existence, and were few in number compared with other
nations, associating it with the time of their deliverance from
Egyptian bondage. We need not refer the reader to other
recognitions of the Israelites as the national family of God, but it is
necessary to our purpose that we note one other fact, which is, that
they constituted the church in that dispensation; hence says
Stephen, concerning Moses: "This is he, that was in the church in
the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina,
and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto
us." Acts vii:38 Paul mentions some of the eminent privileges of
these people: "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption,
and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the
service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of
whom as concerning the flesh Christ came." Rom. ix:4, 5. Next we
would call the attention of the reader to the all-important fact that
the
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
same general principle characterized God's dealings with this elect
national family, or typical church, that we have seen prominent in
His dealings with elect individuals -- namely, that He blessed and
prospered them when they were faithful to His laws, and that He
punished them, and finally exterminated them as a nation, for their
wickedness.
Soon after God delivered them from Egyptian bondage, He
called Moses to Him and said: "Thus shalt thou say to the house of
Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; ye have seen what I did unto
the Egyptians, and how I bear you on eagles' wings, and brought you
unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and
keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me
above all people; for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me
a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which
thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and
called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all
these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people
answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will
do." Ex. xix:3-8. God prefaces this solemn covenant by calling the
attention of the people to the wonderful exhibition of His power put
forth in their salvation, and the destruction of their enemies; and
promises that they should be a peculiar treasure to Him on condition
that they obey His voice, which on their part they solemnly promise
to do. But they very soon forgot their obligations to God; hence
"with many of them God was not well pleased; for they were over-
thrown in the wilderness." 1 Cor. x:5. For their idolatrous worship
of the calf made by Aaron, three thousand fell in one day. (Ex.
xxxii:28.) For their fornication, twenty-four thousand died in the
plague. (Num. xxv:9.) Twenty-three thousand of them
Election And Reprobation
25
died in one day. (1 Cor. x:8.) For their murmuring against God,
many of them were destroyed by serpents. (Num. xxi:6.) And for
their crimes of various kinds, God abandoned them in their conflicts
with the nations around them, until multiplied thousands were slain
in battle, their cities were burned to ashes, and their homes made
desolate, and strangers devoured their land in their presence. (Isa.
i:7.) They were taken captive into Babylon and kept there for
seventy years. Thus did God afflict and scourge them as a father
scourgeth his rebellious son, but they would not reform; until finally
He asks, "Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more
and more." Isa. i:5. Nor did He afflict them without warning, for He
said to them: "If ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your
children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes
which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and
worship them: then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have
given them; and this house which I have hallowed for my name, will
I cast out of my sight, and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword
among all people. 1 Kings ix:6, 7. Never was there a more faithful
picture of human wretchedness than is here given of the present
condition of this once elect and highly favored people of God. He
has utterly destroyed them as a nation from the face of the earth.
They are not only cut off from the country which God gave them to
be a permanent inheritance, but they are scattered among the
nations, until there is not a place on the globe where civilization has
gone where straggling Jews may not be found; and the very name
Jew is a name of reproach to him who wears it -- a "proverb and a
byword among all people." And what was the condition set forth in
this most solemn warning to them? Was it, "If you are of the
eternally reprobate?" Nay, verily, they were
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
God's own elect. But will it do to assume that, because there was no
hell threatened in the Jewish law, these were merely temporal
punishments inflicted upon God's elect, and hence he has taken, or
will take them to heaven? Were there any others worse than these?
Before any one so assumes, let him remember that almost, perhaps
quite, every known species of crime was practiced by these elect;
and if these whoremongers, idolaters and tempters of God were fit
for heaven, then it must be true indeed that election, and not
character, qualifies for that place. Before any one so assumes, let
him further remember that these Jews, the elect of God, rejected and
murdered the Lord of glory; and he said, "If ye believe not that I am
he, ye shall die in your sins." John viii:24. Notwithstanding the
gospel was first preached to the Jews, and some of them believed on
Christ as the promised Messiah, yet not one of the Jews can be
found who, as a Jew, believes, to-day, that Jesus was or is the Christ,
the Son of God. How then are they to be saved over his declaration
that "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins?" Are
they to die in their sins, and be saved in their unbelief? He says, "He
that believeth not shall be damned " Mark xvi:16.
Now, we would note the fact that the Jewish age was a typical
age: the church in the wilderness was, in a sense, a type of the
church of God; Moses, the Jewish lawgiver, was, in a sense, a type
of Christ our lawgiver; Aaron, the Jewish high priest, was a type of
Christ our High Priest; the Jewish priests were types of Christians in
the gospel age who are priests now. -- Hence says Peter, "Ye also, as
lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to
offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." I
Pet. ii:5. And again, verse 9, he says, "But ye are a chosen
generation, a royal priest-
Election And Reprobation
27
hood, a holy nation, a peculiar people." Then if these elect types,
from the least to the greatest, both as individuals and as a body, had
to be faithful to God or forfeit their election, may we not in the same
way forfeit our election? After telling us that "with many of them
God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the
wilderness," Paul says: "These things were our examples, to the
intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The
people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us
commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day
three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of
them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur
ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the
destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples:
and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the
world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take
heed lest he fall." 1 Cor. x:5-12. We know not how the apostle
could have given more conclusive proof that the number of the elect
composing the church of God at Corinth, was liable to be
diminished by apostasy than is here given. He tells them of the
overthrow of many of the Jews, and mentions, specifically, the sins
for which thousands of them fell and tells them that these things
happened to them as examples, and are written for our admonition;
"wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."
But why this admonition, if the numbers of the elect and reprobate
are so certain and definite that they can neither be increased nor
diminished? Were this true, Paul's most solemn warning to his
brethren was a mere "rawhead and bloody bones," to alarm them
when there was no danger, for
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
none of them could fall! And the creed is consistent with itself, if
not with the Bible at this point; for it says: "They whom God hath
accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his
Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of
grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end and be saved.
This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free
will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing
from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the
efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of
the Spirit and the seed of God within them; and the nature of the
covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and
infallibility thereof." Chap. xvii, sees. 1, 2.
The doctrine here set out is a necessary outgrowth of the
doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation. If God has
unchangeably fixed the destiny of every man before time began, then
it follows that such destiny can not be changed by any act of the
creature -- nay, not even by the Creator; for that which is
unchangeable can not be changed even by God himself. Therefore
none of the eternally elect can fall if that doctrine obtains; and
whenever it is clearly shown that a Christian may apostatize, and be
lost, the whole theory of unconditional election and reprobation is
exploded. We will therefore be somewhat careful to see how this is.
And if there was not another sentence in the Bible touching the
subject, Paul's most solemn warning to the Corinthians would be
quite sufficient to settle the question forever. He tells them of the
falls of the Jews as examples to his brethren, and that their
deplorable end was recorded as a solemn admonition to others, lest
they, feeling secure, might fall. What could be more conclusive? In
the last verse of the preceding chapter, the apostle says, "I keep
under my body, and
Election And Reprobation
29
bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have
preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." 1 Cor. ix:27. If
Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, had to keep such constant
watch-care over himself, lest, after all his labor, he should be lost,
is it not possible that others may fall? It is not necessary to show
that Paul was one of the elect, for this will surely be admitted: yet
he was in danger of falling; and had he fallen, would not the number
of the elect have been diminished thereby, and the number of the
reprobate correspondingly increased?
Jesus said: "I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth
in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without
me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as
a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into
the fire, and they are burned." John xv:5, 6. Why charge them to
abide in him, if they could not do otherwise than abide in him? and
why liken them to withered and dried branches which men gather
and cast into the fire to be burned, if by reason of the immutability
of the decree of election they could not do otherwise than persevere
to the end and be eternally saved?
Paul tells Timothy of "Hymeneus and Philetus; who concerning
the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is passed already;
and overthrow the faith of some." 2 Tim. ii:18. Here were persons
who had faith, and that faith was overthrown by false teaching.
Surely, these persons were of the elect, for the creed tells us that
"The grace of faith whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts."
Chap. xiv, sec. 1. Without stopping for the present to inquire how
the elect, whose souls never could have been lost, can believe to the
saving of their souls, we remark that faith is the work of the Spirit
in the heart of the elect, according to the creed; hence Hymeneus
and Philetus diminished the number of the elect just as many as
there were persons whose faith they overthrew.
But we will hear what Paul has to say to the Hebrews, chap. xi:
verses 4-6: "For it is impossible for those who were once en-
lightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made
partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God,
and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to
renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves
the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." Here it is
most clearly taught that even those who had been blessed with those
extraordinary spiritual manifestations peculiar to the age of the
apostles, might fall away; else why the language, "if they do fall
away," when they could not so fall? But again he says: "If we sin
willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth,
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful
looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour
the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy
under two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment,
suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under
foot the Son of God, and have counted the blood of the covenant
wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite
unto the Spirit of grace?" Heb. x:26-29. Here was a sorer
punishment than death awaiting, under certain conditions, persons
who had been sanctified by the blood of the covenant. Surely, these
sanctified persons were of the elect, even according to the creed, for
it says: "Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they,
whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be
holy, are, in time, through the powerful
Election And Reprobation
31
operation of his Spirit, applying the death and resurrection of Christ
unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God."
Larger Catechism, answer to Question 75. Then Paul intended to
teach that God's elect, after sanctification by the blood of the new
covenant, might sin willfully and be worthy of sorer punishment
than those who died without mercy under the law of Moses. But we
will hear Peter on the same subject. He says: "If after they have
escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and
overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For
it had been better for them not to have known the way of
righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy
commandment delivered unto them; but it is happened unto them
according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit
again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
2 Pet. ii:20-22. Here we find that persons who have escaped the
pollutions of the world may again be entangled in and overcome by
them; and we are clearly told that if they are so overcome, then the
latter end with them is worse than the beginning. Better for them not
to have obeyed the gospel at all than to turn back into wickedness.
As the sow that was washed may go back to wallowing in the mire,
so may he who was cleansed from sin become worse than before.
Paul testified to such of his Galatian brethren as were
circumcised, that "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever
of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Gal. v:4.
Here, it seems to us, all controversy on the possibility of "falling
from grace" should cease. We see no place for further argument on
the subject; indeed, we know not how to make an argument on a
passage like this. We have learned how to reason from
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
premises to conclusions, but here there is no room for reason. When
Paul most solemnly testifies that such as had turned back to the law
and been circumcised had "fallen from grace," it must simply be
accepted as true, or the truth of the statement denied. Surely, these
were once in grace -- in favor with God -- in Christ -- for it would be
the merest twaddle to talk about persons falling from positions
which they never occupied. This being true, it follows that every
person who thus falls diminishes the number of the elect and
increases the number of the reprobate; hence the whole theory of
unconditional election and reprobation is untrue.
But it is not only true that Christians, God's elect, may fall as
individuals, but it is also true that congregations composing the
"church of God" at certain places may fall. In proof of this position
we would refer the reader to the several messages to the Asiatic
churches, only a few extracts from which we have here room to
make. After approving many good traits of character in the church
at Ephesus, God said to them: "Nevertheless I have somewhat
against thee; because thou hast left thy first love. Remember
therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first
works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy
candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." Rev. ii:4, 5. Here
was a church which had many elegant traits of character, yet it had
left its first love, so that it had to repent and do its first works or
have its candlestick quickly removed. Certainly, this had reference
to the removal of the church as a body.
To the church of the Laodiceans he said: "I know thy works,
that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would that thou wert cold or
hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,
I will spew thee out of my
Election And Reprobation
33
mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods,
and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched,
and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to
buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white
raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy
nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that
thou mayest see. Rev. iii:15-18. Here was a church which God said
he would spew out of his mouth, and after many epithets of
reproach upon it he gives it such counsel as would enable it to
reinstate itself in his favor by reformation and obedience. God said,
"If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and
keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall
surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath
committed, they shall not be mentioned: in his righteousness that he
hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked
should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from
his ways and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his
righteousness and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all
the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his
righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his
trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned,
in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal.
Hear now, 0 house of Israel; is not my way equal? are not your ways
unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteous-
ness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity
that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth
away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that
which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he
considereth and turneth away from all his transgressions
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die." Ezek.
xviii:21-28. This general principle characterizes all God's dealings
with man in every age of the world.
We come now to consider the doctrine of eternal unconditional
election and reprobation in its bearing on the subject of the
atonement. If God, before the foundation of the world,
unconditionally ordained just who and how many should be saved,
and who and how many lost, then of course the atonement made by
Christ could not reach those who were fore-ordained to dishonor
and wrath, and therefore they could not have any interest in his
death. Indeed it is difficult, according to the theory, to see the
benefits of Christ's death at all; for the atonement could not make
the salvation of the elect any more secure, nor could it possibly
change the condition or chances of the reprobate. Here again the
creed is consistent with itself, as far as the reprobate are concerned,
for it does not assume that the benefits of the atonement can in any
way reach them; not because of any fault in them, but because
Christ did not die for them. It says: "Neither are any other redeemed
by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and
saved, but the elect only." Chap. 3, sec. 6. Then, when it is shown
that Christ died for all men, the doctrine of unconditional election
and reprobation will have been again exploded.
Paul says, "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the
angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that
he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Heb. ii:9.
What can this mean? It can mean nothing less than that Christ died
for every man. Surely, it would require elastic rules of interpretation
to supply the word elect here, so as to make it read that "Jesus
tasted death for every elect man." Before making this addition to the
word of the Lord, let the reader consider
Election And Reprobation
35
well the following quotation: "For I Testify unto every man
that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall
add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are
written in this book." Rev. xxii:18.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life; for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn
the world; but that the world through him might be saved." John
iii:16, 17. Here we find that the love of God extended to the world,
and the object of sending His Son into the world was the salvation
of the world. But here again we are asked to supply the word elect,
so as to restrict the love of God to the elect. But the same apostle,
in another place, supplies a word better calculated to give his use of
the word world as connected with the atonement. He says, "He is
the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the
sins of the whole world." 1 John ii:2. Could language be more
ample or comprehensive? and would any one ever have thought of
restricting its meaning to the whole elect world, had not the
salvation of a theory required it? We know that the word world is
sometimes used in a limited sense -- that is, when it is intended to
apply to a part, and not all of the human race; but it applies in such
cases to the wicked, as distinguished from the elect.
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
A single example will abundantly show this. Jesus said to his
disciples: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it
hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own;
but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of
the world, therefore the world hateth you." John xv:18, 19. In this
quotation the word world occurs several times in a limited sense,
but every time it refers to the wicked as distinguished from the elect.
But the context itself utterly forbids any such restricted use of the
term in John iii:16, 17. Let us examine it a little. The passage not
only teaches that God loved the world, but also that the object of
sending His Son into the world was that the world might not perish,
but have everlasting life. Then if the love of God, and the world to
whom He sent His Son, be confined to the elect world, it follows
that whosoever of this elect world believes on Him may not perish;
but others of the elect world may not believe on Him, and
therefore perish. This view is quite prominent in the verse
immediately following: "He that believeth on him is not condemned:
but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not
believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God." John iii:18.
That is, he, of this elect world that God loved, and to whom He
sent His Son, that believeth not, is condemned already. This
doctrine the advocates of the theory will not allow. And it will do
no better to confine the word world to the Jews, reading it thus:
"God so loved the Jewish world that he sent his only begotten Son
' etc.: for that would exclude all others but Jews from the benefits
of the atonement, even the makers of the creed themselves. Nor will
it do to apply the word world here to the Roman Empire, for this
would exclude the other nations, and thus come in direct conflict
with the commission sending the apostles to disciple all nations,
and into all the world to preach to every creature. Then it must
mean just what it says: "He is the propitiation for the sins of the
whole world." "Because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then
were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should
not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for
them, and rose again." 2 Cor. v:14, 15. Here the apostle clearly
teaches that Christ died for all affected by the sin of Adam; hence
the language: "If one died for all,
Election And Reprobation
37
then were all dead." Then as "death passed upon all men" (Rom.
v:12), even so Christ died for all men. "Therefore, as by the offense
of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by
the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto
justification of life." Rom. v:18. Without turning aside to offer an
exegesis of this verse, it is sufficient for our present purpose to call
attention to the very obvious fact that, as Adam's sin affects all men,
even so the benefits of Christ's death are offered to all men. To the
same effect spake Jesus when He said: "I, if I be lifted up from the
earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death
he should die." John xii:32, 33. Surely, He did not expect all men
to be drawn unto Him by His death unless all were interested in
His death. What attraction could His death have for a reprobate,
when he knew He died not for him, or any but the elect?
Again: Paul says, "There is one God, and one mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for
all, to be testified in due time." 1 Tim. ii:5, 6. Here, as usual, Paul
is in contact with the theory which says substantially that Christ
gave himself a ransom for the elect only. It is evident, from this
connection, that the ransom was co-extensive with the mediatorial
office -- yea, with the reign of God himself -- "For there is one God,
and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who
gave himself a ransom for all." Wherefore he is able also to save
them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever
liveth to make intercession for those he is able to save; and he is
able to save to the uttermost; yet he can save none, only those for
whom he died; therefore he died for the uttermost that come to God
by him. Surely, we can not be mistaken in this.
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
When the angel of the Lord announced the birth of Christ to the
shepherds who watched their flocks in the plains of Judea, he said,
"Fear not: for, behold, I bring you glad tidings of great joy, which
shall be to all people." Luke ii:10. It occurs to us that the angel
would have spoken more like the creed had he said, "Behold, I bring
you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to the elect." Surely,
the announcement of a Saviour born could not have been glad
tidings of great joy to those who were eternally reprobate, and
therefore could not hope for an interest in His mission and death, or
the atonement made by Him. Nor is it very easy to see how the news
of His birth could have been glad tidings of great joy even to the
elect, for He could not make their salvation any more secure than
it was made by the immutable decree of election. Peter did not so
understand the subject, for he said, "Wherefore the rather, brethren,
give diligence to make your calling and election sure." Then it was
not already sure. But why strive to make it sure? "For if ye do these
things, ye shall never fall." 2 Pet. i:10. Then if they did not do these
things they would fall, and make void their election; at least they
would be liable to do so. Hence, as the announcement of His birth
was glad tidings of great joy to all people, it is certain that Christ
died for all people; and therefore all people may be saved through
the atonement made by Him. It is certain that all will not be saved;
but it will not be because the provisions of the atonement did not
embrace them, but because they would not accept salvation as
offered to them.
It is conceded by all parties that Christ died for the elect or
saved; hence we propose next to show that He also died for such as
have been or may be lost. Paul says: "But if thy brother be grieved
with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him
with thy meat, for
Election And Reprobation
39
whom Christ died." Rom. xiv:15 "And through thy knowledge shall
the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died." 1 Cor. viii:11.
These passages teach as clearly as language can teach anything that
there were members of the church of God, both at Rome and at
Corinth, for whom Christ died, who were liable to perish -- be
destroyed; hence Christ died as well for those who perish -- are
destroyed -- as for those who are saved. These passages show, too,
that the disciples at Rome and Corinth were liable to fall
away -- perish -- be destroyed; hence his admonition to those in
charge of the weaker members to guard against such result. How can
it be, then, that the destiny of every one was immutably fixed by the
decree of election? But we will hear another apostle on the same
subject. Peter says: "But there were false prophets among the
people, even as there shall be false teachers among you who privily
shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought
them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." 2 Peter ii:1.
Here were false teachers that denied the Lord that bought them, and
thereby brought upon themselves swift destruction. How did the
Lord buy them? Paul admonished certain persons "to feed the
church of God, which he purchased with his own blood." Acts
xx:28. Then it was with the blood of Christ that He bought or
purchased these false teachers who denied Him, and destroyed
themselves. Before leaving this passage, we may note another fact
which appears in it. These false teachers brought destruction upon
themselves and this they could not have done if they were eternally
and unchangeably ordained to dishonor and wrath by God's decree.
The decree destroyed them, and no act of theirs -- if such decree was
made concerning them.
We next propose to show that salvation is attainable
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
by all men, because the gospel of salvation is to be preached to all
men. Jesus charged the apostles to "teach all nations, baptizing
them." Matt. xxviii:19. And again: "Go ye into all the world and
preach the gospel to every creature.'' Mark xvi:15. Why preach the
gospel to every creature when the larger portion were not embraced
in its provisions? It occurs to us that something like the following
would have been more appropriate: "Go ye into all the world and
preach the gospel to the elect, that they may know the ample
provisions made for them before the foundation of the world; but to
the reprobate say nothing, for as they can not by any possibility
avert the awful doom that surely awaits them, it is better to let them
remain ignorant of their fate as long as possible." If this be true, we
can see no use of all the labor and expense of printing Bibles,
building meeting-houses, and preaching the gospel to either saint or
sinner. If we are of the definite number elected and fore-ordained
to eternal life, there is no chance for us to be lost; and if not, we can
not be saved. We have often heard this doctrine preached from the
pulpit, when the sermon closed with an exhortation to sinners to
come to the anxious-seat to seek salvation or pray for pardon of sin.
What a mockery! Why tell a man that God has unalterably fixed his
destiny before time began, and then exhort him to "flee from the
wrath to come" and "lay hold on eternal life" -- as though he could
either change or confirm God's eternal and immutable decree!!
Surely, his efforts could do no good, nor could his negligence do
any harm, for "Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life,
God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his
eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good
pleasure of his will, has chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out
of his mere free grace and love, without
Election And Reprobation
41
any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of
them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes
moving him thereunto." Conf., chap. iii, sec. 5: Thus we see that
faith, good works, nor any other thing, can avail, for the whole
matter was unalterably fixed before time began. Salvation, upon
certain conditions, was the great object of preaching the gospel to
every creature; and among these conditions faith occupies a
conspicuous place: "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the
word of God." Rom. x:17. Hence the necessity of preaching the
gospel -- teaching the word of God to every creature, that he might
have the privilege of believing and obeying it; therefore the promise:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned." Mark xvi:16. The fact that Jesus
required the gospel to be preached among all nations, to every
creature, promising salvation to those who would believe and obey
it, is evidence high as heaven that all may have salvation who will
accept it upon the conditions specified. Surely, God would not
mock His creatures by preaching the gospel, and offering salvation
to them on certain conditions, when He had eternally and
unchangeably ordained that they should not be saved, and put it out
of their power to comply with the terms offered. Nor is this all: He
follows the promise of conditional salvation with the awful threat
that "He that believeth not shall be damned." We can not see why
any one should be required to believe and trust in a Saviour who did
nothing for them, and believe and obey a gospel the provisions of
which did not embrace them. Men are required to believe upon and
trust in Jesus, in order to salvation: "Many other signs truly did
Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this
book: but these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God."
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
And why believe this? "That believing ye might have life through his
name." John xx:30, 31. Jesus said, "He that believeth on the Son
hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see
life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John iii:36. Thus we see
that man is denied eternal life, and subjected to the abiding wrath of
God, not because of any eternal decree against him personally, but
because of his unbelief; hence "He that believeth on him is not
condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already." And
why is he condemned already? Is it because of God's eternal decree
against him? No; but "because he hath not believed in the name of
the only begotten Son of God." John iii:18.
Thus the justice of God is vindicated in the punishment of man.
If he is not saved, it will not be because God eternally and
unchangeably ordained his destruction; nor will it be because God
willed not his salvation. Hear Him most solemnly deny such an
imputation: "If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath
committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful
and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions
that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him. In
his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure
at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that
he should return from his ways and live." Ezek. xviii:21-23. "For I
have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God;
wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye." Ver. 32. And again: "As I
live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the
wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Ezek.
xxxiii:11. This is either true or it is untrue. If God, from all eternity,
fixed the destiny of all men, and ordained a definite number to life
and a definite number to dishonor and wrath, and that
Election And Reprobation
43
"according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will whereby
He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth" (Conf., chap. iii,
sec. 7), then we see not how God has not pleasure in and wills not
that which is according to the secret counsel and good pleasure of
His own will. It requires greater skill than we possess to harmonize
the Bible and the creed here "The Lord is not slack concerning his
promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-
ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come
to repentance." 2 Pet. iii:9. How can this be true, if God fixed the
destiny of each one in accordance with the unsearchable counsel of
His will before time began? He who can, may explain.
Paul says: "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications,
prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for
kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and
peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and
acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men
to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim.
ii:14. Here we learn that all men are the objects of prayer. And why?
Because God wills the salvation of all men. Then if all are not
saved, it will be because "ye will not come to me that ye might have
life." John v:40. Their own obdurate will is the great barrier to the
salvation of men. When Jesus beheld the wickedness of the people
of Jerusalem, and the consequent destruction that awaited them, he
said: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and
stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have
gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens
under her wings, and ye would not!" Matt. xxiii:37. Mark well the
reason: "Ye would not." Yes, the Son of God would gladly have
saved them from the danger which threatened them, even as He
would
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
now save all who would come to God by Him; yet they would
not -- neither will ye. "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let
him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And
whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely " Rev. xxii:17.
Not whosoever was elected from all eternity, but whosoever will, let
him take the water of life freely. Then whosoever perishes is lost
because he will not partake of that which is freely offered to him.
His unending wail may be, "God is just, though I am lost."
Jesus said, "The Son of man is come to seek and to save that
which was lost." Luke xix:10. Was there ever a time when the elect
were lost? If so, when? The creed tells us that they were
predestinated unto life before the foundation of the world was laid,
hence, if they were ever lost, it must have been before that: therefore
they could not have been the objects of Christ's mission, for these
were lost when He came. Again He says: "They that are whole have
no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I Came not to call
the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Mark ii:17; Luke v:31, 32.
Were the eternally elect the sinners which Jesus came to call to
repentance? Surely, they were not sick enough to invoke the aid of
Jesus, the great Physician, for they were eternally and immutably
ordained to eternal life; hence they were not sick -- at all events they
could not have been sick unto death.
The Scriptures abound with testimony showing that men are not
elect before conversion. A few passages of this class are all for
which we have room in this work. In speaking of himself and his
Ephesian brethren, Paul tells us that they were "by nature the
children of wrath, even as others." Eph. ii:3. If they had been
elected to salvation before time began, we see not how, at any time,
Election And Reprobation
45
they could have been children of wrath, even as others not of the
elect. Again: "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that
the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit
of Christ he is none of his." Rom. viii:9. All persons know that, prior
to conversion, the Spirit of Christ was not in them, and hence, at
that time, they were none of His; yet according to the theory, they
were always His. "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are
the sons of God." Rom. viii:14. Then of course the converse is true,
that as many as are not led by the Spirit of God are not the sons of
God. All unconverted persons are led by the spirit of the wicked
one, and not by the Spirit of God; therefore no unconverted man is
a son of God. It will be conceded that the elect are sons of God;
hence when not sons of God, none are elect. "Know ye not your
own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be
reprobates." 2 Cor. xiii:5. Prior to conversion, Christ is in no one.
Paul says, "I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you."
Gal. iv:19. As Christ has to be formed in men, it follows that He
was not always in them; and when He is not in them, they are
reprobates: therefore none are elect until converted. "If any man be
in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold,
all things are become new." 2 Cor. v:17. If all the elect were in
Christ from before the foundation of the world, then conversion
makes no man a new creature in Him; for if in Him at all, they were
always in Him. Paul says, "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my
kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners' who are of note among the
apostles, who also were in Christ before me." Rom. xvi:7. If Paul
and his kinsmen were in Christ from before the foundation of the
world, then he made a most egregious blunder here. When was it,
and how is it that they were in Christ before him? Once more: "They
that
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."
Gal. v:24. Then those who have not crucified the flesh with the
affections and lusts are not Christ's. There was a time in the history
of every man when he had not crucified the flesh with the affections
and lusts, and therefore a time when he was not Christ's. All the
elect are Christ's; therefore there was a time in the life of every man
when he was not of the elect: hence none are personally and
unconditionally elected to eternal life from before the foundation of
the world.
Speaking of his brethren in the Lord, Peter said: "Ye are a
chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar
people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath
called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: which in time
past were not a people, but are now the people of God; which had
not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." 1 Pet. ii:9, 10.
Here, again, we know not how to make an argument. This passage
is so manifestly opposed to the whole theory of eternal and
unconditional election and reprobation that there is no room to
reason about it. These were a chosen generation, a royal priesthood;
a holy nation, a peculiar people; hence they were God's elect
beyond controversy: yet in time past they were not a people, but
then were the people of God. Do you say these were Gentiles?
Suppose they were: what relief does this bring to the theory? It only
shows the more clearly that once they were not God's people; yet
when the apostle wrote, they were God's people -- yes, verily, they
were His peculiar people. Were they elected in Christ before the
foundation of the world! Then we would gladly know what time in
the past it was at which they were not the people of God. Once they
had not obtained mercy. When was this? Elected to
Election And Reprobation
47
eternal life before the foundation of the world, out of God's mere
free grace and love, and yet had not obtained mercy!!!
But if the doctrine already quoted from the Confession is
true -- that before the foundation of the world was laid, according to
an immutable and eternal purpose of His own, without any foresight
of faith, good works, or any thing else in man, God unconditionally
elected some men and angels to eternal life, and at the same time
fore-ordained the residue to dishonor and eternal wrath -- then we
know not how to avoid the conclusion that He is a respecter of
persons. Against this imputation upon the character of our Heavenly
Father, at least two inspired pens have given testimony. Paul said,
"There is no respect of persons with God." Rom ii:11. Again: "He
that doeth wrong, shall receive for the wrong which he hath done:
and there is no respect of persons." Col. iii:25. Once more: "And, ye
masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening:
knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect
of persons with him." Eph. vi:9. It is probable that Peter once had
similar thoughts upon this subject to those of Calvinists now.
Certain it is that he thought the privileges and blessings of the gospel
were confined to the Jews, and it required nothing less than a
miracle to convince him of his error; but when convinced, he at
once replied: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of
persons." Acts x:34. From that time he gladly taught the gospel to those
previously regarded unworthy of its privileges. Finally, let us
examine the subject of a general judgment through Calvinistic
glasses.
"The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now
commandeth all men everywhere to repent: because he hath
appointed a day in the which he will judge the world
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained." Acts xvii:30,
31.
But why appoint a day of judgment in which to judge the world,
if the numbers of the elect and reprobate were made certain and
definite beyond increase or diminution before time began? Surely,
the line of separation was drawn deep and wide between them by
the immutable decree which assigned each one his position long in
advance of his being. But God will judge the world in
righteousness; therefore His judgment will be in accordance with
principles of justice: "For we must all appear before the judgment
seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his
body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
2 Cor. v:10. John says: "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand
before God; and the books were opened: and another book was
opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of
those things which were written in the books, according to their
works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death
and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were
judged every man according to their works." Rev. xx:12, 13. Why
judge a man according to his works, when every thing he did was
specifically ordained and put out of his control before time began?
Why not judge him, if at all, according to the eternal decree which
immutably fixed his destiny? From such a standpoint as Calvinism
the whole theory of a future judgment seems to us a most sublimely
ridiculous farce.
That the decree of election, and not the things done in the body,
is the rule or law by which Calvinism proposes to judge the world,
is further shown by the fact that reprobate infants that die in infancy
are consigned to eternal misery for no other reason than that they
were not of the elect. On page 64, chap. x, sec. 3, the creed says:
"Elect infants
Election And Reprobation
49
dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the
Spirit, who worketh when and where and how he pleaseth. So also
are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly
called by the ministry of the Word." Yes, elect infants are saved by
Christ, but what of the non-elect? "Others not elected, though they
may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some
common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to
Christ, and therefore can not be saved." The words "elect infants"
clearly imply non-elect infants. Elect means to choose. There can be
no choice where there is but one person or class of persons. The
above quotation tells us that elect infants dying in infancy are saved;
and of course the non-elect infants dying in infancy, or in living to
adult age, can not be saved, as Christ never died for them, or any but
the elect. Though you may consign your infant to the tomb while so
young that it never could have had a wicked thought or done a
wicked act, yet you have no assurance of its ever being raised in the
image of Christ, for the reason that you can not tell whether it is or
is not one of the elect No, you can not tell whether its little tongue
will be employed in praising God, or in fruitless cries and bitter
wailings in the eternal pit of despair, for no fault of its own, or any
one else but simply because God unchangeably decreed it that
horrible fate. Calvinism has no escape from this difficulty. The
numbers of the elect and reprobate having been made certain and
definite before time began, it follows that he who is reprobate -- at
all, was so at birth; hence those who die in that condition are
hopelessly lost. There is no remedy that can reach such cases.
Therefore, Calvinists who are not prepared for such results should
abandon a theory which necessarily produces them.
CHAPTER III
As the Bereans "were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so"
(Acts xvii:11), even so we should search the Scriptures and receive
the truth revealed in God's word with that readiness of mind that has
ever characterized His true and devoted followers. Let us, therefore,
very carefully consider the Scriptures relied on to prove the doctrine
in question.
Ananias said to Saul "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee."
Acts xxii:14. This shows that Paul was elected or chosen; but for
what was he chosen? Perhaps we may learn what Ananias meant
here by reference to what the Lord said to him when He sent him to
Paul: "The Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel
unto me." Chosen for what? "To bear my name before the Gentiles,
and kings, and the children of Israel." Acts ix:15. Before giving this
instruction to Ananias, the Lord said to Paul: "I have appeared unto
thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of
these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which
I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from
the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to
turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto
God, that they
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
51
may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among them
which are sanctified by faith that is in me." Acts xxvi:16-18. Taking
these Scriptures together, we see very clearly what the object of
Paul's election was; and his own salvation is not even mentioned in
any one of the explanations given. He was elected to be a minister
and a witness for Jesus, and to bear the gospel to the Gentiles; hence
says he, "I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of
the Gentiles, I magnify mine office." Rom. xi:13. Here, then, was the
office to which he was elected; but even his election to the
apostleship did not secure his final salvation, for he says, "I keep
under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means,
when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway."
1 Cor. ix:27. That Paul was not elected in Christ to salvation before
the foundation of the world, is clearly shown by the fact that
Andronicus and Junia were in Christ before him. Rom. xvi:7.
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified
the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life
believed." Acts xiii:48. This is relied on to show that men are
ordained to eternal life from before the foundation of the world, and
that this ordination is an indispensable antecedent to faith. First we
beg permission to suggest that the translation of this verse, in the
common version, is manifestly defective; but even in it there is not
a word said about how long they were ordained to eternal life before
they believed. That the ordination was from before the foundation
of the world is assumption; nothing more. If men are ordained to
eternal life before they believe, then they are in a state of
condemnation, their ordination to the contrary notwithstanding; for
the Lord said: "He that believeth not is condemned already, because
he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
Son of God." John iii:18. It is difficult to see how a man who
is ordained to eternal life can, at the same time, be a condemned
unbeliever. Not only are they in a state of condemnation, but this
theory teaches that they do not believe, in order to their
justification; for they were ordained to eternal life before they
believed in the eternal life to which they were ordained. This is not
only sustained by the common rendering of this verse, but it is made
doubly obvious by the fact that the theory places the ordination
before the beginning of time. On the contrary, there is not a truth in
the Bible better established than that men are required to believe,
that they may have eternal life: "For God so loved the world, that
he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life." John iii:16. When Jesus
said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark
xvi:16), did He intend to teach that he that would believe and be
baptized had always been saved? or when Paul said to the jailer,
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts
xvi:31), did he mean to teach that he had always been saved, having
been ordained to eternal life from before the foundation of the
world? Absurd as this may appear, it must be true, or Calvinism
must be false.
But there are other difficulties hanging about the common
rendering of this verse. McGarvey, in his Commentary, has the
following very pertinent remarks:
"If it be true that 'as many as were fore-ordained to eternal life
believed,' then there were none of the fore-ordained left in that
community who did not believe. Hence all those who did not then
believe, whether adults or infants, were among the reprobate, who
were predestinated to everlasting punishment. Now, it is certainly
most singular that so complete a separation of the two parties should
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
53
take place throughout a whole community at one time." Truly, this
would have been a most singular circumstance -- such a one, indeed,
as no sane man can believe ever occurred; hence that the translation
is defective is obvious, even to those who know nothing of the
original; for a faithful translation of God's word is always not only
true, but perfectly consistent with itself. We have several
translations of this verse, most of which substantially agree with the
following version: "And the Gentiles hearing this rejoiced, and
glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were disposed for
eternal life believed." (Compilation from George Campbell,
Macknight, and Doddridge, by A. Campbell.) This rendering is
perfectly consistent with the facts and the general teaching of the
Scriptures; and, better still, is faithful to the original, and at once
removes all ambiguity from the passage.
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be
conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn
among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them
he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and
whom he justified, them he also glorified." Rom. viii:29, 30.
[The argumention that follows relative to this passage is not conclusive. This foreknowledge refers to a class of persons
(those who would believe). God undertook beforehand to provide all that would be required for them to be justified
and glorified through Christ. ~ Roy Davison]
First it will be observed that all these verbs are in the past tense,
and express actions perfected at the time the apostle wrote. Persons
seem to understand the passage to mean that God foreknew and
predestinated the elect before time began, perhaps from eternity, and
calls and justifies them now in his good time, and will glorify them
in heaven finally. This can not be, for those of whom the apostle
spake were glorified at the time he wrote, and for the same reason
it can not apply to any who have lived since that time. The creed
says: "God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect; and
Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again
for their justification;
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth in due
time actually apply Christ unto them." Conf., chap. 11, sec. 4. Thus
we see that Calvinists themselves have justification to take place in
the life-time of the party justified. Hence, as those of whom Paul
wrote were justified before that time, it can not apply to any who
have lived since, even according to the creed, but must apply to
persons who had lived before the time he wrote. Hence the passage
can not come to the support of Calvinism at all. Here we could well
afford to rest our examination of the passage, seeing it proves not the
doctrine in question; but we will endeavor to find persons to whom
the language of the apostle will correctly apply. It is not important
to inquire when God knew the persons here mentioned -- we grant
that He knew them when He predestinated them to be conformed to
the image of His Son; and this was done before they were called and
justified: this is all that can be claimed -- the question which
concerns us more directly is, Who were these of whom Paul spake
as having been foreknown, predestinated, called, justified, and
glorified prior to the time he wrote? While we look for an answer to
this question, it may be well for us to bear in mind that God
predestinated them to be conformed to the image of His Son, that
He might be the first-born among many brethren. The word conform
means "to shape in accordance with; to make like; to reduce to a
likeness or correspondence in character, form, manners, etc."
(Webster.) Then, to be conformed to the image of His Son is to be
made like Christ, or in His image or likeness. Thus far all is plain.
Let us try again. Paul says: "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the
second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they
also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that
are heavenly. And as
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
55
we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image
of the heavenly." 1 Cor. xv:47-49. Paul is here speaking of the
resurrection of the body, and after directing the mind to the time of
that event, he says: "As we have borne the image of the earthy, we
shall also bear the image of the heavenly" -- thus teaching clearly
that the children of our heavenly Father wear the image of Adam
through life, but will wear the image of Christ when raised from the
dead and furnished with immortal bodies like His: "And it doth not
yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear
we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 John iii:2.
Though the image of Christ, in a certain sense, may have been begun
in us when we put Him on by a birth of water and Spirit, yet it will
never be complete until we are glorified with Him; and He was not
glorified until after His death, resurrection, and ascension. John
says, "The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet
glorified." John vii:29. This clearly implies that the Holy Ghost was
given as soon as Jesus was glorified; and as the Holy Spirit was not
given until the day of Pentecost, it follows that his glorification did
not long precede that event. Therefore, those of whom Paul spake
were not only predestinated, called, and justified, but had also been
raised from the dead, conformed to the image of Christ, and glorified
prior to the time he wrote. This not only shows that the passage
does not embrace all the elect, but it also shows that it did not refer
to the apostles, as some suppose, for they were not all dead at that
time, and hence could not have been then glorified. Then, when and
where had any persons been raised from the dead to die no more
prior to this writing by Paul? It could not have referred to Lazarus,
Jairus' daughter, and the widow's son which were raised by Christ,
for he was not the first-born among them,
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
nor were they raised to glorification, but simply restored to life to
live and die again. Let us look further, then, for we have not yet
found persons to whom the passage can apply. "And the graves were
opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came
out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city,
and appeared unto many." Matt. xxvii:52, 53. These persons were
raised from the dead to die no more, but to be glorified with their
risen Lord. We have seen that those of whom Paul wrote were
predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, which
image, if we are correct, was perfected when they were glorified.
Then, for what were they thus to be conformed to the image of His
Son? "That he might be the firstborn among many brethren." When
was He the first-born among many brethren? Certainly, it was not
when He was born in the flesh, for many were thus born before
Him; nor was He the first-born of water, for many were baptized by
John before Him. Paul says He is "the firstborn from the dead." Col.
i:18. Then He was the first-born from the dead of the many brethren
who came from their graves after His resurrection; and hence these
were they who were predestinated to be conformed to the image of
His Son, that He might be the first-born from the dead among them.
Of these it may be correctly said that they had been foreknown,
predestinated, called, justified, and glorified, at the time Paul wrote;
but we know of no others of whom this may be truly said. Are we
asked who these were? we answer that, as no inspired writer has
given their names in this connection, of course we do not know their
names; but we do know that He was the first-born from the dead
among those who came from their graves after His resurrection:
hence our argument is complete with or without their names. We
think it likely, however, that they were Abraham,
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
57
Isaac, Jacob, and the patriarchs and prophets of former times. That
these were foreknown, called, and predestinated to the work
assigned them, may be seen in the language of God to one of them.
Jeremiah said: "The word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Before
I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth
out of the womb I sanctified thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto
the nations." Jer. i:4, 5. Those of whom Paul spake were fore-
known -- Jeremiah was foreknown; those were predestinated --
Jeremiah was ordained; those were called -- Jeremiah was called. "The
Lord said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that
I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak.
Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith
the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand and touched my mouth.
And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy
mouth. See, I have this day set thee over the nations, and over the
kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to
throw down, to build and to plant." Ver. 7-10. Then he was not
only foreknown, predestinated, and called, but sanctified, too, and
qualified for the work assigned him; hence he needed only to be
justified in his obedience (which doubtless he was), raised from the
dead, and glorified with Christ, to fill to repletion the character of
those of whom Paul spake. Does any one doubt that he was one of
them? then let him show to whom the language in question will
more fitly apply, and we will acknowledge the favor.
We come next to examine the ninth chapter of Paul's letter to
the church at Rome, in which he discusses the abrogation of the
Jewish polity, and the election of a new people upon the principle
of faith in Christ and obedience to His laws. The Jews, as we have
seen, had been the
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
only acknowledged family or people of God for many ages past; but
in the fullness of time God broke down the middle wall of partition
between Jew and Gentile and offered salvation to every creature,
among all nations, who would accept it on the terms proposed;
hence when the parents of Jesus brought Him into the temple, good
old Simeon took him up in his arms and said, "A light to lighten the
Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." Luke ii:32. Paul says
this: "In other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it
is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:
that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body, and
partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." Eph. iii:5, 6. This
extension of gospel privileges to persons so long regarded unworthy,
very naturally excited the pride and envy of those accustomed to the
exclusive enjoyment of such distinguished honors and privileges;
hence they declined to enjoy salvation for no other reason than that
the Gentiles were made fellow heirs with them. They refused to
recognize the fact that "there is no difference between the Jew and
the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon
him." Rom. x:12.
They failed to see that the salvation of the Gentiles did not
lessen the chances of the Jews; hence Paul quotes the language of
Moses as applicable to them: "I will provoke you to jealousy by
them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you."
Rom. x:19. The election contemplated in the gospel was offered to
the Jews first, and some embraced it and were content to become the
elect of God; not as Jews by natural birth, but as Christians by a
birth of water and Spirit. These Paul calls "The election," in
opposition to those who made themselves reprobate by refusing the
"election of grace," and adhering to their former election as the
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
59
descendants of Abraham; hence "the election hath obtained it, and the
rest were blinded." Rom. xi:7. "Not as though the word of God had
taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel."
Rom. ix:6. The election of a new church composed of Jews and
Gentiles was not contrary to the promises of God to Abraham,
saying, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy
seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant; to
be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee." Gen. xvii:7. God gave
them very clearly to understand that the perpetuity of their covenant
relation to Him depended on their obedience; hence said He, "If ye
will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be
a peculiar treasure unto me above all people." Ex. xix:5. Hence
when they ceased to obey Him, His promises to them were at an
end; hence Paul asks, "hath God cast away his people? God
forbid." Rom. xi:1. If they were lost at all, it was their own fault.
But even so, "For they were not all Israel, which are of Israel."
Many of the descendants of Jacob had already fallen. The greater
part of the ten tribes that were carried into captivity never returned
to be again united to the Israel of God.
Hence this passage not only shows the rejection of the unbelieving
Jews to be no infraction of God's promises to Abraham, but
it shows the doctrine of eternal unconditional election to be false,
for we have seen that all the children of Israel were once the elect
of God; but when Paul wrote, many who were of Israel were not
Israel, because they had fallen on account of their own wickedness.
But the apostle vindicates the justice of God in rejecting the
unbelieving Jews by showing that many of the children of Abraham
were not embraced in the promise of God to him at first. Said he:
"Neither, because they are the
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
seed of Abraham, are they all children" -- for then the descendants
of Abraham by Hagar and Keturah would have been
included -- "but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They
which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of
God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For
this is the word of promise, At this time will I Come, and Sarah shall
have a son." Rom. ix:7-9. The children of Abraham by Hagar and
Keturah were children of the flesh, but God saw fit to promise him
a son by him wife Sarah, when she was past age, through whom all
the families of the earth were to be blessed in Jesus Christ; hence,
in due time, Isaac, the child of promise, was born, in whom Jesus,
the promised seed of Abraham, was called. But the calling of Jesus
through the line of Isaac did not consign the descendants of
Abraham by Hagar and Keturah to endless punishment; nor were
their chances for heaven diminished by this election of Isaac. Jacob
had twelve sons, which became the heads of twelve tribes; but God
saw fit to call Jesus the promised seed of Abraham, through the tribe
of Judah, Jacob's fourth son by Leah. Now, will any one assume that
calling the Messiah through the line of Judah consigned all the
others to endless punishment? If not, why should the descendants
of Abraham be regarded as eternally lost because they did not come
through the family of Isaac? God never promised Abraham that He
would unconditionally save or damn any one. He promised him a
son by Sarah, and He gave him Isaac. He promised to multiply his
seed until they should become numerous as the stars of heaven or
the sand upon the sea-shore, and He did it. He promised to give his
seed the land of Canaan for a possession, and He did this also; but
they forfeited it by their rebellion against Him. He promised that
through his seed all the families of the earth should be
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
61
blessed in Jesus Christ; but when Jesus came, according to the
promise, they wanted to appropriate the blessing to themselves, to
the exclusion of the Gentiles: hence they were seeking to thwart the
very promise of God to Abraham which they thought was made void
by carrying it into effect.
"And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by
one, even by our father Isaac (for the children being not yet born,
neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God
according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that
calleth;) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As
it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Rom. ix:
10-13.
That we may understand this passage, it may be well to call the
reader's attention to the fact that there are two quotations in it which
should not be blended. One quotation is from Genesis, and was
spoken before Jacob and Esau were born; the other is from Malachi,
and was spoken long after they were both dead. Before the children
were born, it was said to their mother, "the elder shall serve the
younger;" but in the next verse is a quotation from Malachi, where
it is written, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." By
blending these quotations, God is made to say that He loved Jacob
and hated Esau before they were born; or had, either of them, done
good or evil. This is doing great injustice to the record. Let us see
what was said of them before they were born: "And Isaac entreated
the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was
entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived; and the children
struggled together within her, and she said, If it be so, why am I
thus? And she went to inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto
her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be
stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the
younger." Gen. xxv:21-23. Here is what was said before Jacob and
Esau were born, and we find not a word about hating Esau and
loving Jacob in the whole narrative. But as Paul said it was so
written, we may expect to find it somewhere; hence let us try again:
"The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi: I have
loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us?
Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and
I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the
dragons of the wilderness." Mal. i:1-3. This was said about fourteen
hundred years after Jacob and Esau were both dead; hence it can
not prove that God loved or hated either of them before they were
born. But both passages refer to Jacob and Esau as the
representatives of the two nations which descended from them;
hence the language of God to Rebekah: "Two nations are in thy
womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy
bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people;
and the elder shall serve the younger." Please note the fact that it is
not said "the one man shall be stronger than the other man," but
"one people shall be stronger than the other people." Nor was it
said the elder man shall serve the younger man; on the contrary,
the inference is clear that the people who should descend from the
elder were to be subject to the descendants of the younger. This
passage was never fulfilled in the person of these two brothers. Esau
never did, as an individual, serve Jacob; on the contrary, Jacob
feared Esau, and came much nearer serving him. When Jacob, at the
suggestion of his mother, fraudulently obtained his father's blessing,
which was intended for Esau, the anger of the latter was
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
63
kindled against his brother: "And Esau hated Jacob because of the
blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his
heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I
slay my brother Jacob. And these words of Esau, her elder son, were
told to Rebekah: and she sent and called Jacob, her younger son,
and said unto him, Behold, thy brother Esau, as touching thee, doth
comfort himself, purposing to kill thee. Now therefore, my son, obey
my voice; and arise, flee thou to Laban my brother to Haran; and
tarry with him a few days, until thy brother's fury turn away; until
thy brother's anger turn away from thee, and he forget that which
thou hast done to him." Gen. xxvii:41-45. Jacob fled to Padan-aram,
and there remained twenty years in the service of Laban, at the end
of which he returned with two wives, two concubines, eleven sons,
and great wealth. "And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau
his brother, unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom. And he
commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau;
Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and
stayed there until now; and I have oxen, and asses, and flocks, and
menservants and womenservants, and I have sent to tell my lord,
that I may find grace in thy sight. And the messengers returned to
Jacob, saying, We came to thy brother Esau, and also he cometh to
meet thee, and four hundred men with him Then Jacob was greatly
afraid and distressed: and he divided the people that was with him,
and the flocks, and herds, and the camels in two bands; and said, If
Esau come to the one company, and smite it, then the other
company which is left shall escape." Gen. xxxii:3-8. Here we find
that, in place of Esau serving Jacob personally, Jacob feared Esau
greatly -- called him his lord, and himself the servant. In his distress,
he prayed God thus: "Deliver me, I pray thee, from the hand of my
brother,
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
from the hand of Esau: for I fear him lest he come and smite me, and
the mother with the children." Ver. II. He also sent messengers with
presents to give Esau, that he might buy his favor if possible. Then
it is evident that neither Jacob nor Esau was mentioned under any
personal consideration, but only as the representatives of the nations
which should descend from them respectively; nor was there any
thing in the love of God for one, or in His hatred of the other, which
could affect the eternal destiny of either. It is quite certain that all
of Jacob's posterity were not saved, and it is equally certain that all
of Esau's posterity were not lost. Indeed, it can not be shown that
even Esau himself was eternally lost. He was wicked when he sold
his birthright, and is called a "profane person" for so doing. It is also
certain, that he was wicked about the time of his father's death, for
we have seen that he would have killed Jacob had he not fled to the
land of Padan-aram; but that he remained wicked as long as he lived
is by no means certain. True, Paul says that, "When he would have
inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of
repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears." Heb. xii:17. It
was in his father that he found no place of repentance, and not in
himself. He could not induce his father to revoke the blessing
conferred upon Jacob, although fraudulently obtained. When Esau
met Jacob returning from Padan-aram, "Esau ran to meet him, and
embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept."
Gen. xxxiii:4. Here we find that all his anger toward his brother had
disappeared; and they lived in friendship ever afterward, as far as we
know. "By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to
come." Heb. xi:20. If the reader will examine these blessings, he will
find that there was not a word about eternal life
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
65
or eternal death in either of them. They pertained to national and
temporal affairs entirely. To Jacob, Isaac said, "See, the smell of my
son is as the smell of a field which the Lord hath blessed: therefore
God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and
plenty of corn and wine: let people serve thee, and nations bow
down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons
bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and
blessed be every one that blesseth thee." Gen. xxvii:27-29. To Esau,
Isaac said: "Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth,
and of the dew of heaven from above; and by thy sword shalt thou
live, and shalt serve thy brother: and it shall come to pass when thou
shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy
neck." Gen. xxvii:39, 40. Now we find no allusion to the final
salvation or condemnation of either, in these blessings; but it is easy
to see that they are connected with the purpose of God as expressed
to their mother: "The one people shall be stronger than the other
people; and the elder shall serve the younger." See the same thought
in Jacob's blessing. "Let people serve thee, and nations bow down
to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother's sons bow
down to thee." In Esau's blessing we have still the same: "By thy
sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother." Thus we see, in
these blessings, the servitude spoken of before the birth of the
children, which was never fulfilled in them, but was fulfilled in their
posterity.
That the language, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,"
was intended to apply to the two nations, Israel and Edom,
represented by Jacob and Esau, is evident from the language of the
context from which Paul made the quotation: "Was not Esau Jacob's
brother? yet I loved Jacob, and hated Esau, and laid his mountains
and
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom
saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the
desolate places." Mal. i:24. Here the prophet uses the term Edom,
the name of the nation which descended from Esau, and the plural
pronoun we, agreeing with it, to designate the same people hated
and punished by the Lord. Hence when the Lord, by his prophet,
said, long after both men were dead, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau
have I hated," He was speaking of Israel and Edom as nations, but
not of Jacob and Esau as individuals.
It may not be out of place here to remark that the term hate, is
sometimes used in the sense of loved less -- to regard with less
favor; e.g.: "And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he
opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived, and
bore a son; and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the
Lord hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband
will love me. And she conceived again, and bore a son; and said,
Because the Lord hath heard that I was hated, He hath therefore
given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon." Gen.
xxix:31-33. Here it is said that Jacob hated Leah; but by an
examination of the preceding verse, it will be seen that nothing more
is meant by it than that she was loved less than Rachel. "He loved
also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other
years." Ver. 30.
Another example may be found in the language of the Saviour:
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and
wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
also, he can not be my disciple." Luke xiv:26. This is a pretty hard
sentence -- that, to be a disciple of the Lord, a man must not only
hate all his kindred, but he must also hate his own life; but when
we
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
67
have the same thought in different language, it is quite plain: "He
that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and
he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
Matt. x:37. Then, when God said, "I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau,"
if we interpret the passage in the light of this definition, the thought
is that He loved the children of Israel more than Edom, the
descendants of Esau. "What shall we say then? Is there
unrighteousness with God" in rejecting the unbelieving Jews? "God
forbid for; for he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will
have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have
compassion." Vers. 14, 15. There was no injustice on the part of
God in rejecting the unbelieving and rebellious Jews. As a
Sovereign, He had a right to dictate terms of mercy to those who
would become subjects of His kingdom. These terms were first
offered to and rejected by the Jews; hence the apostle appealed to
the declarations of God to Moses, their own lawgiver, to show them
that God had always shown mercy to whom He would, and upon
just such terms as pleased Him. At a very early period in Jewish
history God gave them to know the terms upon which they might
remain the recipients of His mercy. Said He: "I the Lord thy God am
a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and
showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my
commandments." Ex. xx:5, 6. Then God will visit iniquity upon
those who hate Him, because they hate Him; and He will show
mercy to those who love Him, because they love Him. "He that
covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and
forsaketh them shall have mercy." Prov. xxviii:13. Hence we find
that God's mercy is not dispensed according to eternal and
immutable decrees, but he
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
that will confess and forsake his sins shall have mercy. Peter tells
us of a people "which had not obtained mercy, but now have
obtained mercy." 1 Pet. ii:10. Then they did not obtain mercy in a
decree made before time began. Jesus said, "Blessed are the
merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." Matt. v:7. And James says, "He
shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy." Jas.
ii:13. Hence the Calvinist, who imagines himself one of the chosen
few to whom God hath shown mercy from before the foundation of
the world, and is unwilling that the mercies of God extend to all
men, may thus bring upon himself judgment without mercy.
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that showeth mercy." Rom. ix:16. It is possible that this
verse alludes to the blessing conferred by Isaac upon Jacob. Isaac
willed that Esau, the first-born, should have the blessing; Esau ran
for the venison with which to secure it; nevertheless Jacob obtained
it. The blessing, as we have seen, was not a personal one, but
pertained to Jacob's descendants, and had no reference to eternal
salvation, but conferred temporal blessings only. Hence it can yield
no support to the theory in question. It is true, as shown in another
part of the argument, that Jacob was elected to be the seed of Isaac,
through whom Christ should come -- but this was before Jacob and
Esau were born -- that the purpose of God according to election
might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth. Neither the
purchase of his brother's birthright, nor the blessing conferred by his
father, had any thing to do with this election.
"For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same
purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee,
and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." Rom.
ix:17. Now, are we to
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
69
understand by this that Pharaoh was one of the eternally reprobate,
and that God foreordained the wickedness of his nature and the
hardness of his heart? Is this the thought? Let us go back to the
Scriptures from which Paul quoted, and see how this is: "For this
cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power, and that
my name may be declared throughout all the earth." Ex. ix:16.
Now, is there one word in the context about eternal unconditional
election and reprobation? or is there any thing about election at all?
It is said that God raised up Pharaoh that He might show His power
in him; but who did He not raise up for this purpose? The same
might have been truly said of Moses, in whom His mighty power was
exhibited in the destruction of the Egyptians and the salvation of the
children of Israel, yet I suppose no one will insist that he was raised
up eternally reprobate. God commanded Pharaoh to let his people
go, but he persistently refused to obey God; hence God overruled
his rebellion to His own glory. Even so God offered salvation to the
Jews, upon condition that they would believe and obey the gospel.
Like Pharaoh, they rebelled against Him; hence He exhibited his
power in their destruction as a nation, that his name might be
glorified in all the earth. But surely this can not prove that they were
eternally reprobate, for they had been God's elect or chosen people
up to that time. Not only so, but salvation upon the terms of the
gospel was first offered to them; and surely God did not offer them
a salvation which was never intended for them, and which He had
unchangeably ordained that they should reject.
But we are told that God hardened Pharaoh's heart: "Therefore
hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he
hardeneth." Rom. ix:18. Are we to understand by this that God
created Pharaoh with a
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
stubborn and rebellious heart, and promoted a spirit of wickedness
in him by the plagues inflicted upon him? If so, all the threatenings
of God were but temptation to evil; yet James says, "Let no man say
when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God can not be
tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man; but every man is
tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." Jas.
i:13,14. The mercies and blessings of God tend always to harden or
soften the hearts of those who receive them. If rightly appreciated,
they tend to awaken a sense of gratitude in the heart; but if abused,
they tend to harden the heart. When the hand of affliction falls
heavily upon us, we are either wilted into submission to God's will,
or, as in time of war, we become hardened until some care no more
for the life of a man than for the life of a beast. Thus it was with
Pharaoh: when the hand of affliction was upon him, he would
promise to let the people go; but as soon as the affliction was
withdrawn, the spirit of rebellion revived: "When Pharaoh saw that
there was respite, he hardened his heart and hearkened not unto
them, as the Lord had said." Ex. viii:15. "And Pharaoh hardened his
heart at this time also, neither would he let the people go." Ver. 32.
"And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders
were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his
servants." Ex. ix:34. Then it can only be said that God hardened
Pharaoh's heart because He sent afflictions upon him which he
abused to the hardening of his own heart. In the same way it may
be said that the gospel hardens men now. It is preached to them as
the power of God to salvation, if they will accept it; but, rejecting
it, they become hardened, until they can resist the most stirring
appeals to which mortals can be subjected in this life. Hence said
the apostle: "To the one we are the savor of death unto death; and
to the other the savor of life unto
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
71
life. And who is sufficient for these things?" 2 Cor. ii:16. We think
it possible for men to continue in rebellion against God until they
pass entirely beyond the reach of all the agencies of the gospel by
which God proposes to save them. Such were some of the Jews in
Paul's day: "Because that when they knew God, they glorified him
not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools; and changed the glory of
the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,
and to birds and to four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lust
of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between
themselves; who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped
and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed
forever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections." Rom. i:21-26.
Thus we see that God gave them up to uncleanness and vile
affections, not because they were eternally reprobate, and He had
predestinated them to be wicked, and created vile affections within
them, but because of their own willful and persistent rebellion
against Him. Paul speaks of him whose "coming is after the working
of Satan, with all power and signs, and lying wonders, and with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they
received not the love of the truth, that they
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be
damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in
unrighteousness." 2 Thess. ii:9-12. God sends men strong delusions,
not because they were eternally reprobate, and predestinated to
wickedness and destruction, but because they receive not the love
of the truth, that they might be saved. And though many are thus
deluded and hardened in falsehood, infidelity, and crime, it is the
result of their own wickedness, and not because of any eternal and
immutable decree against them. They "walk in the vanity of their
mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the
life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, because of the
blindness of their heart: who, being past feeling, have given
themselves over to lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with
greediness." Eph. iv:17-19. Here were persons whose hearts were
harder than that of Pharaoh, for he could feel even to the last
chastisement laid upon him; but these were past feeling, and
completely given over -- not by any eternal decree, but they had
given themselves over to the service of Satan.
"Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall
the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me
thus? hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to
make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if
God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known,
endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on
the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even
us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the
Gentiles." Rom. ix:20-23. Here the apostle has reference to the
language of God to the prophet concerning the potter, and the clay
that was marred in his hand while attempting to make a vessel of it.
Let us go back and see what was originally taught by it, and then we
may be better prepared to understand Paul's use of it: "The word
which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Arise, and go down
to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a
work on the
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
73
wheels; and the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand
of the potter; so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to
the potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying,
O house of Israel, can not I do with you as this potter? saith the
Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in my
hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a
nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to pull down,
and to destroy it; if that nation against whom I have pronounced,
turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto
them. And at what instant I will speak concerning a nation, and
concerning a kingdom, to build up and to plant it, if it do evil in my
sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good
wherewith I said I would benefit them." Jer. xviii:1-10.
Here we find that this parable was used concerning the nation
or kingdom of Israel: "As the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye
in my hand, O house of Israel." But are we taught that nations and
kingdoms are eternally and unconditionally ordained to prosperity
or destruction? Surely, no language could have been employed
which would teach more clearly the opposite. Though God may
have spoken against a nation or kingdom to destroy it, yet if it turn
from its wickedness for which it was condemned, He will turn from
the evil which He said He would bring upon it. And though He may
have spoken in favor of a kingdom or a nation to build and to
prosper it, yet if it do evil, then He will turn from the good
wherewith He said He would benefit it. True, the figure shows that
God had the power to bless and prosper a nation, or to pluck up and
destroy it -- and who doubts this? -- but the figure also shows that He
will exercise His power in the salvation or destruction of nations, as
they obey or rebel against Him, and not according to eternal
decrees. The house of Israel
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
as a nation and kingdom failed to accomplish the object designed in
its creation, and hence was marred in the hand of the Potter. He
therefore gave it a less honorable form, but did not cast it away
entirely. They were captured, carried into Babylon, and there
remained as slaves and captives in a strange land for seventy years.
This they might have averted by turning from their wickedness; for
God said, as we have already quoted, that "if that nation against
whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the
evil that I thought to do unto them." They did not turn away; hence
the threatened punishment came upon them. But it did not amount
to their destruction. It was corrective as well as punitive, and
brought them to repentance in Babylon; hence the Potter took the
vessel that had been seventy years in dishonor, and made it again a
vessel unto honor by restoring the Jews to their nationality.
The reader would do well to bear in mind that a vessel in
dishonor is not necessarily a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction;
for it may yet turn from its wickedness and be made a vessel unto
honor. But at the time the apostle wrote, the Jewish kingdom had
not only been marred in the hand of the Potter, but it was fast
approaching the condition of a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction.
The prophet gave a most appalling picture of the punishment which
threatened them and very soon came upon them: "Thus saith the
Lord, Go and get a potter's earthen bottle, and take of the ancients
of the people, and of the ancients of the priests, and go forth unto
the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east
gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee." Jer. xix:1,
2. After recounting the wickedness of which they had been guilty,
he pronounces their doom as follows: "Therefore, behold, the days
come, saith the Lord, that this place shall
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
75
no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but
The valley of slaughter. And I will make void the counsel of Judah
and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the
sword before their enemies, and by the hand of them that seek their
lives: and their carcasses will I give to be meat for the fowls of the
heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city
desolate, and a hissing: every one that passeth thereby shall be
astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. And I will
cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their
daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the
siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek
their lives, shall straiten them. Then shalt thou break the bottle in
the sight of the men that go with thee, and shalt say unto them, Thus
saith the Lord of hosts, Even so will I break this people and this
city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel, that can not be made whole
again: and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to
bury." Jer. xix:6-11.
While God was bearing with these vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction, Christ came, as the promised seed of Abraham, their
father, in whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed but
the Jews were unwilling that all families of the earth should enjoy
salvation with them: hence the apostle alludes to the potter and the
clay to teach them that when their government was marred in his
hand, it was his prerogative to make of it just such government as
pleased him. As the stubbornness and rebellion of the Jews caused
them to be carried into Babylon, so their remaining stubbornness
and rebellion prevented them from uniting with the Gentiles in
forming one grand spiritual family most honorable of all others;
hence, at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and his army, their
nationality was literally destroyed, as predicted by the Lord through
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
Jeremiah, and enforced by breaking the potter's earthen bottle into
fragments, which could never be united again. While the material
was clay it could be given another form when marred in the hand of
the potter, but after it became an "earthen bottle" and was broken,
the wreck was complete: "Even so will I break this people and this
city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel, that can not be made whole
again."
But not withstanding this was said of the people and the city, it
took individuals, collectively considered, to make up the people;
hence said the apostle: "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and
to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the
vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that he might make known
the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore
prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews
only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call
them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which
was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where
it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be
called the children of the living God." Rom. ix:22-26.
Thus the apostle most clearly proves to the Jews, by quotation
from their own prophets, that the Gentiles, who had not been God's
people, were to become the children of the living God. Hence the
argument can not apply to individuals only as making up the
classes of which the apostle spake. Surely, we can not be mistaken
here. But suppose we are, and the apostle intended to make a
personal application of the argument, what then? Will the parable
of the potter and the clay, thus applied, prove the Calvinistic theory
of unconditional election and reprobation? Let us see. If the clay
marred in the hand of the
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
77
potter, it was not because he designed it to be so, for he intended
to make a good vessel of it. Even so God wills not the death of any,
but that all come to repentance and live. Calvinists teach, that the
non-elect were vessels of wrath from before the beginning of time;
were never designed for any thing else -- nay, were unchangeably
ordained to dishonor and wrath.
Again: The potter did not make a vessel that he might destroy it
himself. If the clay so marred in his hand that it was not fit for the
more honorable vessel at first designed, he worked it over and made
of the same lump another vessel of less value; but it was
nevertheless made for use or sale, not that he might himself destroy
it. But, according to the theory in question, God, the great Potter,
made the non-elect to be vessels of wrath, and fitted them for
destruction, that He might exhibit His power in their
destruction -- this being the object of their creation.
Once more: When the lump of clay marred in the hand of the
potter, so that it would not make a vessel unto honor, as first
contemplated, he worked it over and made of the same lump an-
other vessel as it pleased him. The theory will not allow the
purposes of God to fail; on the contrary, they insist that his vessels
always come out just as He designed them. If so, the clay never mars
in His hand, and hence there is no fitness in the parable. Indeed,
they seem to have two lumps -- one elect, and the other reprobate;
and if the clay came from the elect lump, it can not make a
reprobate vessel, for not an atom of that elect material can be lost:
on the contrary, if the clay came from the reprobate lump, no
mechanical skill can work it over and make an elect vessel of it. The
theory makes every man elect or reprobate from before time began,
and he must so remain while eternity endures. Therefore the parable
will not fit Calvinism anywhere.
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
After mentioning many vices to be avoided, Paul says: "In a
great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also
of wood and of earth; and some to honor and some to dishonor. If
a man, therefore, purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto
honor sanctified and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto
every good work." 2 Tim. ii:20, 21. He speaks of "the house of God"
as the "church of the living God." 1 Tim. iii:15. Then in the church
or house of God there are vessels comparable to gold and silver,
wood and earth; some more and some less honorable, while others
are a disgrace to the cause they profess to love. And Paul here
clearly shows that this difference is made, not by an immutable
decree of God, but by the parties themselves: "If a man therefore
purge himself from these" -- not if God purge him, but if he purge
himself -- "he shall be a vessel unto honor."
But let us pursue the apostle's argument. He says, "Even so then
at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of
grace." Rom. xi:5. As there had been seven thousand men, in the
days of Elias, who had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal,
even so there was still a remnant when Paul wrote who had
accepted salvation upon the terms of the gospel of the grace of God,
and these are they of whom he spake, saying, "Israel hath not
obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath obtained
it, and the rest were blinded." Ver. 7. This remnant of Israel who
accepted salvation upon gospel terms are denominated the election,
and the rest were blinded; that is, all Israel except this remnant
elected to salvation. Now, are we to conclude that those who were
blinded were eternally reprobate? Before any one so affirms, let
him remember that Israel was once God's elect people, and he must
be prepared to show how they became reprobate after having been
eternally, immutably, and
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
79
unconditionally elect, according to his theory. Leaving Calvinism to
grope its way out of this difficulty as best it can, let us go on to see
whether or not it is possible for these reprobates to become elect
again.
In the 8th verse we learn that God gave these reprobates "the
spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they
should not hear." In the 9th verse, Paul quotes David thus "Let their
table be made a snare and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a
recompense unto them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may
not see, and bow down their back always." Please remember that this
was all said of those who were not of the election of grace, but were
reprobates. Now let us read on "I say then, Have they [these
reprobates] stumbled that the should fall? God forbid: but rather
through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke
them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them [Then they were not
eternally reprobate, else they could not have fallen] be the riches of
the world, and the diminishing of them [The creed says they can
neither be increased nor diminished] the riches of the Gentiles; how
much more their fullness? For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I
am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: if by am means
I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save
some of them [the reprobates]. For if the casting away of them be
the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them
[reprobates] be, but life from the dead?" Ver 11-15. Then comes the
figure of the olive-tree, showing that the Jews, or natural branches,
were broken off because of their unbelief, and the Gentiles were
grafted in. But even they must be faithful; for said he: "If God spared
not the natural branches. take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which
fell, severity;
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness:
otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. [Ah, how can they be cut off if
the number of the elect can neither be increased nor diminished?]
And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief shall be grafted in;
for God is able to graft them in again." Ver. 21-23. Thus reprobate
Israel may again be elect if they will: "For I would not, brethren,
that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in
your own conceits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel
[those not elect], until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And
so all Israel shall be saved." Vers. 25, 26. Is it possible that these
blinded reprobates may yet be saved? They may be saved, if Paul is
good authority: "For as ye [Gentiles] in times past have not believed
God, yet have now obtained mercy through their [Jews] unbelief;
even so have these also not believed, that through your mercy they
[reprobate Jews] also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded
them all in unbelief [What for? That he might damn them all? No,
but] that he might have mercy upon all." Ver. 30-32. Where, then,
is the eternal decree of unconditional election and reprobation?
Well may the apostle exclaim, "O the depth of the riches both of the
wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his
judgments, and his ways past finding out" only as He has revealed
them.
We come next to examine the same subject as taught in Paul's
letter to the Ephesians. Will the reader open the divine volume and
very carefully read the letter from its beginning to the 6th verse of
the fourth chapter, inclusive? We have not room to transcribe it all,
but every word deserves to be indelibly written upon every human
heart.
We will begin with that portion of it supposed to give support
to the theory of unconditional election. The
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
81
apostle says: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly
places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of
children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure
of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath
made us accepted in the beloved: in whom we have redemption
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of
his grace; wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and
prudence; having made known unto us the mystery of his will,
according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself;
that in the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things
in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in
him: in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being
predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all
things after the counsel of his own will: that we should be to the
praise of his own glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also
trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your
salvation." Eph. i:3-13.
Without stopping to inquire after the meaning of the word world
in the 4th verse, let us proceed to analyze the passage and see
whether or not there is any thing like unconditional election in it:
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the
world." Here we learn that certain persons were chosen in Christ
before a certain time, but there is not yet a word as to whether they
were chosen conditionally or unconditionally. This must be learned
somewhere else. For what were they chosen? "That we should be
holy and without blame before him in love." This is the character to
be worn by the
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
persons chosen, and it clearly shows that the apostle was speaking
of a class, and not of individuals as such. What more? "Having
predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
himself." And how is it predestinated that children shall be adopted
into God's family by Jesus Christ? "According to the good pleasure
of his will." Then what is the good pleasure of his will in this
matter? That the gospel shall be preached "among all nations, to
every creature." "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned.'' Mark xvi:16. Then it is
the good pleasure of His will that every creature who will believe
the gospel and be baptized shall be saved, and all who are thus
saved are His children by Jesus Christ, through whom He gave the
conditions of adoption. This is all plain; let us go on: "Having made
known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good
pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself." And what is the
mystery of His will thus made known? "That in the dispensation of
the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in
Christ, both which are in heaven and on earth; even in him: in whom
also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according
to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his
own will." Now, if these persons were unconditionally and
personally predestinated to this inheritance, then it follows that
Universalism and not Calvinism gets the benefit of the quotation, for
we have seen that He purposed to gather together all things in
Christ -- not the elect few, but all things. To whom was this made
known, and what is the meaning of it? "By revelation he made
known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in few words" -- back
yonder in the first chapter -- "whereby, when ye read, ye may
understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other
ages was not made
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
83
known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy
apostles and prophets by the Spirit." Eph. iii:3-5. To whom was this
long-concealed mystery made known by the Spirit? His holy
apostles and prophets. Then they were the persons referred to by the
pronouns we and us, from the 3d to the 12th verse (inclusive) of the
first chapter, to whom this mystery was made known, as Paul wrote
afore in few words in the 10th verse of that chapter. And what was
this long-concealed mystery? "That the Gentiles should be fellow
heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ
by the gospel." Eph. iii:6. Then these holy apostles and prophets
were the persons chosen in Christ before the foundation of the
world, that they as a class should be holy and without blame before
Him in love; and though as a class they were of this character, yet
as an individual, one of them betrayed the Lord for money. Does
this prove the doctrine of unconditional election?
That we may see, if possible, more clearly that the pronouns we
and us in this context do refer to a particular class of persons of
which Paul was one, and that the calling of these did not embrace
all the elect as taught by Calvinists, we will pursue the connection
a little further. The apostle says, "That we should be to the praise of
his glory, who first trusted in Christ." Here is the same pronoun we,
including Paul and others, to whom he referred as the called and
predestinated, "who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted,
after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation."
Vers. 12, 13. Now, if we who first trusted in Christ included all the
elect, who were the ye who also trusted in him after they heard
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
the gospel of their salvation? The apostles and prophets were of the
Jews who first trusted in Christ, and the Ephesians were Gentiles.
who also trusted in Him after they heard the gospel: "Wherefore
remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are
called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in
the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ,
being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from
the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the
world; but now, in Christ Jesus, ye, who sometime were far off are
made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is Our peace, who hath
made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition
between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law
of commandments contained in ordinances for to make in himself of
twain one new man [or church], so making peace; and that he might
reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the
enmity thereby; and came and preached peace to you which were
afar off, and to them that were nigh; for through him we both have
access by one Spirit unto the Father." Eph. ii:11-18. Therefore,
"keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body
[composed of Jews and Gentiles], and one Spirit, even as ye are
called in one hope of your calling; one Lord [who died for both Jew
and Gentile], one faith [common to Jew and Gentile], one baptism
[enjoined upon all, for there is] one God and Father of all, who is
above all, and through all, and in you all," if Christians, whether
Jew or Gentile. Eph. iv:3-6.
The next passage to which we are referred as proving eternal
unconditional election is found, 2 Thess. ii:13, 14: "But we are
bound to give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord,
because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation,
through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto
he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our
Lord Jesus Christ."
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
85
In examining this passage, it is important to inquire what beginning
it was from which these persons were elected or chosen.
Was it the beginning of eternity? Eternity had no beginning. Was it
the beginning of time? Then the theory of eternal election is false,
for time had a beginning, and is not eternal. As the election was
through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, it is
impossible that the election could have antedated the belief of the
truth through which it was effected. John says: "I write no new
commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had
from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye
have heard from the beginning." 1 John ii:7. And again: "Let that
therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning."
Ver. 24. Now, what beginning was this? Surely, not the beginning
of time, the beginning of the world, or any other time or thing which
began before their birth, for this they "heard from the beginning."
Nor was it the beginning of the Christian dispensation, for it is most
likely that none of them heard the gospel until long after that
beginning. Then it was the beginning of their spiritual life -- the time
of their conversion. From that beginning they had heard the
gospel -- had the old commandment, and knew God; hence to this
beginning the apostle undoubtedly refers; and we suppose Paul
refers to the same beginning from which the Thessalonians were
chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of
the truth. Were we to say that the sheriff was elected through the
votes of the people, no one would understand that he was elected
before he received the votes of the people. When Paul said persons
were "saved through faith" (Eph. ii:8), he certainly did not mean to
teach that they were saved through faith before they had faith. Then,
when the same apostle said that the Thessalonians were
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
chosen through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth, he
surely did not mean that they had been chosen from before time
began, or at any time before they believed the truth and had their
hearts purified by it.
But we are referred to 1 Pet. i:2, where the apostle addresses his
brethren as "elect according to the foreknowledge of God the
Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." This election is according
to the divine foreknowledge, not contrary to it. The whole scheme
of redemption was in the mind of God before it was revealed to man.
Therefore, when the conditions of salvation were embodied in the
gospel and proclaimed to the world, they were presented just as they
had existed in His mind before; hence, when any one complies with
the conditions of salvation, he is elected according to the
foreknowledge of God, because elected according to a plan
previously known to Him. When we say of the governor that he was
elected according to the constitution of the State, we do not mean
that the constitution elected him, but that he was elected by a
majority of the votes of the people, according to the provisions of
the constitution, and not against its provisions. So when any one
obeys the gospel, he is elected according to the foreknowledge of
God, because God foreknew the provisions of the gospel; but the
foreknowledge of God did not elect him.
Finally, we come to examine the last passage in the Bible which
we have ever known brought to the support of unconditional
election and reprobation: "The beast which thou sawest was, and is
not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into
perdition; and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, (whose
names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of
the world,) when they behold the beast that was, and is not,
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
87
and yet is." Rev. xvii:8. It is the parenthetical portion of the
quotation which is believed by some to give support to the doctrine
in question. As there are persons here spoken of whose names were
not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, it
is inferred that there are persons whose names were so written. This,
we admit, is a legitimate inference, but inferences rarely ever stop
within proper bounds. It is further inferred that when a person's
name is written in the book of life, his interest in heaven is secure to
him; hence there are those whose names were written in the book of
life and made sure of heaven from the foundation of the world,
without regard to any thing done by them, whether good or evil.
This is not deducible from the language of the text, and is at war
with the spirit of the whole Bible, which rewards or punishes man
according to his works, and is most plainly contradicted in the same
book from which the quotation is made. "He that overcometh, the
same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his
name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my
Father, and before his angels." Rev. iii:5. Now, let us apply the same
rules of inference here that were admitted applicable to the other
passage. As it is said of certain persons that their names were not
written in the book of life, it is inferred that the names of others
were so written: then when the Lord said of a certain character, "I
will not blot out his name out of the book of life," the inference is
equally clear that the names of others would be blotted out of the
book of life. From this conclusion there is no escape; hence the fact
that the name of a person is written in the book of life is not
conclusive proof that he will finally be saved in heaven. "For I
testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this
book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto
him the
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away
from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from
the things which are written in this book." Rev xxii:18, 19. Then,
a man may have a part in the book of life and yet so conduct himself
that it may be taken away from him. Nor was this a new thought first
revealed to John in the isle of Patmos; for when Aaron made the
golden calf, and the children of Israel were threatened with
destruction for worshiping it, Moses prayed the Lord to forgive their
sin, and said: "If not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which
thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath
sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book." Ex. xxxii:32, 33.
As sin or disobedience causes God to erase or blot out the names of
persons from the book of life, and obedience causes their names to
be retained or not blotted out (Rev. iii:5), is it not probable that
obedience caused their names to be enrolled when first written in
the book? "They that feared the Lord spake often one to another,
and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance
was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that
thought upon his name." Mal. iii:16. This book seems to have been
written before the Lord for those who feared Him and thought upon
His name. It will be observed that the names were written from, not
before, the foundation of the world. Then, as persons have lived and
feared the Lord, their names were inserted in God's book. We do not
suppose that God had a literal book in which the names of His
people were written before or after the foundation of the world; but
in the mind of God they are recognized as His from the time they
bear His name and become obedient to His will. If God had a literal
book in which the literal name of every person
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
89
was written before time began, it follows that all parents and others
concerned in giving children their names must have been inspired in
order that they might give the child the name designed for it, other-
wise they might miss the name occasionally. One thing is certain,
however, whether the book be literal or figurative, viz: that names,
though written in the book of life, are still liable to be blotted out
of it; and surely, while the names of any persons remain written in
the book of life, they are elect. Jesus said to his disciples, "Rejoice,
because your names are written in heaven." Luke x:20. Paul told his
brethren that they had come "to the general assembly and church of
the first-born, which are written in heaven." Heb. xii:23. To another
he said: "I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women
which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with
other of my fellow laborers, whose names are in the book of life."
Phil. iv:3. After John described the heavenly Jerusalem, he said:
"There shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth; neither
whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which
are written in the Lamb's book of life." Rev. xxi:27.
From all these quotations it is evident that, while the names of
persons are written in the book of life, in heaven they are elect; but
when their names have been so written and blotted out of the book
of life, they become reprobates, and, unless reinstated, must be lost.
Therefore the number of the elect can be diminished, and hence the
doctrine of eternal unconditional election and reprobation can not
be true.
Now, we believe we have examined every passage of Holy Writ
supposed to favor the doctrine of personal unconditional election
and reprobation, and we feel sure that many readers will rejoice
with us in the conviction that no
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
such monstrous absurdity is taught in God's holy word. We
conscientiously believe it not only antagonistic to the teaching of
the Bible, but contrary to the spirit and genius of the Christian
religion, and at war with the love, mercy, and justice of God. He had
the entire control of man's creation, and certainly would not have
created him, having unalterably consigned the greater portion of his
posterity to eternal misery, dishonor, and wrath, for no fault of their
own, or any thing in their power to prevent. How God could be
glorified by the eternal punishment of man, in order to carry out a
decree made by Himself before the creation of man, is a matter
utterly incomprehensible to us. The doctrine makes God an
embodiment of cruelty, tyranny, and oppression too horrible to
contemplate; and we see not how any one who believes it can
acceptably obey God. "He that cometh to God must believe that he
is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Heb.
xi:6. Do Calvinists believe that God will reward the reprobates,
however diligently they may seek Him?
How can he who believes himself either one of the elect or one
of the reprobate, and that therefore there is nothing he can do that
will in any way affect his salvation, ask such a question as. "What
must I do to be saved?" (Acts xvi:30) or in faith obey any command
as a condition of salvation? We speak with all due respect when
we say we think such a thing impossible until such persons can
correct their faith on this subject. If we believed it, we would never
make another effort to persuade any person to make his calling and
election sure; because, if the doctrine is true, no effort which man
can make in the way of obedience to God can in the least increase
his chances for future bliss, or in any way change the final destiny
of any one of Adam's race.
Calvinistic Proofs Examined
91
Let us turn our backs upon the theory, and our eyes to the word
of the Lord, and with hearts lifted in gratitude to God, seek to
realize the grand truth perceived by Peter at the house of
Cornelius -- "that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation
he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with
him." Acts x:34, 35.
CHAPTER IV
Finally, we come to examine the last strong fortress of
THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD
Calvinism, which it holds in alliance with Universalism by the
common consent of those who oppose them. It is based upon the
assumption that God, from all eternity, foreknew every thing that
ever has or ever will come to pass; therefore, He foreknew just who
and how many would be saved, and who, if any, would be lost. And
as the final destiny of every person must be exactly as foreseen by
God, it follows that such foreknowledge amounted to an immutable
decree. If God knew, ere time began, that Cain would kill his
brother, then there was no possibility left to Cain to avoid the deed.
Had there been such possibility, Cain might have availed himself of
it, and failed to do that which God foreknew he would do, thereby
falsifying the foreknowledge of God. If God foreknew that Cain, or
any one else, would act wickedly and be lost, then there was no
possibility left him to have acted righteously and to have been
saved; for had he availed himself of such a possibility and been
saved, it would have been in despite of God's foreknowledge to the
contrary. Ergo, as God foreknew every thing, He must have decreed
every thing; and as He foreknew the destiny of every man, it follows
that He decreed the destiny which man had no power to avert.
We believe this is a fair exhibit of the Calvinistic side of the
argument; but Universalism applies the same principle
The Foreknowledge Of God
93
to all men that Calvinism applies to the elect. It assumes that
God will not punish man for that which he had no power to avoid
(and yet we see that he is so punished every day); and as all must
pursue the course marked out for them in the foreknowledge of God,
none will be punished for carrying out the immutable purposes of
Jehovah. Forgetting that God has such attributes as justice and
vengeance, it draws largely upon His love, goodness, and mercy:
"God is infinite love, and must have desired the salvation of all
men. As He foreknew the destiny of every man, and had power to
create only such as seemed good to Him, He would, of course,
create only such as He foresaw would be saved. Hence all men were
created for salvation, and will finally be saved."
Thus we have presented the arguments respectively drawn by
Calvinists and Universalists from what they are pleased to call the
unlimited foreknowledge of God; and it is but the part of candor to
admit that they are not without some degree of plausibility. There
are, however, at least three sides to this argument, viz: the Calvinist's
side, the Universalist's side, and the Lord's side, and of the three we
prefer the last. Many have been the efforts to harmonize the free-
agency of man and the unlimited foreknowledge of God, and
though we have read every thing written on the subject that has
fallen under our notice, we have never yet read a plausible theory
concerning it. From our stand-point, therefore, the premises are
doubtful, to say the least of them: may we not, then, with becoming
reverence, inquire whether or not God eternally foreknew every
thing that ever has or ever will come to pass?
In approaching the examination of the subject we wish to state
most plainly that we pretend not to comprehend the mind and
purposes of God, only as He has revealed
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
them to us. We pretend not to have fathomed the depths of the
wisdom and knowledge of the infinite Jehovah. With Paul, we are
ready to exclaim: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and
knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his
ways past finding out! for who hath known the mind of the Lord? or
who hath been his counselor?" Rom. xi:33, 34. Oh, the
insignificance of man in the presence of God! Indeed, it seems to us
unsafe to build a theological system upon an incomprehensible
foundation; hence those who base their theory upon the supposed
attributes of God, to say the least of them, are liable to build upon
the sand. Do they not thereby say that they have sounded the depths
of the wisdom and knowledge of God, and have found them
extending to a perfect knowledge of every thing that ever has or will
come to pass? Do they not, in theory, say that they have searched
His judgments, and have found that a definite number were
approved, and the reprobates condemned, before time began, or that
all were unconditionally approved? Do they not say that they have
searched His ways and known His mind to perfection, and can therefore
safely build a theological system, involving the destiny of the human race,
upon their knowledge of the attributes of God? We may know God's will, and
the extent of His knowledge where He has revealed them to us, but
beyond this we dare not go. When God speaks, it is the province of
man to hear and believe, whether he can or can not see to the end.
When God commanded Abraham to go, he went, not knowing
whither he went (Heb. xi:8); hence, when God says He purposed to
do any thing, we must accept it as true, whether He did it or not;
and when He says He did not know a thing, it is unsafe to say that
He did know it, His word to the contrary notwithstanding. But has
God spoken to man on the subject? Let us see: "And God saw that
The Foreknowledge Of God
95
the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it
grieved him at heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I
have created from the face of the earth." Gen. vi:5-7. Now, if God
knew before He created man just how wicked he would be, and
what he would do, what can this mean? "God saw that the
wickedness of man was great." Did He not always see? And why did
God grieve over a result which was as plain to Him before He
created man as when He saw the overt acts of wickedness
performed? And if the wickedness of man was such as to cause God
to destroy him, why would not this wickedness foreseen have
prevented his creation at first? If seeing the wickedness of man
caused God to repent making him, and to determine to destroy him,
does not it follow that He did not know, prior to his creation, how
wicked he would be? Surely, He would not have created man for the
purpose of bringing grief to His own heart, and destruction to His
creature. But why did God not know the wickedness of the
antediluvians, from eternity? Certainly, it was not because He was
not capable of knowing future events, for we know He did foretell
many things long before they came to pass. The Psalmist says,
"Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is
infinite." Ps. cxlvii:5. "Could there be any thing unknown to him
whose understanding is infinite?" Let us see. God is as infinite in
power as He is in understanding. No one, we suppose, will deny
that He is omnipotent as well as omniscient, yet there are some
things He can not do; e.g., God can not lie. Titus i:2; Heb. vi:18.
God could not have made two hills without a low place between
them. Then if there are some things which God can not
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
do, though omnipotent, may there not be some things which He
DID not know, though omniscient? But it may be said that God can
not lie, because it is incompatible with His nature, and not because
He has not power to lie. Very well; then He did not know, before
making man, just how wicked he would be, simply because such
foreknowledge would have been incompatible with the free-agency
and responsibility of man. To be responsible, man must be free. If
God knew before He gave Adam the law in the garden that he would
violate it when given, then he was not free; for he could not have
falsified God's foreknowledge if he would: hence to violate the law
was a necessity. The great scheme of salvation conceived by Infinite
Wisdom contemplated human responsibility based upon freedom of
will, and God had power to avoid the foreknowledge of every thing
incompatible with His attributes and the scheme of salvation devised
by Him. He who says God could not avoid knowing every thing,
limits the power of Him who is omnipotent. God can limit the
exercise of His own attributes, but it is dangerous for man to assume
such power. We dare not limit the knowledge of God; but if He saw
fit to limit the exercise of His own knowledge, we fear to say He had
not the power and the right to do so. Infinite power does not
require God to do every thing, but it implies the ability to do
whatever is in harmony with His attributes and purposes. He
could instantly kill every man who violates His law, but, in great
mercy, He has seen fit to limit the exercise of His power, and permits
us to live: so, in the morning of the first day, God could have looked
down the stream of time and have seen the secret intentions of every
heart that would ever be subjected to His law, but, in infinite mercy,
He saw fit to avoid a knowledge of every thing incompatible with
the freedom of the human will and the system of government
The Foreknowledge Of God
97
devised by Him for man. Does any one say God had not power to
do this? then let him explain how it was that God grieved over the
wickedness of man when He saw that it was great in the earth; yea,
let him explain why it was that the wickedness of man caused God
to repent that He had made him, if He as clearly saw it before He
made him as afterward; and let him further explain why it was that
the wickedness of man, which caused God to determine to destroy
him from the earth after He had made him, if clearly foreseen by
Him, did not prevent God from creating man at first.
God exercises His attributes through means, or without them, as
may best serve His purposes. When He would exert His power in the
creation of any thing, He said, Let it be, and it was. When He
would bear witness to the divine character of His Son, a voice came
from the eternal throne, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom
I am well pleased." Matt. iii:17; xvii:5. When He would rebuke the
madness of Balaam, He enabled the beast on which the ungrateful
wretch rode, to speak in the language of man. Num. xxii:28. When
He would rebuke Belshazzar for the unholy use to which he applied
the sacred vessels of His house, He caused the fingers of a man's
hand, where there was no man, to write the king's doom on the
plastered walls of his own palace. Dan. v:5. When He gave His law to
the Jews at Sinai, He inscribed it on tables of stone with His own
finger; but when He established the new covenant, He wrote His
laws upon the hearts of His people with the tongues and pens of
men. Even so He could know or not know whatever He desired to
know, with or without means. When He would test the complaints
that had reached Him concerning the wickedness of the cities of the
plains, He said: "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great,
and because their sin is
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they have done
altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto me; and if
not, I will know." Gen. xviii:20, 21. Certainly, God could have
known what was going on in these cities without going down there
to see about it, but He declined to know until He employed His
angels, in the likeness of men, as means for the purpose of obtaining
the information. But this was not a case of foreknowledge, but
simply a case where God made use of means to acquire a knowledge
of what had already occurred. This is certainly true, but does it
remove the difficulty? Did God know, before time began, all about
the wickedness of these cities, and forget it, so as to make it
necessary to send His angels to acquire a knowledge of that which
He had previously known? Surely, no one is prepared to take a
position like this. Do words mean any thing? If so, when God said,
"I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether
according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will
know," what did He mean? Had He always known?
"But this language was used in an accommodated sense." Was
it, indeed? Then let us seek for its meaning in this sense. To whom
was it accommodated? Not to God, certainly, for He needed no
accommodation. He could have made the communication in any set
of words which contained it, either through a medium or without
one. Then, if the language was accommodated at all, it must have
been to Abraham, to whom it was spoken, and to us for whose
benefit it was recorded; but if it conveyed some other idea than is
usually conveyed by the same set of words, then we see not how it
was accommodated to any one. The only way by which language
can be accommodated to any one consists in its adaptation to the
comprehension of the party addressed and the thought to be conveyed
The Foreknowledge Of God
99
by it; e.g.: If a German would communicate any thing to me,
he must speak to me in English, as I would not be likely to
understand him were he to address me in the German language.
Hence, by speaking English, he would accommodate his language
to me. But this is not all: he must use such English words as would
embody the thought, otherwise I might still fail to understand him.
If he wanted to buy a horse of me, and he should say, "I want to sell
you some goods to-day," I would fail to understand him, because
the idea of buying a horse is not in the words, "I want to sell goods."
Nor is this all: he would deceive me by using words calculated to
convey one thought when he designed to convey another. Then
when God substantially said to Abraham, "I will go down and see
whether or not things are as reported to me; and if not, I will
know" -- if He meant that He had always seen and always known the
things spoken of, we insist that the language used not only failed to
be accommodated to the thought, but was calculated to make a false
impression upon all before whom it might come. Let us try a few
other passages of like construction by the same accommodated rules
of interpretation. In the same chapter from which we have quoted
the language in question, God twice said to Abraham, by the mouths
of the same angelic messengers, "I will return unto thee, according
to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son." Vers. 10,14. Did
God mean that He had already returned, and that Sarah had
already been blessed with the promised son? Again: The Lord said
to Abraham, "I will make thee exceeding fruitful." Did He mean that
Abraham had always been fruitful? "I will make nations of thee."
Did He mean that nations had always been made of Abraham? "I
will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou
art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession."
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
Did He mean that He had, from eternity, given the land of
Canaan to Abraham? Once more: When Jesus said, "On this rock I
will build my church" (Matt. xvi:18), did He mean that His church
had always been built? If not, how can we accommodate the
language "I will know" to the thought "I have always known?"
When Abraham, in obedience to the command of God, had
placed his beloved son upon the sacrificial altar, and had stretched
forth his hand, and taken the knife to slay his son, "the angel of the
Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham.
And he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the
lad, neither do thou any thing unto him; for now I know that thou
fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son,
from me." Gen. xxii:11, 12. What can this mean? "Now I know that
thou fearest God." Did He always know it? Nay, how did He then
know it? "Seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son,
from me." Does not this language imply that God saw in Abraham
a degree of faithfulness unseen before? Paul says God tried Abraham
here. Heb. xi:17. Why did God try him, if He knew perfectly well
what Abraham would do before He tried him? But it is said that this
trial of Abraham was to show him the strength of his own faith.
Then God should have said, "Now you know you fear God, because
you see you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me."
It occurs to us that an accommodation of language to thought
would require a change like this.
Respecting the idolatry of the Jews, God, by the mouth of His
prophet, said: "They have built the high places of Tophet which is
in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their
daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came
it into my heart." Jer. vii:3l. Here were things done by men which
the
The Foreknowledge Of God
101
Lord said came not into His heart. Did He know from eternity that
which never came into His heart? But we are told that this only
means that it never entered into God's heart to command the
wickedness which they did. He plainly says He did not command it
before using the words "neither came it into my heart." Surely,
something additional was implied by these words; if not, why use
them at all? Let us examine the construction of the quotation. What
did they do? They burnt their children. What was it which God
commanded them not? That which they did. What was it that came
not into the mind of the Lord? That which they did, the burning of
their children. In the sentence, "Neither came it into my heart," if
the pronoun it does not refer to burning their sons and daughters in
the fire, then we confess our inability to construe it at all. In another
place the Lord said: "They have built also the high places of Baal,
to burn their sons with fire, for burnt-offerings unto Baal, which I
commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind." Jer.
xix:5. Let us examine the pronouns in this quotation. "Which I
commanded them not." To what does the relative which refer? To
the act of burning their sons with fire. "Nor spake it." To what does
the pronoun it refer? That which they did, and were commanded
not. "Neither came it into my mind." Now, to what does this it
refer? Certainly, to that which they did, which God commanded
them not, nor spake it. Unless we take the liberty of adding to the
word of the Lord, we see not how to construe the language
otherwise.
But we are told that these passages are explained by another:
"They built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the
son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass
through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not,
neither came it into my
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."
Jer. xxxii:35. And how does this passage explain the other two?
Perhaps this is explained by the other two. If we understand the
auxiliary should in the sense of would, then we have most perfect
harmony in all of them. But it matters not which rendering is
adopted here, for when the passages are all considered they
abundantly show that it never entered into the mind of God that
they either would or should do the things they did. Let it be
remembered that Calvinism assumes that God eternally and
immutably fore-ordained every thing that comes to pass. It did come
to pass that the Jews did these things; therefore it follows that God
fore-ordained that they should do them; and yet He says it never
came into His mind that they should do them. In another part of the
argument we invoked the aid of Calvinists to explain how God fore-
ordained that which never came into His mind. All must see that this
is impossible, and hence God did not fore-ordain these things.
Calvinism further assumes that whatever was foreknown was fore-
ordained: then, as these abominations were not fore-ordained, it
follows that they were not foreknown; hence, even from this stand-
point, they never entered the mind of the Lord. Universalism is also
entangled in the meshes of this net, for it and Calvinism agree that
all things foreknown were fore-ordained, and must come to pass
accordingly. Let Universalists, therefore, join with Calvinists in
showing how God fore-ordained that which never came into His
mind; for whenever they admit that the foreknowledge of God does
not amount to an immutable decree, and that things may turn out
otherwise than as foreseen by God, then their argument drawn from
the unlimited foreknowledge of God will have been exploded, and
the strongest
The Foreknowledge Of God
103
prop which ever gave support to Universalism will have been
withdrawn.
When the children of Israel worshiped the golden calf made by
Aaron at the foot of Sinai, the anger of the Lord was kindled against
them, and He said to Moses, "Let me alone, that my wrath may wax
hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of
thee a great nation." Ex. xxxii:10. Moses interceded for the people
with arguments too powerful to be resisted. Said he, "Wherefore
should the Egyptians speak and say, For mischief did he bring them
out to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the
face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil
against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy
servants, to whom thou swearest by thine own self, and saidst unto
them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this
land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall
inherit it forever." Vers. 12, 13. Was there ever a more powerful
speech, of the same length uttered by mortal lips? He reminds the
Lord of His deliverance of this people, and what His enemies would
say of His motives in doing so -- of His devoted servants whose
children these were, and His oath of promise to them. This speech
prevailed, "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to
do unto his people." Ver. 14. Was the Lord deceptive in His
pretensions of anger to Moses against the people? Were His threats
of destruction all hypocrisy? The earnest appeals of Moses show
that he did not so understand them; yet they were mere sound if He
knew, when making them, that He would not execute them. But He
repented of the evil which He thought to do unto His people, and
did not do that which He thought He would do. But if He eternally
foreknew every thing that comes to pass, it follows that He foreknew
He would
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
not do this evil to His people; hence He knew He would not do that
which He thought He would do. Can this be true? Is it possible to
think we will do that which we know we will not do? Men
sometimes say they think they will do that which they know, at the
time, they will not do; but they do that which it is impossible for
God to do when they so speak. Surely, we should be slow to cast
such an imputation upon the God we adore. The inspired Word is
the measure of our faith; hence, when it says God thought He
would do a thing, we accept it as true, feeling sure that no valid
objection can be brought against it. The Book of God, to be worthy
of its Author, must be harmonious in all its teaching.
But the disciples of the Saviour once said to Him, "Now are we
sure that thou knowest all things." John xvi:30. And Peter once said,
"Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." John
xxi:17. Will the reader bear in mind that it is one thing to know all
things, and quite another to foreknow all things -- one thing to know
a thing, and quite another thing to know a thing before it is a thing,
or when it has no existence. If we make these texts prove that Jesus
had unlimited foreknowledge of every thing that has or will take
place, we come in conflict with His own word, when he said, "Of
that day and of that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which
are in heaven, neither the SON, but the Father." Mark xiii:32. Now,
here is one thing which it is certain he did not know; hence the fact
that Jesus knew all things did not imply that He foreknew every
thing. But John said, "God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all
things." 1 John iii:20. Yes, and in just as strong terms he said to his
brethren, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all
things." 1 John ii:20. Then, if the fact that God knows all things
proves that He foreknew
The Foreknowledge Of God
105
all things, the same language proves that the disciples to whom
John wrote also had unlimited foreknowledge! Does any one believe
this? Then the language has no application to foreknowledge what-
ever. Further: There is no fact more clearly established than that the
word all is often used in the Bible to indicate a great amount or a
great number, when it must not be understood without limit; e.g.:
It is said that all the people in a certain region were baptized by
John, and yet many rejected the counsel of God against themselves
by not being so baptized. And even the very words all things are
used in a limited sense. Paul says charity "beareth all things,
believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things." 1 Cor.
xiii:7. Are we to believe all things, whether true or false? Surely not.
Then the sum of John's teaching was that his brethren, having an
unction from the Holy One, know all things about which he was
writing to them. Then we shall continue to believe that our
Heavenly Father had power to limit the exercise of His knowledge
to an extent compatible with the free-agency and accountability of
man and the scheme of salvation devised for him, until we are
shown a more excellent way. This being so, neither Calvinism nor
Universalism can be sustained by their long cherished hobby,
unlimited "foreknowledge;" but how they will be successfully met
by those who admit it, is more than we can foreknow. We must see
it done, then we will, perhaps, know how it has been done.
When we wrote the foregoing we were not aware of a single
authority, save the Bible, from which we might derive the slightest
encouragement; since we sent it to press, however, we have found
an article from the pen of Dr. Adam Clarke, from which we make
the following very significant extract; not because there is any thing
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
additional in it, but that our readers may see that we are, at least,
in good company:
"As God's omnipotence implies his power to do all things, so
God's omniscience implies his power to know all things; but we
must take heed that we meddle not with the infinite free-agency of
this Eternal Being. Though God can do all things, he does not all
things. Infinite judgment directs the operations of his power, so that
though he can, yet he does not do all things, but only such things
as are proper to be done. In what is called illimitable space, he can
make millions of millions of systems, but he does not see proper to
do this. He can destroy the solar system, but he does not do it: he
can fashion and order, in endless variety, all the different beings
which now exist, whether material, animal, or intellectual; but he
does not do this, because He does not see it proper to be done.
Therefore it does not follow that, because God can do all things,
therefore he muse do all things. God is omniscient, and can know
all things, but does it follow from this that he must know all things?
Is he not as free in the volitions of his wisdom as he is in the
volitions of his power? The contingent as absolute, or the absolute
as contingent? God has ordained some things as absolutely certain:
these he knows as absolutely certain. He has ordained other things
as contingent: these he knows as contingent. It would be absurd to
say that he foreknows a thing as only contingent which he has made
absolutely certain. And it would be as absurd to say that he
foreknows a thing to be absolutely certain which, in his own eternal
counsel, he has made contingent. By "absolutely certain" I mean
a thing which must be in that order, time, place, and form, in which
Divine wisdom has ordained it to be; and that it can be not
otherwise than this infinite counsel has ordained. By "contingent,"
I mean such
The Foreknowledge Of God
107
things as the infinite wisdom of God has thought proper to poise on
the possibility of being or not being, leaving it to the will of
intelligent beings to turn the scale. Or contingencies are such
possibilities, amid the succession of events, as the infinite wisdom
of God has left to the will of intelligent beings to determine,
whether any such event shall take place or not. To deny this would
involve the most palpable contradictions, and the most monstrous
absurdities. If there be no such things as contingencies in the world,
then every thing is fixed and determined by an unalterable decree
and purpose of God, and not only all free-agency is destroyed, but
all agency of every kind, except that of the Creator himself, for on
this ground God is the only operator, either in time or eternity: all
created beings are only instruments, and do nothing but as impelled
and acted upon by this almighty and sole Agent. Consequently,
every act is his own, for if he have purposed them all as absolutely
certain, having nothing contingent in them, then he has ordained
them to be so; and if no contingency, then no free-agency, and God
alone is the sole actor. Hence the blasphemous, though, from the
premises, fair conclusion, that God is the author of all the evil and
sin that are in the world, and hence follows that absurdity -- that, as
God can do nothing that is wrong, WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT. Sin
is no more sin, a vicious human action is no crime, if God have
decreed it, and by his foreknowledge and will impelled the creature
to act it. On this ground there can be no punishment for
delinquencies, for if every thing be done as God has predetermined --
and his determinations must necessarily be all right -- then neither
the instrument nor the agent has done wrong.
Thus all vice and virtue, praise and blame, merit and demerit, guilt
and innocence, are at once confounded, and all distinctions of this
kind confounded with them. Now, allowing the
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
doctrine of the contingency of human actions (and it must be
allowed in order to shun the above absurdities and blasphemies),
then we see every intelligent creature accountable for its own works,
and for the use it makes of the power with which God has endued
it; and, to grant all this consistently, we must also grant that God
foresees nothing as absolutely and inevitably certain which he has
made contingent; and because he has designed it to be contingent,
therefore he can not know it as absolutely and inevitably certain.
I conclude that God, although omniscient, is not obliged, in con-
sequence of this, to know all that he can know, no more than he is
obliged, because he is omnipotent, to do all that he can do."
Commentary on Acts ii:47.
Although Dr. Clarke offers not a single scriptural quotation or
reference in proof of the positions taken, yet we regard his reasoning
upon the attributes of God, and the bearing of foreknowledge upon
the free-agency and accountability of man, as simply irresistible. We
have long entertained these views, but have never preached them
from the pulpit, nor until now given them to the press. We were
forced to them while preparing for a debate with a Universalist,
some twenty years ago, since which we have studied the subject,
until a position then cautiously taken has become a settled
conviction. We feel strengthened by finding ourself in company
with a man of such power as Dr. Clarke.
CHAPTER V
Having previously disposed of unconditional election and
HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY
reprobation as taught by the Presbyterian Confession, we come
now to notice another doctrine taught by the same authority, as well
as by most of the denominations, which obtains much more general
acceptance than the Calvinistic view of election and reprobation,
but which is equally fatal to the obedience of faith required in the
gospel, to which we deem it proper to call attention before we set
out to learn the duty of man in order to his adoption into the family
of God. This is what is called by its advocates "Hereditary Total
Depravity."
We will make a few quotations from the Presbyterian
Confession of Faith, as the highest authority known to us that contains
this doctrine, which will correctly set it before the reader. And we
do not make these quotations for the purpose of following this
doctrine into all its legitimate results in detail, but for the purpose
of showing its bearing upon the subject of obedience to God:
"By this sin (eating the forbidden fruit) they (our first parents)
fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and
so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and
parts of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt
of this sin was imputed and the same death in sin and corrupted
nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby
we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,
and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions."
Now, it seems to us that if this picture correctly represents the
disposition of the human heart at birth, the devil can be no worse.
His Satanic Majesty can not be more than utterly indisposed,
disabled, and opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.
Nor can we very well see how man can get any worse in the scale of
moral turpitude. He can not get worse than wholly defiled in all the
faculties of soul and body -- and this is his condition at birth, if the
doctrine be true -- yet Paul tells Timothy that "evil men and seducers
shall wax worse and worse." 2 Tim. iii:13. How can they get worse?
Wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body! Opposite to all
good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and still wax worse and worse!
Does not the common observation of every man contradict this
doctrine? The theory is, as we shall see directly, that this corrupt
nature remains until the man is converted to Christianity, as some
teach, while others insist that it remains through life even in those
truly regenerated. Then we can not be wholly defiled, opposite to
all good by nature, for we see many men who make no pretension
to Christianity at all, quite as ready to visit the sick and administer
to the wants of the poor as many who claim to have had their hearts
cleansed by the Spirit of God. These persons are surely not opposed
to all good while thus doing good; if they are, then their feelings and
actions are strangely inconsistent.
But we are told that from this original corruption do proceed all
actual transgressions. If this be true, how came Adam to sin? This
corruption of nature is the cause of all actual transgression, and it
was the consequence
Hereditary Depravity
111
of Adams's sin, but not the cause of it, according to the theory, and
hence he was not under its influence until after he sinned. As this
inherited corruption of nature is the source of all actual
transgression now, what caused his transgression then? His
transgression must have been caused by some other influence than
the corruption of nature supposed to be the consequence of his sin;
and if so, why may not the same or similar causes influence others
now? We are now subject to many temptations from which he was
then free. He could not have been tempted to steal from his
neighbor, for there was no one then living to be his neighbor, and no
one owned any thing but himself. He could not have been tempted
to kill, for there was no person to kill but his wife. He could not
have had a temptation to adultery, for the only woman on earth was
his wife. Notwithstanding he was free from many sources of
temptation that beset our pathway, he failed in the first trial he had of
which we have a record. Then, surely, other causes than corruption
inherited from him on account of his sin may cause transgression
now.
But we are told that "this their sin God was pleased, according
to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it
to his own glory." Chap. vi, sec. 1. It does not seem to us that
"permit" is exactly the word here. We have already been told that
"God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of
his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to
pass." It did come to pass that they ate of the fruit whereof God
commanded them not to eat. Then does it not follow that God not
only permitted them to eat, but unchangeably ordained that they
should eat the fruit and violate the law He had given, having
"purposed to order it to his own glory?"
But how God could be glorified by this violation of His
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
law, especially if we contemplate its results in the light of this
theory, we are not very well prepared to see. We have been
accustomed to think that the best way to glorify God is to honor His
authority by obedience to His commands. How could God be
glorified by the direct violation of His positive command, when it
made man wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body? Did
He glory in man becoming opposite to all good and wholly inclined
to all evil, that He might punish him in hell forever? Could there be
any justice in placing man under a law which God had
unchangeably ordained he should break? Was it not downright
mockery for God to command him to obey when He had previously
decreed that he should disobey?
But was God glorified by the corruption of His creature man?
Let us see: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in
the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made
man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Gen. vi:5, 6. Did
God grieve on account of His own glorification? If God was glorified
by Adam's sin, the consequence of which was the entire corruption
of the nature of his offspring, from whence flow all actual
transgressions, the wickedness of the antediluvians was as much the
result of it as the wickedness of any other people; hence we can not
see how He would grieve over the result of an act which He had
previously determined to order to His own glory, and which He had
unchangeably ordained should come to pass.
Again: Would God have given man a command that He had
unchangeably fore-ordained to be broken, that He might subject him
to "death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal," then
tell us that He "so loved the
Hereditary Depravity
113
world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth
in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John iii:16), and
at the same time restrict the benefits of His death to a few elect ones,
and allow the devil to have the many, and thus be glorified by their
destruction -- it being no fault of theirs? But if all actual transgressions
proceed from this supposed corruption of nature, it is difficult
to account for the difference of inclination to sin which we see
manifested by different persons. We are accustomed to expect the
same cause, when surrounded by the same circumstances, to
produce the same effect on all occasions; yet we see persons, even
in the same family, surrounded by as nearly the same circumstances
as human beings can be in this life, somewhat differently inclined to
sin; and, as circumstances differ, these differences increase, until one
is a moral, upright man, another a drunkard, another a thief, and
another a murderer. Can any one tell, in keeping with this theory,
why Cain killed his brother? They were both possessed of the same
corrupt nature, and precisely to the same extent. Why, then, was
one more vicious than the other? We can not increase or intensify
the meaning of such words as wholly, all, total, etc. We can not say
more wholly defiled, more all the faculties, more all evil, more all
good. If all Adam's progeny are wholly defiled in all the faculties of
soul and body, opposed to all good and wholly inclined to all evil,
Cain could not have been more corrupt than Abel. And if this
corrupt nature is the source of all actual transgressions, it was the
cause of Cain's sin; and Abel being possessed of this corruption of
nature to the same extent, would have been just as much inclined to
kill Cain as Cain would have been to kill Abel. Men differ as widely
in their inclinations to sin as it is possible for them to differ in any
thing, and they could not thus differ if the same corrupt
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
nature influenced all and was possessed by all to the same extent.
But worse still, from our stand-point the theory necessarily
damns every infant that dies in infancy. If all infants come into the
world with natures inherited from our first parents, wholly defiled
in all the faculties of soul and body, then those who die in infancy
must go to hell on account of this defilement, or go to heaven in this
defilement, or they must have it removed in some way unknown to
the Bible. The makers of the creed plainly saw this difficulty, and
attempted to provide for it. Chap. x, sec. 3, they tell us that "elect
infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ
through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how he
pleaseth." Thus they provide for elect infants dying in infancy, but
they make no effort to save any but the elect, telling us plainly that
Christ died for none others.
But the Calvinists are but a very small part of those who adopt
this theory -- how will the others escape? The Cumberland
Presbyterian Confession of Faith substitutes the word all for elect,
thus: "All infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by
Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how
he pleaseth." Chap. x, sec. 3. And how did the authors know this?
Where is the proof that Christ, by the Spirit, removes this depravity
from those dying in infancy and allows it to remain in the living
ones? The creed refers us to Luke xviii:15, 16: "And they brought
unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his
disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him,
and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them
not: for of such is the kingdom of God." We have two objections to
this proof: "First, these were living and not dead or dying children:
how can it, therefore, prove any thing about what
Hereditary Depravity
115
the Spirit does for those dying in infancy? Second, It proves just the
opposite of infantile depravity. If Jesus had said, "Suffer little
children to come, and forbid them not, that the total depravity and
corruption of their little defiled hearts may be removed by the Spirit,
for of such as they will then be is the kingdom of God," then the
text would have been appropriate. But as it is, it would fill the
kingdom of God with subjects wholly defiled in all the faculties of
soul and body, opposed to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.
"Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of
such [not as they will be, but are now] is the kingdom of
God" -- that is, of such total depravity, and subjects wholly defiled
in all the faculties of soul and body, is the kingdom of God!!!
Mr. Jeter, the great Baptist luminary of Virginia, says: "Infants
dying in infancy, must, by some process known or unknown, be
freed from depravity -- morally renewed or regenerated, or they can
never be saved -- never participate in the joys of heaven." Jeter's
Campbellism Reexamined, pages 51, 52. And on page 49 he says:
"I shall now proceed to show that, in the case of dying infants and
idiots, regeneration takes place by the agency of the Spirit, without
the Word." Thus we see that one error assumed and adopted creates
the necessity for perhaps many others. The false assumption that
infants are wholly depraved has forced upon these authors and their
ilk the doctrine of infant regeneration and abstract spiritual
influences. Nor is this all: the doctrine of infant baptism
originated here. Does any one demand proof? He shall have it. Dr.
Wall, the most voluminous and authoritative writer that has ever
wielded a pen in defense of infant baptism, says:
"And you will see in the following quotations that they often
conclude the necessity of baptism for the forgiveness of sins, even
of a child that is but a day old." Wall's
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
History, vol. 1, page 48. After making a quotation from Justin
Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the apostles, and about
A.D. 140, our author says: "I recite this only to show that in these
times, so very near the apostles, they spoke of original sin affecting
all mankind descended of Adam; and understood that, besides the
actual sins of each particular person, there is in our nature itself,
since the fall, something that needs redemption and forgiveness by
the merits of Christ. And that is ordinarily applied to every
particular person by baptism." Ibid, 64.
On pages 104, '05, Dr. Wall quotes Origen, one of the most
learned of the Greek fathers, as follows:
"Besides all this, let it be considered, what is the reason that,
whereas the baptism of the Church is given for forgiveness of sins,
infants also are, by the usage of the Church, baptized; when, if there
were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace
of baptism would be needless to them.... Infants are baptized for the
forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or when have they sinned? Or
how can any reason of the laver in their case hold good, but
according to that sense that we mentioned even now: none is free
from pollution, though his life be but of the length of one day upon
the earth? And it is for that reason, because by the sacrament of
baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are
baptized."
In the writings of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, is a letter written
by a council of sixty-six bishops to one Fidus, about the close of the
second century. Dr. Wall gives that part of this letter which pertains
to the subject in hand, and says of it: "These bishops held that to
suffer the infant to die unbaptized was to endanger its salvation."
Wall's History, vol. 1, page 139.
Hereditary Depravity
117
In support of infant baptism, Mr. Wesley says: "If infants are
guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism,
seeing, in the ordinary way, they can not be saved unless this be
washed away by baptism. It has been already proved that this
original stain cleaves to every child of man, and that hereby they are
children of wrath, and liable to eternal damnation." This comes to
us not only as written by Mr. Wesley, but it was "Published by
order of the General Conference" in New York, in 1850. Doctrinal
Tracts, page 251. Many other quotations might be given from
various authors held in high esteem by the various parties of these
days; but surely these are sufficient to show that infant baptism grew
out of the false assumption that infants are totally depraved in all
the faculties and parts of soul and body -- children of wrath, and
liable to eternal damnation for Adam's sin, unless baptized. We
know that modern defenders of the practice are unwilling to admit
this, but Dr. Wall, as a historian, gives authority for what he says;
and historical facts, though ignored, can not be wiped out. They are
events of the past, and must so remain, though erased from the pages
of every book on earth. If, therefore, we have succeeded, or do
succeed, in showing that the dogma of hereditary total depravity is
untrue, we will have shown not only that man has the power to
believe and obey God, but also that the doctrine of abstract
spiritual influences, infant regeneration, and infant baptism, as
dependencies upon it, are necessarily untrue. Then, seeing the
importance of our subject, let us continue our examination of it. If
Adam's posterity inherited the corrupt nature described after the fall,
then why do not children of Christians inherit their parents' purified
natures after their conversion? Surely, if God directly controlled the
matter, He would have had as much pleasure in the transmission of
purity
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
of nature to the children of the faithful, as He would have had in
entailing corruption of nature on the children of the disobedient.
And if He had not specially controlled it, but left it to the laws of
nature, we can see no reason why purity of heart would not have
been as readily transmitted to the children of the Christians as
defilement of nature would have been to the children of the wicked.
But the creed tells us that "this corruption of nature, during this life,
doth remain in those that are regenerated." Presbyterian Confession,
chap. vi, sec. 5, page 41. Here, as usual, the creed and the Bible are
in direct antagonism. When Peter addressed his fellow-apostles and
elders, on one occasion, he said: "Men and brethren, ye know how
that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles
by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And
God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the
Holy Ghost, even as unto us; and put no difference between us and
them purifying their hearts by faith." Acts xv:7-9. In writing to his
brethren, he says, "Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying
the truth." 1 Pet. i:22. Now, if this corruption remains in those who
are truly converted, how is it possible for persons to be wholly
defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body, utterly
indisposed, disabled, opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to
all evil, as described by the creed, and yet their hearts purified by
faith, and their souls by obedience, as described by Peter. Surely,
the converts to the creed are not the brethren of Peter; nor are they
the blest of the Lord, for he says, "Blessed are the pure in heart: for
they shall see God." Matt. v:8.
Jesus, in his explanation of the parable of the sower, (Luke
viii:15), says, "But that on the good ground are they, which in an
honest and good heart, having heard the
Hereditary Depravity
119
word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience." If there was not
another passage of scripture in the Bible bearing on the subject, this
one would be quite sufficient to spoil the whole theory. Had Jesus
been educated in the theological schools of our day, He would not
have spoken of honest and good hearts receiving the Word, for He
would have been therein taught that there are none such; but, on
the contrary, all Adam's race are wholly defiled in all the faculties
of soul and body, opposed to all good, and wholly inclined to all
evil. It seems to us that all speculative theorizing about doubtful
interpretations of Scripture, to sustain our favorite dogma, should
bend before such direct, plain, and positive statements of the
Saviour as the above quoted.
But we are told in the creed that our natures are not only made
totally corrupt by Adam's sin, but that the GUILT of it was imputed
to all his descendants. This we regard as a fatal mistake growing out
of a failure to discriminate between guilt and consequences. It is
certainly true that we suffer in consequence of Adam's sin, but that
we are in any sense guilty of it, or morally accountable for it, is not
exactly clear to us. To suffer the consequences of an act is one
thing, but to be held guilty of it, by imputation or otherwise, is quite
a different thing. A man, for illustration, may own an estate
sufficient to abundantly supply the wants of his family for life, but,
by gambling, he may have it all swept away in a single day; his wife
and children may be reduced to poverty and want by his
wickedness, and thus made to keenly feel the consequences of his
act, but surely no one would regard them guilty in consequence of
their misfortune. So we suffer death as a consequence of Adam's sin,
as we will more clearly see directly; but this is not quite sufficient
to show that we are guilty of or responsible for it. If we
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
are guilty of or responsible for his first sin, why are we not
accountable for all other sins committed by him? As he was
childless when driven from the garden, and was an hundred and
thirty years old when Seth, his third son, of which we have an
account, was born, and was nine hundred and thirty years old when
he died, it follows that he lived more than eight hundred years after
eating the interdicted fruit. It is next to certain, therefore, that he did
many things wrong during this long period. Is there any good reason
why we are guilty of his first sin, and guilty of no other sin
committed by him? And if we are responsible for and guilty of
Adam's sin, are we not equally guilty of all the sins committed by
our own father? He is much nearer us than Adam, and we can
plainly see in ourselves some things inherited from him. If, then, we
are guilty of the sins of Adam, we see no escape from the guilt of
our father's sin. And as these are but two extremes in the long chain
of parentage from us to Adam, we can see no reason why we may
not be held guilty, according to the same rule, of all the sins of every
parent between them. If so, well may we ask, "Lord, who then can
be saved?" When we do the best we can, we have quite enough in
our own record to answer for; and if we are thus charged with the
sins of those who have lived before us, then the last lingering ray of
hope for the salvation of man is forever extinguished. We are
encouraged, however, by the fact that God has contradicted the
whole theory, saying: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son
shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear
the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Ezek. xviii:20. It seems to us that the prophet intended to describe
the false reasoners of our day, when he said: "The Gentiles shall
Hereditary Depravity
121
come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our
fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no
profit." Jer. xvi:19.
But is it possible, in the nature of things, that sin can be
transmitted from parent to child? In order to arrive at a satisfactory
solution of this question, it may be well to ascertain what sin is; and
this we can do with great certainty, for we have a definition of it
given by inspiration. John says "sin is the transgression of the law."
1 John iii:4. In the light of this definition, how is it possible that a
transgression by one man may be transmitted to another, or from
parent to child? God has said, "Thou shalt not kill." In violation of
this law, a man thrusts a dagger to the heart of his neighbor. This is
sin. Now this act, being the act of a father, can not possibly become
the act of his child; nor can the child be made responsible for it. He
may approve the act, and for this approval may receive merited
punishment; but it was the wicked approval that brought guilt to
him, and not the act of the father. Without such approval, he may
suffer in consequence of his father's act -- may be made an orphan by
it -- but surely the act itself can not become his act. Sin is nowhere
in God's word defined to be a weakness, or hereditament, but a
transgression or act of the guilty himself. "God is love," and can not
punish man for that which he has no power to prevent.
But we have said that we die as a consequence of Adam's sin.
This is true, and yet we are not guilty of it. When Adam fell from the
plastic hand of God, he was as mortal as he was after he ate of the
interdicted fruits: how, then, is death a consequence of that act? He
was placed in a garden or orchard, in which grew, among others,
two trees, respectively called The tree of life, and the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. For his government in this
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
garden, God gave him a law, saying: "Of every tree of the garden thou
mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof dying thou
shalt die." Gen. ii:16, 17. We have adopted the marginal reading of
the Polyglot Bible, because it is agreed, by scholars, to be an
improvement upon the King's translation. It will be seen, by an
examination of this law, that Adam had access to the tree of life
before he ate of the interdicted fruit, and the properties of the fruit
of this tree were such as to counteract the mortal tendencies of his
nature, and keep him alive as long as he had access to it. But when
he violated God's law, it was only necessary that he should be
driven from the garden, so that he might no longer have access to
this life-giving fruit, that, under the laws of mortality to which his
nature subjected him, he might suffer the penalty of the law which
said, "dying thou shalt die." Hence, God said: "Behold, the man has
become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put
forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live
forever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of
Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out
the man: and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim,
and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the
tree of life." Gen. iii:22-24. Thus we see how Adam died in
consequence of his sin, and that he would not have died had he not
sinned; hence says Paul, "By one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin." Rom. v:12. Not that he possessed physical
immortally before he sinned, for he did not, but he had a remedy for
his mortality of which he was deprived after he sinned. We are
sometimes asked whether or not the lower animals die as a
consequence of Adam's sin? We answer they do
Hereditary Depravity
123
not, but they die as a result of the common laws of mortality to
which the whole animal creation are subject. They have been
subject to these laws from the time they were created, not having
had access to the fruit of the tree of life, as Adam did before he
sinned. From this stand-point it is easy to see how Adam's posterity
died as a consequence of his sin. His children inherit from him just
such an organization as he had both before and after he sinned and
as they are born out of the garden of Eden, and away from the tree
of life, they can not have its fruit to counteract the mortal tendencies
of their nature, and hence, like him, dying they die. Shall we hence
conclude that Adams offspring are guilty of his sin? As well may we
conclude that the African child that falls a victim to cannibalism
sinned by being born in Africa. It was its misfortune to be born in a
locality where men eat each other: so it is our misfortune to be born
out of the garden of Eden, where, for a time we can not get fruit
from the tree of life; but if we do our Father's commandments, there
is coming a period when we will have a right to the tree of life, and
may enter through the gates into the city. There is much speculation
in the world with reference to the kind of death Adam and his
posterity died as a consequence of his sin. Mr. Ewing, in his
Lectures (page 63), tells us that, "By reason of our union with our
federal head and representative, we sinned in him, and fell with him,
and death is the consequence -- death spiritual, temporal, and
eternal." If the death which Adam and the human race died was not
only spiritual and temporal, but eternal, then we see no remedy that
can reach such a case. Eternal must mean without end -- of endless
duration. Then, if this death be eternal, there can be no more life
and hence all our efforts to save those who are eternally dead can
do no good, and the whole family of man is lost --
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
hopelessly lost. If a single son of Adam be saved, it follows that he
was not eternally lost; for -- it matters not in what sense he be dead
-- if ever made alive, that is an end to his death, and, consequently,
his death could not have been eternal.
But Mr. Ewing further tells us (page 62): "The whole soul of
man is entirely depraved, corrupt, and alienated from God -- a child
of wrath, an heir of hell, going astray from the womb, conceived in
sin, an enemy to God, having a heart deceitful above all things and
desperately wicked; the understanding darkened, the affections
earthly, and the whole man sensual and devilish." Truly, this is an
appalling picture of our nature at birth, entailed upon us for no
other reason than that we descended from Adam, with whom, by a
single act of his, we fell into this deplorable condition six thousand
years before we were born. And when we add to this thought the
language of the Presbyterian Confession -- that "this corruption of
nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are
regenerated" -- we have a most ridiculous description of Christian
character manufactured by this theory. Behold a Christian with a
heart not only entirely depraved, sensual and devilish, but hating
God, and an heir of hell!!! We do not suppose the authors of these
books believed this monstrous absurdity themselves, or intended to
teach it to others, but they were involved in it by the blinding
influences of a false theory. Be this as it may, however, we can not
admit that this is a correct picture of that "holiness without which
no man shall see the Lord."
The mind of man is composed of numerous faculties, which may
be divided into two grand divisions, called, respectively, Animal and
Intellectual. By "animal faculties," we mean such as are possessed
by man and beast; or we might simply say by animals, for man is
only an intellectual
Hereditary Depravity
125
animal. As examples of this class of faculties we may
mention Alimentiveness, Combativeness, Detructiveness,
Amativeness, Philoprogenitiveness, etc., etc. In man they are usually
called propensities, but in lower animals they are called instincts.
Paul calls them "the carnal mind," and tells us "it is not subject to
the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom. viii:7. It would do but
little good to read the Ten Commandments to a horse, as he would
not be subject to them -- neither, indeed, could he be; and it would
do about as little good to read them to the purely carnal mind of
man (if it were possible to do so), composed of similar constituents,
which knows no law but animal gratification. But God has given to
man an intellectuality capable of appreciating law, and has given
him a law adapted to his organization, by which his carnal
propensities are to be exercised, and by which the whole man is to
be governed. And while the whole man is governed by laws received
from God, and applied by the intellectual man, all is harmony and
order, and without sin; but when these laws are superseded by
animal propensities, such as appetite, passion, and lust, then come
confusion, violence, and crime. And thus originated sin in the
garden of Eden. God gave Adam a law for the government of his
appetite, and while he obeyed it he had life and peace; but when
law was supplanted by appetite, sin came, and death by sin. From
the description of man's nature found in the creeds, it would seem
that the authors regard these animal propensities as filling the entire
measure of the human mind. But the duality of mind is well
established by experience, observation, metaphysics, reason, and the
Bible. The carnal mind we have seen already: the perceptive and
reflective faculties, of which there are many, and the moral
sentiments, such as Benevolence, Veneration, Conscientiousness,
Firmness, Hope, etc., make up the intellectual
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
and moral nature of man, to which God's law is addressed, and Paul
tells us, "they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh;
but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be
carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and
peace." Rom. viii:5, 6. The antagonism of these two departments of
man's nature is well shown in Paul's description of himself. "I find
then," says he, "a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present
with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. But
I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my
members." Rom. vii:21-23. Had this dual nature been dispensed
with in the creation of man, he must have been all animal, and
therefore nothing more than a brute; or he must have been all
intellectual and moral, without any counter-tendencies in his
nature, and therefore would have been a mere machine, acting as
compelled to act, under one set of principles, and hence there
would have been neither merit nor demerit in any thing he did; nor
could he have had the slightest freedom of will, and, therefore,
could not have been in the slightest degree accountable to his
Creator, Who, in that event, would have been operating him as a
mechanic does his machine.
But if we can arrive at the meaning of the language, "dying thou
shalt die," as connected with the law given to and violated by Adam,
then we think we may arrive at a knowledge of the kind of death he
died. This we certainly can do with great clearness, as we have an
exegesis of the language by God Himself. After Adam violated the
law, God adjudicated his case, and pronounced the sentence upon
him. Both as the Giver of the Law and as God, He certainly knew
what He meant by the language of the law, and He certainly
pronounced
Hereditary Depravity
127
the sentence in accordance therewith. What, then, was the sentence?
"Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Gen. iii:19. Surely,
this must mean literal, physical death, nothing more, nothing less.
Moses wrote the history of this affair about two thousand five
hundred years after it occurred, when the word die, in all its forms,
was of no doubtful import, but had a well-settled meaning in the
current usage of that day. A few examples may not be out of place
here. In the fifth chapter of Genesis we have the word employed by
the same writer no less than eight times, as follows: "And all the
days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he
died." Ver. 5. "And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and
twelve years: and he died." Ver. 8. "And all the days of Enos were
nine hundred and five years: and he died." Ver. 11. "And all the
days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died." Ver.
14. "And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and
five years: and he died." Ver. 17. "And all the days of Jared were
nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died." Ver. 20. "And all
the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and
he died." Ver. 27. "And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred
seventy and seven years: and he died." Ver. 31. These cases clearly
show what Moses understood by the word die, and as he is the same
writer that recorded the law violated by Adam, he must have meant
the same by "die," in the law, that he meant in the other cases
referred to. Again, the word die must certainly mean just the
opposite of the word live. This word in its various forms occurs in
the same chapter to indicate physical life. Had God afflicted Adam
with greater punishment than the terms employed indicated to him,
then would He not have deceived him? And He determined upon
other and greater punishment for
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
him, after he committed the act, than that threatened in the law
violated, then we insist that it was ex post facto in its character, and
therefore unjust. The circumstances under which Adam violated
God's law would have rather invoked a commutation of punishment
than an increase of it. He did not know good and evil until he
acquired a knowledge of it by eating the fruit of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil. This is evident from the language of
God after he ate of it: "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to
know good and evil." Gen. iii:22. He could only appreciate the law
as a positive prohibition, but his moral obligation to obey God, as
his Creator, he could not appreciate. He did not so much as know
that he was naked, for God said: "Who told thee that thou wast
naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that
thou shouldest not eat?" Ibid, 11. Certainly, then, if ignorance be
a mitigating circumstance, Adam was entitled to the full benefit of
it.
From our stand-point such a thought as spiritual corruption by
inheritance is utterly impossible. Paul says, "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?" Heb. xii:9. Does not this passage plainly prove that the fathers
of our flesh are not the fathers of our spirits? To our mind it shows
that while our bodies are inherited from our parents, the Spirit is not
so inherited, but comes directly from God. Hence the style:
"Fathers of our flesh," "The Father of spirits." Our bodies we
inherit from our parents, and, consequently, physical impurities may
be transmitted from parent to child, but we suppose all will agree
that the mind, the spiritual or inner man, is the seat of moral
depravity. If, then, we do not get our spirits by inheritance, it is
impossible that we should inherit
Hereditary Depravity
129
spiritual depravity from Adam. May we further examine the
Scriptures on this subject? "The burden of the word of the Lord for
Israel saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth
the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within
him." Zech. xii:1. If God forms the spirit within man, it seems
improbable that he gets it by inheritance. Again: Solomon says,
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall
return to God who gave it." Eccl. xii:7. By this we learn not only
that the spirit returns to God at death, but that God originally gave
it. The words "returns to God" clearly imply that it had been there
before. We can not say we returned to a place to which we had
never been. In returning, it did not go in or with the body, as the
body returned to the ground as dust. As, therefore, the spirit returns
independent of the body, is it not likely that God gave it to man, not
by or through the body, but for the body? The words "God who
gave it" have somewhat the same ring, too; nevertheless, they alone
would not be quite conclusive, for He gives us food, raiment, and
many other things through means prepared to produce them. The
question for us, then, is: does he give the spirit through means or
without means -- does He give it directly or indirectly -- does He give
it as we have seen that He takes it -- or does He give it by
procreation, organization, or some other means? Let us see. When
Jesus restored the ruler's dead daughter to life, Luke says "her spirit
came again, and she arose straightway." Luke viii:55. The spirit of
the damsel came again. From whence did it come? Solomon says
the spirit returns to God, who gave it. Then it is clear that her spirit
went to God when she died, and came directly from Him when she
was made alive. The words "came again" imply that it had done the
same thing before; and as we
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
have no account of her being miraculously made alive before, it
follows that it was at the beginning of her existence that her spirit
came directly from God the previous time.
But we are told that the spiritual man did not come directly
from God, but is the creature of the organization. We have not room
for a thorough examination of this objection here, but we must
notice it briefly -- not by way of respect for materialistic infidelity,
of which it is the cornerstone, but in respect to our own argument,
against which it may be presented. First, then, if the spirit came not
from God, how are the scriptures above quoted and the reasonings
therefrom to be met? And how can a material organization create
an immaterial soul capable of existence separate from the
organization after the latter has ceased to be? Or if the soul, created
by materiality, is itself material, why is it not subject to chemical
analysis? The material organization is not only subject to chemical
analysis, but has been analyzed repeatedly. The ultimate elements
of it have been found, and if the soul is also material, why has it not
been subjected to the same process? Surely, the advocates of
materialism have the ability to do it if it were possible -- and the
defense of their theory would invoke the disposition to do it -- if
they, then, have not done it, it is clear that, because of the soul's
immateriality, they can not do it. That the soul is capable of
existence after the separation of soul and body, is clear from what we
have already quoted from Solomon -- that the body returns to the
ground and the spirit returns to God, who gave it; not only so, but
it is also clear from numerous other passages. Paul says: "Therefore
we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the
body, we are absent from the Lord.... We are confident, and willing
rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."
2 Cor. v:6, 8. John "saw under the altar
Hereditary Depravity
131
the souls of them that were slain for the word of God." Rev. vi:9.
We might further quote Luke xvi:24, 27, concerning the rich man
and Lazarus, and many other scriptures on this subject; but enough
has been quoted to satisfy those who read and believe the Bible, and
others will not likely read what we write about it. The body may be
likened to a machine controlled by the mind or spiritual man. No
machinery has ever been known capable of generating its own
motive power; hence the "Perpetual Motion" has not been invented.
If the human organism creates the soul, its own motive power, then
it is an exception to all known law on the subject. If, then, our
argument holds good, and the spirit came, not by inheritance, but
directly from God, it follows that when it is given, it is not only
good, but very good, and the whole theory of hereditary depravity
is most certainly false. The child comes into the world with its
infantile mind composed of numerous faculties susceptible of being
cultivated and developed by impressions made upon it through the
senses, and when all its faculties are properly balanced, educated,
and governed, they are calculated to make the man useful and
happy, but if neglected may make him vicious and miserable -- and
his inclinations to virtue or vice depend much upon the
circumstances and influences surrounding him; hence inclinations
to sin are as different in different persons as the circumstances have
been different by which they have been influenced from infancy to
manhood. We most firmly believe that many men who were raised
under improper influences and became desperately wicked -- perhaps
terminated their lives upon a scaffold -- if they had been raised
under wholesome influences, would have been useful members of
society and finally saved in heaven, and vice versa. Thus we see the
importance of observing Solomon's admonition: "Train up a child in
the way
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it;" with
which Paul agrees, saying, "Bring up your children in the nurture
and admonition of the Lord." But there are differences of mental
power manifested by different persons, growing out of a difference
in the physical machinery inherited from our parents. This we not
only admit, but firmly believe; but these do not affect our position
in the least. An engine may run a vast amount of well-made and
properly applied machinery, and thus exhibit great power, but were
we to apply the same engine to heavy, cumbersome, unwieldy,
unbalanced machinery, it could do but little, though the same man
operated it. So a man who has inherited a fine organization, large
and well balanced brain, of fine material, will exhibit much more
mental power than one who had inherited an imperfect organization
of coarse material. But inherited weakness, whether physical or
mental, is not sin -- no guilt can attach to it -- and therefore the
differences in mental power spoken of can not prove the doctrine of
total depravity; on the contrary, if they prove any thing concerning
it, they contradict it, for these differences can not be the result of
total depravity, because all who are totally depraved are, in this
respect, exactly alike. There is no comparative degree in total
depravity.
But we must briefly notice some of the proofs relied on to
sustain the doctrine. First, we are told that the infant gets angry as
soon as born, and thus gives evidence of total depravity. If this be
proof conclusive, then God is totally depraved, too, for He said to
Moses, when the people worshiped the calf made by Aaron, "Let me
alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them." Ex. xxxii:10. And
again: "God is angry with the wicked every day." Ps. vii:11. Does the
infant smile as well as cry? And does it not very soon divide its toys
and food with its
Hereditary Depravity
133
associate, thus exhibiting feelings of kindness as well as anger?
But we are referred to some scriptures which we must notice:
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none
that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God; they are all
gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there
is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open
sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of
asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and
bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery
are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known. There
is no fear of God before their eyes." Rom. iii:10-18. Now, we only
need to carefully read this quotation in order to see that it can not
apply to any inherited corruption of nature existing at birth, but to
such as had corrupted themselves by wicked works. Infants are not
expected to be righteous, for righteousness consists in doing right.
Nor are they expected to understand -- to seek God -- to have gone
out of the way, or in the way -- to have done good or evil. Their
tongues have not used deceit, nor are their mouths full of cursing
and bitterness, for they can not talk at all. Their feet are not swift to
shed blood, for they can not hurt any one. And it will be borne in
mind that the passage is relied upon to prove an inherited corruption
of nature that comes into the world with us by ordinary generation.
Paul makes this quotation from David -- Ps. xiv -- where he tells how
they became corrupt: "They have done abominable works." Hence
their corruption came not by Adam's sin, but by their own
wickedness.
Next we examine the language of David -- Ps. li:5: "Behold I was
shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."
Whatever may be the meaning of this passage,
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. "In sin did my
mother conceive me;" that is, she acted wickedly when I was
conceived. Were the wife to say, "In drunkenness my husband beat
me," or the child that "in anger my father whipped me," surely no
one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child;
neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child. We come
now to notice the language of the prophet with regard to "Judah and
Jerusalem" -- Isa. i:5, 6: "Why should ye be stricken any more? ye
will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole
heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no
soundness in it; but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores." This
was not spoken with regard to any inherited defilement attaching to
any one, but with regard to the Jews as a nation. As a nation they
had become corrupt -- not by inheritance, but by actual
transgressions of their own. And God had scourged them, and
afflicted them for their own wickedness (not Adam's sin), unfit as a
nation, they were comparable to a man full of wounds and bruises
and putrefying sores, and still they would not reform; hence, by His
prophet, He asks, 'Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will
revolt more and more?" -- as much as to say: "I have sent fiery
serpents to bite you, by which thousands have died; I have allowed
you to go to war with the nations around you until multiplied
thousands have been slain in battle; and in various ways I have
chastened you as a father chasteneth his children; but all to no
purpose. Why should I afflict you further? it will only make you
worse and worse." "Your country is desolate; your cities are burned
with fire; your land strangers devour it in your presence, and it is
desolate as overthrown by strangers" -- thus clearly speaking of
national calamities that had befallen them as a nation. Not
Hereditary Depravity
135
a word of allusion to Adam's sin or its consequences in the whole
connection.
We are next referred to the language of David -- Ps. lviii:1-8:
"Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge
uprightly, O ye sons of men? Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye
weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked are
estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born,
speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; they are
like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear: which will not hearken to
the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely." Here, again, we
need only read the passage carefully to see that it can not apply to
infants at birth. In heart these work wickedness: children at birth do
not work wickedness.
The wicked are estranged from the womb: the theory says all
are wicked and estranged. They go astray as soon as they are
born -- speaking lies: the theory says they are born astray. These
persons spake lies: infants can not speak at all. Shall we hear David's
prayer for them? "Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth." Do
infants have teeth in their mouth at birth? He continues: "Break out
the great teeth of the young lions, O Lord. Let them melt away as
waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his
arrows, let them be as cut in pieces." Surely, this was a singular
prayer coming from David for the punishment and destruction of
infants!!! This was simply strong language used to describe the
wickedness of the congregation and judges mentioned in the first
verse!
We are next referred to the language of Paul to the Ephesians --
chap. ii:1-3: "And you hath be quickened who were dead in
trespasses and sins." This does not fit the theory, for then it should
read "dead in a trespass or
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
sin." But how came their death? "Wherein in time past ye walked
according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the
power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of
disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in
times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh
and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath even as
others." This shows us clearly how their nature became corrupt,
which was by wicked works, or, as Paul expresses it, fulfilling the
desires of the flesh. Not a word about Adam's sin: they were dead in
their own sins.
But we are referred to Rom. v:12: ''Wherefore, as by one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon
all men, for that all have sinned." This passage does have reference
to Adam's sin and its consequences, but it falls very far short of
proving that all men, or even Adam, became totally depraved. David
sinned very grievously; yet his heart was perfect with the Lord his
God (1 Ks. xv:3), insomuch that he was a man after God's own
heart. (1 Sam. xiii:14; Acts xiii:22.) If his sin left his heart perfect
with God, how did a single sin of Adam totally deprave him and all
his posterity? If a man were to commit a crime worthy of death, and
were to have the sentence of death passed upon him, still all this
could not prove him totally depraved, opposed to all good, and
wholly inclined to all evil; he may have some good emotions yet.
Here we might safely dismiss the passage, having shown that it does
not prove that for which it is introduced; but can we learn the
meaning of it? The fact that almost every exponent of it has a theory
of his own, derived from it, is quite enough to prove the import of
it to be doubtful. A doubtful interpretation of an obscure passage
must not come in contact with a plain passage about the
meaning of which there can be no mistake.
Hereditary Depravity
137
When the phrase "all have sinned" is interpreted to mean that the
whole race of man sinned in Adam, it seems to us a plain
contradiction of God's law, which says: "The soul that sinneth, it
shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither
shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the
righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall
be upon him." The theory says the children of Adam do bear his
iniquity, and his wickedness is not only on him, but also on them.
It is also antagonistic to John's definition of sin -- that "sin is the
transgression of the law;" and also with the fact seen already -- that
a transgression or act (for sin is an act) of one man can not be
transmitted to or become the act of another. We regard the passage
as clearly metonymical. The consequences of Adam's sin being
suffered by all, the sin is said to have been committed by all; the
consequences being put for the act. The apostle alludes to the sin of
Adam, as a consequence of which all suffer death in accordance
with the laws of their mortal nature inherited from Adam, they not
having fruit from the tree of life with which to counteract mortality
as Adam had before he sinned; and thus "death reigned from Adam
to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam's transgression." Ver. 14.
It is somewhat strange to us that those who profess to disbelieve
Universalism can believe that the death here spoken of is spiritual
death. If spiritual death passed upon all men because they all sinned
in Adam, then Universalism must be true; for the apostle goes on to
say: "If through the offense of one many be dead, much more the
grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus
Christ, hath abounded unto many." The grace of God and the gift by
grace has abounded to just as
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
many through Christ, the last Adam, as are dead by the offense of
the first Adam; "therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came
upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one,
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Ver. 18.
The same all who suffer by the offense of one, are made alive by the
righteousness of another. This is not only the teaching of Paul here,
but he communicates the same thought to his brethren at Corinth.
The fifteenth chapter of his first letter to them is devoted to the
resurrection of the dead, and in the 22d verse he has the following
very significant language: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive." As in Adam all die -- not died back yonder
in the garden, but die now in Adam. And who dies in Adam? All
men, most certainly. Even so in Christ shall the same all be made
alive: the infant and the aged, the wicked and the just, all die, and
their "dust returns to the earth as it was;" but when the trump of
God shall sound, they will be raised from the dead through
Christ -- "but every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits;
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." Ver. 23.
But we are sometimes told that if man is not guilty of Adam's
sin, then Christ's mission and death were useless. Surely, such
persons have very narrow views of the subject. How shall we escape
the punishment due us on account of our own sins? And how shall
we be raised from the dead only through Christ? It is nowhere said
in the word of the Lord that Christ died to save man from Adam's
sin; but we have abundant testimony proving that He came to save
man from his own sins. Joseph was told by the Lord to call the
infant Saviour Jesus, because He should save His people from their
sins, not Adam's sin. Peter commanded his hearers, when preaching
from Solomon's
Hereditary Depravity
139
porch: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins
may be blotted out." It was their sins which were to be blotted out,
and not Adam's sin. God's promise, in the new covenant, to His
people was: "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."
The new covenant made no provision for Adam's sin; therefore, if
God ever remembered it against His people under this covenant, He
is remembering it yet. Paul said to the Colossians, "You being dead
in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh." They were not
dead in Adam's sin, nor in the uncircumcision of his flesh. Under
the Jewish law, God made provisions for pardon of sins committed
against it, and He mentions many sins for which offerings were to be
made in a prescribed form; but He provided no remedy for Adam's
sin, nor did He ever speak of it as chargeable to the Jews. Surely, if
God has Adam's sin in remembrance against Adam's posterity, He
would have mentioned it somewhere, or in some dispensation made
provision for the pardon of it. Christ came, then, "who his own self
bare our sins in his own body on the tree;" but He came not only
that we might have pardon of our sins, but, as we have already seen,
that we may have a resurrection of the dead; hence, the language of
Paul: "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your
sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished."
Surely, these are objects sufficiently important to invoke the mission
and sufferings of the Christ the Son of God -- salvation from sin, a
resurrection from the grave, and eternal life.
We come now to notice the practical bearing of the doctrine of
total depravity, as an effect of Adam's sin, upon the reception of the
gospel as the power of God unto salvation. The Presbyterian
Confession of Faith tells us that "Man, by his fall into sin, hath
wholly lost
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation ...
is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself or to prepare
himself thereunto." Chap. ix, sec. 3. Now, if the alien has lost all
ability of will to any spiritual good, it follows that he can not even
will or desire his own salvation. What can he do, then? Just nothing
at all! He is as passive as a block of marble in the hands of the
sculptor. But "when God converts a sinner, and translates him into
the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin,
and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that
which is spiritually good." Ibid, sec. 4. Thus we see that this theory
brings man into the world wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul
and body, opposed to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, not
even able to will any spiritual good accompanying salvation, until
God converts and translates him into the state of grace, so as to free
him from his natural bondage, and enable him freely to will and to
do that which is spiritually good. Then, if God never converts him
and he is finally lost, who is to blame for it? Surely, not man, for he
could not even will or desire his own salvation, or prepare himself
thereunto. Why did Christ command that the Gospel be preached
among all nations, and to every creature, promising salvation to
those who would believe and obey?", when He must have known,
if this theory be true, that they could neither believe nor obey
it? -- nay, they could not even so much as will or desire their
salvation, or any thing good connected therewith, to say nothing of
doing any thing to secure it. And why did He threaten them with
damnation if they did not believe it, when, according to the theory,
they have no more power to believe it than they have to make a
world?
We insist that the doctrine is too monstrously absurd to be
entertained by any one for a moment -- antagonistic to
Hereditary Depravity
141
the whole tenor of God's word and the spirit of the Christian
religion -- alike dishonoring to God and destructive to man. And
when we remember that the world has been taught this doctrine for
centuries by the large majority of those who have spoken and writ-
ten concerning it, we are made to wonder, not that infidelity is
abroad in the land, but that there are not an hundred infidels where
there is one. God never, at any time, commanded man to do that
which he was unable to do; and the very fact that He commands
man to believe and obey Him, is evidence, high as heaven, that he
has the ability to do the things required of him. All things necessary
for man's salvation and happiness which he is unable to do for
himself, God has done or will do for him; but what he is able to do
for himself, God requires of him, and will not do for him. These
fundamental truths, however, we must leave the reader to amplify
for himself: we can not pursue this branch of our subject further at
present; though we have not exhausted it, we fear we may exhaust
his patience ere we get before him some remaining thoughts deemed
important to our investigation.
If God charged Adam's posterity with the guilt of his sin, we
wish to know when it was or will be, forgiven. Was it forgiven when
Jesus made the atonement? If so, the whole theory of man's present
guilt of that sin is destroyed, for he can not be guilty of a sin already
pardoned. Is it pardoned when man is pardoned for his own sins?
No, for the creed tells us that it remains through life in those who
are regenerated; and it also tells us that it is appointed unto all men
once to die, for that all have sinned. Surely, he would not yet have
to die for a sin that had been pardoned. Is it forgiven at death?
Where is the proof of it? And what are the conditions, if any, upon
which it is to be done? Or, if unconditionally pardoned,
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
what are the means to accomplish it? Is it forgiven in the
intermediate state between death and the judgment? If so, why can
not all other sins be pardoned in that state? And if they can, why the
necessity of having them pardoned in this life? Is it pardoned at the
final judgment? If so, then we will be judged according to the deeds
done in Adam's body, and not every one according to the deeds
done in his own body. Is it not pardoned at all? Then, will the
Christian be damned for the guilt of Adam's sin after having been
pardoned for his own sins? If so, the sentence will not be, "Depart
from me, ye workers of iniquity," but, "Depart from me, all ye that
have washed your robes, and made them white in the blood of the
Lamb." Though your sins have all been canceled from the book of
God's remembrance, in accordance with the provisions of the new
covenant, and though your righteousness is as robes of linen clean
and white, there is one sin which, though not committed by you, is
imputed to, or charged against you, for which you must go with the
devil, that deceived you in Adam, into the lake of fire and
brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, where you
shall be tormented day and night forever and ever. Or, if he does not
go to hell on account of it, will he go to heaven with it still charged
against him with a nature totally depraved, wholly opposed to all
good, and inclined to all evil? We most confidently deny that any
one of Adam's posterity ever has been or will be sent to hell for
Adam's sin. As we have stated more than once, all die as a
consequence of it, and through Christ will be raised from the dead.
Those who are intelligent, and therefore responsible, and who have
heartily accepted and complied with the terms of pardon for their
own sins, as offered them in the Gospel through Christ, will be
raised to the enjoyment of life
Hereditary Depravity
143
eternal. Here they will gain even more in Christ than they lost in
Adam. As saith the poet:
"In him the tribes of Adam boast
More blessings than their father lost."
They exchange not only temporal for eternal life, but they ex-
change mortal for immortal bodies, and for the first time will they
have put on immortality. Having done the commandments, they will
have a right to the tree of life, and will enter through the gates into
the city. In these immortal and spiritual bodies they will not again
be subject to temptation and sin. The devil, who seduced Adam, will
not be there; but they will have the society of God their Father,
Jesus their elder brother, and, as saints of the Most High, they will
join the angelic host in praising God and the Lamb forever and ever
"There pain and sickness never come,
And grief no place obtains;
Health triumphs in immortal bloom,
And endless pleasure reigns!
No cloud these blissful regions know,
For ever bright and fair!
For sin, the source of every woe,
Can never enter there.
There no alternate night is known,
Nor sun's faint sickly ray;
But glory from the sacred throne
Spreads everlasting day."
But what of the wicked? "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive." The wicked die as a consequence of Adam's
sin, without their volition or agency; so, without their volition or
agency, they will be raised from death through the merits of the
resurrection of Jesus the Christ; but not to life eternal: "These shall
go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
life eternal." They will be judged, every man according to his works,
not Adam's works. They will be judged, not for his sin, because
they are not, never have been, nor can they ever be, guilty of it, but
for their own sins of which they are guilty. And having refused the
terms of pardon offered them in the gospel, by which they might
have been pardoned, they will be condemned: "The fearful, and
unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have
their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." And
how long will this awful inheritance be theirs? "They shall be
tormented day and night forever and ever." O! friendly sinner, is this
to be thy final doom?
"What could your redeemer do
More than he has done for you?
To procure your peace with God,
Could he more than shed his blood?
After all this flow of love,
All his drawings from above,
Why will you your Lord deny?
Why will you resolve to die?"
But there is yet another class. Infants, idiots, and other
irresponsible persons, die as a consequence of Adam's transgression,
and will be raised from the dead by the same power and through the
same means employed in the resurrection of others. We have seen
that sin is the violation of law; and as they have never been subject
to any law requiring any obedience of them, it follows that they
have violated no law, and are hence without sins of their own. And
as Adam's sin was not committed by, and therefore never charged to
them, there is no sin for which they need forgiveness, and, therefore,
for which they may be condemned to endless punishment. Jesus
said, "Of
Hereditary Depravity
145
such is the kingdom of God," and required others to be converted
and become as they are, in order to enter it; therefore if their purity
of heart and innocence of character were such as to constitute the
standard of purity for those who would enter the kingdom of God
on earth, we think they will scarcely be refused admittance into
heaven by the same adorable Son of God, who pronounced
blessings on them here. In coming from the dead however, they will
exchange their natural, mortal bodies for spiritual, immortal bodies,
and will be thus prepared to enter
"Where the saints of all ages in harmony meet,
Their Saviour and brethren transported to greet;
While the anthems of rapture unceasingly roll
And the smile of the Lord is the feast of the soul."
CHAPTER VI
It will be admitted by all that God has an organized government
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH
on the earth. This government is variously called in the
New Testament "the kingdom of God," "the kingdom of heaven,"
"the kingdom of God's dear Son," "church of God," "the body of
Christ," etc. We do not mean to say that the phrases "kingdom of
God" and "the kingdom of heaven" always mean the same
thing -- namely, the church in all its parts; on the contrary, they
frequently occur, especially in the parables of the Saviour, when
only a particular feature or constituent part of the kingdom is
indicated. A few examples illustrative of this position may be
examined with profit. Jesus said:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than
for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Matt. xix:24.
"Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down
with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the
children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt. viii:11, 12.
These passages with others which we might give, have manifest
reference to the kingdom of ultimate glory. On another occasion,
Jesus said: "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
neither shall they say, Lo here!
Establishment Of The Church
147
or, Lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is among you." Luke
xvii:20, 21. This, with other passages which we might give, had
reference to Jesus as King, who had come not with pride,
ostentation, and show, but was then among them.
In the parable of the sower and the seed, a record of which we
have in Matt. xiii, the gospel, as the law of induction into and
government for those in the kingdom, is the feature represented. The
parable of the tares and the parable of the fisher's net, found in the
same chapter, have reference to the character of those in the
kingdom, some of whom were good and others bad.
The parable of the mustard-seed and the parable of the leaven
hid in three measures of meal, refer to the growth or extension of
the kingdom.
With one example from Paul, we close these illustrations. He
says: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness,
and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." Rom. xiv:17. Here the words
"kingdom of God" refer to the characteristics of those in the
kingdom. Other examples might be given, but these are quite
sufficient to show that, while the phrases "kingdom of God" and
"kingdom of heaven" are sometimes synonymous with church, they
must not always be so understood.
As respects law, the church is truly a kingdom -- an absolute
monarchy. All its laws emanate from the King, and its subjects have
no part in making them. There is no representative democracy
connected with it. No council, convention, or legislative assembly
has power or authority to abolish, alter, or amend them. It is a
kingdom, not a republic. As respects organization, it is called a
body, of which Christ is the head, all its subjects are members, and
in which dwells the Spirit, by which it is vitalized or kept alive, and
without which it would become a dead body.
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
As respects relationship to the world, it is fitly called the
church -- "ecclesia," or called out of the world, and is, therefore, not
of the world. It was set up, established, organized, begun on earth,
in the city of Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost, by the authority of
the Lord Jesus Christ, under the immediate agency of the apostles,
guided by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. A brief
examination of the teaching of the Scriptures on this subject is
important to the development of "the gospel as the power of God
unto salvation," and will repay the attentive reader.
That we may properly appreciate the importance of arriving at
truth on this subject, it may not be amiss to state that there are
several theories differing from each other with regard to the time
when this kingdom was set up, each one of which has its own
doctrines growing out of its own theory. And if we are correct in the
proposition stated as to time and place, it follows that all theories
setting up the kingdom, organizing the body, or beginning the
proclamation of the gospel, and laying, first, the foundation of the
church at any other time or place, are not only wrong, but all
doctrines growing out of such theories are false. And if we succeed
in uprooting the trunk, all the branches drawing support from the
parent trunk fall with it. To be more specific: One theory begins the
church in an eternal covenant, as its advocates call it, which is
supposed to have been entered into between God and His Son
before the foundation of the world was laid. It is assumed that in
this covenant the salvation of the elect was unconditionally secured,
and the balance of the human race consigned to eternal misery. If
God and His Son were the contracting parties to the covenant, and
the final destiny of man, the consideration about which the covenant
was made, is it not passingly strange that the devil should be the
largest beneficiary? He was not represented in
Establishment Of The Church
149
the covenant at all, unless God represented him, or acted as his
proxy. We are told that few go in at the strait gate, while many go
the broad road and enter in at the wide gate that leadeth to
destruction. If this be the result of such a covenant, why was God so
liberal to the devil and so illiberal to His Son? But we do not
propose to discuss these theories here: we call the attention of the
reader to them, at the threshold of our investigation, for the purpose
of awakening attention to the importance of arriving at the truth in
the premises. Passing from this theory, then, there is another which
establishes the kingdom or church of God in the family of Abraham.
The advocates of this theory insist that, as infants were included in
the provisions of the covenant made by God with Abraham, they are
in the church now, and hence comes the doctrine of infant church
membership. They further assume that baptism came in the room
of circumcision, and, as infants were then circumcised, they must
now be baptized; and thus some of them think they have Divine
authority for infant baptism -- which will be considered in due time.
Others set up the kingdom in the days of John the Baptist; hence
the name "Baptist Church," etc. Thus we see that the time when the
kingdom of God was set up on the earth is a most important
matter -- one that, rightly understood, would tend much to heal the
wounds in the body caused by the many unfortunate divisions
among those professing to be the people of God.
It is said: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of
Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
in the day when 1 took them by the hand to lead them out of the
land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I
regarded them not, saith the Lord." Heb. viii:8, 9. Then we need not
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
look to the covenant made at the time of the deliverance of God's
people from Egyptian bondage for the beginning of the covenant
under which the church of our day was established. It was to be a
new covenant, and not according to that one. It was to be "a more
excellent ministry" -- "a covenant which was established upon better
promises." Ver. 6. And wherein was it a better covenant? The old
was "a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both
gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service
perfect as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats
and drinks, and divers washings and carnal ordinances, imposed on
them until the time of reformation." Chap. ix:9, 10. "But in those
sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year; for
it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take
away sins." Chap. x:3, 4. But "in that he saith, A new covenant, he
hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is
ready to vanish away." This old covenant was ready to vanish away
and give place to the new one. And what were to be its provisions?
"This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws in their mind, and
write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they
shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his
neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all
shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful
to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I
remember no more." Heb. viii:10-12. Under the old covenant, sins
were only pardoned a year at a time, and thus were remembered
again; but, under the new and better covenant, God has promised to
be merciful to their unrighteousness, and sins and iniquities once
pardoned are to be remembered no more.
Establishment Of The Church
151
But we did not come here to follow out the superior advantages
of one and the disadvantages of the other, but to learn -- as we think
we have -- that we live, not under the same covenant that was made
with the Jews, under which they offered sacrifices according to the
law, but under a new covenant, superior in its provisions to the old.
We have now arrived at the proper point to look for the beginning
of this new and better order of things.
During the time the Jews were held captive by Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylon, God made known to him, in a dream -- which was
interpreted by Daniel, one of the Jewish captives -- certain great
national changes that were to take place, in which were foretold the
destruction of his own government and three others which were to
consecutively arise after it; and finally the establishment of the
kingdom of God, which was never to be destroyed, but was to fill
the whole earth and stand forever. As these kingdoms were to
succeed each other in regular chronological order, we have only to
follow them up and see the rise and fall of each, noting carefully the
dates as we proceed, in order to see when God established His
kingdom.
For a full account of this remarkable revelation from God, the
reader is referred to the whole of the second chapter of Daniel. We
have only room to transcribe the dream, and the interpretation of it,
contained in the 31st to the 45th verse, inclusive:
"Thou, O king, sawest, and behold, a great image whose
brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof
was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his
arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his
feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was
cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet, that
were of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. Then
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to
pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing
floors, and the wind carried them away; that no place was found for
them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain,
and filled the whole earth. This is the dream, and we will tell the
interpretation thereof before the king. Thou, O king, art a king of
kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and
strength, and glory; and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the
beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into
thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this
head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to
thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over
all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron;
forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as
iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And
whereas thou sawest the feet and toes part of potter's clay and part
of iron: the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the
strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with
the miry clay: and as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part
of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken.
And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with the miry clay, they shall
mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave
one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days
of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall
never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other
people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms,
and it shall stand forever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone
was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in
pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver and the gold; the
Establishment Of The Church
153
great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass
hereafter: and the dream is certain and the interpretation thereof
sure."
Now, it will be observed that the Lord here tells Nebuchadnezzar
that he was the head of gold. This kingdom embraced the
countries of Chaldea, Assyria, Syria, Arabia, and Palestine, and
ended with the death of Belshazzar, B.C. 538 years, when it was
overthrown by Cyrus, king of Persia, and Darius, king of Media.
These two kings were kinsmen; and after they had thus broken up
the Chaldean or Babylonian empire, the government assumed the
name of the Medo-Persian kingdom, that was represented by the
breast and arms of the image, and was the second government in
numerical or chronological order. It began, as we have seen, 538
years B.C., and was overthrown by Alexander (son of Philip), king
of Macedon, B.C. 331 years. But he died B.C. 323 years, having
reigned only a little more than seven years. But as the Macedonian
empire is represented by the belly and thighs of the image, we must
look for a division in it. Hence, after the death of Alexander, his
government became divided among his generals. Cassander had
Macedon and Greece; Lysimachus had Thrace and those parts of
Asia which lay on the Hellespont and Bosphorus; Ptolemy had
Egypt, Lybia, Arabia, Palestine, and Syria; Seleucus had Babylon,
Media, Persia, Susiana, Assyria, Bactria, Hyrcania, and all other
provinces, even to the Ganges. Thus this empire founded on the
ruins of the Medo-Persian "had rule over all the earth." But as the
thighs of brass in the image represent the divided state of the empire,
the above four divisions are soon merged into two, viz: those of the
Lagidae and Seleucidae, reigning in Egypt and Syria. A distinguished
historian says: "Their kingdom was no more a different
kingdom than the parts differ from the whole. It
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
was the same government still continued. They who governed were
still Macedonians."
When did these thighs end? In the year B.C. 30, Octavius
Caesar overturned the Lagidae, and Egypt, one of the thighs,
became a Roman province. Not many years after this (we have
forgotten the date; our pencil notes here have become dim, and we
have not the history by us just now to which to refer), Pompey
overthrew the Seleucidae, dethroned Antiochus, and thus Syria, the
other thigh, became a Roman province. Thus we find the Roman
government succeeded the Macedonian, and is evidently the fourth
kingdom represented by the feet and toes of the image that stood
before Nebuchadnezzar, composed of iron and clay.
Without going into a minute application of the Scriptures to
each of these governments, it is sufficient for our present purpose to
show, as we think we have done, that these governments did, in their
order, overthrow and succeed each other. Then, as they are
numbered first, second, third, and fourth in the interpretation given
by Daniel, it is certain that they, following in that numerical order,
and each one consuming its predecessor, are the kingdoms indicated.
And as they all merged into the Roman government thirty years
before the coming of Christ, it follows that some time after that
period, and during the existence of the Roman government, we
may look for the God of heaven to set up a kingdom.
We can not go back behind the date of this dream to look for
the kingdom, for it was to smite the image on its feet -- that is, it was
to be set up during the existence of and come in contact with the
government represented by the feet. And Daniel tells
Nebuchadnezzar that the whole affair was designed to make "known to
the king what shall come to pass hereafter" -- not before the
foundation of the world, or in the days of Abraham, but hereafter.
Establishment Of The Church
155
As this prophecy brings us down to within thirty years of the
coming of Christ to establish the government -- in the time of which
the kingdom of heaven was set up -- we may expect the harbinger of
the Saviour soon to commence preaching about it Accordingly,
Matthew says: "In those days came John the Baptist preaching in the
wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand." Matt. iii:1, 2. Here we find John announcing the
near approach of the kingdom for the origin of which we have been
looking. But we are sometimes told that John set up the kingdom
himself. Let us hear the Saviour on this point. After John was cast
into prison, and his labors were at an end, Jesus taught his disciples
to pray as follows: "Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy
name. Thy kingdom come," etc. Matt. vi:10. Would Jesus have
instructed his disciples to pray for the kingdom to come if it had
already come? It is true, many repeat this petition now who believe
that the kingdom has long since come; but surely such persons think
little about what they are saying. Like the schoolboy, they find it in
their lesson and must repeat it. We may pray for the kingdom to be
advanced in the earth, but we can not pray for it to come after it has
come, any more than we may pray for God to send down the Spirit,
since it was sent from heaven to the earth on the day of Pentecost,
and has been here ever since. Once more: When John heard of Jesus,
he sent to Him to know if He were the Christ, or whether he should
look for another. After Jesus had answered and sent the messengers
away, He said to those around Him: "verily I say unto you, Among
them that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater than
John the Baptist: notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of
heaven is greater than he." Matt. xi:11. Then, as he that was least in
the kingdom of heaven was greater than
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
John, it follows that He was not in it; and surely He did not set up
the kingdom and fail to enter it himself. Nor were the disciples of
Jesus, though they had left all and followed Him, in the kingdom,
for He once rebuked them, saying: "Verily I say unto you, Except ye
be converted and become as a little child, ye shall not enter into the
kingdom of heaven." Matt. xviii:3. He did not say, "Except ye be
converted, etc., you shall be turned out of the kingdom," but, "ye
shall not enter" it -- clearly showing that they were not then in it,
which surely they would have been had it then existed. They were
to seek the kingdom (Luke xii:31), for it was the Father's good
pleasure to give it to them (ver. 32). Persons do not seek for that
which they already have, but may seek for that which is to be given
or has been promised to them. As the kingdom had been promised
to them, and they were still to seek it, we conclude that it did not
then exist.
But we are not done with the Saviour's teaching on this point
yet. When He sent forth the twelve apostles, under their restricted
commission, He told them what to preach; and it is worthy of
remark that the language is, verbatim, the same as that used by
John -- "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. x:7. When He
sent out the seventy, He gave them, in substance, the same
message -- "The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." Luke x:9.
Now, it is very apparent that the object of all this teaching was to let
the people know that the kingdom was approaching, that they might
be prepared for it when it came. But when He came into the coasts
of Caesarea Philippi, and learned, by inquiry, what was said of Him,
and Peter confessed Him as "the Christ, the Son of the living God,"
He said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church." Matt.
xvi:18. This language is too plain to admit of doubt. There would be
no sense in saying, "I will build
Establishment Of The Church
157
my house in a certain place" if it had been built long years before;
and there would have been just as little sense in the language used
by the Saviour if He had intended to teach that His church or
kingdom had been built prior to that time. Thus we must press our
investigations still further -- its erection is still later than the time He
used this language.
Six days before His transfiguration He said: "Verily I say unto
you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not
taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with
power." Mark ix:1. Here we not only find Him teaching that the
coming of the kingdom was yet future, but that it would come in the
life-time of those then living. But later -- when Jesus instituted the
Supper -- He said: "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of
the vine until the kingdom of God shall come." Luke xxii:18. Thus
we see that near the end of the Saviour's sojourn on the earth He
still taught the people to look ahead for the coming of the kingdom;
and we next propose to show that those to whom He spake so
understood His teaching: "And as they heard these things, He added
and spake a parable, because He was nigh unto Jerusalem, and
because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately
appear." Luke xix:11. Thus we see they understood it was yet future,
but thought its approach nearer than it really was. Coming down,
now, to the time of His death, "Joseph of Arimathea, an honorable
counselor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came and
went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus." Mark
xv:43; Luke xxiii:51. Here was a man of capacity to understand the
Saviour's teaching, who waited for the kingdom to come even after
the Saviour was dead. Surely, he was not waiting for that which had
already come.
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
Let us next examine a prediction made by the prophets: "And
it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's
house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be
exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many
people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain
of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us
of his ways, and we will walk in his path: for out of Zion shall go
forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." Isa. ii:2, 3.
This very interesting prophecy was uttered by Micah (chap. iv:1, 2),
in very nearly the same words: "But in the last days it shall come to
pass, that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established
in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills;
and the people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall come and
say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the
house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we
will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the
word of the Lord from Jerusalem." This prophecy gives us to know
that the establishment of the mountain of the Lord's house was to
take place in the last days; and we can see no other last days that
could have been intended, only the last days of the Jewish
dispensation -- the last days of that covenant which Paul tells us had
waxed old and was ready to vanish away.
But we get another important item of information from this
prophecy; and for the sake of it, we have delayed the introduction
of the whole, until the mind of the reader was prepared for it. The
word of the Lord was to go forth from Jerusalem. Hence, when
Jesus was instructing and preparing His apostles for the
establishment of His kingdom, "He said unto them, Thus it is
written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the
dead the
Establishment Of The Church
159
third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Luke xxiv:46, 47. Jerusalem is the place from which the word of the
Lord was to go forth, and it consisted in preaching repentance and
remission of sins among all nations, and this was to begin there.
Jerusalem is the place, beyond the possibility of a doubt.
But to establish a kingdom, there must be persons duly
qualified for the work; hence Jesus, at the beginning of His personal
ministry, selected twelve men and took them under His immediate
care, and for three years and a half instructed them in the work they
were to perform -- not only so, but He selected one of them to lead
off as foreman, in the opening of His kingdom, and said to him:
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,
shall be loosed in heaven." To Peter, then, was given the exalted
privilege of first opening the kingdom, with power to bind and to
loose on the earth, with the assurance that his act would be
recognized in heaven. Notwithstanding Peter had been a constant
attendant upon the teaching of the Saviour, this work was too
important to be entrusted to unaided human frailty -- man is
imperfect and forgetful: an important item of instruction given by the
Lord might be forgotten by Peter when the final destiny of the
human race trembled in awful suspense upon his decision -- hence
says the Saviour: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all
things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have
said unto you." John xiv:26. Thus he is secured against the frailties
and imperfections
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
of human recollection. But operations are to begin at
Jerusalem; therefore he must go there and wait the time appointed
of the Father; hence Jesus says to him, with the other apostles:
"Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in
the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."
Luke xxiv:49. "Jerusalem is the place you are to begin, Peter;
therefore go there, and wait for the coronation of Jesus Christ as
King of the kingdom to be set up; then He will send you the
promised aid from on high." Shall we go with him to the appointed
place and wait the developments of the time when Jesus is crowned
King of kings and Lord of lords? Without a king there can not be a
kingdom. "He led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his
hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, that while he blessed
them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." Luke
xxiv:50, 51. Angelic hosts escort Him to the throne appointed of His
Father. On nearing the portals of the skies, His attendants demand
admittance, saying: "Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lifted
up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in."
Before the porters of heaven admit the parties demanding entrance,
they ask, "Who is the King of glory?" The attendants answer, "The
Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle." And again the
demand is repeated: "Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them
up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in." Then
the question again comes from within, "Who is the King of glory?"
and the same announcement is made: "The Lord of hosts, he is the
King of glory." Ps. xxiv. He is admitted, crowned King -- angels,
principalities, and powers are made subject to Him. The Holy Spirit
is dispatched with the joyful tidings from heaven to Jerusalem --
"And they were all
Establishment Of The Church
161
filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues,
as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts ii:4. And what did they say?
Here is Peter, the proper person, at Jerusalem, the proper place; and
Jesus, as King, is on His throne -- surely, all things are ready now.
Among other things, Peter said: "Therefore being by the right hand
of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the
Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For
David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy
foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know
assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have
crucified, both Lord and Christ." Acts ii:33-36. Here, for the first
time, is the grand fact announced to the denizens of earth -- that
Jesus reigns in the kingdom of heaven. Persons ask admittance: Peter
uses the keys of the kingdom; they enter and are added to them.
Them! who? The disciples -- the hundred and twenty. After this, the
church being organized, the "Lord was adding daily those that were
being saved."* If, prior to this time, the kingdom had been in
existence, it would have been a kingdom without a king, for Jesus
was not then crowned King -- "the Holy Ghost was not yet given
(John vii:39); because that Jesus was not yet glorified." Then, if the
"body, which is the church" (Col. i:24), had existed prior to the
glorification of Jesus, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, it would
have been a body without a spirit, and therefore a dead body, as
"the body without the spirit is dead." Jas. ii:26. Again: "He is the
head of the body, the church." Col. i:18. When did he become the
head of the body? "The eyes of your understanding
_____________
*Twofold New Testament, by T. S. Green -- Acts ii:47.
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of your
calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the
saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward
who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which
he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him
at his own right hand in heavenly places, far above all principality,
and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named,
not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath
put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things
to the church." Eph. i:18-22. Then, as He was never given to be the
head of the church until He was set at His Father's right hand, and
obtained His exalted name, it follows that, if the church or body
existed prior to that time, it was a body without a head. And for the
very same reason, if the kingdom, church, or body was not then set
up, Jesus was a king without a kingdom, and a head without a body,
and the Spirit was upon the earth without a habitation or dwelling-
place.
One more point, and we are done on this branch of the subject.
When Peter was making his defense before his brethren, for going
down to the house of Cornelius -- in speaking of the events that
occurred there, he says: "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost
fell on them, as on us at the beginning." Acts xi:15. Here we have
the very word beginning, referring to the time when the Holy Ghost
fell on the disciples on the day of Pentecost. The Holy Ghost fell on
them on that day, and Peter refers to it as at the beginning.
Beginning of what? Let him who thinks the kingdom or church
began some time prior to the day of Pentecost, tell us what
beginning is here referred to.
Prior to the day of Pentecost the church was always spoken of
as a thing of the future; subsequently it was
Establishment Of The Church
163
spoken of as having a real existence. John, Jesus, and the disciples
preached that it was at hand. We have seen that Jesus taught His
disciples to pray for it to come -- said He would build it -- that it
would come in the life-time of those present. After that day, Luke
says "great fear came upon all the church" Acts v:11. "There was a
great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem." Acts
viii:1. "Tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church
which was in Jerusalem." Acts xi:22. "A whole year they assembled
themselves with the church and taught much people." Ver. 26. Paul
addressed his letters to "the church of God at Corinth." 1 Cor. i:2;
2 Cor. i:1. And he said: "God is not the author of confusion, but of
peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep
silence in the churches." 1 Cor. xiv:33, 34. He admonished them to
"give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to
the church of God." 1 Cor. x:32. "If any man seem to be
contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."
1 Cor. xi:16. "I persecuted the church of God." 1 Cor. xv:9; Gal.
i:13. These passages, with others which we might present, show that
after Pentecost the church was spoken of as a thing of real
existence. Why this difference in the phraseology of the New
Testament before and after that day? If the church existed before
Pentecost, why was it not spoken of in the same way it was
afterward? Before that day, Jesus charged Peter to feed His
lambs -- feed His sheep (John xxi:15, 16); after that time, Paul
exhorted the elders "to feed the church of God." Acts xx:28. Before
the day of Pentecost, Jesus said, "On this rock I will build my
church;" after that day, Paul told the church at Corinth that it was
"God's building" (1 Cor. iii:9) -- "the temple of God." Ver. 16.
Before Pentecost, Jesus said to the disciples that, unless they were
converted,
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
they should not enter into the kingdom (Matt. xviii:3); but
after that, Paul told the disciples that they had been translated into
the kingdom. (Col. i:12). Why were the disciples spoken of as
having to enter the kingdom before Pentecost, but as in it
afterward? These distinctions might be greatly multiplied, but
enough has been presented to show a difference in style inexplicable
upon any other hypothesis than that the church began on the day of
Pentecost, and was therefore spoken of as a thing future before that
day, but as an existing organization afterward.
We are not unaware that there are scriptures which seem to
indicate the existence of the kingdom at the time Jesus was
personally on the earth; but we take it to be an inflexible rule of
biblical interpretation that no obscure passage must be so construed
as to come in contact with a principle, doctrine, or fact clearly
taught elsewhere. The Bible must be harmonious in all its teaching,
otherwise it can not be of God. Hence we need not seek a theory
contradicting any thing so clearly taught as is the fact that the
church of God began on the earth, in Jerusalem, on the first
Pentecost after the crucifixion of Jesus. Such efforts are much more
likely to make skeptics than Christians of the untaught.
Before the temple was built by Solomon, all the material was so
prepared that when every piece was placed in its position the
building was complete without the sound of a hammer in its
construction. All parties agree that this was typical of the church of
God. If so, we may expect to find materiel prepared for the Christian
temple before its erection. John began the preparation of this
material, Jesus completed it. John preached the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins (Mark i:4), and the sins of those
who complied with the terms imposed were remitted, in accordance
with the gospel preached by him.
Establishment Of The Church
165
When he was cast into prison and his ministry ceased, that of Jesus
began (Matt. iv:12-17); hence, in this respect, the ministry of Jesus
was but a continuance of the preparatory ministry begun by John.
While Jesus did many things which John could not do, their
preaching, in this respect, was the same. Jesus established His claims
to be King -- gave laws for the establishment and government of His
church -- qualified men to organize it -- entered heaven with His
blood, where He made the atonement for the world -- was crowned
King, and sent the Holy Spirit with the news of His coronation --
thus perfecting the preparations for the building of His
temple. The builders, guided by the Holy Spirit, put the material in
position and the spiritual temple stood forth. As the material which
composed the temple of Solomon was prepared before it was placed
together, so the material which first constituted the temple of God
was made ready by John and Jesus for position in it. Hence it existed
in its materials before the day of Pentecost; but, as an organic
structure before that time, it had no existence.
We could give much testimony from learned men who differ
from us on other matters, yet agree with us here. In Smith's
Dictionary of the Bible, article CHURCH, we find the following
paragraph:
"From the gospels we learn little in the way of detail as to the
kingdom which was to be established. It was in the great forty days
which intervened between the resurrection and the ascension that
our Lord explained specifically to his apostles the things pertaining
to the kingdom of God (Acts i:3); that is, His future church. Its
origin: -- The removal of Christ from the earth had left His followers
a shattered company, with no bond of external or internal cohesion,
except the memory of the Master whom they had lost, and the
recollection of his injunctions
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
to unity and love, together with the occasional glimpses of His
presence which were vouchsafed them. They continued together,
meeting for prayer and supplication, and waiting for Christ's promise
of the gift of the Holy Ghost. They numbered in all some 140
persons -- namely, the eleven, the faithful women, the Lord's mother,
his brethren, and 120 disciples. They had faith to believe that there
was a work before them which they were about to be called to
perform, and, that they might be ready to do it, they filled up the
number of the twelve by the appointment of Matthias 'to be a true
witness,' with the eleven, 'of the resurrection.' The day of Pentecost
is the birthday of the Christian church. The Spirit, who was then
sent by the Son from the Father, and rested on each of the disciples,
combined them once more into a whole -- combined them as they
never had been before combined, by an internal and spiritual bond
of cohesion. Before, they had been individual followers of Jesus;
now they became his mystical body, animated by his Spirit."
CHAPTER VII
We have found that the Church of God was organized in the
THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH
city of Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost; and it is worthy
of note that all the forms of speech used to indicate it are in the
singular number; thus: "kingdom of heaven," "kingdom of God;"
"kingdom of his dear Son," "church of God," "household of faith,"
"house of God," "the pillar and ground of the truth," "the body,"
"temple of God," etc., etc. Where the word churches occurs in the
plural number, it has reference to the congregations worshiping at
particular places, and not to the kingdom, body, or church, which
has been the object of our search. Paul tells his Ephesian brethren
that "there is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one
hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of all." Eph. iv:4-6. The connection in which we here have
the phrase "one body" as clearly shows that there is but one body
as does the phrase "one God" show that there is but one God. But,
in Rom. xii:4, 5, we are told that, "as we have many members in one
body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many,
are one body in Christ." And again: "But now are they many
members, yet but one body." 1 Cor. xii:20. Thus we see that
language can not more clearly indicate any thing than that Christ has
but one organized body on the earth. What constitutes
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
this one body? What is this one body? With reference to
Christ, Paul says "he is the head of the body, the church." Col. i:18.
And again, verse 24, he says: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for
you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in
my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church." Here we are
expressly told that the body is the church. Once more: "And hath put
all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things
to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in
all." Eph. i:22, 23. Here the order is reversed -- the church is His
body. Then the church and body are the same, and are used inter-
changeably; but the unity of thought is quite apparent. "The body,"
"the church" -- not a church, some church, or any church, but THE
CHURCH. There being but one body, and that being the church, it
follows that there is but one church. Then if, in kindness, we may
be plain and candid, without being offensive, we would like to
inquire how it comes to pass that there is a Catholic Church, an
Episcopalian Church, several kinds of Presbyterian Churches,
several kinds of Methodist Churches, several kinds of Baptist
Churches, etc., etc., each claiming Divine authority for its existence,
and yet all acknowledging the Bible to be true, and an infallible
rule of faith and practice. Is there not something wrong here? We
hear Paul addressing "the church of God at Corinth," but he never
speaks to or instructs the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist
Church, the Baptist Church; nor does he ever address any class of
persons as a church at all, only those who compose the one body,
or kingdom, of which Christ is the Head and King.
But we are told that these sectarian organizations are branches
of the one church, or body, of which Paul speaks. This makes the
matter no better, but rather worse.
The Identity Of The Church
169
Paul nowhere addresses the Presbyterian branch of the church, the
Methodist branch of the church, or the Baptist branch of the
church. In order to sensibly speak of branches of the church, one of
three figures must be before the mind, viz.: a tree with trunk and
branches, a vine with its stem and branches, or a stream with its
tributaries. A tree and its branches and a vine and its branches are
so nearly alike in their illustrative character, that we may consider
them together, while we see if either or both of them will symbolize
the church. When did these branch organizations shoot forth? We
do not know that we can correctly date the origin of all of them; nor
is it necessary that we should go back to the beginning of the Roman
Catholic and Greek Churches; for those who advocate the branch
church doctrine do not admit these to be sister branches with them
at all. According to history, the
Episcopal Church began about the year 1521.
Presbyterianism began about the year 1537.
Scotch Presbyterianism about the year 1558.
English Presbyterianism about the year 1572.
Baptistism began about the year 1611.
Quakerism began about the year 1655.
Methodism began about the year 1729.
Secederism began about the year 1733.
Cumberland Presbyterianism, according to Burder, began on
Cumberland River about the year 1810.
The church of God began in Jerusalem about the year 33.
We believe these embrace the most prominent organizations of
this country, and we see that we can not get a single one, except the
church of God, further back than the sixteenth century. Was the
church without branches for the first fifteen hundred years of its
existence? and did she bring no fruit during that time? Neither tree
nor
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
vine can maintain its life and bring forth fruit without branches; yet
if these organizations are the branches, then it follows that the
church was a branchless, fruitless, lifeless thing until they came into
being. Since then, in one-third of that time, it has put forth a host of
branches, and branches of branches, and branches of branches of
branches, until they have become so thick that we are inclined to
think that the pruning-hook is necessary. Each of the branches
differs in constitution, character, and fruit from all the others. Such
a tree! such a tree!! What a monstrosity!!! A tree bearing apples,
pears, peaches, apricots, quinces, plums, cherries, berries, nuts of all
kinds, "hard-shell" and soft, melons, pumpkins, squashes, etc., etc.,
and yet all come from the same "incorruptible seed" -- the word of
God! Strange as such a sight would appear, it would take a tree with
more different kinds of branches and fruits than we have mentioned
to represent the church of God, if it has as many branch churches
growing out of it as there are denominations claiming to be branches
of it at present. But we may be told that this variety was produced
by grafting. If so, the grafting was not done by Paul, nor in
accordance with his formula; for he speaks of branches which were
"cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted
contrary to nature into a good olive tree." Rom. xi:24. Naturally,
branches bear fruit like that of the tree from which they were taken,
but Paul's grafts bore fruit contrary to nature, like the natural
branches of the tree into which his grafts were inserted, they were
taken from the world, and were ingrafted into Christ, the true
Vine -- made members of his body, or church; and, whether they
were Jews or Gentiles, Christianity, or pure and undefiled religion,
was the fruit. Therefore, if these sectarian parties were grafted
branches of the one church of God, they would all partake of its
The Identity Of The Church
171
"root and fatness," and there would be no difference in them or their
fruit. One could not bear sprinkling as baptism, another pouring,
another immersion, another all three, and another none at all;
another, vicarious atonement, total hereditary depravity, abstract
spiritual operations, unconditional election and reprobation, and
many other doctrines differing as widely as these do.
Once more: Men usually take branches for grafting from other
trees than the one into which they are to be inserted. It is true, Paul
tells us that these natural branches that were broken off because of
unbelief, might be grafted in again if they abode not in unbelief; but
when they were broken off they were as foreign as the unnatural
branches. Then, as the one church of God is supposed to be made
up of these branch churches, where is the trunk into which they
were grafted? and where is the tree from which they were taken
before grafting? Is this great church tree all branches? and from what
church were these branch churches taken before grafting? These
branches are churches, according to the theory, and not
individuals. Then whence came they? They were not taken from the
church of God, for there would be no use in taking a branch from a
tree and grafting it back into the same tree. Then from what tree or
vine were they taken? or, to speak without a figure, from what
church did these branches come, before they became part and parcel
of the church made up of them? It will not do to say they were taken
from the world, for they came from there as individuals, not as
organizations.
And if we look at it under the figure of a great stream and its
branches or tributaries, the same difficulties are in the way. As these
organizations are branches, where is the main stream into which
they flow? and where are the fountains whence they come? They
come not from Christ,
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
the Fountain of living water; for all the branches making up a great
stream come not from the same spring, for then they would be a unit
from the first, and there could be no branches at all. Then, if they
come not from the inexhaustible fountain of the human
imagination, we know not their source. Let us go to Christ, whence
flows the pure, limpid stream of living water, of which he who
drinks shall thirst no more, but have a well of water springing up in
him unto eternal life.
But we do read of branches, and we will now try to find what
a branch is. Jesus says, "I am the vine, ye are the branches." John
xv:5. Here, Jesus speaks of his disciples as branches of Him, and in
Him. "Abide in me," says He, verse 4. Paul speaks of himself and
brethren as having been "baptized into Christ." Rom. vi:3. His
baptism did not give him a literal entrance into Christ, but it gave
him entrance into His body, or the body organized by His authority,
by which a relationship was created like that of a vine and its
branches, or a body and its members. The same writer tells us that
"by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." 1 Cor. xii:13. By
the authority and according to the teaching of one Spirit we are all
baptized in water into one body, or church, and become members
of it; and when speaking to the Romans, with regard to the same
relationship, he says, by baptism we enter into Christ; and thus
individuals, as such, become branches of Him, the true Vine; but an
organized body of persons or an organized church can not, as such,
be termed a branch of the one body, or church, of God. If any one
insists that it can, then we would gladly see the scriptural process by
which such a relationship is created. We are profoundly ignorant of
any such instructions, as well as any precedent or authority of any
kind authorizing it; hence when asked, as we frequently are, to
The Identity Of The Church
173
what branch of the church we belong, we answer, that we claim to
be an humble branch ourself, but know nothing about belonging to
branches.
Jesus, as King, has but one kingdom; as Head, has but one body;
as Bridegroom, has but one bride, and is the Author of but one
church, and His people should be one people, and no divisions
among them. But we have heard persons -- yes, indeed, preachers
too -- thank God for divisions, so as to furnish an organization suited
to the taste of every one, that the people may be without excuse for
disobedience to the gospel. "Thank God," say they, "that there are
so many different denominations, each holding a different doctrine,
that all can be suited. If our church don't suit you, in the multitude
of others you can find one suited to your fancy; so you can not fail
to be suited." Such persons, to say the least of it, have a different
view of this subject from that entertained by the Saviour, for He
considered unity among His people as of the utmost importance,
and prayed for it in His most solemn prayer to His Father: "Neither
pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me
through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in
me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world
may believe that thou hast sent me." John xvii:20, 21. Thus we see
that Jesus considered divisions among those claiming to be His
people as a most fruitful source of infidelity; and He was not
mistaken. We verily believe that divisions among those claiming to
be the people of God have made more infidels than all the writings
of Voltaire, Paine, Gibbon, Hume, Owen, and every other avowed
infidel that has ever wielded a pen on the earth. A celebrated Indian
chief, when asked by a missionary what he thought of the religion
of the Bible, said: "Go home, and agree among yourselves, and then
come to me, and I will consider the
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
matter." Hence Paul, unlike those who love and create divisions,
said: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that you speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among
you." 1 Cor. 1:10.
But we have been asked why the Lord's people are not one, if
such be the import of His prayer? It is said that his Father always
heard Him when He prayed, and not only heard Him, but granted
His petitions, or that for which He prayed: why, then, are His people
divided? Is it not possible that the class of persons for whom he
prayed are all one? He prayed for unity among those who should
believe on Him through the words of His apostles. He did not pray
for such as might believe on Him through the traditions of their
fathers, or the teachings of men, as set forth in Disciplines,
Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, etc., which might be taught them
from childhood. These are the sources of much of the faith that is in
the world, and persons whose faith comes in this way come not
within the range of the prayer made by the Saviour.
It is sometimes said that these different organizations are only
as many different roads leading to heaven, and when we get there,
we will not be asked which road we came, or what kind of
conveyance brought us there. We are willing to grant that no such
questions will be asked those who get there. But will we get there?
This is the important inquiry. We would be glad to see proof of the
fact that there are as many ways to heaven as there are
denominations in the world, before we accept the doctrine as safe.
The greatest Teacher that has ever condescended to instruct man on
this subject said: "Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which
leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matt. vii:14. Again
He said, "I am the way." John xiv:6. The Pharisees, recognizing this
fact, said: "Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way
of
The Identity Of The Church
175
God in truth." Matt. xxii:16; Mark xii:14; Luke xx:21. Even wicked
spirits gave testimony to the same fact, for through a damsel one
said, "These men are the servants of the most high God, which show
unto us the way of salvation." Acts xvi:17. Peter says "the way of
truth shall be evil spoken of." 2 Pet. ii:2. Verse 15, he says certain
persons had "forsaken the right way." And again, verse 21, he says
"it had been better for them not to have known the way of
righteousness." Apollos "was instructed in the way of the Lord," but
when Aquilla and Priscilla found that he knew only the baptism of
John, they "expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly."
Acts xviii:25, 26. The Holy Spirit signified that the way into the
holiest of all was "not made manifest while the first tabernacle was
standing." Heb. ix:8. Thus we find Jesus, the Holy Spirit, evil spirits,
opposing Pharisees, apostles, and other disciples, all speaking of the
way to heaven, but none of them speak of the ways, or in any way
imply that there are more ways than one from earth to heaven;
hence we conclude that there is one way, and only one way. We
read of "wicked ways," "pernicious ways," "the ways of death," etc.,
but the way to heaven is so straight and narrow that it is found by
few. Indeed, there can be but one straight line between any two
points; hence those who do not travel the straight and narrow way,
must necessarily travel crooked ways, which are marked out by men,
and not by the Lord. "It is not in man that walketh to direct his
steps." Jer. x:23. Surely, then, we had better walk as God directs.
Guided by Him, we are safe, but there is safety nowhere else.
But there is another thought connected with these organizations
which demands our attention just here. Quite a number of them
recognize each other as orthodox, yet they differ very widely in their
teaching upon matters
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
vital to the interest of Christianity. As an intended compliment to
the society of his town, a distinguished clergyman once said: "There
is great unanimity among the orthodox denominations of our
town -- that is, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Cumberland
Presbyterians." As the Christian Church was the only church, in the
town alluded to by the gentleman, not mentioned in his list of
orthodox denominations, of course it was regarded by him as
heterodox -- so much so, indeed, that it was important to specify the
orthodox denominations, lest their "good name" be injured by an
association with what he was pleased to call "Campbellism" under
the general name of orthodoxy. We have no complaint to make as
to the motives which prompted the statement, for we doubt not that
it was made, as Saul persecuted Christians, in all good conscience,
but we mentioned it because it gives us a pretty fair idea of the
general use, or rather abuse, of this term; and we propose to
examine briefly the claim of these denominations to it.
We have the word orthodoxy from orthos, right, true, and doxa,
opinion, from dokeo, to think; hence its import, to think
right -- soundness of faith -- a belief in the genuine doctrines taught
in the Scriptures. Modern divines, however, define the term about
thus: "Orthodoxy is my doxy, and heterodoxy is your doxy, to the
full extent of your difference from me. Then, as orthodoxy means to
think right -- a belief in the genuine doctrine taught in the
Scriptures -- soundness of faith, etc., it will be expected that these
so-called orthodox denominations will agree among themselves; for
it can not be maintained that they are all sound in faith, and believe
the genuine doctrine taught in the Scriptures, while they believe and
teach doctrines contradictory to each other. Things which are equal
to the same thing, are equal to each other; hence
The Identity Of The Church
177
if each of these is equal to the genuine doctrine of the Bible, they
will be found equal to or exactly like each other. Are they thus
united, speaking the same thing? We will see.
The Presbyterians say, "God, from all eternity, did, by the most
wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably
ordain whatsoever comes to pass." Confession of Faith, chap. iii,
sec. 1. The Methodist, Baptists, and Cumberlands say: Not so: it
comes to pass that men kill, steal, and do many other things which
God has positively forbidden; hence He could not have ordained
that they should thus act, and then threaten the guilty with endless
punishment for carrying out His own ordination. The Presbyterians
say: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some
men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life and others
fore-ordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus
predestinated and fore-ordained are particularly and unchangeably
designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it can not
be either increased or diminished." Conf. Faith, chap. iii, sec. 3, 4.
The others say: Not so: every man may make his election or
condemnation sure, as he chooses; hence they seek with commendable
zeal, to increase the number of the elect, and thus diminish the number
of the reprobates. Presbyterians say: "Elect infants, dying in infancy,
are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh
when, where, and how he pleaseth; so, also, are all other elect
persons who are incapable of being
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. Others not elected,
although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may
have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly
come to Christ, and therefore never can be saved." Conf. Faith,
chap. x, sees. 3, 4. The others say: Not so: all infants, dying in
infancy, are saved; and all other persons, who are incapable of being
outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, are saved, if they die
in that condition. The Presbyterians, Baptists, and Cumberlands say:
"Once in grace, always in grace" -- that is, after a man is truly
converted, he can not fall away and be lost. The Methodists say: Not
so: let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall; for
though he be a child of God, an heir of heaven, still there is great
danger that he may fall away and be lost forever. The Presbyterians,
Methodists, and Cumberlands say that infants of believing parents
are proper subjects of baptism, and are entitled to membership in the
church. Baptists say: Not so: faith is a prerequisite to baptism, and
as infants can not believe, they should not be baptized. They are not
capable of appreciating law, and hence are not subjects of
government, and therefore are not fit subjects for the Lord's
kingdom. Presbyterians, Methodists, and Cumberlands say that
baptism is rightly administered by sprinkling or pouring water on the
head of the candidate. Baptists say: Not so: there is as much
authority for putting water on the feet as on the head for baptism.
The Presbyterians, Methodists, and Cumberlands say all Christians
should eat at the Lord's table together when convenient. Baptists
say: Not so: Presbyterians, Methodists, and Cumberlands are good
Christians, and therefore fit to surround the throne of God in
heaven, but they can not eat at a Baptist table. When they come to
our house, they may preach, pray, sing, exhort, and labor for us, but
they shall not eat with us. Presbyterians say, "Neither are any others
redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified,
and saved, but the elect only." Conf. Faith, chap. iii, sec. 6. The
others say Christ tasted death for every man. And thus we might
multiply differences almost ad infinitum. Now is it possible that
these contradictory doctrines are all the "genuine
The Identity Of The Church
179
doctrine taught in the Scriptures?" They are the doctrines of
these so-called orthodox denominations. Orthodoxy means "to
believe the genuine doctrine taught in the Scriptures." One of two
things is, therefore, certain: the Scriptures teach these contradictory
doctrines held by these denominations, or the word orthodoxy is a
misnomer when applied to them, and they have no right to
appropriate it to themselves.
But say they: "We all believe in one great God, the Author of
the Bible, the efficacy of the blood of Jesus, the operation of the
Spirit in conversion, the importance of a hearty faith in Christ as the
Saviour of sinners, a thorough change of heart, and repentance for
sins committed, and a turning from sin to holiness: and as we are
agreed in these great leading features of the genuine doctrine of the
Bible, we claim to be orthodox, though we may and do differ in
these minor matters of which you have been speaking." But stop! Do
we not believe in these great leading features of doctrine, and insist
upon them as strongly as you do, and do you not still regard us as
heterodox? What, then, is the matter? It must be something else that
constitutes you orthodox and us heterodox. What is it? It is this:
these denominations all unite in telling penitent sinners to come to
the altar, anxious seat, or mourner's bench, to pray and be prayed
for in order to remission of sins, and we tell the same persons to
repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission.
This is the true secret of the whole matter. Here is the line between
so-called orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Can they find authority for
their instructions in the Bible? Not if the salvation of the world
depended on it. Can we find authority for our teaching in the Bible?
Most assuredly we can find it, both in precept and example. We
have the precise
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
words: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." Acts ii:38. "Arise, and be
baptized, and wash away thy sins." Acts xxii:16. "He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved." Mark xvi:16. Then, if to believe and
teach the genuine doctrine taught in the Scriptures constitutes
orthodoxy, we are orthodox according to the true import of that
term. There is no escape from this position. From our very heart
have we been grieved at efforts made to make Christianity look as
much like sectarianism as possible, in order to court the popular
cant of orthodoxy. While we continue to believe and practice the
genuine doctrine taught in the Bible, we are orthodox; but when we
forsake these truths, in order to get the world to call us orthodox,
we give evidence that we love the praise of men more than the
approbation of God. 'Tis better to show that we have a valid claim
to the title, by believing the truth, than seek to make our faith look
like error to induce the world to call us orthodox.
But we often hear persons say, when called on to obey the
gospel, that "there are so many denominations differing so widely
from each other in their teaching of what is in the Bible, that we
know not which is the right church. They all teach different
doctrines, and hence may all be wrong, but can not all be right, for
the Bible must be harmonious in all its parts, if it be a revelation
from God. There is the most perfect harmony in all His laws
governing the material universe; hence we are not prepared to
receive contradictory theories as law from Him for the government
of His creature man, for whom all other things were made. We see
not why His laws for the government of the noblest of His work,
made in His own image, should be less harmonious and perfect than
laws given by Him in the great book of nature. We therefore
conclude that
The Identity Of The Church
181
some of these organizations, if not all, are spurious; and "if the
trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to
battle?" Truly, this is a difficulty, but we beg such persons to
remember that there never was a spurious coin yet that was not an
imitation of something pure; hence, as there are spurious churches,
we may be sure that there is one of pure origin somewhere; and we
propose to assist the reader in recognizing the one body, or church
of God, of which all others are counterfeits; and many of them but
poorly executed, at that. We think that if we subject the church to
the same criteria by which we test the identity of persons and things,
it will be found with such marks, features and other means of
recognition as will enable us to identify it with great certainty.
Were you hunting for a man who was personally a stranger to
you, whose name was Martin Luther, and you were to find a man
whose name was John Wesley, you would know at once that he was
not the man for whom you were hunting, unless he had changed his
name. If you knew him to bear the character of an honest man, you
would continue your search until you found a man wearing the
name of the man you desired to see. Then, if you wish to find "the
church of God" (1 Cor. i:2; 2 Cor. i:1), and you find a church
calling herself the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopalian
Church, the Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist
Church, or any other unscriptural name, is it not enough to cause
you to suspect that you have not found the true church, and
continue your search a little further? There are doubtless many good
persons in each of these sectarian organizations, but this proves not
that any one of them, or all of them together, is the church of God.
God had a people in Babylon, but He admonished them to come out
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
of her, that they partake not of her sins, and receive not of her
plagues (Rev. xviii:4).
But we are told that there is nothing in names. Then why not as
well expect salvation through one name as another? Speaking of
Christ's name, Peter says: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for
there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby
we must be saved." Acts iv:12. But if there is nothing in names, we
may as well expect salvation through the name of Beelzebub as
through the name of the Lord. If there is nothing in these
denominational names, why think so much of them as to prefer to
wear them rather than the name that honors Christ our head? Do
they not tend to keep up divisions and gender strife among good
people? and if there is nothing in them, why not give them up? Let
us not strive about words or names, to no profit; for if there is
nothing in them, we may give them up and lose nothing; but by
exchanging them for the name authorized of God we may gain
much.
The church is said to be "the bride, the Lamb's wife" (Rev.
xxi:9), and, as such, should wear the name of her Bridegroom. "The
head of the woman is the man" (l Cor. xi:3), and hence she honors
her head by wearing his name; and she dishonors her head when she
refuses to wear his name and assumes another. Suppose a citizen of
your neighborhood were to marry a wife, and when she is called by
his name, she objects to it, saying, "There are so many branches of
my husband's family that, for the sake of distinction, I prefer to be
called by some other name," and thereupon assumes
another -- perhaps the name of some other man of her
acquaintance -- what would you think of her? and how would you
treat her if she were your wife? Would she not have dishonored you,
as her husband? dishonored him whose name she wished to
The Identity Of The Church
183
assume? and dishonored and disgraced herself? and would you not
regard her as unworthy to be your wife or enjoy the privileges of
your house? Would she not have placed a foul blot upon her
character, that would render her unworthy the confidence and
respect of the virtuous and good of every age and clime? and would
you not feel a little like telling her to go and live with him whose
name she preferred to wear? What say you? Then if the wife of a
citizen would so far dishonor her husband, and degrade and debase
herself by refusing to wear the name of her husband, will it be less
dishonoring to Christ for His bride to refuse to wear and be called
by His name? and will it be less a blight upon the character of His
bride for her to assume and wear other names than His? Will He
own that organization as His bride, before His Father in the great
day of the marriage, that has, owns, and willingly wears some other
name than His? Will He say: "My wife hath made herself ready, and
to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean
and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." Rev.
xix:7, 8. Is the assumption of other names than that of the husband,
the righteousness of saints that is comparable to fine linen, clean and
white, with which the church is to be clad as a bride adorned for her
husband when he comes to receive her?
By the way, what will our Baptist friends do for a name now?
They adopted the official name of John the Baptist as their
denominational name, preferring to honor the servant of the
Bridegroom rather than the Bridegroom himself; but the Bible
Union, to which, as a church, they are fully committed, wiped the
word Baptist from the revised edition of the New Testament, giving
us "Immerser" instead thereof; thus, "John the Immerser." (See
revised New Testament, Matt. 3:1.) Will they keep pace with the
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
translation and adopt the name "Immerser Church?" This would be
rather wanting in euphony, to say the least of it; but the word
Baptist is not in the revised Scriptures put forth by the Bible Union
at all. They have very correctly and faithfully translated the original
into lmmerser, and every scholar, if honest, will approve the
translation. Then, will they give up the name Baptist? The late John
Waller, of Kentucky, saw this in prospect, while president of the
Bible Union, and said: "If a faithful and pure version of God's holy
word takes from me my denominational name, then I say let it go!
LET IT GO!! LET IT GO!!!" Are his surviving brethren capable of
rising with him above every earthly consideration to a reception of
the name given in a pure version of God's word, to the exclusion of
every thing else? To this question time will furnish an answer.
Another means of knowing persons and things is by their age.
If you wish to find a man known to be forty years old, and you meet
a lad of ten or twenty years old; or a man whose whitened locks,
furrowed cheeks, and bowed frame betoken that the weight of many
years is upon him: in either case you will know that this is not the
man you wish to see; and this assurance will be made doubly sure
if he wears not the proper name. The church of God, like every thing
not eternal, has its age; and as the age of a man is reckoned from the
time of his birth, so the age of the church is computed from the time
of its organization. We have seen that this took place on the first
Pentecost after the crucifixion of the Messiah; any organization,
therefore, which began at any other time, either before or since, is
not the church of God. Every theory teaching that the church began
at any other time, before or since, is wrong -- surely wrong. Were 1,
or an angel from heaven, to teach that the church of Jesus Christ
began in eternity --
The Identity Of The Church
185
in the days of Abraham -- in the days of John the Baptist -- it would
be error, and unworthy of reception.
Again: The record says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem of
Judea; and had any one appeared at the time He came, claiming to
be the Messiah, who had been born anywhere else, he would have
been known to be an impostor. Even so we have seen that the
church of God was organized in Jerusalem; any organization,
therefore, that began at any other place, is not the church of God.
Should we find a church which began in eternity -- in the garden of
Eden -- in Mesopotamia -- at Sinai -- in the Wilderness of Judea -- at
Augsburg -- at Westminster -- at Geneva -- at Philadelphia -- on
Cumberland River -- or at Bethany -- we would know it could not be
the church of God.
Again: The church of God was "built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-
stone." Eph. ii:20. Should we find a church claiming to be built
upon the experience of uninspired men, however wise and good they
may have been, it can not be the church of God.
Again: The organic law of the United States is the constitution
thereof. A government having any other organic law can not be the
government of the United States of America. The organic law of the
church of God is the New Covenant dedicated with the blood of
Jesus; hence any church having any other organic law than this
covenant can not be the church of God. The church that has the
Mormon Bible as its organic law can not be the church of God. Why
not? Because its organic law is the production of men, and not the
covenant dedicated with the blood of Jesus. Then, can a church be
the church of God, the organic law of which is the Westminster
Confession of Faith, the Cumberland Presbyterian Confession of
Faith, the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, the Methodist
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
Discipline, or any other human production? Will the reader ponder
well this question?
The church of God is entered by a birth of water and Spirit; any
church which admits to membership in any other way can not be the
church of God. Hence a church that receives infants to membership
can not be the church of God, because born of water they may be,
but born of water and of the Spirit they can not be.
All the subjects of the church of God know the Lord, from the
least to the greatest of them: this being so, a church whose members
are, in part, infants, can not be the church of God, because such can
not know the Lord.
This line of thought might be pursued much further; but we
have seen that the church of God was organized in Jerusalem,
nowhere else -- on the day of Pentecost, at no other time -- wears a
name honoring the Bridegroom, and no other -- is built upon the
foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief
corner-stone, and other foundation can no man lay -- has for its
organic law the covenant dedicated with the blood of Jesus, nothing
else, more or less -- has only such members as have been born of
water and of the Spirit, and know the Lord, from least to greatest.
An organization, therefore, which bears all these marks of identity,
may be the church of God; none other can be. If such an
organization can not be found, then the church of God has no
existence on the earth.
Suppose a man were to come into a community with the
constitution and by-laws of the Good Templars, and by teaching its
doctrines he were to make a number of proselytes to its principles,
and were to initiate them according to its forms, and organize them,
at a particular place, as a body built thereon, what would we call
the organization? A society of Good Templars. Very well. Another
man
The Identity Of The Church
187
comes with the Mormon Bible, and by preaching its doctrines makes
proselytes to Mormonism, and organizes them upon the Mormon
Bible, according to its provisions: what shall we call this
organization? A Mormon Church, most certainly. Very well. But
suppose another man comes with the Presbyterian Confession of
Faith and preaches its doctrines, makes proselytes, and organizes
them according to its provisions, what shall we call this
organization? A Presbyterian Church. Very well. It would not be a
Mormon Church, certainly; and why not? Because it is not
organized upon the Mormon Bible or indoctrinated with its
teaching. Well, another man comes, and having the Methodist
Discipline, he teaches its doctrines, makes proselytes and organizes
them upon it as a basis of future action: what shall we call the
organization? A Presbyterian Church? No. Why not? Because it has
not been taught the doctrines of or organized upon the Presbyterian
Confession of Faith. But it must be called a Methodist Church
because it has been taught the doctrines of that Discipline and
organized upon it.
Then suppose another man comes with the Word of God, and
by preaching its doctrines he makes proselytes and organizes them
according to its provisions, to keep the ordinances therein
inculcated, what shall we call this organization? Shall we call it a
Presbyterian Church? No; the word of God, by which it has been
created, says nothing about a church called by that name. Shall we
call it a Methodist Church? The word of God says nothing about a
Methodist Church. Shall we call it a Baptist Church? The word of
God says not a word about a Baptist Church. Then, of what church
does the word of God speak? It speaks of the church of God. Then,
as the word of God is what was taught the proselytes, in accordance
with which the organization was effected, and it speaks of the
church
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
of God, is not this organization likely to adopt a name found in its
organic law? If so, we feel sure that we have given such marks as
will enable us to find the church which has been the object of our
search. Surely, it is worthy of all acceptation, and we will not seek
another, but seek an entrance into this one.
CHAPTER VIII
We have said that persons enter the church of God in one
THE NEW BIRTH
way, and in only one way. In this we are sustained by the
positive statement of Jesus himself. In a conversation with
Nicodemus on this subject, He said: "Except a man be born again,
he can not see the kingdom of God." John iii:3. And in the 5th verse
He said: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can
not enter into the kingdom of God." By the phrase "kingdom of
God," here, He meant the church of God, or system of government
established by God's authority on the earth. To this, we suppose, all
agree. When we speak of entering the kingdom of God, then, we do
not mean heaven, the holiest of all into which Jesus, our adorable
High Priest, hath for us entered, but the kingdom established on the
earth, on the day of Pentecost. Into this kingdom or church he that
is not born again can not enter. This kingdom is a system of
government, and those who enter it must be subjects of government,
capable of understanding and obeying its laws. Infants, idiots, and
irresponsible persons are not such; it was not, therefore, established
for them, and their salvation is not suspended upon an entrance into
it. Jesus says: "Of such is the kingdom of heaven" -- that is, of such
as they are now, without being born again.
Having seen that a man must be born again, in order to
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
enter the kingdom, and that it is the office of the new birth to
introduce the party born into the kingdom, it follows that a more
important subject never engaged the attention of man; we will
therefore, examine it carefully, and somewhat in detail in the hope
that the class of persons for whose benefit we write may ponder well
what may be said, and that some good may be done in the name of
Jesus.
The first thing necessary to a birth is parentage. There must be
a father and a mother, or there can be nothing born. Who, then, can
be our spiritual parents? Paul salutes the brethren to whom he
wrote, thus: "Grace, to you and peace, from God our Father, and the
Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. i:7; 1 Cor. i:3; 2 Cor. i:2; 1 Thess. i:1; 2
Thess. i:2; 1 Tim. i:2; Philem. 3. In all these places, Paul, in the
same words, recognizes God as our Father; and Jesus taught His
disciples to address God, in prayer, as "Our Father who art in
heaven." Matt. vi:9. John says: "Behold what manner of love the
Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of
God." And again: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God." 1 John
iii:1, 2. Other scripture might be quoted, but these are sufficient to
identify our Father with great clearness. Paul, in his allegory with
reference to the two covenants, tells us that "Jerusalem which is
above is free, which is the mother of us all." Gal. iv:26. This
heavenly Jerusalem, answering in the allegory to the free woman, is
our spiritual mother; hence, in the 31st verse, he says: "So, then,
brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."
But, before there can be a spiritual birth, the subject must have been
begotten. Man is begotten of his father and born of his mother,
both physically and spiritually. He is not born of his father, at all,
either at the same time when born of the mother or at any other
time. The father may have been in his grave
The New Birth
191
long ere the child is born, and how he is born of his father when
born of his mother, is not very clear to us. John says: "Whosoever
believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and every one
that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."
1 John v:1. Also, verse 18th, it is said: "We know that whosoever is
begotten of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth
himself." In keeping with the Bible Union and Anderson's
translations, we have exchanged the word born for begotten, in each
of the verses quoted, and we venture to state further that there is not
a place in the New Testament where the words "born of God"
occurs, that a faithful translation would not render "begotten of
God." In no place will the Spirit's teaching, faithfully translated,
represent us as born of God -- born of our Father. Such a thought
is absurd in the very nature of things; and no one who understands
the new birth, or the natural birth, from which the figure was drawn,
will entertain such a thought or use such language.
But to proceed. Peter speaks of his brethren as "being born
[begotten] again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the
word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." 1 Pet. i:23. Here we
learn that the word of God is the spiritual seed with which persons
are spiritually begotten. And in order that we may be begotten of
this incorruptible seed, our Father has ordained that human agents
shall preach it to the world. Hence, in this sense, Paul calls Timothy
and Titus his sons in the common faith; and also to the Corinthians,
he said: "In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." 1
Cor. iv:15. Then, when Paul preached the word of God, gospel, or
incorruptible seed, to the Corinthians, and they believed and
received it, they were begotten of God, and Paul speaks of them as
having been begotten of him
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
through the gospel, because he was the person through whom God
made known the gospel to them. Hence says James: "Of his own will
begat he us with the word of truth." Jas. i:18. The gospel is the
power of God unto salvation only to those who believe it; but "how
shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how
shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. x:14. So, then, "it
pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that
believe." 1 Cor. i:21. Then, when a man believes the gospel, is he
not born again? "Devils believe and tremble." Jas. ii:19. They also
acknowledge Jesus the Son of God. Mark iii:11. Were they born
again? "Among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but
because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should
be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more
than the praise of God." John xii:42, 43. There are now many such
as these chief rulers were then; are they born again? If a man be
born again when he first believes the gospel, when is he begotten,
and where are the elements of birth -- water and Spirit -- of which
Jesus said he should be born? John says Jesus "came unto his own,
and his own received him not: but to as many as received him, to
them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that
believe on his name." John i:11, 12. Jesus came to His own prepared
people, and many of them did not receive Him, or believe on Him;
but to as many of them as did receive Him by believing on his name,
He gave the power or privilege of becoming sons of God. Believing
on His name, then, did not make them sons, but prepared them to
become sons.
When a man believes the gospel, and with meekness receives it
into a good and honest heart, he is then begotten of God, and is
prepared to be born. The vital principle is
The New Birth
193
then implanted in the heart; but he is no more born again at that
time than he was physically born the moment he was conceived. As
it is not the office of a birth to give life, but to BRING the subject to
the enjoyment of life previously possessed in a different state, so
without being begotten by the Father through the gospel, and thus
having the principle of life implanted in the heart, the subject born
would be dead when born, if it were possible for him to be born at
all. When he is spiritually begotten, he may avail himself of the
means of God's appointment for a birth, and be born into the
kingdom, or he may refuse them, as he may elect. In this particular
there is no analogy between a physical and a spiritual birth. In the
former we have no agency in being begotten or born, nor is either in
the least under our control, in the latter both are to a considerable
extent, under the control of the subject. He may (as many do) refuse
to hear the gospel at all, or he may refuse to believe it after he has
heard it. If he believes it not, his doom was pronounced by Jesus
when He said, "He that believeth not shall be damned." He may also
refuse to obey it after he has believed it; if so, he "believes in vain,"
and his faith is dead, not having been made perfect by obedience.
Faith causes us to love and fear God, and desire to do His will;
it also causes us to hate sin because it is contrary to His will; hence
Peter, in speaking of the conversion of the Gentiles, said that God
"put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by
faith." Acts xv:9. This, the effect of faith, is what is called a change
of heart, and must precede the new birth. But a change of heart is
one thing -- the new birth a different thing. The conversion of Saul
of Tarsus will make apparent the truth of this position. While he was
"yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of
the Lord, he
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus,
to the synagogues, that if be found any of this way, whether they
were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there
shined round about him a light from heaven, and he fell to the earth,
and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou
me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am
Jesus whom thou persecutest." Acts ix:1-5. It will be seen that Saul
set out on his journey with his heart filled with bitterness against the
disciples, and thought he was doing right to persecute and punish
them. Jesus convinced him by a miracle that He was what He
professed to be. Saul's faith was changed from believing that Jesus
was an impostor to the belief of the truth that He was the Son of
God. This change in his faith produced a corresponding change in
his heart, and he abandoned his errand of persecution, and was
willing to become a disciple himself. He was then begotten of God;
but was he born again? If this was the birth, when and where were
the elements of birth with which he then came in contact? Three
days hence he was born of water and of the Spirit, in obedience to
a divine command given him by Ananias: "Arise and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." Acts
xxii:16. His heart was changed by the way, but he was born again
three days afterward.
Faith produces repentance, and repentance changes the
practices of the subject -- causes him to cease doing evil and
commence doing right -- but he is not yet born again. His heart may
be as submissive to God's will as it can ever get to be; yes, he may
be a worshiper of God to the best of his knowledge, and still not be
born again. The new birth does not consist in a reformation of life.
An examination
The New Birth
195
of the character of Cornelius will give proof of this: "There was a
certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band
called the Italian band, a devout man, and one that feared God with
all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to
God always. He saw in a vision evidently, about the ninth hour of
the day, an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him,
Cornelius. And when he looked on him he was afraid, and said,
What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms
are come up for a memorial before God." Acts x:1-4. Here was a
devoted, charitable, praying, and God-fearing man, quite as good as
the best of our day, as far as reformation of life can make them good,
and yet he was not born again. But says an objector, "He was born
again, for he saw an angel that told him so." Not exactly: he did see
and converse with an angel that told him his prayers and his alms
were coming up for a memorial before God, and he told him more
than this -- "Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname
is Peter; who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and thy house
shall be saved." Acts xi:13, 14. Was he born again and still unsaved?
The promise "shall be saved" clearly shows that he was unsaved;
and not only so, but he was to hear words of Peter by which he was
to be saved. Was he saved by the words before he heard them? If so,
why did not the angel shape the language thus: "who shall tell thee
words by which you are or have been saved." If he was at that time
born again, it follows that there is no salvation in being born again,
for it is as clear as language can make any thing, that he was not
then saved, in the gospel sense of that word. If he was born again
when the angel appeared to him, he was born again without ever
having heard the gospel, and therefore without gospel faith.
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
Peter, in alluding to this matter, said that "God made choice
among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of
the gospel, and believe." Acts xv:7. Then Cornelius had neither
heard the gospel nor believed it until Peter preached it to him, and
surely a cause must be desperate that could assume that he was born
again prior to that time. Then as his conduct was as good before
birth as after it, it follows that the birth did not consist in a
reformation of life in this case.
A birth contemplates a change of state -- a transition or passing
from one state to another. A change of state, then, and the beginning
of a new life, is the thought conveyed by the expression "born
again," and we have the same thought presented by Paul, in his
epistles, in other figures, varied to suit the circumstances under
which he wrote. He expresses it by the figure of marriage, Rom.
vii:4; by the figure of grafting, Rom. xi:24; by the figure of adoption,
Rom. viii:15, Gal. iv:5; and by the figure of translation from one
government to another, Col. i:13. If an individual be married to
Christ, his state is changed -- he is born again. If he be taken from
the wild olive-tree and grafted into the tame olive-tree, or from the
world and grafted into Christ, the true Vine, his state is
changed -- he is born again. If he be taken -- as a child -- from one
family and adopted into another, the family of God, his state is
changed -- he is born again. If he renounce his allegiance to one
government, the devil's, and be legally translated into another, the
kingdom of God's dear Son, his state is changed -- he is born again.
We might amplify each of these figures of speech, and show the
correctness of the position assumed; but our space will only allow
us to use a single one of the illustrations given:
A gentleman visits and seeks the hand of a lady under
unfavorable circumstances, and is rejected. There may be
The New Birth
197
a single cause or many causes co-operating to produce his rejection.
She may be unfavorably impressed with his character, or she may
worship at the shrine of another, whose heart she hopes to win, or
both causes may cooperate in producing his rejection.
Circumstances change, however, and she finds her first suitor an
unworthy man, and she becomes disgusted by him. Meanwhile, she
learns more of the character of the man she rejected, and finds him
chaste in his conversation, courteous, polite, and accomplished in
manners -- that a social, warm, and undissembling heart controls
him -- that he has a mind well stored with valuable information
-- that he has descended from a good family -- and, above
all, that he is possessed of inexhaustible wealth. A knowledge
of these facts changes her heart, and she now admires and loves the
man she once rejected. She receives him gladly, and is willing to
become the sharer of his prosperity or adversity through life, but she
is not yet his wife. Though her heart is changed, her state is not; she
was in the single or unmarried state, at first, and is so yet. The
parents may consent, the license be secured, the proper officer be
present for the solemnization of the nuptials, the supper prepared
and the wedding furnished with guests, and still she is not married;
and were the process here arrested, she would not be entitled to the
privileges of his house, to wear his name, or to inherit his estate.
When she is married and her state legally changed, then, and not till
then, is she entitled to all these privileges growing out of the new
relation. Now for the application. The gospel is preached to the
sinner -- he is in love with the transient pleasures afforded in the
service of the devil. The carpenter's Son, born in Bethlehem and
cradled in a manger, has no charms for him. By-and-by he finds that
the pleasures of sin are deceptive, and the devil, in whose service he
delighted, has
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
nothing with which to reward him but misery and woe. Meanwhile
he learns more of Him who proposes to save all who will come to
God by Him. He finds Him so chaste in conversation, that guile is
not found in His mouth; so amiable in disposition, that when He is
reviled He reviles not again, and yet so powerful, that the furious
winds and boisterous waves are calm at His bidding, the grave yields
up the dead to live again, and devils tremble at His word; the waters
are firm as a pavement beneath His majestic tread, God is His Father,
and He the only Son and Heir to all things -- He is chief among ten
thousand and altogether lovely. With faith like this, he can not fail
to feel grieved that he ever loved the devil or his service, because he
is the enemy of Him whom he now loves supremely. Surely, his
heart is now changed -- is he born again? If so, there is no fitness in
the figure, for he is not married yet. Though his heart is changed,
his state is not; and if he stops at this point, he can no more claim
the Christian name and character than can the unmarried woman
claim the name and patrimony of him to whom she is espoused. But
it is insisted that this change of heart is the new birth, and (strange
enough, too) the same persons insist that we have no change of
heart, and deny the importance of it, when, in reality, we have their
change of heart and new birth, in our change of heart.
We insist that we must not only love our betrothed, but we must
be married to the Bridegroom according to law, before we can claim
the privileges of His bride. He will not permit us to live with Him in
adultery if we were so disposed. A change of heart, then, is not a
change of state; it must precede the new birth, but it is not the new
birth.
The language "born again," was unique when used by Christ to
Nicodemus. No inspired man had used such
The New Birth
199
language before: is there any reason for its use then? The Jews
believed that Jesus had come to re-establish the kingdom of David
and literally sit on his throne on the earth; hence when he entered
Jerusalem, on one occasion, "They that went before, and they that
followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the
name of the Lord: Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that
cometh in the name of the Lord." Mark xi:9, 10. And even His
apostles did not understand the nature of His kingdom until after
they received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and were by
it guided into all truth. "When they therefore came together, they
asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the
kingdom to Israel?" Acts i:6. It is not unreasonable that Nicodemus
had the same mistaken views of the kingdom, and he knew well that
he was born into that kingdom, and had a right to citizenship in it by
virtue of Abrahamic parentage; and being "a ruler of the Jews," "a
master of Israel," he may have expected to be entitled to an office in
Christ's kingdom on that account. Jesus corrects this mistake by
telling him that the kingdom of God was not to be entered in that
way; but as a birth gave him entrance into that, he must be born
again to enter this.
There is much speculation about the import of this language;
but as Jesus attempted to explain the matter to Nicodemus, and then
asked, "Art thou a master of Israel and knowest not these things?"
we are encouraged to approach the examination of the subject in the
belief that He intended to be understood, and, as "a teacher come
from God," He was competent to make clear what He attempted to
explain. Let us, then, take up the language in which the conversation
is recorded, and see whether or not we may understand it: "There
was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews."
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
So reads the first verse, and from it we learn that, at one time in the
world's history, there lived a man whose name was Nicodemus; that
he belonged to the sect of the Jews' religion called the Pharisees;
and that he was a distinguished personage or ruler among the Jews.
2d verse: "The same (Nicodemus) came to Jesus by night (not in
daylight) and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher
come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest,
except God be with him." Here we learn that Nicodemus was
convinced by the miracles which Jesus did that He was really a
teacher come from God. This is all plain; let us try again. 3d verse:
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee,
except a man be born again, he can not see the kingdom of God."
Here we learn, not how a man may be born again, but the
indispensable necessity of being born again in order to see or enjoy
the privileges and blessings of the kingdom of God. 4th verse:
"Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is
old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be
born?" Here we find that Nicodemus knew nothing of but one birth,
and this was a birth of the flesh, and that he could not understand
how a man, when old, could be born in this way; he therefore asks
an explanation, "How can a man be born when he is old?" Jesus
attempts to tell him how it can be; hence the 5th verse: "Jesus
answered, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of
water, and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God."
Here we learn that the elements of birth are water and Spirit, and
that a man must be born of both to be born again -- not born of
water and begotten by the Spirit, as some translations would
indicate, but he must be born of both to be born at all. How is he to
be born of water and of the Spirit? One answers that he must get
religion in the altar, grove, or elsewhere,
The New Birth
201
and being then baptized with the Spirit, he is born of the Spirit, and
after a time he is baptized in water and is then born of water. Well,
this theory makes baptism in water indispensable to entering the
kingdom. Will the reader think of this? It also makes two births
where there should be but one. The language is born again, not
again and again, or twice more -- once at the altar and once at the
creek. This is not all; the order is transposed. Jesus said born of
water and of the Spirit; this theory says born of the Spirit and of
water. It is out of joint at every angle. Another theory says that we
are "born of water when we are born into the world, and born of the
Spirit when we get religion." This will provoke a smile on the face
of our readers; but it is taught by men of lofty pretensions, and must
be noticed, whether worthy of respect or not, because it is regarded
important by those who present it. It makes the answer of Jesus
wholly inapplicable to the question asked by Nicodemus, who did
not inquire how a child had been born into the world, but "How
can a man be born when he is old? The answer was, not that you
have once been born of water, and must be born again of the Spirit,
but you must be born again. How? Of water AND of the Spirit.
Another theory makes that part of the Saviour's language which
applies to the Spirit apply to the belief of the gospel at the time the
subject is spiritually begotten. While this theory may not be,
practically, as mischievous as those already noticed, it is quite as
unphilosophic and foreign from the truth as any one of them. It
breaks up the order of the Lord's arrangement and takes the term
Spirit, which comes after water, and places it in theory as far before
water as faith precedes baptism. If this be the thought, it occurs to
us that the Lord was unfortunate in the selection of terms in which
to express it. It would
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
have been as easy to have said, a man must be begotten by the Spirit
and born of water, as to have said what He did say. But we are told
that the Greek word genneethee, here rendered born, is elsewhere
rendered begotten, and hence may have that meaning here. We grant
that it is often so rendered; but should it be so rendered here? If so,
it must mean begotten as to water as well as Spirit, and hence the
process is all begetting, and there is no birth about it. Is any one
prepared for this? Will he render the passage, "begotten of water
and of the Spirit?" But may not the word genneethee mean begotten
as to Spirit and born as to water? It must be thus divided in
meaning, to fit the theory; and hence our neighbors may be right in
saying that eis [for], in Acts ii:38, means in order to as to
repentance, but because of as to baptism. Such renderings are at war
with all rules of exegesis on the subject. THE SENSE OF A WORD
CAN NOT BE DIVERSE OR MULTIFORM AT THE SAME TIME
AND IN THE SAME PLACE. Ernesti, p. 9. Again: IN NO
LANGUAGE CAN A WORD HAVE MORE THAN ONE
LITERAL MEANING IN THE SAME PLACE. Ernesti, p. 11.
According to these rules, we may translate genneethee either
begotten OR born, as the sense may require, but we can not
translate it by both in one place; yet we might as well so render it in
words as in theory. Let those who do so, agree with our neighbors
that baptidzontes means sprinkle, pour, AND immerse, in Matt.
xxviii:19. If we may thus bifurcate the meaning of genneethee, in
John iii:5, and make it mean both begotten AND born at the same
time and in the same place, then we may as well have an end to all
rules of interpretation, and no longer complain of others for doing
that which we do ourselves. Surely, Jesus understood the figure He
employed; and if so, the theory is wrong. To be begotten of God is
entirely a different thing from being
The New Birth
203
born of water and of the Spirit. He who believes the gospel, and is
truly begotten of God, is not half born, but has the full measure of
a birth of water and of the Spirit between him and the kingdom of
God, and must be born of BOTH to be born at all. Begetting must
precede a birth, but it is no part of a birth.
But as one error often begets others, so this theory has led to
the notion that "regeneration and the new birth are identical."
Generate means to beget; re, as a prefix, means again. Hence
regenerate must mean to beget again. Born means brought forth,
and born again is synonymous with reborn, hence, if language
means any thing, to regenerate or beget again is one thing, and
reborn or born again is a different thing. Physically, a man is
generated or begotten and subsequently born; spiritually, he is
regenerated (i.e., begotten again), and subsequently reborn (i.e.,
born again). Regeneration is the beginning, that may end in
salvation. We are saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing
of the Holy Spirit. Titus iii:5. The washing that belongs to or follows
regeneration is not regeneration. The regenerated man may be born
again -- no one else can be; but it is re-birth, not regeneration, that
reaches salvation.
But our question is yet unanswered, and having been gone from
it so long, we must repeat it, lest it may have been forgotten: How is
a man born of water and of the Spirit? We answer that he is born
of water as a means appointed by the Spirit for a birth. How is a
man begotten of God? Not literally. How then? He is begotten with
the word of truth, the gospel, as the means appointed for this
purpose. Then why not a man be born of the Spirit when born of
water as the means appointed by the Spirit for a birth? Baptism is
the act by which we are placed in and delivered from the water,
according to the teaching of the Spirit, and thus we are born of
water and of the Spirit; hence we are
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
"buried with him in baptism, wherein also we are risen with him."
Col. ii:12. To be, if possible, more plain -- to be born contemplates
a delivery, a coming forth from one state into another. Then were we
to immerse a man in water, without faith, repentance, or any thing
else (as we are often accused of doing), when delivered from the
water he would be born of water, but not of water and of the Spirit,
because the process was not in accordance with the teaching of the
Spirit; then it is equally clear that if born of water, as taught by the
Spirit, he is born of water and of the Spirit. But we are told that the
word water, in the sentence "water and of the Spirit," does not
mean water; and one quibbler will say it means grace, another that
it means Spirit; and a third will say that he does not know what it
means, but it can not mean water, for then he must be baptized or
into the kingdom of God he can not go -- and his theory tells him
baptism is a non-essential. So the word of the Lord is made to bend
to suit the theory instead of giving shape to the theory. But we are
told that the Greek particle kai, here rendered and, is sometimes
rendered "even" and that this sentence should read thus: "Except
a man be born of water, even of the Spirit," etc. It is true that the
word is sometimes so rendered, but can it be rendered "even," in
this connection? And is the primary meaning of the word, and the
rules of translation give preference to the primary meaning, unless
the sense requires its removal. Does the sense require that and
should give place to even, in the sentence before us? Theories may
require such a change, but the sense does not either require or allow
it. The word water has no qualifying term, and wherever we find
water, whether in the Jordan or elsewhere, we have the proper
element. But not so of the Spirit. It is made definite, the Spirit -- not
spirit, a spirit, some spirit, or any spirit,
The New Birth
205
but the Spirit. "Born of water and of the Spirit" -- immersed in and
born of water, according to the teaching of the Spirit. How perfect
the sense! But another tells us that the word water is exegetical of
the word Spirit; hence to be born of water and of the Spirit, is to be
born of the Spirit like an overflow of water. Whoever saw an
exegesis given in advance of the word explained? We feel ashamed
that it is necessary to notice such quibbles as these. Suppose a man
living at the time the Saviour was on the earth, who had witnessed
the many immersions performed in those days, had heard Jesus say,
"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he can not enter
into the kingdom of God," and he had no theory or prepossessions
to give shape to his conclusions, but had to form them only by the
language used, would he conclude that the word water meant grace,
Spirit, or any thing else but water? Would he not more likely
conclude, with Wesley, Clarke, and others, that it had reference to
water baptism? Is there a man out of the lunatic asylum who can
believe that any one of these quibbles would ever have been thought
of had it not been necessary to devise some means to save some
theory from being destroyed by the obvious meaning of the Saviour's
language?
There were two questions asked by Nicodemus in the 4th verse:
The first, "How can a man be born when he is old?" Jesus answered
as we have seen in the 5th verse. The second question, "Can he
enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born?" shows
that he had entirely mistaken the kind of birth required. This mistake
Jesus corrects, in the 6th verse, by saying: "That which is born of the
flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" -- as much
as to say to him: "You are thinking of a birth of the flesh, and a
second birth of this character would be indeed impossible. But I am
speaking
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
of a moral transition of the spiritual or inner man. The man born
again is the same physical man as he was before, but the temper and
disposition of the inner man are not like they were before. "That
which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee,
Ye must be born again." Seeing your difficulty grows out of a failure
to recognize the existence of an invisible or 'inner man' (Eph. iii:16)
dwelling in 'our earthly house of this tabernacle' (2 Cor. v:1), and
which is the subject of the change produced by the new birth, I will
use an illustration which will make plain the fact just stated, that
'that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,' hence the 8th verse, "The
wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof,
but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth; so is every
one that is born of the Spirit." The mist and fog that men have
thrown around this verse envelop it in darkness thick as that with
which God cursed the land of Egypt. And we are of the opinion that
most of it has grown out of a failure to keep before the mind the
difficulty under which Nicodemus was laboring, for the removal of
which Jesus introduced the illustration, and failing to get the point
in the comparison at the right place. We once listened to a very
eloquent man through a labored effort to explain the new birth, at the
close of which he said that this verse was designed to teach us that
the new birth is incomprehensible to all finite minds. Others can see
that it teaches the doctrine of abstract and mysterious spiritual
operations; others say that, as the wind blows down a large oak, and
leaves others standing around it, so the Spirit is partial in its
operations, converting one or two out of the many who were with
him or them at the mourner's bench. Jesus did not say, "So is the
Spirit," or "So is the operation of the Spirit" -- no such comparison
was made or intended. Others say that the language
The New Birth
207
was addressed to Nicodemus, and is not applicable to us at
all, because we can tell where the wind comes from and where it
goes to. "He bringeth the wind out of his treasure." Ps. cxxxv:7.
"Who hath gathered the wind in his fist." Prov. xxx:4. And what is
gained by these quotations? Where is God's treasure from whence
the wind comes? and where is His fist in which it is gathered? But
suppose we can tell where the wind comes from and goes to, what
light has been thrown on the new birth by the discovery? We
confess ourself unable to see any at all. If we go back to the 4th
verse and see the difficulty in the mind of Nicodemus to be a second
birth of the flesh, then come to the correction given to this mistake
in the 6th verse -- "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit" -- and
then regard the 8th verse as an illustration used to teach the
existence of an invisible principle or spiritual man, which is changed
by the new birth, then, it seems to us, there need be no difficulty in
understanding the matter. We have seen many translations of this
verse, quite a number of which we have before us at this writing; and
it is worthy of note that, whether the Greek pneuma be rendered
wind or spirit, the illustrative qualities of the figure are still the
same: they are both invisible -- recognized by sound and not by
sight. "So is every one that is born of the Spirit" -- it being spirit that
is so born.
While the kingdom was yet in prospect, Jesus taught the people
by parables and figures; but after its establishment, figures gave
place to facts, commands, and promises. Jesus commissioned his
apostles to preach the gospel to every creature, promising salvation
to those who would believe and obey it. He also promised them the
Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth, and enable them to
unerringly perform the work He had assigned them. When it came,
they began to preach as it inspired them -- persons
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
were cut to the heart and made to cry out, "Men and brethren, what
shall we do?" Peter did not tell them to be born again, because the
time for figures had passed; he therefore said to them: "Repent, and
be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins." Acts ii:38. Thus he told them plainly, without a
figure, to do that which would translate them into the kingdom of
God's dear Son, and produce that change of state indicated by the
figurative language of Jesus as used in the conversation with
Nicodemus when He said: "Except a man be born of water and of
the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." When Peter
thus addressed them, "they that gladly received his word were
baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three
thousand souls." Now, are they born again? Surely, they are. When
were they born again? Just when they did what Peter commanded
them to do. Then, if they were born again when they were baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, will you not be
born again when you do as they did? and if it took this to introduce
them into the kingdom of God then, will any thing less do so now?
CHAPTER IX
We hope that the reader has carefully studied the lessons
FAITH
already given, and that he has not forgotten the marks on
the guide-posts along the road to the Tree of Life. But as we started
far back in the brush, bogs, muck, and mire of Calvinism, our
journey thence to citizenship in the kingdom of God has been
necessarily a long one, and made rapidly; it may not be amiss for us
to go back and familiarize ourselves a little with the scenery along
the road.
We have seen that the destiny of each individual was not unalterably
fixed in heaven or hell before time began, and that God is
no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him and
worketh righteousness is accepted with Him; and hence every one
may make his calling and election sure -- that you did not enter the
world laden with hereditary depravity, by reason of which you are
wholly opposed to all good, and irresistibly inclined to all evil, and
unable to do any thing commanded you of God; but, on the
contrary, you are quite competent to fear God and keep His
commandments, and in doing so you will have discharged your
whole duty. We have further seen that God has one kingdom, body,
or church, on the earth, and only one; that it was set up on the day
of Pentecost, in Jerusalem, by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ,
through the agency of the apostles,
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
as guided by the Holy Spirit; and may be as surely known and
identified, as men and things may be known by the features peculiar
to them. And men must enter it by being born of water and of the
Spirit; and thus, as individuals, they become branches of Christ, the
true Vine, or members of his body, the church; but to speak of
organizations as branches of the church of God, is nothing less than
the confused dialect of Babylon. We have further seen that before
we can be born again, we must have been begotten with the word of
God, as the incorruptible seed necessary to the accomplishment of
this end, and that this Word must be preached, heard, and believed,
in order to the production of that change of heart, and reformation
of life, which must necessarily precede the new birth.
As faith is the grand mainspring which propels the human
machinery in all acceptable obedience to God, we propose to pause
here while we open our Bibles and examine it in the light of
inspiration. We think it likely that more has been said and written
on the subject of faith than on any other subject connected with
theology; and if every trace of every thing that uninspired men have
spoken and written could be blotted out of human memory, we are
not sure that the world would be greatly injured by the sacrifice.
Indeed, it seems to us that the greatest labor on the part of those
who would understand the subject, is to disentangle it from the
speculations of men with regard to it. What, then, is faith? whence
cometh it? and what is its office in the plan of salvation?
WHAT IS FAITH?
Many persons speak of it as some indescribable gift infused into
the heart by God, when they neither expected
Faith
211
nor desired it; while others seem to think it a gift, only to be
obtained after hours, perhaps days, weeks, months, or even years,
spent at the mourner's bench, or elsewhere, in imploring God to
bestow it upon them. Paul says: "Faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb. xi:1. This verse is
perhaps better rendered by Anderson, thus: "Faith is a sure
confidence with respect to things hoped for, a firm persuasion with
respect to things not seen." Christianity is a system of faith, and is
not susceptible of demonstration like a problem in mathematics. We
do not know that there is such a place as heaven, like we know that
there is such a place as Nashville; because the latter we have seen,
the former we have not seen. We have a sure confidence with
respect to it -- a firm persuasion that it exists, because we believe the
testimony concerning it, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." 2 Cor.
v:7. Faith, then, may be defined as a firm, unshaken confidence,
conviction, or belief in the truth of a proposition, based upon
testimony concerning it. The order is: Fact, TESTIMONY, FAITH.
First, a fact must exist, then it must be revealed with testimony
sufficiently strong to establish its truth, then the confidence in, or
firm belief of this testimony is faith. In support of this position, it
may be well to make a quotation or two.
When Jesus saw the centurion's confidence that a word from the
Master would heal his servant, He said to them following Him, "I
have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel," and then said to the
centurion, "As thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his
servant was healed in the self-same hour." Matt. viii:10, 13. Here
Jesus used the words faith and belief interchangeably, showing
clearly that the centurion's belief was his faith.
Again: Paul tells us that "without faith it is impossible
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
to please God, for he that cometh to God must believe that
he is." Heb. xi:6. Here the necessity of belief is given as a reason
why persons can not please God without faith; and the fact that we
can not please God without faith, is as good a reason why we must
believe; therefore, with Paul, faith and belief were synonymous
terms.
Once more: "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to
him for righteousness." Rom. iv:3. What was accounted to Abraham
for righteousness? Belief; and that this belief was faith is seen in the
9th verse in which it is said, "Faith was reckoned to Abraham for
righteousness." Surely, nothing could be more clear than that
believing God constituted Abraham's faith. Why, then, was not faith
used in the 3d verse in place of the word believed? Because the
word faith is always used as a noun, and never as a verb; nor is
there any power in the English language to convert it into a verb. We
can not say, "Abraham faithed God," but we can say, "Abraham
believed God, and his faith was accounted to him for righteousness."
We can not say, "Faith on the Lord Jesus Christ," but we can say,
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." We can
not say, "He that faitheth not shall be damned," but we can say, "He
that believeth not shall be damned." We can not say, "If thou faithest
with all thy heart, thou mayest," but we can say, "If thou believest
with all thy heart, thou mayest." Nor can we convert the word faith
into a participle, and say, "That faithing ye might have life through
his name," but we can say, "That believing ye might have life
through his name." When the thought is expressed in the shape of
a command to be obeyed, or as having been obeyed, or as a
condition to be complied with as an act of the mind precedent to
further obedience
Faith
213
to the gospel, the style is: believe, believeth, believest, believed,
believing, etc.; but when used as a noun, to indicate the conviction
which exists in the mind, with one single exception (2 Thess. ii 13),
the word faith is always used. These facts will be further developed
as we proceed with the examination of our second question, viz.:HOW DOES FAITH COME?
After asking, "How can they call upon him in whom they have
not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have
not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Rom.
x:14) intending, doubtless, to make the impression that they could
do neither, and clearly showing that after the facts of the gospel
exist, the order is: preaching, HEARING, BELIEVING, Paul
remarks, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the
word of God." Rom. x:17. Hence, after Jesus had taught the grand
facts of the gospel to the apostles, His first charge to them was,
"Preach the gospel to every creature." Mark xvi:16. And why?
Certainly, that those interested might hear, BELIEVE, and OBEY
it. In His most solemn prayer to His Father He said, "Neither pray I
for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through
their word." John xvii:20. Observe, He prayed for them who should
believe on Him through the words of the apostles; and as He
required them to preach the gospel, the people were expected to
believe in Him by hearing the gospel which the apostles were
required to preach. In keeping with this arrangement, Peter preached
to the Pentecostians, and "when they heard this they were pricked
in their heart." Acts ii:37. So their faith came by hearing, and they
were of the class of believers for whom Jesus prayed. The faith of
the Gentiles,
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
too, came in the same way; for Peter said, "Brethren, ye know
that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles
by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."
Acts xv:7. Luke further tells us that "many of the Corinthians
hearing believed, and were baptized." Acts xviii:8. "It came to pass
in Iconium, that they [Paul and Barnabas] went together into the
synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of
the Jews and also of the Greeks believed." Acts xiv:1. The
Samaritans also "believed Philip preaching the things concerning
the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, and were
baptized, both men and women." Acts viii:12. Many other examples
might be given illustrative of the same fact; indeed, there is not a
single example on record where faith came not in this way.
We once saw an educated mute, who was quite an intelligent
member of the church of God. We wrote on a slip of paper and
handed him the following question: "Sir: Paul says 'faith comes by
hearing; as you can not hear, how came your faith?" He was a good
penman, and quickly wrote the following answer: "Though I can not
hear, thank God I can read. I heard the gospel like I heard the
question you asked me. John says: 'Many other signs truly did Jesus
in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this book;
but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his
name.' John xx:30, 31. I read, understood, believed, and obeyed
what was written." We were pleased with his answer, for it evinced
that he knew much more about the faith required by the gospel than
many who have ears to hear but seem not to understand what faith
is, or how it comes.
Faith
215
We have often heard persons praying most earnestly to God to
give them faith, and the preachers exhorting them to believe, without
presenting one word of testimony to produce faith, as though their
loud vociferations could scare them into the exercise of faith, or
awaken their God (who, like Baal, was either asleep or on a
journey), that He might hear and answer their prayers for faith. Such
persons always have the deepest sympathy of our heart; hence, in
great kindness, we say to them, "Come, now, and let us reason
together."
When they ask for faith, they have not faith, for surely they
would not so earnestly beg for that which they already have. James
says: "Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering, for he that wavereth is
like a wave of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed; let not that
man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." Jas. i:6, 7.
Now, as he asks for faith, and would not knowingly ask for that
which he has, it follows that he has not faith, and therefore can not
ask in faith; therefore let him not think that he will receive any thing
of the Lord, or that the Lord will give him the faith for which he
asks. Again: "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Rom. xiv:23. Then,
as they pray for faith, and therefore have not faith, their prayers can
not be of faith; and as whatsoever is not of faith is sin, it follows
that all such prayers are sin. Once more: "Without faith it is
impossible to please God." Heb. xi:6. As prayers for faith are not
made in faith, but without faith and as without faith it is impossible
to please God, therefore such prayers are not pleasing to God. And
as they are sinful, and therefore not pleasing to God, and nothing
can be received in answer to them, it surely would be better not to
make them.
But an objector says: "It is certainly legitimate to ask God, in
prayer, for that which He has promised to give us;
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
and the Bible says faith is the gift of God; therefore we may ask
Him for it." Most assuredly we may pray to God for that which He
has promised to give us; but do the Scriptures teach that He has
promised to give faith to those who are without it? Before we
proceed to examine the proofs relied on to support the theory, we
beg permission to remark to our contemporaries that consistency
looks quite as well in them as in us, and the demand to reconcile
scriptures seemingly at war with positions taken should extend to
them as well as to us. This is not always remembered. Every knotty
quotation is reserved for us to explain, every seeming contradiction
is zealously sought after and brought forward for us to harmonize,
and every quibble that can be thought of is expected to be attended
to by us, while the objector's theory may be flatly contradicted by
the plainest teaching of inspiration, and no attempt is made by him
to explain or harmonize any thing.
We are tired of this. We want to see an objector be a man, and
dig up the briers, thistles, and thorns from his own garden before he
points at the weeds and grass in ours. Come, then: what do you
think of the quotations already made from Jas. i:6, 7, Rom. xiv:23,
and Heb. xi:6, and our reasonings thereon? And when you shall
have harmonized these with the right of such as have no faith to
pray for faith (and many others which you can easily find), then try
the following: "He that believeth not shall be damned." Mark xvi:
16. Will God punish men in hell forever for not believing, when He
has to give them faith? While you smooth these kinks out of the
theory that faith is a direct gift from God to the sinner, we will see
whether or not your proofs contradict us.
The first passage we will examine may be found in 1 Cor. xii:8-
10, where Paul, in speaking of the miraculous
Faith
217
gifts of the Spirit, says: "For to one is given by the Spirit the word
of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to
another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by
the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another
prophecy; to another discerning of Spirits; to another divers kinds
of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues." We have given
the sentence with reference to faith with is context, and the
connection most clearly shows that the faith which is enumerated
among the gifts of the Spirit is not the faith for which the alien is
taught to pray. If he may pray for faith because it is here said to be
the gift of the Spirit, then he may pray for the power to work
miracles, prophesy, speak with tongues, and interpret tongues, for
they are all in the same connection and by the same authority said
to be gifts of the same Spirit. Surely, no one will say that this faith,
or any of these gifts, is to be given to the unconverted alien, in
answer to prayer, or in any other way. There was a faith of which
Jesus said: "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say
unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall
remove: and nothing shall be impossible unto you." Matt. xvii:20.
And again: "If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say
unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be
thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you." Luke xvii:6. We
hear Paul also calling Titus his "son after the common faith." Tit.
i:4. Paul had preached the gospel to Titus, and when he believed it
he was begotten by the incorruptible seed, or word of God; and this
belief of the gospel Paul calls the common faith, because this is the
faith common to all God's people. But the word common implies
uncommon, hence, as Paul spake of the common faith, he did it in
contrast with the uncommon or miraculous faith given by the Spirit.
Does any one think he has it
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
now? Then let him remove the mountain or tree by his word, and
thereby establish his claim.
The next and last passage to be examined is in the following
words: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God." Eph. ii:8. Is faith the thing here said
to be the gift of God? The demonstrative that never refers to the
thing nearest us or last spoken of. For such purpose this is
preferred. That, as a demonstrative, refers to the thing farther off or
previously spoken of; hence, in this sentence, it must refer to
something behind faith. We would paraphrase the sentence thus:
"By grace are ye saved through faith; and that salvation is not of
yourselves: it is the gift of God." This is the obvious import of the
passage.
But we are told that faith is the gift of God because He has given
us the testimony which produces it. To this we do not greatly object;
but still there can be no propriety in praying for it, nor can their
prayers avail any thing if they do pray. They have the testimony:
why not believe it? Is God to give them more testimony? If they
believe all the testimony, they have faith enough and need not pray
for more. Faith is produced by testimony, and as far as testimony
goes, faith may go, but where the testimony stops, faith must and
will stop. The testimony concerning Jesus tells us that He was born
of Mary in Bethlehem -- was baptized by John in Jordan, and
commenced His ministry in the hill country of Galilee -- was
crucified on Calvary, and was buried in Joseph's new tomb. Now,
suppose the testimony had stopped at this point, how much faith
would any person have had to-day in His resurrection, ascension,
and glorification? Just none at all. As far as testimony goes, faith
may go, but no further; all beyond is mere speculative opinion. Our
faith may be strengthened or weakened by increasing or
Faith
219
weakening the testimony. We have faith in the testimony of men,
and we have faith in the testimony of God, but our faith in the
testimony of God is as much stronger than our faith in the testimony
of men as we regard God superior to man and His testimony more
reliable than that of man. This difference -- no more, no less. "If we
receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." 1 John
v:9. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways
my ways, saith the Lord; for as the heavens are higher than the
earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than
your thoughts." Isa. lv:8, 9.
But we are told that the belief of testimony is merely historic
faith. And what kind of faith is not historic faith? If by historic faith
is meant a belief in the historic account of Jesus, heaven, hell,
salvation, and condemnation given in the word of Truth, then we
hesitate not to admit that we have that kind of faith, and know of no
other. But you tell us you want divine faith. If by divine faith you
mean that which is predicated upon divine testimony, then we have
divine faith, and want no other. But you want evangelical faith.
And what sort of faith is that? Is it to believe all that the evangelists
have spoken and written? If so, we have evangelical faith. But you
want saving faith. What is meant by saving faith? If it is, with all the
powers of the soul, to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and
our Saviour, then we have saving faith. But you want the faith of
credence. And what do you mean by this? Is it to give full credit to
all the divine testimony? Then we have the faith of credence. But
you want the faith of reliance. And what kind of faith is this? Is it
to rely, with full confidence, on the testimony of inspiration? Then
we have the faith of reliance. But you want a trusting faith. Do you
mean by this a faith which enables
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
you to trust in Jesus Christ and the efficacy of His blood for
salvation? Then this is the kind of faith we have, and want no other.
Then of what use are all these qualifying terms as applied to faith?
They serve only to becloud the subject, and never can do any good.
We have heard persons taught that they must believe that God had
pardoned them, and whenever they would believe this they would
realize that it was so. It is not strange that persons feel like they are
pardoned when they believe that God has pardoned them; but if we
must believe that we are pardoned in order to be pardoned, then
we confess, frankly, that we neither have nor want that kind of faith.
Are we to believe that there are as many different kinds of faith as
there are qualifying terms here used? Paul said, "There is one Lord
and one faith." Eph. iv:5. When you believe all that God has said,
through inspired men, to the world, and believe it because God has
said it, you have all the faith which mortals can have or God
requires of them. Pollok has well said:
"Faith was bewildered much by men who meant
To make it clear, so simple in itself;
A thought so rudimental and so plain,
That none by comment could it plainer make.
All faith was one. In object, not in kind,
The difference lay. The faith that saved a soul,
And that which in the common truth believed,
In essence were the same. Hear, then, what faith,
True Christian faith, which brought salvation was --
Belief in all that God revealed to men;
Observe, in all that God revealed to men,
In all He promised, threatened, commanded, said,
Without exception, and without a doubt."WHAT IS THE OFFICE OF FAITH?
Having seen what faith is and how it comes, we are now prepared
to inquire what it does. And we may as well say
Faith
221
at once that it induces the performance of every act of acceptable
obedience to God -- every one. We are lost in attempting to find any
thing done in hearty obedience to God that is not, either directly or
indirectly, the result of faith. Is your heart subdued to the will of
God, and your affections and passions all mellowed by love, that
God-like principle that enables you to love your enemies, and do
good to and pray for them that persecute and evilly treat you? This
is the work of faith. Are you heartily sorry for all your past sins and
determined to forsake them and walk humbly and uprightly
henceforth? These are the results of the subjugation of your heart to
the will of God by faith. Have you confessed with the mouth the
Lord Jesus before men, that He may confess you before His Father
and the holy angels? Then you have but confessed with the mouth
what the heart believed. Have you been buried with Christ in
baptism and arisen to walk in newness of life? If so, Jesus, in the
commission which authorized the performance of this act, associated
it with faith, saying, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved;" and Philip made the eunuch's faith an indispensable
prerequisite to his baptism, saying, "If thou believest with all thy
heart thou mayest." And, as without faith it is impossible to please
God, had he baptized him without faith, it would not have been
pleasing to God; and hence were you to be baptized without faith,
it would not be a service well pleasing to Him. Do you, as
Christians, love mercy, deal justly, walk humbly and uprightly
before God? If so, it is all the result of faith; for the Christian lives
by faith, walks by faith, and dies in faith. But we are not yet ready
to develop the life of the Christian; hence we must go back and
assist the alien through that CHANGE IN THE AFFECTIONS OF
THE HEART which we have seen to be the first result of faith.
Paul says: "Ye have obeyed from the heart that form
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
of doctrine which was delivered you; being then made free from sin,
ye became the servants of righteousness." Rom. vi:17, 18. By this we
learn that the obedience which freed the Romans from sin was from
the heart; and we may safely affirm that all acceptable obedience
must come from a heart sincerely desirous to honor God's authority.
All else is downright mockery. But no alien can obey from the heart
without a changed heart; hence it may be well to inquire what a
change of heart is, and how it is brought about. In order to acquire
any thing like a satisfactory knowledge of the subject, it is important
to know what the spiritual heart is, and then we may better
understand how and when it is changed. As the physical heart is the
center of the physical circulation, from whence passes the vital
current, giving life and nutriment to all parts of the body, so the
mind of man is the great center of all spiritual impressions and
emotions, and is therefore called the heart -- if you please, the
spiritual heart. If in this we are not mistaken, then all reference of
spiritual emotions and changes to the physical heart is out of place.
Let us see how this is. "And God saw that the wickedness of man
was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of
his heart was only evil continually." Gen. vi:5. It can not require an
argument to show that thoughts originate in the mind, which is here
denominated the heart. Solomon says: "The heart knoweth his own
bitterness." Prov. xiv:10. "The heart of the righteous studieth to
answer." Prov. xv:28. As study is the work of the mind, and as the
mind is the store-house of all knowledge, we can not be at a loss to
know that it was the mind which Solomon called the heart. "Jesus
perceiving the thought of their heart." Luke ix:47. As thoughts
proceed from the mind, it is evidently what Jesus here calls the
heart. "The heart also of the rash shall understand
Faith
223
knowledge." Isa. xxxii:4. Here it is quite clear that the prophet used
the term heart with reference to the mind. With a single quotation
from an apostle, we must close our proof on this subject: "With the
heart man believeth unto righteousness." Rom. x:10. Until it can be
shown that the physical heart can believe and appreciate testimony,
it is unnecessary to make an argument to show that Paul here used
the word heart as equivalent to the mind. Thus we see that God,
Jesus, Solomon, Isaiah, and Paul used the term heart with reference
to the mind or intellect, with all its faculties, with which we think,
understand, feel, and receive impressions. We may cultivate and
develop the faculties of the mind so as to enlarge our powers of
thought and capabilities of acquiring and retaining knowledge, by
making impressions on it through the senses; but this is not what is
meant by the phrase "change of heart," as used by theologians with
reference to conversion. And it may be well to remark that we use
the phrase "change of heart" by way of accommodation to the
parlance of our times, and not because we find such language in the
Bible. It is not there. It is true that, in Dan. iv:16, it is said of
Nebuchadnezzar: "Let his heart be changed from man's and let a
beast's heart be given him;" but this had no reference to conversion
to Christianity. Indeed, while we confine ourselves strictly to the
literal signification of the terms we are by no means sure that such
a thing as a change of heart is at all possible. We may change the
affections and purposes of the heart or mind, but how we may
change the heart or mind itself, is not very clear to us. The affections
and purposes of the heart are no more the heart than the fruit of a
tree is the tree. In the Scriptures, however, the term heart is
sometimes used in this sense -- i.e., to indicate the affections and
purposes of the mind; and as these may be
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
changed, it is with reference to them that we use the phrase "change
of heart." When we speak of a change of heart, then, we mean a
change of the affections and purposes of the heart. Nothing
more -- nothing less.
Many persons are prating about a "change of heart," who are
wholly destitute of any just conceptions of what it is, or how it is
produced. One of them will tell you that "It is the work of grace in
the heart," while another will tell you that "It is the new birth,"
"Getting religion," "Remission of sins," "Salvation from sin,"
"Justification," etc.; and they will tell you that "It was brought
about by the baptism of the Holy Ghost;" or at least they will insist
that "It was by the operation of the Holy Ghost." Hence the
importance of knowing what a change of heart is, that we may know
when we have it, if not how it was brought about. We have often
seen persons, as truly penitent as they were capable of being, who
were still praying for a change of heart, while their hearts were
wilted into perfect submission to the will of God as far as they knew
it. Did they not love God, and fear Him with all the powers of the
mind? Yes. Then if their hearts were changed they must cease to
love and fear God, and might love the devil and his service. Did they
not believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Saviour of
sinners? Yes; if not, they would not have gone to the mourner's
bench, for it was to obtain salvation through Him that they went
there. Change their hearts from this, and it is bound to land them in
infidelity or unbelief, for this is the opposite of belief in Jesus. Is he
not heartily sorry for sins? Then change his
Faith
225
heart, and he is not sorry. Is he not willing and determined to
forsake them? Then change his heart, and he is determined to
practice them. Does he not love the company and society of the
people of God? Then change his heart, and he loves the company
and association of the vicious and wicked. But you ask why was he
not pardoned if his heart was submissive to the will of God? Simply
because he had not complied with the conditions upon which God
had offered him pardon. And the failure, upon his part, was not
because of any perversity of heart in him, but because his instructors
had failed to teach him what those conditions are. For want of
proper instructions, he must go home with his head bowed down as
a bulrush, and continue to pray for a change of heart through long
weeks, months, years, or perhaps through life, because he can not
work himself up to a sufficient degree of excitement to believe his
heart changed in some supernatural way. This is the literal meaning
of it. And what is the result? If he is of Calvinistic persuasions, he
may conclude that he is not one of the elect, and in an effort to
drown his emotions he may go back into the practice of wickedness,
and perhaps become tenfold worse than before; or he may plunge
into the dark pool of infidelity, and conclude that there is no truth
in any thing. We very recently had a conversation with a very
intelligent infidel manufactured just in this way.
When a man's affections are won from sin to holiness, a love of
Satan to God, and all the purposes of his heart are submissive to the
will of God as far as he knows it, he has all the change of heart that
God requires of him prior to obedience. And we propose, now, to
examine a few passages of Scripture to see how this change is
produced, to which we invite the very careful attention of those who
would understand the subject: "And on this manner did Absalom to
all Israel that came to the king for judgment: so Absalom stole the
hearts of the men of Israel." 2 Sam. xv:6. How did Absalom steal the
hearts of the people? Go back a few verses, and you will find that he
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
placed himself by the gate, and when any one who had a
controversy came to present his grievance to the king, he would say
to him: "Thy matters are good and right, but there is no man deputed
of the king to hear thee. Oh, that I were made judge in the land, that
every man that hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I
would do him justice. And it was so, that when any man came nigh
to him to do him obeisance, he put forth his hand and took him and
kissed him." Thus it was that he stole their hearts; that is, he won
their affections. Hence, the term heart is here used to indicate the
affections of the mind, and not the heart itself; and thus we see
what is meant by a change of heart. The affections of the people
were won from the king and to Absalom; and it was done by making
them believe that the king was indifferent to their interests, and that
Absalom was their friend, and thus their faith changed their hearts.
What a vast cloud is removed from the subject by taking this
view of it! From this stand-point we can see a beauty and fitness in
the language of Peter to his brethren, when he said: "Men, and
brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice
among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of
the Gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare
them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by
faith." Acts xv:7-9. Thus we see that, though God gave the Gentiles
the Holy Ghost, it was not to purify their hearts, for He did this
work by faith. And as He put no difference between the Gentiles
and Jews in this respect, it follows that He purified the hearts of the
Jews by faith. Then let us go to Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost,
when and where the hearts of three thousand were purified in one
day, and see if we can find how
Faith
227
it was done. And first we premise by saying that it was not done by
the Holy Ghost, for Jesus said they [the world] could not receive it,
and it was poured out upon the disciples before the multitude came
together. When the apostles were filled with it, and under its
influence began to speak forth in different languages, the wonderful
works of God, the people assembled, with hearts full of bitterness,
to hear what was being said. They believed Jesus an impostor, and
that they did right in putting Him to death; and that the apostles
were a drunken rabble. Thus we see that their wicked feelings were
the result of improper faith, and to change their feelings it was
necessary to correct their faith, which produced the feelings. And as
faith is dependent upon testimony, it was necessary, in order to
correct their faith, to present such testimony as would convince
them that Jesus was not an impostor, as they had believed, but was
what He professed to be -- the Son of God. Hence Peter began to
instruct them by telling them that the apostles were not drunk, as
they supposed, and that God had raised up that same Jesus whom
they had wickedly slain, and made Him both Lord and Christ; and
that He had shed forth what they then saw and heard. And as with
many other words he taught and exhorted them, it may be that he
called their attention to the fact that Jesus was once happy in
heaven, in company with God and angels, while they were without
hope and without God in the world, destined to misery and woe;
that to avert their punishment and secure their salvation, He left the
realms of bliss and came to the world a stranger and pilgrim, without
a place whereon to lay His head. That while He had come on a
mission of love for them, and mercy to them, they had ungratefully
persecuted and slain Him; that to increase and protract His
sufferings, they had compelled Him to bear His own cross
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
up the rugged steeps of Calvary, until from fatigue and exhaustion,
He sunk beneath its weight; that to intensify the infamy with which
they intended to load down His memory, they compelled Him to die
between two thieves; that to mock His pretensions as King, they had
put on Him a purple robe, and encircled His head with a crown of
thorns, then buffeted Him, spat upon Him, and hailed Him in
derision as King of the Jews; that they had suspended Him upon
nails driven through His tender hands to the cross, and, when in the
midst of His agony He asked them for drink, they gave Him vinegar
mingled with gall. And while suffering all this for them, He loved
them still -- yes, He even loved the man that drove the nails through
His hands, and prayed, "Father, forgive them; they know not what
they do."
"See, from His head, His hands, His feet,When they heard these things they were pierced in their hearts.
Sorrow and love flow mingled down;
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?
Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far to small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all."
And is it surprising that they were? Ah! would it not have been
surprising beyond measure had they not been deeply affected by the
scenes that had been made to pass afresh before them on that
occasion? They then knew how to appreciate the testimony that God
had borne to the divine character of His Son, through the
convulsions that took place in the laws of nature when He expired
upon the cross. They had felt the earth tremble beneath their
unhallowed feet, until the rocks about
Faith
229
them had been shaken to atoms, and the vail of their sacred temple,
that had stood for ages, had been rent in twain from top to bottom.
The king of day, for the first time since God had placed him in the
firmament, refused to give his light, and the world was enveloped in
darkness, while all nature was clad in the habiliments of mourning
because the Son of God was dead. Why all this? "God so loved the
world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth
in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
"He left His radiant throne on high,Reader, have you no place in your heart's deepest affections for
Left the bright realms of bliss,
And came to earth to bleed and die --
Was ever love like this?
Oh! for this love let rocks and hills
Their lasting silence break,
And all harmonious human tongues
Their Saviour's praises speak."
a Saviour like this? But we are wandering from the point before us.
The testimony was believed with all the heart, and by it their
enmity was subdued. They saw their lost and ruined condition, and
hence felt their need of a Saviour. Their law had been: "He that
sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed." Seeing no
means of escape, in deep anguish of soul they cry out: "Men and
brethren, what shall we do?" We can scarcely forbear quoting the
answer, but it must bide its time. How simple the process! They had
improper views of the Saviour when they killed Him; but the
statements made by Peter, and the miraculous confirmation of them
by the Holy Spirit, convinced them that they had been mistaken, and
thus
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
corrected their faith, and different faith produced different feelings
and actions. Surely, this is clear enough.
We have said that the testimony was believed with all the heart.
When the eunuch demanded baptism of Philip, he answered: "If
thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest." Acts viii:37. There
is a depth of meaning in this expression that we fear is not
comprehended by all. The word all implies that there may be such
a thing as a part of the whole; and when Philip said, "If thou
believest with all thy heart," he certainly left us to infer that there
is such a thing as believing without engaging all the powers of the
heart. Hence there may be a sort of passive assent of the mind to the
propositions of the Bible that falls very far short of that faith which
works by love and purifies the heart. When a scribe once asked the
Saviour for the first commandment, Jesus said: "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy mind, and with all thy strength." Mark xii:30. The same thought
is here intensified by repeating it in different forms of speech, so as
to forcibly impress us with the fact that God intends to engage the
whole powers of the heart; and the faith which falls below this is
worth nothing to any one. Hence says David: "I will praise thee, O
Lord, with my whole heart." Ps. ix:1. Our faith must be sufficiently
strong to subjugate the lusts, appetites, and passions -- in a word, the
whole man to the will of the Lord, and fill the heart with love. It
must enable us to appreciate our dependence upon God, and feel
the need of a Saviour, and put our trust in Him. It must enable us to
rise above all the influences of earth, and disregard what friends,
relatives, or the world may say of us, and feel, in the great deep of
our hearts, to say, "Speak, Lord, thy servant will hear; command,
and he will obey."
Faith
231"Through floods and flames, if Jesus lead,If heaven is worth any thing it is worth every thing; and he who
I'll follow where He goes;
Hinder me not, shall be my cry,
Though earth and hell oppose."
stops to reason with himself about what it will cost him, or the
sacrifices he will have to make to obey God, or the conveniences
and inconveniences attending the requirements which God has made
of him, is not in a fit frame of mind to obey God acceptably in
anything, and need not attempt it until he can bring himself more
fully into subjection to His will.
But we are told that God has to purify or change the heart
before faith, so as to enable us to believe, and the language of the
prophet is invoked to prove this position: "A new heart also will I
give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away
the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of
flesh." Ezek. xxxvi:26. And again: "I will give them one heart, and
I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out
of their flesh, and I will give them a heart of flesh: that they may
walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and
they shall be my people, and I will be their God." Ezek. xi:19, 20.
If these quotations prove that God, by His Spirit, purifies and
renews the heart, and until He does this we can not believe and
obey Him, and He never does it, will He send us to hell for an
impurity of heart which He alone could remove? With this interpretation
of these quotations before us, let us try another: "Cast
away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have
transgressed, and make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why
will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of
him that dieth, saith the Lord God; wherefore
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
turn yourselves and live ye." Ezek. xviii:31, 32. Now what is to be
done with these quotations? They are all from the same prophet,
inspired by the same God. Does God contradict Himself? It certainly
will be conceded that the phrase "stony heart" was used to indicate
that hardness of heart which the Jews had produced in themselves
by indulgence in crime, the consequences of which they had keenly
felt in the numerous disasters which had befallen them. It will be
conceded, also, that the phrase "heart of flesh" was intended to
indicate that subdued state of mind in which God proposed to again
receive them into His favor. As man is a creature subject to be
influenced by motive, God, through the prophet, in the same
chapter, recounts their afflictions and wickedness as follows: "When
the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their
own way, and by their doings.... Wherefore, I poured my fury upon
them for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their
idols wherewith they had polluted it: and I scattered them among
the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries: according
to their way and according to their doings I judged them." Ezek.
xxxvi:17-19. Then, after presenting their sufferings and their
wickedness, He proposes to take them from among the heathens,
cleanse them from their idolatry, restore to them their country, and
be to them a God. Were not these high incentives to reformation?
And can we not see great similarity in the process by which their
hearts were proposed to be changed, and the process by which the
hearts of the Pentecostians were changed? In both
Faith
233
cases the wickedness of the parties and its dire consequences were
exhibited, and a plan of reconciliation proposed, embracing the
grandest motives of which the mind can conceive, to induce
acceptance. The arrangement of the terms in both cases was the
work of God; the acceptance in one case was to be, and in the other
case was, the work of man; and thus, in one sense, God changes the
heart, while in the other, and more common signification of the
terms, man does it himself. There are other passages we might
notice, but they will be examined in another department of our
work.
What faith does not do, or the doctrine of justification by faith
alone, will receive attention when we come to consider objections
to the design of baptism.
CHAPTER X
We have arrived at a proper stand-point from which to
REPENTANCE
consider the subject of repentance, and to it we invite the reader's
attention for the present. Its importance is admitted by all religious
parties and teachers of our times. When John came to prepare a
people for the reception of the Messiah, though he came to the Jews
who had long been the recognized people of God, he found them
steeped in wickedness; hence he said: "Repent ye, for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand." Matt. iii:2. When John was cast into prison
and his ministry ended, "Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent:
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. iv:17. When Jesus sent
the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, "they
went out and preached that men should repent." Mark. vi:12. Jesus
said to those who came to Him, "Except ye repent ye shall all
likewise perish." Luke xiii:3, 5. When He gave the final commission
to His apostles He said that "repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem." Luke xxiv:47. When the apostles began to operate under
this authority, they commanded believers to "repent and be baptized
... in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." Acts ii:38.
When the disciples were convinced that salvation was not confined
to the Jews, they "glorified God, saying, Then
Repentance
235
hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Acts
xi:18. Then, as repentance is so important a condition in the gospel
plan of salvation, it is important that we know what it is, that we
may know when we have obeyed the divine mandate.
We find that the word repent occurs in our common English
Bible forty-two times; repented occurs thirty times; repentance
twenty-six times; repenteth five times; and repentest, repenting, and
repentings one time each -- in all, one hundred and six times.
Repent is used with reference to God sixteen times, and with
reference to man twenty-six times. It is used to indicate sorrow
eleven times, a change of mind or purpose fourteen times, and
includes the idea of reformation of life eighteen times. Repented is
used with reference to God thirteen times, and with reference to man
seventeen times. It is used to indicate sorrow twelve times, a change
of mind eight times, and includes a change of life or reformation ten
times. Repentance is used with reference to God twice, and with
reference to man twenty-four times. It is used to indicate sorrow
twice, a change of purpose once, and extends to reformation of life
twenty-three times. Repenteth is used with reference to God three
times, and with reference to man twice. Twice it indicates sorrow,
once a change of mind, and twice includes a change or reformation
of life. Repenting and repentest are each used once with reference
to God to indicate a change of purpose. Repentings is once used
with reference to God to indicate sorrow. With reference to God the
word is sometimes used in a negative sense; as, "God is not a man
that he should repent" (Num. xxiii:19); The Lord hath sworn and
will not repent." Ps. cx:4; Heb. vii:21. Sometimes it is used with
reference to God affirmatively; as, "It repented the Lord that he had
made man on the earth;" "It repenteth me that I have made them."
236
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
Gen. vi:6, 7. At other times it is used with reference to God
conditionally; as, "If that nation against whom I have pronounced
turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil I thought to do unto
them.... If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will
repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them." Jer. xviii:
8, 10. Again, it is sometimes used in petition or supplication to God;
as, "Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy
people." Ex. xxxii:12. In all the forms in which the word is used it
refers to God thirty-seven times, and with reference to man sixty-
nine times. It is used to indicate sorrow or regret twenty-eight times,
a change of mind or will twenty-five times, and a change of mind
resulting in reformation of life fifty-three times. We are not
concerned or interested in the use of the term as applied to God; its
application to man is that which more directly concerns us, and to
it we will confine our examination.
When used in the New Testament as a command to the alien in
order to the remission of sins, it always indicates such a change of
mind as produces a change or reformation of life under
circumstances warranting the conclusion that sorrow for the past
would or had preceded it. When so used it is invariably a
translation of the Greek word metanoio; and when used to indicate
sorrow or regret it is always from metamelomai -- a different word,
though improperly rendered the same in English. Had these words
been properly translated we think it likely that much of the
confusion on the subject of repentance would have been prevented.
Regret is certainly a much more fitting representative of
metamelomai than repentance, and why it has not been so
translated is more than we can tell.
A striking example of the difference in the meaning of the word
repent when derived from these different Greek words will be found
in 2 Cor. vii:8-10: "For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do
not repent [metamelomai, regret], though I
Repentance
237
did repent [metamelomen, regret], for I perceive that the same
epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now
I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to
repentance [metanoian, reformation]: for ye were made sorry after
a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing; for
godly sorrow worketh repentance [metanoian, reformation] to
salvation not to be repented [metameleton, regretted]." Surely,
nothing could be more apparent than the difference in the use which
Paul makes of these two Greek words, though both rendered repent
in the common version. Paul wrote the Corinthians a letter which
made them sorry, and he regretted it, but he ceased to regret it when
he saw that their sorrow worked in them repentance: i.e., such a
change of mind as culminated in their reformation.
The words repentance, in the commission, Luke xxiv:47, and
repent, as used by Peter, Acts ii:38, and iii:19, are from the Greek
metanoio, and not from metamelomai, and hence means more than
sorrow for past sins. We say more, because that change of mind
which we call repentance always implies that sorrow for the past has
preceded it. When the Jews at Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost,
heard Peter's preaching, and by it were convinced that they had truly
crucified and slain the Son of God; they were pierced in their hearts,
and cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Acts ii:37.
Can we conclude that the hearts of those who asked this soul-
stirring question were not filled with sorrow for the sins from which
they desired salvation? Yet they were commanded to repent. But it
may be said that the sorrow which they had was not godly sorrow,
and this is the reason why it was not repentance. Their sorrow was
the product of
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
their faith, and their faith was produced by Peter's preaching, which
was dictated by the Holy Spirit, sent that day from heaven, by Him
who sat at God's right hand. Surely, if this was not godly sorrow,
then there can be no such thing connected with conversion. But is
godly sorrow repentance? Paul did not so think. He says: "Now I
rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to
repentance, for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye
might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh
repentance unto salvation not to be repented of; but the sorrow of
the world worketh death." 2 Cor. vii:9, 10. Here we learn that godly
sorrow precedes repentance, but certainly is not repentance. Godly
sorrow is produced by respect for God and His violated law, and
produces a change of mind which induces reformation or change of
life; while the sorrow of the world may be produced by the fact that
the party has been detected in crime -- is subjected to the frowns of
men or the punishment inflicted by human laws -- perchance
because his schemes have proven unprofitable and have resulted in
loss to him. Such is the sorrow of the world, and makes no man
better, but ends in death. The repentance contemplated in the
commission, and required by Peter of those to whom he spake,
began where they gladly received his words, with a fixed purpose to
reform their lives in accordance therewith, and it was preceded by
deep sorrow for the wrongs they had done.
But we have a definition of repentance incidentally given us in
the Scriptures which will make the matter, if possible, more plain.
Jesus on one occasion said: "The men of Nineveh shall rise in
judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because they
repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas
is here." Matt. xii:41. Jesus here says that the men of Nineveh
Repentance
239
repented at the preaching of Jonas; if, therefore, we can learn what
the Ninevites did, we can thence learn what Jesus meant by
repentance. "God saw their works, that they turned from their evil
way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do
unto them, and he did it not." Jonah iii:10. Then, the change of
mind which resulted in turning the Ninevites from their evil ways
constituted their repentance.
The determination to reform must be such as will lead the party
to a reparation of injuries done to others, as far as may be in his
power to make restitution. In vain may any one tell me that he
repents slandering me while he refused to correct his false
statements concerning me, or that he repents stealing my horse while
he continues to ride him without my consent. A circumstance
recorded on page 256, Ch. Syst., which, whether real or imaginary,
so aptly illustrates our view of this subject, that we feel constrained
to transcribe it:
"Peccator wounded the reputation of his neighbor Hermis, and
on another occasion defrauded him of ten pounds. Some of the
neighborhood were apprised that he had done both. Peccator was
converted under the preaching of Paulinus, and, on giving a
relation of his sorrow for his sins, spoke of the depth of his
convictions and of his abhorrence of his transgressions. He was
received into the congregation and sat down with the faithful to
commemorate the great sin-offering. Hermis and his neighbors were
witnesses of all this. They saw that Peccator was penitent and much
reformed in his behavior, but they could not believe him sincere
because he had made no restitution. They regarded him either as a
hypocrite or self-deceived, because, having it in his power, he repaid
not the ten pounds, nor once contradicted the slanders he had
propagated. Peccator, however, felt little enjoyment in
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
his profession, and soon fell back into his former habits. He became
again penitent, and, on examining the grounds of his falling off,
discovered that he had never cordially turned away from his sins.
Overwhelmed in sorrow for the past, he resolved on giving himself
up to the Lord, and, reflecting on his past life, set about the work of
reformation in earnest. He called on Hermis, paid him his ten
pounds, and the interest for every day he had kept it back, went to
all the persons to whom he had slandered him, told them what
injustice he had done him, and begged them, if they had told it to
any other persons, to contradict it. Several other persons whom he
had wronged in his dealings with them, he also visited, and fully
redressed all these wrongs against his neighbors. He also confessed
them to the Lord, and asked Him to forgive him. Peccator was then
restored to the church, and, better still, he enjoyed a peace of mind
and confidence in God which was a continual feast. His example,
moreover, did more to enlarge the congregation at the cross-roads
than did the preaching of Paulinus in a whole year. This was
unequivocally sincere repentance."
Dr. Adam Clarke, in his commentary on Genesis, says: "No man
should expect mercy at the hand of God, who, having wronged his
neighbor, refuses, when he has it in his power, to make restitution.
Were he to weep tears of blood, both the justice and mercy of God
would shut out his prayers if he make not his neighbor amends for
the injury he has done him."
This principle seems to have ever characterized God's dealings
with men. In the Jewish law it is said: "When a man or a woman
shall commit any sin that men commit, or do a trespass against the
Lord, and that person be guilty, then they shall confess their sin
which they have done; and he shall recompense his trespass with the
principal thereof,
Repentance
241
and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against
whom he hath trespassed. But if the man have no kinsman to
recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto
the Lord, even to the priest." Num. v:6-8. Now, it will be seen that,
during the existence of this law, a trespass against a man was
regarded as a trespass against God, the Giver of the law forbidding
the trespass; and it was not only necessary to recompense to the
party aggrieved, but it was necessary to add a fifth part to it. And if
he could not find the party to whom recompense was due, he should
make it to his kindred if he had any; and if there were none, then it
was required to be made to the Lord through the priest. There was
no escape from making restitution. See also Lev. vi:1-7. Indeed, it is
difficult to conceive it possible for the heart of a man to be wholly
subjugated to the will of the Lord and he not feel a desire to restore
any thing unjustly taken from any one. If his pretensions be real he
will make restitution if in his power to do so. We do not mean that
all this must be consummated before remission of sins and adoption
into the family of God can take place; but we insist that the
disposition or purpose of heart must be present before the party is
in a fit frame of mind to further obey God in anything. And if the
purpose thus formed is abandoned and not carried out, "it had been
better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than
after they have known it to turn from the holy commandment
delivered unto them." 2 Pet. ii:21. Zaccheus said: "If I have taken
any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
And Jesus said, This day is salvation come to this house." Luke
xix:8, 9. Thus we see that the principle of restitution met the
approval of Jesus, even to the extent of fourfold.
Once more: Jesus once said to a distinguished lawyer:
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Matt. xxii:39. If we do
this, will we not do by our neighbor as we do by ourselves? As the
golden precept which crowned the rich casket of jewels contained
in the sermon on the mount, it is said: "Whatsoever ye would that
men should do to you, do you even so to them." Matt. vii:12. Do we
desire that others withhold from us that which they have wrongfully
taken from us? Or do we not rather desire them to restore to us that
which is our own? If so, then we are bound to make that restitution
to others which, under like circumstances, we would have them
make to us. True, this is a strait and narrow path, and few there be
who walk therein; but it is nevertheless "the law and the prophets."
He who would come to God must come with a clean breast; hence
"let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having
our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed
with pure water." Heb. x:22.
We come now to look for the order or place of repentance in
the scheme of salvation presented in the gospel. From the fact that
repentance is mentioned before faith, in a few places in the New
Testament, many have concluded that men must repent before they
exercise faith. We will very briefly examine these scriptures, that we
may see whether or not they prove the doctrine in question.
"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee
preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time
is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and
believe the gospel." Mark i:14, 15. These persons were not required
to believe the same gospel that was to be preached to every creature
alluded to in the commission given after the resurrection of Jesus,
but they were simply to believe in the good news that the
Repentance
243
kingdom of God was at hand. This was the gospel which Jesus
preached to them. They were Jews who had previous faith in God
whose laws they had violated; hence for this they were required to
repent and then believe in the coming reign of Messiah. In like
manner Paul preached to the Ephesians "repentance toward God
and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." Acts xx:21. Their repentance
was toward God, in whom they believed before the Messiahship of
Jesus was proclaimed to them. Hence toward Him their repentance
was directed. There is still another passage worthy of note in this
connection: "John came to you in the way of righteousness, and ye
believed him not; but the publicans and harlots believed him: and
you, when you had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might
believe him." Matt. xxi:32. Here we not only have the word
repentance before faith, but expressive of that which was necessary to
faith; but it is from metamelomai, indicating regret, and not from
the word indicative of that change of mind which is truly
repentance. It was the pride of the self-righteous Pharisees that kept
them from believing the proofs and accepting the ministry of John.
When they saw the publicans and harlots acting more consistently
in submitting to His teaching, as they believed in God by whom
John was sent, they should have regretted that these outcasts
outstripped them in obedience to the servant of the God in whom
they believed; and had they been filled with such regret, it would
have prepared them for faith in the glad tidings proclaimed by John.
Having seen that the strongest proofs relied on do not support
the theory, it may be well to see whether the interpretation given to
these scriptures by the advocates of the theory be not contradicted
by other scriptures the import of which we can not mistake. Paul
says: "Whatsoever
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
is not of faith is sin." Rom; xiv:23. If repentance precedes faith,
it can not be of faith, and is therefore sin. Again: "Without faith it is
impossible to please him, for he that cometh to God must believe
that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek
him." Heb. xi:6. If repentance precedes faith, it is without faith, and
hence can not be pleasing to God. Surely, then, there must be error
in the theory. Finally: The advocates of this doctrine associate
repentance with prayer, generally, at the mourner's bench. Now, if
these prayers, connected with repentance, are before faith, they can
not be in faith. James says: "Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering,
for he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind
and tossed; let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of
the Lord." Jas. i:6, 7. Will God hear and answer these prayers made
in connection with repentance (so called) before faith? James says:
"Let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord."
If there be truth in Holy Writ, a prayer made before faith will not be
answered.
Perhaps it may be well to examine the history of a few actual
cases of repentance, and see whether it preceded or succeeded faith.
We have seen that Jesus himself said that the Ninevites repented at
the preaching of Jonah; let us see whether or not faith in Jonah's
preaching preceded their repentance: "And Jonah began to enter
into the city a day's journey, and he cried and said, Yet forty days
and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Jonah iii:4. Here is the
preaching; what was the first effect of it? "So the people believed
God." Here is their faith, the first thing. What next? "They
proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them
even to the least of them. For word came unto the king of Nineveh,
and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and
Repentance
245
covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it
to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh, by the decree of
the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor
flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man
and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God;
yea, let them turn, every one, from his evil way, and from the
violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and
repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not? And
God saw their works, that they turned from their evil ways." Jonah
iii:5-10. Here is their repentance. Who can not see the order of
events? First, Jonah preached the message which God gave him to
say to them. Second, The people believed God. Third, They turned
from their evil way. On the day of Pentecost the order was similar.
Peter preached, the people heard, believed, were cut to the heart,
asked what to do, were commanded to repent and be baptized. In
the narrative already twice quoted from Paul, 2 Cor. vii:8-10, he
wrote them a letter; they believed it -- were made sorry by it -- they
sorrowed in a godly manner, and their godly sorrow worked
repentance.
It will be admitted that repentance is produced in some way by
some cause. If it precedes faith, faith can not be the cause of it, and
we would be pleased to learn what does produce it. Do you admit
that a belief with all the heart in God, Jesus, heaven, hell, apostles,
prophets, and all things written and spoken by inspiration, precedes
and causes repentance? then will you please give us a minute
description of the faith that follows repentance -- what it is, and how
it comes. We acknowledge the want of light along here. We are not
very well prepared to understand how we are to repent for
transgressing the laws of a king in whom we have no faith. To us the
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
doctrine seems not only contrary to the order of the Bible, but at war
with every principle of reason and common sense.
But we may be told that repentance is the direct gift of God.
The distinguished Watson says: "But if repentance be taken in the
second sense, and this is certainly the light in which true repentance
is exhibited in the Scriptures, then it is forgotten that such is the
corrupt state of man that he is incapable of penitence of this kind.
This follows from that view of human depravity which we have
already established from the Scriptures, and which we need not
repeat. In conformity with this view of the entire corruptness of
man's nature, therefore repentance is said to be the gift of Christ,
who, in consequence of being exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour,
gives repentance as well as remission of sins -- a gift quite
superfluous if to repent truly were in the power of man and
independent of Christ. To suppose man to be capable of a
repentance which is the result of genuine principle is to assume
human nature to be what it is not." Watson's Institutes, vol. ii, pp.
98, 99.
It seems to us that the dogma of hereditary depravity is the
Pandora's box from which have sprung most, if not all, the errors
which distract the religious world. This doctrine once received, and
every thing else is tried by it. Hence man can not repent because the
total depravity of his nature renders him incapable of it; and though
God has commanded him to repent, and told him plainly that he
shall perish if he does not repent, yet He must give him repentance
before he can repent!! Suppose God never gives the man
repentance, and per consequence the man never repents, what then?
Will God damn him for His own neglect? Surely not. We know it is
said: "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and
Repentance
247
a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."
Acts v:31. Again: "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted
repentance unto life." Acts xi:18.
Are these passages sufficient to prove that man is incapable of
repenting? God gives us bread, but we have to work and make it,
nevertheless. So God gives us repentance by placing motives before
us to induce it; hence Paul asks: "Despisest thou the riches of his
goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the
goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" Rom. ii:4. God has
manifested His love for man in the gift of His Son, through whom
salvation is offered on certain conditions, among which repentance
holds a prominent place. He has revealed Himself to man in all the
loveliness of His true character. The joys and bliss of heaven are set
forth in a revelation adapted to his comprehension, and thus the
goodness of God leads man to repentance; hence Paul says: "The
servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt
to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose
themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the
acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves
out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his
will." 2 Tim. ii:24-26. Why should the servant of the Lord manifest
such patience, and so meekly instruct the opposers, if God gives
them repentance directly? Does not this case clearly show that God
gives men repentance by a system of means calculated to produce it?
He gives man faith by giving him testimony calculated to produce it,
and will damn him if he does not believe it. He gives man bread by
giving him the means with which to make it, but unless he uses the
means he will starve for food. So God gives man repentance by
causing repentance
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
and remission of sins to be preached among all nations in the
name of His Son, yet he who does not repent will surely perish.
Then let no man wait for God to give him repentance directly, until
he is willing to sit, with folded arms, and wait for God to give him
bread in the same way.
CHAPTER XI
It is very generally admitted that some sort of a confession of
THE CONFESSION
something should be made by everyone at some time prior to
admission into the church of God; but what this confession is, how
and when it should be made, and its office in the plan of salvation,
are questions which have greatly perplexed those who have spoken
and written concerning them for the last three hundred years. In the
earlier ages of the church persons were required to confess with the
mouth their faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God prior to baptism,
and the only question worthy of our consideration at present is
whether or not this practice was authorized by inspired precept or
example. Paul says: "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 all good works." 2 Tim. iii:16, 17. If the
man of God is authorized to require the confession to be made by
anyone, surely it is a good work; and if a good work, the Scriptures
thoroughly furnish the man of God to it; i.e., they thoroughly
furnish the man of God with all needful instructions concerning it.
If he is not therein thoroughly furnished to it, then it follows that it
is not a good work, and should be abandoned. It may be well, then,
for us to examine the Divine Volume, and see whether or not it
furnishes authority for such a practice.
The Gospel Plan Of Salvation
When the Ethiopian nobleman demanded baptism at the hands
of Philip, the inspired teacher said: "If thou believest with all thy
heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God." Acts viii:37. That this was the proper
confession is evident from the fact that it was satisfactory to the man
of God, who thereupon proceeded at once to baptize him. And that
it should be made after faith is evident from the fact that it would
have been false had not the faith preceded it; and that it should be
made before baptism is evident from the fact that it was demanded
as a condition precedent to baptism. Here, then, we learn what is to
be confessed: i.e., that "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God," and that the time to make it is after faith and before baptism.
While this verse is regarded as genuine, the question of authority for
this confession is not debatable at all. Here is a plain, unmistakable
precedent which we dare not ignore. Our practice must conform to
it, or the passage must be removed from the Divine Volume. But we
are told that the passage is spurious -- an interpolation which
constitutes no part of the inspired text.
While our limits will not allow us to enter upon an extensive
examination of the claims of this verse, nor have the means afforded
us been such as to enable us to decide the matter, even to our own
satisfaction, we are by no means satisfied that the proofs offered by
those who would set it aside are conclusive. Indeed, we are not
quite sure that there is, at this day, a possibility of knowing with
certainty that it is spurious. This narrative (the Acts), like all the
other books of the New Testament, was at first a separate
manuscript, and was circulated by being copied by uninspired men.
These copies were again copied, and copies of copies were copied,
how far from the original we
The Confession
251
have no means of knowing. The first copy taken was in all
probability imperfect, as it is very difficult to copy any thing without
imperfections; and these imperfections must have increased, as the
copies were more remote from the original, because each copy must
contain the errors of the one from which it was taken, with the
chance of incorporating others. As the only sure method of