Part 8

But what! taking these oracular words, in the sense only in which Jesus thought fit to explain them, we hardly see the force and propriety of them. For, had Peter _no part with Jesus_, that is, was he incapable of receiving any benefit from him, unless he had this ceremony of washing, performed upon him, when that ceremony had no further use or meaning, than to convey a moral lesson? If he had not learnt _this_ lesson from Christ, he might have learnt many _others_: or, he might have learnt _this_, some other way: and taking it in either light, he might still be said to _have some part_ with Jesus, though he had not been _washed_ by him.

The true import, then, of these enigmatic words, and of the whole transaction which is here recorded, begins to appear, and is further opened by the sequel of Peter’s conversation with Jesus. For, understanding, that this _ablution_ was, some way so necessary to him, Peter subjoins, _Not my feet only, but also my hands and my head_. Jesus saith to him, _He that is washed, needeth not, save to wash his feet, and is clean every whit; and ye are clean, but not all; for he knew who should betray him: therefore said he, Ye are not all clean_.

It was, we see, the uncleanness of sin, or the _filth of an evil conscience_, which was to be taken away by this washing. More than a single moral lesson, how excellent soever, was, therefore, couched in this act; indeed, the necessity and efficacy of CERTAIN MEANS, by which mankind were, in general, to be cleansed from sin, was that which was ultimately and mainly signified by it. He that was _thus washed, was clean every whit_; and the _information_ of this benefit being the end of the washing, it was enough if that was conveyed by washing any one part.

You see at length to what all this tends. Jesus, knowing the secret treachery of Judas, and, by the divine spirit which was in him, foreseeing the destined effect of that treachery; knowing, that he was now, forthwith, to suffer death upon the cross, the purpose, for which he came from God, and for the execution of which he only waited before he returned to him; considering, withal, the immense benefit, which was to accrue to mankind from his voluntary devotion of himself to this death, and that the eternal Father, for the sake of it, _had given all things into his hands_, had given him the power to redeem all the sons of Adam from the vassalage of sin and death, by virtue of that BLOOD which he was now to pour out upon the cross, as a propitiation for them; Jesus, I say, foreseeing and considering all this, chose this critical season, when _his hour was now come_, to signify by the ceremony of washing his disciples feet[79], the efficacy and value of his own precious blood, by which alone they, and all mankind, were to have all their sins purged and washed away for ever.

This was apparently the momentous instruction, which it was our Lord’s purpose to convey in this transaction. He would, _first_, shew that we were to be washed in his blood; and _then_, subordinately, that we were to follow his example in a readiness _to do as he had done_; that is, not only to _wash_ each other, but, emblematically still, to lay down our lives and pour out our blood, if need be, for the sake of the brethren. All circumstances concur to assure us, that such was the real secret intent of this mysterious washing; and thus, at length, we understand the full purport of those words—_If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me_[80].

If it be still said, that Jesus explains his own purpose differently, it is enough to reply, that these emblematic actions were generally significative of more things, than one; and that the manner of Jesus was, on other occasions, to enforce that instruction, which was not the primary one in his intention[81]: the reason of which conduct was founded in this rule, so constantly observed by him, of conveying information to his disciples, only, _as they were able to bear it_[82]. In a word, he gave them many instructions, and _this_, among the rest, darkly and imperfectly, because they could not then bear a stronger light; but yet with such clearness as might, afterwards, let them into his purpose; leaving it to the Holy Ghost (whose peculiar province it was) to illuminate their minds, in due time; to reveal all that had been obscurely intimated; and to open the full meaning of his discourses and actions, as well as to _bring them all to their remembrance_[83].

From this memorable part of the Gospel-history, thus opened and explained, we may draw some important conclusions.

1. FIRST, we learn, if the comment here given be a just one, That _the blood of Christ_ (so an Apostle hath expressed himself) _cleanseth us from all sin_[84]: I mean, that the death of Christ was a true, proper, and real propitiation for our sins; and not a mere figure, or tropical form of speech; as too many, who call themselves Christians, conceive of it. For the pertinence and propriety of the representative action, performed by our Lord, is founded in this supposition, “That the blood of Christ was necessary to our purification, and that, but for our being _washed in his blood_[85], we should be yet in our sins.” Jesus himself, in explaining this transaction, so far as he thought fit to explain it, confines us to this idea. For in this sense, only, is it true—_that we, who are washed, are clean every whit_—and, that _unless we are washed by Christ, we have no part with him_.

Such, then, is the information given us in this ceremony of _washing the disciples feet_; and not in this, only. For, besides the present emblematic act, performed by our Lord, for the special benefit of his disciples, the TWO Sacraments, it is to be observed, were purposely instituted, for the general use of his church, to hold forth to us an image of his _efficacious blood_, poured out for us: the sacrament of BAPTISM, by the reference it had (like this act) to the typical _washings_ of the Law; and the sacrament of the LORD’S SUPPER, as referring, in like manner, to the typical _sacrifices_ of that dispensation. Of such moment, in the view of our Lord himself, was this doctrine of _propitiation_! And so careful, or rather anxious, was he, that this consolatory idea of _redemption through his_ BLOOD[86] (suggested in so many ways, and in so striking a manner) should be always present to us!

Nor were his Apostles (let me, further, remark) less intent in prosecuting this design. For they insist every-where, and with a singular emphasis—that _Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us_[87]—and that _we are_ WASHED, _and sanctified, and saved, by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus_[88].

Go now, then, and say, that the _blood_ of Christ is only a metaphor, and means no more in the mouth of a Christian, than it might be supposed to do in that of an honest heathen, who should say, That he had been _saved_, or benefited in a moral way, by the _blood_, that is, the exemplary death, of Socrates!—When we speak of its _washing_ away sin, it is true, we use the term _washing_ metaphorically (for _sin_ is not literally washed): but the scriptures are unintelligible, and language itself has no meaning, if _the blood of the lamb slain_ had not a true, direct, and proper efficacy (considered in the literal sense of _blood_) in freeing us from the _guilt_ of sin, or, in other words, from the _punishment_ of it.

2. A SECOND conclusion may be drawn, more particularly, from the words of the text—_if I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me_. For, if these words mean, as I have endeavoured to shew, and as, I think, they must mean, that we are redeemed only by the _blood_ of Christ; and if, as the context seems to speak, it is in our power to forfeit this benefit, by refusing to be _washed_ by his blood, that is, to accept the deliverance, offered to us, _through faith in his blood_[89]: it follows, that there is something very alarming in the condition of those persons, who hold out against all the calls of Grace, and obstinately persist in a state of infidelity. In vain have they recourse to natural religion, or to any other supposed means of purification and salvation. In vain do they trust even to the moral part of the Gospel, while they reject or disbelieve the rest. They must be washed by _Christ_, if they desire _to have any part with him_; they must place their entire hope and confidence in the _blood_ of the covenant, who would share in the blessings of it.

Nay, more than this: the Redeemer is _outraged_ by this refusal to comply with the gracious terms of his salvation. And, though some may make slight of _having no part with Christ_, it may concern them to reflect, what it is to _have a portion with unbelievers_[90].

3. LASTLY, and above all, I conclude, that they, who are _washed_, and, in consequence of that washing, trust to _have a part with Christ_, as they can never be enough thankful for the inestimable benefit, they have received, so they can never be enough careful to retain, and to improve it. If we, who have once embraced the faith, revolt from it; or, while we make a shew of professing the faith, pollute ourselves again with those sins, from which we have been cleansed; nay, if we do not strive to purify our hearts and minds still more and more by the continual efficacy of a lively faith in Jesus; if, in any of these ways, we be in the number of those, _who draw back unto perdition_, what further sacrifice remains for us, or what hope have we in that, which has been already offered?

Judas himself, be it remembered, was _washed_ among the other Disciples; yet he was not _clean_, for all that, nor had he _any part_ with Jesus. What can this mean, but that something is to be done, on _our_ part, when the Redeemer has done _his_? and that the permanent effect of this _washing_, as to any particular person, depends on his care to keep those _robes white_, which have been _washed in the blood of the lamb_[91]?

The account, and the conclusion, of the whole matter, is plainly this—_If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but, if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, then have we fellowship with him, and_ HIS BLOOD CLEANSETH US FROM ALL SIN[92].

SERMON XI.

PREACHED JUNE 20, 1773.

MARK ix. 49.

_For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt._

This is generally esteemed one of the most difficult passages in the four Gospels. I confess, I take no pleasure in commenting on such passages, especially in this place; because the comment only serves, for the most part, to gratify a learned curiosity, and is, otherwise, of small use.

But, when a difficult text of Scripture can be explained, and the sense, arising out of the explanation, is edifying and important, then it falls properly within our province to exert our best pains upon it.

This I take to be the case of the difficulty before us, which therefore I shall beg leave to make the subject of the present discourse.

There are TWO very different interpretations, of which the words are capable: and they shall both of them be laid before you, that ye may adopt either as ye think fit; or even reject them both, if ye do not find them sufficiently supported.

To enable you to go along with me in what follows, and to judge of either interpretation, whether it be reasonable or not, it is necessary to call your attention to the preceding verses of this chapter, to which the text refers, and by which it is introduced.

Our blessed Lord (for the words, I am about to explain, are _his_) had been discoursing to his Disciples on _offences_, or _scandals_; that is, such instances of ill-conduct, such indulgences of any favourite and vicious inclination, as tended to obstruct the progress of the Gospel, and were likely to prevent either themselves, or others, from embracing, or holding fast, the faith. Such offences, it was foreseen, would come: _but woe to that man_ (as we read in the parallel passage of St. Matthew’s Gospel) _by whom the offence cometh_[93].

And, to give the greater effect to this salutary denunciation, our Saviour proceeds, in figurative, indeed, but very intelligible terms, to enforce the necessity of being on our guard against such _offences_, what pain soever it might cost us to subdue those passions, from which they were ready to spring. No virtue of self-denial was too great to be attempted in such a cause. A _hand_, a _foot_, an _eye_, were to be _cut off_, or _plucked out_; that is, inclinations, as necessary and as dear to us, as those members of the body, were to be suppressed or rejected by us, rather than the _woe_, denounced against the indulgence of them, be incurred. This woe is, that the offenders should be cast into hell-fire, _where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched_: and it is subjoined _three times_, in the same awful words, to so many instances of supposed criminal indulgence, in the case alledged; or rather, to one and the _same_ species of ill-conduct, differently modified, and, to make the greater impression upon us, represented under three distinct images. After the last repetition of it, the text immediately follows—_for every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt_.

I. Now, taken in this connexion, the words _may_ clearly, and, according to our ideas, of interpretation, most naturally _do_, admit this sense; that the offenders, spoken of, shall be preserved entire to suffer the punishment threatened, though it might seem that they would, in no long time, be totally destroyed by it: as if our Lord had expressed himself thus—“I have repeated this woe three times, to shew you the degree and duration of it, as well as the certainty of its execution; _the worm shall not die_, that is, the sense of suffering shall continue, even in circumstances, which may seem proper and likely to put an end to it: for such, as are worthy to be cast into this fire, shall be _salted_, or preserved from wasting (salt being the known emblem of _incorruption_, and thence of _perpetuity_) by the very fire itself. And [you may easily conceive how this shall be, _for_] _every sacrifice_, the flesh of every animal to be offered up to God in your Jewish sacrifices, is kept sound and fit for use by being (as the Law directs in that case) _salted with salt_. Just so, the _fire itself_ shall act on these victims of the divine justice: like _salt_, sprinkled on your legal victims, it shall preserve these offenders entire, and in a perpetual capacity of subsisting to that use, to which they are destined.”

Now, if such be the sense of the words, they contain the fullest and most decisive proof of that tremendous doctrine, _the eternity of future punishments_, which is any where to be met with in Scripture. For the words, being given as a reason and explanation of the doctrine, are not susceptible of any vague interpretation, like the words _eternal_ or _everlasting_, in which it is usually expressed; but must necessarily be understood, as implying and affirming the literal truth of the thing, for which they would account. And, this being supposed, you see the use, the unspeakable importance, of this text, as addressed to all believers in Jesus. But,

II. There is another sense, of which the text is capable: and, if you think it not allowable to deduce a conclusion of such dreadful import from words of an ambiguous signification, you will incline perhaps (as it is natural for us to do) to this more favourable interpretation, which I am going to propose.

I observed, that the text, as read in connexion with the preceding verse, is most naturally, according to our ideas of interpretation, to be understood, as I have already explained it. But, what is the most _natural_, according to our modern rules and principles of construction, is not always the _true_, sense of passages in ancient oriental writers (who did not affect our accuracy of connexion), and particularly in the writers of the New Testament.

To give a remarkable instance in a discourse of our Lord himself. He had prescribed to his disciples that form of prayer, which we know by the name of the _Lord’s prayer_, consisting of several articles; the last of which is—_for thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory for ever_[94]. Now, to this concluding sentence of his prayer he immediately subjoins these words—FOR _if we forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you_. But, from the illative particle, _for_, according to our notions of exact composition, was to be expected a reason, or illustration, of the _immediately foregoing_ clause, the _doxology_, which shuts up this prayer: whereas, the words, which that particle introduces, have respect to another and _remote_ clause in the same prayer, namely, _forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors_[95], and express the ground and reason, only, of that petition.

In like manner, the illation expressed in the text—FOR _every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt_—may not be intended to respect the preceding words—_where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched_—but something else, which had been advanced in our Lord’s discourse, though at some distance from the text; and possibly, the general scope or _subject_ of it. Consider, then, what that subject is. It is necessary, our Lord tells his disciples, for such as would escape the woes, threatened, and approve themselves faithful followers of him, to subdue or renounce their most favourite inclinations, by which they might be, at any time, tempted to _offend_, though the pain of this self-denial should be ever so grievous to them.

To reconcile their minds to this harsh doctrine, he may then be supposed to resume that topic, and to _justify_ the advice, which, with so much apparent severity, he had given them. And then we may conceive him to speak to this effect:

“I have said, you must not regard the _uneasiness_, which the conduct, I require of you, will probably occasion. For _every one_, that is, every true Christian, _every one_ that is consecrated to my service, and would escape the punishment by _fire_, in the world to come, _shall be salted with fire_, in the present world; that is, shall be tried with sufferings of one kind or other, can only expect to be continued in a sound and uncorrupt state, by _afflictions_; which must search, cleanse, and purify your lives and minds, just as _fire_ does those bodies, which it refines, by consuming all the dross and refuse, contained in them. The process may be violent, but the end is most desirable, and even necessary. _And_, that it is so, ye may discern from the wisdom of your own Law, which requires that _every sacrifice_, fit to be offered up to God in the temple-service, _shall be salted with salt_; that is, preserved from putrefaction, and even all approaches to it, by the application of that useful, though corroding substance. Now, the _fire_ of affliction shall be to your moral natures, what _salt_ is to the animal. It may agitate and torment your minds, but it shall eat all the principles of corruption out of them, and so keep them clean and untainted; as is fit, considering the heavenly use that is to be made of them, it being your duty, and even interest, to present them, as _a sacrifice acceptable and well pleasing to God_[96].”

In this way, you see, the text is reasonably explained of _moral discipline_ in this world, not of future _punishment_. What may be thought to occasion some little difficulty, or, at least, particularity, in the mode of writing, is, that _one_ metaphor seems here employed to explain _another_. But we should rather conceive of the two metaphors, as employed, jointly and severally, to express this moral sentiment—‘That affliction contributes to preserve and improve our virtue.’ The allusion to the effects of _salt_ was exceedingly obvious and natural in the mouth of a Jew, addressing himself to Jews[97]. Not but it was common enough, too, in Gentile writers[98]. And the other allusion to the effects of _fire_ (though the two figures are in a manner run together by speaking of the _subject_, to which they are applied, as _salted_ with fire). This allusion, I say, to _fire_, is justified by the familiar use of it, in the sacred writings. For thus we are told, _that fire must try every man’s work_[99]—that _our faith is tried, as gold by fire_[100]—that _a fiery trial must try us_[101]—that, _as gold is tried in the fire_, so are _acceptable men in the furnace of adversity_[102]—and in other instances.

Of _both_ these natural images, it may be affirmed, that they are not unusually applied to moral subjects: and, if we thus _apply_ them in the text, the _use_ to ourselves, according to this interpretation, is considerable and even important; no less, than the seeing enforced, in the most lively manner, and by our Saviour himself, this great moral and evangelical lesson—_that the virtue of a good mind must be maintained at whatever expence of trouble and self-denial_—and for this plain reason, because, though _no chastening for the present seem to be joyous, but grievous; nevertheless, afterward, it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them, which are exercised thereby_[103].

And, that such is probably the true sense of the text, we have been considering, may further be concluded from the light it throws on the following and last verse of this chapter; the meaning of which will now be very plain and consequential, as may be shewn in few words.

For, having spoken of _Christian discipline_ under the name of _salt_, which _preserves_ what it searches, our Lord very naturally takes advantage of this idea, and transfers the appellation to _Christian faith_, which was necessary to support his followers under that discipline, and has this property, in common with _salt_, that it gives soundness and incorruption to the subject on which it operates. _Salt_, says he, _is good: but, if salt have lost its saltness, wherewith will ye season it?_ That is, _faith in me_ (for by _salt_, you easily perceive, I now mean that faith, which is your true _seasoning_, and can alone maintain your firmness and integrity under all trials; this _faith_, I say) is a salutary principle: but take notice, if you suffer that principle, so active and efficacious, to decay and lose its virtue, there are no means left to retrieve it. Like _salt_, grown insipid, it can never recover its former quality, but is for ever worthless and useless[104]. Therefore, adds he, take care to _have_, that is, retain, this _salt_, this good seasoning of your Christian principles, _in yourselves_; which will preserve you incorrupt, as individuals: and, as _salt_, from its necessary use at the table, is further an emblem of union and friendship, give proof of these principles in your intercourse with all Christians, so as to keep _peace one with another_; for, by this _seasoning_ of peace, ye will best preserve yourselves entire, as _a body of men_, or society[105].

We see, then, that understanding this _fire_, with which _every one shall be salted_, of the fire of _affliction_ only, which, like salt, is to try and preserve the moral integrity of all believers, and not of the _fire which dieth not_, and, according to the former interpretation, was to preserve _offenders_ in a perpetual capacity of enduring future punishment; understanding, I say, this metaphor in the former sense, we have an easy, elegant, and extremely useful sense in the words of the text: a sense, which perfectly agrees with what precedes the text, and illustrates what follows it: whereas, in the other way of explaining these words, it will be difficult to shew their coherence with the subsequent verse, though they admit an application to the foregoing.