Bible Commentaries

DISCOURSE: 2054

CHRISTIAN AND UNCHRISTIAN PERTINACITY

Galatians 2:5. To whom we. gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.

NEVER, from the foundation of the world, was there, as far as we know, a richer combination of graces in any child of man, than in the Apostle Paul. As in light there is an assemblage of very different rays, which, when in due proportion and in simultaneous motion, cause that bright and pure effulgence which we call light, so in him were found dispositions most opposed to each other, yet so combined as to form in him the most perfect character. Certainly, that which first of all strikes us as constituting the chief trait in his character, is a freedom from all selfish feelings, and a willingness to do or suffer any thing whereby man may be benefited, and God be glorified. Yet, in the passage which we have just read, we see, not only an inflexibility of mind, but such an expression of it as we should scarcely have expected from so mild and kind a man.

When he was at Jerusalem, attended by a young disciple, named Titus, he was urged to have him circumcised; not for the purpose of removing prejudice, and gaining an easier access to the minds of men, but from an idea, that the observance of that rite was necessary to the completion of Christianity, and to the attainment of the Gospel salvation. To such advisers he would not listen for a moment. Whatever might be their rank or influence in the Church, he regarded them not as deserving the slightest deference from him on such a subject [Note: See ver. 6.]; since a compliance with their wishes would vitiate, and altogether invalidate, the Gospel of Christ.

Now, that this inflexibility of his may be duly appreciated, I will shew,

I. When pertinacity may be considered as unamiable and sinful—

“To be zealously affected always in a good thing is commendable [Note: Galatians 4:18.]:” but zeal may be misplaced, and especially when it operates so far as to make a man inflexible. A bold, confident, dogmatical spirit, is at all times unamiable; and especially,

1. When the object in dispute is questionable or indifferent—

[Some there are, who, on every subject, speak as if they were infallible; and not only claim, what must be conceded to them, a right to think and act for themselves, but a right to impose on others also a necessity to comply with their mind and will. At all events, they themselves are immoveable on almost any subject upon which they have formed even the most hasty opinion: and, if they tolerate, they will never adopt, the sentiments opposed to them. Such were the dispositions manifested by many in the Apostle’s days, especially in reference to some ordinances of the Jewish law; such as the observance of certain days, and the eating of meats offered to idols. So confident were the opposite parties, that, not content with following their own judgment, they each condemned the practice of the other; “the strong despising the weak, and the weak sitting in judgment on the strong [Note: Romans 14:1-3.].” But how did the Apostle Paul act? He knew that neither the observance nor the neglect of such forms could “commend a man to God, or ameliorate his state before God [Note: 1 Corinthians 8:8.];” consequently, that he was at liberty to act in relation to them as circumstances might require; but, “rather than use his liberty in a way that should give offence to a weak brother, he would not cat flesh so long as the world should stand [Note: 1 Corinthians 8:13.].”

View him on another occasion, towards the close of his life. Being at Jerusalem, where there were “many thousands of Jews zealous of the law, he was advised by James, and all the elders of the Church, to join with four other persons in performing the vows of Nazariteship, according to the law of Moses; in order to shew, that, notwithstanding he had maintained the liberty of the Gentiles to disregard the Mosaic ritual, he was no enemy to it, so far as respected the Jews, who could not yet see that it was abolished. Had he been of a self-willed and a pertinacious mind, he might have urged reasons in plenty, which, in appearance at least, might justify his opposition to this advice. But he had no wish, no will, no way of his own, if, by renouncing it, he might do good, and benefit his fellow-creatures; and therefore “the very next day he commenced the work of purification in the temple, according to the law of Moses [Note: Acts 21:20-26.].” (There are, indeed, those who condemn him for this act of conformity. But, as they set up their own judgment against St. James, and all the saints and elders of Jerusalem, I leave them without further remark.)

Now we see, in these instances, how condescending he was to the views and wishes of others; and what that spirit was which he exercised, as contrasted with the unamiable and unchristian spirit of his opponents.]

2. When the object in dispute is purely temporal and carnal—

[Some will contend about the veriest trifles, wherein their own interest is concerned: and will even glory in their firmness and pertinacity. But this spirit is in direct opposition to the mind of Christ, who says, “If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also; and whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain [Note: Matthew 5:40-41.].” Let us see how St. Paul acted in reference to such matters. He had a right to be supported by the Church to which he ministered. God’s law had actually so appointed, that “they should not muzzle the ox that trod out the corn.” But there were, in the Church, some teachers whose main object was to advance their own interests, and who would not fail to cite him as sanctioning, by his example, their selfish habits. He therefore determined to wave altogether his own rights; and to work night and day for his own support, rather than to afford them such a sanction as they desired [Note: 1 Corinthians 9:4-15. 2 Corinthians 11:9; 2 Corinthians 11:12. 1 Thessalonians 2:9. 2 Thessalonians 3:8-9.]. We have a lovely instance of disinterestedness in Mephibosheth, the son of Saul. When David fled from the face of Absalom, Ziba, Mephibosheth’s servant, took his master’s asses laden with provisions, and went with them to David; reporting that his master was now gratified with the hope of David’s death, and of his own restoration to his father’s throne. David, in consequence of this, gave to Ziba all his master’s property. But on David’s return to Jerusalem, Mephibosheth went to meet him; and told him how deeply he had sympathized with the banished monarch, and how scandalously he had been traduced by his servant Ziba. Upon this, David so far recalled his former grant to Ziba, as to order that Mephibosheth and Ziba should divide the property between them. Upon which, Mephibosheth, forgetting all the injuries he had sustained from Ziba, replied, “Let him take all, forasmuch as my lord the king is come again in peace unto his own house [Note: 2 Samuel 19:30.].” Here we see how all his own personal interests were swallowed up in a sense of love to David, and in a joyful participation of David’s happiness.

Such is the duty of every true Christian. For St. Paul, speaking to those Corinthians who contended for their own rights, and carried their contests into a court of law, tells them that “there was utterly a fault among them;” and then says, “Why do ye not rather take wrong, and suffer yourselves to be defrauded [Note: 1 Corinthians 6:7.]?” As for carrying this yielding spirit to excess, we are in no danger of that: our danger is, the not carrying it far enough: for it is impossible not to see, that, in the whole of our Saviour’s life, he never shined more bright than “when, being led as a lamb to the slaughter, he opened not his mouth [Note: Isaiah 53:7.];” and when he was treated with every species of cruelty upon the cross, he prayed and apologized for his murderers, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do [Note: Luke 23:34.].”]

But, notwithstanding the hatefulness of pertinacity in general, there are seasons,

II. When it becomes a virtue of prime necessity—

A firmness of character is indispensable in the true Christian: and he must be absolutely “immoveable [Note: 1 Corinthians 15:58.],”

1. When otherwise the obedience of Christ would be violated—

[Not our actions only, but “our very thoughts also, are to be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ [Note: 2 Corinthians 10:5.].” A command from him supersedes all human authority, and must be obeyed under all circumstances. The Hebrew Youths were required to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image: they were the only persons in the whole Chaldean empire who refused to comply with the royal edict: and they were threatened to be cast into a furnace of fire, it they persisted in their disobedience [Note: Daniel 3:16-18.]: yet did they maintain their steadfastness, in despite of all these menaces: and in this they acted as became the servants of the living God. Daniel manifested the same holy boldness, when he was commanded not to offer prayers to Jehovah for the space of thirty days. He had been accustomed to pray with his window open towards the holy city of Jerusalem: and he might have avoided observation, if he would only have shut his window. But he felt himself bound to honour God at all events, and not to dissemble before him. He therefore yielded not to intimidation; but submitted rather to be cast into the den of lions, than to violate his duty to his God [Note: Daniel 6:10-11.]. Who does not admire the fortitude of these men, and commend their pertinacity in such a cause? The Apostles of our Lord all maintained the same firmness, when forbidden to preach in the name of Christ. Their governors would probably have connived at their secret adherence to Christ, if only they would forbear to preach his name, and to diffuse their heresy around them. But these holy men had received a commission to preach the Gospel; and execute it they would, whatever perils they might incur in the discharge of their duty. And they appealed to their governors themselves, whether it was right or possible for them to act otherwise: “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard [Note: Acts 4:18-20.].” Thus we, in our respective situations, may be called upon, by those who are in authority over us, to neglect or violate a positive duty: but we must not give place by subjection, no, not for an hour; but “must obey God rather than man [Note: Acts 5:29.];” and must “resist unto blood, striving against sin [Note: Hebrews 12:4.];” and glory in death itself, when sustained in such a cause [Note: Acts 20:24.].]

2. When otherwise the faith of Christ would be compromised—

[This was the particular point at issue between St. Paul and the Judaizing teachers whom he opposed. He had formerly circumcised Timothy, because he judged that that measure would facilitate his access to his Jewish brethren, and his acceptance with them. But the circumcision of Titus was demanded, as necessary to complete and perfect the Gospel-salvation. To accede to it in that view would have been to betray his trust, as the minister of the Gentiles. He knew that the Mosaic law was abrogated: and, so far would the observance of it be from perfecting the work of Christ, that it would invalidate it altogether [Note: Galatians 5:2.], and cause Christ himself to have died in vain [Note: Galatians 5:4.]. Could he then yield to such a demand as this? No, not for an hour; not for a moment. On the contrary, if Peter himself were led to dissemble, and to compromise in any respect the faith of Christ, Paul would “rebuke him to his face,” and that too before the whole Church [Note: ver. 11.]: so determined was he to preserve from every base mixture the faith which he had been commissioned to propagate and uphold. Now, this jealousy must we also cherish, in reference to the faith of Christ. We must suffer nothing for a moment to blend itself with the work of Christ, as a ground of our hope before God. The doctrine of human merit must be an utter abomination in our eyes; as robbing Christ of his glory, and as substituting a foundation of sand in the place of the Rock of Ages, There is but one foundation: there can be no other [Note: Acts 4:12. 1 Corinthians 3:11.]: and if any power on earth could require us to build on any other, or to put so much as a single stone to it of our own forming, we must not listen to him for a moment. The altar was to be built of whole stones, not hewn or wrought by man [Note: Exodus 20:25. Deuteronomy 27:5-6]; and Christ alone must sanctify our offerings, and procure us acceptance with our God. And so firm must we be in our adherence to him, and so simple in our affiance, that if an angel from heaven were to instill into our minds any doctrine that would interfere with this, we must not hesitate to denounce him as accursed [Note: Galatians 1:6-8.]: so “earnestly must we contend for the faith [Note: Jude, ver. 3.],” and so resolutely must we keep it pure and undefiled.]

See, then,

1. What need we have to get our minds duly enlightened—

[Suppose, for a moment, St. Paul had proved as ignorant or unstable as St. Peter, what evils would have accrued, both to the Church and to the world at large! In fact, the whole faith of Christ would have been subverted; and, if God had not in some other way interposed to prevent it, the whole world would have been ruined. Yet how little is this point considered, by many who nevertheless call themselves Christians! The whole Church of Rome has set aside the faith of Christ, by uniting with Christ other objects of faith and other grounds of hope. It is right, therefore, that every enlightened man should protest against it, and depart from it. But shall we, therefore, justify those who depart from our Church? No; for the faith of Christ, as maintained by our Church, is pure and unadulterated: and we have shewn, that, in matters of minor and subordinate importance, to indulge an unreasonable stiffness and pertinacity is not well: and we ought to have our judgment well informed, so as to discriminate clearly between the foundation and the superstructure. In the superstructure there may be somewhat undesirable, and yet no material injury accrue: but an error in the foundation will be fatal to the whole building: and this is the consideration which alone justifies a determined and uncompromising resistance to the established order of our Church. St. Paul has drawn this line of distinction, and adopted it as the rule of his own conduct; as indeed did James also, and all the other Apostles: and the more we get our views and habits assimilated to theirs, the better members we shall be of the Church of Christ.]

2. What need we have to get our spirit and conduct duly regulated—

[That same pertinacity which, under some circumstances, is necessary, under others is unbecoming the true Christian. A yielding spirit is lovely: and perhaps we may say, that a yielding temper should be the rule, and a pertinacious spirit the exception. Perhaps too we may say, that men will do well to mark the natural bias of their minds, and in their conduct to lean rather to that side which is opposed to it. A person of a very gentle and yielding spirit should rather lean to the side of firmness in doubtful matters; and a person of a naturally bold and determined spirit should rather cultivate a spirit of compliance: because we are not in danger of erring much in opposition to our natural inclination; and if we do go too far, we have always something within our own bosoms to bring us back: whereas, if we err on the side of our natural bias, we may be precipitated we know not whither, and have nothing to bring us back again to a due equipoise. But, under any circumstances, we must take care not to plead conscience, where, in fact, it is our own will that guides us; and, on the other hand, not to plead Christian liberty, where the path of duty is that of self-denying firmness. But “who is sufficient for these things?” If such men as Peter and Barnabas erred, we had need to cry mightily to God to “direct our feet in the right way,” and to “uphold us in our goings, that our footsteps slip not.”]

DISCOURSE: 2055

REMEMBERING THE POOR

Galatians 2:10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

THE circumstances to which my text refers, were very peculiar. St. Paul, in conformity with the commission given him by the Lord, had preached his Gospel to the Gentiles, whilst the other Apostles confined chiefly their ministrations to the Jews: and, knowing that the ceremonial law had never been given to the Gentiles, he neither required of them the observance of it, nor observed it himself. But now, after fourteen years, he went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas his fellow-labourer; and, being aware that his having neglected and dispensed with the ceremonial law was likely to excite prejudice against him amongst the Jews, he sought a private interview with the chief Apostles first, in order that he might explain to them the reasons of his conduct, and through them remove all objections from the minds of others. Having succeeded in this, he desired to know whether they, with all their superior advantages, could give him any additional instruction: but they frankly acknowledged, that they could add nothing to him; and all that they had to request of him was, that “he would remember the poor; which he of himself was most forward to do.”

Now, from hence I will take occasion to shew you,

I. In what respects difformity is admissible—

The difference between St. Paul’s ministrations, and those of the other Apostles, was exceeding great—

[St. Paul, as we have said, dispensed with the Jewish laws altogether; whilst the other Apostles observed them. Now this difference, if Paul had not acted with consummate prudence, would have made an irreconcileable breach between them. Nor do we blame the other Apostles for the jealousy they exercised on this occasion. They had received the law from God; and were told, in that very law, that “every one who should presumptuously neglect it in any respect, should be cut off from the people of the Lord [Note: Numbers 15:30.].” They did not, as yet, clearly see that the law had been abrogated by the Lord: much less was this known to the Jews in general at Jerusalem. Still, however, it was so far understood, that all acknowledged, that the difference between Paul and them was, under existing circumstances, admissible. They saw, as Paul himself also did, that an uniform practice at Jerusalem was expedient: and therefore St. Paul himself, whilst at Jerusalem, observed the law, as well as others: yea, many years after this, he even joined himself to others who had made a vow to purify themselves as Nazarites, and purified himself together with them [Note: Acts 21:23-24.]. But, amongst the Gentiles, such observances were regarded as altogether indifferent; and therefore were neither required by him from others, nor retained in his own practice.]

Now this is the precise path adopted by the Church of England—

[The Church of England has its rites, its forms, its ceremonies; but they are as few, and as simple, as can be imagined. Nor does she require them to be observed by any but her own members. Others, who judge them inexpedient, are left to adopt any other rites which in their minds and consciences they prefer. And in this the Church of England differs altogether from the Church of Rome, which insists on an universal observance of all her forms; and denounces, as heretics, and consigns over to perdition, all who differ from her. Every society under heaven has rules established for its own government, and expects its members to conform to them; else there would be nothing, in any society, but disorder and confusion. And the Church of England fitly requires this: and I hesitate not to say, that her members generally, and her ministers in particular, are bound in conscience to adhere to them. But, where a diversity of circumstances calls for a diversity of habits, there the rules, by which we were previously bound, are relaxed; and a difference of conduct may readily be admitted [Note: Presbyterianism is the Established Church in Scotland; and the king, George IV. as became a wise, and candid, and tolerant monarch, attended divine worship at the Kirk.].

The true medium for our adoption is this; to think for ourselves; but neither to be intolerant nor rigid. The whole college of Apostles at Jerusalem observed the law themselves, but tolerated the non-observance of it in others. St. Paul, on the other hand, knowing that the law was no longer obligatory on him, observed it, because he would not give needless offence by refusing to conform to the established usages. This was a becoming spirit in both: and if this spirit prevailed amongst us, as it ought, we should see very little of separation from the Established Church, and no want of cordiality towards those who judged themselves constrained to differ from her [Note: See the 34th Article.].]

Thus we see how far they were agreed to differ. Now let us see,

II. In what respects uniformity is indispensable—

In doctrine they were all agreed. All preached repentance, and remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ. And in this can no difference be admitted; seeing there is no “other foundation whereon any man can build, but Jesus Christ [Note: 1 Corinthians 3:11.];” “nor any other name given, whereby any man can be saved [Note: Acts 4:12.].” Hence, when Peter countenanced an idea that an observance of the law was necessary, and thereby obscured and endangered the purity of the Gospel, St. Paul reproved him to his face before the whole Church [Note: ver. 11.]. So far from tolerating any thing that should supersede the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, St. Paul denounced a curse even against an angel from heaven, if one should be found to publish any doctrine that would interfere with this. Uniformity in this respect, therefore, was taken for granted. But we have in our text one point insisted on by those at Jerusalem, and cordially acceded to on the part of Paul; namely, the universal necessity of exercising love, and especially to the destitute and distressed. This was the only point which they specified, as indispensably necessary to the Christian character: on which, therefore, they required that no difference whatever should exist. Of this, then, I must say,

1. It is, by the unanimous judgment of all the Apostles, recommended to you—

[It is absolutely essential to piety, that it exert itself in a way of tender sympathy and self-denying energy towards all the members of Christ’s mystical body. If we exercise not ourselves in this way, we in vain profess to have love either towards God or man. We have none towards God: for St. John says, “Whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him [Note: 1 John 3:17.]?” Nor can we have any real love towards our fellow-creature: for St. James saith, “If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding, ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit [Note: James 2:15-16.]?” Nor, in fact, can we have any true religion at all: for St. James again saith: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction [Note: James 1:27.].” Indeed, I must add yet further, that we can have no hope before God in the day of judgment: for our Lord will say to those who have neglected these offices of love, “Inasmuch as ye did it not to the least of these my brethren, ye did it not to me: and therefore depart accursed into everlasting fire [Note: Matthew 25:40-41.].” I do then most solemnly recommend to you, my brethren, that you very especially attend to this duty at all times, and under all circumstances. And, when I strike this chord, saying, “Remember the poor,” I do hope that in your hearts there will be found a corresponding string, that shall vibrate at the touch; and that every one of you will reply, ‘This is the very thing which I myself am forward to do.’]

2. It is that which the present occasion more particularly calls for— [Note: Here state the particulars of the Charity for which you plead; and urge on the audience either its necessities or its use.] To conclude—Unite in your own hearts the blessed dispositions which are here exhibited. Cultivate,

1. A spirit of candour towards those who differ from you—

[There is in many a narrowness of mind, like that of the Apostles, when “they forbad a man to cast out devils, because he followed not with them.” It cannot be expected that all should think alike on matters of minor importance: nor should you be grieved with any because they move not exactly in your way. There is no need that you should adopt the forms of those who differ from you: you must all judge and act for yourselves: but you should concede to others the liberty which you claim; and “bid God speed to all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.”]

2. A spirit of benevolence towards those who need your aid—

[If you are richer than others, consider yourselves as the Lord’s stewards; and do not stay till you are called upon, and then “give your alms grudgingly and of necessity;” but “be glad to distribute, and willing to communicate;” remembering that blessed saying of our Lord, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”]

DISCOURSE: 2056

PETER REPROVED BY PAUL

Galatians 2:14-16. When I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

THE Apostles, in all that they declared, were infallible, being under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, by whom they were inspired; but, in what they did, they were frail and fallible, like other men. Of this we have a painful evidence in the passage before us; wherein we see Peter, from whom the Roman pontiff, unfortunately for his own claims, derives his infallibility, fallen into the grossest error, and acting in a way which brought upon him the severest reprehension. The circumstances relating to that event are faithfully recorded for the instruction of the Church in all ages: and, as they comprehend things of fundamental importance to our welfare, we will enter into them somewhat minutely; and state,

I. The conduct reproved—

Peter, during his stay at Antioch, where the Church consisted almost exclusively of converts from among the Gentiles, had disregarded the distinctions of the Jewish law, which he knew to be no longer binding; and had acted according to the customs of the Gentiles amongst whom he dwelt: but upon the arrival of certain persons from Jerusalem, where the ordinances of the Mosaic law were still continued in the Church, he returned to the observation of the Jewish ritual, and constrained the Gentiles also to follow his example. Now this was highly reprehensible, being,

1. Most sinful in itself—

[Had he from a tender regard to the prejudices of his less enlightened brethren conformed to their customs, he would have done well; even as Paul himself did, when, “to the Jews, he became a Jew, and to those who were under the law, as under the law.” But, whilst he did this, he should have taken care to maintain the liberty of the Gentile converts, and to explain to them his reasons for reverting to Jewish ceremonies, that they might not be ensnared by his example. But instead of acting with this caution and tenderness towards the Gentile converts, he withdrew from them, and compelled them to conform to Jewish rites: and this he did too, not from love to the Jews, but from fear of their displeasure. Now this was gross “dissimulation:” He knew, that the Jewish law was abrogated: he knew, that he himself was liberated from the observance of it: he knew, that the Gentiles could have no concern with it; and that to enjoin the observance of it on them, was to impose a yoke on them, which neither he himself nor any of his ancestors had been able to sustain. In this therefore he walked not uprightly; but betrayed the trust which had been committed to him, the apostolic trust, of enlightening and saving a ruined world.]

2. Most pernicious in its tendency—

[This conduct of his tended to sanction the most fatal error, and, in fact, to subvert the whole Gospel. The Jewish converts had an idea, that the Gospel itself could not save them, unless they added to it the observance of the law: and it was found impossible at once to eradicate this prejudice from the Jewish mind, because they could not see how that, which God had so strictly enjoined under one dispensation, could be wholly set aside under another. Indeed this was the great stumbling-block to the Jews: and if they could have been allowed to blend their law with the Gospel, they would almost universally, and with great readiness, have embraced the Gospel. But of such a mixture the Gospel does not admit. Christ has in his own person fulfilled the law; and, by his obedience unto death, salvation is provided for a ruined world. No other obedience must be blended with it as a joint ground of hope: his righteousness is that which alone can justify us before God; and his must be all the glory. But Peter by this conduct confirmed the Jews in their error, and established the same error among the Gentiles also: and, if God had not raised up Paul to reprove it in the outset, the whole Gospel might have been superseded, almost as soon as it had been promulgated: and all the effects of Christ’s mediation might have been utterly destroyed. We see on that occasion how far the influence of Peter extended: for it drew away all the Jewish converts at Antioch, yes, and even Barnabas himself, from the truth of God: and if the evil had not been stopped in its commencement, who can tell how soon, and how fatally, it might have inundated the whole Church? Verily such conduct as this deserved reproof; and we have reason to bless our God, who endued Paul with wisdom and courage to reprove it.]

Suitable to the occasion was,

II. The reproof administered—

St. Paul, when he saw the misconduct of Peter, did not secretly endeavour to destroy the character of his offending brother, but boldly and openly reproved him before the whole Church. Had the offence been of a private and personal nature only, it would have been right to admonish his brother privately, and not to bring it before the Church, till private admonitions had been used in vain: but, when the welfare of the whole Church was at stake, it was necessary that the reproof should be as public as the offence. Hence, when all the Church was assembled, Paul took occasion to reprove,

1. His inconsistency—

[Peter had in that very place neglected the Jewish law, as he was fully authorized to do: but, when some Jews came thither from Jerusalem, he both altered his own conduct, and compelled all others, even Gentiles themselves, to follow his example. What a grievous inconsistency was this! And how must he have been struck dumb, when Paul so pointedly expostulated with him, “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, WHY compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” What excuse could he offer? Alas! none all.

But grievous as such inconsistency would have been in any one, it was peculiarly sinful in Peter: for it was at this very place, Antioch, that the point had been some time before discussed with great vehemence; and so pertinaciously had the Jewish teachers maintained the universal and perpetual obligation of their own law, that not even the united wisdom and authority of Paul and Barnabas could settle the dispute; so that it became necessary to refer the matter to the decision of the whole college of Apostles at Jerusalem. Accordingly the question was stated; and Paul and Barnabas on the one side, and some of the Judaizing teachers on the other, were deputed to go up to Jerusalem, and there to get it finally settled by such authority as they were all agreed to submit to. Accordingly the deputation went; and laid before the Apostles the matter in dispute. And who, of all the Apostles, was the man that undertook to determine it? It was this very Peter, who now was undoing all that he had before done. He called the attention of the assembly to the commission which he had received to open the kingdom of heaven both to Jews and Gentiles; and reminded them, that, on his preaching first to the Gentiles, God had sent down the Holy Spirit on them, precisely as he had before done upon the Jews at the day of Pentecost; thus visibly and unquestionably declaring, that the Gentiles were to have the Gospel freely administered to them without any observance of the Jewish law. And on this testimony, supported by that of the prophetic writings, James, who presided on that occasion, determined the point; and, to the great joy of the Gentile converts, confirmed to them the liberty which they were so desirous to retain [Note: Acts 15:1-19. with Matthew 16:18-19 and Acts 10:31-44.]. Yet behold, this very Peter, at this very place, before these very Gentiles, and in the presence of these very messengers, Paul and Barnabas, took upon himself to rescind the decree of the whole college of Apostles, and to insist on the Gentiles observing Jewish rites, which he, as a Jew, had neglected and despised. Alas! Peter, who would have expected this at thy hands? Who would have thought that, after having been distinguished above all the children of men, in that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed unto thee from thy Saviour’s hands; and after having seen myriads (lock into it in consequence of thine opening of the doors, thou shouldest use those very keys to shut the doors again, and thereby, as far as in thee lay, exclude from the kingdom all who had already entered, and all others of the human race? Verily, the reproof given thee, though so public and severe, was nothing more than what thou justly deservedst for thy grievous inconsistency.]

2. His impiety—

[It was not the decree of man, but of the Most High God, that he presumed to abrogate. God had graciously sent his only-begotten Son to be the Saviour of the world: and had declared that in him should all nations be blessed. By faith in that Saviour had Abraham, the father of the faithful, been saved, hundreds of years before the Mosaic law was given: and when that law was given, it was not intended to alter the nature of the salvation, before promised, but only to keep the Jews a separate people, and to prepare them for the Saviour whom they were taught to expect. Thus not even to the Jews was the observance of the Mosaic ritual enjoined for the purpose of establishing a righteousness by means of it, but only to direct their attention to that Saviour, from whom alone a saving righteousness could be obtained. Yet behold, Peter undertook to change the very way of salvation itself, and to thrust from his office that adorable Saviour, who had already come down from heaven, and “purchased the Church with his own blood.” Had an angel from heaven been guilty of such presumption, he had, as St. Paul tells us, deserved to be accursed [Note: Galatians 1:8-9.]: What then didst not thou deserve for thine impiety, unhappy Peter, when, in committing it, thou knewest that thou wast sinning against God, and subverting the very foundations of a Christian’s hope! Methinks, if Satan exulted when he had prevailed on thee to deny thy Lord and Saviour, how much more did he shout for joy when he had seduced thee so to betray the trust reposed in thee, as to give him a hope, that through thee the Saviour’s kingdom should be utterly and eternally destroyed! Holy Paul, we thank thee for thy fidelity to thy fallen brother: we thank thee for thy zeal in thy Master’s cause, and for thy love to the whole Gentile world. But above all, we adore thee, O most blessed God, who didst endue thy servant with such wisdom and grace, and enable him by his timely and courageous interposition to break the snare which Satan had laid for the whole race of mankind.]

The fact thus recorded is of infinite importance on account of,

III. The instruction to be gathered from it—

Every part of this record teems with instruction. But we must content ourselves with submitting to your attention two points only; namely,

1. That salvation is solely by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, without the works of the law—

[This forms the very ground of the reproof which Paul gave to Peter. It was indeed the observance of the ceremonial law that gave occasion for the reproof: but the works of the moral law must of necessity be comprehended in the reproof itself, because it is as a subversion of the faith of Christ that St. Paul chiefly complains of Peter’s conduct. The observance of the ceremonial law, as an act of obedience to God, might have been unnecessary, and inexpedient: but it could not have been of so fatal a nature as St. Paul represents it, if obedience in other respects had been meritorious before God: if it did not add to the merit of moral obedience, it could not so detract from it, as to make both that and the death of Christ also of no value: yet St. Paul speaks of it as “removing the people from the grace of Christ to another Gospel [Note: Galatians 1:6.],” yea, “as frustrating the grace of God,” and causing “the death of Christ to be in vain [Note: ver. 21.].” It was in this view, 1 say, as tending to establish a salvation by works instead of a salvation by faith in Christ, that St. Paul so strenuously opposed the conduct of Peter. The Apostles “knew that a man could not be justified by the works of the law;” and therefore they renounced all dependence on the works of the law, and looked for justification solely by faith in Christ. This, I say, they did themselves, and this they inculcated on others, as indispensably necessary to their salvation. St. Paul elsewhere tells us, that in this way Abraham was saved [Note: Romans 4:1-5.]; and David was saved [Note: Romans 4:6-8]; and all the world must be saved [Note: Romans 4:9-14. See also Romans 9:30-33; Romans 10:3-4.]. But in no part of Scripture is this truth more forcibly declared than in the passage before us. We may contrive to pervert words, however plain they be: but here are facts, which we cannot get over; and which speak volumes. Let us learn then not to subject ourselves to similar reproof, by blending any human works with the merits of Christ, or using our influence towards the establishment of so fatal an error. Let us be thankful to God that we have had reformers, who have ventured to withstand the impositions of popery, and have, at the expense of their own lives, emancipated us from the thraldom in which he who calls himself the successor of Peter, and boasts of deriving infallibility from him, had so long held the whole Christian world. And, if there arise amongst ourselves any who would yet stand forth as advocates of human merit, let us refer them to the Articles and Homilies of our own Church; that, if they believe not the language of inspiration, they may at least be put to shame before that Church, which has received those documents as the acknowledged symbols of her faith [Note: See the 10th, 11th, and 12th Articles of the Church of England: and take for a pattern the Apostle Paul. ver. 5.].]

2. That no consideration under heaven should lead us to compromise the truth of God—

[Peter doubtless excused himself in his own mind from an idea that his dissimulation was, in existing circumstances, expedient. But expediency, though worthy to be attended to by every true Christian, and in man)r instances a proper rule for his conduct, has no place, except in things that are otherwise indifferent. It can never warrant us to neglect a known duty, or to commit the smallest sin: for, if it could, Daniel and the Hebrew Youths might have avoided the snares that were laid for their feet. Nothing can warrant dissimulation. What we believe to be true, we must uphold and vindicate: and what we believe to be right we must do. Neither a desire to please, nor a fear of displeasing, must cause us to swerve an hair’s breadth from the path of duty. We must obey the dictates of our own conscience, and “be faithful unto death, if ever we would receive a crown of life.” We cannot indeed expect that we shall never err, seeing that infallibility pertains not to our fallen nature, nor is the lot of any of the sons of men: but if we err, it must not be through fear or through favour, but simply through the weakness incident to man in his present fallen state; and we must be especially careful that the error be not in any thing of fundamental importance. We may in our superstructure “build hay, or wood, or stubble,” and yet ourselves be ultimately “saved, though it be so as by fire:” but, if we err in the foundation, we involve ourselves in inevitable and everlasting ruin [Note: 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.]. Let us look to it therefore that we “hold fast the faith once delivered to the saints.” Let nothing be suffered for one moment to move us from it. Let us bear in mind, that “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” On that let us build, even on that alone, not uniting any thing with it, or attempting to strengthen it by any addition of our own. Let us guard against any approximation to this fatal error. Many there are, who, whilst they would abhor the thought of uniting their own merits with the merits of Christ, will yet, through a false notion of humility, not venture to trust in Christ, unless they can see some measure of worthiness in themselves. But this is in reality, whatever it may be thought, a repetition of Peter’s sin; and will sooner or later meet with a severe reprehension from our God. We must go to Christ guilty, that we may be forgiven; naked, that we may be clothed; polluted, that we may be sanctified: and, when we are most empty in ourselves, then shall we receive most out of his fulness. We must “know nothing but Christ and him crucified,” and be contented to be nothing, that he may be “all in all.”]

DISCOURSE: 2057

TRUE USE OF THE LAW

Galatians 2:19. I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

THE knowledge of the law is indispensably necessary to the knowledge of the Gospel. Even persons who have some views of Christ as a Saviour, have, in general, a very inadequate idea of the extent to which we need a Saviour. This can be known only by considering the requirements of the law, and the measure of guilt which we have contracted by our violation of them. In unfolding to us this subject, the Epistle to the Galatians stands, perhaps, preeminent above all others, not excepting even that to the Romans; and the words which I have just read will furnish me with an occasion to submit it somewhat fully to your view.

In these words is declared the use of the law,

I. In relation to our hopes from it—

The law, in the first instance, was ordained unto life; and it would have given life to those who perfectly obeyed it. But to fallen man it is no longer a covenant of life: it rather destroys all our hopes of acceptance by our obedience to it; so that every one who understands it aright must say with the Apostle, “I through the law am dead to the law.” It produces this effect,

1. By the extent of its precepts—

[If these comprehended nothing beyond the letter, the generality, of Christians at least, might account themselves, “as touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” But it extends to every thought and disposition of the soul. It forbids us to entertain even so much as an inordinate desire. It does not say merely, “Thou shalt not steal,” but, “Thou shalt not covet.” And our blessed Lord, in his sermon on the mount, declares, that an angry feeling is, in God’s estimation, as murder, and an impure look as adultery. Now then, when “the commandment is so exceeding broad,” who will pretend to have kept it? or who will build his hopes of salvation on his obedience to it? It is manifest, that there is not a man upon earth who has not, in numberless instances, violated it; and who therefore must not shut his mouth with conscious shame, and acknowledge himself “guilty before God [Note: Romans 3:19.].”]

2. By the inexorableness of its threatenings—

[For every violation of its commands it denounces a curse, saying, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them [Note: Galatians 3:10.].” We must not merely wish to do them, but actually do them; and not only some, but all; and that not for a season only, but continually, without interruption from first to last: and in default of this, every one, even every child of Adam, is cursed, even with an everlasting curse. As for any lighter penalty than this, it knows of none: it admits of no relaxation of it, no mitigation whatever: so that, of all that are under the law, there is not so much as one that is not under the curse and wrath of God. To hope for salvation, therefore, from such a law as this, is quite out of the question. A man in the contemplation of these threatenings can do nothing but lie down in despair, even as Paul himself did: for though, previously to his understanding the true tenour of the law, he supposed himself to be alive, he no sooner saw the extent of its commands, and the awfulness of its sanctions, than “he died,” and became sensible that he was nothing but a dead, condemned sinner before God [Note: Romans 7:9.].]

3. By its incapacity to afford us any remedy whatever—

[When it requires obedience, it does not offer us any strength for the performance of it: nor, when we have violated it in any respect, does it speak one word about repentance: nor does it make known to us any way whereby pardon may be obtained. The only thing which it says to any man is, “Do this, and live: offend, and die.” What hope, then, can any man entertain of salvation by such a law as this? It precludes a possibility of hope to any child of man: so that we must be dead to the law, not merely because the Gospel requires it, but because it is the very intent of the law itself to make us so: “Through the law itself we must become dead to the law.”]

We must not, however, imagine that all observance of the law is unnecessary: for the very reverse will appear, whilst we consider the law,

II. In relation to our obedience to it—

As a covenant of works, the law doubtless is set aside: but as a rule of life, it is as much in force as ever: and, though delivered from its curse, we are bound as much as ever to obey it:

1. From a sense of gratitude—

[Will a man delivered from the law say, “I will continue in sin, that grace may abound?” No: if upright, we shall shudder at the thought. “We have not so learned Christ, if we have been taught of him.” On the contrary, the first dictate of our minds will be, “What shall I render to the Lord for all his benefits towards me?” The love of Christ, in redeeming us from the law, will have a constraining influence upon us, and stimulate us to live to him who died for us [Note: 2 Corinthians 5:14-15.]. No other end than this did the Apostle Paul contemplate. He was not dead to the law, that he might live to the world, but “that he might live unto God [Note: Romans 12:1.]:” and to God will every one live, who has a just sense of his mercy in giving us a better covenant, wherein we are called, not to earn life by our works, but to receive it as a gift in and through the Lord Jesus Christ.]

2. From a sense of duty—

[The law is still, and ever must be, the one standard of holiness to which we are to be conformed: and our obligation to obey it can never be reversed. God himself, if I may so speak, cannot dispense with our observance of it. It is of necessity our duty to love God with all our heart and mind and soul and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves. Our having a better covenant to found our hopes upon, can never abrogate the essential laws of our nature. If we be in heaven, earth, or hell, love must be our duty: and every man feels it to be his duty to walk according to that unerring and unchanging rule. Our freedom from the law, so far from being a reason for disregarding this rule, is the strongest reason for our most diligent adherence to it. St. Paul, by means of an easy illustration, places this matter in a clear light. He supposes us, in the first instance, married to the law; and afterwards, on the death of our husband, married to a second husband, the Lord Jesus Christ. But are we then content to be barren, as to the fruits of righteousness? No; quite the contrary: “Being dead to the law, we are married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. We are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter [Note: Romans 7:4; Romans 7:6.].” Our obligation to obedience, so far from being relaxed by that change, is strongly and unalterably confirmed.]

3. From a sense of interest—

[Though we can never hope to be justified by our obedience to the law, our reward in heaven will be proportioned to our obedience. The day of judgment is appointed for the express purpose of manifesting the righteousness of God in all his dispensations. And, in reference to our obedience, we may safely say, “He that soweth plenteously shall reap plenteously; and he that soweth sparingly shall reap sparingly.” Now, the expectation of this issue remains with every man, whatever be his hopes in reference to his first acceptance with God. But with him who has trembled for his lost estate, and has fled for refuge to Christ as to the hone set before him in the Gospel, there will be an ardour of desire to secure a testimony in his favour. He will not be content to leave any thing in doubt. He is well assured, that “not the person who merely says to his Saviour, Lord, Lord, shall inherit the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of his Father that is in heaven.” Having therefore this prospect, he will of necessity say, “What manner of person ought I to be, in all holy conversation and godliness!”]

The subject, as you see, lies deep: yet is it very important. To all then I would say, respecting the law, endeavour,

1. To understand its nature—

[The generality regard it solely as a system of restraints and precepts. But, in truth, it is a covenant of life and death: of life to man in innocence; and of death, if I may so speak, to fallen man. It is now given, not to justify, but to condemn: not to save, but to kill; not to be a ground of hope to any, but “to shut men up to the Gospel,” and to Christ as revealed in it [Note: Galatians 3:23.], even to him who is “the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth [Note: Romans 10:4.].” I would to God that this matter were better understood. In fact, it is but rarely stated, even by those who, in the main, preach the Gospel: and it is owing to this that men’s views of the Gospel are so very inadequate and superficial. But let me entreat of you to improve the instruction given you in relation to this matter. See that the law does nothing but curse you, yea, deservedly, and eternally curse you. See that the new covenant, that has been made with us in Christ Jesus, is our proper refuge, that we may flee to it, and lay hold upon it, and find acceptance by it: and let this covenant be all your salvation and all your desire.]

2. To fulfil its purposes—

[It was intended, as we have said, to drive you to Christ. Let it operate in this manner. Look not to it, for a single moment, as affording you any hope towards God. Be content to renounce, in point of dependence, your best actions, as much as your vilest sins: and look to Christ precisely as the wounded Israelites did to the brazen serpent in the wilderness. They did not attempt to combine with God’s appointment any prescriptions of their own; but simply turned their eyes to that object, in faith. I pray you to bear this in mind, and to imitate their conduct in this respect. Fear not respecting the interests of holiness: they are well provided for in this blessed ordinance: and the more dead you arc to the law, the more, I pledge myself, you will live unto your God.]

3. To honour its requirements—

[The world will have a jealousy on this head: they will always suppose, that if you do not seek for justification by the law, you have no motive for obeying it. Shew them how greatly they err in this respect. Indeed, they stand in this respect self-condemned: for at the moment that they complain of your sentiments as licentious, they find fault with your lives as too strict and holy. You are regarded by them as “righteous over-much;” and as making the way to heaven so strait, that none but yourselves can walk in it. This is as it should be; I mean, as far as it respects you; for it is in this way that you are to “make your light shine before men,” and to “put to silence the ignorance of foolish men by well-doing.”]

DISCOURSE: 2058

THE CHRISTIAN CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST

Galatians 2:20. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

THE Gospel is, for the most part, plain and simple: yet are there some things in it which seem dark and contradictory. In one place St. Paul brings forward a long list of paradoxes, which to a superficial reader would appear absurd in the extreme [Note: 2 Corinthians 6:8-10.]: but in all the sacred records there is not one so difficult of solution as that in our text [Note: The difficulty of this passage seems needlessly increased in our translation. The second clause of the text stands thus; ζῶ δὲ οὐκ ἕτι ἐγὼ·and it might he translated, “I am crucified with Christ; and I am alive no more.” The opposite tru th then comes naturally; “I am alive no more; but Christ liveth in me.” The very position of the words in this antithesis seems to mark the propriety of this translation; ζῶ δὲ οὐκ ἔτι ἐγὼ·ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ χριστός. But by putting a stop after ζῶ δὲ, we make a double paradox, instead of a single one. The sense, however, is much the same, whichever way the passage is translated: but one would wish rather to lessen, than increase, its unavoidable obscurity.]. The Apostle is speaking on the subject of justification by faith alone, without the works of the law: and he mentions, that he had publicly reproved Peter for sanctioning by his example the idea that the observation of the law was still necessary. He says, that the law itself sufficiently shewed us the necessity of abandoning all hopes from that, and of seeking justification by faith in Christ alone: and then adds, that, in consequence of what Christ had done and suffered to deliver us from the law as a covenant of works, he considered himself as one dead to the law, and as having all his life and all his hopes in Christ alone. This is the plain import of the passage as divested of its paradoxical appearance. But as the paradox, when explained, will be very instructive, we shall enter into it fuller consideration of it; and shew,

I. In what respect the Christian is dead—

To understand in what sense the Apostle was “crucified with Christ,” we must particularly attend to the great ends for which Christ was crucified. Now Christ was crucified, in the first place, in order to satisfy all the demands of the law. The law required perfect obedience, and denounced a curse against every transgression of its precepts [Note: Galatians 3:10.]. Man, therefore, having transgressed the law, was utterly, and eternally, ruined. But Christ having undertaken to restore him to the Divine favour, endured the curse which we had merited, and obeyed the precepts which we had violated: and thus rendered our salvation perfectly compatible with the honour of the Divine law; inasmuch as what we have failed to do or suffer in our own persons, we have done and suffered in our Surety. But Christ had a further end in submitting to crucifixion, namely, to destroy sin, and, by expiating its guilt, for ever to annul its power. This is frequently declared in Scripture, not only as the immediate end of his death [Note: Titus 2:14. 2 Corinthians 5:15.], but as the end of the whole dispensation which he has introduced [Note: Romans 14:9. Titus 2:12-13.].

Now when St. Paul says, “I am crucified with Christ,” we must understand, that there was something in his experience analogous to the crucifixion of Christ; or, in other words, that as Christ died a violent death, to cancel the obligations of the law as a covenant, and to destroy sin, so the Apostle, by a holy violence upon himself, died to the law as a covenant, and to sin as the most hateful of all evils.

The believer then, according to this view of the subject, is dead,

1. To the law—

[Once all his hopes were founded on his obedience to the moral law; and lie felt in his conscience a dread of God’s wrath on account of his transgressions of its precepts. But now he abandons all his self-righteous hopes, and dismisses all his slavish fears, because he finds a better, yea, an assured, ground of hope in Christ’s obedience unto death. He argues thus: ‘Does the law curse me for my manifold transgressions? Christ has endured its curse for me, and therefore I have no reason to fear it [Note: Galatians 3:13.]: “there is no condemnation to me, if only I am in Christ Jesus [Note: Romans 8:1.].” On the other hand, does the law require perfect unsinning obedience in order to my justification before God? Christ has paid it that obedience, and “brought in thereby an everlasting righteousness [Note: Daniel 9:24.],” “which is unto all, and upon all them that believe [Note: Romans 3:22.].” I renounce therefore all hope in my own obedience, and found all my hopes of salvation on the obedience of my blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ [Note: Philippians 3:9. Romans 5:19. 2 Corinthians 5:21.].’

To this state he is brought, partly by the law itself, which cuts him off from all possible hope from his own obedience to it [Note: ver. 19. with Galatians 3:24.], and partly by the death of Christ, which has totally cancelled the law, as a covenant, for all those who believe in him: so that, as a woman is released from all obligation to her husband when he is dead, and may, if she please, unite herself to another; so the believer ceases to have any connexion with the law of God, now that it is cancelled by Christ [Note: Romans 7:1-4.]: the law is dead to him; or, to use the language of our text, he is crucified to it.]

2. To sin—

[The believer, previous to his conversion, had no wish beyond the things of time and sense. He “walked according to the course of this world,” “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind.” He possibly might be pure from gross acts of sin; but all his actions, of whatever kind they were, sprang from self, and terminated in self: self-seeking, and self-pleasing, constituted the sum total of his life. He possessed no higher principle than self; the stream therefore could rise no higher than the fountain-head. But now he feels the influence of nobler principles, and determines to “live no longer to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. The time past suffices to have wrought his own will [Note: 1 Peter 4:2-3.]:” and henceforth he desires to have, not only every action, but “every thought, brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ [Note: 2 Corinthians 10:5.].” He now “crucifies the flesh with the affections and lusts [Note: Galatians 5:24. This is spoken of all true Christians without exception.].” They form what the Scriptures call “the old man;” and this “old man is crucified with Christ, that the body of sin may he destroyed, that henceforth he should not serve sin [Note: Romans 6:6.].” Even the things that are innocent, are yet among the number of those things to which the believer is crucified. He enjoys them indeed; (for “God has given him all things richly to enjoy;”) but he will not be in bondage to them; he will not serve them; he will not regard them as constituting his happiness, no, nor as essential to his happiness: if he possess (as he may very innocently do) the pleasures, the riches, or the honours of the world, he does not set his affections upon them; he regards them rather with a holy jealousy, lest they should ensnare him, and alienate his heart from God: he sits loose to them; and is willing to part with them at any moment, and in any manner, that his Lord shall call for them: in short, he regards the world, and every thing in it, as a crucified object, which once indeed was dear to him, but which he is now willing, if need be, to have buried out of his sight. He makes a conscience of fulfilling all his duties in the world, as much, or more than ever: but since he has learned how to appreciate the cross of Christ, “the world has become crucified unto him, and he unto the world [Note: Galatians 6:14.].” Whatever is positively sinful in it, (however dear it once was to him,) is renounced and mortified [Note: Mark 9:43-48.]; and even the most innocent things in it have comparatively lost all their value, and all their relish. His delight in heavenly things has rendered inferior things insipid; and his joy in God has eclipsed all sublunary joy.]

Nevertheless, the Christian lives: and to shew the truth of the paradox, we proceed to state,

II. In what manner he lives—

That he has the same life as the unregenerate, is obvious enough: but he has also a life different from theirs; and his whole manner of life is different from theirs: he lives a new life in, and through, Christ: he lives,

1. By the influences of his Spirit—

[He once was—dead in trespasses and sins:” but that same voice which bade Lazarus to come forth out of the grave, has bidden him live. The Lord Jesus has infused into his soul a new and living principle; and has “given him that living water, which is in his soul a well of water springing up unto everlasting life.” “Christ himself liveth in him,” and “is his very life [Note: Colossians 3:4.].” This accounts for his being able to do things which no other man can. In himself, he is weak as other men; he cannot perform a good act [Note: John 15:5.], or speak a good word [Note: Matthew 12:34.], or think a good thought [Note: 2 Corinthians 3:5.]; but by the almighty operation of Christ within him he can do all things [Note: Philippians 4:13.]. Being dead with Christ (as has been before shewn), he is risen and lives with him; according as it is written, “Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him: for in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God: likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord [Note: Romans 6:9-11.]”]

2. In dependence on his sacrifice—

[The atonement of Christ is the one ground of all the Christian’s hopes. If he look for reconciliation with God, it is through the blood of the Redeemer’s cross: if for peace, for strength, for any blessing whatsoever, he has no other plea than this; “My Lord and Saviour has bought it for me with his blood.” He views every thing treasured up for him in Christ [Note: Colossians 1:19.]: and to him he goes, in order to “receive out of his fulness” whatsoever his necessities require [Note: John 1:16.]. His whole life is “a life of faith on the Son of God.” He never goes to God but in, and through, Christ: he never expects any blessing to flow down upon him, but for the sake of Christ, and through him, as the immediate channel of conveyance. The very life which he receives from Christ, he considers as purchased for him by Christ’s obedience unto death: and on that very ground he presumes to “make Christ his wisdom, his righteousness, his sanctification, and his complete redemption.”]

3. Under a sense of his love—

[The Christian is not contented with acknowledging the love of Christ to mankind in general; he views it especially as it respects himself; and delights in contemplating his own personal obligations to him. O how wonderful does it appear, that Christ should ever love such a one as him, and give himself for him! That for such a wretch as him, he should submit to all the shame and agonies of crucifixion! What incomprehensible breadths and lengths and depths and heights does he behold in this stupendous mystery! And what unsearchable riches does he seem to possess in this blessed assurance! It is this that animates him, this that “constrains him.” Had he a thousand lives, he would dedicate them all to his service, and lay them clown for his honour. And though he cannot perhaps at all times say, “My beloved is mine, and I am his,” yet the most distant hope of such a mercy fills his soul with “joy unspeakable and glorified.”]

Address—

1. Those who object to the Gospel—

[Many there are, who, when we speak of being dead to the law, imagine that we are enemies to good works, and that the Gospel which we preach tends to licentiousness. It is true, we do say, (and we speak only what the Scriptures speak,) that though the law is still in force as a rule of duty, we are free from it as a covenant of works; and that in consequence of being free from it, the believer has neither hopes nor fears arising from it. But are we therefore regardless of the interests of morality? Does not the Apostle himself say, that “he, through the law, was dead to the law?” Yet what does he conclude from this? That he might live as he pleased? No: he was, “dead to the law, that he might live unto God.” And then he repeats the same important truth; “I am crucified with Christ:” and again guards it against any similar misrepresentation, by shewing that the believer has a strength for obedience which no other person possesses, and motives for obedience which no other person feels. Let these two things be considered, and it will appear, that the Gospel, so far from militating against good works, is the only doctrine that secures the performance of them.

If this argument be not satisfactory, we ask the objector, What are those good works in which the declaimer about morality excels the believer? Yea, we ask, Whether they who renounce all dependence on their good works, be not the very people who arc universally censured on account of the strictness and holiness of their lives? Away then with your objections; and know, that if the Gospel be excellent as a system, it is yet more excellent as advancing the interests of morality.]

2. Those who profess the Gospel—

[Religion consists not in the adoption of any creed, but in a radical change both of heart and life. The words before us sufficiently shew, that it is a matter of experience, and not of mere talk and profession. Hear the Apostle: “I am crucified with Christ;” “I live;” “Christ liveth in me;” “I live by faith;” “I live by faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” All this has its seat, not in the head, but in the heart. Know therefore that, in order to ascertain the real state of your souls, you must inquire, not what principles you have imbibed, but how they operate; and whether in these respects you resemble this holy Apostle? Beloved, we entreat and charge you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, not to deceive yourselves with respect to this matter. To form a just estimate of your state, you must examine whether you be really dead to the law, and dead to sin; and whether, by the almighty operation of the Spirit of God within you, you are enabled to live to the glory of our blessed Lord and Saviour? These are the true tests of vital religion; and, according as your experience accords with them or not, your state will ultimately be determined at the judgment-seat of Christ.]

3. Those who obey the Gospel—

[It appears to others, and may sometimes even to ourselves, a painful thing to experience a continual crucifixion. I confess, that the right eye being plucked out, and the right hand cut off, does imply a considerable degree of pain and self-denial. But we would ask, whether, in those seasons when the in-dwelling operation of Christ is plainly felt, and his unspeakable love in giving himself for you is distinctly seen, the exercise of self-denial be not both easy and pleasant? We ask, whether the joy arising from these discoveries do not far more than counterbalance any joy which you may be supposed to lose by abstaining from the gratifications of flesh and blood? We are sure that no difference of opinion can exist respecting these things, among those whose experience qualifies them to form a just judgment about them. We therefore hesitate not to say, “Be ye more and more crucified to the world and to sin:” “Live more and more by faith on the Son of God:” and let a sense of your personal obligations to him lead you to a more entire devotedness of yourselves to his service, till you are taken to serve him without ceasing in the world above.]