eChurch Christian Blog

By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.

(NEW YORK – C-FAM)  A week after nations criticized a United Nations (UN) special rapporteur for exceeding his mandate in order to push a redefinition of the term “gender” and a controversial “gay rights” document known as the Yogyakarta Principles, a second special report – this time on health – is sparking similar concern.

Presented to the UN General Assembly late last month, “The Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health” by special rapporteur Anand Grover references not only the Yogyakarta Principles, but also a hotly-disputed “General Recommendation” by the Committee monitoring compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Recommendation 20 would read a new non-discrimination category based on “sexual orientation and gender identity” into that treaty, even though UN member states have repeatedly rejected inclusion of such a category in any binding international law document.

Critics see a coordinated push to promote the Yogyakarta Principles, injecting it into the UN system via repeated reference and thus create an impression that a “soft law” norm exists. The Yogyakarta Principles purport to “reflect the existing state of human rights law” with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity, yet merely reflect the policy predilections of the roughly 30 self-selected experts, activists and UN bureaucrats who crafted them. Indeed, terms such as “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are not defined in any binding international law document and would likely never be accepted by UN Member States.

The specific Principles referred to in the Grover report are Principles 17 and 18. Although the context references informed consent regarding medical procedures among “vulnerable groups,” the text of Principles 17 and 18 contain several controversial mandates. Principle 17 would require states to “Facilitate access by those seeking body modifications related to gender reassignment” (i.e., “sex change” operations), while Principle 18 would require that states “Ensure that any medical or psychological treatment or counseling does not, explicitly or implicitly, treat sexual orientation and gender identity as medical conditions to be treated, secured or suppressed.” Such a mandate would deny someone struggling with sexual disorders the option of receiving reparative therapy.

Grover is an activist attorney from India who litigated the case that resulted in a lower court ruling this past summer that India’s anti-sodomy law violated the nation’s constitution. Last year he succeeded Paul Hunt – one of thirty Yogyakarta draftsmen – as special rapporteur on health.

Grover is further credited with having helped draft the International Guidelines on Human Rights and HIV/AIDS, a 1996 document reissued in 2002 that calls for the repeal of “Criminal law prohibiting sexual acts (including adultery, sodomy, fornication and commercial sexual encounters) between consenting adults in private” – a step critics point out would fuel the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Grover’s appointment as health rapporteur was welcomed by activist organizations such as the International HIV/AIDS Alliance. The group, which promotes “community action on AIDS in developing countries,” noted at the time that “Anand has passionately advocated for the rights of sex workers, drug users and men who have sex with men,” calling the appointment “a tremendous opportunity and a step in the right direction.”

Listen to the Lecture Here

Interesting and bold comments from Lord Sacks at the Theos lecture:-

Telegraph

Europe is ”dying” because the continent’s secular culture has made people too selfish to have children, the Chief Rabbi has said.

Lord Sacks said European society’s focus on consumerism and instant gratification had left little room for the sacrifice involved in parenthood.

Describing this as ”one of the unsayable truths of our time”, he warned: ”We are undergoing the moral equivalent of climate change and no one is talking about it.”

The Chief Rabbi’s provocative comments came as he delivered the annual lecture for theology think-tank Theos in central London.

He argued that neo-Darwinian attacks on religion – typified by Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion – were leading to a population crisis in Europe.

Lord Sacks pointed out that Europe was the most secular region in the world, and also the only continent experiencing population decline.

He said: ”Wherever you turn today – Jewish, Christian or Muslim – the more religious the community, the larger on average are their families.

”The major assault on religion today comes from the neo-Darwinians.”

The Chief Rabbi said being a parent involved a ”massive sacrifice” of money, attention, time and emotional energy.

Read Entire Article

This is the press release from Theos

The Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks of Aldgate, delivered the 2009 Theos Annual Lecture in Central London last night.

In the lecture, Lord Sacks called for a “tolerant religiosity” in society and respectful dialogue between religious faith groups and secular humanists.

The Chief Rabbi said “All peace depends on compromise and that is why peace comes to seem to some religious groups to be a form of betrayal, and that is why peacemakers get assassinated.” In the Q&A, following the lecture, the Chief Rabbi said that Islam would embark on its own reformation.

“I believe we have no choice but to articulate an intellectually open and humble religiousity as the only strong enough defence with some of the religiosity that is coming our way with the force of a hurricane” Lord Sacks said.

The Chief Rabbi argued that the future of religion in twenty-first century Britain lay in three directions: a new dialogue between religion and science, the unparalleled power of religious groups to confront the big global issues of the day, including climate change, and respectable conversations between religious groups and secular humanists. Speaking on the latter point, Lord Sacks said “Religious groups in the liberal democratic states must be able to get into serious respectable conversations with secular humanists, charities, other groups in civil society about the nature of the common good.”

The Chief Rabbi added “At the moment, religious groups tend to act more as pressure groups, lobbyists than as conversation partners. But, that conversation is there to be had and I hope Theos plays a part in facilitating it.”

Lord Sacks noted that “Albert Camus once said ‘the only serious philosophical question is why should I not commit suicide.’ I think he was wrong. The only serious philosophical question is why should I have a child? Our culture is not giving an easy answer to that question.” He highlighted the fact that Europe is the only secular continent on the planet and is the only continent that is dying out.

The Theos Annual Lecture was given at Millbank Tower and was chaired by writer and broadcaster Libby Purves. The audience comprised senior politicians, journalists, academics, business people and faith group representatives. In his lecture, Lord Sacks paid tribute to the work of Theos . “I am an enormous fan of their work,” he said. “Public theology is not particularly well known in Britain – it has a much bigger place in the US – but it is going to become more and more relevant in the years to come and I wish you every success.”

From the Times

At Theos this week, the Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks of Aldgate, took on the neo-Darwinists in a typically challenging and amusing lecture with many points for debate and interest.

This MP3 also contains the questions at the end. The final question, on which my story in the paper was based, was asked by the BBC’s Christopher Landau. He has a knack for asking good questions. Long-time readers here will remember that it was Christopher Landau who asked the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams about the introduction of Sharia into Britain on BBC Radio 4’s World at One, and we all know what happened then!

In the questions, Lord Sacks says that Muslims need to get used to living as a minority – to sing in a minor key as he puts it. ‘One of the great advantages of being Jewish is you know how to sing in the minor key. We have had 26 centuries of experience ever since the Babylonian exile of living as a minority in the midst of a culture that does not share our views. Christianity and Islam have not had that experience.’ Christianity had learnt toleration but only after 100 years of  ‘knocking the hell out of each other all over Europe.’

He also applauds the existence of an established church in Britain. And he jokes that Jewish people could never be Catholic, because they would never accept that their rabbis were infallible.

In the lecture itself, he advocates a tolerant religiosity ‘as the only strong enough defence with some of the religiosity that is coming our way with the force of a hurricane.’

But even though he claims to have given up philosophy in favour of religion after a conversation at Cambridge with the great Isaiah Berlin, one of the most interesting aspects of the lecture was his philosophical, neo-Darwinist attack on neo-Darwinism.

‘After all its their two hundredth anniversary and one hundred and fiftieth of the Origin of Species. I haven’t seen this presented before, a five step neo-Darwinian refutation of neo -Darwinism.

‘1. A person is ‘a genes way of making another gene.’ Forget religion, moral ideals, its all about reproduction. Handing on our genes to the next generation.

‘2. Europe today is the most secular region in the world.

‘3. Europe is the only region in the world which is experiencing population decline. Zero population growth in a stable population requires an average of 2.1 children for every woman of child-bearing age in the population. Not one European country has anything like that rate today. In 2004 the UK was 1.74, Netherlands 1.73, Germany 1.37, Italy 1.33, Spain 1.32 and Greece 1.29.

4. Wherever you turn today (Jewish, Christian or Muslim) the more religious the community, the larger on average are their families.

‘5. The major assault on religion today comes from the neo-Darwinians from which it follows as night doth follow day, that if you are a true neo-Darwinian believer you want there to be as few neo-Darwinians as possible.

‘Actually, it sounds like a joke, but beneath it, it’s a very serious point indeed. Parenthood involves massive sacrifice: money, attention, time and emotional energy. Where today, in European culture with its consumerism and its instant gratification because you’re worth it. In that culture, where will you find space for the concept of sacrifice for the sake of generations not yet heard?

‘Europe is dying, exactly as Poledious said about ancient Greece in the third pre-Christina century. The century which is intellectually as similar to our own – the sceptics, epicureans and cynics. He wrote this: ‘the fact is, that the people of Hellas had entered upon the fools path of ostentations, avorous and laziness. Were therefore unwilling to marry, or if they did to bring up the children born to them. The majority were bringing up at most one or two.’

‘That is where Europe is today. That is one of the un-sayable truths of our time. We are undergoing the moral equivalent of climate change and no one is talking about it. Albert Camus once said ‘the only serious philosophical question is why should I not commit suicide.’ I think he was wrong; the only serious philosophical question is why should I have a child? Our culture is not giving an easy answer to that question.’

I don’t have any answers either. Maybe you do?

Prevous related posts

Muslim Europe: the demographic time bomb transforming our continent. The EU is facing an era of vast social change, reports Adrian Michaels, and few politicians are taking notice

Western Immigration and Global Jihad by Bill Muehlenberg

Modern Day Trojan Horse: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration

The conspiracy to transform Britain

Christopher Caldwell on the greatest change in the history of Europe – This mild-mannered, mainstream journalist’s predictions for Europe’s future are devastating, says Ed West

A nightmare for Richard Dawkins: statistics show that atheists are a dying breed

With headlines like these regarding the education of our children, is it any wonder that some would opt for home-schooling? There is no area off bounds any longer for our governments tentacles, no area sacred to the family and parents.

The government wants to become the ideological and moral parent to our children and socialise them as early as possible, to fill their heads with their agenda, world-view and moral relativism.

The problem? The government and teachers can’t be trusted morally or ethically, that’s the problem, as aply demonstrated every single day in news reports. Do you trust your child with the government?

BBC

Parents’ right to pull their children out of sex education classes in England is being ended once the pupils turn 15.

Telegraph

Here is a sample of what they will be teaching our 7 year olds (Key Stage 2)

Telegraph

About puberty, including changes to bodies, feelings and attitudes

How physical changes relate to human reproduction

How to listen to and respect other people’s views and feelings

About different relationships, including marriage, civil partnerships and separation

and 11 year olds (key Stage 3)

Sexual activity, human reproduction, contraception, pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases

How to deal with relationship breakdowns

Same sex relationships, including civil partnerships

The nature and importance of marriage and of stable relationships for bringing up children

Sexual orientation and the impact of prejudice, bullying and discrimination

Read More

Previous recent post:-

By a 53%-47% margin, Maine voters have repealed a measure that would have legalized homosexual marriage in the state — even though, in the words of the Associated Press, “the stars seemed aligned for supporters of gay marriage.

Daily Mail

Voters in the U.S. state of Maine yesterday rejected a law allowing same-sex ‘marriage’.

It means such unions have now been refused in all 31 states where the issue has been put directly to the electorate.

The result in the north- eastern state – which is known for its moderate electorate  -  was hailed last night as a victory for traditional marriage.

‘The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,’ said Frank Schubert, chief organiser for the winning side.

A heavy voter turnout defied predictions that an energetic, well-financed campaign by gay rights activists would buck the national trend.

The idea was rejected by 53 per cent of the vote.

Five other states have legalised gay ‘marriage’ – Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa  -  but all did so through legislation or court rulings.

[.....]

Jubilant conservatives in Maine were last night discussing challenging the law in the five states where gay ‘marriage’ is allowed.

Read more:

Science Daily

Religion And Medicine: Sometimes A Healing Prescription

Through in-depth interviews with 30 pediatricians and pediatric oncologists at elite medical centers, the authors discovered that physicians tend to view religion and spirituality pragmatically, considering them resources in family decision-making and in end of life situations, and barriers when they conflict with medical decisions, said lead author Brandeis sociologist Wendy Cadge.

Pediatricians, more than pediatric oncologists, say that religion is outside the purview, or boundary, of their profession, most likely because they deal primarily with healthy children. Pediatric oncologists, on the other hand, say that religion can help families cope with a dying child or an unfavorable medical outcome, said Cadge.

“Physicians view religion and spirituality as a barrier when it impedes medical recommendations and as a bridge when it helps families answer questions medicine inherently cannot,” the authors wrote.

Only one physician in the study directly asked patients and their families about religion and spirituality regularly. The other pediatricians said that direct conversations about religion were either not relevant or too personal, drawing a clear boundary between public and private that puts religion on the private side of the line.

Still, religion and spirituality almost always come up when medical treatment fails to cure the patient. As one physician explained, “The old adage that there are very few nonbelievers in fox holes applies in this setting also.” The study found that many of the physicians believe religious and spiritual beliefs help patients and their families shift from curative to palliative care.

As one physician said, “…frankly those who do have religious convictions…there’s a belief…that there’s something beyond this world, they seem to handle better, even the patients quite a bit better. And it’s easier to talk about death with those families and those patients. There’s an underlying belief that there’s something beyond this world that is basically a better world. It is much easier to discuss in a much more helpful manner than with families that do not.”

“The study shows that physicians do not want religious beliefs to trump medical care or expertise, and they get frustrated when such beliefs interfere with medical decisions,” said Cadge. “But at the end of the day, when a loved one is dying or all medical options are exhausted, physicians often welcome a family’s religious beliefs because they help a family answer the “why us” questions that medicine cannot,” said Cadge.

Oh no, not Tony Blair! He bloomin’ gets everywhere, he’s like a bad penny.

Daily Mail

Catholic convert Tony Blair is among several world leaders being invited to attend a top level summit with Pope Benedict XVI to discuss the role of the Church in politics.

The two-day summit will be held at the Vatican and will include other Catholic politicians from all over the world, including German chancellor Angela Merkel, U.S. vice president Joe Biden, former Spanish PM Jose Maria Aznar, and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Church officials have been quietly working on the conference, which will be called ‘Witnesses of Christ in the Political Community’, for several months.

Items to be discussed include the family, right to life, Christian roots, education and bio-ethics.

Vatican sources said that Pope Benedict XVI was becoming ‘increasingly concerned’ at how Christian values were being eroded because of various world governments introducing legislation against Catholic teaching.

Read more:

Here is a selection of previous posts relating to our Mr Blair:-

Tony Blair’s PC Political Christianity

Last night Tony Blair warned against the “dark side” of religion and said the world’s faith community had issues it must “confront and overcome”.

Many people are discomfited by the thought of Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation working in schools. It smacks of religious propaganda, and is tied to the name of a prime minister remembered for leading the country into a bloody and controversial war.

Tony Blair and Barack Obama, angels or demons

Tony Blair is not someone worthy to trust on religious matters

Cardinal will not join Tony Blair Faith Foundation

Tony Blair talks about his Philanthropic efforts

TOUGHER INTERVIEW FOR TONY BLAIR THAN COSY HTB CHAT-SHOW – Mr Blair’s interview with Alpha founder the Revd Nicky Gumbel at London’s Holy Trinity Brompton

Tony Blair Faith Foundation Inc: where has all the money gone? The former prime minister has colossal earning power and – with his own foundations to maintain and hefty mortgage payments – he needs it. But where exactly is the money going, asks Robert Mendick

A very sad and disturbing report from the Institute For Global Jewish Affairs, citing the anti-Israeli stance of some American churches.

Unfortunately, the World Council of Churches and Christian Aid are also guilty of this offense.

Institute For Global Jewish Affairs

Mainline American Christian “Peacemakers” against Israel

In 2004 and 2005, a group of five liberal Protestant (or “mainline”) churches in the United States broadcasted a narrative that portrayed Israel as almost solely responsible for the violence of the Second Intifada. This campaign was evident in “peacemaking” resolutions approved by the legislative bodies of these churches and in the books produced by the publishing houses associated with them.

The peacemaking resolutions alleged that Israel controlled the violence directed at it during the Second Intifada and could unilaterally end the Arab-Israeli conflict by conceding territory to the Palestinians. Support for this narrative began to wane in 2006 and 2007 under the impact of Hamas’s violence and misrule in the Gaza Strip and Hizballah’s 2006 attack on Israel from Lebanon. During the summer of 2009, anti-Israel activists suffered setbacks in the mainline community.

The materials published by these churches depict Israel as unable to make the sacrifices necessary for peace because of a flaw in its national character. Commentators from these churches are also harshly critical of Israel’s Christian Zionist supporters in the United States, portraying them as intent on bringing about Armageddon. This intense interrogation of the identity of Israeli Jews and the theology of Christian Zionists is coupled with silence about the role Muslim theology has played in fomenting violence against Israel in the Middle East.

Largely because of their shrinking numbers, the churches involved in this campaign have had little impact on the American public’s attitudes toward Israel. Nevertheless, by aligning themselves with extremist groups in the Middle East and the United States who seek to delegitimize Israel as a Jewish state, these churches have contributed to the mainstreaming of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in American society.

For the past several years, a group of five Protestant churches – the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – have legitimized the increasingly virulent anti-Israel movement in the United States. Although these churches have suffered substantial membership declines since the mid-1960s, they still enjoy a considerable influence on the American scene, particularly on the Left, thanks to their role in American history and the affluence of their members.

These churches have used their influence to focus attention on Israel’s efforts to defend itself, most notably the construction of the security barrier between its citizens and Palestinians in the West Bank. The narrative presented by these churches is that Israel could unilaterally bring an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict but chooses not to because of flaws in its national character.

In order to “help” Israel overcome its inability to make peace with its enemies, peace activists and leaders of these churches have argued for divestment from companies doing business with Israel so as to pressure the country into enabling the creation of a Palestinian state, which would inevitably bring about peace. According to this narrative, it is Israeli Jews and Christian Zionists in the United States who represent the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Omitted from the narrative is the central role that Muslim theology regarding Jews and the land plays in fomenting violence against Israel.

The “peacemaking” narrative offered by these churches fails to take into account one of the most troubling and enduring realities of the Arab-Israeli conflict: that Israeli peace offers and withdrawals have been preludes to increased Arab violence. By maintaining their emphasis on Israeli behavior, these churches have failed to help the American people confront these unpleasant realities. They have also helped introduce open expressions of anti-Semitism into American mainstream discourse.

Read Entire Article

(ENI). The Vatican official responsible for links with other churches has rejected suggestions of a “standstill” in the search for Christian unity.

“There has already been a lot of movement,” Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told Ecumenical News International in Wittenberg, the eastern German town where in 1517, Martin Luther published his 95 Theses, thereby setting in train the breach with the papacy.

“I hope that there can be even more movement for the unity of the Church, the cohesion of Christianity and for common witness,” said the cardinal when interviewed on 1 November while attending a ceremony seeking closer ties on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation in 2017.

“We have learned a lot in the last 50 years,” noted Kasper, a former professor of theology in Münster and Tübingen, and bishop of Stuttgart in southern Germany from 1989 to 1999. “At the university I spent a lot of time teaching about Martin Luther, and I have learned from that experience too.”

Kasper was asked about comments by Wolfgang Huber, who retired at the end of October as Germany’s senior Protestant bishop, in which he said the Vatican had created “difficulties” for ecumenical dialogue in the past decade.

“Well we caused each other difficulties,” said Kasper, laughing. “Difficulties are always made from both sides. I also wished for more, but one can wish for a lot in life and it does not happen.

“The main point is that we should stay on the ball and should continue,” said the cardinal. “Difficulties are sometimes from the one side and sometimes from the other, one should not overrate them. The basics, the direction is right and we should jointly continue the course.”

The Wittenberg event followed celebrations in Augsburg the previous day to mark the 10th anniversary of the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church signing an agreement about the doctrine of justification, a central point of contention at the time of the 16th-century Reformation.

Kasper described the 1999 agreement as a “milestone, but also an interim step, and one on which we would like to build”. He added, “In the council for promoting Christian unity we are to hold a conference in February to look towards the future together with our ecumenical partners. We want to think together about what the next steps could be.”

At the 10th anniversary celebrations in Augsburg, Kasper had described the joint declaration as a sign of the workings of the Holy Spirit. “We cannot be thankful enough for that and for many, many other steps that have been possible since,” he said in a sermon at Augsburg Cathedral, the city where the declaration had been signed 10 years earlier.

“The godless complain about the supposed standstill in the ecumenical movement and the miserable moan about what has not yet been achieved, forgetting all that has been given us in the last few years, all that is sheer ingratitude,” asserted the cardinal.

In 2006, the Methodist World Council also affirmed the joint declaration.

In remarks during the Augsburg celebrations, the LWF general secretary, the Rev. Ishmael Noko, said in signing the joint declaration, Lutherans and Catholics had “set out a common journey of healing” their memories of mutual condemnation.

“Ten years ago in this city we committed ourselves to a joint ecumenical journey. We did not doubt that we will walk forward together in new ways,” said Noko.

“Of course the mutual condemnations of the past remain a part of our history; that cannot be changed. And the painful legacy of our estrangement gives us memories which bear the wounds of our separation,” noted the LWF general secretary. “Ten years ago, in this city of Augsburg we said that these memories of separation and hostility would not be the memories of our children.”

In Wittenberg, Noko told ENI that the ecumenical movement continues to grow. “The seeds have been sown and it serves no purpose to be suspicious all the time,” he said.

“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Corinthians 5:21

A BOOK is the expression of the thoughts of the writer. The book of
nature is an expression of the thoughts of God. We have God’s terrible
thoughts in the thunder and lightning; God’s loving thoughts in the
sunshine and the balmy breeze; God’s bounteous, prudent, careful thoughts
in the waving harvest and in the ripening meadow. We have God’s brilliant
thoughts in the wondrous scenes which are beheld from mountain-top and
valley; and we have God’s most sweet and pleasant thoughts of beauty in
the little flowers that blossom at our feet. But you will remark that God has
in nature given most prominence to those thoughts that needed to have the
pre-eminence. He hath not given us broad acres overspread with flowers,
for they were not needed in such abundance, but he hath spread the fields
with corn, that thus the absolute necessities of life might be supplied. We
needed most of the thoughts of his providence; and he hath quickened our
industry, so that God’s providential care may be read as we ride along the
roads on every side. Now, God’s book of grace is just like his book of
nature; it is his thoughts written out. This great book, the Bible, this most
precious volume is the heart of God made legible; it is the gold of God’s
love beaten out into leaf gold, so that therewith our thoughts might be
plated, and we also might have golden, good, and holy thoughts
concerning him. And you will mark that, as in nature so in grace, the most
necessary is the most prominent. I see in God’s word a rich abundance of
flowers of glorious eloquence; often I find a prophet marshalling his words
like armies for might, and like kings for majesty. But far more frequently I
read simple declarations of the truth. I see here and there a brilliant thought
of beauty, but I find whole fields of plain didactic doctrine, which is food
for the soul; and I find whole chapters full of Christ which is divine manna,
whereon the soul doth feed. I see starry words to make the Scriptures
brilliant, sweet thoughts to make them fair, great thoughts to make them
impressive, terrible thoughts to make them awful; but necessary thoughts,
instructive thoughts, saving thoughts, are far more frequent, because far
more necessary. Here and there a bed of flowers, but broad acres of living
corn of the gospel of the grace of God. You must excuse me, then, if I very
frequently dwell on the whole topic of salvation. But last Sabbath I brought
you one shock of this wheat, in the fashion of Christ’s promise, which
saith, “He that calleth on the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” And then I
sought to show how men might be saved. I bring you now another shock
cut down in the self same field, teaching you the great philosophy of
salvation, the hidden mystery, the great secret, the wonderful discovery
which is brought to light by the gospel; how God is just, and yet the
justifier of the ungodly. Let us read the text again, and then at once
proceed to discuss it. I intend to do to-day, as I did last Sunday; I shall just
be as simple as ever I can; and I shall not attempt one single flight of
eloquence or oratory, even if I am capable of it; but just go along the
ground, so that every simple soul may be able to understand. — “For he
hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made
the righteousness of God in him.”

Note the doctrine; the use of it; the enjoyment of it.

I. First, THE DOCTRINE. There are three persons mentioned here. “He (that
is God) hath made him (that is Christ) who knew no sin, to be sin for us
(sinners) that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Before
we can understand the plan of salvation, it is necessary for us to know
something about the three persons, and, certainly, unless we understand
them in some measure, salvation is to us impossible.

1. Here is first, GOD. Let every man know what God is. God is a very
different Being from what some of you suppose. The God of heaven and of
earth — the Jehovah of Abraham, of Isaac and Jacob, Creator and
Preserver, the God of Holy Scripture, and the God of all grace, is not the
God that some men make unto themselves, and worship. There be men in
this so called Christian land, who worship a god who is no more God than
Venus or Bacchus! A god made after their own hearts; a god not fashioned
out of stone or wood, but fashioned from their own thoughts, out of baser
stuff than ever heathen attempted to make a god of. The God of Scripture
has three great attributes, and they are all three implied in the text.
The God of Scripture is a sovereign God; that is, he is a God who has
absolute authority, and absolute power to do exactly as he pleaseth. Over
the head of God there is no law, upon his arm there is no necessity; he
knoweth no rule but his own free and mighty will. And though he cannot
be unjust, and cannot do anything but good, yet is his nature absolutely
free; for goodness is the freedom of God’s nature. God is not to be
controlled by the will of man, nor the desires of man, nor by fate in which
the superstitious believe; he is God, doing as he willeth in the armies of
heaven, and in this lower world. He is a God, too, who giveth no account
of his matters; he makes his creatures just what he chooses to make them,
and does with them just as he wills. And if any of them resent his acts, he
saith unto them: — “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against
God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made
me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to
make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?” God is good; but
God is sovereign, absolute, knowing, nothing that can control him. The
monarchy of this world, is no constitutional and limited monarchy; it is not
tyrannical, but it is absolutely in the hands of an all-wise God. But mark, it
is in no hands but his; no cherubim, not seraphim can assist God in the
dispensation of his government.

“He sits on no precarious throne,
Nor borrows leave to be.”

He is the God of predestination; the God upon whose absolute will, the
hinge of fate doth turn.

“Chain’d to his throne, a volume lies,
With all the fates of men,
With every angel’s form and size,
Drawn by th’ eternal pen.
His providence unfolds the book,
And makes his councils shine,
Each opening leaf, and every stroke,
Fulfils some deep design.”

This is the God of the Bible, this is the God whom we adore; no weak,
pusillanimous God, who is controlled by the will of men, who cannot steer
the bark of providence; but a God unalterable, infinite, unerring. This is the
God we worship; a God as infinitely above his creatures, as the highest
thought an fly; and higher still than that.

But, again, the God who is here mentioned, is a God of infinite justice.
That he is a sovereign God, I prove from the words, that he hath made
Christ to be sin. He could not have done it if he had not been sovereign.
That he is a just God, I infer from my text; seeing that the way of salvation
is a great plan of satisfying justice. And we now declare that the God of
Holy Scripture is a God of inflexible justice; he is not the God whom some
of you adore. You adore a god who winks at great sins; you believe in a
god who calls your crimes peccadilloes and little faults. Some of you
worship a god who does not punish sin; but who is so weakly merciful, and
so mercilessly weak, that he passes by transgression and iniquity, and never
enacts a punishment. You believe in a god, who, if man sins, does not
demand punishment for his offense. You think that a few good works of
your own will pacify him, that he is so weak a ruler, that a few good words
uttered before him in prayer will win sufficient merit to reverse the
sentence, if, indeed, you think he ever passes a sentence at all. Your god is
no God; he is as much a false god as the god of the Greeks, or of ancient
Nineveh. The God of Scripture is one who is inflexibly severe in justice,
and will by no means clear the guilty. “The Lord is slow to anger, and great
in power; and will not at all acquit the wicked.” The God of Scripture is a
ruler, who, when his subjects rebel, marks their crime, and never forgives
them until he has punished it, either upon them, or upon their substitute.
He is not like the god of some sectaries, who believe in a god without an
atonement, with only some little show upon the cross, which was not, as
they say, a real suffering of sin. Their god, the god of the Socinian, just
blots out sin without exacting any punishment; he is not the God of the
Scriptures. The God of the Bible is as severe as if he were unmerciful, and
as just as if he were not gracious; and yet he is as gracious and as merciful
as if he were not just — yea, more so.

And one more thought here concerning God, or else we cannot establish
our discourse upon a sure basis. The God who is here means, is a God of
grace: think not that I am now contradicting myself. The God who is
inflexibly severe, and never pardons sin without punishment, is yet a God
of illimitable love. Although as a Ruler he will chastise, yet, as the Father461
God, he loveth to bestow his blessing. “As I live, saith the Lord, I have no
pleasure in the death of him that dieth; but had rather that he should turn
unto me and live.” God is love in its highest degree. He is love rendered
more than love. Love is not God, but God is love; he is full of grace, he is
the plenitude of mercy, — he delighteth in mercy. As high as the heavens
are above the earth, so high are his thoughts of love above our thoughts of
despair; and his ways of grace above our ways of fear. This God, in whom
these three great attributes harmonize — illimitable sovereignty, inflexible
justice, and unfathomable grace — these three make up the main attributes
of the one God of heaven and earth whom Christians worship. It is this
God, before whom we must appear; it is he who has made Christ to be sin
for us, though he knew no sin.

2. Thus, we have brought the first person before you. The second person
of our text is the Son of God — Christ, who knew no sin. He is the Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all worlds: begotten, not made; being of
the same substance with the Father, co-equal, co-eternal, and co-existent.
Is the Father Almighty? So is the Son Almighty. Is the Father infinite? So is
the Son infinite. He is very God of very God: having a dignity not inferior
to the Father, but being equal to him in every respect, — God over all,
blessed for evermore. Jesus Christ also, is the son of Mary, a man like unto
ourselves. A man subject to all the infirmities of human nature, except the
infirmities of sin; a man of suffering and of woe; of pain and trouble; of
anxiety and fear; of trouble and of doubt; of temptation and of trial; of
weakness and death. He is a man just as we are, bone of our bone and flesh
of our flesh. Now, the person we wish to introduce to you, is this complex
being, God and man. Not God humanized, not man Deified; but God,
purely, essentially God; man, purely man; man, not more than man; God,
not less than God, — the two standing in a sacred union together, the
God-Man. Of this God in Christ, our text says that he knew no sin. It does
not say that he did not sin; that we know: but it says more than that; he did
not know sin; he knew not what sin was. He saw it in others, but he did not
know it by experience. He was a perfect stranger to it. It is not barely said,
that he did not take sin into his heart; but, he did not know it. It was no
acquaintance of his. He was the acquaintance of grief; but he was not the
acquaintance of sin. He knew no sin of any kind, — no sin of thought, no
sin of birth, no original, no actual transgression; no sin of lip, or of hand,
did ever Christ commit. He was pure, perfect, spotless; like his own
divinity, without spot or blemish, or any such thing. This gracious person,
is he who is spoken of in the text. He was a person utterly incapable of
committing anything that was wrong. It has been asserted lately, by some
ill-judged one, that Christ was capable of sin. I think it was Irving who
started some such idea, that if Christ was not capable of sinning, he could
not have been capable of virtue. “For,” say they, “if a man must necessarily
be good, there is no virtue in his goodness.” Out upon their ridiculous
nonsense. Is not God necessarily good? And who dares deny that God is
virtuous? Are not the glorified spirits in heaven necessarily pure? and yet
are they not holy because of that very necessity? Are not the angels, now
that they are confirmed, necessarily faultless? and shall any one dare to
deny angelic virtue! The thing is not true; it needs no freedom in order to
create virtue. Freedom and virtue generally go together; but necessity and
virtue are as much brother and sister as freedom and virtue. Jesus Christ
was not capable of sin; it was as utterly impossible for Christ to have
sinned, as for fire to drown or for water to burn. I suppose both of these
things might be possible under some peculiar circumstances; but it never
could have been possible for Christ to have committed or to have endured
the shadow of the commission of a sin. He did not know it. He knew no
sin.

3. Now I have to introduce the third person. We will not go far for him.
The third person is the sinner. And where is he? Will you turn your eyes
within you, and look for him, each one of you? He is not very far from you.
He has been a drunkard: he has committed drunkenness and revelling and
such like, and we know that the man who committeth these things, hath no
inheritance in the kingdom of God. There is another, he has taken God’s
name in vain; he has sometimes, in his hot passion, asked God to do most
fearful things against his limbs and against his soul. Ah! there is the sinner.
Where is he? I hear that man, with tearful eye, and with sobbing voice
exclaim, “Sir, he is here!” Methinks I see some woman here, in the midst of
us, some of us have accused her perhaps, and she standeth alone trembling,
and saith not a word for herself. Oh! that the Master might say, “neither do
I condemn thee; go and sin no more.” I believe, I must believe, that
somewhere amongst these many thousands, I hear some palpitating heart,
and that heart, as it beats so hurriedly crieth, “Sin, sin, sin, wrath, wrath,
wrath, how can I get deliverance?” Ah! thou art the man, a born rebel;
born into the world a sinner, thou hast added to thy native guilt thine own
transgressions. Thou hast broken the commandments of God, thou hast
despised God’s love, thou hast trampled on his grace, thou hast gone on
hitherto until now, the arrow of the Lord is drinking up thy spirit; God hath
made thee tremble, he hath made thee to confess thy guilt and thy
transgression. Hear me, then, if your convictions are the work of God’s
Spirit, you are the person intended in the text, when it says, “He hath made
him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we “ — that is you — “might
be made the righteousness of God in him.”

I have introduced the persons, and now I must introduce you to a scene of
a great exchange which is made according to the text. The third person
whom we introduce is the prisoner at the bar. As a sinner, God, has called
him before him, he is about to be tried for life or death. God is gracious,
and he desires to save him; God is just, and he must punish him. The sinner
is to be tried; if there be a verdict of guilty brought in against him, how will
the two conflicting attributes work in God’s mind? He is loving, he wants
to save him; he is just, he must destroy him! How shall this mystery be
solved, and the riddle be solved? Prisoner at the bar, canst thou plead “Not
Guilty?” He stands speechless; or, if he speaks, he cries, “I am Guilty!”
Shouldst thou smite my soul to hell, Thy righteous law approves it well.
Then, you see, if he has pleaded guilty himself, there is no hope of there
being any flaw in the evidence. And even if he had pleaded “not guilty,” yet
the evidence is most clear, for God, the Judge, has seen his sin, and
recorded all his iniquities; so that there would be no hope of his escaping.
The prisoner is sure to be found guilty. How can he escape? Is there a flaw
in the indictment? No! it is drawn up by infinite wisdom, and dictated by
eternal justice; and there is no hope there. Can he turn king’s evidence?
Ah! if we could be saved by turning king’s evidence, we should all of us be
saved. There is an anomaly in our law which often allows the greater
criminal to escape, whilst the lesser criminal is punished. If the one is
dastard and coward enough by betraying his comrade he may save himself.
If you turn to the Newgate Calendar — if any of you have patience enough
to read so vile a piece of literature — you will see that the greatest of two
murderers has escaped whilst the other has been hanged, because he turned
king’s evidence. You have told of your fellows; you have said, “Lord, I
thank thee, I am not as other men; I am not as that adulterer, or even as
that publican. I bless thee, I am not like my neighbor, who is an
extortioner, a thief, and so on.” You are telling against your neighbor; you
are joint sinners, and you are telling a tale against him. There is no hope for
you; God’s law knows of no such injustice as a man escaping by turning
informer upon others. How then shall the prisoner at the bar escape? Is
there any possibility? Oh! how did heaven wonder! how did the stars stand
still with astonishment! and how did the angels stay their songs a moment,
when for the first time, God showed how he might be just, and yet be
gracious! Oh! I think I see heaven astonished, and silence in the courts of
God for the space of an hour, when the Almighty said, “Sinner. I must and
will punish thee on account of sin! But I love thee; the bowels of my love
yearn over thee. How can I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as
Zeboim? My justice says ‘smite,’ but my love stays my hand, and says,
‘spare, spare the sinner!’ Oh! sinner, my heart hath devised it; my Son, the
pure and perfect shall stand in thy stead, and be accounted guilty, and thou,
the guilty, shall stand in my Son’s stead and be accounted righteous!” It
would make us leap upon our feet in astonishment if we did but understand
this thoroughly — the wonderful mystery of the transposition of Christ and
the sinner. Let me put it so plainly that every one can understand: Christ
was spotless; sinners were vile. Says Christ “My father, treat me as if I
were a sinner; treat the sinner as if he were me. Smite as sternly as thou
pleasest, for I will bear it, and thus the bowels of thy love may overflow
with grace, and yet thy justice be unsullied, for the sinner is no sinner
now.” He stands in Christ’s stead, and with the Saviour’s garments on, he
is accepted.” Do you say that such an exchange as this is unjust? Will you
say that God should not have made his Son a substitute for us, and have let
us go? Let me remind you it was purely voluntary on the part of Christ.
Christ was willing to stand in our stead; he had to drink the cup of our
punishment, but he was quite willing to do it. And let me tell you yet one
more unanswerable thing, the substitution of Christ was not an unlawful
thing, because the sovereign God made him a substitute. We have read in
history of a certain wife whose attachment to her husband was so great,
that the wife has gone into the prison and exchanged clothes with him; and
while the prisoner was escaping, the wife has remained in the prison-house;
and so the prisoner has escaped by a kind of surreptitious substitution. In
such a case there was a clear breach of law, and the prisoner escaping
might have been pursued and again imprisoned. But in this case the
substitution was made by the highest authority. The text says, God “hath
made him to be sin for us;” and inasmuch as Christ did stand in my room,
place, and stead, he did not make the exchange unlawfully. It was with the
full determinate counsel of Almighty God, as well as with his own consent,
that Christ stood in the sinner’s place, as the sinner doth now in Christ’s
place. Old Martin Luther was a man for speaking a thing pretty plainly, and
sometimes he spoke the truth so plainly that he made it look very much like
a lie. In one of his sermons he said, “Christ was the greatest sinner that
ever lived.” Now, Christ never was a sinner, but yet Martin was right. He
meant to say, all the sins of Christ’s people were taken off them and put on
Christ’s head, and so Christ stood in God’s sight as if he had been the
greatest sinner that ever lived. He never was a sinner; he never knew sin;
but good Martin, in his zeal to make men understand what it was, said,
“Sinner, you became Christ; Christ, you became a sinner!” It is not quite
the truth; the sinner is treated as if he were Christ, and Christ is treated as
if he were the sinner. That is what is meant by the text God “hath made him
to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness
of God in him.”

Let me just give you two illustrations of this. The first shall be taken from
the Old Testament. When, of old, men did come before God with sin, God
provided a sacrifice which should be the representative of Christ, inasmuch
as the sacrifice died instead of the sinner. The law ran, “He that sins shall
die.” When men had committed sin they brought a bullock or a sheep
before the altar; they put their hand on the bullock’s head and
acknowledged their guilt; and by that deed their guilt was typically
removed from themselves to the bullock. Then, the poor bullock, which
had done no wrong, was slaughtered, and cast out as a sin offering, which
God had rejected. That is what every sinner must do with Christ, if he is to
be saved. A sinner, by faith, comes and puts his hand on Christ’s head, and
confessing all his sin, it is not his any longer, it is put on Christ. Christ
hangs upon the tree; he bears the cross and endures the shame; and so the
sin is all gone and cast into the depths of the sea. Take another illustration.
We read in the New Testament, that “the Church (that is, the people of
God) is Christ’s bride.” We all know that, according to the law, the wife
may have many debts; but no sooner is she married than her debts cease to
be hers, and become her husband’s at once. So that if a woman be
overwhelmed with debt, so that she is in daily fear of the prison, let her but
once stand up and give her hand to a man and become his wife, and there is
none in the world can touch her; the husband is liable for all, and she says
to her creditor, “Sir, I owe you nothing; my husband did not owe you
anything; I incurred the debt; but, inasmuch as I have become his wife, my
debts are taken off from me, and become his.” It is even so with the sinner
and Christ. Christ marieth the sinner and putteth forth his hand, and taketh
the Church to be his. She is in debt to God’s justice immeasurably; she
owes to God’s vengeance an intolerable weight of wrath and punishment;
Christ says, “Thou art my wife: I have chosen thee, and I will pay thy
debts.” And he has paid them, and got his full discharge. Now, whosoever
believeth in Christ Jesus hath peace with God, because “he hath made
Christ to be sin for us, though he knew no sin, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him.”

And now, I shall have finished the explanation of the text, when I just bid
you remember the consequences of this great substitution. Christ was
made sin; we are made the righteousness of God. It was in the past, long
further back than the memory of angels can reach — it was in the dark
past, before cherubim or seraphim had flapped the unnavigated ether —
when as yet worlds were not, and creation had not a name, God foresaw
the sin of man, and planned his redemption. An eternal covenant was
formed between the Father and the Son; wherein the Son did stipulate to
suffer for his elect; and the Father on his part, did covenant to justify them
through the Son. Oh, wondrous covenant, thou art the source of all the
streams of atoning love. Eternity rolled on, time came, and with it soon
came the fall, and then when many years had run their round the fullness of
time arrived, and Jesus prepared to fulfill his solemn engagement. He came
into the world, and was made a man From that moment, when he became a
man; mark the change that was wrought in him. Before, he had been
entirely happy; he had never been miserable never sad; but now as the
effects of that terrible covenant, which he had made with God, his Father
begins to pour wrath upon him. What, you say does God actually account
his Son to be a sinner? Yes, he does; His Son agreed to be the substitute,
to stand in the sinner’s stead. God begins with him at his birth; he puts him
in a manger. If he had considered him as a perfect man, he would have
provided him a throne: but considering him as a sinner, he subjects him to
woe and poverty from beginning to end. And now see him grown to
manhood; see him — griefs pursue him, sorrows follow him. Stop, griefs,
why follow ye the perfect? why pursue ye the immaculate? Justice, why
dost thou not drive these griefs away? — “the pure should be peaceful, and
the immaculate should be happy.” The answer comes: “This man is pure in
himself, but he has made himself impure by taking his people’s sin.” Guilt is
imputed to him, and the very imputation of guilt brings grief with all its
reality. At last, I see death coming with more than its usual horrors; I see
the grim skeleton with his dart well sharpened; I see behind him, Hell. I
mark the grim prince of darkness, and all the avengers uprising from their
place of torment; I see them all besetting the Savior; I notice their terrible
war upon him in the garden; I note him as he lies there wallowing in his
blood in fearful soul-death. I see him as in grief and sorrow, he walks to
Pilate’s bar; I see him mocked and spit upon; I behold him tormented,
maltreated, and blasphemed; I see him nailed to the cross; I behold the
mocking continued, and the shame unabated; I mark him shrieking for
water, and I hear him complaining of the forsakings of God! I am
astonished. Can this be just that a perfect being should suffer thus? — Oh,
God, where art thou, that thou canst thus permit the oppression of the
innocent? Hast thou ceased to be King of Justice, else why dost thou not
shield the perfect One? The answer comes: Be still; he is perfect in himself,
but he is the sinner now — he stands in the sinner’s stead; the sinner’s guilt
is on him, and, therefore it is right, it is just, it is what he hath himself
agreed to, that he should be punished as if he were a sinner, that he should
be frowned upon, that he should die, and that he should descend to Hades
unblessed, uncomforted, unhelped, unhonored, and unowned. This was one
of the effects of the great change which Christ made.

And, now, take the other side of the question, and I have done with
explanation. What was the effect on us? Do you see that sinner there
dabbling his hand in lust, defiling his garments with every sin the flesh had
ever indulged in? Do you hear him cursing God? Do you mark him
breaking every ordinance that God hath rendered sacred? But do you see
him in a little season pursuing his way to heaven? He has renounced these
sins; he has been converted, and has forsaken them; he is going on the way
to heaven. Justice, art thou asleep? That man has broken thy law; is he to
go to heaven? Hark, how the fiends come rising from the pit and cry —
“That man deserves to be lost; he may not be now what he used to be, but
his past sins, must have vengeance.” And, yet there he goes safely on his
way to heaven, and I see him looking back on all the fiends that accuse
him. He cries out, “Behold, who can lay anything to the charge of God’s
elect?” And when one would think all hell would be up in arms and accuse,
the grim tyrant lieth still, and the fiends have nought to say; and I see him
turning his face heavenward to the throne of God, and hear him cry “Who
is he that condemneth?” as with unblushing countenance he challengeth the
Judge. Oh! justice, where art thou? This man has been a sinner, a rebel;
why not smite him to the dust for his impertinent presumption in thus
challenging the justice of God? Nay, says Justice, he hath been a sinner, but
I do not look upon him in that light now; I have punished Christ instead of
him: that sinner is no sinner now — he is perfect. How? perfect! Perfect,
because Christ was perfect, and I look upon him as if he were Christ.
Though in himself all black as the gates of Kedar, I consider him to be fair
as the curtains of Solomon. I make Christ the sinner, and I punish Christ; I
make the sinner Christ, and I magnify and exalt him. And I will put a crown
of pure gold upon his head, and by-and-bye, I will give him a place among
them that are sanctified, where he shall, harp in hand, for ever praise the
name of the Lord. This is the grand result to sinners of the great exchange.
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him.”

II. Now, I have to come towards the close, to my second point, upon
which I shall be brief but laborious. WHAT IS THE USE OF THIS DOCTRINE?
Turn to the Scriptures and you will see. “Now, then, we are ambassadors
for God, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s
stead to be reconciled to God, for “ — here is our grand argument — “He
hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin.” Men and brethren, I am
about to pray to you; I am about to beseech and exhort you; may the Spirit
of God help me to do it with all the earnestness which becomes me. You
and I shall face each other soon before the bar of the great judge, and I
shall be responsible in the day of account for all I preach to you; not for my
style or talent, or want of talent, I shall only be responsible for my
earnestness and zeal in this matter. And, now, before God I entreat you
most earnestly to be reconciled to him, you are by nature at enmity with
God; you hate him, you neglect him, your enmity shows itself in various
ways. I beseech you now be reconciled to God. I might entreat you to be
reconciled, because it would be a fearful thing to die with God for your
enemy. Who among us can dwell with devouring fire? who can abide with
the eternal burnings? It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living
God, for our God is a consuming fire. Beware, ye that forget God, lest he
tear you in pieces and there be none to deliver. I beseech you therefore, be
reconciled to God. I might on the other hand, use another argument, and
remind you that those who are reconciled to God, are thereby proved to be
the inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. There are crowns for God’s
friends; there are harps for them that love him; there is prepared a mansion
for every one that seeketh unto him. Therefore, if thou wouldst be blessed
throughout eternity, be reconciled to God. But I shall not urge that; I shall
urge the reason of my text. I beseech thee, my hearer, be reconciled to
God, because if thou repentest, it is proof that Christ has stood in thy
stead. Oh, if this argument do not melt thee, there is none in heaven or
earth that can. If thy heart melteth not at such an argument as this, then it
is harder than the nether millstone, sure thou hast a soul of stone, and a
heart of brass, if thou wilt not be reconciled to God who hath written this
for thine encouragement.

I beseech thee be reconciled to God, because in this there is proof that God
is loving you. Thou thinkest God to be a God of wrath. Would he have
given his own Son to be punished if he had hated thee? Sinner if God had
anything but thoughts of love towards thee, I ask, would he have given up
his Son to hang upon the cross? Think not my God a tyrant; think him not
a wrathful God, destitute of mercy. His Son, torn from his bosom and
given up to die, is the best proof of his love. Oh, sinner, I need not blame
thee if thou didst hate thy enemy, but I must blame thee, call thee mad, if
thou dost hate thy friend. Oh, I need not wonder if thou wouldst not be
reconciled to one who would not be reconciled to thee; but, inasmuch as
thou wilt not by nature be reconciled to the God who gave his own Son to
die, I must marvel at the stupidity into which thine evil nature hath hurried
thee. God is love; wilt thou be unreconciled to love? God is grace; wilt
thou be unreconciled to grace. Oh, rebel that thou art of deepest dye if still
thou art unreconciled. Remember, too, oh, soul, that the way is open for
thy reconciliation, Thou needest not be punished; yea, thou shalt not be. If
thou knowest thyself to be a sinner, by the Spirit’s teaching, God will not
punish thee to maintain His justice: that justice is sufficiently maintained by
the punishment of Christ. He saith, “be reconciled.” The child runneth
away from his father when he hath sinned, because he fears his father will
punish him; but when his father burns the rod, and with a smiling face says,
“child, come hither,” sure it must be an unloving child that would not run
into such a father’s arms. Sinner thou deservest the sword; God has
snapped the sword across the knee of Christ’s atonement, and now he says
“Come to me.” You deserve infinite, eternal wrath, and the displeasure of
God; God has quenched that wrath for all believers, and now he says,
“Come to me and be reconciled.” Do you tell me that you are not sinners? I
was not preaching to you. Do you tell me that you have never rebelled
against God? I warn you that though you cannot find your own sins out,
God will find them out. Do you say, “I need no reconciliation, except that
which I can make myself?” Be warned that if thou rejectest Christ, thou
rejectest thine only hope; for all that thou canst do is less than nothing and
vanity. I was not preaching to thee, when I said, “Be reconciled.” I was
preaching to thee, poor afflicted conscience; I was preaching to thee —
thou that hast been a great sinner and transgressor, thou that feelest thy
guilt; to thee, thou adulterer, trembling now under the lash of conviction;
to thee; thou blasphemer, quivering now from head to foot; I preach to
thee thou thief, whose eye is now filled with the tear of penitence; thou
feelest that hell must be thy portion, unless thou art saved through Christ; I
preach to thee, thou that knowest thy guilt; I preach to thee and to every
one such, and I beseech thee to be reconciled to God, for God is reconciled
to thee. Oh, let not your heart stand out against this.

I cannot plead as I could wish. Oh! if I could I would plead with my heart,
with my eyes, and my lips, that I might lead you to the Savior. You need
not rail at me and call this an Arminian style of preaching; I care not for
your opinion, this style is Scriptural. “As though God did beseech you by
us, we pray you, in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” Poor brokenhearted
sinner, God is as much preaching to you this morning, and bidding
you be reconciled, as if he stood here himself in his own person; and
though I be a mean and puny man by whom he speaketh, he speaketh now
as much as if it were by the voice of angels, “Be reconciled to God.”
Come, friend, turn not thine eye and head away from me; but give me thine
hand and lend me thine heart whilst I weep over thine hand and cry over
thine heart, and beseech thee not to despise thine own mercy, not to be a
suicide to thine own soul, not to damn thyself. Now that God has
awakened thee to feel that thou art an enemy, I beseech thee now to be his
friend. Remember, if thou art now convinced of sin, there is no punishment
for thee. He was punished in thy stead. Wilt thou believe this? Wilt thou
trust in it, and so be at peace with God? If thou sayest, “No!” then I would
have thee know that thou hast put away thine own mercy. If thou sayest, “I
need no reconciliation,” thou hast thrust away the only hope thou canst
ever have. Do it at thine own hazard; I wash my hands of thy blood. But,
but, but, if thou knowest thyself to need a Savior if thou wouldst escape
the hellish pit, if thou wouldst walk among them that are sanctified, I again,
in the name of him that will condemn thee at the last day, if thou rejectest
this invitation, implore and beseech thee to be reconciled to God. I am his
ambassador. When I have done this sermon, I shall go back to court.
Sinner, what shall I say of thee. Shall I go back and tell my Master that
thou intendest to be his enemy for ever? Shall I go back and tell him, “They
heard me, but they regarded not?” they said in their hearts, “we will go
away to our sins and our follies, and we will not serve your God, neither
fear him!” Shall I tell him such a message as that? Must I be driven to go
back to his palace with such a fearful story? I beseech thee, send me not
back so, lest my Master’s wrath wax hot, and he say,

“They that despised my promised rest,
Shall have no portion there”

But oh! may I not go back to court to-day, and tell the Monarch on my
knees, “There be some my Lord, that have been great rebels, but when they
saw themselves rebels, they threw themselves at the foot of the cross, and
asked for pardon. They had strangely revolted, but I heard them say, ‘If he
will forgive me I will turn from my evil ways, if he will enable me!’ They
were gross transgressors, and they confessed it; but I heard them say,
‘Jesus, thy blood and righteousness are my only trust.’” Happy
ambassador, I will go back to my Master with a gladsome countenance,
and tell him that peace is made between many a soul and the great God.
But miserable ambassador who has to go back and say, “There is no peace
made.” How shall it be? The Lord decide it! May many hearts give way to
Omnipotent grace now, and may enemies of grace be changed into friends,
that God’s elect may be gathered in, and his eternal purpose accomplished.
III. And now, I close up by noticing the SWEET ENJOYMENT which this
doctrine brings to a believer. Mourning Christian! dry up your tears. Are
you weeping on account of sin? Why weepest thou? Weep because of thy
sin, but weep not through any fear of punishment. Has the evil one told
thee that thou shalt be condemned? Tell him to his face that he lies. Ah!
poor distressed believer; art thou mourning over thine own corruptions?
Look to thy perfect Lord, and remember, thou art complete in him, thou
art in God’s sight as perfect as if thou hadst never sinned; nay, more than
that, the Lord our righteousness hath put a divine garment upon thee, so
that thou hast more than the righteousness of man — thou hast the
righteousness of God. Oh! thou that art mourning by reason of in-bred sin
and depravity, remember, none of thy sins an condemn thee. Thou hast
learned to hate sin; but thou hast learned to know that sin is not thine — it
is put on Christ’s head. Come, be of good cheer: thy standing is not in
thyself — it is in Christ; thine acceptance is not in thyself, but in thy Lord;
with all thy sin, thou art as much accepted to-day as in thy sanctification;
thou art as much accepted of God to-day, with all thine iniquities, as thou
wilt be when thou standest before his throne, rendered free from all
corruption. Oh! I beseech thee, lay hold on this precious thought,
perfection in Christ! For thou art perfect in Christ Jesus. With thy
Saviour’s garment on, thou art holy as the holy ones; thou art now justified
by faith; thou hast now peace with God. Be of good cheer; do not fear to
die; death has nothing terrible in it to thee; Christ hath extracted all the gall
from the sting of death. Tremble not at judgment; judgment will not bring
thee another acquital, to add to the acquital already given in thy cause.

Bold shalt thou stand at that great day,
For who aught to thy charge can lay
Fully absolved by Christ thou art,
From sin’s tremendous guilt and smart.

Ah, when thou comest to die, thou shalt challenge God; for thou shalt say,
“My God, thou canst not condemn me, for thou hast condemned Christ for
me, thou hast punished Christ in my stead. ‘Who is he that condemneth? It
is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who also sitteth on the
right hand of God and maketh intercession for us:’” Christian, be glad; let
thy head lack no oil, and thy face no ointment; “go thy way; eat thy bread
with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart, for God hath accepted thy
works.” Do as Solomon bids us do; live happily all the days of thy life; for
thou art accepted in the beloved — thou art pardoned through the blood,
and justified through the righteousness of Christ. What hast thou to fear?
Let thy face ever wear a smile; let thine eyes sparkle with gladness; live
near thy Master; live in the suburbs of the celestial city, as by-and-by when
thy time has come thou shalt borrow better wings than angels ever wore,
and out soar the cherubim, and rise up where thy Jesus sits — sit at his
right hand, even as he has overcome and has sat down upon his Father’s
right hand; and all this because the divine Lord, “was made to be sin for us,
who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”