of earth, than if the earth and the works of it were burned up. Naked thou camest out of thy mother's womb, and naked shalt thou return. Thou hast heaped up many things; but for what end? To leave them all behind thee! Poor shade! Thou art now stripped of all! Not even hope is left.

8. Observe the remark, which our Lord has left upon the whole occurrence: "So is every one who layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God!" Such a fool, such an egregious madman, as it is beyond the power of language to express! However wise he may be in his own eyes, and perhaps in those of his neighbour, he is in reality the greatest fool under heaven, who heapeth up things from which he must soon be separated for ever: and whoever is seeking happiness in the things that perish, is laying up treasure for himself. This is absolutely inconsistent with being rich (or rather growing) toward God, with obeying that Scriptural command, My son, give me thy heart." He who is a child of God can truly say,

66

"All my riches are above!

All my treasure is thy love."

He can testify, "All my desire is unto thee, and to the remembrance of thy name.

9. Let every one who readeth these words, narrowly search his own heart. Where hast thou laid up thy treasure hitherto? Where art thou laying it up now? Art thou labouring to be rich toward God? Or to lay up earthly goods? Which takes up the greater part of thy thoughts? Thou that art careful for outward things, diligent in doing good, and exact in outward duties, beware of covetousness, of the decent, honourable love of money, and of a desire to lay up treasures on earth. Lay up treasures in heaven! A few days hence, thou wilt step into the land of darkness, where earthly fruits will be of no avail, where thou wilt not be capable of eating and drinking, or gratifying any of thy senses: what benefit wilt thou then receive from all thou hast laid up in this world? What satisfaction in all which thou hast treasured up, all thou hast left behind thee? Left behind thee! What! couldest thou then take nothing with thee into the everlasting habitations? Nay then, lay up treasure before thou go hence, which fadeth not away!

BALAM, Feb. 19, 1790.

SERMON CXXII.

ON THE WEDDING GARMENT.

“How camest thou in hither, not having a Wedding Garment ?”– MATTHEW Xxii. 12.

1. IN the verses preceding the text we read, "After these things, Jesus spake to them again in parables, and said, A certain king made a marriage (or marriage feast, rather) for his son. And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw one who had not on a wedding garment. And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

2. Upon this parable one of our most celebrated expositors comments in the following manner: "The design of this parable is to set forth that gracious supply made by God to men in and by the preaching of the gospel. To invite them to this, God sent forth his servants, the Prophets and Apostles."—And on these words, "Why camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment," he proceeds thus: "The punishment of whom ought not to discourage us, or make us to turn our backs upon the holy ordinances." Certainly it ought not; but nothing of this kind can be inferred from this parable, which has no reference to the ordinances, any more than to baptism and marriage. And probably we should never have imagined it, but that the word dinner occurred therein.

3. However most of the English Annotators have fallen into the same mistake with Mr. Burkitt. And so have thousands of their readers. Yet a mistake it certainly is. And such a mistake as has not any shadow of foundation in the text. It is true, indeed, that none ought to approach the Lord's table without the least habitual preparation; that is, a firm purpose to keep all the commandments of God, and a sincere desire to receive all his promises. But that obligation cannot be inferred from this text, though it may from many other passages of Scripture. But there is no need of multiplying texts: one is as good as a thousand: there needs no more to induce a man of tender conscience to communicate at all opportunities, than that single commandment of our Lord, "Do this in remembrance of me."

4. But, whatever preparation is necessary in order to our being worthy partakers of the Lord's Supper, it has no relation at all to the wedding garment mentioned in this parable. It cannot for that commemoration of his death was not then ordained. It relates wholly to the proceedings of our Lord, when he comes in the clouds of heaven, to judge the quick and the dead; and to the qualifications which will then be necessary, to their inheriting "the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world."

5. Many excellent men, who are thoroughly apprised of this, who are convinced, the wedding garment here mentioned is not to be understood of any qualification for the Lord's Supper, but of the qualifications for glory, interpret it of the righteousness of Christ, which (say they) is "The sole qualification for heaven: this being the only righteousness wherein any man can stand in the day of the Lord." For who, they ask, will then dare to appear before the great God, save in the righteousness of his well-beloved Son? "Shall we not then at least, if not before, find the need of having a better righteousness than our own? And what other can that be, than the righteousness of God our Saviour?" The late pious and ingenious Mr. Hervey descants largely upon this particularly in his elaborate Dialogues between Theron and Aspasio.

6. Another elegant writer, now I trust with God, speaks strongly to the same effect, in the preface to his comment on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans: "We certainly," says he, "shall need a better righteousness than our own, wherein to stand at the bar of God in the day of judgment." I do not understand the expression. Is it Scriptural? Do we read it in the Bible? Either in the Old Testament or the New? I doubt; it is an unscriptural, awkward phrase, which has no determinate meaning. If you mean by that odd, uncouth question: "In whose righteousness are you to stand at the last day,' "—for whose sake, or by whose merit do you expect to enter into the glory of God? I answer, without the least hesitation, for the sake of Jesus Christ, the righteous. It is through his merits alone that all believers are saved; that is, justified, saved from the guilt, sanctified, saved from the nature of sin, and glorified, taken into heaven.

7. It may be worth our while, to spend a few more words on this important point. Is it possible to devise a more unintelligible expression than this: "In what righteousness are we to stand before God at the last day?" Why do you not speak plainly, and say, "For whose sake do you look to be saved?" Any plain peasant would then readily answer, "For the sake of Jesus Christ." But all those dark, ambiguous phrases, tend only to puzzle the cause, and open a way for unwary hearers to slide into Antinomianism.

8. Is there any expression similar to this, of the wedding garment, to be found in the Holy Scripture? In the Revelation we find mention made of "linen, white and clean, which is the righteousness of the saints." And this too, many vehemently contend, means the righteousness of Christ. But how then are we to reconcile this with that

VOL. 7.-A a

passage in the seventh chapter: "They have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Will they say, "The righteousness of Christ was washed, and made white in the blood of Christ?" Away with such Antinomian jargon. Is not the plain meaning this: It was from the atoning blood, that the very righteousness of the saints derived its value and acceptableness with God?

9. In the nineteenth chapter of the Revelation, at the ninth verse, there is an expression which comes much nearer to this :-"The wedding-supper of the Lamb." There is a near resemblance between this, and the marriage-feast mentioned in the parable. Yet they are not altogether the same; there is a clear difference between them. The feast mentioned in the parable belongs to the Church Militant; that mentioned in the Revelation, to the Church Triumphant. The one to the kingdom of God on earth; the other to the kingdom of God in heaven. Accordingly, in the former, there may be found those, who have not a wedding garment. But there will be none such to be found in the latter. No, not " in that great multitude, which no man can number, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." They will all be kings and priests unto God, and shall reign with him for ever and ever.

10. Does not that expression, "The righteousness of the saints," point out, what is the wedding garment in the parable? It is the "Holiness, without which no man can see the Lord." The righteousness of Christ, is, doubtless, necessary for any soul that enters into glory. But so is personal holiness, too, for every child of man. But it is highly needful to be observed, that they are necessary in different respects. The former is necessary to entitle us to heaven; the latter to qualify us for it. Without the righteousness of Christ we could have no claim to glory; without holiness, we could have no fitness for it. By the former we become members of Christ, children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven. By the latter, "we are made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light."

11. From the very time that the Son of God delivered this weighty truth to the children of men, That all who had not the weding garment would be cast into outer darkness, where are weeping and gnashing of teeth, the enemy of souls has been labouring to obscure it, that they might still seek death in the error of their life: and many ways has he tried to disguise the holiness, without which we cannot be saved. How many things have been palmed, even upon the Christian world, in the place of this! Some of these are utterly contrary thereto, and subversive of it. Some were no ways connected with, or related to it, but useless and insignificant trifles. Others might be deemed to be some part of it, but by no means the whole. It may be of use to enumerate some of them, lest ye should be ignorant of Satan's devices.

12. Of the first sort, things prescribed as Christian holiness, although flatly contrary thereto, is idolatry: how has this, in various

shapes, been taught, and is to this day, as essential to holiness? How diligently is it now circulated, in a great part of the Christian Church? Some of their idols are silver and gold, or wood and stone, graven by art and man's device: some, men of like passions with themselves; particularly the Apostles of our Lord, and the Virgin Mary. To these they add numberless saints of their own creation, with no small company of angels.

13. Another thing as directly contrary to the whole tenor of true religion, is, what is diligently taught in many parts of the Christian Church; I mean, the spirit of persecution of persecuting their brethren even unto death. So that the earth has been often covered with blood by those who were called Christians, in order to "make their calling and election sure." It is true, many even in the Church of Rome, who were taught this horrid doctrine, now seem to be ashamed of it. But have the heads of that community as openly. and explicitly renounced that capital doctrine of devils, as they avowed it in the Council of Constance, and practised it for many ages? Till they have done this, they will be chargeable with the blood of Jerome of Prague, basely murdered, and of many thousands, both in the sight of God and man.

14. Let it not be said, "This does not concern us Protestants : we think and let think. We abhor the spirit of persecution, and maintain, as an indisputable truth, that every rational creature has a right to worship God, as he is persuaded in his own mind." But are we true to our own principles? So far, that we do not use fire and fagot. We do not persecute unto blood, those that do not subscribe to our opinions. Blessed be God, the laws of our country do not allow of this but is there no such thing to be found in England as domestic persecution? The saying or doing any thing unkind to another for following his own conscience, is a species of persecution. Now, are we all clear of this? Is there no husband, who in this sense persecutes his wife? Who uses her unkindly in word or deed, for worshipping God after her own conscience? Do no parents thus persecute their children: no masters or mistresses their servants? If they do this, and think they do God service therein, they "must not cast the first stone at the Roman Catholics."

15. When things of an indifferent nature are represented as necessary to salvation, it is a folly of the same kind, though not of the same magnitude. Indeed it is not a little sin, to represent trifles as necessary to salvation: such as going of pilgrimages, or any thing that is not expressly enjoined in the Holy Scripture. Among these we may undoubtedly rank Orthodoxy, or right Opinions. We know indeed that wrong opinions in religion naturally lead to wrong tempers or wrong practices; and that, consequently, it is our bounden duty to pray, that we may have a right judgment in all things. But still a man may judge as accurately as the Devil, and yet be as wicked as he.

16. Something more excusable are they who imagine holiness to consist in things that are only a part of it. (That is, when they are