WEEK-DAY RELIGION.

Evening Star, Issue 3888, 10 August 1875, Page 3

WEEK-DAY RELIGION.

The concluding lecture of the series on this subject was given by the Rev. Ur Roseby, in the Congregational Church, Moray place, last P'unday evening. The subject of the lecture wa? “Goodness.” r i he rev. gentleman chose for his text the words of St. John : “ Lot no man deceive you ; he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He (Wed) is righteous.” The caution of the text (said tne lecturer) was evidently directed against the notion of a man’s being righteous without doin.' right lie would, in the first place, indicate some present forma of that error. (1 ) How commonly was a man reputed religious b- cause of the soundness of his faith. Orthodoxy, especially if combined with a zealous party spirit, w s often considered sufficient to entitle a man to be regarded as religious. At any late, the lack ot this theological element was commonly treated asadisqnabficati on. Whatever a man’s actual character might be, if he ware unable to ace h ; s way clear to the acceptance} of the several articles of the Ghu oh’s creed, no hope of salvation w.v; held out to him. He might fear God, he might work righteousness, he might lovo Übnst, he might look to Christ as his Saviour ; but if in the mystery of the Trinity he divided tbo substance, if his theological system did not caref.illy distinguish the righteousness that is imputed from that which is imparted, if he made anv mistake as to the exact wav in which / Christ saved man, he was held to be in a state of peri l . The theological world laid the stresa not upon what a in .in was, but •upon what ha believed. (2.) A second kindred error was that which regarded reli-

gion as almost a mechanical thing—which made sanctity dependent upon some external act, which was regarded as efficacious ex opere operate. In this way the basest of men might be regarded as ecclesiastically holy. A Pope, Alexander VI., might be designated His Holiness. What did this really mean ? It meant that holiness had a sense in religion wholly different from its true senes. Was it wonderful that the common sense and common honesty of men refused tiiusto put darkness for li/ht and light lor darkness? (3.) A. third form of this error might he found in. unguarded statements of the doctrines of evangelical religion. Every thoughtful man must have felt the difficulty and delicacy of so treating the doctrine of justification by faith as to preserve its soundness and reality. He had heard that doctrine expounded as if it were possible for God to impose upon himself a mere fiction, miscalled forensic, and lay the very foundation of bis final judgment on something that wa< not true. He had heard the doctrine so unguardedly stated that one might easily regard justification as something different from being made righteous, and righteousness itself as something apart from personal character. (.’no need scarcely refer to the converse misrepresentation. The same unreal theologising which asserted a fictitious goodness was at infinite pains to explain away a real goodness. The good qualities of unregenerate men were regarded as not good out evil. The doing; of one’s duty was a deadly thing, it led to death. How different from this the teaching alike of scripture and of common sense. “ Let no man deceive you; he that dooth righteousness is righteous, even as God is righteous.” (1). He would lay it down as a fundamental principle in religion that all God’s dispensations terminated m virtuous and holy character. They were accustomed to say, “ Man’s chief end is to Jglerify God and to enjoy him for ever,” and the statement of the catechism was herein (as so often) profoundly true. But how was man to do this ? The glory of God and the enjoyment of God were only to be promoted and realised by personal goodness—virtuous and holy character. (2) All God’s dealings with men were subordinated to the promotion of this end. True doctrine, “The Faith,” was bub a means to an end. The end of true doctrine was right action, holy living. Faith in Christ was a blessing to a man, in so far as it led him to live a Chrietliko life: in so far, and no farther. The same principles would lead them to esteem the life above the creed. They might be sorry to find such a man as William Ellery Charming unable to accept what he (the lecturer) held to be the overwhelming evidences for the Deity, of Christ; but were they on that account to refuse to recognise fhe work of the good Spirit of God in the fervent piety, the large-hearted charity, the noble Cbrist-likeness of that (he said it advisedly) deeply spiritual divine ? Not so. He regretted the doctrinal error, but God had means of keening the heart right though the head might blander. If a man could not find iu a right creed the means of grace that God intended! to be found there, the mercy of God could find him some means of grace even without it. Certainly his (the lecturer’s) greatest fears were not for such as Bather, he feared for those who held the truth in unrighteousness—for those who accepted the Deitv ©f Christ, but despised his teaching. (3 ) This virtuous and holy character, which was the end of all the divine dispensations, was susceptible of a simple test : “He that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as God is righteous.” Observe, righteousness in God was the same as righteousness in man. A man was either righteous in the sense of being pure and good (be did not say sinless) in the sense of being like God, or he was not righteous at all. The lecturer then went on to explain the harmony of all this with a just understanding of what is known as evangelical religion, and closed with an earnest call to practical godliness and an actively Christian life.