ページの画像
PDF
ePub

there is no such thing as reckoning a man to be what he is not. Nor can this quibble of a distinction of persons into what they are in themselves, and what they are in another, ever reconcile the two diametrically opposite states, of holy and unholy, faithful and unfaithful, &c. in the same persons at the same time; especially, when a union between themselves, (the unholy and him in whom they are holy,) so subsists, as to render them "always one in all things, and not twain in any thing;" for if not twain in any thing, how can any who are in this union, be unholy in themselves, and yet holy in him, who is in all things like them, the unholy?

But Relly asks, "What is the medium between Christ and man? If it is not true of them in themselves, as I have shown it is not, nor true of them in Christ, as the Greek and Jew insinuate, where is it true of them? It must have its truth somewhere." Answer. This manner of arguing, is very inconclusive, for he does but reflect with his Greek and Jew, on the one hand; on the other he begs the question; for he has not yet shown that it is not true in themselves, nor indeed can he: for until it has its truth in themselves, it can have it no where, seeing we reject human quibbles, and maintain, that as they are in themselves, so they are every where. True it is, they cannot cleanse themselves; yet when Christ has cleansed them, they are clean in themselves, though not of themselves; and then the union takes place, excluding the necessity of a medium between Christ and man. And so far as the union is witnessed, they are holy, as he is holy; and so far as any defect remains in the union, or so far as the people remain unholy in themselves, they are absolutely unholy and can never by any possible distinctions, be truly holy in Christ, whilst unholy in themselves.

Thus I think the author's medium unnecessary. For certain it is, that Zacharias and his wife, were upright and blameless, in Christ; and yet this was no other than an actual state of uprightness, and blamelessness, wrought out in themselves, by him who worked in them. This is a union well worth the parting with all, for the enjoyment of; and as far superior to that ideal union, which leaves them after all unholy in themselves, though claiming absolute oneness with the most holy, as sunshine

exceeds the faint glimmerings of a glow-worm; or the delusive appearance of an ignus fatuus.

Under the 56th page, he says, Christ is, "according to the condition of his person and office, the physician, medicine, and patient." Upon reading this, I recollected a variety of things which he has considered as lively figures of the ancient union; yea, all things, terrestrial or celestial, he holds to be figures of Christ. See p. 62. But I could not think of any one thing in nature, as a figure of him, according to the idea exhibited in this last quotation; and indeed it is quite beyond my comprehension, how any patient, being sick and disordered, can, as a physician, so administer himself, as medicine, to himself, the patient, as to effect a cure. But if this was true in naturals, and therein a figure of the same truth in spirituals, would it not follow, that a sick and sinful soul could of itself, unassisted, cure and cleanse itself? than which nothing is more contrary to truth. For though through Christ's strengthening influence, we can do all things necessary, and even work out our own salvation, by the help of his working in us; yet it remains an unchangeable truth, that of ourselves we can do nothing.

Perhaps some may query, What is all this to the purpose in regard to Christ's curing himself? But let them consider, that if he is the real sick and disordered patient, by means of sin, he can no more cure and cleanse himself than the Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots. On the other hand, if he is not really, in his own individual character, polluted and defiled with sin, he is certainly not the patient. And as I do consider this short assertion of Christ's "being according to the condition of his person and office, the physician, medicine, and patient," to contain no more than what must be true, if Relly's notions of union were right; or as a short explanation of his whole creed, in regard to this union; I have thus endeavoured to evince the impossibility of such an assertion being true. It will forever be in vain to think of rendering straight, that which is in itself so very crooked, by all the possible distinctions of individual and representative character. For that to which the union extends not, is as if the union was not. If the union extends not to the very act of sin, so as to render Christ

an absolute sinner, labouring under all the real guilt and condemnation thereof in himself, as the actual committer thereof, he cannot in justice be called the patient. For how can an individual who remains perfectly whole and undisordered in himself, be at the same time so united to another, as to be the really disordered, sick, and sinful patient? Now if he is not the patient in himself, he is not so in any sense whatever, any more than a strong, healthy practitioner of physic among men, is identically the very sick and disordered patient, whom he assiduously endeavours to relieve. For however things may be strained, twisted, and turned, Christ will ever remain to be just what, and no other than what he is in himself: and so will every mortal man, at any given time, be just what he is in himself; and to tell of his being one thing in himself, and quite another thing, absolutely different, by union with another, at the same time, may amuse such as dwell upon the surface of things, but can never pass for genuine, with such whose eyes are truly opened. And I am heartily sorry for my poor country, that such a gloomy day has ever come upon us a day wherein such absurdities, however dressed up and glossed over, can find so current a pass among so many of the people: a day wherein doctrines not only of such destructive tendency, but also of such actually pernicious effects, have so much influence upon them.

Relly, speaking of a "plaster or medicine," as comparative to Christ, says, (p. 55,) that it must, when applied, “unite and become one with the wound or disease, that by its superior virtue, it might drain, swallow up, and eradicate the opposite evil." Here, reader, is a theory of physic and surgery, as new and about as unsound as the doctrine he would illustrate by it. The most that a plaster can do in the case of a wound, is to defend it from such things as are inimical to healing; preserve it in a disposition apt or suitable thereto, and assist the operations of nature therein. If all this may be said of it, this I believe is the utmost; for healing is, at least in a great degree, the act of the constitution, and depends on internal impulse. If this is wanting, internal medicine may give vigour to nature's operations; or may, if necessary, assist in removing or correcting an unsound state of the fluids or solids, and in discharging or era

dicating" the opposite evil," the evil opposite to health or healing; but that the plaster becomes one with the wound, is yet unproved. But this author not only asserts it, but applies it to Christ, saying," So Jesus, united unto our infirmities, bare our sins and sicknesses, and carried our sorrows, purging them by himself, through the things which he suffered, until his resurrection fully proved the evil eradicated." Now if this be true, the evil was eradicated long before we committed it, or felt the sorrow, sin, or sickness of it in the least degree; whence then, our sensible feelings of, and sufferings under it, if so long ago it was not only in part, but "fully eradicated?" But this is contrary to Christ's own testimony to some, whose sins he told them still remained.

Now if we compare Christ to a plaster or medicine, I should view it thus: man stands in need of healing, and, as a plaster, our suffering saviour is at least as broad as the sore. The wound, once made, is liable to various aggravations; to grow worse, and even prove mortal. The plaster, if we suffer it to embrace the wound, (and do not rashly reject it, which we certainly may be in danger of doing, as it sometimes causes much pain and uneasiness,) is able to defend from aggravating things, which might otherwise render the wound mortal; to keep us in a disposition fit for healing; and to assist in working a cure, or, in other words, in our working out our own salvation. If we are so disordered, contaminated, and enfeebled, that we have no might or ability, he, as our internal medicine, if we will accept, and not reject him as such, which we often do, will invigorate and strengthen us to a thorough purification; till we witness a full eradication of "the opposite evil." But let us reflect by the way, how possible it is to resist the operation of this salutary restorative; and then, "how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" How shall we be healed, if we refuse the medicine? Certain it is, we may refuse it, neglect it, and even after once concluding to submit and be cured by it, we may, (in the outward,) instead of regarding the proper directions, run out into the cold and wet, and, through a depraved appetite, eat or drink things opposite to its salutary influence, and thereby not only prevent our restoration, but render our condition VOL. II.-49

worse than it was before the application of the medicine. This may also be the case in spirituals; and "the last state of that man is worse than the first," as saith the scripture. And though it may be possible for certain medicines to unite with our bodies, and become one; and though it is certain, that Christ and his true church do, upon the cleansing and restoration of sinners, witness a real union; yet, neither in the one nor in the other of these cases, did there exist any such previous union, as fully eradicated the evil long before it took place, or was in any degree felt.

Thus the author's comparison stands him in but little stead, but rather serves to illustrate the truth of the contrary doctrine, and to show us the necessity of a co-operation, through the gift received, by all who have actually sinned, in order to the work of sanctification and salvation; and that without this they must forever groan under the malady and sickness of sin. So true is the apostle's saying, " Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." 1 Cor. xi, 2.

Here, dear reader, is a similitude full of instruction, and which serves as a confirmation, (far more than all Relly's figures can confirm his notions of union,) that Christ is not without the creature, nor the creature without him in the work of salvation. But though he once trod the wine press alone, and of the people there was none with him, yet now the language is, "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us." 2 Tim. ii. 12. And if we will partake with him in glory, we must drink of the cup he drank of, be baptized with the baptism he was baptized with; and therein witness what remains behind of his sufferings or afflictions, to be filled up in us. See Mark x. 39. Colos. i. 24. These things must be known, or else we are bastards, and not sons. See Heb. xii. 8. But in witnessing these, it is experimentally true, as says the apostle, "As the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ." 2 Cor. i. 5. Here, in this fellowship of his sufferings, we know him and the power of his resurrection, as in Phil. iii. 10. We witness his being "the resurrection and the life." John xi. 25. Yea, we moreover herein witness, that " because he liveth, we live also." Read John

« 前へ次へ »