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.
On the whole, I leave it to yourselves to judge, which of the two
interpretations, now proposed to you, is the proper one. I know of
no other, that so well deserves your notice, as these two: and, if
_either_ of them be admissible, we have gained the satisfaction of
understanding a very obscure passage of holy Scripture. But we have
gained more, than this: for, whichever we prefer, a momentous inference
may be drawn from it. EITHER, we must resolve to stick close to our
CHRISTIAN FAITH AND PRINCIPLES, as the only means of preserving our
integrity, and making us fit for the favour of God, to whatever trials
of any kind they may expose us: OR, we shall have to reflect, what
SUFFERING, terrible beyond imagination, is reserved for obstinately
impenitent and incorrigible sinners.
SERMON XII.
PREACHED FEBRUARY 9, 1766.
GAL. vi. 3.
_If a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he
deceiveth himself._
This is one of those many passages in the sacred writings, in which the
simplicity of the expression is apt to make us overlook the profound
sense contained under it. Who doubts, it may be said, the truth of so
general an axiom, as this? and what information, worth treasuring up in
the memory, is conveyed by it?
In answer to such questions, as these, it may be observed, That the
inspired writers are not singular in this practice; the moral wisdom
of all nations, and, in particular, that of the ancient Pagan sages
(whom these objectors, no doubt, reverence) being usually conveyed in
such large and general aphorisms: and, further, that many good reasons
may be given for this mode of instruction.
FIRST, _the necessity of the thing_, in times, when men have not been
accustomed to refine on moral subjects: it is also _necessary_ in
another sense, in order to convey the rules of life in some reasonable
compass. Good sense in moral matters is but the experience of observing
men, the result of which must be given in compendious parcels or
collections; otherwise the memory is loaded too much; besides that
neither the leisure, nor the talents of those, for whom these lessons
are designed, will serve for nicer disquisitions.
SECONDLY, if this _mode_ of teaching were not necessary, it would
still be preferable to any other for its _own proper dignity_. A
philosopher in the schools, or a divine in his closet, may deduce the
laws of morality with a minute exactness. But the authority of an
Apostle disdains this care, and awakens the consciences of men by some
_general_ precept, by some large and _comprehensive_ observation. It
becomes the majesty of his character to deliver the principles of right
conduct in _few and weighty words_: his precepts are _Laws_; and his
observations, _Oracles_: it is for others to speculate upon them with
curiosity, and draw them out into systems.
THIRDLY, sometimes the very address of a writer leads him to
_generalize_ his observations. It is, when a more direct and pointed
manner would press too closely on the mind, and, by making the
application necessary, indispose us to conviction; whereas, when a
reproof presents itself in this form, less offence is likely to be
given by it, the application being left, in a good degree, to ourselves.
This last, we shall find, was the case of St. Paul in the text; in
whose behalf, therefore, we need not, in the present instance, plead
the _necessity_, the _convenience_, or the _dignity_ of this method of
instruction; though these reasons, we see, might, on other occasions,
be very justly alledged.
For, to come now to the aphorism in the text—_If a man think himself
to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself_—as trivial
as this general truth may appear at first sight, we shall perceive,
by turning to the context, that the inspired writer applies it with
infinite address to mortify the pride of some persons, against whom the
tenour of his discourse is there directed. For certain false teachers,
it seems, had very early crept into the churches of _Galatia_, who
arrogated a superior wisdom to themselves, and, on the credit of this
claim, presumed to impose the yoke of Jewish ordinances on the Gentile
converts: in direct opposition to the injunctions of the Apostle,
who had lately planted these churches; and in manifest violation of
Christian charity, which forbad those grievous burthens to be laid on
the consciences of believers.