of our Lord Jesus Christ to be a cunningly devised fable. All Socinians and Arians: all who deny the supreme godhead of the Lord that bought them. They, of consequence, deny his divine righteousness, as they suppose him to be a mere creature. And they deny his human righteousness, as imputed to any man, seeing they believe every one is accepted for his own righteousness. 15. The human righteousness of Christ, at least the imputation of it, as the whole and sole meritorious cause, of the justification of a sinner before God, is likewise denied by the members of the church of Rome by all of them who are true to the principles of their own church. But undoubtedly there are many among them whose experience goes beyond their principles: who, though they are far from expressing themselves justly, yet feel what they know not how to express. Yea, although their conceptions of this great truth, be as crude as their expressions, yet with their hearts they believe; they rest on Christ alone, both unto present and eternal salvation. 16. With these we may rank those even in the reformed churches, who are usually termed Mystics. One of the chief of these in the present century, (at least in England,) was Mr. Law. It is well known that he absolutely and zealously denied the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as zealously as Robert Barclay, who scruples not to say, "Imputed righteousness! imputed nonsense." The body of the people known by the name of Quakers, espouse the same sentiment. Nay, the generality of those who profess themselves members of the Church of England, are either totally ignorant of the matter, and know nothing about imputed righteousness, or deny this and justification by faith together, as destructive of good works. To these we may add a considerable number of the people vulgarly styled Anabaptists, together with thousands of Presbyterians and Independents, lately enlightened by the writings of Dr. Taylor. On the last I am not called to pass any sentence: I leave them to him that made them. But will any one dare to affirm, that all Mystics, (such as Mr. Law in particular,) all Quakers, all Presbyterians or Independents, and all members of the Church of England, who are not clear in their opinions or expressions, are void of all Christian experience? That consequently they are all in a state of damnation, "without hope, without God in the world?" However confused their ideas may be, however improper their language, may there not be many of them whose hearts are right toward God, and who effectually know" the Lord our righteousness?" 17. But, blessed be God, we are not among those who are so dark in their expressions and conceptions. We no more deny the phrase than the thing; but we are unwilling to obtrude it on other 1 men. Let them use either this or such other expressions as they judge to be more exactly scriptural, provided their hearts rest only on what Christ has done and suffered, for pardon, grace, and glory. I cannot express this better than in Mr. Hervey's words, worthy to be written in letters of gold. "We are not solicitous as to any particular set of phrases. Only let men be humbled as repenting crimi nals at Christ's feet, let them rely as devoted pensioners on his merits, and they are undoubtedly in the way to a blessed immortality." 18. Is there any need, is there any possibility of saying more? Let us only abide by this declaration, and all the contention about this or that particular phrase, is torn up by the roots. Keep to this: "All who are humbled as repenting criminals at Christ's feet, and rely as devoted pensioners on his merits, are in the way to a blessed immortality:" and what room for dispute? Who denies this? Do we not all meet on this ground? What then shall we wrangle about? A man of peace here proposes terms of accommodation to all the contending parties. We desire no better. We accept of the terms. We subscribe to them with heart and hand. Whoever refuses so to do, set a mark upon that man! He is an enemy of peace, a troubler of Israel, a disturber of the church of God. 19. In the mean time, what we are afraid of is this: lest any should use the phrase, “The righteousness of Christ," or, "The righteousness of Christ is imputed to me," as a cover for his unrighteousness. We have known this done a thousand times. A man has been reproved, suppose, for drunkenness. "O," said he, "I pretend to no righteousness of my own; Christ is my righteousness." Another has been told, that "the extortioner, the unjust, shall not inherit the kingdom of God." He replies with all assurance, "I am unjust in myself, but I have a spotless righteousness in Christ." And thus, though a man be as far from the practice as from the tempers of a Christian, though he neither has the mind which was in Christ, nor in any respect walks as he walked, yet he has armour of proof against all conviction in what he calls the righteousness of Christ. 20. It is the seeing so many deplorable instances of this kind which makes us sparing in the use of these expressions. And I cannot but call upon all of you, who use them frequently, and beseech you in the name of God our Saviour, whose you are, and whom you serve, earnestly to guard all that hear you, against this accursed abuse of them. O warn them, (it may be they will hear your voice,) against "continuing in sin that grace may abound!" Warn them against making "Christ the minister of sin !" Against making void that solemn decree of God, "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord," by a vain imagination of being holy in Christ. O warn them, that if they remain unrighteous, the righteousness of Christ will profit them nothing! Cry aloud, (is there not a cause?) that for this very end the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, that "the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us," and that we may "live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." It remains only to make a short and plain Application. And, first, I would address myself to you, who violently oppose these expressions, and are ready to condemn all who use them as Antinomians. But is not this bending the bow too much the other way? Why should you quarrel with them, for using the phrases they like, any more than they with you, for taking the same liberty? Or, if they do quarrel with you upon that account, do not imitate the bigotry which you blame. At least, allow them the liberty which they ought to allow you. And why should you be angry at an expression? "O, it has been abused." And what expression has not? However, the abuse may be removed, and at the same time the use remain. Above all, be sure to retain the important sense which is couched under that expression. All the blessings I enjoy, all I hope for in time and in eternity, are given wholly and solely for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered for me. I would, secondly, add a few words to you who are fond of these expressions. And permit me to ask, Do not I allow enough? What can any reasonable man desire more? I allow the whole sense which you contend for; that we have every blessing through the righteousness of God our Saviour. I allow you to use whatever expressions you choose, and that a thousand times over: only guarding them against that dreadful abuse, which you are as deeply concerned to prevent as I am. I myself frequently use the expression in question, imputed righteousness and often put this and the like expressions into the mouths of a whole congregation. But allow me liberty of conscience herein: allow me the right of private judgment. Allow me to use it just as often as I judge it preferable to any other expression. And be not angry with me, if I cannot judge it proper to use any one expression every two minutes. You may, if you please: but do not condemn me because I do not. Do not, for this, represent me as a Papist, or "an enemy to the righteousness of Christ." Bear with me, as I do with you: else how shall we "fulfil the law of Christ!" Do not make tragical outcries, as though I were "subverting the very foundations of Christianity." Whoever does this, does me much wrong: the Lord lay it not to his charge! I lay, and have done for many years, the very same foundation with you. And indeed "other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, even Jesus Christ." I build inward and outward holiness thereon, as you do, even by faith. Do not, therefore, suffer any distaste, or unkindness, no, not any shyness or coldness in your heart. If there were a difference in opinion, where is our religion, if we cannot think and let think? What hinders but you may forgive me as easily as I forgive you? How much more, when there is only a difference of expression? Nay, hardly so much as that? All the dispute being only, whether a particular mode of expression shall be used more or less frequently? Surely we must earnestly desire to contend with one another, before we can make this a bone of contention! O let us not any more, for such very trifles as these, give our common enemies room to blaspheme! Rather let us at length cut off occasion from them that seek occasion! Let us at length, (O why was it not done before?) join hearts and hands in the service of our great Master. As we have "one Lord, one Faith, one Hope of our calling," let us all strengthen each other's hands in God, and with one heart and one mouth declare to all mankind, "THE LORd our RIGHTEOUSNESS." SERMON LXV. THE GREAT DELIVERANCE. "The earnest expectation of the Creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. "For the Creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that subjected it. "Yet in hope that the Creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. "For we know that the whole Creation groaneth, and travaileth in pain together until now."-ROMANS viii. 19—22. 1. NOTHING is more sure, than that as "the Lord is loving to every man," so "his mercy is over all his works ;" all that have sense, all that are capable of pleasure or pain, of happiness or misery. In consequence of this, "he openeth his hand and filleth all things living with plenteousness: he prepareth food for cattle," as well as "herbs for the children of men." He provideth for the fowls of the air, "feeding the young ravens when they cry unto him." "He sendeth the springs into the rivers, that run among the hills," to give drink to every beast of the field, and that even "the wild asses may quench their thirst." And suitably to this, he directs us to be tender of even meaner creatures, to show mercy to these also. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," (a custom which is observed in the eastern countries even to this day.) And this is by no means contradicted by St. Paul's question, "Doth God take care for oxen?" Without doubt he does. We cannot deny it, without flatly contradicting his word. The plain meaning of the Apostle is, Is this all that is implied in the text? Hath it not a farther meaning? Does it not teach us, We are to feed the bodies of those whom we desire to feed our souls? Meantime, it is certain, God "giveth grass for the cattle," as well as "herbs for the use of men.” 2. But how are these scriptures reconcileable to the present state of things? How are they consistent with what we daily see round about us, in every part of the creation? If the Creator and Father of every living thing, is rich in mercy towards all if he does not overlook or despise any of the works of his own hands: if he wills even the meanest of them to be happy, according to their degree: how comes it to pass, that such a complication of evils oppresses, yea, overwhelms them? How is it, that misery of all kinds over spreads the face of the earth? This is a question which has puzzled the wisest philosophers in all ages. And it cannot be answered without having recourse to the Oracles of God. But taking these for our guide, we may inquire, I. What was the original state of the brute creation? III. In what state will it be, at the manifestation of the children of God? I. 1. We may inquire, in the first place, What was the original state of the brute creation? And may not we learn this, even from the place which was assigned them; namely, the garden of God? All the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air, were with Adam in Paradise. And there is no question but their state was suited to their place; it was paradisiacal; perfectly happy. Undoubtedly it bore a near resemblance to the state of man himself. By taking, therefore, a short view of the one, we may conceive the other. Now "man was made in the image of God." But "God is a spirit." So therefore was man. Only that spirit being designed to dwell on earth, was lodged in an earthly tabernacle. As such, he had an innate principle of self-motion. And so, it seems, has every spirit in the universe; this being the proper distinguishing difference between spirit and matter, which is totally, essentially passive and inactive, as appears from a thousand experiments. He was, after the likeness of his Creator, endued with understanding, a capacity of apprehending whatever objects were brought before it, and of judging concerning them. He was endued with a will, exerting itself in various affections and passions: and lastly, with liberty, or freedom of choice, without which endowment all the rest would have been in vain, and he would have been no more capable of serving his Creator, than a piece of earth or marble. He would have been as incapable of vice or virtue, as any part of the inanimate creation. In these, in the power of self-motion, understanding, will, and liberty, the natural image of God consisted. 2. How far his power of self-motion then extended, it is impossible for us to determine. It is probable, that he had a far higher degree, both of swiftness and strength, than any of the lower creatures. It is certain, he had such strength of understanding as no man ever since had. His understanding was perfect in its kind: capable of apprehending all things clearly, and judging concerning them according to truth, without any mixture of error. His will had no wrong bias of any sort, but all his passions and affections were regular, being steadily and uniformly guided by the dictates of his unerring understanding; embracing nothing but good, and every good in proportion to its degree of intrinsic goodness. His liberty likewise was wholly guided by his understanding: he chose or refused, according to its direction. Above all, (which was his highest excellence, far more valuable than all the rest put together,) he was a creature capable of God; capable of knowing, loving, and obeying his Creator. And, in fact, he did know God, did unfeignedly love, and uniformly obey him. VOL. 6.-I i |