Rev. ANDREW LEE, A.M. (continued 2)

Some have doubted whether those left to the light of nature could possibly meet the divine approbation and find mercy with God; or were not doomed without remedy to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. This we apprehend to be here determined. "Those who have not the law, may do by nature, the things contained in the law; and the doers of the law shall be justified."

By "doing the law," no more is intended than acting sincerely, according to the light imparted. Perfect obedience is not attainable by imperfect creatures—cannot therefore be here intended by the apostle. His evident meaning is, that sincerity is accepted of God, and rewarded with the rewards of grace, and equally of the Gentile, as of the Jew; for there is no respect of persons with God.

Adults, privileged with gospel light, must believe and obey the gospel. To them is that declaration addressed—"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." This hath no relation to those who have not the means of faith. "What the law saith, it saith to those who are under it." The same is true of the gospel.

The equal justice of God in giving to every one according to his works, or to his improvement of talents, is the spirit of the text and context, and of many other scriptures. Yea, this one of those great truths which are borne on the face of revelation—"If ye call on the Father, who, without respect of persons, judgeth every man according to his works, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear."

Some objections to the preceding definition of divine impartiality are subjoined, with very brief replies.

It is said "We must be born again or we cannot see the kingdom of God," and regeneration is the work of God, or effect of divine influence.

But natural men are said to be "dead in sin"—and can the dead do aught which tends to their own resurrection?

It is further asked, Whether every motion toward a return to God, is not the effect of divine influence? And whether divine influence doth not necessarily produce effect?—We answer,

To suppose man not capable of acting, but only of being acted on, or acted with, is to exculpate his enmity against God, and opposition to his law and gospel. To suppose his enmity and opposition to be the effect of divine influence, is to excuse them. Blame rests with the efficient. The creature cannot be culpable, because he is what God made him; or while he remains what he was made of God. To denominate either temper or conduct morally good or evil, consent is necessary, to suppose consent, in the creature, to be the effect of almighty power operating upon it, nullifies it to the creature, in a moral view. The work of God cannot be the sin, or holiness, of the creature.

But depravity and wickedness are wrong, and criminal, apart from all consideration of their source—they are so in themselves.

They cannot therefore be from God, but must have some other source. The creature which vitiates another, is viewed as culpable, though it only tempts to wickedness, which is all a creature can do to vitiate another, and leaves the tempted ability to retain integrity; what must then be our views of a being whom we conceive to produce the same effect by an exertion of Almighty power?—"God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man," Is it then supposeable that he can produce it by direct efficiency?

But suppose him to produce it, Suppose it to derive immediately from him. Is its nature altered? Is it less criminal or odious?

God forbid that we should make the supposition! It is a compound of absurdity and blasphemy! As well may we suppose the sun to diffuse darkness! They "trusted in lying words, who said of old, We are delivered to do abominations." We fear the Lord; "and will ascribe righteousness to our Maker."

But doth not God choose some to eternal life, and to this end bring them into his kingdom, and leave others to perish in their sins?

God chooseth those who hear his voice, and cherish the divine influences, and leaves those who refuse his grace and grieve his spirit. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me. Every one that asketh receiveth; hath that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocked it is opened," Asking is antecedent to receiving; seeking, to finding; and knocking is the work of those yet without. When trembling, astonished Saul, of Tarsus enquired, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" he was directed by one sent of Christ—"The Lord said to Annanias, Arise—go—enquire—for one called Saul of Tarsus: For, behold, he prayeth."

It is further asked, Whether God doth not act as a sovereign, in his choice of those whom he sanctifies and saves?

But the elect, it is said, "are chosen from the foundations of the world; before they have done either good or evil."

Election is indeed, "according to foreknowledge." "Whom God did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son."

But God could not foreknow, say some, how a free moral agent would act, unless he had first determined how he should act!

But as the whole human race are sinners, deserving only of punishment, is not God at liberty to choose from among them, whom he pleaseth to sanctify and save, and pass by, and leave whom he pleaseth, to punish in their sins?

We have no claim on divine justice. All mankind might have been left to perish. But they are not thus left of God, He hath found a ransom; and offers salvation to all. No differences will be eventually made among men without reasons. And the reasons will be in them—For there is no respect of persons with God.

But suppose two persons to be equally guilty and deserving of condemnation, may not God make one of them a vessel of mercy, and the other a vessel of wrath? Would the latter have occasion to complain? Or could injustice be charged on God?

We should not dare to charge him with injustice, did we know such a case to happen—neither do we presume to determine what God hath aright to do. But we are sure that no such case ever will happen—that God will not make an eventual difference in those who are alike, for there is no respect of persons with God.

Some may find mercy who may appear to us less guilty than some others who may perish in their sins. But it belongs not to us to estimate comparative guilt. It requires omniscience. "The judge of all the earth will do right."

INFERENCES

Mankind are here on trial. Different talents are committed to them. God acts as a sovereign in apportioning betrustments, and will observe exact impartiality in adjusting retributions.

The idea of talents implies ability to improve them. Gospel applications speak such to be our state—they are adopted to no other state.

The fatalist, and those who conceive every human volition and action to be the effect of divine agency, have no rational motive, to do, or suffer for religion. "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

However we may amuse ourselves with idle speculations, this life is approbation season.—Our use or abuse of the talents we possess will determine us to happiness, or misery, honor or infamy.

"All have sinned, and are guilty before God—In his sight shall no man living be justified"—our sole desert is punishment. But God hath had mercy on us—provided a Savior, and offers us salvation. The offer is universal—"Whosoever will let him come."

That there is no respect of persons with God, is alike the dictate of reason and revelation, We have only to act with integrity before God, relying, on his grace in Christ, and his grace will be sufficient for us.

The man who had the one talent, neglected it, under pretence that he served a hard master, who required things unreasonable and impossible —he was condemned; but only for neglecting the talent which he possessed.

It is required of a man according to that which he hath—this he can render—the neglect will be fatal. We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that we may receive the deeds done in the body, according to that which we have done, whether good or bad. For God will bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or evil.

An unseen hand is constantly writing down our volitions and actions, to be reserved to judgment. Ere long the books will be opened, which will open every heart, and life. Not a circumstance which goes to constitute a state of trial, will be omitted—all will be brought into the reckoning, and serve to determine our eternal state.

That state will be determined by the use which we shall have made of life, and the advantages which we enjoyed in it. The divine impartiality will then appear—"The ungodly will be convinced of their ungodly deeds—and of their hard speeches, which they have spoken against God." None will complain of injustice—none of the condemned pretend that they receive aught, which others circumstanced as they were, and acting as they acted, would not have received from the hand that made them. "Every mouth will be stopped."

This, fellow mortals is our seed time for eternity. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also of the Lord, whether he be bond or free—every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labor."

All these discriminations will be built on the present life, and rise out of it. This will be so abundantly manifested, "when God shall judge the world in righteousness," that an assembled universe will confess, That there is no respect of persons with God.

SERMON VII.

Moses' Prayer to be blotted out of God's Book.

Exodus xxxii. 31, 32.

"And Moses returned unto the Lord and said, 'Oh! this people have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.'"

This is one of the most difficult passages in the holy scriptures. Many haven attempted to explain it, and in our apprehension, failed in the attempt. Some will entertain like opinion of the following. Perhaps justly. We are no less fallible than others.

In matters which have engaged the attention of the learned, and in which they have differed, assurance is not perhaps to be expected. But as we are forbidden to call any man master, we have ventured to judge for ourselves respecting the meaning of the text, and now lay before the reader the result of our attention to it; not wishing to obtrude our opinion upon him; but leaving him to form his own as he may find occasion.

Some suppose that a person must be willing to be damned for the glory of God, or he cannot be saved; and this scripture hath been alleged in proof. After a few observations, to shew that the supposition is erroneous and absurd; we shall exhibit the various constructions which have been put on the text, by several expositors; then give our own sense of it; and close with a few reflections.

The supposition that man must be willing to be damned, in order to be saved, is in our apprehension, erroneous and absurd. It supposes a desire of God's favor to be an unpardonable offence; and a contempt of it a recommendation to his regard! It supposes that God will banish those from his presence who long for it; and bring those to dwell in it who do not desire it! A supposition, which, in our view, carries its own confutation in it. For the all important inquiry is, confessedly, how to obtain salvation? The solution which the supposition exhibits, is this, by being willing not to obtain it!

God cannot issue an order, making it the duty of man to be willing to be damned. To be willing to be damned, implies a willingness to disobey God, refuse his grace, and continue in unbelief and impenitence! Should we suppose it possible for God to issue the order, obedience would be impossible, and equally to those of every character. The hardened sinner, cannot be thought capable of love to God, which will dispose him to suffer eternally for God's glory. He may do that which will occasion eternal sufferings, but not out of obedience to God—not with design to glorify him.

Neither can the awakened sinner be considered as the subject of such love of God. They see indeed the evil. Awakened Sinners are not lovers of God. They see indeed the evil of sin, and are sensible of its demerit? that they deserve destruction. But this doth not reconcile them to destruction, and make them willing to receive it. They tremble at the thoughts of it, strive against sin, and cry after deliverance. Were they willing to be damned, they would not be afraid of being damned, or seek in anyway to avoid it.

It is equally impossible for the saint to be reconciled to damnation as will appear, by considering what it implies. It implies the total loss of the divine image, and banishment from the divine presence and favor! It implies being given up to the power of apostate spirits, and consigned to the same dreary dungeon of despair and horror, which is prepared for them! It implies being doomed to welter in woe unutterable, blaspheming God, and execrating the creatures of God, "world without end!"

When people pretend that they are willing to be damned for the glory of God, they "know—not what they say nor whereof they affirm." They leave out the principal ingredients of that dreadful state. Bid they take them into the account, they would perceive the impossibility of the thing. To suppose it required is to blaspheme God—to pretend that man can submit to it, is to belie human nature—to conceive that a child of God can reconcile himself to it, is to subvert every just idea of true religion. To require it, God must deny himself! To consent to it, man must consent to become an infernal! The statement of the case is a refutation of the scheme.

But if God's glory requires it, will not this reconcile the good and gain their consent?

God's glory doth not—cannot require it. "The spirit of the Lord is not straightened." Human guilt and misery are not necessary to God's honor.

It is necessary that divine justice should be exercised on those who refuse divine grace; but not necessary that men should refuse divine grace. "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."

Such is the language of revelation; and the measures which God hath adopted relative to our guilty race speak the same language. He hath provided a city of refuge, and urges the guilty to "turn to the strong hold."—He weeps over obstinate sinners who refuse his grace? "How shall I give thee up? How shall I deliver thee?" But rejoiceth over the penitent, as the father rejoiced over the returning prodigal.

God would not have provided a Savior, and made indiscriminate offers of pardon and peace had he chosen the destruction of sinners, and had their ruin been necessary to his honor. But God hath done these things, and manifested his merciful disposition toward mankind.

We have no need to "do evil that good may come. Our unrighteousness is not necessary to commend the righteousness of God."

How then, are we to understand the prayer of Moses, placed at the head of this discourse—blot me, I pray that, out of thy book which than hast written?

As this is one of the principal passages of scripture which are adduced to support the sentiment we have exploded, a few things may be premised, before we attempt to explain it.

I. Should it be admitted that Moses here imprecated utter destruction on himself, it could not be alleged as a precept given to direct others, but only as a solitary incident, in the history of a saint, who was then compassed with infirmity. And where is the human character without a shade? This same Moses neglected to circumcise his children—broke the tables of God's law—spake unadvisedly with his lips—yea, committed such offences against God, that he was doomed to die short of Canaan, in common with rebellious Israel.

II. The time—in which it hath been particularly insisted that a person must be willing to be damned for God's glory, is at his entrance on a slate of grace; but Moses had been consecrated to the service of God long before he made this prayer. Nothing, therefore respecting the temper of those under the preparatory influences of the spirit can be argued from it.

III. Should we grant that Moses here imprecated on himself the greatest evil, a sense of other people's sins, and not a sense of his own sins, was the occasion. But,

IV. No sufferings of his could have been advantageous to others, had be submitted to them for their sake. Had he consented to have been a castaway—to have become an infernal, as we have seen implied in damnation, this would not have brought salvation to Israel. Moses' hatred of God, and his sufferings and blasphemies, would not have atoned for the sins of his people, or tended in any degree to turn away the wrath of God from them.

It seems surprizing that the whole train of expositors should consider this good man as imprecating evil on himself for the good of others, when it is obvious that others could not have been benefited by it. For though expositors differ respecting the magnitude of the evil, they seem to agree that he did wish evil to himself, and pray that he might suffer for his people! We have seen no expositor who is an exception.

But let us attend to the prayer. Oh! this people have sinned a great sin; yet now, if thou will, forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I prey thee, out of thy book.

We know the occasion. Israel had fallen into idolatry while Moses was on the mount—had made an idol, and bowed in adoration before it. God told Moses what they had done—threatened to destroy them—excused Moses from praying for them, which had before been his duty, and promised to reward his faithfulness among so perverse a people, if he would now "hold his peace, and let God alone to destroy them." But Moses preferred the good of Israel to the aggrandisement of his own family, earnestly commended them to the divine mercy, and obtained the forgiveness of their sin—"The Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto them." But he gave at that time no intimation of his merciful purpose toward them.

When Moses came down and found the congregation holding a feast to their idol, he was filled with grief and indignation; and took measures immediately to punish their sin and bring them to repentance. He first destroyed their idol and then about three thousands of the idolaters, by the sword of Levi, who at his call, ranged themselves on the Lord's side. The next day, fearing that God would exterminate the nation, agreeably to his threatening, Moses gathered the tribes, set their sin before them, and told them that he would return to the divine presence and plead for them, though he knew not that God would hear him. "Ye have sinned a great sin; and now I will go up unto the Lord; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto the Lord and said, Oh! this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet, now, if thou wilt, forgive their sin; and if not blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written."

Moses meaning, while praying for Israel, is obvious; but the petition offered up for himself is not equally so—blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book.

Four different constructions have been put on the is prayer—Some consider Moses as imprecating damnation on himself, for the good of his people—Some as praying for annihilation, that they might find mercy—Some as asking God that he might die with them, if they should die in the wilderness—Others, that his name might be blotted out of the page of history, and his memory perish, should Israel be destroyed and not reach the promised land.

Docr. S. Clark expresseth his sense of the passage to nearly the same effect.

Did Moses then ask to be made an expiatory sacrifice for the sin of Israel! Or did he solemnly ask of God what he knew to be so unreasonable that it could not be granted!

There is no hint in the account given of this affair, that Moses entertained a thought of being accepted in Israel's stead. He did not ask to suffer that they might escape—he prayed to be blotted out of God's book, if his people could not be forgiven—If thou wilt, forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

Could the learned and judicious Mr. Pool seriously believe that inspired Moses prayed for annihilation! Or consider him as entertaining a suspicion that a soul could cease to exist! Or could he conceive him as deliberately asking of God to make him an expiatory sacrifice! Or harboring a thought that the sin of his people might be atoned by his being blotted out from among God's works!—Strange!

Mr. Fismin considers Moses as here praying to be blotted out of the page of history, if Israel were not pardoned; so that no record of his name, or the part which he had acted in the station assigned him, should he handed down to posterity. An exposition differing from the plain language of sacred history—Blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book, which thou hast written. The page of history is written by man.

Such are the constructions which have been put on this scripture. The considerations which have been suggested, oblige us to reject them all, as founded in mistake. Our sense of the passage, and the reasons, which in our apprehension, support it, will be the subject of another discourse.

SERMON VIII.

Moses' Prayer to be blotted out of God's Book.

Exodus xxxii. 31, 32.

"And Moses returned unto the Lord and said. 'Oh! this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou—wilt, forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray they, out of thy book which than hast written.'"

In the preceding discourse we endeavored to show that the idea of being willing to be damned for the glory of God is not found in the text—that the sentiment is erroneous and absurd—then adduced the constructions which have been put on the text by sundry expositors, and offered reasons which oblige us to reject them as misconstructions.

It remains, to give our sense of the passage—the grounds on which it rests—and some reflections by way of improvement.

When a debtor hath paid a debt, we are at no loss for his meaning, if he requests to be crossed, or blotted out of the creditor's book; nor would doubt arise should one to whom a debt was forgiven prefer like petition. "You will please to blot me out of your book."

Though Moses had taken no part in this sin of Israel. he knew himself a sinner; and when praying for others: it is not likely he would forget himself. The occasion would naturally suggest the value, yea the necessity of forgiveness, and dispose him to ask it of God. When others are punished, or but just escape punishment, we commonly look at home, and consider our own state; and if we see ourselves in danger, take measures to avoid it. To a sinner the only way of safety is, repairing to divine mercy, and obtaining a pardon. That Moses would be excited to this by a view of Israel, at this time, is a reasonable expectation.

That such was the purpose of Moses' prayer for himself is clearly indicated by the answer which was given to it—For the blotting out of God's book, is doubtless to be understood in the same sense in the prayer, and in the answer; and the latter explains the former.

Oh! this people have sinned a great sin—Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their sin; and if not—if thou wilt not forgive their sin —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: THEREFORE now go lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee.

The passage thus presented to our view, seems scarcely to need a comment; but such sad work hath been made of this text, and such strange conclusions been drawn from it that it may be proper to subjoin a few remarks.

That God had threatened to "destroy that people and blot out their name from under heaven"—that Moses had prayed for them—and that "the Lord had repented of the evil which he thought to do unto them" we have seen above. And here Moses is ordered to resume his march, and carry up the tribes to the promised land, and the reason is assigned— "whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book, therefore, now go lead the people to the place of which I have spoken unto thee."

When we thus view the subject can a doubt remain respecting the sense of this text? (But keeping in view the reason here assigned for the renewed order given to Moses to conduct the tribes to Canaan, namely, God's determination to blot of his book—whosoever had sinned against him, in this affair) let us try it in the different senses which have been put upon it.

I. We will suppose blotting out of God's book, to mean destroying soul and body in hell. The divine determination to shew no mercy to Israel, is then the reason assigned for the order here given to Moses. The prayer and answer stand thus—Now if thou wilt, forgive this people—Answer—I will not hear thy prayer for them—no mercy shall be shewn them, but utter, eternal destruction be their portion— THEREFORE now go lead them to the promised land!

II. Suppose blotting out of God's book to mean annihilation, and his answer to the prayer stands thus—I will destroy this people, and blot them from among my works—THEREFORE go lead them to the place of which I have spoken unto thee!

III. Suppose with Mr. Henry, and Doct. Hunter, that it is to be understood of destruction in the wilderness, and the answer stands thus—My wrath shall wax hot against Israel and consume them—they shall all die in the wilderness, THEREFORE, now go lead them to Canaan!

The whole people, save Moses and Joshua, seem to have participated in the revolt. We have no account of another exception; and whosoever had sinned, God would blot out of his book. Surely had either of these been the meaning of blotting out of God's book, it would not have been given as the reason for Moses' resuming his march and carrying up the tribes to the land of promise. Common sense revolts at the idea.

But if we understand blotting out of God's book in the sense we have put upon it, we see at once the propriety of the order given to Moses, founded on this act of grace. God's having "repented of the evil which he thought to do unto them." If this is the meaning of the words, the answer to Moses' prayer amounts to this—"I have heard and hearkened to your prayer, and pardoned the sin of this people, proceed therefore in your march, and lead them to the place of which I have spoken unto thee." The therefore go now, doth not surprize us. We see the order rise out of the divine purpose; but on any of the other constructions of the text, thwarts and contradicts it; or cannot surely be assigned as the reason of it. SEVERAL other considerations illustrate the subject, and confirm our construction of it.

At that time, the exception from the general sentence, was not in favor of Moses and Joshua, who had been on the mount, and taken no part in Israel's sin in making the golden calf, but in favor of Caleb and Joshua, who dissented from the report made by the other spies; though no intimation is given that Caleb was not with the people, and did not sin with them in the matter of the golden calf. There is therefore no doubt respecting the sin which shut that generation out of Canaan. Nor do we apprehend more occasion for doubt relative to the prayer of Moses, to be blotted out of God's book.

But though the sin of Israel on this occasion was pardoned, and Moses ordered to lead them to Canaan, some temporal chastisements were inflicted to teach the evil of sin, and serve as a warning to others to keep themselves in the fear of God; of which Moses was notified when ordered to advance with the pardoned tribes? "Nevertheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them. And the Lord plagued the people because they had made the calf which Aaron made." The manner in which this is mentioned, shows that their sin in that affair was forgiven, and only some lighter corrections ordered in consequence of it; which is common after sin is pardoned.

REFLEXIONS.

I. When we consider Moses pouring out his soul before God in behalf of an offending people, it should excite us, as there may be occasion, to go and do likewise.

Some pretend that prayer offered up for others, must be unavailing. God, it is alleged, is immutable, not therefore to be moved to change his measures by a creature's cries. And prayer for others can have no tendency, it is said, to operate a change in them, so as to bring them into the way of mercy, and render them fit objects of it.

This representation is not to be received without restriction; but we may safely infer that "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much"—that it often draws down blessings from above on those who deserve no good.

This should encourage us to wrestle with God in prayer, for the effusions of his grace on those who deserve judgment without mercy, and who might receive it from the righteous sovereign, did the righteous hold their peace, and "let him alone."

II. When we witness this holy many [sic] praying to be blotted out of God's book which he had written, it should remind us of our state as sinners whose only hope is mercy. "Moses' was faithful in all God's house." His attainments in the divine life were scarcely equaled; yet must have perished forever had forgiving grace been denied him. He knew his state; and a view of Israel's danger called home his thoughts and led him to implore divine mercy for himself, though he should fail to obtain it for an ungrateful people. "Oh! forgive the sin of this people, but if not, forgive my sin—pardoning grace is all my dependence—hope would fail should it be denied me."

If Moses was thus conscious of guilt, who can say "I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?—O Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified— there is not a just man upon earth, who doeth good and sinneth not." While praying for others, it ill becomes us to forget ourselves.

Are we by office appointed to ask mercy for others and bear them on our hearts before God? We must not therefore conclude that mercy is not necessary for us. Like the high priests of old, "We must offer, first for own sins, and then for the people's." There is only one intercessor to whom this is needless.

Witnessing the sin and danger of others, should stir us up to the duty, as it did this leader of Israel. While crying to God for others, we must beware wrapping up ourselves in fancied purity. To this we are tempted by a view of greater sins in others, which serve as a foil to act off our fancied goodness; and especially by the knowledge of certain great sins in others, of which we know ourselves to be clear.

Some in Moses' situation, would doubtless have adopted that language —"God I thank thee that I am not as other men are—not as this people." Very different was the effect it had on him—it reminded him of his sins, and led him to cry for mercy.

It is of vast importance that we know ourselves—if we attain this knowledge, from sense of demerit, we shall add to our prayers for others, but if not, blot me, I pray thee out of thy book which thou hast written.

III. If we do not mistake the sense of the text, the strange doctrine exploded in the beginning of this discourse, finds no support in it. And surely the doctrine which reason rejects cannot be supported by revelation. Reason directs us to pursue that line of conduct which will be most for our advantage taking the whole term of our existence into the account. And revelation doth the same—"in keeping God's commandments there is great reward." If we look through the holy scriptures we shall find abundant rewards annexed to every requirement. The idea that despising the promises, and being willing to renounce the desire and hope of them, should be made a condition of receiving them, is pitiable weakness and absurdity.

Here the way of duty requires self denials. The good man is often called to take up his cross; but the rewards which follow are constantly held up to view, in revelation, as infinitely surpassing the losses and sufferings of the present life. "Blessed are ye when men shall revile and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake: Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven." Every one who forsaketh worldly advantages, out of regard to God, will "receive an hundred fold reward, and inherit eternal life."

This was made known to the primitive Christians. Therefore their fortitude and zeal to do and suffer in the cause of God—"Our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.—I reckon the sufferings of the present time, not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us."

Totally groundless and unjust, was that charge—"I knew thee that thou art an hard man." We serve a just, a kind, a good master. Even a cup of cold water, given, out of love to him, will in no wise go unrewarded—he asks no sacrifice of us for nought. Much less that we would sacrifice ourselves, and be castaways. "Those who honor him, he will honor."

The slaves of Satan are repaid with misery; but not so the servants of God. "He is not unrighteous to forget our labor of love." These things are revealed for our encouragement and support. Yea, God hath "given us exceeding great and precious promises; that by these we might be partakers of the divine nature—let us therefore be steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for as much as we know that our labor is not in vain in the Lord."

SERMON IX.

St. Paul's Wish to be accursed from Christ.

Romans ix. 3

"For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh."

Few characters more remarkable than that of St. Paul, are to be found in history. He is introduced to our acquaintance on a tragical occasion—the martyrdom of Stephen, where he appears an accomplice with murderers—"he was standing by and consenting to his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him."

The circumstances of Paul's conversion to Christianity were very remarkable, and afford strong evidence of its truth. He was not an ignorant youth, who could be easily deluded. He had all the advantages of education which that enlightened age afforded. He was born indeed at Tarsus, a city of Cilicia; but sent to Jerusalem for an education, and "brought up at the feet of Gamaliel," a famous Jewish Rabbi, who is said to have been many years president of the Sanhedrin; and renowned for wisdom and erudition.

Paul's mind was not only early imbued with general science, but he was particularly instructed in the Jews' religion, and became a zealous member of the pharisaic sect—verily believed the truth to be with them—thought it to be his duty to inculcate their sentiments, both scriptural and traditionary, and oppose all who did not fall in with their views, and help to increase their influence, and spread their principles. Therefore his hatred of Christianity, and determination to destroy it from its foundation—Therefore his implacable aversion to Christians, and unwearied endeavors to reduce them from the faith, or compel them to blaspheme, or where he failed in those attempts, to destroy them from the earth.

But lo! the triumphs of divine grace! This arch enemy, while pursuing the followers of the Lamb, even to strange cities, is met by the glorified redeemer, while on his way to Damascus, whither he was going, "breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples!" Arrested in his course! Convinced of his madness! Brought to believe on that Jesus whom he had reviled and blasphemed! And even changed into a preacher of that gospel which he had been so eager to destroy!

We know the strange process by which these events were effected—how this proud adversary was subdued and melted into a humble, penitent believer! We know the zeal with which he entered on the gospel ministry—what he did—what he suffered, to build up the cause he had destroyed!

How he persevered to the end, and sealed his testimony with his blood!—What a trophy of divine power and mercy! "These were the Lord's doings, and marvelous in our eyes."

But why marvelous? Why should we wonder when we consider the agent? God is wont to subvert the purposes of his enemies; and often uses those means and instruments which were prepared and intended against him, to accomplish his purposes.

So here; this Moses of the New Testament—this destined chieftain among Christians, is educated among Pharisees; the great enemies of Christ—instructed by their greatest teacher—inspired with a double portion of their zeal and rancor against the cause of the Redeemer, and sent forth to destroy. But lo! This mighty Abaddan of diabolical and Jewish malice, is arrested in his course—changed into another man, and all his zeal and learning from that hour directed to buildup the cause of God! The energy instructed and furnished, but heaven directed the use and application!

God's purposes stand and will stand. None can stay his hand, or reverse his decrees. The means chosen to subvert, are used to build his cause and kingdom. "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness, and the purposes of the froward are carried headlong."

While Paul remained a Pharisee he was the idol of his nation; but no sooner did he become a Christian, than their love was turned to hatred. No other was so abhorred as he. Against no other did they unite with such determined rancor. Numbers soon leagued together, and even "bound themselves under a curse not to eat or drink till they had slain him." But all their machinations were vain. "Obtaining help from God, of whom he was a chosen vessel, to bear his name to the Gentiles, and kings, and the people of Israel," he continued many years, and did, perhaps, more than any other perform in the cause of Christ. Jewish rancor towards him never abated, but he caught no share of their bitter spirit? the temper of Christ governed in him? he loved his enemies, and did them good. Like another Moses he bore Israel on his heart before God, and made daily intercession for them, weeping at a view of their sad state, and the evils coming upon them.

Such is the spirit of the context. "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.—for I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh".

The depressing occasion of his grief, was the infidelity and obduracy of his nation—that they refused to hearken to reason and evidence —were resolved to reject the only Savior; and the evils temporal and eternal, which he foresaw their temper and conduct would bring upon them—therefore his "great heaviness and continual sorrow."

In the text—I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, the apostle hath been thought to imprecate evil on himself for the benefit of his people! All the expositors we have seen on this passage, conceive him to have wished some sore calamity to himself for the advantage of his nation! Though they have differed respecting the magnitude of the evil which he wished to suffer for their sake.

Doct. Doddridge considers him, as "wishing to be made a curse for them, as Christ hath been made a curse for us, that so they might be delivered from the guilt which they had brought on themselves, and be entitled to the blessings of the rejected gospel."

Doct. S. Clark views him, as "desirous of suffering the calamities to which his people were doomed for rejecting and crucifying the Savior, so that, could they all centre in one person, he wished to be the person, that he might thereby procure salvation for them!"

Grotius and Pool understand him, as "wishing to be separated from the church of Christ for the sake of the Jews!" Which differs little from Doct. Hunter's sense of the passage—to which Doct. Guyse adds, "a desire of every indignity of man, and to be cut off from communion with Christ, for the sake of Israel;" whom he strangely considers as prejudiced against Christianity in consequence of their prejudices against Paul!

But why should the apostle wish evil to himself for their sakes? What possible advantage could his sufferings have been to his nation? Is it possible that those learned expositors should conceive that pains and penalties inflicted on him could have made atonement for their sins, and expiated their guilt! They must never have read Paul's epistles or never have entered into the spirit of them, who could entertain such views as these; or even suspect that aught, save the blood of Christ, can atone for human guilt. It is strange, therefore, that they could have imagined that he wished to suffer with this view. And it is no less so, that it should be thought that prejudices against Paul could have occasioned Jewish prejudices against Christianity, when it is so evident that their prejudices against Paul were wholly occasioned by his attachment to Christianity—he having been high in their esteem till he became a Christian.

David once asked to suffer in Israel's stead; but the circumstances of the case were then totally different from those of the case now before us. Israel were suffering for his sin in numbering the people; "I have sinned and done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let thine hand, I pray thee be against me."—But Paul had not sinned, to bring evil on his people—the guilt was all their own.

Expositors having mistaken Moses' prayer "to be bloated out of God's book," seem generally to have had that prayer in their eye when they have attempted to explain the text; and supposing that Moses prayed to be made sacrifice for Israel, have thought that Paul had the same spirit, and here followed his example! But that neither of them ever entertained the thought of suffering to expiate the sin of their people, and that the two passages bear no kind of relation to each other, we conceive indubitably certain.

But let us consider the text and judge for ourselves the meaning.

Perhaps the difficulties which have perplexed it may have chiefly arisen from the translation. The silence of expositors on this head, while puzzled with the passage, is strange, if the difficulty might have been obviated by amending to the original. The translation is plausible solely from this consideration.

Mr. Pool is the only expositor we have ever seen, who hath noted the difference between the translation and the original; and he labors hard to bring them together, but, in our apprehension, labors it in vain.

For the justice of the criticisms we appeal to the learned. If they are just, our sense of the text will be admitted.

If we consider the context, and the part which had been formerly acted by the apostle, it will not be difficult to ascertain his meaning, nor strange that he should express himself as in the text. He begins the chapter with strong expressions of concern for his nation, who had rejected him "whose name alone is given under heaven," for the salvation of men. If they continued to neglect the grace offered them in the gospel, he knew that they could not escape. And when he looked on them and mourned over them, the dangers which a few years before had hung over himself, rose up before him. He had been an unbeliever, a blasphemer, and a persecutor of the church of Christ; had boasted his enmity to Christ and opposition to the gospel; in which he had even exceeded the body of his nation—he had taken the lead against Christianity—been unrivalled in zeal against the cause, and rancour against the followers of the Lamb. When warned of his danger, and admonished to consider what would be his portion, should Jesus prove to be the Messias, he seems to have derided the friendly warnings, and imprecated on himself the vengeance of the Nazerene!—to have defied him to do his worst! to pour his curse upon him!

It is not strange that witnessing the temper of his nation, should call these things to his remembrance—that the consideration should affect him—that he should shudder at the prospect of the destruction which hung over them, and at the recollection of that from which himself had been "scarcely saved"—that he should exclaim, "God and my conscience witness my great heaviness and continual sorrow, when I look on my brethren the Jews, and consider the ruin coming upon them, from which I have been saved, so as by fire! Lately I was even more the enemy of Christ than they, and boasted greater enmity.. against him! And should have brought on myself a more intolerable doom, had not a miracle of power and mercy arrested me in my course!" That such considerations and a recollection of the share which he had formerly taken in strengthening the prejudices of his nation against the truth, should deeply affect him, and draw such expression from him as we find in the text and context, is not strange. They appear natural for a person circumstanced as he was at that time; and especially to one divinely forewarned of the devastation then coming on his place and nation.

These we conceive to be the feelings and views expressed by the apostle in the beginning of this chapter—but that he should wish to be put into the place of Christ; or madly with evil to himself, from which nobody could be benefited, cannot be suspected; unless with Festus, we suppose him to have been "beside himself," and not to have known what he wrote, when he expressed himself as in the text.

REFLECTIONS

I. In Paul's conversion how wonderfully apparent are the wisdom and power of God? When we view Saul of Tarsus making havoc of the church in Judea, and soliciting permission to pursue its scattered members even into exile, we consider him as a determined enemy of Christ. Who then would suspect that he should be made to feel the power of divine grace? That he would become a Christian? Yea, a prime minister of Immanuel! But lo! For this cause did God raise him up! For this work was he training while drinking at the fount of Science, and learning the Jews' religion in the school of Gamaliel! While unsanctified he was a destroyer; but when melted by divine influence into the temper of the gospel, all his powers and all his acquisitions were consecrated to the service of God and the Redeemer.

To affect this change in Paul, however unexpected, was not beyond the power of God; and it was done of God! Neither was it delayed till Paul had spent his best days in the service of Satan. At setting out to destroy, he was met of the ascended Savior, transformed by the renewing of his mind, and from that time devoted to the service of God; and continued faithful unto death. Many were his trials—severe his sufferings for the gospel which he preached; but "none of these things moved him; neither did he count his life dear to himself, that he might finish his course with joy, and the ministry which he had received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God."<

II. The temper manifested by St. Paul when contemplating the state of his nation, how worthy of imitation? Like his divine Lord, "when he beheld them he wept over them." Neither was the view unprofitable. It served to remind him of his own past guilt and danger, and the mercy which had been exercised toward him. His guilt and danger had been great. In high handed opposition to heaven, he had even exceeded "his kinsmen according to the flesh." Witnessing their state brought these again to his remembrance, and the grace of God which had stopt him in his course, and saved him from destruction, causing him at once, to rejoice and tremble!

Many of the children of God when they witness the security of sinners; how they neglect the great salvation, and harden themselves in sin, may remember when they did the same themselves and some of them, in a higher degree than most of those who appear to be walking the downward road.

Those who have found mercy cannot refrain from mourning over those whom they see hardening themselves in sin; nor should they cease to warn them from their way, and to cry to God in their behalf. But their attention is not wholly taken up from home; it often reverts thither, and stirs them up to grateful acknowledgments of divine goodness to themselves. WHO is he that maketh me to differ from the thoughtless sinner? is a consideration which often rises in the good man's mind, while looking on the careless and secure. It is a proper and a profitable consideration—tends to keep him humble and mindful of his dependence.

Sense of past dangers serve to enhance the value of present safety. The greater dangers we have escaped, and the more wonderful our deliverances have been, the greater should be our love to our deliverer, and the greater our care to make him suitable returns. If we entertain just views of these things, such will be the effect. Those to whom most is forgiven love the most.

By reflecting on the riches of divine mercy, we should stir up our souls to love the Lord. If witnessing the unconcern of others, while in the broad road, serves to excite us to gratitude for divine goodness shown to us, "the wrath of man is thereby made to praise the Lord." Such was the effect which a view of Israel's hardness had on Paul—May all Christ's disciples cultivate the same temper.

III. In Paul's conversion we see God distinguishing among his enemies, and calling one into his kingdom who was, from principle, a destroyer of his saints. Paul was a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee. No sect among the Jews was more bitter against Christ—no other so eager and active in their endeavors to crush his cause and subvert his kingdom. Yet numbers of that sect obtained mercy. The same did not happen respecting the Saducees. No instance of a Saducee brought to repentance, can be adduced. Why this discrimination?

There may be reasons not revealed; but some are discernible.

The Pharisees "had a zeal for God, though not according to knowledge." Saul, the Pharisee, "verily thought, that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus"—he did not sin against the light of his own mind. The same was doubtless the case with many others of that sect. The Saducees were devoid of principle—had rejected first principles—those taught by the light of nature. While first principles are retained, such was the belief of a divine existence—a difference between good and evil—a future state, in which men will receive the deeds done in the body, and the like, there remains a foundation on which religion may rest; but where these are rejected, the foundation is destroyed. Of the former who have erred in lesser matters of faith, and been thereby seduced into practical errors, many have been reclaimed, and brought to repentance: Not so the latter. "One among a thousand have we not found." And those whose sentiments border on atheism, or infidelity, are seldom called of God.

There is a certain point of error in opinion, from which a return is rare. Those who reach it are commonly given up to strong delusions, which lead to destruction.

And practical errors, especially those which are opposed to conviction, are highly criminal, and exceedingly dangerous—they fear the conscience, and provoke God to leave sinners to themselves—"My spirit shall not always strive with man—the times of ignorance God winked at, but now commands all men every where to repent."

SERMON X.

David's Sin in the Matter of Uriah.

2 Samuel xii. 13.

"And David said unto Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' And Nathan said unto David, 'The lord also hath put away thy sin; then shalt not die.'"

The sin here referred to is that of David in the matter of Uriah. A strange and sad event—taken in all its circumstances and connections, it is without a parallel. But the circumstance most to be lamented, is that mentioned by the prophet, in the close of his message—"By this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme."

The justness of this remark, doubtless appeared at that day, in the triumph of sinners and exultations of scoffers; and the story brought down to us, "on whom the ends of the world are come" is still abused to keep vice in countenance.

"Look to David, your man of religion! Your man after God's own heart! and witness his complicated crimes! and his long continued security and unconcern under guilt, which cannot be charged on us, who view religion as a dream!"—So the infidel.

While people of another description, wound God's cause yet more deeply, by the argument which they draw from this fall of David; namely, those who are allowedly vicious, yet call themselves "of the household of faith—who are pure in their own eyes, though not cleansed from their filthiness." These, when reproved, especially if their piety is called in question, often recur to David for support —tell us, that "though eminent for piety, he was guilty of greater sins than theirs, and long continued in them—that he remained impenitent till visited by Nathan, after the birth of his child by Bathsheba. If, say they, be could continue so long secure and unconcerned, why not longer? And why may not others fall into sins and continue in them months and years after having received the grace of God, and after they are numbered among the saints?"

This, we conceive, to be the most baleful conclusion which is drawn from this history. And could it be made to appear that such was David's state, for so long a term, we see no way to avoid the conclusion—see not but the idea which the scriptures give of religion as a holy principle, productive of a holy life, must be relinquished.

Such is the idea which the scriptures do give of religion—they teach, that it changeth the heart, and forms the new creature—that "in this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the Devil; that whomever doeth not righteousness is not of God; that by their fruits we are to know men."

Thus speaks that holy book which we believe to be from God, and to shew us the way of salvation. But if the children of God are not made to differ from others, if they may live in allowed disregard of the law of God, like others, these distinctions are idle and unworthy our regard. This matter demands our attention.

From the subject before us, the errors now mentioned draw their chief support.

We do not flatter ourselves that we can stop mouths of scoffers, or so clearly elucidate this dark part of the book of God, that it will no more be abused to the purposes of depravity; but believe that it may be made apparent that it hath been mistaken and perverted; and thereby rendered the more mischievous. This will now be attempted.

That David remained unconcerned and devoid of repentance for the sins which he committed in the matter of Uriah, till awakened to consideration by the ministry of Nathan, seems to have been taken for granted, and to have been the ground of these abuses. This may have been the common opinion. Whether it is founded in reality, we will now inquire.

Or those who argue from a supposition that this was the case, we ask evidence that it was so. That we have no express declaration that Nathan found him a penitent, we conceive to be all that can be alleged as evidence that he remained till that time impenitent. To which may be rejoined, that we have no express declaration that Nathan found him impenitent. The fact is, both scripture and profane history are silent respecting the state of David's mind from the commission of the sins, till he was visited by the prophet. We are left therefore to judge the matter on other grounds. And on what grounds can we form a more profitable opinion than by considering the general character of the man—the nature and effects of renewing grace—and the temper and conduct of the delinquent when he was reproved by the prophet? From a consideration of these we may derive the most probable solution of the question, or judge what was probably the state in which David was found by Nathan.

It may be proper to premise,

I. That good men, while in this state of imperfection, should be surprized by temptation into sins, and even heinous sins, is neither new nor strange. Many instances occur in the history of the saints recorded in the scriptures. "Aaron, the saint of the Lord," and Moses, whose general character was that of "a servant, faithful in all God's house," were both seduced into sins of such enormity that they were excluded the land of promise, in common with rebellious Israel. Among New Testament saints similar lapses are observable. Even the apostles forsook the Savior, and fled when Judas led forth the hostile band to apprehend him; and Peter, when under the influence of fear, with oaths and imprecations "denied the Lord that bought him!" The habitual temper of these good men could not be argued—from these sudden acts. Neither is judgment to be formed of others, except by observing the general tenor of their lives. Strong and unexpected temptations may, and often do, seduce the best of those who remain in the body and retain the weakness of fallen creatures yet on trial.

II. There is something in each one's constitution which predisposes to certain sins. To every person there is a "sin which most easily besets him"—from which he is liable to stronger temptation than from other sins—and temptation to such sins may rise from concurring circumstances, above its natural state, and become almost invincible. Nor will any person who reads the history of David doubt to what particular sin he was naturally most disposed. Neither are we insensible how one sin prepares the way for another, and strengthens temptation to it.

David's sins on the occasion before us were complicated and exceeding sinful. But we know how he was seduced to the first, and how the others followed of course.

Respecting the state in which he was found by Nathan we may judge,

I. From his general character. This is so well known, that the bare mention is almost sufficient. The scriptures teach us that he was pious from his youth. When Samuel was sent to anoint him, sufficient intimation was given that his heart was right with God. When Elijah, the first born of Jesse palled before the prophet, pleased with his appearance, he supposed him to be the man whom God had chosen to rule his people—"Surely the Lord's anointed is before him"'—but God refused him with this declaration, "The Lord seeth not appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart." David's after life justified the preference then given him.

No person acquainted with his history as contained in the sacred records, will scruple his general devotedness to the service of God.

In that matter he greatly erred. There is no need however to consider him as then fallen from grace. The remains of depravity which continues after renovation, are sufficient under existing circumstances to account for his fall on that occasion. But it is inconcievable that a person of established piety should remain for a whole year stupid and unconcerned under the guilt of such transgressions; and the utter improbability of such an event will be further apparent, if we attend,

II. To the nature and effects of renewing grace. It is no less true of holy than of unholy principles, that they are operative. The governing principle, whatever it may be, will bring forth fruit according to its nature. A GOOD man may be surprized into sin, as we have seen, but he will not go deliberately into the way of it, like the wicked. Neither do the two characters, when they have been seduced into sin, reflect upon it with similar feelings and views. When the good think on their ways, they are grieved and humbled for their faults, and turn their feet to God's testimonies; but the wicked bless themselves in their hearts, as fortunate in the accomplishment of their vicious desires. The good maintain a sense of God's presence—"Thou God seeth me." The wicked forget God or doubt his attention to their temper and conduct —"How doth God know? Is there knowledge in the most high?"

It is not strange if those whose only joys are the pleasures of sense, felicitate themselves when they attain them; but those who love and fear the Lord, and prefer his favor above all earthly joys, must have other views. If sensible that they have offended God, and incurred his displeasure, it greives them at their hearts, and fills them with deep concern.

Apart from all considerations of interest, the good see a baseness and deformity in sin, which render it the object of their aversion. They consider it the disgrace of their rational nature, and are humbled and abased when conscious that temptation hath prevailed to seduce them from the paths of rectitude. IT will not be imagined that David could banish thought, and drive away reflection, for a whole year after the commission of such enormous sin; as he committed in the matter now before us.

It is presumed that no man, retaining reason was ever able soon to forget any enormity, which he knew himself guilty. The remembrance always haunts the imagination, and conscience goads the mind with a thousand stings. The delinquent hath not power to prevent it. He cannot drive away thought, and turn off his attention to other objects.

It is further presumed, that every good man is formed to the habit of reflection; that he often enters into himself by a serious attention to his state; considers his temper; review's his conduct, and brings both to the divine standard, that he may know himself, and reform whatever is amiss.

A person of David's character, especially circumstanced as he was at that time, could not possibly have been destitute of considerations. The society of the woman who had been the occasion of the crimes which had so maimed his character, must have brought those crimes to his remembrance, and kept them on his mind. Every time she came into his presence, or cheered him by her smiles, a group of affecting thoughts must have rushed in upon him; his first offence, an offence which the law of his God would have obliged him to punish with death, in a subject, and his after, and still more enormous sins, which he had committed to hide the first, and possess the object which he was forbidden even to covet, would occur to his mind. From the lovely object in his presence, his mind would naturally revert to her late, first greatly injured, and then murdered husband; to his faithfulness and zeal for the honor of his king and country, which had torn him from the embraces of a lovely partner, and the society of a family dear to him, and would not even suffer him to visit them when liberty was given him of his prince; to his careful attention to deliver the letters, by which he had unsuspectingly borne the mandate for his own murder; to his heroism when ordered up to the walls of the besieged city, though not supported by the commander in chief; and his noble exertions to subdue the enemies of Israel, amidst which he had bravely fallen! Such reflexions must have filled his mind; nor was it possible that he should have driven them away.

Neither could he do other than condemn the part which he had acted and feel pain when he considered it. Surely such considerations must have racked his guilty soul, and made him tremble and mourn in bitterness of his spirit before God.

A graceless tyrant who neither fears God, nor regards man, may view, his subjects as made for him, and think himself entitled to deprive them at his pleasure, of every comfort, and even life. This hath been the avowed sentiment of many an eastern despot. But it is not supposeable of a good man—"the man after God's own heart," though now seduced into certain heinous sins. Surely he could not think on his ways—on his then late transgressions, but remorse must have harrowed up his soul! He must have been deeply affected, and led to cry, "God be merciful to me a sinner!" The feelings of a good man, who had been seduced into sin and reflected upon it with deep contrition, are pathetically described by the pen of this same person, in the thirty second psalm; and description is couched in the first person, as what himself had experienced. "When I kept silence, my bones waxed old by reason of my roaring all the days long. For day and night thy hand was heavy on me; my moisture is turned into the drought of summer." There is a strong probability that his feeling on this occasion, before he confessed his sin, and obtained a sense of pardon, are here expressed. They are the same which we should suppose he must feel while tormentedwith a sense of such enormous guilt.

III. We are to consider his temper and conduct when reproved by the prophet.

These are the same which we should expect, did we know him to have been then a penitent. He was indeed taken by guile, and made to condemn himself before he perceived that he was the guilty person of whom the prophet complained. But had he till that time continued impenitent, it is not probable that he would have been instantly humbled, and immediately confessed his sin with true contrition. It is much more probable that he would have resented the application to himself, as an affront offered to royalty, and avenged himself on the Lord's messenger.

God hath power instantly to change the sinner's heart without previous awakenings; but this is not the method of grace. Convictions, ordinarily, if not invariably, antecede conversion, prepare for it, and lead to it.

Neither is this the method of grace, only with the sinner at the first great change, termed the, new birth, but with the saint who falls into heinous sins, and thereby resembles the sinner. When a good man yields to temptation and falls from his stedfastness, God commonly hides his face from him—for a term, and often for a considerable term, he sits in darkness—is ready to give up his hope—to conclude that he hath believed in vain—never loved God or hated sin—never passed from death into life. In fine, he feels similar pains, and passeth in many respects, a similar change, when renewed again by repentance, as when first made a new creature.

Do we ever see persons who have been seduced into great and heinous sins, brought back to God, and comforted with his presence without sensations of this kind? We presume the instance cannot be adduced. We should look with a jealous eye on one who pretended to be an example of it. From the methods of grace at present, we may judge of them in times past. God is the same—sin equally his aversion, and sinners alike the objects of his displeasure.

The supposition that a person is one moment a hardened sinner; the next a thorough penitent, pardoned, restored and comforted of God, is so diverse from his common manner of treating great offenders, that it should not be admitted in a given case, without clear and strong evidence; and in the case before us there is no evidence; even circumstances have a different aspect.

No sooner was this offender reproved, than he discovered a humble penitent disposition. He, freely confessed his sin, both to God and man, as one who had thought on his ways and repented of his transgressions; which could not have been expected of one who after the commission of such crimes, remained thoughtless and secure, till the moment when his guilt and danger were set before him.

But if David was a penitent before he was visited by Nathan, why had he concealed his repentance? Why spread a veil over it and neglected to glorify God by a confession of his sins? Did he think it sufficient to confess to God, and humble himself in secret?

So some argue, and endeavor to cover the sins of which the world knows them to be guilty. But we are far from suspecting this of David.

To break the divine law is implicitly to condemn it. "What iniquity have your fathers found in me?" To conceal sorrow for sin, is in effect to justify it. Then only is God glorified by an offender, when he takes the blame and the shame of his sins on himself, acknowledging the law which he hath broken to be "holy, just and good." Of these things, this offender could not be insensible David was indeed under strong temptation to hide his sins. He was the head of a family, several members of which were abandoned characters. These he had doubtless often reproved. He was the head of a nation, numbers of which were children of Belial. These he had called to repentance, reproved, punished. He had long professed religion—perhaps often declared its power to change the heart and mend the life. But if his crimes were now made public, he must appear "a sinner above all who dwelt at Jerusalem!" To have his conduct known would cover him with shame, and "give great occasion to the enemy to blaspheme, and speak reproachfully."

Did these considerations prevent him from confessing his sins, and induce him to cover his transgressions? They were mostly arguments for his proclaiming his repentance, had his sins been public.

By his sins he had countenanced wickedness, and set the example of it in a dignified station. By his confession he would condemn it, and justify the law of God, which forbids it; and by his return to duty, do every thing then in his power, to repair the injury he had done and prevent or remove the bad effects of his example. Why then had he neglected it?

There was only one consideration which could excuse him—that, we apprehend, justified him. His sins in this affair were not public. It appears from several circumstances that they were kept out of sight till the prophet was sent to reprove and publish them, and his repentance of them. Joab knew indeed that the king wished the death of Uriah. It is not certain that he knew the cause. If he did, it is not probable that he had divulged it.

That these matters were not transacted openly, or generally known, maybe inferred from two considerations, namely, from Bathsheba's going into mourning for Uriah, and from Nathan's declaration, when he foretold the evils which would come on David and his family, to punish his sins on this occasion, notwithstanding his repentance. Mournings were very short among the Hebrews; but this adulteress would not have put on mourning, or David delayed to take her to his house, to be his wife, till her mourning was ended, had this affair been public. But, that it was not so, is put out of doubt by the language of the prophet in his address to the king—"Thou didst it secretly."

If the matter was not public, the delinquent was not to be criminated because he did not make it so. Sins committed in secret are to be confessed and mourned only before him who sees in secret. Such seems to have been David's fixation from the time of his fall, till the publication of his guilt, by the prophet; during which term he felt all the horrors of conscious guilt; "God's hand lying heavy on him."

Thus the opinion of those who suppose that David remained impenitent and secure, till awakened to consideration by the ministry of Nathan, is devoid of proof, and even of probability. David's well known character—the nature of renewing grace; and the temper and conduct of this transgressor, when reproved by the prophet, concur to prove him then already a penitent; which is confirmed by the consolations forthwith administered to him by the Lord's messenger.

If in this instance God pardoned, and gave a sense of pardon, to so heinous an offender, without a moment intervening sense of guilt, and evidence of pardon and peace, it must have been a very singular divine treatment of so vile a sinner!

And if David, after having been long eminent for piety, lived a year of stupid unconcern, under such enormous guilt, it must have been a very strange event! A phenomenon in the history of man, unequalled in the annals of the world! Whether there is evidence to justify so strange a conclusion, judge ye.

If we have not mistaken our subject, this affair gives no countenance to those who pretend religion to be a thing of nought—that it doth not change the heart and life, turning men from sin to holiness. Good people may be seduced into sin, but they are soon renewed by repentance—soon turn again to the Lord in the way of duty, confessing their sins and renewing their purposes and engagements to serve the Lord—"That which I know not teach thou me; and wherein I have done iniquity, I will do no more."

Neither doth this affair yield comfort and hope to those, who while they call themselves saints, live like sinners. If here, they find no comfort and support, where will they find it? The only example thought to have been found in "the footsteps of the flock," fails them; and we are left to conclude that sanctification is the principal evidence of justification—"that by their fruits we are to know men."

It is a dark omen when professors paliate their errors and deviations from duty, by pleading those of saints of old. Those saints erred; but they did not long continue in sin—"When they thought on their ways they turned by repentance." Neither did they flatter themselves in allowed wickedness.

If any allege the sins of former saints in excuse for their own, they allege not that which distinguished them as saints, but that which they retained as sinners—not that which they possessed of the image of God, but that which remained to them of the image of Satan. This they may have in full, and yet be of their father the Devil. And such is the sad state of those who allowed serve sin, under whatever pretence.

Those who are born of God, favor the thing which are of God. Sin is odious in their view. They long for freedom from it—"Oh wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

The saints wish for heaven, not only that they may see "their father who is in heaven," and the divine Redeemer, "who loved them and gave himself for them;" but because there "the spirits of the just are made perfect"—because there they expect to be holy as God is holy— because there, to be "satisfied with God's likeness, and rejoice always before him." May God give us this temper, and keep us to his kingdom, for his mercy's sake in Christ. Amen.

SERMON XI.

General Character of Christians.

Galatians v. 24.

"And they that are Christ's have crucified the Flesh, with the Affections and Lusts."

St. Paul is supposed to have been the first herald of gospel grace to the Galatians; and they appear to have rejoiced at the glad tidings, and to have received the bearer with much respect. But after his departure, certain judaizing teachers went among them, and labored but too successfully, to alienate their affections from him, and turn them form the simplicity of the gospel.

The malice and errors of those deceitful workers, and the mischief which they occasioned at Galatia, caused the writing of this epistle: which, like the other writings of this apostle, reflects light on the gospel in general, while it served to correct the mistakes of those professors of Christianity, and guide their erring footsteps into the way of peace and truth.

It is not our design to enter into the controversy between this inspired teacher, and his enemies. We are only concerned to understand him, and shall receive his instructions as communicated from above. The primary design of this epistle was to refute those false teachers who urged circumcision, and the observance of sundry parts of the Levitical code, which had been abrogated by the gospel. This appears to have been a leading error of those anarchists. That the apostle did not lay the intolerable burdens of the Mosaic ritual, on the professors of Christianity, was made the ground of a charge against him. St. Paul defended himself by evincing the errors of his opponents, shewing that Christians are made free from the ceremonial law; and that their justification before God is not in virtue of any obedience of their own, to either the ceremonial, or the moral law, but of grace through faith in Christ.

From the reasoning of the apostle, the false teachers at Galatia seem not to have urged obedience to the whole law. Circumcision they taught to be indispensible. St. Paul allures them, that if they were under obligation to receive circumcision, they were equally obliged to keep the whole law; and that they bound themselves to this by submitting to be circumcised—that if they reverted to the law, and placed their dependence on their obedience to it, they renounced the grace of Christ, and would not be benefited by it.

"Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised. Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that it is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. Christ is become of none effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace,"

While such was the state of those who followed the judaizing teachers, those who retained the gospel as taught by the apostle, had another hope—a hope which would not make ashamed—a hope in divine grace through faith in Christ—"We through the spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."

Such is every Christian's hope before God. He "counts all things to be loss and dung that he win Christ; but the righteousness which is of God by faith."

But while St. Paul was exhibiting and urging these important truths, on the wavering Galatians, he foresaw, that it would be objected, that the scheme which he advanced, tended to licentiousness—that if men might be saved by faith without the works of the law, they might indulge themselves in sin—that this would render Christ the minister of sin. The same objection appears to have been made at Rome, where a faction existed similar to this at Galatia. This consequence the apostle rejected with abhorrence. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: Yea we establish the law."

The Levitical code included both the ceremonial and the moral law. Though St. Paul declares justification unattainable by obedience to either or to both, he did not set aside the moral law, as no longer obligatory, as he did the ceremonial. This latter had answered the ends of its appointment, and was abolished by fulfillment. It was only a shadow of good things to come, and fled away before that of which it was a shadow. Christ had therefore blotted it out and taken it away. But the moral law was not done away. Christ hath fulfilled it for those who believe on him; but it doth not therefore cease to be obligatory upon them. It is of universal and eternal obligation. The salvation of mankind, doth not, however, depend on their obedience to it. If it did, they could not be saved, because all mankind have broken it. "Salvation is of grace, through faith."

Instead of setting Christians free from obligation to keep the moral law, what Christ hath done for them strengthens their obligations to obey it. An increase of mercies is an increase of obligations to serve the Lord.

But yet more is done to secure obedience from those who are Christ's —yea enough to secure it. A change passeth on them, when they become his, which reconciles them to the law, and causes them to delight in it, and in the duties which it enjoins. This produces a pleasing conformity to it—"his commandments are not grievous." Their obedience is sincere and universal. Others may render a partial obedience, out of fear, but the obedience of the renewed flows from love, and hath respect to all God's commandments.

Remains of depravity abide in the Christian, but they do not habitually govern in him. That they are not wholly purged out of his nature, is to him the occasion of grief—causes him to go sorrowing: But he doth not gain complete deliverance till he puts off the body. He puts on, however, the gospel armor, and maintains a warfare against his own corruptions within, no less than against the powers of darkness without. Though sometimes wounded, and made to go on his way halting, he is in his general course victorious, rising superior to opposition, and living unto God. "Whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God"—cannot sin: like others, allowedly and habitually. "How shall he who is dead to sin, live any longer therein?"

Such is the character of the Christian, as drawn in the bible; so that all ground of objection to the gospel scheme, as drawn by St. Paul, is removed. Those who are Christ's instead of taking liberty to sin, because "they are not under the law, but under grace," are of all men most careful to do God's commandments; and from the noblest principles. Their obedience is not servile, but filial.

This is the spirit of the text. They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with the afflictions and lusts—HAVE crucified. The change which frees from the governing power of indwelling corruption, and disposeth to walk in newness of life, hath already passed upon them. None are Christ's till this change takes place in them.

Neither is the Christian free from similar struggles. Reason and conscience have naturally the same power in him which they have in others. The corrupt bias, is also weakened in renovation; yea receives a deadly wound. But it is not immediately destroyed. Still its influence is felt, and its effects observed. Sometimes it evinceth so much power, that its deadly wound seems to be healed. Reason and conscience, strengthened by renewing grace, ordinarily prevail over indwelling depravity; but not without a struggle, as every Christian can testify—neither do the better principles always conquer. Sometimes the opposing principles, or powers, prevail, and lead to error and wickedness. Thus "the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh—so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."

Neither the regenerate, nor the unregenerate, are free to do all that to which the generally governing principle inclines. The difference between the renewed, and the unrenewed, is not that the former is free from temptation, the latter overcome by it, at every attack. Neither is the case. Both meet with temptation, and often that which is severe. Each sometimes overcomes; at other times is overcome by it. But the renewed formed to the habit of attention and watchfulness, and looking to God for help, and acting, in the main, uprightly before God, is usually a conqueror; while the unrenewed, habitually careless, and negligent of watchfulness and prayer, is more often conquered, and hurried into error and wickedness. The renewed are chiefly restrained by love to God and duty; the unrenewed by fear of punishment; Though fear hath a degree of influence on the former; and other considerations, beside fear, are not wholly, devoid of influence on the latter.

How far a Christian may be influenced by remaining corruption, and carried away by the prevalence of temptation; or how far a sinner may be restrained by the influence of those principles and considerations, which withstand him in his course, we are unable to determine. That both feel and are influenced by those opposing principles, is not matter of doubt. We experience it in ourselves, whatever our characters may be; and we observe it in others. None are so moulded into the divine image, as to become perfect—neither doth depravity attain so complete an ascendant over any who remain in the body, as to divest them of all restraints, and yield them wholly up to the vicious propensity. Restraints, yea inward restraints operate in degree, on the most depraved.

This is a mixed state. The good and the bad are here blended together. "The wheat and the tares must grow together until the harvest"—yea not only in every field, but in every heart. None are perfectly good, or completely bad, while in this world. The finishing traits of character are referred to that to come. In that world we expect, that both the righteous and the wicked, will be perfect in their kind —"the spirits of the just be made perfect"—those of the opposite character put on the full image of their infernal parent.

IMPROVEMENT.

If those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with its affections and lusts, How stands the case with us? Are we thus made to differ from the wicked world? Do we love God—believe on his Son— do his commandments, and trust his grace? Then, "to us to live is Christ, and to die gain." Here we must have trials—this is not our rest. But the time is short. Soon we shall be called "from our labors, and our works will follow us," Soon we shall be with Christ—behold his glory, and rejoice in his presence. Happy state!

But let us beware deception. Some "hold a lie in their right hands; cry peace when there is no peace to them." Let us commune with our own hearts; attend to our temper and conduct; inquire whether we have taken up our cross, and are following Christ? Whether the spirit of Christ dwelleth in us. If we have not his spirit, we are none of his. "If we have his spirit we walk as he walked." If this is our happy state, we shall ere long hear from our Judge, "come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundations of the world." But if found sinners, a very different doom awaits us.

SERMON XII.

The aggravated Guilt of him who delivered Christ to Pilate.

John xix. 10, 11.

"Then saith Pilate unto him, 'Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?' Jesus answered, 'Thou couldest have no power against me, except it were given thee from above: Therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.'"

Judea was conquered by the Romans and reduced to a province of their empire, before Christ suffered for the sins of men. When the Jews conspired his death, Pilate was governor of that province. The power of life and death was in his hands. Though said to have been devoid of principle, he was unwilling to give sentence against Jesus. Free from Jewish prejudices, he was convinced of Christ's innocence; that he had committed no offence, either against his own nation, or against the Romans; but that for envy he had been arraigned, condemned, and delivered up as a malefactor.

A mighty prince was then expected to arise in Israel. That he would save his people from their enemies, and crush the powers which held them in subjection, was the general idea entertained of him. But the Jews had no expectations of such a deliverer in the Son of Mary; nor did the Roman Governor see aught in him to excite suspicion of a formidable enemy. He wished, therefore, to release him; repeatedly declared him not guilty; and would have set him at liberty, but the Jews opposed. They declared that "by their law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God"—or gave himself out for the expected Messias.

This was probably the first hint which Pilate received of this nature, and it seems to have alarmed him. "When he heard that saying he was more afraid."

Pilate was not an Atheist. He appears to have had some knowledge of a divine existence and belief of a superintending providence. Living among the Jews, he was, no doubt, acquainted with their religion, and their expectations of a deliverer; and if there was a suspicion that this was that deliverer, it concerned him to act with caution; at least to make inquiry. He therefore returned to the judgment hall, and entered on another examination of the prisoner. He began by inquiring after his origin. "He said to Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer." The test follows, in which we observe the following particulars, viz:

I. Pilate blaming Jesus, for refusing to answer him—boasting of his power, and appealing to our Lord, that he possessed it. Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

II. Christ reminding Pilate, that he possessed only delegated power; intimating that he was accountable for the use he made of it. Thou couldest have no power against me, except it was given thee from above.

III. Christ aggravating the guilt of those who had delivered him to Pilate, from a consideration of the power which he possessed, in which there might be an allusion to Pilate's character as an unprincipled man. Therefore, he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. We will treat of these in their order.

I. We observe Pilate blaming Jesus for refusing to answer him; boasting of his power, and appealing to our Lord that he possessed it. Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

But why is Christ faulted? He had said enough to convince the court of his innocence. The judge had repeatedly and publicly declared it. "I find no fault in him."

Christ's silence was not sullen, or contemptuous. He had said enough. His silence was prudent—perhaps necessary. He had come into the world to suffer—"to make his soul an offering for sin." Had he said more, perhaps Pilate had not dared to give sentence against him. Had not Christ died the ends of his coming had been frustrated. Therefore was he now dumb before his oppressors, agreeably to the prophecy. "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep is dumb before his shearers, so he opened not his mouth."

It was necessary that evidence should be given of Christ's innocence, sufficient to convince the honest mind, that he was not a malefactor —that he did not die for his own sin. This had been given. It was enough—rendered his murderers inexcuseable. The wisdom of providence permitted no more.

Pilate declared himself convinced. But then he had power either to crucify Christ, or to release him. He felt himself possessed of this power, and appealed to our Lord whether he did not possess it.

Pilate knew what was right—what he ought to do. Conscience directed him to acquit the guiltless. But this did not necessitate him to do it. He had power to do right. He had power also to do wrong.

Others possess similar power. Every moral agent hath power to obey or disobey the dictates of his conscience. It is not the method of heaven to compel men to good, or leave them to be compelled to evil. God intended man to be a free agent, who should choose for himself the part he would act; and endowed him with a self determining power, to capacitate him to choose. Devoid of this power, he could not be accountable.