Part 11

It is very common to find a man who has been at much pains to find out for himself the doctrines and requirements of Christianity, who heartily accepts every article of the creed, who is scrupulously exact in keeping all the ordinances, who would think himself guilty of no ordinary sin, if he frequented the place of worship of another sect, or contributed of his substance to their cause, who is yet all the while utterly indifferent to the fact that almost every article of his creed, and every ordinance of his Church, is ignored, and even denounced by some one or other of the many bodies of men calling themselves Christian communities. He thinks it no business of his to defend the faith, or to vindicate the ordinances. Let every man look to himself, is his maxim, and leave others alone; or, perhaps, if he is momentarily interested in the matter, if a wish springs up that it were otherwise, he soothes himself, and spares himself further anxiety and labour, by suggesting that Christian charity would not interfere with another’s liberty. “These others,” he reasons, “have a religion, and follow it. It is not altogether the same as mine, but it is in many respects like it, perhaps in all essentials. At any rate, it is better than none; it would be presumptuous to suppose that they may not be saved by it. Therefore, if I must help in proselytizing any, it shall not be these mainly right, but the godless, the followers of no religion!”

Now, brethren, such a man is utterly in fault: he is incurring the Apostle’s reproach of being carnal, in allowing divisions; he is offending against the very Christian charity which he thinks he is exercising; he is unconcerned about the due honour of GOD; he is disobeying the injunction to endeavour “to keep the unity of the Spirit.” The question is not, whether a man can be saved in heresy or schism, but whether any Christian, who honours GOD and loves the brethren, ought to wink at heresy or schism? And the answer is plain—he ought not! Is GOD honoured, is He pleased, when the creature, to whom He reveals Himself, says, in effect, Thus much of the Divine account I will accept; the rest I do not like, cannot reconcile with my private pre-conceived notions, cannot see to be reasonable, therefore, I reject it? Is GOD obeyed, when His servant, instead of fulfilling His whole will, sets aside capriciously, or for some selfish reason, certain positive precepts of that will? Is any Christian in a certainly accepted and safe state, or in the way to it, who does not use, who ignores the need of, prescribed means of cleansing and sanctifying? And if he is not, how far is it charitable, to let him remain as he is, without concern? My brethren, we all recognise it as the duty of every Christian to promote the knowledge and acceptance of the truth. Can we be said to discharge this duty, if we care not about the mutilation or distortion of the truth? We all acknowledge that we ought to love one another, to have fervent charity among ourselves. Is it charitable—is it not culpably selfish—to have, as we believe, the best, if not the only, right faith—and not to be concerned that others have it not? Is it not, too, strangely perverse to admit, that those in separation are brethren, fellow-pilgrims, fellow-heirs, to hope to meet them in heaven, and to think, and feel, and live in perfect harmony with them for ever; and yet here not to be concerned that we never can give them the right hand of fellowship—cannot journey with them, and help, and make for the inheritance together—can never even meet them in prayer and communion—must let them be as utter strangers? In earthly matters none of this would be tolerated, could possibly be. Why, then, can it be—why is it in religion? Because we are not jealous enough for the honour of GOD, because we do not truly love the brethren, because we do not endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit!

But it is possible to err—there are many who do err—on the other side; who, in their zeal for the faith, insist that all shall think and do precisely as they do, or shall forego the name of brethren: who have been at no pains to search out the ground of their own faith, and see how much of it is derived from GOD, and how much from man; who make no distinction between important and unimportant misconceptions; who class together the wilful teacher of error and the misguided learner, the originators of schism and the inheritors of it; who blame for their faults those whom they should rather pity for their misfortune; who would make the path of orthodoxy as narrow as possible, and excommunicate all whom they could detect treading on its borders; who not only see nothing right beyond their own Church, but are impatient of much that is within it; who split the Church up into parties, and bring about the worst of schisms—divisions, misgivings, and oppositions, among members of the same household, continuing in the same house; who would have undue prominence given to certain doctrines; who fight for or against certain ceremonies and vestments, and certain kinds of music; who are ever looking for something to protest against, to blame, or to pity, in their fellow-worshippers or their ministers. These men think that they do GOD service (for I speak not now of the wilful); they are intent upon serving Him; but it is like Saul before his conversion, with an ignorant and persecuting zeal. They want to establish and keep, what they think, the unity of the Spirit, but they care not for the bond of peace. If a member of their own communion does not think as they do, they quarrel with him, they bid him go, they would thrust him out: while, as for members of other Christian bodies, they think worse of them, they speak worse of them, they shun them more than they would an infidel or a reprobate! Let not this be thought exaggeration; not always, nor very often, let us hope, do they come to this growth; but of this kind, alas! too nearly of this measure there are not a few among both High Churchmen and Low Churchmen; and in this direction works all zeal that is not fully enlightened by GOD, that is not warmed with love for CHRIST, and love for those whom CHRIST died to save and win. Zeal is good, earnest contention for the faith is imperatively required of every Christian, but so is right knowledge and love. Right knowledge, I venture to say, while condemning actual heresy and schism, would often be content with creeds in general terms, and would make much easier, than many strict religionists conceive, the terms of communion, so as to include as many as were really desirous of being included; and love, Christian love, would sigh and sorrow over differences, and yearn after separatists; and would labour, and persuade, and spend, and be spent, and wrestle in prayer, to cement, to convert, to bring in. O it is _self_ that is so stern and strict in defining what is correct theology; it is antichrist in his worst mood, that would thrust out or cut off a brother sinner!

My brethren, understand clearly that you are most solemnly bound to accept yourselves, and to urge upon others, the whole teaching of GOD, nothing less and nothing more; to render yourselves, to persuade others to render, precise and perfect obedience. You may not be indifferent about others, but you must not be overbearing. You are keepers and helpers of the brethren, but you are not judges and avengers. It is your duty to honour GOD, and to maintain His honour; it is your mission to persuade others to honour Him also. GOD is honoured in unity, in agreement, in faith, in union, in practice, and service, and worship. You have then to promote this unity; but, as a pre-qualification, you must have so entered into the mind of the Spirit, as to know—specially for GOD’S missionary work—what liberty is allowed, and to feel, after your poor measure, what CHRIST feels of love for each individual soul. In the prosecution of your work, the text directs you—You are called with one calling, the Gentile is included with the Jew; the aim is union, not separation, that all may be saved. By all means, save whom you can. Be lowly, let not self intrude, where CHRIST should be put forward; be meek, let not self recoil where CHRIST would suffer; be patient, enduring, long-suffering, slow to take offence, determined not to give offence, bent upon returning good for evil, forbearing one another in love, making every allowance for wrong training, for natural prejudices, for individual infirmities—ay, and even perversities. Be very zealous for the unity of the Spirit; but be sure that you are breaking, not promoting, that unity, wherever you sever or endanger the bond of peace. Follow this advice—and I do not say you will root out heresy, and heal divisions, but you will do much towards it. Argument, and censure, and ridicule, and remonstrance, and denunciation, and persecution, have been trying, ever since the Christian era, to establish the unity of the Spirit, and have rather destroyed it. Try you, whether he was not enlightened and sanctified by the Spirit, who said, and acted upon it, “that one ounce of love could do more than many pounds of controversy.” Men may be repelled from you, by your orthodoxy, your zeal, your reasoning, your stout remonstrance. They will be subdued by your forbearance, and will come after you for your love!

To the best of you, I say, there is some indifference which you ought to shake off. To the best of you, I say, get farther from bigotry and the spirit of self.

SERMON XIII. THE LAW IN THE GOSPEL.

ST. LUKE, X., 25.

_What shall I do to inherit eternal life_?

WE have here the question of a Jewish lawyer, who is said, in propounding it, to have tempted our LORD. This does not necessarily, or even probably, mean, that his object was simply to ensnare and entangle JESUS in his speech: but rather that he was putting Him to the test, that he might judge of the qualifications and orthodoxy of the New Teacher. But, besides this, he seems, from the commendation presently passed on him, to have had a better motive; to have been like the scribe who was not far from the kingdom of heaven, to have felt personal anxiety about salvation, and to have sought from our LORD, in an honest, though somewhat professional and self-sufficient manner, the resolution of a real doubt. “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He had listened to the words in which JESUS reminded His hearers, that they had greater privileges than those who lived before them (“Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see. For I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them, and to hear those things which ye hear and have not heard them”), and rightly concluding that they were an announcement of the arrival of Gospel times, and the setting forth of their speaker as the Great Gospel Teacher, he asked, what was there _new_ for him to hear and learn, and what consequently remained for him to do, that he might inherit eternal life. The reply of our LORD is remarkable. “What is written in the law? how readest thou?” There is nothing new, nothing taken away, nothing added or altered. I come, to fulfil the ceremonial law, to enforce the moral law, what does that bind upon thee? And he answering said, with much wisdom—much spiritual discernment, “Thou shalt love the LORD thy GOD with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself. And JESUS said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live:” _i.e._, shalt have eternal life. Observe, throughout this lawyer’s speech, how correct is his theology. “What shall I do to _inherit_ eternal life?” not to gain, to purchase, to earn it, but to inherit it. “I do not claim it as a profitable servant, I am not so foolish as to suppose that I can procure it by any surrender, or exchange, or labour. It comes (to those to whom it comes at all) as an inheritance, to the children of the covenant, the heirs of faithful Abraham. And this heirship is not a natural, but a spiritual one. I am a Jew outwardly, but I do not therefore claim to be certainly a Jew inwardly. They are not all Israel who are of Israel. Abraham’s child according to the flesh, I would also be, what I am not necessarily, what indeed I am not at all of mere natural birthright, Abraham’s child according to the promise.” And next observe, how he seeks to secure the inheritance. “What shall I _do_?” Eternal life is not the reward of service, it is not the fruit of labour, it is the privilege of a spiritual relationship; but still it cannot be enjoyed by those who are indifferent about it, or by those who only desire it. It must be laid hold on by real active efforts; it must be maintained by a particular course of conduct; salvation must be worked out. “What must I do” to secure it? Truly he is an enlightened scribe! He knows that eternal life is the free gift of a GOD, Who is no respecter of persons; Who recognises no birthright, no personal merits; Who will have mercy on Whom He will have mercy: but that yet grace does not fall, as the rain from heaven, alike upon the barren and the fertile, the thankless and the thankful, the careless and the anxious, the indolent and the active; but is ever guided by a discerning and distinguishing hand, is ever bestowed upon righteousness. And so he asks, What is the righteousness that inherits grace: knowing well what was the prescribed righteousness of the law, how men were to be saved in times past; but expecting that under the Gospel, an additional, perhaps a different course was to be followed.

We have already seen that CHRIST referred him back to the law, as revealing and enacting all that was necessary. “What is written in the law? How readest thou?” It is in his answer to this question that we see chiefly the perfection of his religious theory and his great intellectual superiority to the scribes generally. For, observe, he does not reply “We must be circumcised; we must be sprinkled with the blood of goats and heifers; we must keep the Passover; we must wait on the temple-services; we must give tithes of all that we possess.” Nor, again, does he say, “We must observe all moral precepts; we must refrain from all idolatry; we must do justice and love mercy; obeying implicitly the commandments of the two tables.” No! in theory he is wiser than that: he has no reliance on external rights and ceremonies: he is sure that GOD demands something better than a servile conformity with certain precepts and restrictions. GOD, he knows, looks to the heart, requires the spirit rather than, _i.e._, beyond the letter. The law has taught him this: Moses gave him from heaven ceremonies to perform, and moral commandments to keep; but Moses told him, that mere outward conformity with these things was not righteousness; that the law was spiritual; that the acts done and refrained from under it were only exhibitions of a principle which must reign within: “Thou shalt love the LORD thy GOD with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself.” Even so, “Thou hast answered right,” said CHRIST. “Thou hast learnt under the law, all that the Gospel would teach. To exhibit this is the bent of My life on earth, to enforce it will be the mission of My Church. Love is the fulfilling of the law. This do, and thou shalt live.”

It appears to me, brethren, that in this conversation, carefully considered, we may find a clue to the satisfactory interpretation of those perplexing sayings about the differences between the law and the Gospel: “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” “Ye are not under the law,” “the ministration of condemnation;” “The covenant that was confirmed before of GOD in CHRIST, the law which was 430 years after cannot disannul.” “The Law and the Prophets were until John.” “I am not come to destroy the law.” “This do and thou shalt live.”

It is a common notion that there is an essential difference, amounting even to a contradiction between the law and the Gospel. GOD is supposed—as if He were an imperfect Being changing His ways capriciously—to have suspended the Covenant of Grace which He had made with Abraham, from the time of Moses to that of CHRIST, and to have given the Jews in its stead a Covenant of Works, which He well knew they could not keep, and under which, therefore, they were sure to be destroyed: or, if He accepted any of them under the law, then, it is said, that inasmuch as their obedience was of course imperfect, He must have been content with less than He had required, and have disregarded His own decree, “The soul that sinneth it shall die.” Nay, more than this: that He dispensed for a time with the merits of CHRIST’S atonement and the finding of salvation through Him, and dealt with man on his own merits, and rewarded him for an imperfect obedience. But now, it is urged, all this is once more changed. The law, having served its purpose of showing men that they could not obey GOD in the letter, having concluded them all under sin by disallowing the things they were prone to, and requiring what they could not do, having disappointed and balked them in their efforts to obtain salvation by it, and so caused them to abandon its observance in despair, and to inquire for another way of salvation—thus being a schoolmaster to lead them to CHRIST—has now been wholly repealed; so that we have nothing more to do with it, being brought out of bondage into liberty, and what we find forbidden or required by it, is not forbidden or required by us _because it is in the law_, but may be done or left undone, notwithstanding what the law says, unless some eternally moral principle, independent of Jewish sanctions and restrictions, would be thereby violated! I have put this in plainer and stronger words than any of yourselves probably would use, or are accustomed to hear: but I have not exaggerated the matter. In proof, let me ask, Are there not many who think the rehearsal of the Decalogue out of place in the Communion service? who object to moral preaching as savouring of the obsolete law? who talk about the “filthy rags” of their own righteousness, as if they were something wrong in keeping in the law? who believe that CHRIST is glorified most when they do least? who boast of a liberty to use or use not ordinances and means of grace? who reproach others with being, for instance, Sabbatarians? who speak of the GOD of the New Testament almost as if the GOD of the Old Testament were another Being, of different attributes, enacting different laws? And even among those who have not distinctly set the law and the Gospel in opposition, is there not a vague notion that somehow the Old Testament does not concern us Christians, and that our way of salvation is different from that of the Jews, and much easier to follow? O how do such persons reconcile with their notions CHRIST’S teaching of the lawyer, whom He not only told to look for the way of salvation in the law, but commended for finding it there, and enjoined to keep it as the condition of salvation: “This do, and thou shalt live.”

The fact is, the way of salvation has always been the same, since man became a sinner. Eternal life has always been a free gift in CHRIST. Not for their merits or deservings does GOD love men; not by their own inventions or labours do they procure acceptance. The precious blood of CHRIST shed (in effect) before the foundation of the world, has ever been the fountain for sin; the intercession of CHRIST has ever been the means of reconciliation; the grace of CHRIST’S sanctified human nature applied by the Holy Spirit has ever been the leaven of regeneration, of conversion, of perfection in holiness and fitness for the inheritance of the saints in light. But GOD has never been indifferent to the way in which men receive His free gifts. He at first created man for His own glory, and He has redeemed, and would sanctify him for His glory. He made man to love Him, to depend on Him, to render Him the grateful homage of a free-will service, to reflect His own glorious attributes of holiness and love. The sin of Adam and Eve was not that they ate of a particular fruit reserved from them, but that they frustrated the end for which they were created; that they found not their delight in the way of GOD’S will; that they chose for themselves out of Him; that they doubted His truth, gave themselves over to the influence and dominion of another lord. They would have sinned as greatly, as hatefully, had they scrupulously refrained from the deed of sin, but in their hearts longed after it, and in their hearts murmured against the restriction, and disputed the importance or the justice of it. And so the holiness of pardoned man does not consist in the mere mechanical, servile, or selfish rendering of outward obedience, in the number of enjoined things which he does, and the number of forbidden things which he avoids; but in the inward love and gratitude which he feels towards GOD, in his filial reverence of his Heavenly Father, in his delight to carry out GOD’S known will, and his anxiety to learn more, that he may do more of it, in his heart’s beating, so to speak, in unison with GOD’S heart, and his life’s reflecting GOD’S light and love.