Salmos 119:128

DISCOURSE: 709
THE TRUE TEST OF RELIGION IN THE SOUL

Salmos 119:128. I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.

RELIGION is the same in every age. The doctrines of it, though they have been more fully and clearly revealed under the Christian dispensation, have never varied in substance; nor has the practice of it ever changed, except in the observance of rites and ceremonies. To love God with all our heart and mind and soul and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves, was the essence of true religion in the days of Abraham and of Moses; and so it is at this day. Doubtless there can be no true religion where the Gospel is set at nought, and despised: but the Gospel may be highly approved as a system, whilst the heart is far from being right with God. It is not by their profession of any principles that we are to judge of men’s states, but by the practical effects of those principles on their hearts and lives. Our blessed Lord has established this as the only true criterion, the only adequate test; “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Now the genuine fruit of piety is as clearly exhibited in the words before us, as in any part of the Inspired Volume: and the passage is peculiarly worthy of notice, because in the writer of it were combined the fullest conviction of the understanding, together with the strongest affections of the heart: in his judgment, “he esteemed God’s precepts to be right;” and in his heart, “he hated” every thing that was opposed to them.
May God of his infinite mercy inspire us with the same heavenly sentiments, whilst we consider these two things,—The Christian character as here delineated, and The light which it reflects upon the Gospel of Christ!

I. The Christian character as here delineated—

In the text is drawn a broad line of distinction between the child of God, and every other person under heaven.
Christians are either nominal or real. Each class has gradations, from the highest to the lowest; but between the two classes there is an immense gulph, that separates them as far as the east is from the west. To ascertain to which of the two we belong, is of infinite importance; but self-love blinds our eyes, and renders the discovery of it extremely difficult. This Scripture however holds up, as it were, a mirror before us; and, if we will look steadfastly into it, we may discern with great precision what manner of persons we are.
The difference between the two classes is this: the nominal Christian, however eminent he may in appearance be, is partial in his regard for God’s precepts [Note: Malaquias 2:9.]: but the true Christian approves and loves them all without exception [Note: Salmos 119:6.].

The nominal Christian, we say, is partial in his regard for God’s precepts. He may esteem those which countenance his own particular party. The Papist, for instance, and the Protestant, will severally glory in those passages of Holy Writ which seem to justify their adherence to their respective modes of worship, and to afford them ground for believing that theirs is the more Scriptural and Apostolic Church. The various classes of Protestants also will manifest an ardent zeal for the support of their respective tenets, and be almost ready to anathematize each other, as not giving sufficient weight to those particular passages, on which they severally found their respective differences. They not only esteem their own grounds of faith “to be right,” but they “hate” the sentiments opposed to them “as erroneous and false.”

The nominal Christian may also love those precepts which do not materially condemn him. The man who is sober, chaste, honest, just, temperate, benevolent, may take a real pleasure in such passages of Scripture as inculcate the virtues in which he supposes himself to have excelled; and may feel an indignation against the ways, by which those precepts are grossly violated.

He may yet further delight in such precepts as, according to his interpretation of them, afford him ground for rejecting the Gospel. No passages in all the word of God are more delightful to him than such as these: “Be not righteous overmuch;” and “What doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” He has no fear lest he should not be righteous enough; nor is he very anxious to inquire what is implied in walking humbly with God: it is sufficient for him that these passages are, in his eyes, opposed to what he calls enthusiasm; setting aside the necessity of faith in the Lord Jesus, and of a life of entire devotedness to his service: and his hatred of all passages that bear an opposite aspect, is in exact proportion to his zeal for these.

But, whilst such parts of Scripture are approved by him, does he love all that the Inspired Volume contains? Does he love those precepts which are most sublime and spiritual? No; it is no pleasure to him to hear of “setting his affections on things above,” or of having “his conversation in heaven:” nor does it afford him any gratification to be told, that the measure of holiness which he must aspire after, is that which was exhibited in the Lord Jesus, whose example he is to follow in the whole of his spirit and temper, his conversation and conduct, “walking in all things as he walked.”

Nor does he particularly affect those precepts which require much self-denial. “To crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts,” and to root out from his soul every evil, though it be dear to him “as a right eye,” or necessary to him as “a right hand,” and to have a compliance with these precepts as his only alternative between that and the taking his portion in “hell-fire,” is no pleasing sound in his ears, notwithstanding it proceeds from the meek and lowly Jesus [Note: Marcos 9:42.].

Least of all is he gratified with precepts that strike at his besetting sin. The proud man does not delight to hear the workings of pride delineated; nor the covetous man the evils of covetousness depicted; nor the gay and dissipated the folly of their ways exposed; nor the self-righteous man the delusive nature of his hopes declared. No, they are all ready to deride the statements that condemn their ways, just as the Pharisees derided our Lord, when he had unveiled their covetous and hypocritical devices; “The Pharisees were covetous (it is said), and they derided him.” The hearts of these people rise against all such doctrines; and with no little bitterness they exclaim, “In so saying, thou reproachest us [Note: Lucas 11:45.].”

The true Christian, on the contrary, approves and loves all the commands of God; both those which are evangelical, and those which are moral.

He loves those which are evangelical. It is no grief to him to be told, that he must renounce all dependence on his own righteousness, and rely entirely on the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is rather with the most heartfelt delight that he hears those gracious commands, “Look unto me, and be ye saved;” “Come unto me, and I will give you rest;” “Believe on me, and have everlasting life.” “He esteems these precepts to be right;” he feels them to be exactly suited to his necessities: he knows, and is assured, that his own righteousness is only as “filthy rags;” and that in any other garment than the robe of Christ’s righteousness, it is impossible for him to stand in the presence of a holy God. He sees also that this mode of justification before God is the only one which can consist with the honour of God’s justice, and with the demands of his law. Hence whatever opposes this way of salvation, “he hates;” yea, he shudders at the very thought of claiming any thing on the ground of his own worthiness, saying, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He thankfully traces all his mercies to the covenant made from all eternity between the Father and the Son; and to that covenant he looks, as “ordered in all things, and sure;” and from his inmost soul he says of it, “This is all my salvation, and all my desire.”

Moreover, as the duty of coming to Christ, so the duty of “living altogether by faith in Christ,” the duty of abiding in him as branches of the living vine, of receiving from his fulness continual supplies of grace and strength, and of “growing up into him in all things, as our living Head;” the duty, I say, of making him “our wisdom, our righteousness, our sanctification, our redemption,” our all, and of glorying in him, and in him alone; all this is heard by the true Christian with ineffable delight: he would that Christ should have all the glory: he sees it to be “right,” that He who came down from heaven, and died upon the cross to save him, and ascended up on high, and has all fulness treasured up in him for the use of his Church and people, and who dwells in them “as their very life;” I say, he sees it “right,” that this adorable Saviour should “be exalted, and extolled, and be very high;” yea, that he should be on earth, as he is in heaven, the one object of our adoration, and the continual theme of our praise. And, whilst a blind and ignorant world are ready to blame his zeal for the Redeemer’s glory as carried to excess, his constant grief is, that he cannot love him more, and serve him better.

Nor is the true Christian less delighted with the moral precepts, not one of which would he desire to have relaxed or moderated in the smallest degree. Instead of wishing them to be lowered to the standard of his attainments, or regarding them as grievous on account of their purity, he loves them for their purity [Note: Salmos 119:140.], and would esteem it his highest privilege to be conformed to them. He is well persuaded, that they are all “holy, and just, and good:” and he loves them as perfective of his nature, and conducive to his happiness.

He loves them, I say, as perfective of his nature. For what is holiness, but a conformity to the Divine image, as sin is to the image of the devil? It was by transgression that man lost that resemblance to the Deity which was stamped upon him at his first creation; and it is by the new-creating influence of the Spirit quickening him to a course of holy obedience, that this resemblance is gradually restored. Conscious of this, he pants after holiness, desiring to “be changed into his Redeemer’s image from glory to glory by the Spirit of the Lord.”

Nor does he love them less as conducive to his happiness: for sin and misery are inseparable, as holiness also and true happiness are. What is the language of every precept in the Decalogue? It is this: ‘Be holy, and be happy.’ Of this he is convinced; and he finds, by daily experience, that “in keeping God’s commandments there is great reward,” and that “Wisdom’s ways are indeed ways of pleasantness and peace.”

At the same time, “he hates every false way;” every deviation from the perfect rule of righteousness is painful to him: he “hates it;” and hates himself on account of it. As a touch, which would scarcely be felt in any other part of the body, will occasion the severest anguish to the eye, so those thoughts or feelings which would be altogether unnoticed by other men, inflict a wound on his conscience, and cause him to go mournfully before the Lord of Hosts. Ask him on such an occasion, What it is that has caused him thus to mourn and weep? Is it that his God has required so much? No: but that he himself has attained so little. He wants to “be sanctified wholly to the Lord, in body, soul, and spirit;” and, could he accomplish the desire of his heart, he would “stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.” This is the object of his highest ambition; and, when he finds, that, notwithstanding all his efforts, he still falls short of it, he groans inwardly, and says with the Apostle, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of sin and death?”
Behold, then, the Christian’s character as here delineated. To a superficial observer he may not appear to differ much from others; but to those who have had opportunities of discovering the real desires of his soul, he is a perfect contrast with the whole ungodly world. The very best of nominal Christians are content with low attainments, and plead for indulgences in those things which are agreeable to their corrupt nature. The more sublime and spiritual precepts they soften down to the standard of their own practice; and rather applaud themselves for their excellencies, than lothe themselves for their defects. The true Christian, on the contrary, will admit of no standard but that of absolute perfection: and, whereinsoever he falls short of it, as he does in his very best services, he lothes and “abhors himself in dust and ashes;” nor has he any hope of acceptance with God, but in the view of that atonement which was once offered for him on the cross, and of that blood which the Lord Jesus Christ once shed on Calvary to cleanse him from his sins. We mean not to say, that these defects are subversive of all the Christian’s peace; for, if that were the case, who could possess any peace at all? The Christian, notwithstanding his imperfections, has “comfort in the testimony of a good conscience,” and in an assurance, that his God will “not be extreme to mark what is done amiss;” but he does not on this account allow himself in any sin whatever. The use he makes of his own corruptions is, to cleave the more steadfastly to Christ as his only hope, and to watch and pray the more diligently, that he may be preserved from evil, and be enabled by Divine grace to endure unto the end.

Now this description of the Christian’s character leads me to shew,

II.

The light it reflects on the Gospel of Christ—

Three things it suggests to us; namely,

An answer to those who misrepresent the Gospel—
A reproof to those who would abuse the Gospel—and A direction to those who would adorn the Gospel.

First, we may derive from hence an answer to those who misrepresent the Gospel. It has in all ages been a favourite argument against the Gospel, that it supersedes the necessity of good works, and opens the flood-gates of licentiousness. It was urged repeatedly against St. Paul himself; who on that account set himself to answer it with all imaginable care: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” And again, “Shall we sin because we are not under the law, but under grace?” To both these questions he answers with holy indignation, “God forbid!” And, when his enemies went so far as to affirm, that he gave men a licence to sin, saying, “Let us do evil that good may come;” he scorned to return any other answer than this, “Their damnation is just.” And it were greatly to be wished, that those who now so confidently repeat these accusations against the followers of St. Paul, would reflect on the guilt they incur, and the danger to which, by such calumnies, they expose themselves. To this present hour the same objections are made to all those statements which resemble Paul’s. If we deny to good works the office of justifying the soul, we are represented as denying the necessity of them altogether. Though these objections have been refuted a thousand times, and should be refuted ten thousand times more, the enemies of the Gospel will still repeat them with as much confidence as ever. Let them, however, look into our text, and see what David’s principles were. Of all the Old Testament saints, there was not one who more determinately sought to be justified by the righteousness of Christ without any works of his own, than he. Hear what is said of him by St. Paul, in confirmation of the very sentiments which Paul himself maintained; “To him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness: even as David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin [Note: Romanos 4:5.].” Here we have a full exposition of David’s views respecting the Gospel. And how did these views operate on his soul? Did the idea of being justified by a righteousness not his own, a righteousness without works, a righteousness imputed to him, and apprehended solely by faith, did this, I say, make him regardless of good works? No: look at the text, thou Objector, and be convinced: look at the text, thou Calumniator, and blush.

Search, next, the writings of St. Paul, and see whether there was any difference in this respect between him and David? Was there in theory? No: for St. Paul affirms, that “the grace of God which bringeth salvation teaches us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live righteously, soberly, and godly, in this present world.” Was there in practice? No: neither David nor any other Saint ever made higher attainments in holiness than St. Paul: “he was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles.”
Perhaps it will be said that the professed followers of St. Paul differ from him in this respect; and that whilst in speculation they adopt his doctrine, in practice they deny its sanctifying efficacy. That there are Antinomians in the world, we confess: there were in the days of Christ and his Apostles; some who called Christ, “Lord! Lord! whilst yet they did not the things which he commanded;” and some, who “professed to know God, but in works denied him.” And it must be expected, that, corrupt as human nature is, such characters will be found in every age. But is such conduct the necessary result of these principles? Was it so in the Apostles’ days? or is it so at this day? If justification by faith alone be necessarily productive of laxness in morals, whence comes it that a higher tone of morality is universally expected from those who maintain that doctrine, than from others? Whence is it that the smallest evils in such persons are more severely marked, than the most licentious courses of the ungodly world? We appeal to all who hear us, Whether, if a professor, and especially a preacher, of this doctrine were to demean himself in all things for one single day in the way that the generality of his own age and station live all the year round, the mouths of all who beheld him would not be opened against him as a hypocrite [Note: It having been observed to the author, that the words “age and station” might be mistaken for age and order, and thus be supposed to aim at the Clergy, he judges it right to guard against any such misconception of his meaning. The scope of his observation is this: A Professor, and especially a Preacher, of the doctrines here referred to, is expected to be more strict in his conduct than others who deny those doctrines. And, whether he be young or old, or of the higher or lower orders of society, if he were to manifest the same worldly spirit, to avow the same worldly sentiments, to shew the same indifference to religion, and to indulge in the same latitude of conversation altogether, as the generality of others who are of the same age and rank of life do, he would be accounted most glaringly and grossly inconsistent. Some, notwithstanding their aversion to these doctrines, are more guarded in their spirit and conversation; but the generality are not: and therefore the author purposely limited his observations to “the generality.”]? Whence should this be, if those who maintain the doctrine of justification by faith alone, represented it as liberating men from their obligation to good works? And how comes it, that the very persons who are complained of for the licentious tendency of their principles, should at the same time be universally condemned for the over-righteous sanctity of their lives?

To all, then, who misrepresent the Gospel, we would give this reply:—Look at David, and see what the effect of the Gospel had on him: look at Paul, and contemplate its effects on him: look at the uniform declarations of Scripture, and see what was the life of all the primitive Believers: nay, look only at the expectations which you yourselves have formed: for, if you see a professor of the Gospel act unworthy of his profession, you deem him inconsistent; which is a proof, that both the obligation to holiness is acknowledged on his part, and the performance of it is expected on yours; and consequently, that the Gospel is, by your mutual consent, “a doctrine according to godliness.”
From the passage before us, we may in the next place, offer a reproof to those who would abuse the Gospel. We have already acknowledged, and with deep grief we confess it, that there are some persons professedly of Antinomian principles, who are so occupied with contemplating what Christ has wrought out for them, that they cannot bestow a thought on what he has engaged to work in them. To speak of holiness, or any point of duty, they account low, and legal: yea, they think that Christ has by his own obedience to the law superseded the necessity of holiness in us; and that the whole work of salvation is so finished by him, that there remains nothing to be done by us, nothing of repentance for sin, nothing of obedience to God’s commands, but solely to maintain confidence in the provisions of God’s everlasting Covenant, and to rejoice in God as our God and portion.

Shocking as these sentiments are, they have been professed of late to a great extent; and many have been deceived by them: but, to show how unscriptural they are, we need only refer to the character of David, as drawn in the words of our text: Does he discard the law as a rule of life? Does he pour contempt upon the precepts of God as unworthy of his notice? No: throughout all his Psalms he speaks of them as objects of his supreme delight: “O how I love thy law! all the day long is my study in it.” “I love thy precepts above gold; they are sweeter to me than honey and the honey-comb.” To the same effect St. Paul also speaks: “I consent unto the law that it is good:” and again, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man!” He does, it is true, speak of himself as “dead to the law;” and of the law as dead with respect to him; and from thence, that the marriage bonds, by which the law and we were formerly united, are for ever dissolved. But what use does he teach us to make of this liberty? Does he speak of it as freeing us from all moral restraints? No; but as a reason for our giving up ourselves henceforth in a marriage union to Christ as our second husband, that we may bring forth fruit unto God [Note: Romanos 7:1. with Gálatas 2:19.]. Now then, we would ask, Were David and Paul right? If so, what must we think of the sentiments of these deluded people? Are they more spiritual than David? or have they a deeper insight into the Gospel than Paul? The very circumstance of their discarding all the exhortations of St. Paul, and casting behind them all his practical instructions, demonstrates, that they are, for the present at least, “given up to a delusion, to believe a lie.” Some of them, we trust, do not practically live according to these principles; and, where this is the case, we hope that God, in his mercy, will sooner or later give them to see their errors: but, if they practically carry into effect their principles, they will have reason to curse the day that ever they were born.

To the younger part of our audience we will beg permission to suggest a few hints on this important subject.
You, when you go into the world, will be in danger of being ensnared by people of this stamp. There is something very imposing in the idea of glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ, and of making him “all in all.” The devout mind is delighted with this thought; and is easily induced to regard with jealousy any thing that may be supposed to interfere with it. But be not wise above that which is written; and let nothing tempt you to imagine, that you can honour Christ by setting aside any of his commandments. It is by your love to his commandments that you are to approve yourselves his disciples; and however delighted you may be with the visions of Mount Tabor, you must never forget that you have work also to do in the plain [Note: Lucas 9:33; Lucas 9:37.]. We are far from wishing any one to be working from self-righteous principles, or in a legal spirit: nor would we utter a word that should discourage the fullest confidence in God. It is our privilege, doubtless, to trace all our mercies up to his everlasting love, and to view them all as secured to us by covenant and by oath [Note: Hebreus 6:17.]: but then it is no less our privilege to fulfil God’s will, and to resemble the holy angels, of whom it is said, that “they do his commandments, hearkening to the voice of his word.” Beware then lest ye ever be led off from this ground. Rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ, as the propitiation for your sins, as your all-prevailing Advocate, and as your living Head: but, whilst you believe in him, and love him, and rejoice in him, let your faith, and love, and joy, stimulate you to a holy and unreserved obedience. If he has “set your heart at liberty,” let the effect be to “make you run with more enlargement the way of his commandments.”

Lastly, we may derive from our text a direction to those who would adorn the Gospel. “Esteem all God’s precepts to be right, and hate every false way.” If God has enjoined any thing, do not ask whether the world approves of it; nor, if he have forbidden any thing, inquire of the world, whether you shall abstain from it. The world are as inadequate judges of Christian morality, as they are of Christian principles: both the one and the other are “foolishness to the natural man.” Of all the sublimer precepts, whether evangelical or moral, they are ready to say, “This is a hard saying, who can hear it?” But let no true Christian “consult with flesh and blood.” Let him rather say with David, “Away from me ye wicked: I will keep the commandments of my God.” Does God call you to “live no longer to yourselves, but unto him?” or, Does the Lord Jesus Christ bid you “follow him without the camp, bearing his reproach;” and readily to “lay down your lives for his sake?” Let “not these commandments be grievous in your eyes;” but rather “rejoice if you are counted worthy to suffer for his sake.” If at any time you be urged to turn aside from the path of duty, do not let the maxims or habits of the world bias you one moment: you are “not to follow a multitude to do evil:” if a thing be right, you should love it and cleave to it, though the whole world should be against you; just as Noah, Daniel, and Elijah did: and, if a thing be evil, you must not do it, though the loss of all things, yea even of life itself, should await you for your integrity. It were better far to go into a fiery furnace for your steadfastness, than to save yourselves by an undue compliance.

Doubtless this holy walk and conversation will involve you in the charge of singularity; but whose fault is it, if this conduct makes you singular? Is it yours? Is it not rather theirs, who will not yield obedience to the precepts of their God? We mean not by this to justify any who would affect a needless singularity: far from it: it is only where the world are wrong, that we would recommend any to separate from them. But wheresoever they are wrong, there you must “quit yourselves like men,” and shew them by your example a more perfect way. In important matters, the whole universe should not shake your resolution. Where duty evidently calls, you must be firm, and “faithful unto death.” It is confessedly “a strait and narrow way” in which you are called to walk; and, whilst walking in it, you must of necessity, like Noah, “condemn those” who are walking in “the broad road that leadeth to destruction [Note: Hebreus 11:7.];” and consequently, like him, you must incur the scorn and hatred of an ungodly world. But it is better far to brave the hatred of the ungodly, than to participate in the lot that shortly awaits them.

To all, then, who would “adorn the doctrine of our Saviour,” we beg leave to offer this plain and salutary direction—

“Let your light shine before men;” and let it shine so bright, as to “put to silence the ignorance of foolish men,” and to “make those ashamed, who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.” Labour habitually to do this in every thing that relates either to God or man. Let your enemies, if possible, “have no evil thing to say of you;” nothing to lay hold of; nothing that shall give occasion for that malignant triumph, “There! there! so would we have it.” Be jealous for the honour of Christ and his Gospel. Remember that the world, who are blind enough to each other’s faults, will be eagle-eyed in discerning yours: while they will make allowances enough for each other, they will make no allowances for you: and whilst they impute each other’s frailties to the weakness of human nature, they will impute yours to the principles you profess. Be careful then to “cut off occasion from those who seek occasion against you.” Watch over your whole temper, and spirit, and conduct; that “your conversation may be altogether such as becometh the Gospel of Christ:” and “let your light be like that of the sun, shining more and more unto the perfect day.” In a word, “be steadfast, immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord; knowing assuredly, that your labour shall not be in vain in the Lord.”