suspicious in all. But besides the absurdity of this doctrine,
we must notice its inconsistency. The Prayer-book states that
the blowing of the cornet is necessary to the procuring of
pardon; it therefore implies that pardon is necessary, and
therefore that Israel is guilty; what, then, becomes of merits?
If Israel can be justified by merits, the blowing of the cornet is
superfluous; for, in that case, all they want is justice. Where
a man can claim salvation because of all his good deeds, he need
not fear the attribute of righteousness, (
Hebrew characters), and does
not want the attribute of mercy. But the moment that he
acknowledges his need of forgiveness, he confesses that he has no
merits. If, therefore, the Prayer-book be right in acknowledging
sin and praying for pardon, the oral law is wrong in
teaching justification by merits. One contradicts the other,
and therefore they cannot both be from God; and the man who
believes both is guilty of renouncing his reason. But the man
who trusts his salvation to a system so inconsistent with itself,
is utterly devoid of wisdom. He is hazarding his eternal
welfare on the testimony of a witness who contradicts himself;
who says at one time, that a man can be saved by his merits,
and at another time that he has no merits that can stand the
scrutiny of God's righteous judgment.
No. XXXV.
JUSTIFICATION.
The doctrine of justification by merits is agreeable, and
seems very reasonable, so long as a man can theorize, that is, so
long as he is not in earnest. But so soon as the prospect
of death, or any other similar circumstance, compels him to
realize the act of Divine judgment upon himself, it loses all its
beauty and plausibility; the conscience is unsatisfied by its consolations,
and reason pronounces that the hope built on merits
is insecure. A solemn and earnest review of our past years soon
convinces, that our good deeds are but few, that our best
deeds are defiled by mixed motives; and, above all, that the
love of God has not been the heart's dominant principle, and
that, therefore, some other mode of justification is absolutely
necessary. The truth of this statement is confirmed by the
inconsistency of the oral law with itself. The great principle
of the oral law is, that the observance of any one of its
