This was what our Lord designed. The young man being self-righteous, and willing to justify himself, said, “All these have I observed from my youth:” but had he known himself, he would have confessed, all these have I broken from my youth. For, supposing he had not actually committed adultery, had he never lusted after a woman in his heart? What, if he had not really killed another, had he never been angry without a cause, or spoken unadvisedly with his lips? If so, by breaking one of the least commandments in the least degree, he became liable to the curse of GOD: for “cursed is he (saith the law) that continueth not to do all things that are written in this book.” And therefore, as observed before, our LORD was so far from speaking against, that he treated the young man in that manner, on purpose to convince him of the necessity of an imputed righteousness.
But perhaps they will reply, it is said, “JESUS beholding him, loved him.” And what then? This he might do with a human love, and at the same time this young man have no interest in his blood. Thus CHRIST is said to wonder, to weep over _Jerusalem_, and say, “O that thou hadst known, &c.” But such-like passages are to be referred only to his human nature. And there is a great deal of difference between the love wherewith CHRIST loved this young man, and that wherewith he loved _Mary_, _Lazarus_, and their sister _Martha_. To illustrate this by a comparison: A minister of the LORD JESUS CHRIST seeing many amiable dispositions, such as a readiness to hear the word, a decent behaviour at public worship, and a life outwardly spotless in many, cannot but so far love them; but then there is much difference betwixt the love which a minister feels for such, and that divine love, that union and sympathy of soul, which he feels for those that he is satisfied are really born again of GOD. Apply this to our LORD’s case, as a faint illustration of it. Consider what has been said upon the young man’s case in general, and then, if before you were fond of this objection, instead of triumphing, like him you will go sorrowful away. Our Saviour’s reply to him more and more convinces us of the truth of the prophet’s assertion in the text, that “the LORD is our righteousness.”
But there is a fourth, and a grand objection yet behind, which is taken from the 25th chapter of _Matthew_, “where our LORD is described as rewarding people with eternal life, because they fed ♦the hungry, cloathed the naked, and such-like. Their works therefore were a cause of their justification, consequently the doctrine of imputed righteousness is not agreeable to scripture.”
♦ “they” replaced with “the”
This, I confess, is the most plausible objection that is brought against the doctrine insisted on from the text; and that we may answer it in as clear and brief a manner as may be, we confess, with the Article of the Church of _England_, “That albeit good works do not justify us, yet they will follow after justification, as fruits of it; and though they can claim no reward in themselves, yet forasmuch as they spring from faith in CHRIST, and a renewed soul, they shall receive a reward of grace, though not of debt; and consequently the more we abound in such good ♦works, the greater will be our reward when JESUS CHRIST shall come to judgment.”
♦ “words” replaced with “works”
Take these considerations along with us, and they will help us much to answer the objection now before us. For thus saith _Matthew_, “Then shall the King say to them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed children of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye cloathed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. I will therefore reward you, because you have done these things out of love to me, and hereby have evidenced yourselves to be my true disciples.” And that the people did not depend on these good actions for their justification in the sight of GOD, is evident. “For when saw we thee an hungred, say they, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in, or naked, and cloathed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?” Language, and questions, quite improper for persons relying on their own righteousness, for acceptance and acquittance in the sight of GOD.
But then they reply against this: “In the latter part of the chapter, it is plain that JESUS CHRIST rejects and damns the others for not doing these things. And therefore, if he damns these for not doing, he saves those for doing; and consequently the doctrine of an imputed righteousness is good for nothing.”