DUKE 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
THE POWER TO FORGIVE. 
 A. SERMON 
 
 DELIVERED BY THE LATE 
 
 REV. JOHN A. GRETTER. 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 f 
 
 PRESBYTERY OF ORANGE, 
 
 AT WASHINGTON, N. C, 
 DECEMBER, 1849. 
 PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OF THAT BODY. 
 
 PAYETTE YILLE, N. C. : 
 PRINTED AT THE PRESBYTERIAN OFFICE. 
 1859. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2014 
 
 ' https://archive.org/details/sermondeliveredb43gret 
 
THE F10WE3S OOLLFfrnoN 
 
 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT. 
 
 This Sermon was originally delivered by special request of Orange Presbytery, 
 before that Body, at its sessions in Washington, X. C, December, 1849. The im- 
 pression produced on the minds of those who heard it on that occasion, was such as 
 to create a desire that it might be preserved in a permanent form for the edification 
 of the Church. If the life of the author had been spared, the sermon would, doubt- 
 less, have been prepared for the press, under his own direction. A constant succes- 
 sion of pastoral and pulpit duties, followed by a protracted illness, and closed by 
 -death in 1853, prevented the accomplishment of this work, in the lifetime of the au- 
 thor. The desire for its publication was by no means extinguished by that mournful 
 event. Ia addition to the reasons previously existing, in the eloquence of the ser- 
 mon, its profound reasoning, the importance of the doctrine, and its special adap- 
 tation to the times, a new motive was furnished by the natural and earnest desire 
 which the author's friends felt for the possession of some memento of his great worth 
 and usefulness. 
 
 The memory of John A. Gretter, is precious to the heart of the Presbyterian 
 Church of North Carolina. In every relation of life, as Pastor, as Preacher, as 
 Counsellor in our Ecclesiastical Courts, and as a friend, he was honored and beloved. 
 
 By a singular coincidence in the place, the Manuscripts of the Sermon were pre- 
 sented by Mrs. Gretter to the Presbytery at Washington, November, 1858, 
 
 The following minute was unanimously adopted : 
 
 "The Committee appointed to examine a Manuscript Sermon by the late Rev. 
 John A. Gretter, on the "Power to Forgive," beg leave to report that they have 
 examined the same, and find a good deal of difficulty in reading the manuscript, but 
 have learned enough of the Sermon to conclude that it is worth the publishing, pro- 
 vided it can be done. Therefore 
 
 Resolved, That this Manuscript be placed in the hands of the Editors of the North 
 Carolina Presbyterian to be published by them in their paper, and also in pamphlet 
 form, provided they can do the author justice in so doing." 
 
 The publication has been subject to a brief delay, from the fact that the sermon 
 was not complete in any one manuscript, and the Editors found it necessary to com- 
 pare and compile from several. They have taken no liberties with the author's views 
 or phraseology, and while to them their work has been a labor of love, they send 
 forth the sermon from the Press with the prayer that its perusal may be greatly 
 blessed in comforting and confirming the hearts of the people of God. 
 
SERMON. 
 
 Matt, ix : 6, 7. — " But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth 
 to forgive sins, (then saith He to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and 
 go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house." 
 
 Among the crowd which gathered around the person of Jesus 
 of Nazareth in his journey ings in the land of his birth, the sa- 
 cred writers frequently make mention of some separated from 
 the rest by their bitterness towards him and his doctrines. These 
 men, wrapped in an overweening conceit of their peculiar devot- 
 deness to God, could not brook the thought of being eclipsed by 
 the superior lustre of another religious teacher as unpretending 
 in his manners as he was ardent in his piety, and as illustrious in 
 his deeds as he was obscure in his origin. These Pharisees, 
 the learned Doctors of the law, (for it is of these I speak) with a 
 jealous eye, watched his every motion, and stood ready to carp 
 at all he did, and wrest all he said, if possible, to his destruction. 
 Neither awed by his power, nor attracted by his wisdom, nor 
 subdued by his beneficence, each successive manifestation of his 
 more than human greatness, only goaded them on to fiercer ha- 
 tred and more shameless opposition, till at length we hear them 
 crying around the cross " if he be the Son of God let him come 
 down." Not a few of these men in pursuit of their victim had 
 assembled at Capernaum and might have been seen seated qui- 
 etly amid the despised Galileans — when a palsied man, all other 
 mode of access barred by the pressure of the crowd, w T as let 
 down by his friends from the roof of the house immediately at 
 the feet of Jesus. x This was a spectacle calculated to touch eve- 
 ry heart in the vast crowd. Much more so would it aftect the 
 compassionate Jesus. He at once said to the poor paralytic — 
 f 'Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee." Language 
 
6 
 
 like this sounded strangely in the ears of the Doctors of the law, 
 who said in their hearts, " Who is this that speaketh blasphe- 
 mies ? Who can forgive sins but God alone V And they secretly 
 charged him with blasphemy. To convince them that he actu- 
 ally possessed the power which he pretended to exercise, and 
 that their accusation was accordingly false, Jesus now spoke 
 again to the palsied man bidding him take up his bed and go to 
 his house, and the man was immediately enabled to obey the 
 command. 
 
 It may seem a little remarkable, that our Lord should have 
 noticed a charge brought against him, in this way. Though of 
 a serious nature, it was entertained only in the bosoms of some 
 of his hearers, and had he not brought it to light, it had probably 
 never been known, save to those who preferred it. Yet it is ob- 
 vious that according to the views of these men, Jesus had laid 
 himself open to such a charge. In professedly exercising the 
 authority to forgive sins he had assumed a prerogative of the 
 Godhead — being a man, he had made himself equal with God. 
 Besides, the secrecy of the accusation afforded him a fair oppor- 
 tunity of rectifying their false views relative to his true charac- 
 ter. He read their very thoughts and thus proved himself to 
 them, the great searcher of hearts and trier of the reins of the 
 children of men. And yet farther, while exposing to public gaze 
 the sentiments of these men that he might show their falsity, he 
 was at the same moment extending the hand of mercy to the 
 wretched man before him and rewarding the faith of friends so 
 clearly exhibited in their efforts to bring the object of their so- 
 licitude in reach of his healing influence. Thus our Lord in vin- 
 dicating himself from this charge gave to his hearers more ex- 
 alted views of his character, confounded his enemies by a pecu- 
 liar manifestation of his Godhead, and conferred a rich boon on 
 a poor sinner who had sought his aid. It was worthy of him 
 thus to notice it. 
 
 Again, we must not overlook the circumstance on which this 
 accusation was founded. This was the language of Jesus ad- 
 dressed to the sick man, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." The 
 expression seems to be rather ambiguous. It may mean either 
 "thy sins are forgiven," or "let thy sins be forgiven," i. e. the 
 verb may be either in the indicative or imperative mood. In 
 
the one case the phrase would be a simple declaration that his 
 sins were forgiven — so Campbell understands it, and substitutes 
 are for he in his translation. In the other it would be the effica- 
 cious word which secures forgiveness, manifesting the will of 
 him who has the power to forgive — analogous to the word which 
 said, " Let there be light and there was light." Nor does the 
 word in the original remove the ambiguity ; it is a particular 
 form of the verb which has given some difficulty to grammarians. 
 Yater says it is the perfect pass., a form unknown to the Greeks. 
 Bretschneider regard sit as an Ionic form for 2 Aor. middle, sub] . 
 
 In the former it means "thy sins are" or "have been forgiv- 
 en ;" in the latter " let them be" &c. We find, however, that 
 the Pharisees understood him as actually forgiving sins, for they 
 said in their hearts, " Why doth this man thus speak blasphe- 
 mies ? Who can forgive sins but God only ?" (Mark ii : 7.) 
 This, however, does not prove that the expression used by our 
 Lord was authoritative, but it does prove that an unconditional 
 declaration of forgiveness is, so far as the individual himself who 
 makes it is concerned, a daring invasion of the divine preroga- 
 tive, and in all respects to his case, tantamount to an authorita 
 tive forgiveness. So thought the Pharisees and our Lord en- 
 dorsed their opinion. 
 
 The course here pursued by our Lord in view of the ura- 
 bra^e taken by the Pharisees at his conduct is conclusive that 
 he was willing at any rate to be regarded as having claimed the 
 power to forgive. It follows then, in whichever way these words 
 of our Lord be rendered that an unconditional declaration of 
 2)ardon to an individual is an offence as heinous as that of claim 
 ing the full authority to forgive. Once more, we invite atten- 
 tion to the manner in which Jesus vindicated himself from the 
 accusation of the Pharisees. " But that ye may know that the 
 Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins (then saith he 
 to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed and go unto 
 thine house. And he arose and departed to his house." Than 
 this, we can conceive no surer proof of unlimited power. The 
 word which speaks, and it stands fast, is not only a word of pow- 
 er, but it is the word of the Creator. The being, between whose 
 declared will, and the effect produced, there is no intermediate 
 circumstance, and no intervening conceivable time, is the Be- 
 ing, who is girded with Omnipotence. 
 
8 
 
 He who wills and it is done ; whose fiat instantly secures the 
 result aimed at, is and must be to our conceptions the Lord God 
 Almighty. There is no more certain indication of Almightiness 
 than this. There may be brighter and more dazzling corusca- 
 tions of this glorious perfection in yon world of glory, which sin 
 has never darkened ; there may be here on earth more overpow- 
 ering exhibitions, but there are kone which can more surely cer- 
 tify us of the presence of the arm which none can resist. He 
 then who says to a paralytic, " Arise and take up thy bed and 
 go to thine house," when instantly the man in view of all around 
 arises and walks ; this one, man though he seem to be and 
 though he actually be, must at the same time be clothed with 
 the power of doing whatever he pleaseth. If this be not a man- 
 ifestation of Omnipotence, there can none be given to us : then 
 is all distinction between the Infinite and finite annihilated to 
 our view. Let us now return to the history. It is admitted on 
 all hands that Jesus on this occasion gave evidence that he had 
 power to forgive sins on earth. " Here was an ocular demonstra- 
 tion" says Dr. Campbell, " of the power with which the order was 
 accompanied, and therefore was entirely fit for serving as evi- 
 dence that the other expression he had used, "thy sins be for- 
 given thee" was not vain words, but attended with the like divine 
 energy, though from its nature, not discernible like the other by 
 its consequences. To say the one with effect, where effect was 
 visible, is a proof that the other was said also with effect, though 
 the effect itself was invisible." Again it will not be denied that 
 Jesus here also showed himself to be one with the Father, equal 
 in power and glory. If now it be farther taken into considera- 
 tion that this manifestation of divine glory so clearly evidencing 
 our Lord to be at the same time God and to have power to forgive 
 sins on earth, was given to clear himself in the eyes of the Phar- 
 isees, who had said that none can forgive sins but God only, — 
 the conclusion is almost irresistible, that Jesus meant to sanction 
 the truth of the doctrine on which these men had proceeded. In 
 other words, Jesus here showed himself to be God. For what 
 purpose ? That he might prove he had power to forgive sins on 
 earth. Was the proof sufficient? It is not denied. Was it ne- 
 cessary ? Would not an evidence short of this have answered 
 every purpose ? Was it essential to prove his Godhead to con- 
 
9 
 
 vince his hearers that he had made no false pretensions ? To this 
 we reply that is was certainly necessary, so long as the Phari- 
 sees maintained the views they then held — that none^but God 
 can forgive sins. Were they in error on this point ? The pre- 
 sumption is, they were not, otherwise Jesus would have"correct- 
 ed that error. All correct apprehensions of his character forbid 
 the belief that our Lord would have thus manifested his glory, 
 if the same end could have been reached without it, and that 
 in the exercise of this discretionary power, he declares his right- 
 eousness that he may be just, and the jusrin'er of him which be- 
 lieveth in Jesus. These are truths written so legibly and so fre- 
 quently in the glorious gospel of the Son of God, and so un- 
 speakably precious to poor sinners, that we may for the present 
 assume them as undeniable and not stop to establish them. But 
 that God r only can forgive sins — -that the power of forgiveness is. 
 not only inherent in him, but reserved entirely in his own hands, 
 is a point which some deny and we affirm. This point will- 
 form the subject of the present discussion. 
 
 However clear may be the fact that powers of the highest of- 
 fices may be and continually are delegated to others — yet it is 
 obvious that there must be a limit somewhere — there must be 
 some prerogative peculiar to the Sovereign and reserved in his- 
 own hands, which cannot be transferred — otherwise all distinc- 
 tion between the supreme and inferior power is confounded. 
 
 Lord Bacon in some excellent remarks on this subject, has 
 pointed out this limit, as it seems to us, in the clearest manner. 
 He regards the prerogative in two distinct branches. In the one 
 the King's pleasure is reserved in the Sovereign's hands to be ex- 
 ercised in each case according to his personal and private discre- 
 tion. According to this distinction it is obvious not only that 
 there is a prerogative which cannot possibly be transferred, but 
 the reason why is equally manifest. A prerogative entirely 
 controlled in every case by the private pleasure of the sovereigns 
 must from its very nature be incommunicable, because, 1st. the- 
 private pleasure of no man can become that of another, and 2nd,, 
 because if it were possible, such a transfer invests a subject with 
 a power to rule his fellow subjects according to his own pleasure,, 
 i. e. makes him most absolute sovereign. 
 
 These remarks apply with much more force and truth to- the 
 
10 
 
 Jehovah of the Scriptures, the King of kings and Lord of 
 lords — the Blessed and only Potentate — doing his will in the 
 armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. It 
 were preposterous to suppose that in a Sovereign wielding such 
 ■a sceptre, there were no powers in themselves inalienable or none 
 which a creature is totally unable to wield. Besides, a divine pre- 
 rogative in some of its branches may require for its execution, 
 the presence of some of the distinguishing attributes of the 
 Godhead, and cannot accordingly be delegated to another 
 without confounding the distinctions between the Infinite and 
 the finite — the Creator and the creature. The exercise of 
 the power may involve the presence of attributes, the transfer- 
 rence of which is the investiture of the being to whom they 
 are transferred with the distinguishing excellency of the great 
 God. And if these distinctive perfections may be bestowed on 
 another who is not God, how can the Holy One manifest him- 
 self to his creatures so as to be known from and above them all? 
 
 The possession of the divine excellency is to us the evidence 
 of his presence and agency; the manifestation of those attri- 
 butes which constitute the divine excellency must then prove 
 that the Being in whom they shone forth is God and not another. 
 Omnipotence, for example, belongs to God alone. He who can 
 do whatever he pleaseth in heaven or on earth, for whom no- 
 thing is too hard, he can be none other than the Lofty One, who 
 inhabits the praises of eternity. This is an attribute, whose pre- 
 sence defines to our faith the Being who made and upholds us, 
 and to whom we are bound to render our highest services. Again : 
 To search the heart and try the reins of men is another perfec- 
 tion of the Deity. "The heart is deceitful above all things and 
 desperately wicked : who can know it ? I the Lord, search the 
 heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his 
 ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." If then the 
 Scriptures are our rule in faith and practice, he who discerns the 
 thoughts and intents of my heart is Jehovah, and as often as 
 he does this, he calls me to own and acknowledge him as the 
 only true God. These and others which might be mentioned are, 
 what have been called by an old divine, so many royalties of the 
 divine nature — such as no creature can share in. He who is 
 clothed with these is He, whom we need no': fear to worship as 
 
1.1 
 
 the Lord God. Though to the eye he may seem to be man, yet 
 if he is girded with Omnipotence, infinite in knowledge &c, 
 he is our Immanuel, God in the flesh. Such indeed was Je- 
 sus of Nazareth. He was a man in outward appearance. 
 He was encompassed with all the infirmities of our nature. 
 And when he claimed to be God, the thought seemed al- 
 most incredible. Strange indeed was it that one like our- 
 selves shouM claim to be the God who made us. Yet he 
 proved himself to be all he claimed to be — he showed his fear- 
 less majesty in the displays of the distinguishing perfections 
 of the Godhead he put foith. Thus we know hiin to be our God 
 and Saviour. The indwelling of the divine excellency leaves 
 no doubt on this point. "The word was made flesh and dwelt 
 among us" says John, "and we beheld his glory, as the glory of 
 the only begotten Son of God." We see then that a divine pre- 
 rogative may be limited in reference to its exercise by any other, 
 both from its nature and its requiring in its execution the pre- 
 sence of such attributes as cannot be committed without break- 
 ing down the enclosure which separates the Great Tam from the 
 creatures of his hands. And the question we now wish to settle 
 is whether the power to forgive sins is such a prerogative. 
 
 In order to reach a satisfactory answer to this inquiry, let us 
 for a few moments consider what we are to understand by the 
 forgivness of sins. This will prepare the way for our entrance 
 on another enquiry : what is implied in the power to forgive ? 
 from which it will be comparatively easy to return a categorical 
 reply to our main question. 
 
 1. "What is forgiveness of sins? 
 
 " Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the 
 law of God." It accordingly implies a moral agent, a law, and 
 a lawgiver. It may therefore be regarded in these three differ- 
 ent relations, in each of which it presents a different and import- 
 ant aspect. Considered simply in reference to the agent, the 
 sins of an individual are nothing more than his thoughts, feel- 
 ings, words, and deeds, and form but just so many items or facts 
 in the records of his history, or to use the language of Scripture 
 in " the Book of God's remembrance." Here they are " written 
 with a pen of iron and with the point of a diamond" — here they 
 must ever preserve their place, and are of course imperishable 
 and indestructible. In relation to the law, the standard of right 
 
12 
 
 and wrong, sin is a deflection from the mark it sets up, a devia- 
 tion from the path it defines. This constitutes its sinfulness and 
 gives rise to its ill desert. The law of God being holy and just 
 and good, every violation of its injunctions or departure from 
 its requisitions must be evil in itself, and attach moral turpitude 
 to him who is chargeable with such violation. This law being 
 further inflexible and immutable in its demands, this feature must 
 be an inseparable adjunct of sin. The sinner then deserves to 
 perish, aud will forever deserve to perish, if dealt with accord- 
 ing to his personal deserts. Again, the Lawgiver, being the vin- 
 dicator and guardian of law, and the law binding to obedience 
 and in default thereof to punishment, there arises another im- 
 portant aspect of sin, as laying the individual chargeable with it, 
 under obligations to suffer at the hands of the Lawgiver. In 
 this aspect sin is a debt of suffering which the sinner owes God, 
 as the avenger of the claims of his law. So our Lord has taught 
 us to regard it in the prayer he has given us as the model to 
 which our petitions should be conformed. "Forgive us our 
 debts, as we forgive our debtors." This debt, however, is sim- 
 ply a legal claim, and if that claim can be otherwise satisfied 
 than by the personal suffering of the sinner, it is obvious that 
 this obligation will no more remain. This obligation to suffer- 
 ing arising out of sin, called in technical language guilt, is a 
 feature, though not inseparable from it. 
 
 Thus we see there are three views of sin distinguishable and 
 distinct from each other, viz : the act, its sinfulness and its guilt, 
 or the liability to suffer which it induces in the agent, and of 
 these only one can be separated from it. But as we are anxious 
 to be fully understood, we will illustrate what has been said by 
 an example taken from human law. We will suppose that a 
 man having killed another, is arraigned on the charge of mur- 
 der. The first inquiry will be into the fact. Did he commit 
 the act? Did he kill the individual supposed? This is a pre- 
 liminary step which cannot be dispensed with, and brings the 
 crime before the view of all concerned, simply as a deed or act 
 on his part. This, however, being settled and the deed proved 
 to have been committed by him, it does not necessarily folio v 
 that he is a murderer, or in other words that he is criminal. 
 This point requires a separate investigation and is to be decided 
 
n 
 
 by the voice of the law. He is to be brought, as it were, along 
 side the law and viewed in the light which it sheds upon him. 
 If then, though a competent number of witnesses shall have de- 
 clared that he committed the act, it shall be seen that he did it 
 in self-defence or accidentally, the law attaches no criminality to 
 the deed, and the man is declared innocent, he has not violated 
 the law. Supposing however, he has killed his neighbor with 
 malice aforethought, and thus in the eye of the law, deserves to 
 suffer, there is yet another step to be taken. Sentence must be 
 pronounced by him, who appears as the guardian and upholder of 
 the law. This sentence is but the authoritative voice of the law 
 fastening on the head of the criminal the obligation of punish- 
 ment. He is liable to death. But this liability to suffer — a le- 
 gal obligation to punishment — may be removed by the interposi- 
 tion of the executive or monarch. In the exercise of his su- 
 preme power, he may put forth his arm between the law and 
 the head of the criminal and set aside this obligation. The man 
 then, though he killed his neighbor, and in so doing violated the 
 law and was exposed to punishment, goes unpunished. JSTo one 
 can molest him. In this process we see three different steps — 
 each one bringing the crime into different relations and conse- 
 quently presenting it in different aspects as a deed, its crimi- 
 nality and the obligation to punishment. The first two are 
 necessary to constitute it a crime, and in this light cannot 
 be separated from it — the last may or may not abide in con- 
 nection with it even as a crime. Who can doubt that the mat- 
 ter of Uriah the Hittiteis truly as blameworthy, as base now, 
 as it was when Israel's king under the lashes of an awakened 
 conscience cried out in anguish, " Deliver me, O God from blood 
 guiltiness?" Who doubts that it will be as true, and as vile in 
 all the rolling ages of eternity, and that David will never be able 
 to stand before the throne of God on the ground of his personal 
 deserts ? Yet David's blood guiltiness has been removed and 
 Uriah's murderer lives — he lives in triumph and glory. 
 
 Let this illustration suffice to show, that there is one and only 
 one element of sin, which is capable of being separated from it, 
 and this is its guilt. This, we think, must appear obvious to all 
 on reflection. In reference to sins which are registered among 
 •the deeds which are past, no one «an suppose that they shall 
 
14 
 
 ever be blotted out. They must forever abide in the presence* 
 of Him, with whom there is no past. Nor can we for a moment 
 believe that their sinfulness will be separated from them, for this 
 is an essential element of their nature as sins. Take the sinful- 
 ness out and they are no more sins. Unless then the lapse of 
 ages shall make that which was once sinful no longer so — or 
 unless the Law of God shall be changed — then this element must 
 abide. There remains then as we have seen only the obligation 
 to suffer which sin fastens on the agent, which can be removed. 
 The taking this obligation to punishment off from the head of 
 the sinner, or the removal of his guilt, in consequence of which 
 under the government of God, no punishment, though deserved, 
 will or can follow, is what we mean by the forgiveness of sins. 
 This essential view of forgiveness is too frequently presented in 
 the Scriptures to escape the notice of any who read them under- 
 standingly. Certainly no idea was more familiar to the Jew& 
 than that of the transference of his obligation to suffer in con- 
 sequence of sin, to the head of a victim, which because of this 
 transference suffered in his place. When he brought his victim 
 to the altar, he was required to lay his hands on its head and 
 confess his sins, then having slain the victim — the animal suf- 
 fered in his place — he went away guiltless. Atonement was 
 made for him, his sin was forgiveu. These victims prefigured 
 " the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,' 7 
 and according to the peculiar polity of the Jews, according to 
 which every offence incurred the penalty of death, were accepted 
 as substitutes in the place of the offenders. The idea however 
 of cancelling guilt was prominent in their minds in all aspects. 
 Laying the hands on the head of the animal, confessing sins and 
 then, slaying the victim, were all significant of a passing over .of 
 something on the part of the offender from him to an innocent 
 creature, in consequence of which that creature must die. That 
 something which is thus transferred, is that which renders it 
 proper in the eye ot the law, that the innocent should suffer 
 which is guilt. This being put on the head of another, we see 
 at once why it should die according to law. Now according to 
 the method of salvation revealed in the Scriptures, this obliga- 
 tion to suffering is not removed from the sinner by a sovereign 
 act setting aside the claims of the law — but by a judicial act 
 
13 
 
 Upholding its utmost rigors by declaring it to be fully satisfied 
 in his case. This is the peculiarity of the scheme of redemption. 
 This is its exceeding glory. The sinner is not simply pardoned, 
 he is justified — pronounced to be just in the eye of the law. 
 The law is not disregarded, but its honor vindicated and magni- 
 fied. AH its claims are acknowledged and satisfied, and there- 
 fore no more rest on the sinner. And the Lawgiver himself 
 stands forth to view as the just, yet the justifier of the ungodly. 
 All this however presupposes a sufficient satisfaction made to the 
 law for sinners, which in each case of forgiveness is reckoned to 
 the individual. In consequence of this imputation of a righte- 
 ousness to him, the sinner himself becomes righteous and there 
 is no more condemnation to him. His sins are covered and can 
 no more rise up against him. God has bestowed upon him the 
 righteousness of his Sou and the gift of faith whereby he has re- 
 ceived this righteousness. " Blessed is he," says David, " whose 
 trangression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the 
 man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose 
 spirit there is no guile.*' Paul tells us that David is here de- 
 scribing the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth right- 
 eousness without works. Thus we are taught that transgression 
 when forgiven is covered and no more imputed — and it is cover- 
 ed by a righteousness without works on the part of the sinner, 
 a righteousness which God imputes to him. It is important 
 here to observe that in this procedure God has done two things 
 for the pardoned sinner. He has officially declared him to be 
 righteous and free from all demands of the law. He has also 
 reckoned to him a righteousness which is not his own by works 
 but which lias become bis through the faith of Jesus. In the 
 one of these God has proceeded on his own previous act, i. e. in 
 pronouncing the sinner just — he has done so because of the pre- 
 vious imputation to him of the righteousness set forth in the 
 Gospel — the full satisfaction made to the law in the person of 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 Such we believe to be the scriptural view of forgiveness. Let 
 us now attentively consider it for a few moments — that we may 
 discern the nature of the act itself. I observe then, 
 
 1. Forgiveness is an act of supremacy. As has been already 
 mentioned, there are in each act of forgiveness two acts implied; 
 
16 
 
 separate from each other, because in each God' appears in a dif~- 
 ferent capacity, yet both concurring, and necessary to the same 
 result. In the one, God shows himself the judge giving utter- 
 ance to the declaration of the law ; in the other, he proceeds 
 as a sovereign conferring the most precious gift on an undeserv- 
 ing wretch. But for this gift instead of justifying the sinner, 
 the judge would have demanded the awful sentence of the law 
 — everlasting death as abiding upon him. Thus by an act in his 
 sovereign capacity, he reverses what he would have done in the 
 other. He turns the sentence of the law away from the poor 
 wretch and fastens its claims upon another. This is most clearly 
 the exercise of a prerogative above law. For why does not the law 
 still maintain its claims, and demand the punishment of the sin- 
 ner? He has violated its precepts. He has incurred its penal- 
 ty. Its condemnatory voice was lifted up against him, and con- 
 science echoed back that voice. But suddenly all is changed ; 
 there is now no more condemnation. The Judge whose duty it 
 is to vindicate the law and enforce its sanctions, pronounces sen- 
 tence of acquittal and acceptance. Why is this ? Because of 
 an act which has not set aside the claims of the law, but has 
 fixed them on another, in whom they were all satisfied. This 
 then, though not against law, nor regardless of law, is plainly 
 an act above law. It is the highest act of government. We 
 can conceive of no higher stretch of dominion ; it is an act of 
 supremacy. 
 
 "The law binds first to obedience and in neglect of it to pun- 
 ishment. Not only the lusts that break forth are evidence of, but 
 inward inclinations contrary to the law are, sin. From hence re- 
 sults a guilt upon every sinner, which includes the imputation 
 of the fault and obligation to punishment. 
 
 The forgiveness of sins contains the obligation of their guilt 
 and freedom from the deserved destruction consequent to it. This 
 is expressed by various terms in Scripture. The ' not imputing 
 sin' is borrowed from the accounts of servants with their masters, 
 and implies the account we are obliged to render the supreme 
 Lord for all his benefits which we have so wretchedly misim- 
 proved ; he might righteously exact of us ten thousand talents 
 aB due to him, but he is graciously pleased to cross the book 
 and freely to discharge us. ' The purging from sin' implies it is 
 
17 
 
 very odious and offensive in God's eyes, and has a special re- 
 spect to the expiatory sacrifices,of which it is said, that " with- 
 out blood there was no remission." 
 
 It is the high prerogative of God to pardon sin. His author- 
 ity made the law, and gives life and vigor to it, therefore he can 
 remit the punishment of the offender. 
 
 This royal supremacy is more conspicuous in the exercise of 
 mercy towards repenting sinners, than in the acts of justice up- 
 on obstinate offenders. As a king is more a king by pardoning 
 humble suppliants by the operation of his sceptre, than in sub- 
 duing rebels by the power of the sword, for in acts of grace he 
 is above the law, and overrules its rigor, in acts of vengeance, he 
 is only superior to his enemies * * * It is the peculiar prerogative 
 of God to pardon sin, for it is 1 an act of empire. The judicial 
 power to pardon is a flower inseparable from the crown, for it 
 is founded in a superiority to the law, therefore inconsistent with 
 any depending authority. The power to pardon is an efflux of 
 supremacy and incommunicable to the subject. A prince that 
 invests another with absolute power to pardon, must either re- 
 linquish his sovereignty, or take an associate to share it. It is 
 not presumable that the wise God should invest men with that 
 authority which they are utterly incapable of exercising. 
 
 Grace is exclusive of all merit and dignity in the subject, and 
 of all obligation in the person that shows it. 
 
 Repentance in order of nature is before pardon, but they are 
 inseparably joined in the same point of time. David in Psalm 
 xxxii is an instance. 
 
 The repenting sinner who is under the strong conviction of 
 his guilt, and his being always obnoxious to the judgment of 
 God and eternal misery, the consequences of it, values the 
 favor of God as the most sovereign good, and accounts his dis- 
 pleasure as the supreme evil. Repentance inspires flaming af- 
 fections, in our prayers and praises for pardon. The sinner is ob- 
 liged to suffer the punishment of his evil deeds in his own person,, 
 therefore it is clear, that the punishment cannot be transferred to- 
 another without the allowance of the sovereign, who is the patron, 
 of the rights of justice. There is a judicial exchange of persons- 
 between Christ and believers, their guilt is transferred to him 
 and his righteousness is imputed to them." — Bates, 
 
IS 
 
 2. Each act of forgiveness is a discretionary act of supremacy. 
 " God is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in 
 
 "mercy," yet, though forgiveness flows from his gracious nature it 
 •does not follow that he will pardon every one. For he saith to 
 Moses, " I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious and will 
 show mercy on whom I will show mercy." So Paul — " 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 ac- 
 cepted in the Beloved." Ep. i : 5, 6. There is, in each case, as it 
 arises, a special interposition of his will. He is at liberty to 
 exercise his grace or not, as seems good in his sight. He chooses the 
 subjects towards whom he extends the sceptre of mercy. Besides, 
 since pardon must be bestowed a£ the discretion of some one or 
 more, being an act above law, we ask at whose discretion can it 
 safely lie ? The majesty of the law — the glory of the Most High 
 and the stability of the government, working the happiness of 
 countless multitudes, are all concerned in its exercise. Who 
 but Jehovah is sufficient for these things ? Whose will would 
 here afford any guaranty against sudden and sure destruction ? 
 If there be a prerogative which from its nature must inhere in 
 the sovereign, surely this must be that prerogative. True, he has 
 promised forgiveness to every believing sinner, and herein he 
 has relaxed his severity. But he has done so, only to magnify 
 his sovereignty, for the promise to which he has bound himself 
 is the gift of his grace. " For ye are saved by grace, and that 
 not of yourselves. It is the gift of God." " The wages of sin is 
 death." Thus he still exercises his pleasure, and at his discre- 
 tion alone is pardon bestowed. 
 
 3, Forgiveness is the most amiable act of supremacy. 
 
 The pardon of sin is beyond all doubt the most precious boon 
 that can be bestowed on a sinner. It rolls back the sentence of 
 the law, lifts off from his soul the overwhelming burden ot guilt 
 and lights up his pathway with joy and peace unutterable. It 
 dissipates the sorrows of death and mitigates the pains of hell, 
 and in their place fills the mouth with the song of praise, is o 
 blessedness like this to a sinner — compared with it, his creation 
 may be forgotten, for without it, that creation were a curse. — 
 When then the sovereign dispenses it, he presents himself to the 
 
19 
 
 view of his subjects in the most endearing light. Touched with 
 pity for the misery of his sinful creature, and unwilling that he 
 should perish — he stretches out to the sinner at his feet his scep- 
 tre of mercy and bids him live — live forever. What can more 
 endear him to his fallen creature? Can such a display fail to 
 touch the springs of any generous bosom? Will not the sinner 
 be bound to him by the strongest ties? Can he ever forget it, 
 that he sought and found pardon ? Will he not forget the hand 
 that created him in his own glory, in love and admiration of the 
 hand that pardoned him ? — Who can doubt it ? 
 
 4. Forgiveness in each act necessarily implies the exercise of 
 Omniscience. 
 
 The penalty of the law varies both in kind and degree, in pro- 
 portion to the heinousness as well as the number of the sins 
 committed. " And that servant that knew his Lord's will, and 
 prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be 
 beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did com- 
 mit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few T stripes. 
 For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be re- 
 quired, and to whom men have committed much, of him they 
 will ask the more." 
 
 In order then to the adjustment of the penalty to the offence, 
 it is necessary to estimate properly the heinousness as well as 
 know precisely the number of transgressions. Again, the hei- 
 nousness of sin is affected by all the circumstances attendant 
 on it, among which not the least important is the state of the 
 sinner's mind. To estimate it, accordingly, requires a thorough 
 acquaintance with all their transgressions, especially with the 
 heart of the individual. 
 
 Now since forgiveness is the entire removal of all guilt or 
 legal liability to punishment, and punishment is proportion- 
 ed to the number and nature and aggravation of sins, its 
 exercise presupposes and demands a perfect knowledge in this 
 respect. He who dispenses it, must in an especial manner, 
 be able to fathom the heart, to know the thoughts and feel- 
 ings and purposes of the sinner's mind — to give the three 
 their relative place and weight among all the other aggravating 
 or modifying circumstances, which go to make up the aggregate 
 of his guilt. Indeed, he must search the heart and try the reins 
 
20 
 
 of the children of men. It* he does not possess all this know- 
 ledge, he may fail to set aside the claims of the law in their 
 full extent, which remaining still on the head of the sinner, must 
 bring him to punishment, i. e. he is not forgiven. 
 
 But the scriptures explicitly assert that this kind of knowledge 
 belongs to the Omniscient one alone. God claims it as his sole 
 prerogative to search the hearts, so as to intimate guilt and to 
 apportion to each one the punishment due to his sins. Hear his 
 own language — " The heart is deceitful above all things, and des- 
 perately wicke:!, who can know it ? 
 
 " I the Lord, search the hearts, I try the reins, even to give 
 every man according to his ways and according to the fruit ot 
 his doings." 
 
 The same knowledge is claimed by Jesus as the Eternal Son 
 of God, "and all the churches shall know that I am he which 
 searcheth the reins and hearts ; and I will give unto every one 
 of you according to his works." 
 
 It follows therefore that the exercise of forgiveness must al- 
 ways be attended with that of Omniscience. 
 
 5. Forgiveness in each act also implies the exercise of Om- 
 nipotence. 
 
 The pardon of sin, which in itself simply denotes a change of 
 relation, is in the plan of salvation revealed in the Gospel insepa- 
 rably connected with a radical change of character. He, whose 
 sins are forgiven is a believer — " To him, i. e., Jesus, gave all 
 the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believ- 
 eth on him, shall receive remission of sins." 
 
 Besides, forgiveness is always associated in the Scriptures with 
 repentance. Thus our Lord told his disciples, "That repent- 
 ance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, be- 
 ginning at Jerusalem." This we imagine will not be questioned 
 for a moment. And if so, it follows that the forgiveness of sins 
 must be associated with the exercise of the power to give faith 
 and repentance. So in fact, Peter represented it to the Jewish 
 council, when, speaking of Jesus, he said, " Him hath God ex- 
 alted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour for to 
 give repentance to Israel and the remission of sins." 
 
 And without this power it is obvious that the power of for- 
 giviness would be a nullity. 
 
21 
 
 But repentance and faith are the points of that change in the 
 heart which the Scriptures denote by the terms creation, resur- 
 rection, a new birth, the taking away of the heart of stone and 
 giving a heart of flesh. Such terms, if they have any meaning, 
 must denote such an exertion of power in producing this change, 
 as is implied necessarily in bringing all things at first out of no- 
 thing, or in raising the dead or in infusing life into an inanimate 
 mass. And who can doubt that these are in our view among the 
 most unequivocal acts of Omnipotence ? "Who doubts that the 
 power which creates, which calls the dead from the deep slum- 
 ber of the tomb, which brings on the stage of life thousands 
 who before existed not, is the putting forth of the Almighty 
 arm ? All this is necessary to convey the precious boon of 
 forgiveness to sinners, and hence the act of forgiveness must be 
 associated with Omnipotence, or it is nothing worth. 
 
 II. THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS. 
 
 From this view of the act of forgiveness, it is not difficult to 
 discern the nature of the forgiving power. This is the source 
 whence these acts proceed. Each act of forgiveness is but an 
 exercise — an efrlux of the power to forgive. The act3 of forgive- 
 ness are the streams — the power to forgive is the fountain — and 
 from the streams we may go up to the fountain. 
 
 If then, these acts, as we have seen, are acts of supremacy — 
 and special discretionary acts of supremacy, and the most amia- 
 ble acts of supremacy — if, moreover, these acts involve the ex- 
 ercise, both of omniscience and omnipotence, then is it manifest 
 that the power of which they are but the mere exercises, must 
 not only be a branch of the supreme power — but of that supreme 
 power in its most distinctive aspect : God as invested with it, en- 
 robes himself in the vestments of his high sovereignty, and 
 cumes forth to the view of all his creatures in the most awful 
 and imposing manner — putting his hand on the head of a poor 
 sinner, turning aside from his head the just sentence of his holy 
 law, and sending him forth big with hope on the pathway of life 
 and glory and immortality. Never is he so much an Almighty 
 Sovereign, shining forth in his peerless majesty to our view, as at 
 such a moment and in such an act. Never does he tower so far 
 above all the creatures of his hands, and leave at such an im- 
 
22 
 
 measurable distance below him, Gabriel, Michael, and all the 
 lofty ones who burn and shine around his eternal throne — as 
 when he says to the poor condemned ruined sinner, " Thy sins 
 are forgiven thee, arise and go in peace. 1 ' Then His authority 
 rises above the law, and then is he seen holding in his hands the 
 eternal destiny of the fallen children of Adam. 
 
 And such being the nature of this power, how can we avoid 
 the conclusion that He only can forgive sins — that he reserves it 
 entirely in his own hands — that he will not, that he cannot in- 
 trust it to any creature. If there be a power inseparable from 
 his Godhead — one in which, more than in any other, he ap 
 pears to us as the blessed and only Potentate — the Independent 
 Sovereign, wielding the eternal destiny of his creatures — it must 
 be this. If the exercise of this power — which is an exercise of 
 sovereignty, involving both Omniscience and Omnipotence, does 
 not define the Eternal I Am to our view — then may we utterly 
 despair of ever being able to distinguish him from his creatures, 
 and live in constant dread of rendering to a finite being that 
 homage which is due to the Infinite One, and consequently, of 
 incurring his heaviest displeasure. But no, this cannot be. To 
 forgive, is the prerogative of Jehovah — a right which he enjoys 
 alone — a right belonging to Him in contradistinction to those 
 which belong to his creatures. " I, even I, am He that blotteth 
 out thy transgressions for my name sake." 
 
 This is the flower of his crown — will he pluck it out and give 
 it to another ? It is his crown itself — will he take it off and put 
 it on another's head? Pharaoh said to Joseph, "Thou shak be 
 over my house, according unto thy word shall all my people be 
 ruled ; only in the throne will I be greater than thou." But to 
 bestow the power of forgiving sins on a creature, would be to 
 do more than Pharaoh did to Joseph. It would be to put the 
 crown on his head, and make him greater in the throne than Je- 
 hovah. It would be to reserve no greater power to himself. — 
 And will God give his glory to another ? Besides, should he be 
 willing to give his crown to another — what head could wear it? 
 Could Gabriel ? " Could he read the heart and try the reins ?" 
 Could he new create the soul ? Could he dispose of seats in glo- 
 ry ? ~No ! beneath such a load, he would bow down — sink — be 
 crushed, aye, annihilated. The sceptre then, which extends mer- 
 
23 
 
 cy to the sinner, in the forgiveness of his sins, is the sceptre to 
 which all heaven bows, and at which all hell quakes. We need 
 not fear to fall down before Him who stretches it out to us, and 
 worship Him as the Lord God Almighty, which liveth and reign- 
 eth forever. 
 
 A. EXAMINATIONS OF THE PRETENTIONS TO THIS POWER. 
 
 We think we have established our point, and shown the pow- 
 er under consideration to be in its very nature to be inalienable. 
 It now only remains that we make a practical application of the 
 principles involved in the foregoing discussion, by making use 
 of them to examine the pretensions which have been put forth 
 to the possession and exercise of this power. These pretentions, 
 must in order to any appearance of validity, be based on the 
 assumption that this power is delegated, or, that the power still 
 residing in God, is exercised through or in connexion with the 
 agency of certain individuals. The former is the ground on 
 which the church of Rome rests her bold claims, and shuts the 
 kingdom of heaven against all who will not bow to her dictats. 
 The other is that preferred by high churchmen, who, fearful of 
 proceeding all the length of the Mother of abominations, are 
 yet desirous of retaining in their creed this dogma as far as pos- 
 sible, in order to impart dignity and importance to the ministry. 
 Let us, then, examine the views of both parties, and see how far 
 they are sustained in them by Scripture and reason. 
 
 i. Is this power ever delegated to any finite being ? 
 
 This question, it would seem, might easily be answered from a 
 right view of the nature of the power. This has been the burden 
 of all our preceding discussion. We have seen that it is accord- 
 ing to Bacon's distinction, a branch of that absolute prerogative 
 which resides in the Godhead, according to his private will and 
 judgment. We have seen, further, that its effect in every case, 
 necessarily implies the presence of Omnipotence and Omnis- 
 cience. On both these grounds, we have declared it to be in- 
 communicable — incapable of being transferred to any mere crea- 
 ture, and therefore is not delegated to any such, because it can- 
 not be. But let us suppose for a moment that such a thing were 
 possible, what would be the necessary result? Would not that 
 being become ipso facto supreme? Supreme power delegated, 
 
24 
 
 renders him to whom it is delegated, supreme. 1 ' Omniscience 
 delegated, if such^a thing be conceivable, invests the individual 
 with a power to know all things. Delegated omnipotence is 
 omnipotence still. And can such powers reside in a creature ? 
 Is not the Supreme one God over all, blessed forever? Does 
 not the exercise of omniscience and omnipotence, flowing from 
 a power resident in Him mark out the High and Holy One, 
 whom all are bound to adore. If not, how shall he ever claim 
 our allegiance in any manifestation he may or can make of him- 
 self. The absurdity of this conclusion shows the falsity of ohe 
 supposition. 
 
 But we will here be confronted by the passage in John xx : 23, 
 in which this power is expressly said to be bestowed on the 
 Apostles. This text will come more fully under consideration in 
 a subsequent part of this discourse. For the present, it may suf- 
 fice to say, that while we admit such to be its most obvious 
 meaning, yet an interpretation so much at variance with the 
 views every where advanced in the Scriptures, and so inconsist- 
 ent with right reason, cannot be sustained unless it can be shown 
 to be the only one of which the passage is susceptible. And 
 that this language may be otherwise understood, is evident from 
 the fact that a great multitude of pious and learned men have so 
 understood it. 
 
 II. IS THIS POWER EXERCISED THROUGH HUMAN AGENCY ? 
 
 This view seems, at first, to be free from all the objections 
 arising from the nature ol the power as inalienable, admitting 
 that God only can forgive sins, and claiming simply that he ex- 
 ercises it in connexion with human instrumentality — while there- 
 fore it apparently shields its advocates from the danger and guilt 
 involved in those daring pretentions, it leaves them certainly in 
 the same condition to all practical purposes ; for so long as par- 
 don can come only through the ministry, our souls are in their 
 hands. This point, accordingly, demands a careful examination. 
 And the more so, too, because this view, it is contended, is sup- 
 ported by many examples in the Old and Xew Testament. Thus, 
 we read that Moses laid his hands on Joshua, and the. spirit of 
 wisdom came down on him. But it should be noticed that Mo- 
 ses acted in accordance with a special revelation of God's will 
 
25 
 
 "And the Lord said unto Moses, take thee Joshua, the son of 
 Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay thine hands on him. 
 And thou shalt put some of thine honor on him. that all the 
 congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient." — 
 Again Annanias was sent to Saul in Damascus, that lie might 
 receive his sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. But An- 
 nanias, too, acted in obedience to a special disclosure of God's 
 will made to him, and this fact he declared to Saul at the 
 time, and so in all similar cases. Now, this special revela- 
 tion we regard as essentially necessary. For iiow otherwise 
 would it be possible for the ministry to know when and where, 
 and towards whom, God would be pleased to put forth his par- 
 doning mercy ? Or how would the individual to whom the min- 
 ister was sent know that his sins were forgiven? The only 
 ground of assurance would be the word of a man, a ground ut- 
 terly insufficient, unless he proved himself to be a messenger 
 from God. A revelation from God would be all that was re- 
 quisite, but it is indispensable. Each case, as it arises, would de- 
 mand a special disclosure, and thus the minister would need to 
 receive constantly, new revelations of the mind of God. But, so 
 far as we know, this special privilege is not claimed by those 
 with whom we are now at issue. They make no pretensions to 
 new light from above, or to plenary inspiration. They are ac- 
 cordingly constrained to abandon this position, if they are ready 
 to submit to sound argument. 
 
 But, perhaps, we may be told that there is no need of a spe- 
 cial revelation, a general one is all that is sufficient ; and that is 
 given us in the sure word of God, which liveth and abideth for- 
 ever. If this can be shown, we are ready to submit without any 
 further debate. Before, however, proceeding to examine the 
 Scripture passages supposed to maintain their views, let us inquire 
 what is meant by this general revelation, or by a general revelation 
 authorising the belief that God exercises this power through or in 
 connexion with a specified human agency. If this were so, then 
 God, otherwise at liberty to pardon whom he pleases, binds himself 
 to exercise his prerogative only through a certain mediation ; of 
 course he is no longer free to exercise his pleasure in each case. 
 Pardon is no more according to his private will and judgment. 
 The will of man becomes essentially necessary, and thus his 
 declaration to Moses no longer remains true : " I will be gra- 
 
cions to whom I will bo gracious, and will show mercy on whom 
 I will show mercy, 1 ' Ex. xxxiii, 19 ; because God has bound him- 
 self to exercise his will in every case in which these, his ap- 
 pointed instruments, are pleased to exercise theirs. It is not, 
 then, according to God's good pleasure, but according to that of 
 the ministry. Their discretion regulates the course of procedure. 
 And is not this to all practical purposes, an assumption of this 
 power? Is there not a delegation of it to the ministry? And, 
 accordingly, does not this opinion lie open to all the objections 
 we have raised against the first opinion \ Most assuredly it does, 
 in our judgment, and we can see in this belief, nothing more 
 than an attempt to escape these objections in theory while they 
 still retain all their force in practice. We regard, then, such a 
 binding himself up, in the exercise of this prerogative, as utter- 
 ly inconsistent with its nature, and impossible in the nature of 
 the case. But our opponents here say all this reasoning is set 
 aside by the plain declarations of Scripture, such passages as 
 John xx : 23 : " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted 
 unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."* 
 
 * " The Holy Catholic Church hath in all ages, referred to this passage as a com- 
 rnission to the most important spiritual functions. It was ever understood to mean 
 what its language literally imports. It is the explicit sense of our church that the 
 power of remission and retention is as permanent as the ministry, and is an essential 
 prerogative of the sacerdotal office. Wherever remission of sins is spoken of, we 
 attach but one idea to the expression. — Br. Curtis' Sermon, pp. o, 6. 
 
 Nature of the povjer to forgive as thus bestowed on the Ministry. 
 
 This is not an independent or intrinsic power, * * * *. Such power belongs 
 to God alone. It must, therefore, be a ministerial or instrumental power. Godhav^ 
 ing appointed an order of men in the world to accomplish his gracious purposes of 
 mercy to mankind, makes them his agents in conferring the blessings which he has 
 5n store for them. lie has entrusted to them certain powers, whose proper exercise he 
 has engaged to ratify. 
 
 The embassador of an earthly monarch, in treating with revolted subjects, may be 
 invested with the power of settling the conditions of reconciliation, as well as of 
 promising to all who will submit to them. Although the original source of pardon and 
 its final ratification are with the sovereign, yet, if his agent or minister has kept by 
 the articles furnished him, he has so far, acted in place of his sovereign, who wil} 
 ratify and confirm the acts of his minister, as much as if done by himself. * * * 
 Through the ministry as the agent and instrument, are conferred all these benefits 
 which are implied in the ordinances. These, when rightly administered, and duly 
 received, are as effective of their purpose, as if administered by the independent or 
 supreme power. * * * * (This is all pretty well ; our friend has his eyes open 
 while speaking directly on the nature of this power, but as v;c shall sec, he Waxes 
 bolder and bolder as he proceeds.) 
 
27 
 
 Matthew xviii, 18 : "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye 
 shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever 
 ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." Matt. xvi, 
 19: "And I will give unto thee (i. e. Peter) 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." 
 
 Before proceeding to the consideration of these passages, it 
 may be well to remember the purpose for which they are intro- 
 duced by our opponents — not to prove that this power is dele- 
 gated to the ministry — this is repudiated ; but to show that God 
 limits his own exercise of it by the discretion of a regularly au- 
 thorized ministry. This is all we have to do with this. Our 
 business is simply to show that they cannot be brought forward 
 to substantiate such a view. 
 
 It is contended that these three passages contain the same 
 idea, which is most clearly, because literally, expressed by John, 
 and therefore are to be interpreted by it. If so, i. e., if we are 
 to take the language of John in its most obvious and literal 
 sense, then it explicitly teaches that the Apostles were endowed 
 with the plenary power of forgiveness at discretion. 
 
 Now this, in the eyes of our opponents is very different from 
 the idea that God made use of them and now makes use of the 
 Christian ministry as a special mediation through which he dis- 
 penses pardon. And it will not do to meet all the formidable 
 objections which are raised to the grant of any such power to 
 
 * * * And hence, it maybe urged, of what special and positive value is a min- 
 istry if its service be only of incidental benefit, such as not ensues from the sober ac- 
 tion of any man whatever, and not of an appointed and certain efficacy ; one to which 
 mankind, encouraged and fortified by the promises of God, can confidently resort as 
 the divinely authorised agent for dispensing grace to the soul. (The power for 
 which Dr. C. contends then, whatever may be its nature, must be such as to engender 
 in an intelligent mind the conviction, that the ministers in whom it resides, or through 
 whom it flows, are so authorised to dispense pardon, that their declaration is an infalli- 
 ble ground of assurance of pardon.) If the ministry be an appointed office, it must 
 have an authority and efficiency, which does not belong to those who are not invest- 
 ed with it. This authority, though delegated, is competent to all the purposes for 
 which it was bestowed, and when actually given, is as efficient to its end as though it 
 were original and independent. A true authority implies either an inherent or ac- 
 companying power, which is competent to all the purposes for which it is held. 
 And, although a delegated authority implies a derived and limited power, yet that 
 power is in its effects precisely the same as if original or exercised by the supreme 
 — Dr. Curtis' Sermon, p. 0, 11, 12. 
 
28 
 
 the ministry, by saying that all that is meant is, that God makes 
 use of them as the appointed channel through which he himself 
 •conveys pardon, and then appeal to these passages in proof of 
 the doctrine as thus explained. Their literal import is that the 
 apostles were impowered to forgive sins at their discretion — and 
 only in proof of such a pretence can they in their literal view 
 he fairly urged. They may thus be quoted by the advocates of 
 the claims of the Eomish church, and are thus often appealed to 
 in defence of their claims — but none who are not prepared to go 
 all the length of these followers of the Man of sin have any 
 l ight to appeal to them. Our reply to them has already been 
 given. But those with whom we are at issue now disclaim such 
 views. These contend merely that the ministry are the agents or 
 instruments through whom the benefit of forgiveness is bestow- 
 ed. Such is not the literal import of the passages above cited, 
 which are consequently of no avail to establish these views. 
 
 AYe remark further, that whatever may be the power here 
 granted, it cannot be proven to have been granted to the apos- 
 tles exclusively. It is clear from John that the occasion on which 
 these words were spoken was on the evening of our Lord's re- 
 surrection — when the disciples were gathered together in Jeru- 
 salem with closed doors for fear of the Jews. John tells us that 
 the disciples were present and were the persons addressed, "Then 
 were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord. Then said 
 Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you : as my father hath sent 
 me even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breath- 
 ed on them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosesoever sins ye 
 remit," &c. Now Luke (24 : 33) tells us, in speaking of the same 
 occasion, who these disciples were — they were not only the elev- 
 en apostles, but they that were with them — i. e., all the disci- 
 ples — so that the power here granted was not granted exclusive- 
 ly to the ministry, but given to all the disciples. The passage 
 then can with no show of fairness be alleged in proof of any 
 special power conferred on the Romish ministry. 
 
 Once more — granting that the apostles were the individuals 
 here addressed, though other disciples were present, and that to 
 them alone was this power given. Yet since this power is grant- 
 ed or promised in immediate connexion with the conferring of 
 the Holy Ghost significantly alluded to by our Lord's breathing 
 on them- it f***niK hp «liown fbnt if nof nrvqntod to them as 
 
29 
 
 inspired men and that none possess it but those who have such 
 supernatural gifts. On such a supposition, we see no difficulty 
 in the exercise of such a power on their part. For being en- 
 dowed with the power of discerning spirits, they could infallibly 
 distinguish such as were real penitents and believers, and their 
 authoritative declaration based on this knowledge would be only 
 an annunciation of what God had already done. It would in 
 reality be no more than a declaration to others of a disclosure 
 of the exercise of the power of forgiveness on the part of God 
 made to them by the direct communication of the Spirit. But 
 such a grant as this avails nothing to advance the claims of such 
 as now pretend to exercise the power of forgiveness, unless they 
 can show themselves inspired men. So that the text viewed in 
 all its meanings, in no one of them answers the purpose for which 
 it has so often and so exultingly been quoted. And this being 
 the main and sole prop of this dogma, we are warranted to con- 
 clude that there is no revelation made in the Scriptures of any 
 purpose of God to confer pardon through the ministry as a spe- 
 cial mediation. None in which they are warranted to say to a 
 sinner, thy sins are forgiven thee, and this declaration thereby 
 be an evidence that his sins are really forgiven. 
 
 But we contend farther, that the pretensions, which men set 
 up to the power on earth to forgive sins are not only false, but 
 blasphemous. That these pretensions put forth in any form are 
 high, their advocates candidly acknowledge. It is for the avow- 
 ed purpose of investing themselves and the ministry in general 
 with a great degree of authority, and giving | themselves eleva- 
 tion in the eyes of the church, that they are put forth. They 
 are, however, in our view, not only high and arrogant, but blas- 
 phemous. 
 
 If the conclusion reached in the foregoing discussion be cor- 
 rect, then it has been shown that the claims advanced are such 
 as if true, demand at the hands of all, the reverence and hom- 
 age due to the supreme and Mighty One. They are claims of 
 the possession of the highest prerogative of supremacy, and of 
 attributes which cannot inhere in a finite being. If these claims 
 however, are false, which on principles laid down is obviously 
 so, then those who make them must be under the serious charge 
 of a bold assumption of the prerogative of God. These men at- 
 tempt to mount up and occupy the throne of God and profes- 
 
30 
 
 sing to be seated there, they call on others to confess their sins 
 unto them in order to forgiveness. Pretending that they sit upon 
 the throne of grace, they invite us to come boldly to them that 
 we may obtain mercy and find grace in time of need. And alas ! 
 how many thousands and myriads of poor ignorant deluded 
 souls are led away by their craft. If any one more wise say to 
 one of such pretenders, " "Who can forgive sins but God only ?" 
 is there one, a single one of them, that can say to a palsied man, 
 " Arise, take up thy bed and go unto thine house," and the pal- 
 sied man will arise and do so ? Is there one who can substanti- 
 ate his claims to the authority to forgive sins on earth, by such 
 or a similar faith ? Jesus did not hesitate to do so — to show his 
 authority ; and surely since the servant is not above his Lord, 
 his legitimate successors should not hesitate to follow his exam- 
 ple. 
 
 But we repeat it, is there one that can or will do it. If so, 
 where is he? Let him come forward and produce his strong- 
 claims. Till then we may be pardoned for replying to one and 
 all of such claimants, " Jesus we know, Paul we know, but who 
 are ye ?" * 
 
 Did I ask who are they ? Did I inquire who are such as pre- 
 tend to say to a poor sinner, thy sins are forgiven thee and ex- 
 pect that it will be even so according to their declaration ? Why 
 need I ask a question answered long ago, to guard us if possible 
 against the danger of ignorance on this point ? Look at 2nd 
 Thess. ii. "We read of that man of sin, the son of perdition, who 
 opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that 
 which is worshipped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of 
 God showing himself that he is God." Can we fail to recognize 
 in these features the likeness of these pretenders ? Could de- 
 scription be more accurate in its main points ? Who opposeth 
 and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is wor- 
 shipped ? Is not this precisely what we have proved to be the 
 amount of their pretentions ? Have we not shown that they ex- 
 alt themselves to supremacy in its highest and most distinctive 
 exercise ? So that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, show- 
 ing himself that he is God. Have we not also shown that they 
 show themselves to be God, by their calling on men to seek for- 
 giveness at their hands, occupying places of trust and honor in 
 the church on earth. 
 
31 
 
 We therefore conclude that these men are guilty of blasphe- 
 my. Does such a conclusion startle us? Do we shrink back 
 and pause before we can be persuaded that men could be car- 
 ried so far in their zeal to maintain their influence and increase 
 their authority ? "Why should we ? Has not the apostle ac- 
 counted for it? He declares that they are given up to strong 
 delusion, to believe a lie that they may all be damned, and this 
 because they believed not the truth, but take pleasure in un- 
 righteousness. 
 
 Those given up to judicial blindness, may proceed to any 
 length in the way of iniquity and absurdity. And surely it is 
 reasonable to suppose there is no sin which God would be more 
 ready to punish with an unsparing hand than that which makes 
 so bold an onset on his dearest prerogative — as one which would 
 pluck the flower from his crown. 
 
 The force of these remarks is not at all weakened by the reply 
 that the power claimed is only conditionally effective. If by 
 this it were meant that the ministry possessed only the power of 
 declaring the sins of the true penitent forgiven, then all objec- 
 tions to it3 exercise would be obviated. But that such is not 
 the meaning we are to attach to these terms, is obvious from the 
 consideration that this is our authority, which every one with 
 the Scriptures in his hands, is at liberty to exercise. The Scrip- 
 tures declare in the plainest terms that he who repents is forgiv- 
 en. Any one, then, who reads and understands, can declare 
 upon the authority of God, that if an individual is a true penitent, 
 his sins are forgiven. This, however, is not a power which sat- 
 isfies such claimants. It does not invest the ministry with any 
 peculiar authority above others, and consequently, does not an- 
 swer the purpose for which such pretensions are made. The 
 conditional effectiveness thus turns out on examination to be 
 without a condition, i. e. a real and unconditional effectiveness. 
 The reply is accordingly a mere evasion, and the charge stands 
 unreputed. 
 
 But it becomes not only those who advance such claims, but 
 those who are disposed to hearken to them, to beware. — 
 They are so high, so daring, so far above all claims, ordinarily 
 set up by men — they are moreover so opposed to all proper views 
 of Scripture, so derogatory to God, and so degrading to man — 
 that there must be guilt in entertaining them for a moment. — 
 
The poison is so violent, that the slightest quantity is fatal. The 
 pretensions should at once be resisted, and every good and true * 
 man is bound to show their fallacy and impiety. 
 
 Finally, while we deny this prerogative to any mere man or 
 finite being, we cheerfully acknowledge it as belonging to Jesus. 
 We claim it for him at the hands of all others. The Son of Man 
 hath power on earth to forgive sins. High and sacred as is this 
 prerogative, it is not too much so for Him. He is the Son of 
 God — the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express im- 
 age of his person. He is clothed with every divine perfection, 
 because possessed of a divine nature. In this wonderful person, 
 then, this Jesus of Nazareth, this God and man in two distinct 
 natures and one person, we see one able to receive and wield 
 this power. Besides, as the one Mediator between God and 
 man, he has purchased by his obedience unto death, the right to 
 give eternal life to as many as he will. It is his righteousness 
 which makes the sinner just. It is his blood which delivereth 
 from all sins, his death which stands m the stead of the sinner. 
 He assumed our relation to the law, and all our legal responsi- 
 bilities rests on him. He bore our sins in his own body on the 
 tree, and cancelled the guilt of every believer. 
 
 The Father has accepted him, and all power in heaven and 
 earth is given unto him. We may well, therefore, concede to his 
 claims. If they are controverted, he can easily substantiate 
 them by the exhibition of these very divine attributes necessary 
 to the exercise of the power. So he did on the occasion alluded 
 to in our text. He read the thoughts of the heart. " Why rea- 
 son ye thus in your heart." He displayed his omnipotence. — 
 Arise, said he to theq>alsied man, take up thy bed and go unto 
 thine house ; and he arose and departed to his house. By an 
 effect, which w T as palpable to all, he showed that he could pro- 
 duce another of equal difficulty — though not discernible to oth- 
 ers. His pretensions, therefore, were not false — his claims were 
 valid. All must know that he had power on earth to forgive 
 sins. 
 
 Let us then, my friends, as poor sinners, come to Jesus for 
 pardon. Let us receive our forgiveness at His hands. Those 
 that would stand between us and him, and proffer to us their aid 
 in securing forgiveness, let us thrust aside and refuse their aid. 
 Let us know that while Jesus can forgive, none other can. Then 
 let us cry with broken hearts to Him, and learn from experience 
 that Jesus has power on earth to forgive sins. 
 
N -° v 975 ' 6 ^93 1841-59 
 
 y^UA^i.H 3438 94 
 
 N.C Pamphlets 
 
 N.C 975.6 Z993 1841-53 
 
 W**»t->f >f 342394 
 
 jHiS VOLUME n O itdiHO 
 OUTBIDS M«